Training to own a firearm?

if someone hasn't been trained then they shouldn't own a firearm

On the other hand, we went across America on a route followed the Oregon trail, many folks sold everything gthey had, got a wagon and went west. They heard about indians so they bought guns. Well walking across the land is boring so tghey would take out their firearms and play a bit with them. Out side a stopping place in Wyo is a grave yard full of them folks, see they accidently shot each other, or themselves and died.

Sooooo maybe a short class on how to unload and load the thing and stay safe would be a good thing? Or if the person bought the gun read the manual....
 
My opinion is that practice is better than no practice, even if your habits are less than perfect and your accuracy suffers because of it.

Not only does training make you a better shooter, it also makes the use of a gun more instinctive and natural. I have found at any range, folks are ready and willing to help if asked.

The nightmare of having to defend yourself and your family is bad enough, but if an unintended person is wounded or killed, obviously your plan or lack of plan was flawed or poorly executed. Accidents happen, some are more serious than others, but most can be reduced if practice is frequent.

But a defensive and survivor mindset is more important to arrive at before a weapon is chosen.

For the gals out there, don't forget www.corneredcat.com.
 
Three principles:
Self defense is a basic human right.

Humans are tool-users.

Everyone has a right to own the tools they believe they need in order to defend their lives.

Those are my foundational principles. Taken together, they mean I am not a fan of any type of legally-required training under any circumstances whatsoever.
I agree 100%.
There should be absolutely no requirement for any training whatsoever in order to own a firearm.

And training itself cannot replace intelligence...
A trained idiot with a gun is going to be more dangerous than an untrained smart person with a gun.
 
You don't have to have a driver's license to OWN a motor vehicle, you must HAVE one to OPERATE a motor vehicle on PUBLIC roads.
 
I enjoy training, in general, and think it is a very good idea. I recommend training with good instructors when time and finances permit.

I do NOT support mandatory training, at all.

As has been noted by others in this thread, and by me in several other threads, mandatory training requirements can pose the following challenges:

1) A state or municipality that does not support RKBA can deliberately create onerous training requirements, to keep most people from even trying;

2) Even if a state or municipality operates in good faith -
a) Some people can't afford to pay for the class(es);
b) Some people won't be able to attend classes, depending upon availability, due to work or child-raising constraints;
c) Some people won't be able to get to the locations where classes are held, due to lack of transportation.

So, even in a pro-RKBA state, unless classes are offered on a plentiful basis, and on weekdays and weekends; and unless the government is willing to subsidize training costs; and unless the government is willing to provide child-care; and unless the government is willing to provide transportation - then mandatory training disproportionately impacts the poor, and single parents.
 
You don't have to have a driver's license to OWN a motor vehicle, you must HAVE one to OPERATE a motor vehicle on PUBLIC roads.

A fast/dirty read of this thread leads me to think mostly what's being discussed is "firearm handling" and "firearms safety." Indeed these are crucial aspects of owning a firearm.

But currently, an equally crucial part of owning a firearm is understanding gun laws that apply to you. The laws regarding firearms have moved a long way from the concept of "shall not be infringed."
 
-Xero-, welcome to TFL.

You're quite right that anyone who owns/carries a gun needs to understand the laws in his/her jurisdiction.

This actually isn't the forum where most discussion of legal questions takes place. If you're interested in such, you should check out the Law & Civil Rights forum. We have many members who are quite knowledgeable about firearms law, and it's a subject that's of interest to all of us.
 
peacefulgary said:
...And training itself cannot replace intelligence...
Nor can intelligence replace training. The handling and use of firearms, including the decision process in connection with the defensive use of firearms, involve application of principles and concepts to real world circumstances as well as the proper performance of physical acts. Such things are matters of skill.

Intelligence is not skill. Intelligence might help motivate one to take the proper actions to acquire skill, and intelligence paired with skill is a powerful combination. But just knowing how to do something does not mean that one can actually do it -- especially reflexively and on demand.

