OldMarksman
Staff
I replaced my carry firearm after my last class.
The class was not run by a gun store. It's just that I learned enough in two full days to have a better idea about what to carry.
Interesting comment from Shooting Industry Magazine
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
The class was not run by a gun store. It's just that I learned enough in two full days to have a better idea about what to carry.
Everyone needs training. You can never get too much good training. You can never practice too much.
Having said that (and I certainly don't want to offend anyone), I am hesitant to go the next step and say that everyone who owns a gun should be REQUIRED to have training. After all, some of the activities we've discussed are privileges. Those are things for which training can be required. Keeping and bearing arms, on the other hand, is our right as citizens. And that right shall not be infringed.
Having said that (and I certainly don't want to offend anyone), I am hesitant to go the next step and say that everyone who owns a gun should be REQUIRED to have training. After all, some of the activities we've discussed are privileges. Those are things for which training can be required. Keeping and bearing arms, on the other hand, is our right as citizens. And that right shall not be infringed.
jmheyer said:
Strong agreement here!
This sometimes surprises people who know what a big fan I am of training, but I am very much against any law that requires people to take a class before they’re allowed to carry a firearm for self defense. There are three reasons for this.
- Self defense is the most basic of all human rights. As a matter of principle, I oppose any government action that impinges on that right. I oppose any set of laws that creates a bureaucratic bottleneck through which human rights must squeeze.
. - Laws that make it harder for ordinary people to carry necessary tools for self defense have a disproportionate impact on the poor. As a matter of ethics, I oppose any government act that makes staying alive harder for people who already face an uphill struggle doing that.
. - Laws that require training often function paradoxically: they force people to take minimal training while making it less likely that they will pursue good training. As a practical matter, I oppose training-required laws because I’m a fan of ongoing, personally-motivated training that encourages each individual to reach the highest level they are able to achieve given their own unique set of needs and circumstances.
Taken together, these principles mean I am not a fan of any type of legally-required training under any circumstances whatsoever. The one possible exception I might be willing to entertain would be requiring some type of firearms safety education before graduating high school. But not if that education is later used as a condition for permission to exercise the basic human right to protect your own life.
Now, with that said, guns actually do require some level of knowledge and skill in order to be used effectively for self defense. On a practical level, if you’re not going to learn how to use the tool, it does not do you much good to own one. Of course it's anyone's right to make silly choices if they want to, but that doesn't mean they aren't silly.
pax
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I agree with Pax. My view is that while strict governmental training rules are not the best idea (should we have them for voting - that has a bad past).
If you are going to use a firearm in a manner that puts others at risk, you might want to have some competence and try to get that in accord with your available resources.
If you are going to use a firearm in a manner that puts others at risk, you might want to have some competence and try to get that in accord with your available resources.
I see that people have noted that I've made similar comments before. Well, my opinion stands. For those of you whose boys rolled the family car the first chance they did, where did they learn to drive like that? I see a lot of drivers who clearly need no training but rather restraint. Driver's education is probably useless by the time a teenager takes it. They've already learned all their parent's bad habits (and bad language). And someone here confirmed it, too. Is Washington State considered conservative or liberal?
Someone explain to my why you think hitting a man (it would have to be a man) sized target eight feet away is so difficult?
I've also said you can practice too much. How often have I read in this forum how certain guns are difficult to shoot and how much their hand hurts after shooting a box of ammo. You should be reminded that you'll never shoot up a box of ammo in a gun fight unless your firearm comes with a belt feed (some do). But I have also said that is problematic if you are like most people and have to shoot at an indoor range. The one I used to belong to had a lot of restrictions, others have even more, but obviously it's better than none. Anyway, doing a lot of shooting all at once in my opinion may do more harm than good, although the question of what a lot of shooting is remains. It would also tend to make you gravitate to a weapon that is simply easier to use. That's not necessarily a bad thing but out of step with a lot of people's ideas of an effective weapon. I still think some .380s are effective weapons.
Yes, you have a right to keep and bear arms and it says well-regulated, too. Join the militia if can. This country needs young men and women. This business of overthrowing a tyrannical government is very disturbing to voters, you know. That kind of talk is bad. The purpose of the militia, now referred to as the national guard (refer to your state laws) is to put down rebellion.
I have mixed feelings about competition. I've seen people do some amazing things in competition and others have total failures (jams). There is a certain amount of fads and fashions in competition, of course, and the ones that win use guns that are adapted to the course. Just like in club-type sports car competition, the ones that win are not the ones that drive their car to the event.
