Defensive Carry banner

Minimum standards

5K views 78 replies 31 participants last post by  bklynboy 
#1 ·
Knowing full well that there is a very diverse group of individuals on the forum with varying levels of education, mindset, skillset, training and that are employed in a large cross section of different jobs, I would like to propose the following questions.

What do you consider to be the minimum standards for proficiency/training that someone should have to carry and potentially use a weapon in a self defense situation?

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.

What are your personal minimum standards that you have set, attained or surpassed for yourself?

My world is a bit different from others here so I will simply give an opinion of what I think someone should know or have in order to meet my minimum standards for everyday carry in the states.

Knowledge of how to handle a firearm safely in the first place.

A a working knowledge of the firearm that they are using. They should be able to disassemble and reassemble and conduct a manual of arms without help of the manual or calling someone for advice. Knowing the location and manipulation of all controls, safeties and so on.

The ability to safely load and holster the firearm in a condition that is ready to fire upon drawing the weapon without further manipulation of the pistol. (excluding the safety)

To be able to draw the firearm from whatever carry method they choose and engage a hostile target from 7 yards in under 2 seconds and actually hitting the target in a location that would be effective.

To perform a reload of their particular firearm in a competant manner without hesitation or malfunction.

Can diagnose and clear all types of common malfunctions in a speedy and proficient manner.

Maintain an effective level of accuracy out to whatever distance limitations that they set for themselves.

Before someone chimes in with some are these are ridiculouslly simple and everyone should already know that, you would be surprised at some of the posts that have been on here over time. These are the ones I can think of at the moment, I am sure there are others. You notice that I did not put a lot of emphasis on setting a particular time limit or a specific distance except for one.

So let's hear what you have to say, who knows maybe it will make someone else have one of those "Never thought of that moments".
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I would agree that each of these capabilities should be a minimum. But I believe that we're a self governing body and we need to remain self governing. So standards can be only suggestions, perhaps emphasized suggestions, IMO. When I think of standard it brings to mind mandate, this leads to intervention. Lines that should never be crossed. Only through social interaction can we communicate the importance of competency with a weapon. And thanks for putting safety as #1
 
#3 ·
My personal minimum standards are pretty much as you have stated. But, that is for me alone.

Who am I to dictate standards to any one else? I know what I consider a minimum for myself. I do not have the inclination to tell my neighbor that because they have not yet attained that level of proficiency they can not use a firearm for self defense. Once we decide that anyone has the authority to limit our ability to defend ourselves, a door is opened to gradually up those requirements until there is no one who could meet them.

There are consequences to all of our actions. I am one who believes that you "pay" for every decision and action, one way or another. I work hard to keep down the "price" of using a firearm, or any other tool, in a self defense situation. Any wise person would do everything possible to prevent damage or loss of life due to a lack of proficiency. However, as you said in your opening, we are all different and in different places in life. What is possible for me may not be for you or someone else.

Those who choose lower standards, or have not yet reached some higher standard, still have the imperative to defend themselves. Are we to say that because they have not attained that standard, they must roll over and give up? No, thank you. We fight. We fight to the last shred of strength, to the last fiber of being. That is the human urge for survival.
 
#4 ·
@Tacman: Good advice. I would have been stricter LOL:wave: The only change or clarification I would do is change this:
To be able to draw the firearm from whatever carry method they choose and engage a hostile target from 7 yards in under 2 seconds and actually hitting the target in a location that would be effective.
to:
To be able to draw the firearm from whatever carry method they choose and engage a hostile target from 7 yards in under 2 seconds and actually hitting the target in a location that would be effective. This should be a cold shot (first shot of the day, no dry firing, no practicing a draw) wearing clothes that you would normally be wearing during the day.

And add :know the laws in your state and states you frequent.

Good post
 
#5 ·
I don't think there should be requirements for people to carry firearms, having said that, I do hold myself to similar standards as Tacman and Suntzu, with the addition of retention training.
 
