What do YOU think is "good enough" pistol skills for an armed citizen ?

[Shawn.L]

So a standard higher than police are required to meet?

Shawn, can you please clarify "good enough" for what? To not be criticized if force is employed, etc? My answer depends on the "what for" part of the question, and I'm unclear on that.

At what skill level (and how you personally determine that) do you feel someone who carries a gun in there regular everyday life has a "good enough" ability with that gun to be able to use it.

I feel like Im just restating my OP. Sorry if that not clear enough. If you personally feel that standard is affected by other considerations such as legal ones then please discuss those.

I expect most people will have not only a different standard, but also a different metric for determining if its met, and different motivations. Which half the intent of the thread, to not only hear what people feel is "good enough" but also to discuss the why they feel that way.

[Glock9mm]

I shoot paper, a lot. I can draw safely, fire safely and hit what I am aiming at. Thats the only standard I think I need.

No need going into a whole lot of training that will show some liberal jury that you prepare to kill, and do it often. I myself am aspiring to be on a world class shooting team someday, when I get my confidence up, because I would never want to draw my gun on a person.....ever.

[cakeshooter]

I feel every person has a level of training they are comfortable with, and as long as they act within their level of training i see no reason for anyone to question that.

A lady has almost zero traning but knows how to handle her gun safely and shoot a target at 5 yards. If someone attacks her and she shoots them at point blank range and keeps from getting raped, she acted within her level of training and all is well.

Now the same lady is in the bank when it is robbed. The suspect is holding a bank employee hostage and she shoots at the suspect from 10 yards within the bank and hits the bank employee. She has now acted outside her level of training and bad things happen.

So i guess this is where i stand.

A. You need to be able to handle your firearm Safely.
B. You need to know your what your abilitys are with your firearm.
C. You need to always act within your ability.

If you can do those 3 things, you're good to go in my book. I am sure others will disagree, but its a free nation.

My favorite answer ^^^^^^

I think the most important things are gun safety and familiarity with the weapon(s) you are going to carry, including range time. Obviously a person should be able to hit a target reasonably well. (Meaning, if they are constantly shooting wild crazy shots, that's not cool.)

I love the answer above because its so true... I'm not a gun pro, but I've worked with my weapons at the range and I know my firearm safety, and I carry. So...if I'm about to get attacked, I'm going to be able to reasonably defend myself unless its just a super bad situation. However, I'm not going to be playing heroics at the bank heist, because I'm not trained or ready for that.

I want to keep improving my shot and I need more practice in drawing from a holster and shooting (esp once I find a holster I actually like) but I don't really think I should leave my gun at home just because I can't draw and shoot John Wayne style. I just have to make sure I do not overestimate my abilities and draw when I should not draw.

[ErSwnn]

In the end "good enough" means a citizen not prohibited due to the clauses the use of the right denies. I was once of the mind one should "qualify" to be permitted to carry a firearm. But others have convinced me that the 2A doesn't require any qualification other than citizenship. That's good enough for me.

[synergy]

It sounds like a whole lot of people don't have a quantifiable "good enough"... more like faith in some ability they can't/won't define.

"Good enough to survive" "good enough to not need it" etc. is just a non-answer that avoids objectively analyzing ones own abilities, and cross referencing those abilities against some high probability real world situations.

Until one has a reasonably accurate understanding of where they're at, and where they think they need to be to be "good enough"... it's like being lost in the woods and not knowing where you are, or where you want to go.

[Glock9mm]

I don't think anyone one knows good enough, until it is proven that it wasn't good enough.

I don't think you can ever have enough training, in anything deemed dangerous. But "good enough" is really simply living through it.

[arjohnson]

It sounds like a whole lot of people don't have a quantifiable "good enough"... more like faith in some ability they can't/won't define.

"Good enough to survive" "good enough to not need it" etc. is just a non-answer that avoids objectively analyzing ones own abilities, and cross referencing those abilities against some high probability real world situations.

Until one has a reasonably accurate understanding of where they're at, and where they think they need to be to be "good enough"... it's like being lost in the woods and not knowing where you are, or where you want to go.

We won't know what good enough is until we need to be good enough. How can anyone measure what's good enough? you can run drills, practice drawing as much as you want, until that time comes you don't know. Hopefully none of us ever have to find out what good enough really is.

[cakeshooter]

We won't know what good enough is until we need to be good enough. How can anyone measure what's good enough? you can run drills, practice drawing as much as you want, until that time comes you don't know. Hopefully none of us ever have to find out what good enough really is.

Agreed.....

I don't really know if my hitting a 2" grouping at 10 yards at an indoor range in complete safety is going to save my life or not until the situation occurs.

Which hopefully, it won't. Occur, that is.....

To me, safety is the main thing. If you are confident enough with your gun safety that you are 100% sure you will never accidentally shoot someone, then that's the main thing. After that, its all personal preference and 2A.

[TonyF]

We won't know what good enough is until we need to be good enough. How can anyone measure what's good enough? you can run drills, practice drawing as much as you want, until that time comes you don't know. Hopefully none of us ever have to find out what good enough really is.

I respectfully disagree.

I truly believe that "good enough" is at the very least, "somewhat" quantifiable.

It's contained within some of the standards that I and a few others have already posted. By achieving these "standards", one is well on their way, or perhaps even "at", a level of "unconscious competence" with respect to gun handling and marksmanship.

This all has to be taken in the context of gunfighting, of which marksmanship is the least significant variable.

My only contribution to the "iso vs. weaver" thread is Post 268 which I have excerpted here.

The Combat Triad
1. Mindset
2. Gun Handling
3. Marksmanship

In that order.

Note that Marksmanship is last on the list. And for a reason. The reason is that a lethal threat encounter (civilian, .mil or LE) almost never presents a difficult "shooting problem" per se.

But if one can attain a level of skill using some of the standards posted in this thread as a baseline, then the marksmanship aspect of the Triad for all practical purposes will be satisfied.

In the April issue of SWAT magazine, an author has added "tactics" as sort of an adjunct to the Combat Triad. I would argue that tactics is a sub-set of Mindset. And although superior tactics can indeed overcome superior marksmanship, no matter how "easy" or "difficult" the shooting problem is in a lethal threat encounter, you still don't want to leave your shooting ability to chance which is why IMO, achieving some accepted form of a marksmanship standard is important to surviving a gunfight.

P.S. All the references to safety mentioned throughout this thread are in actuality a sub-set of gun handling.

[RXM]

"Enough" training to me would be that the armed citizen should be at a better advantage than the threat; otherwise, the citizen did not prepare enough. Since we never know who, what, how many, and how skilled our threats will be, we should constantly be striving to become better shooters. There are no second chances when you're in a gun fight so you better be prepared.