How much training does the average civilian need?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm all for training as one can afford it. This goes for every endeavor one engages in. Who would argue that classes related to your occupation would be a bad thing? If you spend immense amounts of time driving, think hard about some driving schools. Fly fishermen spend time and money taking classes learning how to tie their own flies. Why should gun ownership be any different from those? Learn to use your equipment better.

The line gets crossed, however, when someone suggests a government mandate to require training to exercise a right recognized by our Constitution. Voting is a right, but those same people would have conniption fits if you suggested a basic citizenship test to exercise THAT right. Can't have it both ways.
 
....qualified that afternoon with my Glock I hadn't fired in three years.

Did more of less the same thing but with a gun I had never fired. I chuckle about the level of difficulty of the"training". But I think the legal stuff was certainly important although you can learn all the same things on your own.

I do NOT suppport mandatory training PERIOD even for a CCW permit. A CCW should not even be necessary at all. The only reason I did the training was because it was required. It was suggested that I get the CCW permit due to the work I do by some law enforcement folks.
 
There's training then there's training. I have been part of organizations within the military that held training that required you to stand here, shoot this and score above XYZ to qualify. I have also been part of organizations which held training that put a shooter and his equipment to the test of familiarization, control, marksmanship, maintenance and endurance.
 
There's training then there's training. I have been part of organizations within the military that held training that required you to stand here, shoot this and score above XYZ to qualify. I have also been part of organizations which held training that put a shooter and his equipment to the test of familiarization, control, marksmanship, maintenance and endurance.

What you say is true. I don't consider the CCW class shooting training per se. I took the class because I had to in order to for me to do lawful carry of a concealed handgun. The added bonus was that I could keep a loaded handgun in my vehicle which is illegal in my state unless you have a CCW.

As far as the " test of familiarization, control, marksmanship, maintenance and endurance" training... well, you have to be interested enough to do it. Many might feel that way who might even want to be able to lawfully carry a handgun.
 
Standard army pistol training is ghastly and mostly worthless.

The first thing I tell my concealed carry students is that the course is NOT sufficient training to carry, they are expected to seek out additional and ongoing training. I also give them resources for training and practice.
 
I'm more concerned about the lack of training and practice LEOs do than a non LEO. A friend of mine is a retired deputy and he has said the majority of his co-workers only fired their weapon once a year for annual qualification. They obsessed about failing the annual qualification because it would result in termination of their employment. They were either too cheap to spend $25.00 once in a while to maintain minimal proficiency with their duty weapon or too lazy to take the time to do a little practice. The county jail has a pistol range in the basement and all they had to do was come to work a half an hour early or stay a half an hour to shoot a bit.

I've read similar stories by other LEOs saying the same thing. No wonder you hear about police shootouts where a huge amount of rounds are fired and no one was hit. I go to the pistol range at least once a month, and most months more often, and I shoot a couple hundred rounds when there. I'm not a LEO, just a retired old fart who doesn't face the situations a police officer deals with on duty.
 
I'm more concerned about the lack of training and practice LEOs do than a non LEO. A friend of mine is a retired deputy and he has said the majority of his co-workers only fired their weapon once a year for annual qualification. They obsessed about failing the annual qualification because it would result in termination of their employment. They were either too cheap to spend $25.00 once in a while to maintain minimal proficiency with their duty weapon or too lazy to take the time to do a little practice. The county jail has a pistol range in the basement and all they had to do was come to work a half an hour early or stay a half an hour to shoot a bit.

I've read similar stories by other LEOs saying the same thing. No wonder you hear about police shootouts where a huge amount of rounds are fired and no one was hit. I go to the pistol range at least once a month, and most months more often, and I shoot a couple hundred rounds when there. I'm not a LEO, just a retired old fart who doesn't face the situations a police officer deals with on duty.

FWIW it seems as though private citizen sand LEOs have essentially identical average hit percentages. Though that isn't a totally fair comparison because the nature of the incidents are different, with the short version being that cops are more likely to be firing shots in situations where hits are harder to come by.

Fortunately some departments are more proactive about this and require qualifications two-to-four times per year with their own courses that are more demanding than the state course (have to pass state course too of course)...but unfortunately some still do the minimum state required once annual thing
 
Cops are trained to fill out reports since that is what they do 95% of the time. I am sure someone knows but what percentage of LEOs ever use their weapon on duty?
I have shot with my local PD and Sheriff's department and most of them are not as good as the guys I shoot with at the farm. They are not normally "gun guys" and a gun is just a part of their uniform.
 
Interestingly,since the 2nd Amendment DOES have 'A well Regulated Millita', and the word 'Regulated' meant trained, one could make the argument training would be encouraged if not required.

And the argument could be made that it only applied to males of certain ages. It could also be argued that as a right to bear arms, laws requiring such would be an infringement on the right itself.

If you separate out the Constitutional issue, I think it is a moral responsibility to know something about the instrument of lethal force that you choose to carry.

I know those pocket knife schools are doing a booming business.

Cops are trained to fill out reports since that is what they do 95% of the time. I am sure someone knows but what percentage of LEOs ever use their weapon on duty?

95% of the time? Really? I think you are making up statistics to show displeasure with the cops, but is it really necessary?
 
Interestingly,since the 2nd Amendment DOES have 'A well Regulated Millita', and the word 'Regulated' meant trained, one could make the argument training would be encouraged if not required.


Or.... it could mean that the government's militia needs to be regulated in order to protect the free society (the freedom of that society) from it, and that that protection is further afforded by the recognition of the right for the citizens to bear arms.
 
Well If there ever is a catastrophic event, I would much rather stand with most of the guys in here than with the local police or citizens of my town.
At least this group is like minded about discussing what they know and don't know, and what they would like to focus on.
Also most guys on a gun forum, actually have an interest in guns, where most others including cops who don't practice, seem ambivalent, not just to shooting but to all things gun.
 
The reason we are so touchy on the subject of government mandated training is the attitude of some government agents like the Austin TX police chief after the "miracle shot" from a horse holder terminated an active shooter:

"Tell somebody. If you know somebody that’s acting with a lot of hatred towards a particular group especially if you know somebody who’s a gun enthusiast or they’re armed with this type of fire arms and they’re showing any type of propensity for hatred, doesn’t mean that we’re going to go and take them to jail, but we might want to vet these people."

I see some similarities to the new custom of "SWATting" open carriers.
 
Poll taxes and literacy tests were used to prevent citizens from exercising their voting rights. Mandating training to exercise our 2A right is just as unconstitutional.
 
Five pages, some uninformed comments on constitutional law, and little new thought in recent posts....

This one is done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top