Consider the four step process by which we acquire a physical skill:

  1. Unconscious Incompetence: We can't do something and we don't even know how to do it;

  2. Conscious Incompetence: We can't physically do something, at least consistently, even though we know in our mind how to do it;

  3. Conscious Competence: We know how to do something and can do it properly consistently, but only if we think about what we're doing and concentrate on doing it properly; and

  4. Unconscious Competence: At this final stage we know how to do something and can do it reflexively, on demand and without having to think about it.
Intelligence can get someone to step two, conscious incompetence. But training and practice are necessary to go through step three and reach step four -- the point at which someone can perform the task correctly and consistently on demand without conscious thought.
 
Last edited:
MLeake said:
So, even in a pro-RKBA state, unless classes are offered on a plentiful basis, and on weekdays and weekends; and unless the government is willing to subsidize training costs; and unless the government is willing to provide child-care; and unless the government is willing to provide transportation - then mandatory training disproportionately impacts the poor, and single parents.

I'm not exactly poor but not rich either and right now cant really afford higher professional training at the moment. I just wish there were established resources for good free training. So while I wish I read books, surf you-tube, and lurk articles on TFL...

Sorry for the thread drift, i wont go in that direction but its related to the OP in regards for the good reasons there should not be a training requirement to own a firearm but it would be ideal if there was a worthy free program or resource available to all. Wishful thinking perhaps but I bet that many poor folks who own that one gun they managed to get would take advantage of if they had the option, at the very least they would be more aware of the study.


...and +1 for Frank Ettins last post.
 
I am by no means anything close to an "instructor" or even good enough to teach, but I've "grown up around guns" and been a regular shooter since before I was tall enough to ride roller coasters. Funny thing, dad was SF in Vietnam, "wetwork" so to speak, and from my knowledge, even until the day he died and we cleaned out his stuff, he had not a single firearm, nor ever hinted at wanting one.

That being said, I was shooting trap at age 6, and since then, I've introduced somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-50 people to firearms and firearms handling. I go by the common sense aesthetic that is so often lost in todays "tacti-cool" culture; that is, 1. Safe direction 2. Area behind L.O.F. 3. If gun malfunctions, face it downrange, put it down, and call someone who knows what's what.

For the most part, if people always follow those simple rules, they have no problems. Training aside, I've hiked out to the lake at dawn with girls who have never even picked up a gun before, and hiked out at dusk with sub-5MOA rifle shooters. People make beginners shooting courses way more complicated than they need to be (I've taken a few, for pure kicks and giggles) I don't know much about the safety or lack thereof of most people, but I, personally, don't take anyone near a gun who I don't believe has the common sense to handle one. This is a problem that I don't encounter, that I can assume most Certified Instructors and range lackeys deal with on a regular basis, every yahoo with a fresh paycheck and a clean 4473 thinks its the bees knees now, and that scares me.

Common sense is key, in that, I've known completely sober people who are idiots and end up blowing out their eardrums (or worse) with an accidental discharge, and then I've known blackout-alcoholic-drug-addicts who never had a single incident or even seemed like they would. Common sense is common sense is common sense, regardless of "growing up around guns" or "training" or any of the BS labels we want to assign.

Training wise, minimal, common sense, massively important.

EDIT: One thing that irks the hell out of me, is that many "Certified" firearms instructors that I've met and parlayed with on an informal basis, never care to teach about the problem of slow primers and how it affects the general course of action of clearing a malfunction. My father wasn't a gun guy, but one of the first things he told me with semi's was the problem of slow primers, esp. in mass produced mil and milsurp rounds, which people are using more and more nowadays. I'll take a five minute break over brass fragments in my beautiful mug.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not exactly poor but not rich either and right now cant really afford higher professional training at the moment. I just wish there were established resources for good free training. So while I wish I read books, surf you-tube, and lurk articles on TFL...

My husband and I raised five children on one very small salary. We never took a dime of government money, but there were times when boiled dishrag soup was on the menu. (That's only a small exaggeration, closer to the truth than bears thinking about.) When the boys finally hit their teen years and I got a job outside the home, it was such a relief to finally have a little bit of spare cash that I literally burst into tears one afternoon in Costco when I just realized I had thrown a pair of socks into the cart without consulting my budget!

