What do you consider the threshold of "appropriate" civilian training?
- Thread starter Stressor
- Start date
"Appropriate" is vague and ambiguous.
It all depends on the needs of the individual and intended use of the firearm.
Everyone should begin with some safety training to learn the basic safety rules (muzzle control, finger off the trigger, unloaded until ready to use, target identification & know what is beyond your target). Not that it all needs to be a structured class, but it all begins with the safety foundation. No one needs accidents and negligent discharges.
PPC, IPSC, Cowboy Action Shooting and shooting sports have rules beyond basic firearms operations/safety. They have procedures (specialied equipment, reloading, timing, artificial stress) that enhance certain skills. There are forms of combat shooting (3 guns) and tactical training.
It all depends on what you want to train for and what your resources are.
The Army used to have a Laser Simulator but they're all broken by now and when my classmate was in the service, they ran around shouting, "Bang! Bang!" for building clearing (MOUT) training. Several classmates who were in the service confirmed it. I don't know what the Army does today.
There are many private trainers/schools (NRA, Gunsight, Thunder Ranch, etc.) and as your skill improves, you can take more intensive training. There are also schools for long range shooting. It all depends on your time, resources and dedication.
It all depends on the needs of the individual and intended use of the firearm.
Everyone should begin with some safety training to learn the basic safety rules (muzzle control, finger off the trigger, unloaded until ready to use, target identification & know what is beyond your target). Not that it all needs to be a structured class, but it all begins with the safety foundation. No one needs accidents and negligent discharges.
PPC, IPSC, Cowboy Action Shooting and shooting sports have rules beyond basic firearms operations/safety. They have procedures (specialied equipment, reloading, timing, artificial stress) that enhance certain skills. There are forms of combat shooting (3 guns) and tactical training.
It all depends on what you want to train for and what your resources are.
The Army used to have a Laser Simulator but they're all broken by now and when my classmate was in the service, they ran around shouting, "Bang! Bang!" for building clearing (MOUT) training. Several classmates who were in the service confirmed it. I don't know what the Army does today.
There are many private trainers/schools (NRA, Gunsight, Thunder Ranch, etc.) and as your skill improves, you can take more intensive training. There are also schools for long range shooting. It all depends on your time, resources and dedication.
This is what I think people should train for, VOLUNTARILY. I'm not in favor of government mandated training because that's too easily abused.
Every gun owner must master the rules of gun safety, however long it takes them. They should do this before they begin using firearms.
Every person who intends to use a gun for self-defense in the home should train so that they can operate their weapon in the intended role. I also think they should learn the basics of self-defense laws/legal use of deadly force laws.
For some, (for example, if their plan is to barricade in a room and engage when the room is breached) that training might be as minimal as retrieving the firearm and making it ready to fire (depending on individual choice that might include one or more of the following: taking it out of the safe, uncasing it, loading it, cocking it, operating the safety properly, etc.) Reloading the firearm may not be a concern here, but malfunction clearance should be trained.
For others (for example if their plan is to move through the house to find family members), that might also include training with a light (weapon mounted or hand-held). Training to move through the house safely with the firearm without endangering innocents. Dealing with opening doors, properly getting around corners and using cover and concealment. Coordinating with other residents. Since an attacker may be encountered during the process, weapon retention and dealing with a close range physical attack should be trained to at least some extent.
For carry, there's another level of legal knowledge required to stay out of trouble. Training to draw from concealment if carrying concealed, from a retention holster if you're carrying openly. Training to move while shooting, defend with one hand while shooting with the other, safely dealing with the firearm you've used after the attack (reholstering may not be an easy option depending on the carry technique--smart carry/thunderwear type carry can make reholstering very difficult). One may want to carry a reload and know how to use it when outside the house. Malfunction clearance is definitely something to train for at this point.
Carrying in a vehicle is something else that requires some level of training. Drawing from a holster can be difficult in a vehicle, and getting a gun around a steering wheel if exiting the vehicle isn't an option can result in sweeping parts of one's body if proper training hasn't been performed. Shooting over one's weak shoulder can be very challenging if one has never trained for the possibility.
It's worthwhile to note that not all of this training needs to be done formally, although there are certainly benefits to having someone who knows what they are doing watching you go through the motion.
