Reality Check: Do you know how to shoot?

[clem]

USMC 20 years,
Deputy Sheriff 20 years.

I'd say, "yes, I known how to shoot".

 

[george29]

Most people are recreational shooters and think nothing more than click-bang-click-bang-reload. That's why accidents happen. I wish people got some type of mandatory training but then the extremists on both sides would go beserk. I don't know why driving a car requires training, passing a test and regulation and shooting a gun is considered a natural extension of our bodies (which it isn't). Then again the Aniti-crowd would just use it as an excuse. I think if BHO is re-elected we are in for some very unpleasant times. See the link (add the www)
nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=15909

 

[skoro]

Do you know how to shoot?

I'd handled and shot long guns as a young teen, then later got extensive additional instruction on rifles, handguns and automatic weapons in the USMC.

So, I'll answer "yes."

 

[Ankeny]

I don't know why driving a car requires training, passing a test and regulation and shooting a gun is considered a natural extension of our bodies (which it isn't).

Because (arguably) driving a car is a privilege that is earned. Keeping and Bearing Arms is a right that comes with being an American. Anyway, I think that is the way it goes.

I do know how to shoot that discipline. I just can't perform those skills well anymore.

I know exactly how that feels. It's kind of odd, when I train shooters I am expected to be able to rock with a handgun. But I also teach driver education and I spend all of my time in the passenger's seat.

 

[Averageman]

When I look at this thread I think of all of those folks who have taken the time to help me learn and have given me an appreciation of arms.
I would say learn to shoot, but that is essentially just a very small part of it.
Before I ever shot a round I refinished the wood stock and reblued the metal on my Grandfather shotgun. As I worked on that gun my Dad explained to me how that gun fed our family with rabbits squirrels and phesants during the depression.
As that shotgun had been refinished, my Dad explained the basics of firearms safety and how this right contained a responcability. I found my Grandfathers hunting licence under the buttstock of that gun and grew to appreciate the ethcs of hunting.
My Father, a retired Paratrooper and my Uncle a WWII Veteran of the Saratoga taught me to shoot birds on the fly and the ethics of hunting and killing game animals.
I joined the NRA sponsored Rifle Team at my High School as a Freshman and fired Small Bore Expert at 14. Much of my sucess was due to my Shop Teacher, a Marine Pacific WW II Vet. coaching me.
I ran a trap line through High School and that paid for my guns and ammo. My Mother bought me a Ruger Mark I on my 15th birthday. I earned a lot of money on that line that helped my widowed Mother keep a house running.
Upon reaching 18 I yearned to join the Military and went in to Armor, became a Tank driver, then a Gunner in 6 months time. I knew Kentucky windage and Tennesee elevation well enough to make a rep for myself as an accurate Gunner.
At 3 years in the Army I was the Youngest M1 Tank Commander in the 3rd Infantry Divsion at 21. At 26 a Platoon Sergeant and 28 a Master Gunner.
At 50 now, I have long since retired as a Soldier, I have more than a couple of kill rings on my Tank Main Gun. A "V" for valor in Combat and a smile on my face for the service to my country.
Now I work for the folks who built that Tank. I teach young Troopers to fight that Tank and I help maintain it and I take a lot of pride in my work.
I thank my Family, my Community, my School Marksmanship Team and my Country for giving me a skill that has lasted a lifetime, kept us all free and put food on my table.
Am I a good shot?
Well I am working on it, One day at a time.

 

[george29]

Because (arguably) driving a car is a privilege that is earned. Keeping and Bearing Arms is a right that comes with being an American. Anyway, I think that is the way it goes.

That is a good argument.

 

[stickhauler]

My own attitude about continual training on shooting is, I realize what I don't know. My sidearm in the military was a handgun, we shot to qualify, and maybe a few hundred rounds burnt through that pistol over the remainder of my time. That ain't nowhere near enough trigger time to make me good with a pistol.

When I went through my concealed carry class, I had not shot for better than 25 years, somehow just didn't want to shoot anymore after leaving the service. I even quit hunting. And I didn't go to a range prior to the class. I wanted to try and make the instruction I got through the course as effective as possible.

There were mostly people who had shot in the class, matter of fact, if I remember right, only one total rookie. The vast majority of those who had some experience shot worse than the rookie did. She actually listened to the guy teaching the class. The "experienced" shooters believed they "knew" what they were doing.

