Don't Get Training

Status
Not open for further replies.
mordis,

If you are in Indiana, you are local to one of the best gold mines of training opportunities in the US.

Sherrif Ken Campbell of Boone County is an adjunct instructor at Gunsite and hosts some of the best trainers in the country, including Louis Awerbuck and Pat Rogers, at the BCSD range. Drop him an email and he'll put you on his mailing list. Maybe I'll see you at an Awerbuck course next year? :cool:
 
Do i get ahold of him through the sheriffs office website, or does he have his own website??

Edit found it and will contact him, That is so cool.. Tho my other question, regarding the NRA training in Fort Wayne that i posted in a link earlier. Is that training school worth a look or should i move on?
 
Last edited:
At this juncture I am unsure of exactly what the point of this thread is.

Has anyone stated that they are vehemently opposed to the idea that training can be beneficial?

Earlier on there was some protest concerning the idea of state or federal imposed mandates masked as back door gun control. Which was dismissed by a moderator as "off topic"/not the point.

Given that we are in the Tactics and Training forum, are we to understand that we are morally obligated to receive higher levels of training as we enter into higher population densities? (This seems to be the closest that I can get to wrapping my brain around this thread.)

fiddletown states:
But it never ceases to amaze me the ingenuity some people who carry/keep a gun for defense can show in concocting rationalizations for not getting some firearms training.
Click to expand...

And later states:
And I guess that since studies show that private citizens successfully use guns defensively several million times a year, such emergencies do occur.
Click to expand...

And pax states in the OP:
As long as we can point to valid experiences that show that neither accidents nor crime rates go up when untrained people exercise their right to carry guns (and we can! over and over and over again)
Click to expand...

While in a gun shop earlier this month, a clerk there told me that in Anchorage over 19,000 Ruger LCPs have been sold. (I realize that this is "second hand" information.) However, if this is even close to accurate:
261,446 total men, women, and children in Anchorage divided by 19,000=between every 11 or 12 people (including children) one would have a LCP. (Of course, some may not live in Anchorage who purchased them there, but then again children can not buy a LCP; just for fun, call it a wash.) And this does not include any other type of firearm.

Regardless of the accuracy of the numbers, I have not noted "scores" of headlines proclaiming the numbers of innocents gunned down mistakenly in Anchorage by untrained, albeit well intentioned, private citizens attempting to stop someone else's aggressions.

I, for one, am happy that Alaska is a "gun friendly" state. I am happy to help out "newcomers", as well as "know-it-alls". I have received training, and taken additional training, and shoot on a regular basis. (Because I enjoy it.)

So, do I worry about "grandma" with her LCP in her purse at the grocery store? No. Am I going to say that she, or her son, or her granddaughter are morally responsible to attend training and perhaps further training in firearms before going to the grocery store armed. No. I am personally happy that more folks are interested in participating in one of their rights.

Can all of them benefit from such training. Yes. Are they morally obligated across the board to obtain such training? No. Each individual may choose to, or not to, acquire training, and even additional training, and still we have more people exercising their rights - stopping violence- and according to the OP not creating additional problems; as a whole.
 
This is an excellent discussion, and it was started by an excellent and well-thought-out argument.

In Texas, no formal training is required to receive a CHL. You do have to demonstrate you can fire a handgun, but that's about it. When the issue of required training is raised, I picture my original CHL class. One of the members was a woman who came to class with a new j-frame she had admittedly just purchased and never fired. She failed the first shooting go-round; with the help of the instructor, she passed the second time around.

Did she desperately need training? Hell, yes. Picturing her walking the street with a concealed weapon and no idea how to use it is scary to me. Should the state require training? I'm torn; I hate government intrusion in any part of my life. I've taken four professionally taught courses since I got my CHL; I'd take more if I could afford them on my retirement budget. But does the state owe me and other citizens the right to protection from the above woman, armed and with not a clue about how to use the lethal tool the state says she can conceal and use in dire straits? I think they do; if you issue a license to do something, those who receive it should be able to do what they're licensed to do safely. If your doctor received a license to practice after demonstrating he could clean and bandage a scratch, would you feel ok going to him for treatment? Do you feel safe with my classmate on the loose with a handgun she may never have fired after receiving the license?

Good questions; I don't have the answers. But I do remember exactly what she looked like, and if I see her, I'm heading in the other direction -- fast.
 
Private citizens use guns to defend themselves several million times a year? That work out to an average of 100,000 times a year per state (including Alaska), if we assume "several million" is five million, for the sake of discussion. Or over 13,000 times a day.