A lot of this can be practiced with inert firearms without the need for live fire training.
The bottom line is that if you plan to do it, or there's a reasonable chance you might need to do it based on your home/self-defense plan, then you need to train to do it.
Every gun owner must master the rules of gun safety, however long it takes them. They should do this before they begin using firearms.
Every person who intends to use a gun for self-defense in the home should train so that they can operate their weapon in the intended role. I also think they should learn the basics of self-defense laws/legal use of deadly force laws.
For some, (for example, if their plan is to barricade in a room and engage when the room is breached) that training might be as minimal as retrieving the firearm and making it ready to fire (depending on individual choice that might include one or more of the following: taking it out of the safe, uncasing it, loading it, cocking it, operating the safety properly, etc.) Reloading the firearm may not be a concern here, but malfunction clearance should be trained.
For others (for example if their plan is to move through the house to find family members), that might also include training with a light (weapon mounted or hand-held). Training to move through the house safely with the firearm without endangering innocents. Dealing with opening doors, properly getting around corners and using cover and concealment. Coordinating with other residents. Since an attacker may be encountered during the process, weapon retention and dealing with a close range physical attack should be trained to at least some extent.
For carry, there's another level of legal knowledge required to stay out of trouble. Training to draw from concealment if carrying concealed, from a retention holster if you're carrying openly. Training to move while shooting, defend with one hand while shooting with the other, safely dealing with the firearm you've used after the attack (reholstering may not be an easy option depending on the carry technique--smart carry/thunderwear type carry can make reholstering very difficult). One may want to carry a reload and know how to use it when outside the house. Malfunction clearance is definitely something to train for at this point.
Carrying in a vehicle is something else that requires some level of training. Drawing from a holster can be difficult in a vehicle, and getting a gun around a steering wheel if exiting the vehicle isn't an option can result in sweeping parts of one's body if proper training hasn't been performed. Shooting over one's weak shoulder can be very challenging if one has never trained for the possibility.
It's worthwhile to note that not all of this training needs to be done formally, although there are certainly benefits to having someone who knows what they are doing watching you go through the motion.
A lot of this can be practiced with inert firearms without the need for live fire training.
The bottom line is that if you plan to do it, or there's a reasonable chance you might need to do it based on your home/self-defense plan, then you need to train to do it.
I think there are multiple ways to interpret this question (which is why I prefer more context). One interpretation is what type of training should a gun owner take or want/need to take, and I think people have covered that. Another way to interpret this question is what type of training should a gun owner be “allowed” to take.
I have taken a lot of formalized training as a civilian. I have had conversations with instructors, both former/current military and law enforcement, about both the optics and potential consequences of teaching civilians certain skill sets. It’s a question that many of them consider, both from a legal aspect in terms of will there be a potential lawsuit if someone uses the taught skills to harm others and the moral/ethical implications in the absence of any legal fallout. For the larger schools, the nightmare scenario is often someone taking those skills to commit a larger scale attack or an ambush of law enforcement.
With that in mind, what is “appropriate”? I have seen that handled with certain caveats when it comes to training. For example, teaching “skills” rather than “tactics” or teaching “defensive” rather than “offensive” skills. I understand why certain schools make these distinctions based on the concerns mentioned above. However, the realities of training aren’t always that black and white (and most instructors realize that).
Often one of the points I see emphasized in formalized training is that instructors don’t want students thinking they’re essentially deputized law enforcement. Knowing how to use a firearm doesn’t make someone an expert in the use of force (the legal training mentioned previously is important, even if just a seminar is taken). Knowing to use a tool doesn’t make it the only tool and many situations can be made worse by the introduction of a gun if used improperly. Sometimes being a good witness is the best course of action.
At the same time, certain skills that the larger public might consider to be offensive are not always that way. Clearing a room or building could be unnecessary if the people that need protection are already located and in a centralized location. However, if you own a home where the occupants are spread throughout or if someone happened to be in another part of the house during a break in, then clearing the home is less about hunting the person who broke in and more about securing your friends/family.
I will finish off by saying that I have had conversations where taking certain training could even be used against you by painting you as an individual looking for ways to harm others. Again, optics of training play a role, though in this case for the student rather than just the instructor. Consider the skills you might need (John outlined many of them) and also be able to articulate why you acquired those skills. “Appropriate” is a loaded word, and not without reason.
