No training at all.

[Certaindeaf]

When I was a very young L/Cpl in the USMC, back in 1965, we were instructed in the use of the "new" M-16 rifle. We hadn't been issued the weapon, but I knew how to use it. We were also advised that we would NOT be using the rifle in it's full-auto capability. Marines were trained extensively in marksmanship and also to only fire on an identified target. Generally speaking, Marines in Vietnam didn't usually run out of ammunition because of the "spray & pray" attitude that was so prevalent amongst the ARVN and other U.S. forces. That being said and a matter of historical fact, let me bring us to the here and now. It seems that virtually everyone is carrying some kind of handgun, either for self defense or to perpetrate a crime. Most of these folks have no training at all. In the past, I have arrested "bad guys" with any number of revolvers and automatics with the wrong ammunition in their pockets. I once discovered a loaded 12 gauge single shot shotgun with a 20 gauge slug already in the barrel. I'm not suggesting that all the bad guys are fools, rather I'm pointing out that most of them are. The same dynamics apply to honest, law-abiding citizens that have been forced to carry firearms in defense of their own lives and property. Many of us are senior adults with health issues. Some even have memory problems. Others are young and healthy, but have never considered everything involved in drawing and firing a weapon. Questions like; should there be a round in the chamber (it seems safer, but is it?), what is situational awareness? Can I escape without having to use my weapon? Have I spent lots of time on a range learning about the capabilities of my firearm of choice? Am I truly comfortable carrying a device that can kill another person(s)? Lots of questions. Now what do you do if you come out of the local MiniMart just as a bad guy has already fired several rounds at a member of an opposing gang, race, ethnic minority, political party or ??? Suppose a concerned citizen aged 47 years old, with no training, carrying a Glock 19 with a high capacity magazine, decides that he will intervene in this dispute and fire some shots of his own. What do you do, as a well trained concealed carry permitted bystander? Drop your Bud Lite, loaf of bread and bag of Dorito's? The shots are going everywhere because the gang-bangers don't care and aren't trained and so are the shots of the well intentioned middle aged concerned citizen. Innocents are being hit and it's complete chaos. Do you shoot all of the participants, some of them, none of them or do you run into the store and call 911 so that they can take a report?

There's 75 questions in that cluster.

 

[Member 53328]

So that's code you voted for 114?

Absolutely. I voted. Checked the good ol' NO on 114.

Never said people should be required to get training. With that said if you think everyone who has a CHL and carries a gun is competent/composed/level headed/and takes the responsibility seriously then we live in two different worlds.

I know many people who carry that make me extremely nervous with how the conduct themselves and handle firearms. They got the right to carry and I got the right to beat feet out of the room that they walk in. Cause they are liability that I want nothing to do with.

And on the 114 thing….. the measure is a$$ backwards and completely f-cked. I won't be stepping in line. And let's not pretend the "training" put on by the state/LE is going to be comprised of anything realistic/quality. It's gunna be a complete joke, waist of time and money. But thanks for thinking that I voted for that bill that should solely be used to wipe my a$$.

 

[RVTECH]

The problem is too many generations have gotten away from firearm ownership and use and thus forgotten the awesome responsibility that goes with it.

AND there are too many new gun owners who became (an owner) out of fear and paranoia and have NO regard for the responsibility that goes with it.

Its as though some of them see the gun as an 'existential' device, or in a way as a 'talisman' - and seem to believe it has some sort of magical power, and all they need to do is carry it with them and it will provide their protection.

I meet and talk to some very 'strange' carriers of guns.........

 

[oldcorpgunny]

When I took my class, it included live fire at an indoor range along with knowing how to handle the pistol/revolver, load mag, insert mag or cartridges in revolver, shoot dominate and weak sides as well as point and shoot without hitting the head. There were a couple of them that you could tell were not very confident in some of the aspects but by the end of the class they were. I really didnt need the live fire part as I had been shooting for many of my younger years already.
The important aspect is continuing to practice or at least going shooting to engrain it so that under stress it isnt such an issue. Even supposedly trained police shoot innocent bystanders quite a bit. Myself, if someone else is already engaged with the threat and I can get outta dodge that's what I'm doing. I dont want them thinking/reacting like I am also a threat, same as when the police show up.

Your point is well taken. When you are a responding LEO, the adrenalin can really get in the way of your training.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

AND there are too many new gun owners who became (an owner) out of fear and paranoia and have NO regard for the responsibility that goes with it.

Its as though some of them see the gun as an 'existential' device, or in a way as a 'talisman' - and seem to believe it has some sort of magical power, and all they need to do is carry it with them and it will provide their protection.

I meet and talk to some very 'strange' carriers of guns.........

I too have met the same folks that you describe.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

Absolutely. I voted. Checked the good ol' NO on 114.

Never said people should be required to get training. With that said if you think everyone who has a CHL and carries a gun is competent/composed/level headed/and takes the responsibility seriously then we live in two different worlds.

I know many people who carry that make me extremely nervous with how the conduct themselves and handle firearms. They got the right to carry and I got the right to beat feet out of the room that they walk in. Cause they are liability that I want nothing to do with.

And on the 114 thing….. the measure is a$$ backwards and completely f-cked. I won't be stepping in line. And let's not pretend the "training" put on by the state/LE is going to be comprised of anything realistic/quality. It's gunna be a complete joke, waist of time and money. But thanks for thinking that I voted for that bill that should solely be used to wipe my a$$.

I think that it's really odd that the politicians don't grant waivers for prior military. I understand why they wouldn't for the Air Force folks, but not for the other branches.

