Don't Get Training

Status
Not open for further replies.
fiddletown said:
# We've also seen cases, reported on this board and others, in which individuals made some poor decision, like going out to confront people outside their homes or in the street, and have gotten into significant legal trouble.
Click to expand...

A couple of days from now, assuming the trial doesn't get delayed, I'm going to be hanging out down at my local courthouse to watch one such trial. The shooting briefly made the national news as a "homeowner legally defends home yay us!" kind of thing. But it wasn't quite that positive for our side. The middle-aged homeowner -- who has never been in trouble with the law in his entire life -- is facing spending the rest of his life in jail for a bad decision he made when a couple of lifelong crooks broke into his garage.

If what the prosecutor alleges actually happened, the homeowner did in fact break the law. And those on the jury who believe in the rule of law will thus be faced with the awful choice of sending a good man to jail for the rest of his life, or failing to punish serious lawbreaking that led to the death of another citizen.

Would he have made that same bad decision if he'd had good training? I seriously doubt it... but we'll never know, since he never got that training. And now he's facing financial and personal ruin.

I live in a very conservative area, and sentiment around here strongly hopes the jury refuses to convict. Perhaps he'll be acquitted.

But it's a close thing, and by no means a certain one. And you'd never hear about the consequences to the homeowner if you'd only read the initial reports which made the national news.

pax
 
Tamara said:
2) People can't shoot, but think they can. ...
Click to expand...

Tamara,

You made me laugh this morning. Thanks. And it's (sadly) right on target, too.

What I've noticed is that the better a shooter is, the more aware they are of their own deficiencies and areas they need to improve. It's poor shooters who are universally assured that they don't need to improve. (Of course, there are scientific studies explaining why this is true....)

pax
 
if you're not well trained, you might as well leave that heavy lump of steel locked up at home. It won't do you any good anyway.
Click to expand...

Bullocks.

If you can hit the paper @7 yards, are AWARE of surroundings ( hypervigalent is better;)) and they dont "get the drop" on you....then you can reasonably expect to defend yourself with a pistol.

That does not mean you should NOT practice, or train, or learn to draw fast....they do increase your odds.
 
When we begin to discuss the relative merits of more (and maybe more and more) training, we bring up the specter (most any government bureaucrat will do for this) who will stand ready to define for us who should be allowed to exercise their rights.

Training is absolutely valuable and the more (good) training one can get, the better.

However, I don’t hear anyone arguing that training is necessary in order to defend oneself or others.

We absolutely must strive to be consistent: We have to learn to tolerate those people with less ability, knowledge, intelligence, and, yes, training, doing all kinds of things they should be free to do including; speak, practice their religion, go about the world armed, and the rest of the BOR as a bedrock start.

Of course it can be dangerous to allow stupid, ill-informed, and untrained people to freely carry arms or to speak out in public or to run for office or to vote in elections.
Click to expand...

Well, that is the puzzle of a true republic.

There is no good argument these days about training to protect others.

My point about the watch, was that back then, there was an expectation of bad men (mostly outsiders) wanting to do people in your community harm. It was considered a shared responsibility to conduct the watch. The fact that women did not do it back then is not really relevant as the role of women has changed in US society that it is clearly distinguished as to be almost unrecognizable. Still, there is no procedure to draft women into military service of the state. I imagine that most communities of today if they had a watch might not have the expectation of women serving on one. It is a function of the expectation of the role models of society, not indicative of rights or capability.
 
What I've noticed is that the better a shooter is, the more aware they are of their own deficiencies and areas they need to improve. It's poor shooters who are universally assured that they don't need to improve. (Of course, there are scientific studies explaining why this is true....)

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
Managing Editor, Concealed Carry Magazine
My personal website: Cornered Cat
Buy my book! Lessons from Armed America, with Mark Walters
Click to expand...

I hope that quote isn't copy writed cause I want to include it in all my lesson plans.
 
Good post Pax!


I think if you're going to carry to protect yourself, then shoot good enough to do just that. If you're going to carry for the well being of other innocents, train for that.

I have always feared something-what if my family is held hostage in front of me; can I make the shot, and not hit my loved ones? I can shoot pretty well with my handgun, but rather than hitting center mass on a B-27, I will have to make a head or shoudler shot, AND not hit a loved one.

Something I need to work on, definitely.
 
Last edited:
The state has no interest in ensuring that you are well-prepared to save your own life or the lives of people you love, so the state minimum requirements don't do much toward that end.
Click to expand...
The state's interest in training requirements is generally due to pressure from opposition to concealed-carry legislation. In many states, carry legislation was a hot-button issue, and legislators were under a great deal of pressure from both sides. A training requirement, whether or not it was fair or effective, was a way to appease opposition. I doubt that a concern for public safety was the foremost factor in most cases.