Telling you that, not to whine or to brag, but to give you an idea of what I mean when I say, "I was broke too, and got training anyway."

The first class I took was a gift from a friend. He bought it for me because he was tired of me shooting up his target stands instead of his targets. At that class, I learned how much there was to learn in this field, and realized how negligent I would be if I carried a gun but failed to learn the skills.

The second class I took came from a weekend job as a carpenter's flunky. I bargained with friends to swap babysitting (no small feat when you have five to farm out), and worked three weekends to get enough money to finance the class. Oh, plus bartered babysitting time for all three of those weekends plus the class time.

Subsequent classes came from three-cornered barter deals with friends. For example, in one case I helped paint a friend's kitchen while her husband did some plumbing for another friend of ours -- and the third friend paid the class fee.

If I hadn't been able to work out those deals, I would have contacted one of the traveling instructors and organized a class in my area. People who organize classes for the travelers usually receive one free slot in the class in exchange for that work.

What I'm getting at is that money is a factor, sometimes a painfully obnoxious or even crippling one. But it's only going to keep you from learning if you let it.

And here's the kicker: shooting is a physical skill. You simply cannot learn it from reading books or websites, or even from watching videos. At best, those are supplemental sources of information that give you context and food for thought. I say this as a person who earns a good part of her living as a writer.

pax

PS to add: This is one reason I get really, really, really torqued at snarky people who sneer at professional trainers by implying that we're in it only for the money. It's personally offensive to me on many levels. I believe good training is so absolutely vital that I carved money out of our non-existent grocery budget to get that training. Once I started down that path, I turned around and volunteered for several years so I could help other people get that same level of training. I'm not in this job for the money, but it is a job, and my expertise is valuable because I paid a high price for it. There's absolutely no shame in that, and it both depresses and irritates me when people act as though there is. (I note that these criticisms never seem to come from people who refuse to take a salary for their own work, as though you can feed your family on air and love...)
 
Koda94 said:
...it would be ideal if there was a worthy free program...
Wouldn't that be nice. But the reality is that it costs money to provide training. So if the student isn't paying, someone else must be.

I'm with a group of NRA certified instructors who put on an NRA Basic Handgun class once a month. It's a ten hour class, and these are some of the things involved:

  • We've prepared a powerpoint presentation that supports and illustrates the lecture portions of the class. We've developed or been able to obtain the use of illustrations, text, and some animation. We are continually updating and revising the presentation.

  • We print and bind a copy of the presentation in note taking form and give one to each student. This takes time and costs money for the materials.

  • We also give each student the NRA Basic Handgun class book as well as other materials. We have to buy these.

  • We have purchased various training aids for use in the class, including dummy ammunition, inert training guns ("blue" guns), and airsoft guns.

  • We have purchased eye protection and hearing protection (electronic muffs and foam plugs) for the students to use in the class.

  • We supply the guns and ammunition, and we pay the range fees.

  • We generally have a 2:1, and no more than 3:1, student to instructor ratio. We do a lot of one-on-one, hands-on work with students.

  • We have some operating expenses. As a non-profit corporation we must make various governmental filings. We also carry insurance. And we maintain and operate a website and a business mailbox.
All of that involves time and expense. And not one of us instructors receives any compensation; we're all volunteers.

Our class fee is $150.00. Since none of us are paid, that's about as "free" as a Basic Handgun class can get.
 
pax said:
What I'm getting at is that money is a factor, sometimes a painfully obnoxious or even crippling one. But it's only going to keep you from learning if you let it.

And here's the kicker: shooting is a physical skill. You simply cannot learn it from reading books or websites, or even from watching videos.
Oh I do agree, will not argue that. A little about me I can say I have applied technique from videos to improve my physical shooting skills. I will admit right now I'm also a bit behind on physical practice because of the price and availability of ammo, (that and last summer was a pretty busy year for me to practice much). Just today I priced ammo at $45/box for all calibers at my LGS (the only one with ammo because they are rationing it...) and realize the $150 non profit class that Frank mentioned is well over $200 if it includes more than 50 rds of live fire training... which, since Franks class provides ammo as well as range fees that's one hell of a deal right now, sign me up if your in my area.