#6 ·
Suntzu good point and additions that is what I was talking about.

Gents this is a couple of simple questions I am not asking to define human nature or the beginnings of the universe simply what you as an individual would set or expect.

RR you stated that the standards could/would eventually raised so no one could meet them but in truth it is exactly the opposite. The standards are lowered and lowered until everyone can pass them so everyone can feel good about themselves and not offend the inner child.

Yes we each have our own standards we set for ourselves and we cannot force nor dictate to someone else those standards that is why I included the phrase "standards of common sense". Please forgive me that I would expect a person should be competent with the firearm they carry, that might violate something or offend someone and we certainly would not want to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wmhawth
#13 ·
Perhaps I misunderstood your original premise. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I see these threads from time to time and they all read the same to me. “Yada, yada, yada… if you can’t meet this standard, you should not be allowed to carry a gun.” To my mind that is like saying, unless you have a Black Belt you should not be allowed to defend yourself with your bare hands. A firearm is just a tool to be used for defense, the same as, say, a baseball bat, a knife, or a brick. All of these items have the potential for catastrophic misuse, yet there is little discussion on standards for carrying a pocket knife or locking up sporting equipment.

I really do understand the sentiment behind this thinking. My issue is that at some point in time absolutely NONE of us could meet those standards. At that time, if need arose, would YOU have refrained from using a firearm that may have been at your disposal? Do we only attain the right to self defense AFTER we have met an arbitrary level of proficiency?

I sincerely hope that anyone who carries a firearm, knife, baton, pepper spray, or anything else for self defense works very hard to move beyond any definition of a minimum standard. However, I refuse to deny ANYONE their right to self defense because they do not meet MY standard.

I do not consider this a “dumbing down” issue. There is an elitist ideal that is present in any skill-culture, i.e. “I can meet this arbitrary standard, but because you can’t you don’t deserve to do it at all.” The thing we need to remember is that we are not talking about a skill. We are talking about a biological imperative – survival. Survival has no minimum standard. It is pass/fail only.
 
#8 ·
If one is going to use tools, then knowledge of that specific tool, safety standards, proper uses, etc., is common sense.
That said, no one must demonstrate 'learned knowledge' to buy or operate a chainsaw.
Neither should RKBA be changed to be RKBAAT...the last AT adding After Training.

Should knowledge, training, and practice be part of firearm ownership? Certainly, but making it a gov/req is going down a very slippery slope.
I completely understand the merits of your suggestion...:yup:
Be very careful what you would wish for or suggest...:blink:

I have persuaded many individuals to seek out their CCW permits, and I have pointed out that getting the permit is just a small start on a much larger 'training mission'.
There is probably not a place for the word 'enough' in the preparation of firearm readiness, safety, knowledge, training, and/or practice.
 
#9 ·
LE and .Mil have minimum standards for qualifying.

I have worked various ranges in my life and watched these people shoot the minimum.

Personally, I want to maintain a higher level than that.
 
#11 ·
As someone who's profession is driven by minimum standards and competencies in various means I probably have a different view.
I have worked for various agencies that were extremely driven by statistics and numbers, once you set a minimum standard or competency you are bound to enforce and maintain them, which is difficult to do and carries difficulty with it. So move this over into the relm of firearms and concealed carry holders.... For hundreds of years people have purchased, used firearms, and carried them for various purposes all the while without government regulations or training. I don't have to prove I am competent to drive a Ferrari off the lot, buy a chainsaw, or a myriad of any other dangerous products that are available to use on a daily basis. Your drivers license doesn't give you entry into a NASCAR race, it's simply a minimum competence test to show you are capable of operating a motor vehicle. Your concealed carry permit doesn't make you a Tier 1 operator, it satisfies a minimum requirement. It is your individual responsibility to recognize and seek out professional training in what ever field you find yourself deficit, you want to shoot better, take a class, drive better, take a class...
When you start putting additional training and competencies on things you are narrowing the band of people who are able to own a certain item which may or may not be beneficial. Certainly it is preferable to keep firearms out of the hands of felons or persons with mental illness, but what about the estranged wife who is separated from her abusive husband and decides to purchase a firearm to protect her and her children? Should she be required to take a 16 hours class and demonstrate the competencies noted above? She'll die waiting for the paperwork.
It is upto the individual citizen to demonstrate responsible use of something, the government can intervine when they demonstrate that they are unable to do so, not beforehand.