For example, in Florida, a hunting license qualifies. Acquiring a hunting license doesn't make one prepared to carry a handgun for self-defense. In the end, it's just another hoop people have to clear before getting a permit.

Now, when I was coming up in the 1990's, the idea of civilian carry was taken very seriously. It was assumed to be a huge responsibility, and one was expected to be quite proficient and practice often.

Nowadays, I talk to people who just bought their first gun last week. They've shot it once, if at all, and the sum total of their training involves shooting at beer cans with their neighbor, and what they gleaned from the internet. That truly worries me.

It seems tempting to say, "well, there should be state-mandated training before someone screws it up for all of us." However, I've been to a few state-mandated classes across the country, and the quality has ranged from mildly helpful to downright dreadful.

What's the solution? We are. Tamara and Pax nailed it. We need to be mentoring among ourselves. We need to be willing to give our time and energy where possible.
 
grey sky said:
Read the NRA armed citizen accounts. Over and over again "untrained" citizens protect hearth and home. Some times coming to the aid of others. Training in my opinion is highly overrated. Mostly touted by those who want to sell one a class.
Click to expand...

There are numerous problems with using reports from the Armed Citizen to determine the value of training:

1. These reports are not random, they are specifically selected by the NRA. Ever read an Armed Citizen where the citizen dies in his home bleeding while the bad guys run away with all of his stuff? That happens in real life; but never happens in the Armed Citizen.

2. The Armed Citizen rarely, if ever, even comments on the level of firearms training a person has. On the rare occasions when there is some evidence of training, it doesn't quantify it.

Relying on the Armed Citizen as your primary evidence that training is overrated is faulty logic.

Having had some Force-on-Force training, my experience was that firearms training was a tremendous benefit. It freed my brain up to think about tactics instead of worrying about whether I was executing the basics of marksmanship correctly. To the extent that my firearms handling was instinctive (and not all of it was), it was a great help. It also showed me that being able to shoot and handle a firearm well was just the first step on a long road. Fighting with a firearm is a whole different ballgame from IPSC/IDPA style shooting.
 
Training is as only good as the trainer. I've seen far too many "training classes" where it's the guy or gal from the local gun shop that know far less about firearms than most of the people in the class. Our local gun club is famous for clueless "certified trainers". Working in or even owning a gun shop doesn't make you an "expert" on firearms or firearm usage.
 
Last edited:
pax said:
I live in a very conservative area, and sentiment around here strongly hopes the jury refuses to convict. Perhaps he'll be acquitted.

But it's a close thing, and by no means a certain one. And you'd never hear about the consequences to the homeowner if you'd only read the initial reports which made the national news.
Click to expand...

And if he is fortunate enough to be acquitted, few will appreciate just how heavy the consequences will be even then. Job loss, huge bills, bankruptcy, loss of friends, community backlash, nightmares - all of these can and have happened to people who were acquitted by the jury.

Quality training can not only help you survive the event itself; it can better prepare you for the aftermath as well.
 
I'm still struggling to understand the gist of pax's original post. In it I see...

  • State-mandated training is useless. The state shouldn't be involved.
  • The state doesn't care about you, only about the people you might shoot.
  • The state keeps poor women from being able to protect themselves (not sure why poor men would be excluded).
  • Accident rates don't go up when untrained people carry, so why should the state bother to regulate it?
I also see...

  • Untrained people shouldn't carry, your gun can't possibly do you any good.
  • Unmarried unattached people don't need much if any training.
  • Family people should be able to shoot a kidnapper without harming their baby held in the arms of the kidnapper.
  • If you care about people and might act to defend someone else then you need more than basic training.
  • If you are going to be shooting at a potential mass murderer in a crowd then you need LOTS of training.
  • If you're too stupid to get training then you deserve to be self-eliminated.
Regardless of whether these statements are valid when evaluated one at a time, I don't see a coherent thread running through them. What's the point?
 
Two reasons people are anti-training (perhaps not coincidentally, this is also why people are anti- competing in organized shooting sports):

1) "It costs too much." Somebody has fifteen guns, a motorcycle, a PS3 with plenty of games hooked to his flat-panel TeeWee (not to mention the PS2 and PlayStation in the attic), and who knows how many other toys, and a $200-$400 handgun training course "costs too much". Hey, Skippy, how 'bout selling that Taurus Raging Judge you were bragging about buying last week and using the proceeds to get yourself taught how to use one of the fourteen other guns you already had? (And maybe sell one of those and take an MSF class for your motorcyclin' while you're at it.) The problem is, people can't point at new mental furniture and say to their friends "Look what I just bought!"

2) People can't shoot, but think they can. At the range, nobody is really watching them shoot and, face it, everybody else at the range is awful, too. But if they go to a class or enter a match, it will get proved officially: "Joe/Jane Averageshooter: First Loser". It takes humility to learn and lose. Humble people don't boast on their adequacy. So most people go and buy another gun instead, because when they open the box on that gun, it won't look up at them and say "You stink!"; it'll say "You just bought the official pistol of SWATSEAL Team 37 1/2! Congratulations!"
Click to expand...