 

[Member 53328]

I think that it's really odd that the politicians don't grant waivers for prior military. I understand why they wouldn't for the Air Force folks, but not for the other branches.

Yea….. To me it doesn't matter though. Even if my time in the USMC counted I will refuse to apply for a permit to purchase/own a firearm.

 

[solv3nt]

I think that it's really odd that the politicians don't grant waivers for prior military. I understand why they wouldn't for the Air Force folks, but not for the other branches.

It wasn't the politicians that wrote it...

 

[Cavedweller]

I think that it's really odd that the politicians don't grant waivers for prior military. I understand why they wouldn't for the Air Force folks, but not for the other branches.

Why is that? The Air Force has many personnel that are highly trained in the use of small arms. Probably most numerous are the Air Force Security Police. They receive infantry training and are responsible for ground defense of Air Force assets. The Air Force also has special force units that serve in a number of roles. Not to be forgotten are the combat search and rescue folks who have balls of steel.

United States Air Force Security Forces - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Air force ground forces and special forces - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Combat search and rescue - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[OldBroad44]

I think that it's really odd that the politicians don't grant waivers for prior military. I understand why they wouldn't for the Air Force folks, but not for the other branches.

Air Force requires gun training too. At least, I know my dad had to qualify annually with his sidearm. Which was a SW .38sp back in his day, WWII, Korea, and thereafter. Before Vietnam. AF liked revolvers because they were viewing them not as weapons to fight an enemy army but as gear for downed pilots and crew who might need to survive a crash in the bush/mountains/swamp/toolies. I don't know if they got training on or had to qualify with long guns. Anybody know about gun training of AF recruits these days?

 

[Nosferatu]

Why is that? The Air Force has many personnel that are highly trained in the use of small arms. Probably most numerous are the Air Force Security Police. They receive infantry training and are responsible for ground defense of Air Force assets. The Air Force also has special force units that serve in a number of roles. Not to be forgotten are the combat search and rescue folks who have balls of steel.

United States Air Force Security Forces - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Air force ground forces and special forces - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Combat search and rescue - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Air Force requires gun training too. At least, I know my dad had to qualify annually with his sidearm. Which was a SW .38sp back in his day, WWII, Korea, and thereafter. Before Vietnam. AF liked revolvers because they were viewing them not as weapons to fight an enemy army but as gear for downed pilots and crew who might need to survive a crash in the bush/mountains/swamp/toolies. I don't know if they got training on or had to qualify with long guns. Anybody know about gun training of AF recruits these days?

I think you both missed the tongue firmly planted in a cheek of a USMC Gunny, aimed at a "lesser" branch.

 

[titsonritz]

Air Force requires gun training too. At least, I know my dad had to qualify annually with his sidearm. Which was a SW .38sp back in his day, WWII, Korea, and thereafter. Before Vietnam. AF liked revolvers because they were viewing them not as weapons to fight an enemy army but as gear for downed pilots and crew who might need to survive a crash in the bush/mountains/swamp/toolies. I don't know if they got training on or had to qualify with long guns. Anybody know about gun training of AF recruits these days?

Here is today's version.

https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...akedown-survival-rifle-enters-service.299851/

 

[Cavedweller]

I think you both missed the tongue firmly planted in a cheek of a USMC Gunny, aimed at a "lesser" branch.

Oh. OK. I get it now. Didn't know marines had a sense of humor.

 

[Nosferatu]

Oh. OK. I get it now. Didn't know marines had a sense of humor.

Some got issued one as an experiment.

 

[Koda]

Dont most untrained good guys at the very least go to a static range and at least shoot a paper target at least once before carrying?

 

[Cavedweller]

Some got issued one as an experiment.

Did it work?

 

[RVTECH]

I'll give the Gunny a break for his date of service and possibly lack of knowledge however I was an 81152 (Law Enforcement) in the Air Force and trained on a large variety of weapons as well, and guess who I trained with ? The USMC!

In Italy training with the Carabinieri.

 

[Member 53328]

I'll give the Gunny a break for his date of service and possibly lack of knowledge however I was an 81152 (Law Enforcement) in the Air Force and trained on a large variety of weapons as well, and guess who I trained with ? The USMC!

You mean the USMC trained you………. Hahaha.

 

[Member 53328]

I'll give the Gunny a break for his date of service and possibly lack of knowledge however I was an 81152 (Law Enforcement) in the Air Force and trained on a large variety of weapons as well, and guess who I trained with ? The USMC!

In Italy training with the Carabinieri.

View attachment 1320905
Off duty training as well! View attachment 1320907

Dude on the left has quality trigger control.

 

[CLT65]

I was talking to an acquaintance today about this very thing. Being from Washington, he wasn't aware of the specifics of our new abomination of a law.

He shoots and carries, and stocked up on magazines before the Washington law went into effect, so I made an assumption about his perspective on such things. He surprised me by saying that he fully supports 114, because it requires safety training before you can buy a gun.

I replied that while I'm a HUGE proponent of safety training, I'm just not comfortable with it being a legal mandate before exercising a fundamental right. Aside from that, how effective is mandated training anyhow? Well, we've all had mandated training and passed a mandatory test before getting a license to drive, and everyone on the road is safe and sane, right? There's the answer- the roads are FULL of idiots who don't know how to drive!

The only effective answer I can come up with is a cultural shift, continuing to promote and instill a serious safety culture in the "gun world". I believe that we've come a long way with that safety culture in recent decades, but millions of gun owners are not part of the "gun culture", so what's to be done? I don't have any kind of "cure-all" answer, and I doubt that one exists.