Sent from this... Using that...
 
#12 · (Edited)
What do you consider to be the minimum standards for proficiency/training that someone should have to carry and potentially use a weapon in a self defense situation?
Minimum standards appropriately apply to those who carry a gun as part of their job, but not others such as general citizens. I'm not going to tell a man with Parkinson's Disease that he does not shoot well enough to carry a handgun for his self defense. Not everyone is a fully able-bodied person. That said, I do like a simple assessment drill that I think is a fair indicator of one's ability to control their carry gun while demonstrating a minimally acceptable accuracy level. This drill is intended as a self-administered assessment that can be conducted at most ranges, even those that limit things such as working from a holster. Also, since the drill uses a 5-second par time, a shot timer is not needed - someone can call out the start and stop times. I suggest to able-bodied folks that if they can't achieve a basic level of performance, then they should seek out additional training and/or consider a different carry gun. Most find actually shooting this drill more difficult than they thought it would be. The Drill:

The Defensive Handgun Control Drill

Starting position is the low ready (pistol loaded and pointed down at 45 degree angle, safety off, trigger finger outside trigger guard)
Fire 5 rounds
Within 5 seconds
From a distance of 3, 7 or 15 yards
At an 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of paper
Repeat 3 times (15 rounds total)

Performance levels:

Advanced – From 15 yds, all 15 rds on paper, all runs 5 sec or less
Intermediate – From 7 yds, all 15 rds on paper, all runs 5 sec or less
Basic – From 3 yds, all 15 rds on paper, all runs 5 sec or less
 
#14 ·
I agree with Tacman and Suntzu as far as my personal standards are concerned. I feel everyone should know the laws of their state, and also any other state that they travel to while carrying. And while it would be great for everyone who carries to have this level of knowledge and proficiency in an "ideal" world, we all know the world is far from ideal!

Should everyone be "required" to develop this level of proficiency and knowledge before being allowed to carry for self defense? No, I don't think so. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.

However, it gets into some sticky philosophical issues. When does someone's right to defend themselves infringe on MY rights if they are incompetent, unsafe in their firearms handling, and let off a round in public either accidentally or on purpose and my family and I are in the area? What one does in ones home is their own business. I don't have to go there, so it does not impact me.

Out in public is an entirely different story. Should someone have to demonstrate at least a minimum knowledge of firearms safety and knowledge of the law before being allowed to carry a firearm in public? Ohio has a minimum of 12 hours of training, which includes 2 hours of range time, to get your CHL. From what I have heard on this forum, the quality of training varies considerably. I was lucky--my wife and I had a very good instructor. We were both experienced with firearms before the training, but learned a lot about the laws in Ohio. Several people in the class were complete novices. Overall, I think Ohio's training requirements are reasonable and I have no objection to people being required to take the class before being able to carry concealed. The 12 hour class does not make anyone an "expert" by any means, and everyone should take additional classes and training, as I have done. And not everyone who takes the 12 hour class is going to remember all the "legal" info. But at least they have been exposed to the law, the responsibility of using a firearm in self defense, and proper firearms handling and safety rules. Just my .02.:yup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillK
#15 ·
RoarRunner, Suntzu, Retsupt, I understand what you're saying- you should be able to defend yourself- and completely agree.

I think, and I may very well be wrong, that Tacman was talking about personal standards; the standards you hold yourself to.
-------------

I think what you said pretty much covers it; those are pretty good sounding basics. I hold myself to a pretty high accuracy/precision standard. I can't do much right now by way of drills, higher levels of professional training, or even target practice due to financial and physical restrictions. As soon as those restrictions are fixed, I will be taking whatever classes I can, and doing as many 'home' drills as possible.
 