I have taken a lot of formalized training as a civilian. I have had conversations with instructors, both former/current military and law enforcement, about both the optics and potential consequences of teaching civilians certain skill sets. It’s a question that many of them consider, both from a legal aspect in terms of will there be a potential lawsuit if someone uses the taught skills to harm others and the moral/ethical implications in the absence of any legal fallout. For the larger schools, the nightmare scenario is often someone taking those skills to commit a larger scale attack or an ambush of law enforcement.
With that in mind, what is “appropriate”? I have seen that handled with certain caveats when it comes to training. For example, teaching “skills” rather than “tactics” or teaching “defensive” rather than “offensive” skills. I understand why certain schools make these distinctions based on the concerns mentioned above. However, the realities of training aren’t always that black and white (and most instructors realize that).
Often one of the points I see emphasized in formalized training is that instructors don’t want students thinking they’re essentially deputized law enforcement. Knowing how to use a firearm doesn’t make someone an expert in the use of force (the legal training mentioned previously is important, even if just a seminar is taken). Knowing to use a tool doesn’t make it the only tool and many situations can be made worse by the introduction of a gun if used improperly. Sometimes being a good witness is the best course of action.
At the same time, certain skills that the larger public might consider to be offensive are not always that way. Clearing a room or building could be unnecessary if the people that need protection are already located and in a centralized location. However, if you own a home where the occupants are spread throughout or if someone happened to be in another part of the house during a break in, then clearing the home is less about hunting the person who broke in and more about securing your friends/family.
I will finish off by saying that I have had conversations where taking certain training could even be used against you by painting you as an individual looking for ways to harm others. Again, optics of training play a role, though in this case for the student rather than just the instructor. Consider the skills you might need (John outlined many of them) and also be able to articulate why you acquired those skills. “Appropriate” is a loaded word, and not without reason.
Remington Blake
New member
When it comes to "appropriate" civilian training, I think the key is balancing safety and proficiency. At a minimum, every civilian should be fully comfortable with the basic handling of their firearm—things like loading, unloading, and clearing malfunctions. This ensures you can operate the weapon safely under any circumstances.
Next, situational awareness is critical. It’s not just about being able to hit a target, but knowing when and where it’s appropriate to use your firearm. Understanding the legal responsibilities of carrying and using a firearm, especially in a self-defense situation, is just as important as knowing how to shoot.
From there, the level of training depends on what your goals are. For self-defense, I'd recommend defensive shooting courses that focus on real-world scenarios, movement, and stress management. If you're into sport shooting or hunting, that training will be more about accuracy, distance, and control.
Ultimately, appropriate training means you're confident, competent, and safe with your firearm, no matter the situation. Continuous practice and refresher courses can help maintain that skill level and ensure you're always prepared.
Next, situational awareness is critical. It’s not just about being able to hit a target, but knowing when and where it’s appropriate to use your firearm. Understanding the legal responsibilities of carrying and using a firearm, especially in a self-defense situation, is just as important as knowing how to shoot.
From there, the level of training depends on what your goals are. For self-defense, I'd recommend defensive shooting courses that focus on real-world scenarios, movement, and stress management. If you're into sport shooting or hunting, that training will be more about accuracy, distance, and control.
Ultimately, appropriate training means you're confident, competent, and safe with your firearm, no matter the situation. Continuous practice and refresher courses can help maintain that skill level and ensure you're always prepared.
georgehwbush
New member
what ever amount of training and knowledge is too much for a soldier, is probably too much for a civilian also.
Considering this stemmed from the breaching ammo thread…
No, I don’t think there is any training that a civilian should not receive if they seek it out. This is specific to basic, skill involved training. Nothing in regard to door breaching is going to make a person more deadly to L/E. And to be clear, I think training is a lot more involved than the info video that Garand Thumb recently put out on the topic (it’s a good watch, but people shouldn’t consider themselves breachers after watching it). I’d probably expect at least a 2 or 3 day class on it.