I continue to take training as I can afford it, and shoot on a regular basis. I still don't count myself as a great shot with a pistol, and since I'm 57, with the typical loss of vision and mobility that comes with that, I doubt I'll ever be as good as I'd like to be. Since my range also employs instructors as their range safety officers, I ask whoever is working that day to watch me and offer suggestions to help me get better.

But even with all the training in the world, as Sam opined, can you take the shot when it comes down to it? That's a question everyone may likely face in time. I've had to do it before, and pray I still have it within me to do so again if necessary.

 

[Plan2Live]

I’ve heard it posted here many times that the .380 in your pocket trumps the .45 in your safe. I don’t hear that same theory resonating within this thread. I’ve made it through the first half of my life without needing to draw a weapon. And that was while operating in condition white most of my life. With a small amount of luck plus my current enhanced awareness, I hope to go through the rest of my life without needing to draw. If I do find myself in a situation where I have to draw, doesn’t the mere fact that I have a weapon at my disposal increase my chances even slightly? I would say greatly, even without “professional” training.

Not everyone wants or needs to operate at SWAT or Special Forces level. There are people who have the ability to throw down $3,000 for a Wilson Combat and not think twice about it. Many of those same people will never need a weapon with that level of capability. Just like most drivers of very fast, very expensive sports cars don’t have the ability (or inclination) to drive them at or near their limits.

I’ve heard of golfers who enjoyed the game for years and years with no formal training only to get frustrated and loose interest after booking lessons and having all their flaws pointed out to them. I think it’s great that there are folks like Givens, Awerbuck and Ayoob out there to offer that level of training but the vast majority of shooters are just out having fun at the range. If they aren’t doing anything dangerous, let them be.

 

[Kingcreek]

I've stayed out of this thread so far because I was a little offended at the idea that training had to be formal to be a "shooter".
I grew up shooting slingshots, bows, and then wore out a couple BB guns before I was 10 years old. I grew up in a western state farming and ranching with my older cousins and we shot all the time. sometimes the dirtiest job on the irrigation rig or in the hay field went to the loser of the shooting match- usually some improvised target at some ridiculous range. We hunted and shot handguns, rifles, shotguns. I went on to compete in highpower with a personal coach, shotgun clay games again with some formal coaching, action pistol and smallbore. I continue to hunt and shoot on my own property whenever I feel like it and even though I have not recieved any "tactical" training, I have often outshot LEOs in competitions over the years. I guess I have always been blessed as an accomplished shooter with excellent hand-eye coordination and am comfortable with almost any weapon.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If I do find myself in a situation where I have to draw, doesn’t the mere fact that I have a weapon at my disposal increase my chances even slightly? I would say greatly, even without “professional” training....

Maybe and maybe not. Maybe with professional training you'd have understood that you really didn't have to draw in that situation and that doing so was a bad idea.

...There are people who have the ability to throw down $3,000 for a Wilson Combat and not think twice about it. Many of those same people will never need a weapon with that level of capability...

It has nothing to do with the capabilities of the gun. It has everything to do with your capabilities --

• If you wind up in a violent confrontation, you can't know ahead of time what will happen and how it will happen. And thus you can't know ahead of time what you will need to be able to do to solve your problem.
  
  
• If you find yourself in a violent confrontation, you will respond with whatever skills you have available at the time. If those skills are sufficient, things will be fine. If those skills are not sufficient, you will be very unhappy with the way things turn out.
  
  
• The more you can do, and the better you can do it, the more likely you'll be able to respond appropriately and effectively. The more you can do, and the better you can do it, the luckier you'll be.

...I was a little offended at the idea that training had to be formal to be a "shooter"...

However, what started this thread was the observation of people who were quite obviously not skilled.

...I went on to compete in highpower with a personal coach, shotgun clay games again with some formal coaching, action pistol and smallbore. ... I have often outshot LEOs in competitions over the years. I guess I have always been blessed as an accomplished shooter with excellent hand-eye coordination and am comfortable with almost any weapon.

So you had some professional coaching and are very good with the limited professional training you've had. How much better could you be with more good training?