#16 ·
RoarRunner, Suntzu, Retsupt, I understand what you're saying- you should be able to defend yourself- and completely agree.

I think, and I may very well be wrong, that Tacman was talking about personal standards; the standards you hold yourself to.
That is what I am saying also. No government standards but a guideline of things one SHOULD be proficient in. It is up to the individual to set their own comfort level. Which I think a lot set way too low. But, it is up to them in the end
 
#17 ·
@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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shockwave
#21 ·
Full moon man LOL! Look outside tonight around 1130 PM EST. Moon is close. I have had similiar comprehension problems today with folks:danceban:
 
#22 ·
Yeah I read that in another topic. I guess I need to check the computer to make sure I am not posting in Swedish.
 
#27 ·
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.
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
It is a little scary when amateurs who don't know what they are doing show up at the shooting range.
To me, it's even scarier when people who are professionals in the serve-and-protect and don't know what they're doing, behind the gun - that DEA agent who ND'ed while demonstrating firearms safety to school-kids ( DEA Agent - YouTube ), that policewoman who ND'ed into the pavement as her partner secured a suspect on the ground ( Police Negligence - YouTube ).

----

Personal minimum standards?

Yesterday.

I can always do better today. And I will. I will take what I've learned yesterday and apply it today, and I will strive to learn more today than I knew yesterday. :smile:

In my ideal world, others will strive for the same.
 
#30 ·
@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
 
#31 ·
I fully understand you and tacman. I believe you intent is the same as mine in that we all need to train. I think we are in total agreement on the issue.

The trouble comes when others who feel strongly about that training decide that everyone must do it. They will see our idea of training as a very good one that others should do as well. If not voluntarily then by force. My example of seat belts was I believe a good example of the way people think. They started as a good idea. It was voluntary. When not enough volunteered to wear them then it was made mandatory.

Its human nature to want everyone to be like us. Whether they want to or not.

Michael
 
#32 ·
I must point out that when Anti's read posts like these they use them to their advantage. When they see us say that training is a good idea they take that to mean we favor a law that insures it. They do not understand the idea of free will as it goes against their principle that all good comes from the government. To them a good idea and a LAW is the same thing.

Michael
 
#45 ·
With all of the other ammo we give them (OC vs CC, folks blowing off n-gun signs whether they have the force of law or not, sticking up for folks like the ones in NYC who seem to not look up local gun laws) saying training is a good idea I do not believe is giving them all that much ammo. This is an internet forum, what are they going to quote to a congressman "tacman or suntzu or mirm1 said this or that"......I am not really concerned about it.
 
#34 ·
"To be able to draw the firearm from whatever carry method they choose and engage a hostile target from 7 yards in under 2 seconds and actually hitting the target in a location that would be effective."
That qualification alone eliminates about 90% of all CHL holders on this board, in this state, and on the planet. Hope the antis-in-charge don't read boards like this one when such expert testimony appears.
 
#35 ·
This is the reason for this topic.....Folks in that 90% need to understand the personal, yes I said PERSONAL responsibility involved in carrying a gun. We as instructors need to convey this to our students.
 
#38 ·
Knowing full well that there is a very diverse group of individuals on the forum with varying levels of education, mindset, skillset, training and that are employed in a large cross section of different jobs, I would like to propose the following questions.

What do you consider to be the minimum standards for proficiency/training that someone should have to carry and potentially use a weapon in a self defense situation?

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.

What are your personal minimum standards that you have set, attained or surpassed for yourself?

My world is a bit different from others here so I will simply give an opinion of what I think someone should know or have in order to meet my minimum standards for everyday carry in the states.
New to the forum here, but found this an interesting discussion so it looked like a good place to jump in. I will simply expand (in RED) on what you have mentioned below:

Knowledge of how to handle a firearm safely in the first place. I would change this to read, "A demonstrable understanding of fundamental safe gun handling rules - an intimate knowledge, in and of itself, is not enough - there must also be a mastery in the practical application of these fundamental rules at all times".

