Why Are Gun Control Groups Now Running Firearms Training Classes?

Everytown for Gun Safety – the national group best known for lobbying tighter gun laws – has launched an online firearms training program called Train SMART. As Nick Penzenstadler reports in USA Today, the move caught both gun-control activists and gun-rights advocates off guard. The idea is to focus on “responsibility and safety,” with courses delivered on-demand or via Zoom and priced roughly $20 to $100. That’s a stark shift for an organization whose public identity centers on restricting access to firearms, not teaching people how to use them.

What Train SMART Actually Teaches

Penzenstadler explains that Train SMART was designed by a cadre of military veterans led by Chris Marvin, a former Black Hawk pilot. Marvin describes the approach as closer to “what a grandfather teaches a grandson” than a back-room sales pitch at a gun shop. The curriculum leans heavily on safe storage, de-escalation, and what the military would call a “continuum of force.” It also tackles thorny questions many new buyers ask: Will owning a gun make my home safer? Should I keep a loaded pistol on the nightstand? Marvin’s answers are deliberately sober – pointing to data that risk of injury rises with household gun ownership and urging quick-access storage, not unlocked, bedside firearms.

Why Now? Harm Reduction Meets Headwinds in DC

Timing matters. As USA Today notes, gun sales just cooled after a six-year surge – 87 million background checks from August 2019 to July 2025 and an estimated 26 million first-time buyers over that span. Meanwhile, federal gun legislation remains gridlocked. In that context, Train SMART looks like a harm-reduction strategy: if tens of millions of Americans are going to own guns regardless, teach them to store and handle them responsibly. Everytown also says it intends to add in-person range sessions next year, signaling this isn’t just a one-off webinar experiment.

Internal Revolt From Within the Movement

The backlash from Everytown’s own ranks has been visceral. Penzenstadler quotes Sandy Phillips – whose daughter was murdered in the Aurora theater shooting – calling the program “hurtful and insulting to survivors,” arguing you can’t campaign to keep guns out of homes while teaching gun use at the same time. Deborah Parker, another survivor leader, resigned in protest, saying the launch felt like “a kick in the teeth” after years spent advocating background checks and warning that guns at home don’t necessarily make families safer. That level of internal rupture is rare – and telling.

Everytown’s Pitch: A Big Tent, Not a Betrayal

Everytown president John Feinblatt counters that the organization has always aimed to include gun owners, and he portrays much of the commercial training market as “fear-based” and “marketing disguised as training.” The group says it’s piloting courses in ten states, has already hosted roughly 200 sessions, and wants feedback – suggesting the curriculum is a work in progress. The litmus test will be whether Train SMART can deliver practical, nonjudgmental instruction while still being candid about risks. That’s a tricky balance, but it’s the core of harm reduction.

Industry Reactions: Skepticism, Snark, and a Little Openness

Outside the gun-control world, reactions split. The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane mocked the effort as “barbecuing lessons from vegans” and urged people to stick with retailers and ranges. The NRA, drawing on 150 years of safety programs and some 125,000 instructors, argued its teachers won’t undermine lawful ownership by telling students what firearms they “shouldn’t” have. Yet firearms trainer Rob Pincus took a more measured line in USA Today: he doubts many ranges or dealers will partner with Everytown, but still says, “the more opportunities for education… the better.” That’s a fair-minded standard to hold.

NRA-ILA’s Critique: “Abstinence” vs. Harm Reduction

The NRA-ILA frames the controversy bluntly: many of Everytown’s own supporters don’t want safer gun ownership; they want less gun ownership – period. In their reading, Train SMART “tacitly acknowledges there is a place for firearms in America,” which enrages activists who prefer an “abstinence” strategy to a harm-reduction approach. They also point out that online-only classes have limited value compared to hands-on, on-range instruction and argue that rebranding an anti-gun group as a training authority strains credulity. Whether or not readers agree, it’s worth grappling with that core tension: is education ever “wrong” if it reduces accidents?

Tundra Tactical’s Take: Beware the Mandate, Mind the Metrics

On the gun-rights side, Tyler Lindley of Tundra Tactical questions the motivations and methods behind Train SMART. He warns that “training” can morph into a pretext for mandated prerequisites to buy or carry – a political wedge rather than a neutral skill-builder. He also challenges a talking point that “39% of gun owners have no safety training,” arguing many learn outside “formal” classes – from family, mentors, and existing instructors who already cover de-escalation, storage, and law in permit-to-carry courses. His broader point: don’t dismiss the current training ecosystem as predatory or sales-driven; a lot of it is serious, responsible, and already doing the work.

Safety Training Is Good – Trust Is the Hard Part

Here’s where I land: more safety training is unambiguously good – especially for the wave of new gun owners who may have never touched a firearm before 2020. Teaching lock use, suicide prevention strategies, situational awareness, and the legal landscape saves lives and livelihoods. But credibility matters. If an organization spends years telling the public that common firearms should be banned and then shows up to teach “responsible ownership,” many gun owners and even some survivors will see a mixed message or a tactical pivot. Trust isn’t a downloadable PDF; it’s earned through consistency, humility, and quality instruction.

Will This Turn Into Policy Leverage?

Critics like the NRA-ILA and Lindley also worry Train SMART could be used to justify new mandates: “See? Even Everytown says training is essential – so make it required to buy or carry.” USA Today reminds readers that Everytown has supported policies like permitting, waiting periods, and red-flag laws, which makes the suspicion understandable. If Train SMART stays voluntary and eschews back-door litmus tests for ownership, it can claim the harm-reduction lane with a straight face. If it blurs into lobbying for prerequisites, expect the détente to vanish.

The Market Reality: Millions of New Owners, A Training Gap

Penzenstadler’s numbers point to a structural need: tens of millions of new buyers and a persistent training gap. The existing ecosystem – NRA instructors, independent programs, local ranges – serves many of them, but clearly not all. If Train SMART reaches audiences who would never set foot in an NRA-affiliated class yet are still determined to own a gun, that’s a net positive for safety. The key is teaching real skills, not using a class to argue students out of the very choice that brought them there.

What to Watch Next: Hands-On or Just Headlines?

USA Today reports Everytown wants to add in-person and range components next year. That’s the make-or-break. A Zoom lecture can teach rules and mindset; only live-fire training builds competent, repeatable gun-handling. Also worth watching: whether survivors’ objections reshape the program; whether ranges and retailers partner; and whether the curriculum remains practical or drifts into advocacy. The NRA-ILA’s skepticism will soften if classes prove useful, consistent, and apolitical; it will harden if the effort looks like a branding exercise with a ballot-box aftertaste.

If It’s About Safety, Prove It

Train SMART is a paradox: a gun-control group teaching gun use. USA Today’s reporting shows why that looks like progress to some and betrayal to others. The NRA-ILA underscores the philosophical split between “abstinence” and harm reduction. Tundra Tactical reminds everyone that much of what Everytown promises is already taught across America – without the politics. My take is simple: judge the program by outcomes. If it reduces negligent storage, improves decision-making, and gets new owners onto a safer path – without backdoor mandates – then it’s a contribution. If it’s primarily optics, the market and the movement will both call it out.