@revolving mag you are correct, he was talking about personal standards.
In addition to the standards listing by Tacman, I would like to add to your list movement, as well as manipulations from varying positions. IE: Urban prone, prone, being on your back. Adding these in is a personal standard for me. I would recommend that everyone do them. Its just adding to your tool box.
Good topic Tacman....
Edit: I forgot to add retention shooting and point shooting.
Safe gun handling is paramount and being able to shoot it at an intended target. I really don't care how fast you can draw your weapon or how many rounds you can shoot in a short period of time. If your slow, that's your problem.
I wouldn't want to be at the range the day some of these people are practicing taking their guns in and out of the holster with live ammo. This puts the gun at angles other than down range combined with inexperience and you may have unforeseen problems.
There was an older woman getting her CC permit the day I got mine. She couldn't hit a human target from the distance of 5 yards. She had shaky hands and flinched big time.The instructors couldn't figure out where the bullets were going. They finally gave up and passed her through. It didn't matter if she could hit the broad side of a barn.
I agree with most of the suggestions for weapon proficiency. I don't really have anything to add in those respects that hasn't already been repeated or things that simply shouldn't be government mandated.
But, people also need to mentally train themselves for when it is and possibly more importantly when it is not proper to use their gun in self defense. Each carrier has to mentally prepare themselves to know when it is best to stay out of a situation or when to get invovled. Some other member had a long post about when to intervene or not and their basic premise was do not intervene unless what you are seeing is such an obvious affront to humanitarian values that you must intervene.
There are many posters, especially new members who favor interventions in whatever scenario you can come up with because "they're not cowards" or "they just want to help." Yet they haven't thought about all the repurcussions that could happen from a justified shoot let alone what could happen in a situation in which they should never have intervened.
There is no way to mandate a mindset but anybody who carries a gun should think out what their possible reactions may be in a defensive situation. Of course you can't think through all the problems that one may face. But they should at least have a loose game plan for what they are and are not willing to do.
Not what is required by the state or regulating agency, not talking about mandated training or further regulations or it is their God given right to carry with no standards, simply what you feel someone should know by your standards or by the standards of common sense before they carry their firearm for self defense.
No offense to anyone here but damn is there something in the above sentences that has a hidden meaning, is unclear or otherwise confusing? Maybe the standard for comprehension is set to high.
Yeah I read that in another topic. I guess I need to check the computer to make sure I am not posting in Swedish.
In Oklahoma years ago when the citizens forced the State to allow Liquor by the drink the State set up a committee to create the rules and regulations for it. They assigned mostly legislators who where against it to create those regulations in an attempt to kill it after the fact. Made it very difficult for a number of years. They did the very same thing when Parimutuel horse racing was forced on them by wide spread citizen support. Setting up rules to make sure the average citizen could not partake of the activity.
Why would I believe that if the Government is allowed to set up qualifications that citizens must meet in order to exercise their rights that anyone would qualify?
I think those of us, serious about carrying and our preparations for carrying, will most probably agree on virtually all the suggestions as to PERSONAL standards, and in many cases even expand on those PERSONAL standards. With that being said, those same folks that have established certain PERSONAL standards would like to see others who carry have some or all of those same standards as well. With that being said, how do us folks that have these higher standards, allow (in our minds) for perhaps physically handicapped carriers that are unable to meet this LIST, or perhaps folks that are physically weaker (male and female), or perhaps that have sight handicaps, etc etc. I think there is a problem in having "overall" expectations. I understand our desire to have a WISH LIST so that everyone stands a better chance at survival if they encounter a "self defense" situation, but I fear we are only "kicking a dead dog"....
Everyone knows how I most always preach "train Train TRAIN" in any of my posts, so you know where I stand...Please don't let my comments above sway you otherwise....LOL....Tacman605, I am on board with ya Sir...JMO
I am lucky to have 2 good friends. 1 is a ex Alabama state trooper and 1 is a retired sniper. These 2 gentleman kinda took me under there wings. Like having 2 dads.
Thank goodness the snow melted Sven maybe now we can go fiording in the fiord.
Again guys as I stated this has nothing to do with the Government setting anything. You, yourself personally not a government anything.
In response to an earlier post in reference to the wife seeking protection from here ex, or the elderly woman needing protection. In these cases I am not saying deny them anything, require them to have nothing a gun is a gun in these cases if they need it they have it. Would it be great if someone showed them how to use it in a more proficient manner? Yes of course but it is not required.
There are different levels, for the lack of a better word, of gun owners/carriers. Some own a gun and keep it in the house never carry it, others carry sometimes or at least have it in their car. Many carry the gun everyday but it is simply stuck in their pocket and some carry the gun, ammo, flashlight and so on. We are all different.
Is there one mimimum/personal/wish list of things they should be able to do that fits everyone? No of course not. Could there be? Possibly, but as has been stated on here before many don't even want to do that. They have the gun, hence they are safe.
This whole thing is in reference to your personal opinion of what you consider the minimum/personal/wish list of standards nothing else.
I think it has to be the gun owner's responsibility to attain the proper shooting skills and knowledge to fit their purpose of gun ownership. If the government is allowed to set standards, it could become a tool to restrict 2nd amendment rights. I would be for severe liability laws (i.e. accidental shootings, child endangerment, used by another in a crime, etc) to establish some ownership responsibilities in gun handling.
It is a little scary when amateurs who don't know what they are doing show up at the shooting range.
For myself, guns and shooting has always been a hobby so I've shot thousands of rounds with various guns in different settings (fixed ranges and backcountry) and also hunting. My observation is that nothing can really substitute for shooting a vast number of rounds and experiencing different guns. Even shooting a couple bricks of .22LR will develop fundamentals. Getting formal training does speed up the learning process and makes up for not shooting as much. I don't think every gun owner who owns for SD purposes may need to be skilled in all handgun combat skills. Marksmanship under pressure certainly is a requirement. Speed reloading or tactical reloading is always good to know but probably not vital for every gun owner. Of course, over training is always good. I think everyone has various needs or purposes of having a gun. However, something like participation in an IDPA match would be beneficial and enlightening for handgun owners who bought for SD use.
I guess I can only hope that anyone who buys a gun will be responsible enough to adequately learn/practice shooting skills and getting proper instruction for their needs (i.e. home defense use, concealed carry defense use, competition, hunting, etc). Of course, I think I'd be fooling myself to believe that every single gun owner will do that.
For years seat belts were voluntary. After all its a personal choice isn't it? Then when folks did not make the choice they were supposed to make it became mandatory. Firearms training will work the same way. Then once it becomes mandatory we will improve it each legislative session by adding more and more rules and qualifications that must be met.
@mir1m: I think you are totally misuderstanding me (tacman can speak for himself). But we are not advocating anything that anyone gets involved except for the individual person. Like Tacman said:are we speaking Swedish here? It is just a list of things that I feel everyone should know