A few months back, I took an MP5 class. Going thru it, I was the only L/E student in the class. While it was a skill set that really wasn’t directly applicable to my job, as we only have M4s now, a lot of the stuff learned was beneficial to work (shooting thru windows, night shooting on both handgun and SBR, transitions). Having a SBRed PTR… it allowed me to run the gun leaps/bounds better than before the class. I learned quite a few things there, made friends and would recommend it to anyone… L/E or not.
In my job, there is a lot of sensitive aspects that could cause problems if certain people were aware of it. I literally gave up a chunk of vacation days this week for me to attend this type of training. For the limited number of “bad” people that know about it, it is a huge problem. And I’m not talking about people who are run of the mill criminals, either. Probably bridge the gap between those criminals and the 9/11 terrorists. So for stuff like that, yes… I’m against that.
I’ve been trying to get more information on a SIG bus/vehicle class that would be beneficial to my coworkers (2 day course within 4 hours from my area), which they only allow L/E and military to enroll. While I understand their reasoning (liability), I don’t think that subject is too specialized that civilians should not be allowed to attend… but that is their academy, so their rules. Unfortunately, if a place only wants to offer training to X people, it’s sort of just how it is.
But to circle back to the other thread, if you want more skill in regard to something like door breaching… definitely seek it out. There are places that offer it. But being it is more focused on L/E and military, they are likely going to want all the equipment provided and usually tailor the training to someone who has some background in it already. Most people are going to question why a civilian would want it, as there is literally zero practical use in a self-defense situation. It is a skill that definitely would opt on the side of being trained on, as messing around with a few “bros from down the street” likely is going to result in someone going to the hospital.
No, I don’t think there is any training that a civilian should not receive if they seek it out. This is specific to basic, skill involved training. Nothing in regard to door breaching is going to make a person more deadly to L/E. And to be clear, I think training is a lot more involved than the info video that Garand Thumb recently put out on the topic (it’s a good watch, but people shouldn’t consider themselves breachers after watching it). I’d probably expect at least a 2 or 3 day class on it.
A few months back, I took an MP5 class. Going thru it, I was the only L/E student in the class. While it was a skill set that really wasn’t directly applicable to my job, as we only have M4s now, a lot of the stuff learned was beneficial to work (shooting thru windows, night shooting on both handgun and SBR, transitions). Having a SBRed PTR… it allowed me to run the gun leaps/bounds better than before the class. I learned quite a few things there, made friends and would recommend it to anyone… L/E or not.
In my job, there is a lot of sensitive aspects that could cause problems if certain people were aware of it. I literally gave up a chunk of vacation days this week for me to attend this type of training. For the limited number of “bad” people that know about it, it is a huge problem. And I’m not talking about people who are run of the mill criminals, either. Probably bridge the gap between those criminals and the 9/11 terrorists. So for stuff like that, yes… I’m against that.
I’ve been trying to get more information on a SIG bus/vehicle class that would be beneficial to my coworkers (2 day course within 4 hours from my area), which they only allow L/E and military to enroll. While I understand their reasoning (liability), I don’t think that subject is too specialized that civilians should not be allowed to attend… but that is their academy, so their rules. Unfortunately, if a place only wants to offer training to X people, it’s sort of just how it is.
But to circle back to the other thread, if you want more skill in regard to something like door breaching… definitely seek it out. There are places that offer it. But being it is more focused on L/E and military, they are likely going to want all the equipment provided and usually tailor the training to someone who has some background in it already. Most people are going to question why a civilian would want it, as there is literally zero practical use in a self-defense situation. It is a skill that definitely would opt on the side of being trained on, as messing around with a few “bros from down the street” likely is going to result in someone going to the hospital.
online olympian
New member
I think the threshold of "appropriate" civilian training depends on the context and purpose. Some skills, like advanced SWAT tactics, are best left to law enforcement pros. But self-defense, first aid, and emergency response training can be super beneficial for civilians.
stuckinthe60s
New member
was a time all americans except sissys learned all that was needed to be known about military arms and tactics when they joined or got drafted....then it was put aside and you went home and enjoyed personal arms and shooting.
but the world changed and the internet made what use to be select training....common to all and now you have total idiots with guns thinking they know it all going around shooting and killing people, never experiencing being (shot back at).
i said it 30 years ago ill say it again, the vast majority of gun owners today are dangerous and should have never bought a gun.
