Improving the NRA BASIC courses, what could be done?

[David Rose]

The question has been asked, and there seems to be almost unanimous agreement that improvement is necessary, so what could be done?

I'll start with the program structure.

I would start with a universal program like NRA FIRST steps as the new basic. It would not be a prerequisite but an option for those worried about getting into firearms. Then if you want to keep Basic pistol, strip the shooting requirement out and call it general fire information or call it "Survey Course on Firearms 101" and tie some continuing education credits from an accredited university to it. Again it would not be a prerequisite to other classes. Now you've covered those not specially interested in using firearms for a purpose. From here the courses are purpose driven (defense, competion, ....).

Your ideas are welcome.

 

[the1kidd03]

The question has been asked, and there seems to be almost unanimous agreement that improvement is necessary, so what could be done?

I'll start with the program structure.

I would start with a universal program like NRA FIRST steps as the new basic. It would not be a prerequisite but an option for those worried about getting into firearms. Then if you want to keep Basic pistol, strip the shooting requirement out and call it general fire information or call it "Survey Course on Firearms 101" and tie some continuing education credits from an accredited university to it. Again it would not be a prerequisite to other classes. Now you've covered those not specially interested in using firearms for a purpose. From here the courses are purpose driven (defense, competion, ....).

Your ideas are welcome.

There are a variety of ways the program can be improved. But it's important to remember the provider's overall objective because that is the principle behind all professional curriculum design. Their intent is to get the concept of basic safety and safe handling out to as many as possible, as easily as possible without restriction to reduce accidents and benefit the public image.

With that in mind, I see no way to improve their design in that respect. One must take into account the education level of someone who will take the course, cost factors, etc. A lot goes into professional design that people don't realize.

That being said, I don't know how to go about helping or talking to the NRA about improvement. While I've been a member to them and an instructor/RSO, I don't get involved with their meetings, politics, etc. to know such details because it would take too much time than I can spare for about another year or so.

I'm curious as to your "motives" (for lack of better term) behind thinking about this? Why/where do you feel improvements need to be made specifically? Perhaps, due to a lot of people being "on the fence" about firearms ownership and this class isn't really meant for such people?

 

[rvb]

One of the good things about the basic pistol course as-is, is at least FL accepts it for their training requirements for their carry permits. I suspect this is because it the comprehensiveness of the information and includes the actual shooting portion. I wager this is a reason many people take the course. Stripping the shooting portion would probably make it unacceptable for that purpose.

I would like some flexibility. I usually only teach 1-2 at a time (biggest group was 4). If they aren't interested in a portion of the class, eg revo's, then I can see the boredom and I'm sure their attention is lost enough I might as well skip the section. In those cases, I agree it would be nice to be able to focus on their equipment, get to the how to shoot portions, and get on the range...

I can see rigidly holding the ciriculum if you're doing decent sized classes.

-rvb

 

[ol' Huff]

If you want to talk about NRA training issues the guy to talk to is Joe DeBergalis. He is the board member in charge of training for the NRA and a really nice guy. He is really energetic and returns phone calls and emails. I am sure he is a bit swamped right now but he isn't impossible to get on the phone and a hoot to talk to. Decent joke teller, too.

 

[the1kidd03]

If you want to talk about NRA training issues the guy to talk to is Joe DeBergalis. He is the board member in charge of training for the NRA and a really nice guy. He is really energetic and returns phone calls and emails. I am sure he is a bit swamped right now but he isn't impossible to get on the phone and a hoot to talk to. Decent joke teller, too.

Thanks for the info

 

[David Rose]

Kid,
Let's go further back to purpose. If the purpose is to serve your own ends so be it. If your purpose is to surve the student then you need to fill thier needs and wants.

As far as what needs improving, this is a spin off from a post about becoming an NRA instructor, if you want the back story go there. Also, have you taken the NRA courses and those offers by other schools for relevant comparison?

My motive? To improve a program.


RVB,
you seem to accept the status of NRA Basic pistol as defacto National CCW standard as a good thing I do not. As far as comprehensive, can you say that even most of the course is directly related to self defense with a straight face? To the point about shooting, I said stip the requirement not ban shooting, you can do it if you want or to serve some other purpose it just wouldn't be required to have the class. It is far more an info course than a shooting course anyway. It is not a specialized course and shouldn't be treated as such.