 

[Kingcreek]

At my age, I am not looking to advance skills to SWAT/ERT levels but I expect to be more than reasonably proficient with what I've got. Yesterday, I whitetail hunted for awhile with a .44mag 629 classic and later popped off 40 deliberate rounds of .22 thru a 4" Colt woodsman when I took a break from cutting firewood. a little almost daily informal practice can go a long way towards proficiency. I was a proficient shooter before I had coaching. I have almost 50 years of shooting experience.

 

[conw]

The issue with people saying "well, some people are just naturally good shots" is that ability to make hits is about 25% of the equation. Stuff like knowing how to run a specific gun, work through different types of problem, and draw from a holster (and for that matter get the gun out, period, under stress) is the other 75% and simply isn't natural.

 

[orangeninja]

I’ve heard it posted here many times that the .380 in your pocket trumps the .45 in your safe. I don’t hear that same theory resonating within this thread. I’ve made it through the first half of my life without needing to draw a weapon. And that was while operating in condition white most of my life. With a small amount of luck plus my current enhanced awareness, I hope to go through the rest of my life without needing to draw. If I do find myself in a situation where I have to draw, doesn’t the mere fact that I have a weapon at my disposal increase my chances even slightly? I would say greatly, even without “professional” training.

Not everyone wants or needs to operate at SWAT or Special Forces level. There are people who have the ability to throw down $3,000 for a Wilson Combat and not think twice about it. Many of those same people will never need a weapon with that level of capability. Just like most drivers of very fast, very expensive sports cars don’t have the ability (or inclination) to drive them at or near their limits.

I’ve heard of golfers who enjoyed the game for years and years with no formal training only to get frustrated and loose interest after booking lessons and having all their flaws pointed out to them. I think it’s great that there are folks like Givens, Awerbuck and Ayoob out there to offer that level of training but the vast majority of shooters are just out having fun at the range. If they aren’t doing anything dangerous, let them be.

Who said anything about SWAT training, even if it were available to the public it would be irrelevant to a self defense situation.

In my opinion if you carry a gun in public for self defense, you should invest in the basics of shooting that handgun. If you can afford more training then fine but at the very least should learn to properly draw, aim, fire and retain your weapon. If a person involved in a self defense shooting hits innocent bystanders with their rounds they can and should be held criminally and civilly liable.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Most people are recreational shooters and think nothing more than click-bang-click-bang-reload. That's why accidents happen. I wish people got some type of mandatory training but then the extremists on both sides would go beserk. I don't know why driving a car requires training, passing a test and regulation and shooting a gun is considered a natural extension of our bodies (which it isn't). Then again the Aniti-crowd would just use it as an excuse. I think if BHO is re-elected we are in for some very unpleasant times. See the link (add the www)
nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=15909

You need to be licensed to drive a car but owning a gun is a natural right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You need to be licensed to drive a car but owning a gun is a natural right.

Where do you get that owning a gun is a natural right?

But if you insist on going down that path, we may not need (or shouldn't need) government telling us we must have training. But in my view, the wise and responsible gun owner will voluntarily get training to be both safe and proficient.

It may be one's right not to get training. But if someone makes that choice, he shouldn't expect me to congratulate him for it.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think one might add "responsible."

Where did we get this notion that it's not important to try to do whatever you do well? Once we said, "If at first you don't succeed, try again." Today we seem to be saying, "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards to redefine success."

 

[conw]

At the risk of deviating from S&T scope...the whole natural right concept is usually premised on religious belief which to me means it isn't very valid. However sometimes it is used in a more scientific/realistic way which is OK with me.

However, as a libertarian, I am perfectly comfortable with untrained people owning and using guns or cars...with the understanding that they will be aggressively prosecuted and civilly liable for any negligent actions resulting from their lack of training.

from the Wikipedia article on John Stuart Mill, subsection "Theory of Liberty":

The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself.

Prior restraint is considered by some to be valid under the harm principle, and not by others. Personally I think that most of these problems would sort themselves out if there was a more pure emphasis on dealing with actions of individuals that cause harm, rather than on perceived cause-and-effect relationships (e.g. owning or doing this "makes" you do that).

 

[KodiakBeer]

I think I would agree that one doesn't necessarily need "formal" training as long as they start out with sound instruction from a friend or family member. A person can seek out their own advanced information in this, the information age. Isn't that what all of us are doing here?
But, it is necessary to practice, practice, practice. If you don't shoot a lot, you aren't likely to do well in a gunfight.