Reading and lurking in this forum there is a lot of good advice from the voices of experience here, one of the benefits I get from even just lurking on this forum is discussion from experienced firearm lifestyles that I do not get in my otherwise anti-gun community and friends.

And BTW pax, as a guy I have bookmarked and referred to your website quite a few times for the good information there, your time and effort there is much appreciated.

So while I practice my draw and dry fire (safely of course) technique one of the things I keep thinking back to lately is a way to compile all the good information that is available into a series of articles presented in proper order with the intent of them to supplement regular range or practice sessions. This would never replace professional training but would be a great resource for those that need it.
 
But Frank and Pax, my point is that if the government were to require training (which I oppose), then the least the government should do is provide the classes. So, instructors would get paid, but not necessarily by the instructed.
 
As a practical issue for the RKBA - the issue of lack of training is brought up every time we have a debate about campus carry.

I testified in front of the TX House on our concealed carry bill. My two cents went well. However, the anticarry folks kept bringing up that casual carriers may be ineffective or at worst dangerous.

That doesn't apply to me as I've trained a touch. I have had anticarry folks at work say they would be ok with me carrying as they know I have the background, blah, blah but fear the old cowboy coot with little competency or green behind the ears frat boy.

The argument can be negated by it's there and I share it as a practical matter in debate.

So Mr. Shooter - you want to carry a concealed weapon and perhaps by a good samaritan? Might you tell us how you have trained for such?

-- I have no training because the 2nd Amend. - blah, blah.

Thank you.

Now -it's a double edged sword because if Mr. Shooter gets into one of those famous good shots that somehow ends in court (how did that happen?), a training regime may be brought up against you - esp. if it as some of those neat quotes in class - like have a plan to shoot everyone you see, etc.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
However, the anticarry folks kept bringing up that casual carriers may be ineffective or at worst dangerous.
How? What is the worst that can happen? just how do you make a mass shooting situation worse?

I've debated the same argument. At what level of competence should someone "be allowed" to defend themselves? This argument the anti's use goes back to their very fundamental fears of guns themselves and is about as logical as their fight back campaign with staplers or office chairs. Its quite obvious that this argument is an argument to ban all guns altogether.
 
A reasonable point. They fear:

1. The good guy may shoot an innocent. The risk analysis that the loss of a innocent to save 30 does touch them. This is because, there is a psychologicla bias about hurting an innocent even to save more innocents. Doesn't make rational sense but it is emotional.

2. The armed good guy may go running to or through the gun fight and get shot by the cops. Or shot when the cops arrive. Thus, 30 are dead but that's OK as we don't want the cops to get the liability of shooting an innocent.

Those arguments can be refuted but it helps to say that the good guys have a modicum of training.
 
I have heard both of those arguments and yes they can be refuted but you are correct about it helping to say that the good guys have some training. .

But its never an ideal situation for anyone confronted with a mass shooter.

The points of their argument in this context are not reasonable. Lets call it what it is a step to total gun ban

FWIW, most all CCW permits have to take a class to obtain, technically they have some modicum of training.


edit to add calling it what it is
 
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
...Now -it's a double edged sword because if Mr. Shooter gets into one of those famous good shots that somehow ends in court (how did that happen?), a training regime may be brought up against you...
Except --

  1. I'd rather be representing the guy with training. If he's the defendant claiming self defense and if the prosecutor tries to make an issue of his training, my pitch to the jury will be along the lines of, "The defendant took the responsibility of owning and carrying a gun so seriously that he spent his time and a not inconsiderable amount of his money to be learn to be safe and competent."

  2. The training will help on the street. A lack of training won't.

Koda94 said:
...FWIW, most all CCW permits have to take a class to obtain, technically they have some modicum of training.
In many cases less than a modicum -- often barely more than a scintilla.

The responsible gun owner/gun carrier will seek out additional training.
 
Back
Top