Police Recruitment Ad Says You Don’t Need to Be an Expert Shooter to Wear the Badge—and It’s Fueling Gun Rights Debate

A police recruitment advertisement saying applicants do not need to be expert marksmen to earn a badge has drawn criticism from gun rights activist Colion Noir, who argues that the message undercuts one of the most common arguments used in favor of restricting civilian gun ownership.

In the advertisement featured in Noir’s video, a police representative explained that recruits must meet a firearms qualification standard, but described it as something well below elite-level shooting and said academy and department instructors would help struggling applicants improve enough to pass.

“You by no means have to have the perfect shooting score,” the representative said. “As long as you’re able to shoot and qualify with your firearm, you’re fine.”

Noir interpreted the exchange as evidence that a badge does not automatically make someone more skilled or responsible with a firearm than an ordinary citizen, particularly when many private gun owners train regularly and take additional classes at their own expense.

The advertisement did not say officers receive no training or that unqualified recruits are simply handed firearms, but its reassuring tone has renewed a larger debate over whether police status should be treated as proof of superior firearms competence.

Recruitment Ad Emphasized Trainability Over Expertise

The police representative was asked whether someone must be an expert marksman before earning a badge and answered that the claim was false.

The department, according to the speaker, looked at the applicant as a whole and gave everyone an equal opportunity through the hiring process, while firearms instructors worked with recruits who needed additional help.

The representative acknowledged that officers were required to meet a standard, but said it was “by no means” an elite marksmanship test and assured potential applicants that instructors would “get you right” if they initially struggled.

That is not necessarily unusual for a recruitment message, since police academies exist partly to teach candidates skills they may not possess when they apply. Departments do not generally expect recruits to arrive already trained in every part of the job, from report writing and defensive tactics to emergency driving and firearm use.

Still, the wording matters because armed police officers may eventually be required to make rapid shooting decisions in crowded, confusing, and dangerous situations, where meeting a minimum qualification is not the same as performing well under pressure.

A department can reasonably tell applicants that they will receive training, but it should also avoid making a life-or-death responsibility sound like a minor hurdle that instructors will simply help them clear.

Noir Said the Ad Weakens a Familiar Gun-Control Argument

Noir said supporters of stricter gun laws frequently tell civilians that firearms should be left to trained professionals, usually meaning police officers or others with official credentials.

He argued that this position depends on an assumption that officers are automatically better trained and more capable with guns than the general public, yet the recruitment ad openly described the department’s shooting requirement as something short of an expert standard.

“The entire anti-gun playbook rests on one idea,” Noir said. “Cops are the experts.”

From his perspective, the advertisement exposed the weakness in treating a uniform or badge as the deciding factor in whether someone can safely carry a firearm.

Noir’s interpretation was more aggressive than the ad itself justified, particularly when he suggested the department would pass recruits almost regardless of their ability. The representative clearly said applicants still had to qualify, even if instructors would work with them until they met the required standard.

However, Noir’s broader point remains worth considering: official status and technical skill are not the same thing, and a person does not become highly capable with a firearm simply because one is issued as part of the job.

Some Civilian Owners May Train More Frequently

Noir said police officers had privately told him that many serious civilian gun owners trained far more often than they did.

He described regular shooters who spend evenings at the range, take private classes, learn the details of their equipment, and fire more rounds in a month than some officers might fire in an entire year.

As an example, Noir recalled a friend asking an officer what handgun he carried. According to the story, the officer answered only that it was “a nine,” meaning a 9 mm, and appeared unable or unwilling to identify the make and model.

Noir contrasted that with experienced gun owners who can often identify common pistols by their shape, grip, or controls from across a room.

The anecdote cannot establish how knowledgeable officers are as a group, and the video provided no department-wide training records or qualification schedules. Some officers may be highly skilled, while others may meet only the minimum requirements necessary for their assignment.

That variation is probably the most accurate way to understand the issue.

Police officers are not a single class of equally trained shooters, just as civilian firearm owners range from careless beginners to experienced competitors and instructors. The badge identifies legal authority and employment, not a guaranteed level of mastery.

Noir Said Many Officers Pay for Their Own Training

Noir made clear that he was not attacking police officers generally and said some of the best shooters he knew worked in law enforcement.

He described attending classes alongside officers who paid for advanced firearms instruction themselves because their departments would not cover the cost, and he credited an officer with teaching him how to shoot.

That acknowledgement placed responsibility partly on agencies rather than individual officers.

Departments face limited budgets, staffing shortages, scheduling problems, and many competing training demands, which can leave firearms practice focused on periodic qualification instead of continuing development.

Passing a course of fire proves that an officer met a defined standard on that particular day. It does not necessarily measure judgment, movement, decision-making, low-light performance, or the ability to shoot accurately while frightened and physically exhausted.

The same limitation applies to civilian permit tests and basic safety courses.

Qualification should be seen as a starting point rather than a final measure of competence, especially for anyone who carries a firearm regularly.

The Debate Is Really About Standards, Not Badges

Noir argued that gun-control advocates often use the term “trained professional” as though it settles the question of who should be trusted with a weapon.

In reality, training varies widely among police departments, military units, security personnel, permit holders, competitors, hunters, and ordinary owners.

A poorly trained civilian does not become responsible merely by invoking the Second Amendment, and an officer who barely passes qualification does not become an expert merely by putting on a uniform.

The most useful lesson from the recruitment ad is not that police officers are unskilled or that standards are meaningless. It is that competence comes from repeated practice, serious instruction, sound judgment, and familiarity with the firearm being carried.

Noir said many gun owners understand this because they know that police will not already be present when an emergency begins.

“When it’s your door at 3 a.m., there is no responding officer yet,” he said. “There’s you.”

That argument reflects the basic self-defense position behind much of Noir’s work: individuals are responsible for surviving the first moments of a threat before help arrives.

Even people who support stricter gun laws may agree that police response is not immediate, though they may disagree sharply about whether broader firearm access improves or worsens public safety.

Training Should Be Taken Seriously by Everyone

Noir concluded that the badge was never what made a person safe with a gun; training, practice, and mindset were the qualities that mattered.

That conclusion is difficult to dismiss, even if some of his criticism overstated what the recruitment representative actually said.

Police departments need applicants, and it is reasonable to tell people that they can learn necessary skills during the academy. At the same time, agencies should be careful not to present basic qualification as enough for a responsibility that may involve firing in public while protecting innocent people.

Civilian gun owners should apply the same standard to themselves.

Owning a firearm or receiving a carry permit does not create skill, and constitutional rights do not remove the obligation to handle weapons safely, understand the law, and train for realistic situations.

The recruitment advertisement has attracted attention because it made the gap between qualification and expertise unusually clear.

Applicants do not need to arrive as expert shooters, and many officers may never become expert shooters after joining. What matters is whether departments and individuals continue building ability after the minimum standard has been met.

Noir used the ad to challenge the idea that civilians should surrender responsibility for their own safety to people assumed to be more capable simply because they wear a badge.

The stronger conclusion is somewhat broader: anyone trusted with a firearm, whether an officer or a private citizen, should treat minimum qualification as the beginning of training rather than proof that no more training is needed.