William Lee
Inactive
^^ too true.
Don't Get Training
- Thread starter pax
- Start date
- Status
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Here, here - Pax. To Azak, you again avoided the issue and my reply.
Maybe I will say it slowly.
Critical incidents occur in crowded environments.
I gave an example of such to show what could happen.
Moves are being made to allow carry at schools.
Some have been successful.
There are other crowded environments.
Thus, if I was at a crowded church or mall or business - where I could carry - and a rampage broke out, I opine that I have the responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to have the skills not to screw up there.
That easy enough for the crowd?
Denial of this responsibility to be competent, as Pax laid it out, is saying more to me that you don't want to be challenged or bothered to attempt to have competence than anything else. The reason could be financial or personal (fear of failure). It is being couched in pseudo-philosophical terms.
Aaron - get off it - no one is dictating your moral level. You can reach some moral plane or wallow in the depths of immorality by your own choice. But don't expect us to close this or not express our opinions because you don't like the argument. You are free to leave it. So that's baloney.
And I will say it - if you are going to use an instrument of lethal force in a manner that may harm innocents, if you don't try to achieve some competency, you are less moral than those who do. Take it or leave it.
I once went to a meeting and one psychologist sat next to another. The first had the latest journal. Some old toot next to him, said: Oh, I haven't read one of those in years.
Guess what new studies have found new treatments. Shown that some old ones don't work. Old toot was immoral for not keeping his training up to date as he could hurt innocent clients. Extend that to fire, police, EMTs, MDs, who keep up.
Empirically, those with training do better in critical incidents. Deny that evidence if you want to.
If you only act in isolation, go ahead - shoot paper at 7 yards. If you say, that you will never use a firearm in that critical incident but flee, fine.
If you say that you will try to use it and you don't at least try to be competent in that stress level and dynamic environment, you have lost a moral step up.
I don't think it is immoral to flee. That's a good choice. Go for it. But if you act - you should be competent.
Last thought - the term voluntary as I explained before was to mean that we were not talking about a government mandate for a permit or license. But a course of action that I think should be made by your own choice. Should - Understand that?
Maybe I will say it slowly.
Critical incidents occur in crowded environments.
I gave an example of such to show what could happen.
Moves are being made to allow carry at schools.
Some have been successful.
There are other crowded environments.
Thus, if I was at a crowded church or mall or business - where I could carry - and a rampage broke out, I opine that I have the responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to have the skills not to screw up there.
That easy enough for the crowd?
Denial of this responsibility to be competent, as Pax laid it out, is saying more to me that you don't want to be challenged or bothered to attempt to have competence than anything else. The reason could be financial or personal (fear of failure). It is being couched in pseudo-philosophical terms.
Aaron - get off it - no one is dictating your moral level. You can reach some moral plane or wallow in the depths of immorality by your own choice. But don't expect us to close this or not express our opinions because you don't like the argument. You are free to leave it. So that's baloney.
And I will say it - if you are going to use an instrument of lethal force in a manner that may harm innocents, if you don't try to achieve some competency, you are less moral than those who do. Take it or leave it.
I once went to a meeting and one psychologist sat next to another. The first had the latest journal. Some old toot next to him, said: Oh, I haven't read one of those in years.
Guess what new studies have found new treatments. Shown that some old ones don't work. Old toot was immoral for not keeping his training up to date as he could hurt innocent clients. Extend that to fire, police, EMTs, MDs, who keep up.
Empirically, those with training do better in critical incidents. Deny that evidence if you want to.
If you only act in isolation, go ahead - shoot paper at 7 yards. If you say, that you will never use a firearm in that critical incident but flee, fine.
If you say that you will try to use it and you don't at least try to be competent in that stress level and dynamic environment, you have lost a moral step up.
I don't think it is immoral to flee. That's a good choice. Go for it. But if you act - you should be competent.
Last thought - the term voluntary as I explained before was to mean that we were not talking about a government mandate for a permit or license. But a course of action that I think should be made by your own choice. Should - Understand that?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Tacoma Mall Guy and Tyler, TX guy didn't have lucky days. Most analyses indicate a failure of competency and training.
Google it.
Brave guys - screwed up.
Google it.
Brave guys - screwed up.
Wildalaska
Moderator
With what Glen posted, this thread should be done. 
WildthatsitinanutshellAlaska ™©2002-2010
WildthatsitinanutshellAlaska ™©2002-2010
Guys,
I think part of the reason we're all talking past each other is because a lot of folks who haven't trained with a really good instructor think that firearms classes are simply about improving your marksmanship. "I can hit this piece of paper without training, so what's the big deal?" That's an understandable attitude, esp when it's based on the assumption that marksmanship is all that's taught in classes.