 

[rvb]

RVB,
you seem to accept the status of NRA Basic pistol as defacto National CCW standard as a good thing I do not. As far as comprehensive, can you say that even most of the course is directly related to self defense with a straight face? To the point about shooting, I said stip the requirement not ban shooting, you can do it if you want or to serve some other purpose it just wouldn't be required to have the class. It is far more an info course than a shooting course anyway. It is not a specialized course and shouldn't be treated as such.

Notice I didn't say I believe the material acceptable for those purposes (CCW/defensive training), but that it is what is currently accepted by some states for licensing purposes. Not the same thing.

Many better training opportunities are not accepted for licensing purposes.

My post was merely to point out that there is better, and there is bureaucracy. Removing the requirement for range time may make it ineligible for those licensing purposes.

Frankly, for that purpose, I think of it as "check-the-box" training allowing the applications to be processed.

By comprehensive, I meant it may talk about a bunch of stuff a student may not care about (eg loading a single action revolver, or the construction of a cartridge). I meant it from what a legislature or AG would consider comprehensive......

I don't think the basic pistol, for instance, is intended to be a self-defense course. But w/ the range time it meets the bureaucratic requirements for ccw applications.

-rvb

 

[the1kidd03]

Kid,
Let's go further back to purpose. If the purpose is to serve your own ends so be it. If your purpose is to surve the student then you need to fill thier needs and wants.

That is what I was intending to spell out. Their purpose is support and defend gun rights across America. They saw that there needed to be available training to get citizens on "the same page" as far as an acceptable BASIC level of knowledge so that they do not contribute to accidents which the "anti" crowd can use against them. Hence, they developed such a course.

It seems as though you feel there are a lot of gaps in their designed curriculum. To which I would agree at face value, but this course was obviously designed to full fill the need I described previously. They must assume NO prior knowledge. They must also assume those seeking training have already made the decision to own a gun. Hence, their BASICs program design. An acceptable MINIMUM level of knowledge for all gun owners to recognize from a once a year recreational shooter, to your thousands of rounds a week widely publicized competition shooters.

As far as what needs improving, this is a spin off from a post about becoming an NRA instructor, if you want the back story go there. Also, have you taken the NRA courses and those offers by other schools for relevant comparison?

Yes, in KY,TN, and CA. Each instructor sort of "edits" where they see fit. Whether or not that is what the NRA intended, is aware of, and/or agrees with...is another thing. Typically, in professional development they want the designed program to be adhered to for very specific reasons although they may not enforce it. In this context the NRA wouldn't, or at least doesn't, have a way to ensure that across the whole country.

This leaves a void though. A void where other instructors such as ACT, Tactical Response, Fortress Defense, TDI, etc., etc. can develop their own curriculum and methods of teaching which the NRA doesn't cover. Since their goal is the overall effects of gun owners and how they conduct themselves, their curriculum is pretty well off for that. Leaving catering to the needs of the individual to other professionals such as these.

My reason for questioning was more of clarification of what you were seeking. Considering its intended purpose, I don't feel there is a warranted need to improve THAT program rather than build on top of it since instructors can emphasize what they want/where it's needed.Their attempt to build onto that program has been coming around recently with the development of the "Advanced Pistol Instructor" program.

 

[VERT]

Tagged for interest. Will be back later.

 

[jdhaines]

I can't say I've ever taken a Basic course from the NRA so I'll leave this one for reading only except for one comment.

The curricula that I've read through, been taught, and am certified to teach are all much more set-up for protection against lawsuits than actually helping students. We're not allowed to say weapon...we have to say "firearm." You can't have blue guns in class. You can't say "shoot the person" when discussing a break-in, you have to say "defend yourself until the threat is over." No targets depicting anything humanoid in nature, etc.

I think a basic class is a great time to get people's minds around the idea that a gun is a tool, but it is also a weapon. If you intend to use it for defensive purposes that may involve shooting another person. This is a good time to make that clear, answer questions, and anyone who can't handle these things should stop and be caught at this point in the process. The way the NRA *****foots around the core issue with childish antics is both dishonest and harmful in my view.

 

[Coach]

I think the improvement would be to make it a shooting class. It should teach safety but also how to shoot the gun and to hit what you are aiming at. I think it is too long of a class and tries to cover many topics that many people don't want. Many people sign up wanting to learn how to shoot, and I don't think you can do that with so few rounds fired. I know you cannot learn to shoot better in the classroom or reading a book or watching a video.

 

[rhino]

I think the basic pistol class should focus more narrowly on the following:

1. Safety
2. Operating the pistol
3. Marksmanship
4. Time on the range doing 1-3.

I think some of the material in the basic course such as gun cleaning (which they can learn from some combination of their owner's manual and books/videos) and discussing obscure things like "hang fires" would be better left to the student's own time unless someone specifically requests to be shown how to clean their gun.

