• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Minimim Pistol Skill for Disinterested Owner?

How challenging should the test be?

  • Like a law enforcement qualification shoot, including reloads on the clock.

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Like an armed security guard qualification shoot.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Like the "carry permit qualification" shoot mandated by your state or some neighboring state.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • Like the NRA's "defensive pistol I" shoot.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • even easier-- 10 seconds to fire 5 aimed shots at 10" plate from 15 feet.

    Votes: 7 31.8%
  • no aiming required-- 10 seconds to get 3 hits out of 3-6 shots fired. 10" target, 12 feet.

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • plenty of time- 30 seconds, 3 out of 5 hits, 10" target, 12 feet.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • any body hit counts- 30 seconds, 3 hits out of up to 5 shots, target 10" wide and 20" tall, 12 ft.

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
I’m not big into tests. My personal criteria when judging suitability of a CCW setup for myself is that I have to be able to draw and put 1 round into the IIZ of a QIT target from 7 yards in 1.5 seconds or less.
 
If someone not interested in firearms is the scenario, then I am not interested in being anywhere near them with one.

If they can recite the 4 laws, and operate the functions of the firearm properly, and hit a refrigerator box when they want to, and make an acceptable war face, then I would issue a "certificate".
 
Also, consider that if you “train” somebody, and even more so if you “test” them and give them a “pass” and/or certificate, you’re attaching yourself to them and their future actions. They get involved in a situation, they don’t perform as expected, and the blame gets passed onto YOU. After all, you trained them and said they were good to go. The person that you trained can try to use you as a scapegoat, and the person they shot (or their heirs) can use you as an extra cash cow in the resulting civil suit.

There’s several good reasons as to why I teach from under an LLC and have Instructor’s liability insurance.
 
Having a flashlight to IDENTIFY that bump in the night would qualify as a minimum. Too many peeps shoot relatives and friends cuz they "feared for their life" and blindly shot at "silhouettes"
 
get em a shotgun

That's what I was thinking. If they don't want to take it with them and aren't good at aiming, getting something that removes a little bit of the aiming element out of it would help.

IMO. First and foremost safety safety safety. Awareness of what you're aiming/pointing at is very important and when to put your finger on the trigger.
I am no expert by any means and shoot pistols very little, but I am confident that I could put a few center mass at a average distance. I would worry more about being able to acquire first shot quickly. If you are in a situation you have very little time to draw and fire, split seconds matter. I think that should be worked on first. I think follow up shots will naturally come with that. Start short and work your way out. But as far as qualifying someone that's a very broad range of what could be looked for. If you don't shoot much you will never get comfortable enough to do it well and with confidence which will give you speed.
 
Bump, for new folks to chime-in or take the poll,

AND for two new comments:

1-- For most of the 20th century, law enforcement officers were taught to point-shoot their revolvers at a target one-handed and get center of mass hits out to 10 yards. If an armed citizen could do that, I think they'd be proficient enough to be called "competent". Not as well-trained as they could be. Not on track to win a match. But good enough to drive away or put down an attacker. Look up some stories about FBI agent "Jelly" Bryce and see how well he did with crouching and point-shooting from hip level. Bill Jordan was also a proponent of this technique, even though both he and Jelly could also line up the sights and shoot with nearly pinpoint accuracy when they wanted to.

2-- Yesterday I had the chance to ask a Lieutenant with a major metro Atlanta law enforcement agency about training for armed citizens, and what would be a good "standard" to use to gauge them. How difficult of a test should they be able to pass? This Lt. was one of the people in charge of weapons training with his agency. HIS ANSWER:

(a) First thing is gun safety. Muzzle discipline. He sees a lot of people who sweep others with their gun barrels at gun stores and shooting ranges.

(b) As far as what would be a course of fire for a private citizen with a rather small pistol made for concealed carry, which is much different from a cop's duty gun, the Georgia law enforcement test for "back up guns" or "off duty guns" (I forget which term he used) would be about right.
 
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.

I agree except the articulation.
I never suggest that people describe their shooting this way. You are aiming just differently.

Can you imagine the grin on the plaintiffs attorneys face when the person that was injured in that stray round is suing you? Mind set of average potential jury pools?

Lady’s and gentlemen of the jury, my client (or family of) could have been spared a lifetime of mental anguish, and lived a full and financially productive life, if the defendant only aimed his weapon and hit him in the Leg...Shoulder...shot the gun out of his hands maybe a well placed shot in the elbow.
 
Not for me or anyone else to say. People with no training and little/no shooting experience have defended themselves or others and those with countless hours of training and bona fides have wet their pants when the time comes.
Self defense is often as much about willingness as it is ability.
I simply encourage people to shoot as frequently as they can.
 
Not for me or anyone else to say. People with no training and little/no shooting experience have defended themselves or others and those with countless hours of training and bona fides have wet their pants when the time comes.
Self defense is often as much about willingness as it is ability.
I simply encourage people to shoot as frequently as they can.
I agree, stats don’t support the whole training makes everyone safer hysteria.
States from Georgia to SC and Fla just ain’t that much different.
 
I agree, stats don’t support the whole training makes everyone safer hysteria.
States from Georgia to SC and Fla just ain’t that much different.


Safety stats are heavily influenced by who takes the training. Folks that seek out training are safety conscious, more so than the average population. It follows that they will have a lower incident rate. This was demonstrated time and again by the FAA
WINGS - Pilot Proficiency Program. It was/is a voluntary ongoing safety training program. It has long demonstrated a lower accident rate by participants than the general pilot population. Is it because of the training or the mindset of those who VOLUNTARILY opt for additional training (not legally required for their license) ?

The belief is the lower accident rate has nothing to do with the training, it is a result of self selection of like minded safety conscious pilots. They might as well hold their meetings at the Pink Pony, and skip going to the airport to do them, if the same group of pilots choose to participate.

Gun owners that choose to not acquire a CCW, or take any form of instruction are not likely to benefit from mandatory training, they just aren't interested or think it is important.
 
Back
Top Bottom