Thank you, Tamara. While being very topical, accurate and lucid, it also caused me to snort my beverage onto my keyboard.:D

My day is brighter as a result, and it will be brighter yet once I clean the keyboard off.:p
 
I for one want to see more state training, by this I mean a class where you sit and the instructor informa you just exactly what the permit allows and is meant for. Then they go to a range to see if the permit applicant can actually hit a target at 7 yards. The rest is up to the permit applicant.

The important part is the classroom instructions. Permit holders should be at least informed as to what they can legally do with the firearm. To make a person have to take an advanced and expensive class just for SD, well that is just wrong in my mind.

Know the laws, know when to use, know how to hit the target.

Most important know how to dial 911 and when.
 
There is some missing of Pax's point and one that I've been toying with.

I see two commonly proposed uses of the SD gun.

1. You versus the mugger.

2. You in an high intensity critical incident. A Columbine or Mumbai.

In the former, you probably do OK with just the permit class. Most are deterrent uses anyway. I would still train but if you are the untrained William Tell with nerves of steel - good for you. Note I will sue you if you screw up, like the dudes who 'shot' me in training because they screwed up.

In the second, if you put forth explicitly that you want to be ready for such - you probably need more training. You need to handle stress, you need to hit the target under extreme stress. You need not to get in the way of the first responders. You need not shoot an innocent.

May the untrained aid - perhaps - but my view is that if you especially toot the horn of the 2nd scenario - you have a responsibility to have some competence in such.

I would not like to see someone with no training, whip out a Taurus Judge from the back of a classroom and launch some SD expanding pattern of shot and discs at a significant distance.

I would prefer that they could make a more precise shot or know when not to try it.

I would prefer that if a critical incident occurs, you might have the sense to defend your location competently, rather than run commando like into the hall. Running into the first responders might be interesting for you. I would prefer you have some stress innoculation so that if you see some poor international student in unfamilar garb (we have lots of such), you don't just open fire. Data suggests such might happen. Police train for such.

If you get my drift, I don't worry that much about you in your house. If we had significant numbers of armed folks in high density environments, I think they have the moral responsibility not to do extra damage - if they say they are going to enter the tray.

Yep, we can all make head shots across a long distance and never fail. :rolleyes:
 
Read the NRA armed citizen accounts. Over and over again "untrained" citizens protect hearth and home. Some times coming to the aid of others. Training in my opinion is highly overrated.
Click to expand...

Protecting your home is one thing. Carrying a gun in public is another. Training is not overrated. This doesn't mean that you have to pay thousands of dollars to attend a name-brand training course. You don't. But, I can assure you that unless you've been taught certain types of defensive moves and defensive shooting, and if you haven't practiced them, you simply won't be prepared for most forms of attacks.

Bad guys train. They practice. You don't think they simply go out to their local gun shop buy a gun and then decide to stick it in your chest at an ATM machine with no training, do you?

I understand completely what PAX is saying and I agree with her. If you've never trained, but carry a gun, you have no idea how long it takes you to draw your weapon, what your effective range is, or even when to draw your weapon. If someone is holding a gun to you at close to point blank range (mid chest, mid back) - are you going to attempt to draw your own gun and shoot the guy??? Better think again.

What would you do if three armed thugs enter into a Wendy's as you are sitting down eating? I have a pocket holster - learned that drawing while seated is quite difficult and time consuming. There are lots of things you can learn when someone else is playing the bad guy pointing a gun at you. You learn just how long a second really is when you are under stress- it's HUGE! Training helps you know your limitations, know your equiptment's limitations and teaches you how to work around those limitations for effective defesne.

Also, training with paint-ball guns or tricked out 1911's is not the same thing as training with the gun you generaly carry. I pocket carry a DOA pistol - my reaction times are significantly more than someone who carries a single action only in a clip-type holster. I have second/third strike capability - SAO need to clear the "jam". However, I sacrifice quickness for this - someone else can get off 3 shots to my one.

You can't ever have too much GOOD training.

IMHO, real training is critical for folks who carry in public.
 
What would you do if three armed thugs enter into a Wendy's as you are sitting down eating?
Click to expand...

My family and I were sitting in a pizza parlor the other night (in a fairly rough area with a double-door front entrance and an open floor plan) and discussed this very thing. After we sat down, I considered our self defense options with some dissatisfaction about the odds given where we sat. We discussed what to do if someone came in the door with a gun to demand money from the register, which was right up front behind the counter. I didn't really see a good course of protective action, we were sitting in a pretty vulnerable spot near the front and I concluded that it would take at least a few seconds to get my wife and daughter moved away from the table and headed toward the restrooms in back (at least we scouted out their location). I think the next time we go there we will sit in a more protected spot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top