A a working knowledge of the firearm that they are using. They should be able to disassemble and reassemble and conduct a manual of arms without help of the manual or calling someone for advice. Knowing the location and manipulation of all controls, safeties and so on. This is a bit more arbitrary than it needs to be, IMO. Certainly an intimate working knowledge of the platform is absolutely necessary (being able to "run the gun") for efficient operation, and the ability to field strip the weapon to the point required for adequate basic cleaning is important, but I wouldn't fault someone (or myself) for having to turn to the manual for detailed disassembly instructions. Some guns simply have a much more complex take-down procedure than others. I would much rather see someone rely on the book than to have them damage a firearm, lose a part, or re-assemble in a manner that made the firearm unsafe.

The ability to safely load and holster the firearm in a condition that is ready to fire upon drawing the weapon without further manipulation of the pistol. (excluding the safety) Again, this is too arbitrary for me. The fact is, there are some modes of carry, and particularly certain carry devices, people use that don't lend themselves well to carrying the firearm in Condition "1" or Condition "0" (depending on the platform). I know a lady, for example, that carries her Glock 27 in Condition "3" when she carries it in her holster purse because she feels there is a substantial enough risk that a foreign object in the opposite compartment of the purse, or even her weapon retention efforts when fighting off a purse grab, could somehow manage to activate the trigger under certain conditions. So I would change this to read, "The knowledge and attitude necessary to carry the firearm in the safest, yet most readily usable condition, appropriate for the type of carry device chosen, whereby drawing and firing the pistol is able to be performed with the least amount of manipulation possible".

To be able to draw the firearm from whatever carry method they choose and engage a hostile target from 7 yards in under 2 seconds and actually hitting the target in a location that would be effective. I agree with this for the most part, except that I wouldn't place an arbitrary time limit on it. When you consider different modes of carry, not only for a primary weapon, but also for a backup, you quickly realize that under certain conditions, even the most well-trained individual would never be able to achieve these results. Fast isn't necessarily synonymous with "efficient", so this standard has to be more subjective, IMO.

To perform a reload of their particular firearm in a competant manner without hesitation or malfunction. And I would define "competent manner" as meaning: while behind cover/concealment or while seeking cover/concealment if available and as appropriate for the circumstances. I would also point out that by it's very nature, this standard REQUIRES the user to carry the necessary item(s) needed to perform the reload (primarily a spare loaded magazine or speedloader) at all times - something a surprisingly large number of armed citizens seem to think is unimportant.

Can diagnose and clear all types of common malfunctions in a speedy and proficient manner. Agreed.

Maintain an effective level of accuracy out to whatever distance limitations that they set for themselves. I would change this to read, "Be able to demonstrate proper understanding and application of the important balance of speed and precision on targets of varying size and from various distances" And I would make that change because I feel that it is very hard to quantify exactly what it is that makes up an "effective level of accuracy" to any large degree.

In addition, I would add that my own personal standards require me to have a good understanding of both weapons laws and use of force laws in my primary operating location and that it is incumbent upon ME to become educated on those laws in any new location before I step into that environment with my weapon.

Before someone chimes in with some are these are ridiculouslly simple and everyone should already know that, you would be surprised at some of the posts that have been on here over time. These are the ones I can think of at the moment, I am sure there are others. You notice that I did not put a lot of emphasis on setting a particular time limit or a specific distance except for one.

So let's hear what you have to say, who knows maybe it will make someone else have one of those "Never thought of that moments".
Good, thought-provoking post, sir. And for the record, I would NEVER wish to force my own personal standards on anyone else.
 
#42 ·
Another question--Can any of you fellows out there carrying your LCP in your Smartcarry draw and deliver effective fire at 21 feet in two seconds?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top