Don't mean to offend everyone. I'm pleased that anyone remembers what I've written at other times. I just hope I'm consistent. After all, I'm old and set in my ways; even a little stiff in places. But getting old is a sign you've doing the right things or you've just been lucky. Good luck is an essential element to all human endeavors. Make your own luck and don't miss with the first shot.
Someone explain to my why you think hitting a man (it would have to be a man) sized target eight feet away is so difficult?
I've also said you can practice too much. How often have I read in this forum how certain guns are difficult to shoot and how much their hand hurts after shooting a box of ammo. You should be reminded that you'll never shoot up a box of ammo in a gun fight unless your firearm comes with a belt feed (some do). But I have also said that is problematic if you are like most people and have to shoot at an indoor range. The one I used to belong to had a lot of restrictions, others have even more, but obviously it's better than none. Anyway, doing a lot of shooting all at once in my opinion may do more harm than good, although the question of what a lot of shooting is remains. It would also tend to make you gravitate to a weapon that is simply easier to use. That's not necessarily a bad thing but out of step with a lot of people's ideas of an effective weapon. I still think some .380s are effective weapons.
Yes, you have a right to keep and bear arms and it says well-regulated, too. Join the militia if can. This country needs young men and women. This business of overthrowing a tyrannical government is very disturbing to voters, you know. That kind of talk is bad. The purpose of the militia, now referred to as the national guard (refer to your state laws) is to put down rebellion.
I have mixed feelings about competition. I've seen people do some amazing things in competition and others have total failures (jams). There is a certain amount of fads and fashions in competition, of course, and the ones that win use guns that are adapted to the course. Just like in club-type sports car competition, the ones that win are not the ones that drive their car to the event.
Don't mean to offend everyone. I'm pleased that anyone remembers what I've written at other times. I just hope I'm consistent. After all, I'm old and set in my ways; even a little stiff in places. But getting old is a sign you've doing the right things or you've just been lucky. Good luck is an essential element to all human endeavors. Make your own luck and don't miss with the first shot.
kilimanjaro
New member
What business does the government or anyone else have in requiring Grandma to go through some tactical training or target shooting before she can put her pistol in her purse to protect herself?
Such discussions are really just another tack on the 'streets will run with blood' drivel that we hear ad nauseum whenever a concealed carry bill come up for a vote or something like that.
I'm all for training, no mistakes, but all that is really needed from a public good standpoint is a safe gun handling exam (15 minutes), and a legal Q&A that can be done online (15 minutes). Pass and get your CCW permit.
No weekends, no two-hour drives, no 300 rounds of expensive ammo, no discretionary authority.
Such discussions are really just another tack on the 'streets will run with blood' drivel that we hear ad nauseum whenever a concealed carry bill come up for a vote or something like that.
I'm all for training, no mistakes, but all that is really needed from a public good standpoint is a safe gun handling exam (15 minutes), and a legal Q&A that can be done online (15 minutes). Pass and get your CCW permit.
No weekends, no two-hour drives, no 300 rounds of expensive ammo, no discretionary authority.
Back to the original subject (!), it's not unusual to have students decide to purchase new guns for themselves after they take a class.
One woman I worked with in Virginia a few years ago came to me after class and told me she'd be buying a new gun. It wasn't exactly a surprise to me: she had struggled throughout the class to get her tiny little semiauto to work. It often jammed on the first shot, even after we'd taught her how to hold it securely and even though we'd lubricated the moving parts on a break so that it would work better. She had a hard time with the slide, which meant that she had a hard time loading the gun and also a hard time clearing malfunctions. We of course taught her an easier way to run the slide, which helped -- but on the break, she'd sampled the slides on a few other guns and you should've seen her face when she realized just how much easier a different gun could be.
I guess I should point out, for the benefit of the non-shooters among us, that being unable to load the gun and unable to trust even the very first shot would make a gun an exceptionally poor choice for concealed carry. Also, a gun that jams even on the first shot, and can't be cleared by the person who's carrying it, would also be a poor choice for concealed carry.
Anyway, to continue the story, the student told me that she was glad she'd first purchased the malfunctioning little gun. "If I hadn't started out with something so small," she said, "I wouldn't have tried to carry at all. So it was a good gun for me even though it didn't work. But it still scares me to realize that all this time, I was trusting it to save my life even though I didn't know how to use it."