I mention hang fires specifically because the NRA instruction wait (and wait . . .) when a round does not fire could (and does) condition people to do something other than some kind of immediate action drill. Sure, that's fine for people who are going to limit their experience exlusively to casual target shooting. For people who are or may be interested in self-defense or action competition, it's a disservice to them to train them to wait for a hang fire (which probably isn't a hang fire in a modern gun with modern ammunition) when they will have to completely change their paradigm later for handling a "click" when they expect a "boom."

 

[VERT]

As an introductory or familarization course Basic Pistol is actually pretty good. Again it is not a CCW or self defense course. It is a familarization, safety and introductory shooting course. Part of learning to shoot is actually going out and doing some shooting.

For the record I think NRA did a good job with the course development. This is a course designed to be presented to adults as well as youth.

Some things I would change:

1) I would update talking about the types of pistols. Currently there is seperate discussion about single action revolvers, double action revolvers, and semi automaic pistols. We could cut that down a bit.

2) The power point has good slides, but the presentation is long and does not flow well. I considered it to be unuseable in its current form. If a person takes the time to get it laid out it is a good tool.

3) Take too much time sitting on the bench during the live fire. Show proper technique, do a little dry fire and go shoot. Shooting is fun. Make it fun.

Basic Personal Protection is a whole different animal. The parts are there, just a matter of putting it all together. My main suggestions would be that there is too much overlap in the PPITH and PPOTH curriculums. This could easily be put together into one course instead of two.

 

[VERT]

I think some of the material in the basic course such as gun cleaning (which they can learn from some combination of their owner's manual and books/videos) and discussing obscure things like "hang fires" would be better left to the student's own time unless someone specifically requests to be shown how to clean their gun.

I agree with you Rhino. I have fired tens of thousands of rounds in my life. Only hangfire I have ever witnessed is while shooting black powder.

The cleaning section intersting. I cover it but don't spend an hour on it. Every gun is different and best to always read the owners manual. But I have had people tell me that they wanted to arn more about cleaning. When we talk further I find out what they really want is for us to recommend cleaning products. It is all about consumers. Too many choices and a lot of confusion. This is one section I will clean up and organize better going forward.

Another very slight change we make is in the ammuniton and pistol sections. Everybody that attends is interested in using firearms in a practical manner. So might as well talk about buying a defensive firearm and choosing proper defense ammo.

 

[rhino]

Oh, I also think the almost phobic treatment of the word "weapon" is silly.

 

[ol' Huff]

I talk with a lot of different people about curriculum development in terms of firearms instruction at a couple different levels. When my opinion was asked on what needed to change about NRA courses I didn't think the initial changes had anything to do with the curriculum.

First, there is a need for a proof of competency. According to my paperwork, which is from 2010, the phrase is "solid background in firearm safety and shooting skills acquired through previous firearm training and/or previous shooting experience" which can amount to about anything. When I suggested that a test be inserted that is a little more stringent to enforce some sort of competency and weed out some lackluster folks it was acknowledged that there was some "unfortunates" in that area but that inserting a test of competency to meet the standards I was suggesting would weed out about 85% of the current corps.

My next suggestion was to stop asking current firearms instructors about methodology and ask actual classroom teachers. There are hundreds of universities conducting education training programs for professional teachers and some of them are really good. Frankly, there are a lot more people in that business than our business and it doesn't hurt to compare notes.

Then, a single class does not an instructor make. That means almost no experience in the field and almost no mentored observation. When I teach somebody how to tie their shoes I tie them first, then they tie them while I explain how, then they tie them without me saying anything, and that just putting strings on feet, gunplay doesn't even come into it.

There are a lot of things that could improve NRA courses, and they know it, but what others have said about the NRA trying to be an organization that draws newbs in with as little risk to themselves as possible is pretty close to truth.

 

[VERT]

I would like some flexibility. I usually only teach 1-2 at a time (biggest group was 4). If they aren't interested in a portion of the class, eg revo's, then I can see the boredom and I'm sure their attention is lost enough I might as well skip the section. In those cases, I agree it would be nice to be able to focus on their equipment, get to the how to shoot portions, and get on the range...

I can see rigidly holding the ciriculum if you're doing decent sized classes.

-rvb

This can be addressed with the FIRST program. 3 hours long, uses the students own gun. Small groups of 1-4 only. After the course is complete the instructor can take some additional time to do additional shooting exercises.