shooting was for select individuals. the gun industry wasnt happy with that. they wanted everyone to have guns to make profit...and they did.
but holy cow there are some space cases out there and no matter how much training they get, odds are theyd forget it sooner than later and hurt themselves or someone else.
the civilian population is suppose to be in defense mode....not tactical assault mode.
but everyone now wants to engage multi targets burning ammo and missing 99% of what they aim at.
i gave up training because i could see it in their eyes....they just wanted something else beyond my training and were just using me to get certified to get it.
but the world changed and the internet made what use to be select training....common to all and now you have total idiots with guns thinking they know it all going around shooting and killing people, never experiencing being (shot back at).
i said it 30 years ago ill say it again, the vast majority of gun owners today are dangerous and should have never bought a gun.
shooting was for select individuals. the gun industry wasnt happy with that. they wanted everyone to have guns to make profit...and they did.
but holy cow there are some space cases out there and no matter how much training they get, odds are theyd forget it sooner than later and hurt themselves or someone else.
the civilian population is suppose to be in defense mode....not tactical assault mode.
but everyone now wants to engage multi targets burning ammo and missing 99% of what they aim at.
i gave up training because i could see it in their eyes....they just wanted something else beyond my training and were just using me to get certified to get it.
I see this said periodically both here and elsewhere.
As a function of taking all of the courses I mentioned above, at this point I have taken training courses with hundreds of other students. The cases I can think of that truly fall into the above description can honesty fit on one hand. I don’t disagree that such an element exists, but my experience is that it is by no means everyone.
Considering how poorly understood the basic premise of 'self defense' can often be to the average private person, the subject of "allowable" firearms training is unsurprisingly likely to easily go off into the weeds.
Having been involved in training LE (home agency and folks from outside agencies) for more than 26 years, and CCW licensees for only about 10 years, I gained my own perspectives and opinions about the value of different types of training, as well as the folks who were attending it.
One advantage of having LE as students is that the people have already been screened and observed in the course of their employment. They were also subjected to fairly extensive background checks, psych evals and polygraph testing during the hiring process.
For the most part, private persons who want CCW licenses have been subjected to basic background (fingerprinting) checks. (CA law provides for an optional psych eval for licensees, but it used to be more the exception than the rule among many agencies issuing licenses.)
But when it comes right down to it, who are the private individuals signing up and asking for 'advanced training in shooting techniques and tactics', anyway? How does the trainer/training venue even know the student is lawfully in possession of a firearm? Not subject to a restraining order, nor a convicted felon or other type of Prohibited Person? Will taking it 'on faith' that everyone signing up for training is a 'good guy with a gun', and protect the instructor and facility if they find themselves on the wrong end of a civil claim or criminal complaint?
What sort of insurance is required (or optional) in the state where the training is being sold, to protect the trainer?
I can understand how commercial training venues may decide to 'restrict' the knowledge offered in some training open to the general Public, especially when it comes to LE tactics and tactical weapons. Why give away some operational tradecraft to just anyone who signs up and pays a fee, but isn't really a known quantity?
On the other hand, it wasn't that long ago when even LE wasn't getting all the same training for firearms and tactics. The average cop didn't often get offered the 'advanced' training in shooting and tactics that was used by swat, for example. Granted, not all the regular guys and gals even wanted to work to achieve that higher level of training, but some did ... and were told that they weren't swat.
That slowly started to evolve, though, once it became evident to everyone that it typically took precious time to activate and organize a swat response. It was realized that the cops arriving on the scene could really benefit from being better trained in some of the practical tactics and shooting skills previously only taught to swat/ERT. About damned time, too. Whether making an immediate solo response because of lack of additional units, or being able to form up with another 1 or 2 cops to effectively act as an ad-hoc 'team' in what was previously thought to be the domain of swat.
Does the average armed private person need to have such training? Do they want it? Do they have the money and interest in buying and maintaining their gear? Ought they have access to it, if they do want it?
Not my call, since I'm no longer teaching either LE or private persons. Like my own continued practice of martial arts, nowadays my interest in firearms training/practice is limited to myself.
I eventually had to turn away a student interested in some advanced martial arts training toward the end of the 90's, and I did so because there came a point when I wasn't sure his expressed mindset about how he would use his training was something I wanted to 'enable' with more advanced training. Let him get it from someone else.
