Appropriate level of skill to carry concealed, responsibly?

[Clusterfrack]

I don't think splits are a requirement. If someone can fire a single shot accurately and appropriately and won't fire when they can't, I'm good with that.

I want to add something here. If a CCWer is so slow that they will lose any fight they should get training. However, I strongly support their right to carry. More armed defenders is usually better.

[G19Fan]

100% agree with this.

Especially since a number of attacks are aborted by even presenting a gun without firing a shot.

Or a psychological stop where the impact doesn’t break contact, the sound of the gunshot does.

In those cases a CCWer successfully defended themself without a marksmanship standard.

For example, if my wife carried I would want her to be safe and know her limits and adjust tactics accordingly.



I think that’s a personal decision.

I personally (for a civilian) break it down into what @Clusterfrack said and then separately: do they want to get better because they enjoy getting better?

For that second part, LEO or MIL standards work but sometimes gun games can be more fun and motivating for improvement of skills. Or at least have a robust standard of judgment and assessment for them to chart progress.

Agreed. Standards are personal to everyone. If you carry, be smart about liability, ability and tactics.

That said emphatic no to any sort of government regulation on this

[runngun]

There is no minimum shooting capability necessary for CCW. The only requirement is that the individual has a meaningful awareness of their ability, and the ability to to make shoot/no-shoot decisions that safely account for their ability. Any shot taken in self defense should have a high probability of hitting the target (stopping the threat) and essentially zero chance of hitting an innocent person or causing unacceptable damage. The worse someone shoots, the fewer appropriate/justifiable shoots they can take.

The challenge is that it is very difficult for someone with minimal ability to have a useful (quantifiable) understanding of the limits of their ability.

Minimum standards can serve the function of making a person aware of their lack of ability or as a forcing function to actually train/practice.

Any standard forced on private citizens is unacceptable, and any "reasonable standard" would be so low as to be meaningless for anyone who actually cares and practices (at all) anyway.

[CalAlumnus]

The challenge is that it is very difficult for someone with minimal ability to have a useful (quantifiable) understanding of the limits of their ability.

Minimum standards can serve the function of making a person aware of their lack of ability or as a forcing function to actually train/practice.

Any standard forced on private citizens is unacceptable, and any "reasonable standard" would be so low as to be meaningless for anyone who actually cares and practices (at all) anyway.

I suppose that’s why I go to the FBI qual and to the Five Yard Roundup (although perhaps modified to remove the weak hand section).

If I’m advising a new shooter, I could say something like “Look, here are some things to think about. Data on defensive gun uses show they are most commonly at around five yards, take under 3 seconds, and anatomically you need to hit an 5-inch target. So let’s try this (modified) Five Yard Roundup and see how your current ability matches with what is most likely to be needed.”

And then maybe it’s like, “Alright, but what about the less common situations? When the shooter appeared at the Greenwood Park Mall, Eli Dicken started taking shots from 40 yards away. Let’s have you try the FBI qual which includes some 25 yard shots and see how your capability matches with that situation.”

I think this discussion is really about the expert advice… How do we identify what the needed level of ability is for the typical concealed carrier, and what do we present to the new concealed carrier to assess how their abilities match the need? I think a lot of this is also about educating people on when they can get involved from a capability perspective, and when they can’t—you probably don’t want “J-Frame, No Reload, No Formal Training” guy taking 25 yard shots.

(Again, agree completely on this not being a legal mandate. Frankly, I think live fire qualifications as a condition of getting a CCW permit are counterproductive, because the “floor” tends to become the “goal.” It’s good that there’s no universally accepted standard metric, but there’s probably utility in having 5-10 go-to quals that instructors broadly agree are relevant for everyday concealed carriers.)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I want to add something here. If a CCWer is so slow that they will lose any fight they should get training. However, I strongly support their right to carry. More armed defenders is usually better.

That seems to assume that 'any fight' is a cowboy let's draw at the 7-11 corral. Of course, one should get training but most civilian incidents don't seem to depend on a fast draw showdown. The secret or concealed draw is taught as useful in real world incidents. How does 'so slow' figure into that metric. I've yet to take a FOF experience that came down to draw time or split times. So what is 'so slow'?
What is 'any fight'?

No offense but I find this statement ill-defined. Of course, all should get training even Fast Draw McGraw as such a person needs to understand the entire SD paradigm of evaluating threats and incidents, acceptable actions, etc.

Given Karl Rehn as found that over 90% of CHL types have no training beyond the class, and who knows what constitutional carry folks do - square range, box o' shells at PawPaw's ranch, most have no training. Any real training mandate eliminates carry. That's a bit of the CCIA debate. It has a 16 hour course. Some expense and a modest shooting test - actually the class isn't a bad intro but seen as an impediment to carry.

There's a dichotomy between what the gun bubble thinks is good and what those outside of the bubble think. That's my voting analogy. I don't think folks are good voters without being well educated but should it be mandated?

[CalAlumnus]

There's a dichotomy between what the gun bubble thinks is good and what those outside of the bubble think. That's my voting analogy. I don't think folks are good voters without being well educated but should it be mandated?

I don’t think anyone here is advocating a mandate. This is about the new shooter who’s trying to be responsible, and goes to a gun savvy friend and asks when he/she is “good enough” to carry. How should the friend answer?

I get that maybe that doesn’t happen often, but it surely does (and probably should more, for the reasons you outline). I know when I was new to concealed carry that was a question I had, but never found a good answer to (and ultimately, I was in California at the time, so I defaulted to following the course of fire chosen by my CCW instructor at the 16-hour class, which in hindsight was too easy.)