 

[Plan2Live]

In my opinion if you carry a gun in public for self defense, you should invest in the basics of shooting that handgun. If you can afford more training then fine but at the very least should learn to properly draw, aim, fire and retain your weapon. If a person involved in a self defense shooting hits innocent bystanders with their rounds they can and should be held criminally and civilly liable.

Which paragraph in the 2nd Amendment agrees with that opinion? Aside from the drawing part, that's what most people at public ranges are doing. The Original Poster just thinks they should be more technical with that practice. I disagree.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the whole natural right concept is usually premised on religious belief which to me means it isn't very valid...

And let me suggest, beyond that, there has been some recognition in Western culture of a natural right to defend oneself. To follow just one tradition, there is an associated recognition through English jurisprudence of some form or other of a right to keep and bears arms. That led to the protection in our Constitution of an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That is not the same thing as a "natural right to own a gun."

And our legal tradition has also recognized what might be considered a duty of "natural responsibility." We are all held responsible by operation of law to conduct ourselves as a reasonable and prudent person and to exercise due care to avoid foreseeable harm to others. That's what tort law is all about.

I think I would agree that one doesn't necessarily need "formal" training as long as they start out with sound instruction from a friend or family member...

Let's emphasize "sound." I suspect those poor souls noticed by the OP (and some of the rest of us) who can't seem to hit the target reliably had some preliminary instruction from someone. And on the other hand, there are those out there who claim to be professional instructors who couldn't teach someone to hit the ground with his hat.

Let's try to set some kind floor on what "able to shoot" is. Without consideration of special applications, e. g., various types of competition, hunting, self defense, let me suggest the we consider the threshold: (1) being able to get consistently good hits on target at a distance appropriate for the firearm; and (2) being able to consistently handle a gun at all times safely in all respects. There may be a variety of ways to get to that baseline, but good professional instruction is probably the easiest and surest.

In my opinion if you carry a gun in public for self defense, you should invest in the basics of shooting that handgun. If you can afford more training then fine but at the very least should learn to properly draw, aim, fire and retain your weapon. If a person involved in a self defense shooting hits innocent bystanders with their rounds they can and should be held criminally and civilly liable.

Which paragraph in the 2nd Amendment agrees with that opinion? Aside from the drawing part, that's what most people at public ranges are doing...

[1] That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, nor need it have anything to do with the Second Amendment. It's about competence.

[2] If you wish to claim a right to be incompetent, and irresponsible, I'm sure not going to pat you on the back and tell you you're a splendid fellow for doing so.

[3] And that is certainly not, based on my observations, what folks at public ranges are doing.

 

[JohnKSa]

Let's try to set some kind floor on what "able to shoot" is.

Maybe I'm out of line, but I had been predicating my comments on this thread based on the fact that it's located in Strategies, Tactics and Training.

In that context, I would say that the "ability to shoot" is:

1. The ability to manipulate the self-defense weapon. (Draw/load/reload/clear malfunctions/safe/reholster/etc.)

2. The ability to take steps to avoid incoming fire while maintaining return fire. (Use of cover/shooting on the move/etc.)

3. The ability to make hits on an opponent at ranges that an opponent might reasonably be expected to be able to injure or kill with his return fire. That is obviously a rather open ended requirement, but let's say we're not concerned with incoming precision rifle fire.

4. The ability to do the above under stressing conditions. (Low light/wounded/one-handed/incoming fire/etc.)

 

[Sam1911]

...I had been predicating my comments on this thread based on the fact that it's located in Strategies, Tactics and Training.

John has a good point. We aren't all answering the same question. (A problem not limited at all to this discussion, or this forum...)

As this is S&T, we could indeed limit the discussion to defensive shooting principles. And, perhaps that's what orangeninja intended with his opening post.

If the question is to be defined so narrowly, presumably about half of the respondents would drop out of the discussion (including major parts of my own comments) as deer hunting, 50 yd. targets, plinking with Dad & Grandpa, highpower competition, 3-position smallbore, and all of that stuff becomes irrelevant.

That wasn't expressly stated in the original post, so perhaps that train has sailed.

Given John's points 1-4, the percentage of "John Q. Shooters" in the world who should answer "yes" is probably pretty low. Maybe one in 20, but probably not. Heck, probably only 50% even think they can, which is saying something.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Maybe I'm out of line, but I had been predicating my comments on this thread based on the fact that it's located in Strategies, Tactics and Training.