Are these believable statistics?
 
That's a bit of a thread change. Those figures come in part from Kleck and Lott's work. Mainly, Kleck.

If you deep into the criminological literature, there is quite a bit of controversy over the numbers and types of incidents.

Might go to Google scholar or a university set of data bases to study up on that.

The number of high density area mass shootings is pretty uncommon though.

To Azak: If in an incident, a civilian shoots you or yours by accident, do you think action should be taken against them in civil or criminal courts?

Should one even consider if their actions were not wise - or do they get an automatic pass?
 
Interesting discussion.

One comment..

..you're not well trained..It won't do you any good..that piece of metal doesn't do anything at all on its own. It requires a competent user to make it work.
Click to expand...

Reality check: It takes just a little more skill than taking out your car keys to pull a loaded gun, shove it into somebody's face and scatter brain and skull all over the sidewalk.

We have thousands of youth in this country with premeditated firearm homicides to their credit. Scant few of them have attended formal 'tactical' firearms training, nor grew up on a farm or in the mountains and learned to shoot from Grandpappy. They don't read message boards, they don't know the first thing about a trigger job, and they don't have any interest in reloading.

Chris Costa put it well, something like there's nothing defensive about pointing a gun at another human and pulling the trigger.

I'm not trying to downplay the value of training for the responsible, mindful, self-deterministic, patriotic, law-abiding, tax-paying, red-blooded, firearm-carrying US citizen. It's incredibly valuable, and the cost of most private courses is money well spent, assuming you show up prepared and do your part. And not just in terms of defensive shooting, but protecting yourself legally after the incident.

What I'm saying is that oftentimes we get caught up in the details of the machinery, the technique, the mindset, training options, legal issues with carry and self defense, and everything else that's available; and lose sight of the raw reality associated with the moment of truth, and if we're talking about survival, preservation of one's life (and perhaps fellow human beings) at all costs, then that's where we need to be.
 
Last edited:
Now I am even more unsure of the point.
Glenn E. Meyer asks:
To Azak: If in an incident, a civilian shoots you or yours by accident, do you think action should be taken against them in civil or criminal courts?
Click to expand...
I believe that I addresses that topic in a few places including:
While handing over political power to the government (which now can legislate/regulate or at the minimum attempt to regulate the people, in theory working for the best interests of the people while maintaining the "standards" set forth upon the creation of the government) that government can create "rules" that the individual will be held accountable to; however, ultimately it is still the individual's own moral code and values which will determine their personal belief system.
Click to expand...
If I personally do not like the rules, I am free to "petition" for changing those rules, just as I am free to live within the rules with no comment, my personal moral choice (however, I am fully aware of the fact that there are consequences for my actions); God Bless America! I am also free to choose to live in a location that tends to parallel my own personal beliefs.

bikerbill states:
with the help of the instructor, she passed the second time around.
Click to expand...
ending with:
But I do remember exactly what she looked like, and if I see her, I'm heading in the other direction -- fast.
Click to expand...
Also including:
Did she desperately need training? Hell, yes. Picturing her walking the street with a concealed weapon and no idea how to use it is scary to me.
Click to expand...
Given pax's OP statement that:
As long as we can point to valid experiences that show that neither accidents nor crime rates go up when untrained people exercise their right to carry guns (and we can! over and over and over again)
Click to expand...
I contend that I am seeing a lot of irrational fear of an overall non-issue.
 
About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time
Click to expand...

Killeeen TX.

Aint that many folks in our entire town. Think Mayberry rfd

My point is to force folks to take advanced training for a permit to carry is wrong. Maybe I need to put it this way so it is easy to understand what I am saying.

Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards.

Thats my point and is all I have said.
 
markj said:
...My point is to force folks to take advanced training for a permit to carry is wrong...
Click to expand...
While some have written in support of training requirements, the point of this thread, and the OP's point, is not that training should be required. It is that getting training is the wise and responsible thing to do.

And as Jeff Cooper used to say, "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."

markj said:
...Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards...
Click to expand...
It's an open question whether that alone is even sufficient. But aside from that, it appears from a lot that gets posted here and on other boards that many gun owners, and gun carriers, have only a sketchy idea of the laws of self defense and the use of force.

And from observations at various ranges, most folks don't handle their guns well, nor do they reliably get decent hits on their targets, even slow fire at 7 yards in the relatively stress free environment of the range.
 
the point of this thread, and the OP's point, is not that training should be required. It is that getting training is the wise and responsible thing to do.
Click to expand...