In our NRA Basic class the students shoot our guns. We only use .22s. Then after class they can shoot their guns.

Kid,

RVB,
you seem to accept the status of NRA Basic pistol as defacto National CCW standard as a good thing I do not. As far as comprehensive, can you say that even most of the course is directly related to self defense with a straight face? To the point about shooting, I said stip the requirement not ban shooting, you can do it if you want or to serve some other purpose it just wouldn't be required to have the class. It is far more an info course than a shooting course anyway. It is not a specialized course and shouldn't be treated as such.

You are correct NRA Basic Pistol is not a specialized course and I don't think the NRA treats it as such. It is a not a CCW course. It is a good safety course and it is standardized. It is not comprehensive it is introductory.

I don't think the basic pistol, for instance, is intended to be a self-defense course. But w/ the range time it meets the bureaucratic requirements for ccw applications.

Prey much sums it up and why some people take Basic Pistol. Ieven go so far as to pass out the FL CWL applications. I e-mailed the state and they sent me a case of them.

I can't say I've ever taken a Basic course from the NRA so I'll leave this one for reading only except for one comment.

The curricula that I've read through, been taught, and am certified to teach are all much more set-up for protection against lawsuits than actually helping students. We're not allowed to say weapon...we have to say "firearm." You can't have blue guns in class. You can't say "shoot the person" when discussing a break-in, you have to say "defend yourself until the threat is over." No targets depicting anything humanoid in nature, etc.

I think a basic class is a great time to get people's minds around the idea that a gun is a tool, but it is also a weapon. If you intend to use it for defensive purposes that may involve shooting another person. This is a good time to make that clear, answer questions, and anyone who can't handle these things should stop and be caught at thisnt in the process. The way the NRA *****foots around the core issue with childish antics is both dishonest and harmful in my view.

If you are certified to teach it, how is it possible that you have not taken an NRA course?

Yes the use of the term "Weapon" and use of humanoid targets are not allowed. We tell students this at the beginning of class, everybody agrees and we refer to it as being politically correct. In PPITH we talk about stopping the threat but there is discussion that includes shooting people. There is no way around having that discussion. As far as Blue Guns, the NRA sells these right along with the other insructional material. I don't currently own one as I just point my finger. Opps!!!!!

 

[jdhaines]

If you are certified to teach it, how is it possible that you have not taken an NRA course?

I meant that I haven't actually sat through the basic class prior to taking the instructor's course. I know the material as that was part of the 3 day instructor's course.

 

[David Rose]

I think the basic pistol class should focus more narrowly on the following:

1. Safety
2. Operating the pistol
3. Marksmanship
4. Time on the range doing 1-3.

I think some of the material in the basic course such as gun cleaning (which they can learn from some combination of their owner's manual and books/videos) and discussing obscure things like "hang fires" would be better left to the student's own time unless someone specifically requests to be shown how to clean their gun.

I mention hang fires specifically because the NRA instruction wait (and wait . . .) when a round does not fire could (and does) condition people to do something other than some kind of immediate action drill. Sure, that's fine for people who are going to limit their experience exlusively to casual target shooting. For people who are or may be interested in self-defense or action competition, it's a disservice to them to train them to wait for a hang fire (which probably isn't a hang fire in a modern gun with modern ammunition) when they will have to completely change their paradigm later for handling a "click" when they expect a "boom."

If there is going to be an all purpose intro course this sound like a good start. And, the hang fire, mis fire, squib load thing has always bothered me. When people talk about Basic pistol being a foundation for future courses this the perfect example of that not being true. The personal protection in the home course gives different instructions than the basic course for the correct response to a mis fire. Base level info shouldn't need to be pitched when you learn more, if it does it's not base level info.

 

[David Rose]

Some things I would change:

1) I would update talking about the types of pistols. Currently there is seperate discussion about single action revolvers, double action revolvers, and semi automaic pistols. We could cut that down a bit.

2) The power point has good slides, but the presentation is long and does not flow well. I considered it to be unuseable in its current form. If a person takes the time to get it laid out it is a good tool.

3) Take too much time sitting on the bench during the live fire. Show proper technique, do a little dry fire and go shoot. Shooting is fun. Make it fun.

Basic Personal Protection is a whole different animal. The parts are there, just a matter of putting it all together. My main suggestions would be that there is too much overlap in the PPITH and PPOTH curriculums. This could easily be put together into one course instead of two.

All excellent suggestions.