In that context, I would say that the "ability to shoot" is:

1. The ability to manipulate the self-defense weapon. (Draw/load/reload/clear malfunctions/safe/reholster/etc.)

2. The ability to take steps to avoid incoming fire while maintaining return fire. (Use of cover/shooting on the move/etc.)

3. The ability to make hits on an opponent at ranges that an opponent might reasonably be expected to be able to injure or kill with his return fire. That is obviously a rather open ended requirement, but let's say we're not concerned with incoming precision rifle fire.

4. The ability to do the above under stressing conditions. (Low light/wounded/one-handed/incoming fire/etc.)

John, I completely agree with you in a "Strategies, Tactics and Training" context. And I think you've stated it very well.

I was just trying to set a more absolute baseline -- kind of the level of the students who complete our Basic Handgun class.

 

[Bonesinium]

No formal training other than what amounts to basic familiarization with an M-16 and M9. Subsequently, I am consistently trying different techniques and as a result, have various results, particularly when it comes to handguns. Sometimes after I shoot, I'm thinking, wow, I must really know what I am doing (based on results), other times, I think I must really suck. Sometimes I'll shoot one handgun well, the next time, it is my other. I can only assume this is due to lack of training.

So to answer the OP's initial question, no, not really. I found that it is more showing with handguns than long guns. I also found that often times, the less I think about what I am doing, the better I shoot.

I still find it slightly curious as to why I have never failed to qualify expert though when I don't think I am that great of a shot.

 

[KodiakBeer]

There may be a variety of ways to get to that baseline, but good professional instruction is probably the easiest and surest.

Let's clarify that. You may have an individual who attends a very good defensive pistol class who then shoots fifty rounds per practice session twice a year, for the next ten years. And those fifty rounds might be from a booth at the shooting range with a target hung at 7 yards. How well do they really shoot ten years later?

Another self-taught individual, might shoot 1000 rounds a month at a variety of targets at various distances and from various positions.

The reality is that your shooting level is what you can do, not what a certificate says you did once. I've had the formal training, lots of it over many years. But, my shooting level (such as it is) is dependent on the fact that I practice a lot and has very little to do with the training.

One does need to start with a solid and safe baseline, but beyond that it's really up to you. Training is good, but it doesn't trump constant practice.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Back in the dark ages before NC had legal CCW, my now wife helped teach a formal Ladies' Handgun Clinic in Raleigh.

The initial level of training the clinic offered has been described by her as "safely and successfully discharging rounds downrange." There were no scores or points for hitting a given area of any target involved in the initial level of training - it was strictly safety and physical administrative manipulation of the firearm, the initial target placement was close enough that no one missed.

I think that's the standard a lot of folks seem to think is acceptable for them and anyone they know. And in many cases, it is in fact enough. But sometimes, it won't be. Usually the odds are in favor of anyone who rolls that particular pair of dice - most of us will not ever need a defensive firearm, most of us who do have need of a defensive firearm will be suffucuently defended by merely being able to produce a firearm in the moment of need without being required to fire it at all.

That covers the statistically elusive "most of the time." What about the rest of the time? I have usually covered this sort of situation by saying, "It isn't the ODDS that matter. It's the STAKES."

It's the STAKES that convinced me to carry a gun in the first place - after all, the only way to have a gun when you need it is to have one all the time. I carry wherever it is legal to do so, from pants on till pants off every day.

It's the STAKES that conviced me to seek professional training in using my defensive firearms effectively - handgun, carbine and shotgun.

Because you don't know what you're going to get when the victimization roulette wheel comes up with your number. You might get some scared kid on his way to committing his first felony. Or you might - despite nearly astronomical odds against it - get the genuine bona fide Tier One operator turned criminal. And yes, it has indeed happened, I'm not just making this up - I know of two of them. Criminals and crooks train and practice - there isn't much else to do where most of them spend much of their time, in prison.

So please think about this thing we sometimes call shooting, not in terms of being able to successfully and safely discharge rounds downrange, but in terms of being able to prevail in a fight involving guns if it comes to that. Because this is Strategies, Tactics and Training, not Successfully and Safely Discharging Rounds Downrange.

Stakes. NOT odds.