Flip side of that (and oddly, sometimes even coming from the same folks in different threads) is the belief that learning more than simple marksmanship marks you as a mall ninja or a Walter Mitty. "Who needs to be a fantasy warrior? These folks are nuts!" Again, that's an understandable attitude from someone who has only a vague picture of what might be taught in firearms classes that move beyond basic marksmanship.
None of that really erases the basic point: if you are the kind of person who would pick up a deadly weapon and intervene to save the life of another person, you'll need more skills than if you wouldn't. Failing to get those skills vastly increases the chance that you will kill an innocent person who otherwise would not have died.
As Glenn said:
pax
I think part of the reason we're all talking past each other is because a lot of folks who haven't trained with a really good instructor think that firearms classes are simply about improving your marksmanship. "I can hit this piece of paper without training, so what's the big deal?" That's an understandable attitude, esp when it's based on the assumption that marksmanship is all that's taught in classes.
Flip side of that (and oddly, sometimes even coming from the same folks in different threads) is the belief that learning more than simple marksmanship marks you as a mall ninja or a Walter Mitty. "Who needs to be a fantasy warrior? These folks are nuts!" Again, that's an understandable attitude from someone who has only a vague picture of what might be taught in firearms classes that move beyond basic marksmanship.
None of that really erases the basic point: if you are the kind of person who would pick up a deadly weapon and intervene to save the life of another person, you'll need more skills than if you wouldn't. Failing to get those skills vastly increases the chance that you will kill an innocent person who otherwise would not have died.
As Glenn said:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
pax
OldMarksman
Staff
Actually, no, he is stating what he thinks is adequate for him, which, by the way is what is required to get a permit in Missouri. However, every Missouri instructor will tell you that that level of proficiency is not enough to keep you alive if things go south.
If one is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and if it is immediately necessary for one to employ deadly force to defend oneself, the ability to shoot a target at seven yards in a safe manner is necessary, but it is not sufficient. There is also the manner of time. The terms imminent and immediately should give at least a partial clue to that.
The law enforcement term "violent criminal actors" is fitting. If you are justified in shooting someone, he is about to kill you--not waiting for you to shoot him like a target at the range. The whole concept of self defense is that if you do not stop him first, he will kill or injure you.
One has to be able to produce his weapon very quickly and shoot very quickly. Getting at least two immediate hits per assailant after a nominal draw time of a second and a half should give one a chance, and there is a fair chance that there will be more than one assailant.
To be able to do so while running for cover would be even better.
Maybe, just maybe, one might be able to develop the necessary skills through practice alone. In my case, and I have more than half a century of shooting experience, I found professional training invaluable.
Last edited:
Well, not really:
So no, not just what he believes is adequate for himself.
On the other items, we agree. Personally, I am not content with watered down 'training' aimed at the lowest common denominator.
Lot of excuses why THEY don't need to train shared by both civilians and armed professionals.
My only disagreement with the original thesis is that government training is worthless.
There are lots of examples of government training people in complex skills, including the use of firearms.
Not only military and police either. One of the shooting classes I took was through a city park.
There is no reason that some government agency couldn't be involved in training shooters. The parks system is already set up to train people by the thousands.
No I am not speaking of or for mandatory training.
My granddaughter took eight weeks of swim lessons for $55. The taxes of the folk in my county took up the rest of the freight. The same idea is true of hunters safety class another example of good government training
I don't see why accessible quality firearm training couldn't be done the same way.
I think that is also an initiative that would find support amongst people that support gun control.
On another topic in this thread. I don't think morality is involved. We have a simple self interest to increase our ability to protect ourselves.
We also have a legal responsibility to not harm others. That responsibility may be mitigated by other factors, but it still remains. If we can show that we have trained for the unlikely event of a shoot out, it can be argued that we have shown due diligence. Our responsibility in collateral damage would be further mitigated.
Morality is all well and good till someone has you strap on an explosive vest.
There are lots of examples of government training people in complex skills, including the use of firearms.
Not only military and police either. One of the shooting classes I took was through a city park.
There is no reason that some government agency couldn't be involved in training shooters. The parks system is already set up to train people by the thousands.
No I am not speaking of or for mandatory training.
My granddaughter took eight weeks of swim lessons for $55. The taxes of the folk in my county took up the rest of the freight. The same idea is true of hunters safety class another example of good government training
I don't see why accessible quality firearm training couldn't be done the same way.
I think that is also an initiative that would find support amongst people that support gun control.
On another topic in this thread. I don't think morality is involved. We have a simple self interest to increase our ability to protect ourselves.
We also have a legal responsibility to not harm others. That responsibility may be mitigated by other factors, but it still remains. If we can show that we have trained for the unlikely event of a shoot out, it can be argued that we have shown due diligence. Our responsibility in collateral damage would be further mitigated.
Morality is all well and good till someone has you strap on an explosive vest.