That's about it. Good gear works better in training, but it's not good gear because it works better in training. It's good gear because (just like good training) it's more trustworthy and reliable than bad gear when danger strikes. Taking a gun through a good class helps find problems that might not be obvious to people who put all their faith in having a gun and none at all in being able to use it effectively.
Even with the crappy little gun she brought to class, this student did learn how to quickly and reliably hit a fist-sized target at five yards or so (that's the size of a human heart). She did learn how to load the gun and rack the slide even though it was hard for her using the equipment she brought to class. And she did learn a whole lot about how crime happens and how to avoid it, along with building safer and much more reliable habits for handling the gun.
Luck sometimes happens, and sometimes saves lives. But good gear and good training are more reliable.
pax
One woman I worked with in Virginia a few years ago came to me after class and told me she'd be buying a new gun. It wasn't exactly a surprise to me: she had struggled throughout the class to get her tiny little semiauto to work. It often jammed on the first shot, even after we'd taught her how to hold it securely and even though we'd lubricated the moving parts on a break so that it would work better. She had a hard time with the slide, which meant that she had a hard time loading the gun and also a hard time clearing malfunctions. We of course taught her an easier way to run the slide, which helped -- but on the break, she'd sampled the slides on a few other guns and you should've seen her face when she realized just how much easier a different gun could be.
I guess I should point out, for the benefit of the non-shooters among us, that being unable to load the gun and unable to trust even the very first shot would make a gun an exceptionally poor choice for concealed carry. Also, a gun that jams even on the first shot, and can't be cleared by the person who's carrying it, would also be a poor choice for concealed carry.
Anyway, to continue the story, the student told me that she was glad she'd first purchased the malfunctioning little gun. "If I hadn't started out with something so small," she said, "I wouldn't have tried to carry at all. So it was a good gun for me even though it didn't work. But it still scares me to realize that all this time, I was trusting it to save my life even though I didn't know how to use it."
That's about it. Good gear works better in training, but it's not good gear because it works better in training. It's good gear because (just like good training) it's more trustworthy and reliable than bad gear when danger strikes. Taking a gun through a good class helps find problems that might not be obvious to people who put all their faith in having a gun and none at all in being able to use it effectively.
Even with the crappy little gun she brought to class, this student did learn how to quickly and reliably hit a fist-sized target at five yards or so (that's the size of a human heart). She did learn how to load the gun and rack the slide even though it was hard for her using the equipment she brought to class. And she did learn a whole lot about how crime happens and how to avoid it, along with building safer and much more reliable habits for handling the gun.
Luck sometimes happens, and sometimes saves lives. But good gear and good training are more reliable.
pax
Frank Ettin
Administrator
jmhyer said:
pax said:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
And I agree. I'm not at all a fan of government involving itself in such matters. I like the way Walter Lippmann put it:
I am dismayed, however, at how many gun owners find ways to justify and rationalize a belief that training isn't needed.
Of course as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:BlueTrain said:
I've seen it happen on the range.
I've seen people do it while standing still and aiming at a fixed target. I saw one person do it with a laser sight. You could watch the laser bouncing around on the target and then yanking about 3 feet down just as the shot went off.
Take a group of people who can do it all day standing still, put them on a timer with an audience and ask them to do it while moving and you'll likely see some misses.
Add in the stress of being shot at and one or two common complicating factors (low light, injury, tunnel vision, multiple attackers, etc.) and it becomes a real possibility even for someone with reasonable skill. Police shootouts typically take place at quite short ranges and yet it's pretty common for 2/3rds of the shots to miss.
Bill DeShivs
New member
Blue Train-
"Yes, you have a right to keep and bear arms and it says well-regulated, too. Join the militia if can. This country needs young men and women. This business of overthrowing a tyrannical government is very disturbing to voters, you know. That kind of talk is bad. The purpose of the militia, now referred to as the national guard (refer to your state laws) is to put down rebellion. "
This is straight out of the liberal playbook.
"Well-regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means.
"Yes, you have a right to keep and bear arms and it says well-regulated, too. Join the militia if can. This country needs young men and women. This business of overthrowing a tyrannical government is very disturbing to voters, you know. That kind of talk is bad. The purpose of the militia, now referred to as the national guard (refer to your state laws) is to put down rebellion. "
This is straight out of the liberal playbook.
"Well-regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means.
A pause for the COZ
New member
That is the precise reason I got my wife a snubby in 327 magnum.
I was able to get her trained up on proper gun handling techniques with out the negative influences of learning how to manage recoil at the same time.