We've seen a number of politicians talk about restricting gatherings of people to train with firearms, though, which is a bit unsettling. Who is the focus of their attention? Why? Is that sort of thing actually an infringement of various rights?
This is an interesting topic, though, and one which I've heard discussed and explored among quite a number of the folks I know at my 2 cigar clubs. An interesting mix of business people, active & retired LE, former and retired MIL (meaning guys with 10-20 years of service), attorneys, gun owners, some former firearms instructors from both LE and the private training field, and folks just interested in becoming gun owners, etc. The discussions can cover a lot of interesting ground, as well as bringing forth informed opinions and acquired experiences.
Freedom comes with inherent risks. Managing the level of such risks within our society, against our cherished form of self governance, was never claimed to be an easy thing, either.
Having been involved in training LE (home agency and folks from outside agencies) for more than 26 years, and CCW licensees for only about 10 years, I gained my own perspectives and opinions about the value of different types of training, as well as the folks who were attending it.
One advantage of having LE as students is that the people have already been screened and observed in the course of their employment. They were also subjected to fairly extensive background checks, psych evals and polygraph testing during the hiring process.
For the most part, private persons who want CCW licenses have been subjected to basic background (fingerprinting) checks. (CA law provides for an optional psych eval for licensees, but it used to be more the exception than the rule among many agencies issuing licenses.)
But when it comes right down to it, who are the private individuals signing up and asking for 'advanced training in shooting techniques and tactics', anyway? How does the trainer/training venue even know the student is lawfully in possession of a firearm? Not subject to a restraining order, nor a convicted felon or other type of Prohibited Person? Will taking it 'on faith' that everyone signing up for training is a 'good guy with a gun', and protect the instructor and facility if they find themselves on the wrong end of a civil claim or criminal complaint?
What sort of insurance is required (or optional) in the state where the training is being sold, to protect the trainer?
I can understand how commercial training venues may decide to 'restrict' the knowledge offered in some training open to the general Public, especially when it comes to LE tactics and tactical weapons. Why give away some operational tradecraft to just anyone who signs up and pays a fee, but isn't really a known quantity?
On the other hand, it wasn't that long ago when even LE wasn't getting all the same training for firearms and tactics. The average cop didn't often get offered the 'advanced' training in shooting and tactics that was used by swat, for example. Granted, not all the regular guys and gals even wanted to work to achieve that higher level of training, but some did ... and were told that they weren't swat.
That slowly started to evolve, though, once it became evident to everyone that it typically took precious time to activate and organize a swat response. It was realized that the cops arriving on the scene could really benefit from being better trained in some of the practical tactics and shooting skills previously only taught to swat/ERT. About damned time, too. Whether making an immediate solo response because of lack of additional units, or being able to form up with another 1 or 2 cops to effectively act as an ad-hoc 'team' in what was previously thought to be the domain of swat.
Does the average armed private person need to have such training? Do they want it? Do they have the money and interest in buying and maintaining their gear? Ought they have access to it, if they do want it?
Not my call, since I'm no longer teaching either LE or private persons. Like my own continued practice of martial arts, nowadays my interest in firearms training/practice is limited to myself.
I eventually had to turn away a student interested in some advanced martial arts training toward the end of the 90's, and I did so because there came a point when I wasn't sure his expressed mindset about how he would use his training was something I wanted to 'enable' with more advanced training. Let him get it from someone else.
We've seen a number of politicians talk about restricting gatherings of people to train with firearms, though, which is a bit unsettling. Who is the focus of their attention? Why? Is that sort of thing actually an infringement of various rights?
This is an interesting topic, though, and one which I've heard discussed and explored among quite a number of the folks I know at my 2 cigar clubs. An interesting mix of business people, active & retired LE, former and retired MIL (meaning guys with 10-20 years of service), attorneys, gun owners, some former firearms instructors from both LE and the private training field, and folks just interested in becoming gun owners, etc. The discussions can cover a lot of interesting ground, as well as bringing forth informed opinions and acquired experiences.
Freedom comes with inherent risks. Managing the level of such risks within our society, against our cherished form of self governance, was never claimed to be an easy thing, either.
Don't be talking Dirty ...
Gary