That has also been the thorn in everyone's side in this thread,,,
In that the phrase "required training" kept (keeps) showing up.

I have read every word (all six pages) of this thread twice now,,,
I'm not sure how anyone would not have thought the OP was arguing for training requirements before getting a license to carry.

Normally I read every word that a few of the people here care to write,,,
In most cases PAX writes clearly, concisely, and to a definite point.

In this one It took me several readings to decipher exactly what she was advocating.

If I am correct she is simply stating everyone who is carrying a weapon would benefit from advanced training in it's use both physically and tactically.

Now personally I have no problem with that position,,,
My gawsh, it's just common sense to agree,,,
More training = better trained person.

But her arguments on why it's a good thing can also be used to bolster the argument for state mandated training as a requirement for licensure.

There's that danged camel again,,,
trying to get his nose in my danged tent.

Would it not be ironic if an anti-gunner quoted parts of her post as an argument for high levels of required training.

The whole sheepdog versus lone wolf thing is moot in my case,,,
Oklahoma law is very specific as to the fact you are only allowed to defend you and yours.

If you intervene in a situation and get it right you are a hero,,,
DA's, being elected officials, rarely ever prosecute a lawful hero.

But if you intervene and don't get it right,,,
That same DA will hang you out to dry as a vigilante.

PAX' point could be interpreted to mean,,,
That extra high level training could help you to get it right.

But everything being a double-edged sword,,,
I have seen cases here in Oklahoma where that training was used to illustrate that the person was a blood-thirsty vigilante who very much wanted to shoot someone.

Don't jump on me for restating that I am against state mandates for "Required" training,,,
This topic goes hand-in-hand with that danger.

If we start talking about how it's a good thing,,,
The anti-gunners will say "That person is a gun writer and 2nd amendment advocate and that person believes we need to require that training as well."

Very dangerous topic,,,
Full of pitfalls and subtle traps.

.
 
aarondhgraham

Camels? And here I thought that it was the elephant in the room! Slippery slope time.

Hear, hear!
 
Azak - would you press the DA to take criminal action or institute a civil suit if you or yours were injured by the actions of a civilian in a rampage shoot out or store robbery? The shooter acted incompetently and you or yours have suffered permanent damage with associated monetary losses.

That's a direct question. Not a statement about governmental philosopy.
 
aarondhgraham said:
...I have seen cases here in Oklahoma where that training was used to illustrate that the person was a blood-thirsty vigilante who very much wanted to shoot someone....
Click to expand...
To which the indicated response is, "No, he's a conscientious citizen who recognizes and appreciates the significant responsibility that goes with having a gun.

aarondhgraham said:
...Very dangerous topic,,,
Full of pitfalls and subtle traps...
Click to expand...
Agreed. But I don't think that a "We don't need no stinkin' training" attitude helps us.
 
Interesting question, Glenn.

I have no formal training, but it is only because I do not have the financial resources right now. I certainly see the benefit of training for surprise situations, but I don't feel that I'm necessarily missing out. When I get a job after school there will be more time and importantly money for training classes, but in the interim, I have found ways to incorporate a more dynamic element into my personal practice. For instance, I shoot trap with a pump gun calling from the hip with a round in the stock cuff and attempt to load that round and hit the bird before it hits the ground. It was near impossible at first, but I have since gotten the hang of doing it rather regularly. My record so far with this technique is 19/25.
I've also gotten into the habit of shooting my revolver starting with a full cylinder and reloading every two or three bullets, trying to master the elusive art of keeping the revolver gassed at all times. After a few hundred embarrassments, I began to see results. I've also practiced dummy reloads at home with empty shells, which is harder to do than with real round-nosed bullets, making the transition to the real thing even easier.
The culmination of these little adjustments, at no extra cost to me, were some serious improvements when we held a no-holds barred practice session on private land. Slug changes with the shotgun became effortless, as did full and partial reloads with the revolver. It also helps your confidence, which is one of the more important survival tools.
 
Glenn

The shooter acted incompetently
Click to expand...

If the DA believes that the shooter acted incompetently, then the DA will pursue this if the law says as much; minus "political influences".

Your question is too vague.

If my neighbor was helping to defend me and mine from armed assault and accidentally shot me in the foot I find it unlikely that I am going to sue him for his lack of Gunsite training.

If Mr. Joe average unloads his "high cap" magazine "spray and pray" fashion in the produce section of the grocery store because "grandma" who is almost blind and deaf says loudly, "Stick em up higher, Jr." to her grandson concerning the tomatoes that she can hardly see, and I and/or others are injured as a result, different story entirely.