JohnKSa states:
and continues:
I would say that even if this was not the OPs original intention, although read the first six words of the OP:
Glenn E. Meyer states:
And therein lies the rub: some folks have voiced a concern for others using "Morality" as a "motivational factor" to "influence" their own "degree of training".
Perhaps as a professional ethics issue; given LEO or similar background. Perhaps as a civic/legal responsibility; given existing laws or possibility of civil suits and repercussions.
Or even perhaps as an "I just enjoy additional training" issue.
And speaking of "Morality" Tamara states:
If you read the post immediately preceding my post, you can see that what I said was in context to that post.
and continues:
I would say that even if this was not the OPs original intention, although read the first six words of the OP:
these topics have surfaced in the course of discussion and are germane to the topic.
Glenn E. Meyer states:
I will say it again, NO ONE on this thread has argued against training being a positive asset.
And therein lies the rub: some folks have voiced a concern for others using "Morality" as a "motivational factor" to "influence" their own "degree of training".
Perhaps as a professional ethics issue; given LEO or similar background. Perhaps as a civic/legal responsibility; given existing laws or possibility of civil suits and repercussions.
Or even perhaps as an "I just enjoy additional training" issue.
And speaking of "Morality" Tamara states:
Glenn E. Meyer states:
Given my understanding of the founding documents and history of this country, my personal understanding of "Morality" and its role in history, I respectfully choose to "leave it" when framed as it has been here; and by that I specifically mean that I still value additional training for myself over time, yet disagree strongly with your stated "moral obligation" to do so.
We will have to disagree on this.
Because of things like the ADA, EOC and other PC bs the .gov are the #1 reason for this lowest common denominator training. It has been 'dumbed down' so that unmotivated (or down-right lazy) can still 'pass' and keep their jobs. Read some of the posts in other threads about cops not wanting to train unless being paid or it being mandatory.
Why else are they happy to hit the streets with an 80% or less score?
The vast majority of the time, any 'advanced' .gov training will actually come from the private sector - either as civilian contract work or the instructor brought it back after taking private training.
I'm having trouble finding the Constitutional mandate for this. It's not the .gov's responsibility to teach my kids to swim with my tax money.
Firearms training, either.
Is there a government mandate to build roads? Have schools? None of those were particularly common when the constituation was written. Roads? Ever hear of a turnpike? Maybe not a bad idea. It's coming back. Privately owned roads, too, perhaps foreign owned. They have to do something with all that money.
thesheepdog
New member
Makes perfect sense. It's common sense actually. Think about what SF troops go through with training; they're the best of the best and they usually survive major firefights because of their trainin. Yes this is an extreme contrast to a civilian, but heck, why get comfortable?
Do any of you really feel safe with your level of training? Just because there is a handgun stuffed in your waist, does that make you feel secure?
Just because you have a CHL, doesn't mean you're safe. All a CHL does is give you permission to walk into the gladiator's arena, while armed.
AZAK,
My position is (and always has been) that moral, responsible people will step up & get the training they need, whether or not the state requires it.
If anyone could convince me otherwise, you've done a damn good job of coming close.
pax
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue. -- Jean Jacques Rousseau
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. -- Jacob Hornberger
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you please unless it causes others harm. With it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. -- P.J. O'Rourke
My position is (and always has been) that moral, responsible people will step up & get the training they need, whether or not the state requires it.
If anyone could convince me otherwise, you've done a damn good job of coming close.
pax
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue. -- Jean Jacques Rousseau
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. -- Jacob Hornberger
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you please unless it causes others harm. With it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. -- P.J. O'Rourke
Last edited:
Well having shot with men who went through sniper school, were on Army pistol teams, and others who learned shooting from Uncle Sam, I can say that they shoot with a bit of skill.
There are a lot of things that are not mandated by the constitution. One of those things is public education. Yet I don't know of one of the founding fathers that didn't support public education in one form or another.
One thing that is mandated by the constitution is your right to bear arms.
While we can argue about the details, the over arching reason for that is because it is a public good.
When something is a public good, whether it's roads or firearms ownership, it is a role of government to maximize that good.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Plus 1.5 million++++
And I'm going to add that training includes a solid grounding in ethics, legal and moral philosophy, not just Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
You young guys...turn off the TV and read. You don't even need a college education
"Man is master of his actions; and yet, in so far as he belongs to another, i.e. the community, of which he forms part, he merits or demerits, inasmuch as he disposes his actions well or ill: just as if he were to dispense well or ill other belongings of his, in respect of which he is bound to serve the community."
"How do you know that your blood is redder than the blood of your fellow?"
WildstartwiththesummathologicaifyearechrisianorthetalmudifyearenotAlaska ™©2002-2010
thesheepdog
New member
A role of the people you mean?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And while one indeed has free will and may choose to act in a less than responsible manner, he shouldn't expect to be congratulated for making that choice.pax said:
- Status