[runngun]

I suppose that’s why I go to the FBI qual and to the Five Yard Roundup (although perhaps modified to remove the weak hand section).

If I’m advising a new shooter, I could say something like “Look, here are some things to think about. Data on defensive gun uses snow they are most commonly at five yards, take under 3 seconds, and anatomically you need to hit an 5-inch target. So let’s try this (modified) Five Yard Roundup and see how your current ability matches with what is most likely to be needed.”

I think this discussion is really about the expert advice… How do we identify what the needed level of ability is for the typical concealed carrier, and what do we present to the new concealed carrier to assess how their abilities match the need?

(Again, agree completely on this not being a legal mandate. Frankly, I think live fire qualifications as a condition of getting a CCW permit are counterproductive, because the “floor” tends to become the “goal.” It’s good that there’s no universally accepted standard metric, but there’s probably utility in having 5-10 go-to quals that instructors broadly agree are relevant for everyday concealed carriers.)

Absolutely agree. I guess I'd frame the question of what would be the minimum ability for a conscientious non-gun person who to switch from skill development/improvement to more of a maintenance focus, where it would still be reasonable for them to carry while pursuing that threshold? My primary concern is the (even self imposed) restriction from carrying due to failure to meet an arbitrary skill standard.

[HCM]

I think the OP’s basic premise is flawed. You’re asking a bunch of shooters about standards to strive for is you want to be a competent shooter by the standards of other shooters.

Most gun owners and most concealed carriers are not shooters. They may have a hobby interest in guns but they aren’t shooters. At best they’re what I call “fire extinguisher” people. Their gun is like the fire extinguisher in their car, kitchen or garage. They understand having it is a reasonable and prudent thing in case something happens, they may get a little initial training on it and after that, it’s just kind of there and doesn’t get much attention unless it’s needed. They will take a basic class or some basic instruction from a friend then maybe go plink once or twice a year.

They’re not trying to reach a skill level where they can pass the FBI pistol qual. Not that they couldn’t do it if they put the work in, but it’s just not a priority in their world or something they think necessary. If these people can make the previously mentioned standard of 8/10 in an 8” circle at 7 yards they are doing ok.


The next step down from that are the “ballistic, lucky rabbit’s foot” people. These people will buy a gun load it and carry it or keep it for home defense after firing at once, or in many cases, never firing it at all. These are the people who carry things like 357 magnum Derringer’s, and start shooting the walls and ceilings of your local indoor range when put under time pressure or asked to shoot beyond about 5 yards. They think merely displaying a gun will repel threats like displaying a silver crucifix wards off Vampires.

My first concern is can they safely admin handle their gun (loading, unloading, using a public restroom etc) and do they understand the cycle of operation of their gun. This is where revolvers shine for “non gun people.”

My second concern is can they safely draw and re-holster from their chosen carry method. Third is discourage off body carry or leaving guns in cars unless necessary and doing it safely when it is necessary.

These three things are FAR more relevant than shooting to any particular standard even if it is a “no CCW left behind” standard like the San Francisco qual. ND’s stemming from these three things are far more common among the great unwashed masses than most dedicated shooters imagine. All those bullets go somewhere.

Speaking of, most cops, including FBI agents are not gun people or interested in being “shooters.” The majority of them will meet or slightly exceed the standards they are trained to and/or required to meet.

I hate to break this to you but most FBI Agents are neither lawyers, nor accountants. They shoot over 4k rounds during their academy and are required to shoot quarterly there after.

The 2019 FBI qual is not much by “shooter” standards but it’s not made for “shooters.” It’s based on data from shootings involving FBI Agents and TFOs. While they work in plainclothes most of the time and some of those shootings, especially the off duty ones closely mirror CCW holders potential exposures, most do not. LEOs jobs involve “go look for trouble” vs CCW holders who should only be looking to “get out of trouble.”

One of the ways the FBI 2019 course of fire differs from most LE COF is the balance between starting from the holster vs starting gun out from a ready position. That’s one of those things that was based on actual shooting data. While that may have some crossover to CCW, if I were going to adapt the 2019 FBI qualification to CCW holders I would get rid of the 15 and 25 yard line stages before I got rid of the one handed or weak hand only stage. I’d probably get rid of the emergency reload on the clock as well. Having to shoot while one hand is occupied with a kid, pet, cell phone etc. is likely for a CCW holder.

If you think the FBI shooting standards are minimal you really don’t want to look into the training / standards of most state and local PDs and Sheriff’s. They are a bell curve from legitimate shooters to shooting 50 rounds once a year on a “no cop left behind” qual where time standards are not actually enforced.

Most cops are not great shooters by shooter standards but they are compared to untrained or minimally trained people.

[JCN]

I don’t think anyone here is advocating a mandate. This is about the new shooter who’s trying to be responsible, and goes to a gun savvy friend and asks when he/she is “good enough” to carry. How should the friend answer?

“You’ll never be ready… you can only prepare.”

[JCS]

My view…. Gun carriers have a responsibility to be competent enough that they don’t take the life of a bystander. You’re carrying something that can kill human beings. I’m much less worried about some rando at Walmarts draw speed than I am his accuracy. If he pulls his gun in self defense and misses and kills my family member, I care a lot. If he doesn’t want to train and it takes him 3 seconds to draw that’s his life on the line, not my family.

So with that said, if you can’t hit a human sized target 100/100 times at 3-7 yards I don’t think you should carry.

I think the standards should be high for carrying something that can take a human life with a single trigger pull.