Started her out with 32 shorts. Low report and no felt recoil. She could concentrate 100% on her form and learning how the gun operates.
Once done moved her up to 32longs, then 32 mags. Finally mad dog, fire snorting 327 magnum loads.
Worked like a charm...
Well, one of the few things that we agree upon. But it is not physically possible to train all of those out their that might benefit from professional instruction, the number of gun owners out there compared to the number of instructors is way out of proportion. 80,000,000 or more gun owners compared to how many professional instructors?? Just the amount of ammo that would be necessary to train them would start another ammo shortage in the stores.
Most people that purchase a gun for self or home protection really can not afford the gun or ammo that is necessary for training or practice to become proficient with the tool they obtain to protect themselves or their families. Putting food on the table and a roof over the heads of their family, is a more important goal for the majority of gun owners out there. Should that mean that they should not have the right to protect themselves? Should that mean that the only people that can purchase guns be those that can afford the training and instruction?? I think not. It would appear that many of you on the forums "staff" overlook the reality of everyday life and the demands placed upon members of this forum in taking care of their families.
I have found that most gun owners understand that purchasing additional (better, easy, faster, larger) firearms is something they do once they have had the opportunity to test out what they have purchased. And many of us "hobbyist" have gone into reloading to help support our hobby and afford the cost of shooting and practice.
What got me was the way numbers are tossed around here, on one post it was stated that 16,000 ADs was a reason for need for instructional training, while in and of itself that seems like a large number, it is really only 2 ten thousands (0.0002) of one percent of all the gun owners out there. Twice that number die from heart attacks each year and five times that number from auto deaths.
Yes, we need to be careful (safe) in the use of our firearms and be very familiar with their operation and safety concerns when using them.
What might be more appropriate is what Arnold does in helping those just getting into shooting and taking them to the range and showing them the in's and out's of firearm usage and how to safely use them. What we need is a mentor program from each and everyone of us to help those just starting.
Stay safe.
Jim
g.willikers
New member
That sounds like my neighbor.
Nice old fellow, but hasn't a clue how to actually use his Glock 9mm.
And doesn't really care to learn.
And I did offer.
Scary, actually.
I invited him to the range a few years back.
Once was enough.
But, does it really matter how we acquire the knowledge to be decently good at something?
Just as long as we do acquire it, mission accomplished.
We humans are not born with all the skills we need to survive.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
No, but I know quite a few folks who purchase guns and can well afford to train a bit or get a decent gun. They will spend many tens of thousands on the 'truck' or the 'bike'.
Sadly, I've seen them at about 5 yards put all their rounds in the foot of a B-27.
It's like voting. Should we make you study up - no. Anyone can vote. Should you study up on the issues, yes. If you can make the effort - you should.
A person who only can afford a used SW Model 10 to defend the house is a wonderful thing. But if you are going to carry in public, proclaim that you are a defender and you can reasonably afford to have some skills - you should do it.
Jim,
Let me re-state something I said earlier: my husband and I raised five children on one, very small, salary. We never took a dime of gov't money, but we were eligible for food stamps and almost every other type of assistance, by a shockingly wide margin. We never missed a meal -- by the grace of God and some serious penny pinching -- but it was close more times than I care to think. Lots of thin broths and homemade breads and ramen noodles to fill those hungry tummies.
Pretty sure that I'm well aware of the reality of everyday life and the demands placed upon members of this forum in taking care of their families.
And I still say that anyone who makes excuses not to get as much good training as their lifestyle and circumstances will afford, is being penny-wise and pound foolish -- pinching pennies and throwing dollars to the wind. Professional training costs some money up front, but it saves money in the long run.
Small clarification: not 16,000 ADs. 16,000 serious injuries from ADs. This does not include minor injuries that are fixed up without a trip to the hospital, and it sure does not include all the close calls and near-misses (such as you might read about here).
As you point out, that's not a high number compared to the millions of gun owners. It is, however, comprised almost entirely of completely preventable injuries and deaths -- most of them from a deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance. People truly don't know as much as they think they do. Worse, they don't know that they don't know and they don't know what they don't know. They do, however, get deeply offended whenever someone suggests that perhaps their gunhandling can be improved. Or that there's more to competent and reliable self defense than just being willing to kill someone.
My heart goes out to those who, like me, suffer from the restrictions of limited resources. When someone says "but I'm too broke for training!", that hurts my heart when it comes from someone who owns only one or two guns. When it comes from someone who has a safe full of guns, plus reloading equipment, and components, and multiple thousands of rounds in stockpiled ammo, and who drives an expensive SUV, it's a little less believable.
