Minimim Pistol Skill for Disinterested Owner?

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

I'd like everybody to chime-in here or vote in the poll.

assume you're a gun expert and a friend relative or coworker comes to you and says:
"Will you take me shooting?"
And that person adds:
"I've owned a gun for years, but I don't shoot it much. I'd like to do some shooting with you to make sure I'm still competent, and if I need a little coaching, you can help me."

Now remember, we're talking about the casual gun owner who is not an NRA member, , doesn't go to gun shows, doesn't have a carry permit (or does, but does not actually carry on his or her person out in public), doesn't read any shooting related magazines and never visits a gun related website.
He or she is absolutely NEVER going to attend a training class by a professional firearms instructor or get that kind of paid-for coaching.

So the question of the day is :

WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD "Qualification Test" FOR YOU TO HAVE THIS PERSON TAKE, and successfully pass, FOR YOU TO FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING
"your skills with that gun are good enough. You probably can use it effectively in a self-defense scenario." ?

What target size should she be able to hit?
What percent of his shots could be misses (or outside of the center-mass zone) and still pass?

What distance or distances should this person shoot from? How many shots at each of those distances?

What about time limits?

Assume NO drawing from a holster. No concealment.
This person doesn't ever wear a gun or do on-body carry.
All shooting starts with the gun either flat on the shooting bench or in her hand at low ready.

 

[November Sierra]

I usually work the fundamentals and when they want some solo time recommend they do dot torture to hone said fundamentals

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

That's nice, but what do you want to see him shoot, on the dot torture drill or any other drill of your choice, before you'd say this person's skills are good enough to say they're Competent with that home defense handgun?

 

[TapcoFan]

I don't think I am one to comment on whether another person's skills are good enough and can probably be used in a self-defense scenario. So long as the other person feels comfortable with their skill set and handles a firearm responsibly, that's sufficient. I don't think there is a good way to reduce comfort with a skill set into objective, measurable data since it's completely subjective.
Obviously, training and more practice will lead to the shooter becoming more comfortable with a particular firearm. The way that I look at the question is establishing a minimum level of competency, which I think is responsible handling.

 

[November Sierra]

That's nice, but what do you want to see him shoot, on the dot torture drill or any other drill of your choice, before you'd say this person's skills are good enough to say they're Competent with that home defense handgun?

One hole at 9-21 feet. Afterwards whatever they want to work on. 1-5, FAST, el pres, etc. I like to teach people to fish so they can feed themselves.

 

[fast306stang]

That's nice, but what do you want to see him shoot, on the dot torture drill or any other drill of your choice, before you'd say this person's skills are good enough to say they're Competent with that home defense handgun?

"I've owned a gun for years, but I don't shoot it much. I'd like to do some shooting with you to make sure I'm still competent, and if I need a little coaching, you can help me.

Now remember, we're talking about the casual gun owner who is not an NRA member, , doesn't go to gun shows, doesn't have a carry permit (or does, but does not actually carry on his or her person out in public)"

I don't think this person is going to become "competent" with whatever training/test you provide until that person changes their mindset. JMO.

 

[adrianrog]

Your poll would be the last thing I'd be concerned with. I'd say teach them safe and practiced gun handling first and when they learn to shoot, you absolutely have to throw some pistol malfunctions in at them.

 

[rockyfatcat]

Who says they have to qualify to do anything other than keep it pointed downrange and let it go bang a couple times without getting anybody (including themselves) hurt.

Some people don't want or need to have all that know-how. I gave my daughter 2 revolvers. She has gone down to the courthouse and has a permit, but doesn't carry.

She knows how to shoot my guns. Since she got her permit, I offered to train her (former military/LEO), or pay for training. She hasn't expressed interest in either or bothered to go to the range with me to shoot the weapons I gave her, and she won't go to the range by herself.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[ADAduckhuntr]

Tacos

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

I just took 10 shots, one at a time, from low ready, 1-handed.
With a full sized pistol.
Pointing, not aiming.
Shooting fast. Less than a second per shot.

Gun stayed at mid-chest level.
My target was a small bullseye 5 yards (15 ft.) away.

Every shot, even the first, from a gun I have not shot in a few months, hit within 4" of the center of that target.

When I aimed one shot, using the sights, I hit the X ring,
but I was noticably slower.

CONCLUSION: Aimed (sighted) shooting is nice, but not necessary for defensive gun use at typical self-defense distances.