More Thoughts on Dick Metcalf's Anti-2nd Amendment Op-Ed

As I've discussed before, Dick Metcalf (the former technical editor of Guns & Ammo) was fired earlier this month for an op-ed that was published in the December edition (the magazines are actually mailed out a month or so before the cover date). Since I get my copies second-hand, after my father-in-law reads them, I only just looked through Metcalf's editorial that got him fired--I've read excerpts on-line, but this was my first opportunity to read the whole thing.

It was actually worse than what I had expected. I won't rehash his misinterpretation and misapplication of the phrase "well-regulated" since it has been discussed at length by other writers. What I find appalling, and what I haven't seen discussed elsewhere, was the elitist attitude Metcalf expressed in the concept that a person "needed" training to use a firearm safely, and should be "required" to undertake training. Metcalf suggested that it would not be unreasonable to require 16 hours (i.e., two full days) of training to get a firearm permit!

Metcalf, like many other professionals, assumes the training by certified experts is required in order to safely and effectively use a firearm. There are many problems with this issue, but here are some major ones:

(1)  Certification. Who is to decide whether someone is qualified to teach firearms training, what minimum level of skills and ability, etc., are required to obtain certification? Ultimately, the government will make that decision. Who will keep track of who has passed such certification? The government. So, any certification program becomes a de facto method of gun control and registration.

(2) Necessity for training. Let's be honest here--it does not take significant training or practice to be proficient with a firearm. In the book Marine Sniper, a biography of Carlos Hathcock, one of the stories is how with just 5 or 10 minutes instruction, the snipers were able to train a single soldier to shoot accurately enough to strike a target more than an entire company could with just the standard Army training. My own experience is that it only takes a few minutes instruction to teach an adult the basics of how to use a firearm. I would note that firearms have been used for hundreds of years without any formal training requirements or licensure. They are relatively simple mechanisms to use. (Compare this with automobiles, which have been licensed almost since their inception, and require significant training and practice both to operate the vehicle and to learn the basic laws surrounding their use). Just like any sport, to truly excel requires training and practice. But the basics are so simple, a child can learn them.

(3) Training by experts. Tied to point no. 2 is that professional training is superior to informal training and practice. If this were the case, we would not see the constant stream of mistakes and mishaps from members of our military and police. Whether justified or not, the general impression I have from the gun blogs and forums, as well as my own observations, is that police are actually some of the least safe when it comes to handling a firearm. Certainly, I've never seen any evidence, anecdotal or from studies, showing that training by "experts" was better than informal training. While such training may be useful, or even desirable, does not make it necessary.

(4) Costs. Any requirement for formal training and certification will, of course, cost money which will come from the pocket of those seeking the training. There is an obvious conflict of interest with the firearms training industry, who push for such training and would benefit financially from it. But a deeper issue is that, all other considerations aside, this type of training requirement would act as a de facto restriction on people with lower incomes obtaining and using firearms for self-defense.