Mine isn't the only family that ever had scraped icebox and boiled dishrag soup for dinner, I'm sure.
But if I sound a little cranky on the subject, it's because so many people who've looked me in the eye and said they're too broke to take a class are people who have far more money and resources than I ever did.
Re the mentor program: I agree with you. It is wonderful when people who know what they're doing and know how to teach take others to the range and get them started! That's one of the reasons I volunteer and give away my time as much as I can. That's why I've given away so much of my hard-earned knowledge so freely on my website, and why I give away cases of books every year even though I can't much afford it. It's also one of the reasons I LOVE getting new instructors started -- because nearly all competent instructors give away a whole lot more training than they get paid for.
Passing on knowledgeable skill is far better than passing along bad habits and sub-optimal ideas.
For those who are serious about mentoring others, a good place to start is by making sure that they themselves have something worthwhile to pass along.
pax,
Kathy
my state (NM) requires a fairly simple demonstration of safe gun shooting to pass the range portion of the concealed carry class. (25 shots, untimed, 15 at 3 yards, 10 at 7 yards, 12x18 target, 18 hits to pass).
i keep seeing various 'experts' on TV advocate that only people with some undefined amount of training should be allowed to carry a firearm in public. various police agencies have over time developed their own courses of fire for qualification of their officers, and there are other courses of fire you can find to demonstrate some level of proficiency (IDPA Classifier for example).
do you really want some weenie telling you, or your loved one, that because you can't pass their course of fire, that you have no rights?
it would be like having to pass a spelling test before you offered an opinion in public.
i concur with Pax, if you can, get training. and practice when time and money permit.
i saw a video this past week of Rob Vogel, current IDPA world champion, showing how he challenges himself (he's the best shooter out there presently, has nothing to prove). in this case, he took the Ohio police qualification course and ran it. but he cut the par times in half, and shot the target at 5 times the required distance. he still smoked the course.
so, if you are good at hitting a target at 7 yards. back up. try it from 15. shoot at a smaller target (4x6 card, or playing card).
you can never get too good, but you can get complacent by thinking that now that you've passed someone else's version of a shooting test, that you are done learning and practicing.
i keep seeing various 'experts' on TV advocate that only people with some undefined amount of training should be allowed to carry a firearm in public. various police agencies have over time developed their own courses of fire for qualification of their officers, and there are other courses of fire you can find to demonstrate some level of proficiency (IDPA Classifier for example).
do you really want some weenie telling you, or your loved one, that because you can't pass their course of fire, that you have no rights?
it would be like having to pass a spelling test before you offered an opinion in public.
i concur with Pax, if you can, get training. and practice when time and money permit.
i saw a video this past week of Rob Vogel, current IDPA world champion, showing how he challenges himself (he's the best shooter out there presently, has nothing to prove). in this case, he took the Ohio police qualification course and ran it. but he cut the par times in half, and shot the target at 5 times the required distance. he still smoked the course.
so, if you are good at hitting a target at 7 yards. back up. try it from 15. shoot at a smaller target (4x6 card, or playing card).
you can never get too good, but you can get complacent by thinking that now that you've passed someone else's version of a shooting test, that you are done learning and practicing.
Last edited:
I have a couple of points, not so much with the main principles, but with the phrases commonly used discussing them. This is probably my OCD but here's what I get from them...
"Everybody needs training"
in a context where training means some form of competent instruction, professional preferred. With, as I see it, the implied, "everyone is incompetent without it".
What everyone needs is knowledge and wisdom. I hope you all recognize why I separate the two. Skill is important, but its something to be obtained after the first two.
Training is the most efficient way of getting those first two, but not the only way. Also, training only works for those willing to learn. When you "already know it all" you get little if anything from training.
The car thing? oh yeah. Rode around in the car for 17 years (sometimes even paying attention), learner's permit, spent the whole summer driving Dad around (I think he only bit through his pipestem twice...). Went through Driver's Ed in my senior year, passed with flying colors. Was one of only two in my group that passed their road test and got their license on the first try.
In the week waiting for my permanent license to arrive in the mail, I wrecked my mother's car, sober, on good road in dry clear weather. The lesson was mild, I later realized, as no one was hurt.
I had training. I had knowledge. I had some skill. I did NOT have enough wisdom.
My Dad was NRA Rifle, Pistol, & Hunter Safety instructor. He kind of taught us kids a few things, over time. Like how to carry guns and boxes of papers to the car, unload it, and hang out until after class to pack up again. Did this for about a decade. Kind of self taught about a lot of things. When NY first required training for a pistol permit, Dad was one of the approved instructors, and I wrote part of the course material for him.
This experience is why I FULLY agree with Pax, who stated it brilliantly in her bulleted points.
The NY training requirement grew from a couple hours in the beginning, to 8 hours while I was in the army, and I can only guess what it might be today 40 years later. Also over time the requirements the instructors had to do (paperwork, etc.) increased, several times, and fewer and fewer of those unpaid volunteers were able to continue doing it.
I have never heard of anyplace where legal training requirements have NOT been increased over time, once put in place. And I have heard of several places where the system was abused to reduce and restrict the people's ability to legally be armed.
I'm not at all surprised that a training class for handguns sells a gun or two to students after the class. I think that kind of shows some people learned something. Today there's a lot of folks that the training class is their first real use of the pistol.
There is absolutely such a thing as "too much gun" for a given skill level. And too much gun comes in all size packages. The best advice, and perfect for someone else, might not be for you, something you might only find out about in that training class.
"Everybody needs training"
in a context where training means some form of competent instruction, professional preferred. With, as I see it, the implied, "everyone is incompetent without it".
What everyone needs is knowledge and wisdom. I hope you all recognize why I separate the two. Skill is important, but its something to be obtained after the first two.
Training is the most efficient way of getting those first two, but not the only way. Also, training only works for those willing to learn. When you "already know it all" you get little if anything from training.
The car thing? oh yeah. Rode around in the car for 17 years (sometimes even paying attention), learner's permit, spent the whole summer driving Dad around (I think he only bit through his pipestem twice...). Went through Driver's Ed in my senior year, passed with flying colors. Was one of only two in my group that passed their road test and got their license on the first try.
In the week waiting for my permanent license to arrive in the mail, I wrecked my mother's car, sober, on good road in dry clear weather. The lesson was mild, I later realized, as no one was hurt.
I had training. I had knowledge. I had some skill. I did NOT have enough wisdom.
My Dad was NRA Rifle, Pistol, & Hunter Safety instructor. He kind of taught us kids a few things, over time. Like how to carry guns and boxes of papers to the car, unload it, and hang out until after class to pack up again. Did this for about a decade. Kind of self taught about a lot of things. When NY first required training for a pistol permit, Dad was one of the approved instructors, and I wrote part of the course material for him.
This experience is why I FULLY agree with Pax, who stated it brilliantly in her bulleted points.
The NY training requirement grew from a couple hours in the beginning, to 8 hours while I was in the army, and I can only guess what it might be today 40 years later. Also over time the requirements the instructors had to do (paperwork, etc.) increased, several times, and fewer and fewer of those unpaid volunteers were able to continue doing it.
I have never heard of anyplace where legal training requirements have NOT been increased over time, once put in place. And I have heard of several places where the system was abused to reduce and restrict the people's ability to legally be armed.
I'm not at all surprised that a training class for handguns sells a gun or two to students after the class. I think that kind of shows some people learned something. Today there's a lot of folks that the training class is their first real use of the pistol.
There is absolutely such a thing as "too much gun" for a given skill level. And too much gun comes in all size packages. The best advice, and perfect for someone else, might not be for you, something you might only find out about in that training class.
True, however it misses some things.
1. There is not now a shortage of instructors or ammo that would prevent a person who wishes to receive professional instruction from doing so.
2. If EVERYONE who owned a gun tried to get training tomorrow, the scenario you describe would take place. But if the demand rose gradually there would be no problem at all. As the demand gradually increased, the number of instructors would increase as would the supply of ammo. The problem isn't that the system can't handle increases in demand, the problem is that it wouldn't be able to handle a huge and abrupt increase in demand.
There are some people who might have great difficulty or who might even find it impossible to spare the money for professional training, however they are in a tiny minority.
If a person prioritizes professional firearm training (like they prioritize satellite/fiber/cable TV, or a smart phone, or a data plan, or meals out, or any number of non-essential items) then it should be easily within their reach.
That ignores the fact that it may be possible to get some training at low or no charge. The employees gun club where I work occasionally puts on training classes for a nominal fee of less than $20 per participant and there are other similar opportunities from time to time.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that training should be mandated by law. I do think it's important and that it's a rare firearm owner who won't see benefits from training.