Neither of these scenarios are likely or common. Again falling back on pax's comment in the OP, which seems to undermine much:
As long as we can point to valid experiences that show that neither accidents nor crime rates go up when untrained people exercise their right to carry guns (and we can! over and over and over again)
Click to expand...
What I finding challenging about this thread is that I am finding it increasingly difficult to determine exactly what the point is. For example, why question me instead of directly stating exactly what your point is or responding directly to challenges of your point; I do realize that you have made some direct comments including early on:
IMHO, controversial, they have the moral duty to train to minimize harm to innocents.
Click to expand...
And in seemingly the same breath stopping the discussing of "back door" mandated state or federal gun control.
Aaron and others - get off the issue of the state mandate. That's not the debate. Again
Click to expand...
.
The issue for me is that you have the moral responsibility not to do harm through incompetence when you act in an environment that contains more people than you!

That's the current issue.
Click to expand...
And I have failed to see any substantial "evidence" or reasoning for this stance. Especially in light of pursuing a mandated training agenda does work rather well for government gun regulation and control; exactly who is "professional enough" to make these decisions? (I personally believe that The Bill of Rights answered this question to my satisfaction.)

Note: there has NOT been anyone on this thread who has said that good training is NOT productive and beneficial. What I am seeing is a concern for the "slippery slope" argument that is being introduced and pretty much ignored/dismissed; the elephant in the room.
 
Look, I know it's difficult for some folks to wrap their heads around this, but just because something is arguably "good" doesn't mean there should be a law requiring you to do it.

Exercise is "good." It'll help you live longer, stay healthier, spend fewer health care dollars. Does that mean I support a state requirement that forces you to get out and do calisthenics along with your neighbors 7 mornings a week? Hell no!

Eating more vegetables is "good." It'll help you live longer. Does that mean I support a state law requiring you to purchase and consume x number of vegetables a week? Hell no!

Just because something is arguably good doesn't mean the state should require you to do it.

I'm sorry some people thought I was arguing FOR state-required training when I said that such state-required training doesn't do much toward helping you stay alive during a violent encounter. I'm sorry that it confused some folks when I said that accidental-shooting rates simply don't bear out the notion that everyone is less safe when a state allows concealed carry but doesn't require training. What I meant was this: Laws requiring training before allowing people to concealed carry are sometimes politically expedient, but they aren't based on any rational measure.

Now, setting that firmly aside. How much training YOU should receive thus isn't really about the laws. It's about YOUR personal situation and YOUR personal sense of morals / ethics / duty.

Here's my point:

If your morals would require you to intervene to save the live of another person, you need to know more than just how to pull out a gun and yank the trigger. Perhaps a lot more.

And if you want to stay out of jail, avoid making really-really-really stupid decisions in the heat of the moment, and perhaps avoid doing something so stupid that it gets someone you care about killed, you'll get real training regardless of what your state does or does not require.

That's pretty much all I said.

pax
 
Wearing a seatbelt is good, and the state requires us to do it. Should they?

Staying under the speed limit is supposedly good, and the state requires us to do it.

Not smoking marijuana is supposedly good, and (most) states really frown on those who do.

There is plenty of regulation on food and drug items, posting of calorie/nutrition information at restaurants, trans fats, and now legislation is on the table to reduce sodium in prepared foods and tax calorie-rich nutrition-empty sodas and sweetened drinks (intent being economic-induced behavior modification). Not ingesting bad things is good for us, but the state is there to supposedly protect consumers from making poor or misinformed decisions.



Aaron Graham makes a good point, I'd like to emphasize one portion of it. The law-abiding citizen with extensive training who carries and screws up (or just gets unlucky), injuring/killing an innocent in an event where they could have done nothing, is perhaps even more exposed to criminal and civil liability than the law-abiding citizen with no training. If you've spent a significant portion of your disposable income on firearms training, it is presumed that you are proficient at arms, you could be considered somewhat of a subject matter expert, and therefore held more accountable. It's like a Formula 1 driver getting into a fender bender in the parking lot. The guy's a pro, it shouldn't happen, right? What does that say about the system?
 
booker_t said:
...The law-abiding citizen with extensive training who carries and screws up (or just gets unlucky), injuring/killing an innocent in an event where they could have done nothing, is perhaps even more exposed to criminal and civil liability than the law-abiding citizen with no training. If you've spent a significant portion of your disposable income on firearms training, it is presumed that you are proficient at arms, you could be considered somewhat of a subject matter expert, and therefore held more accountable...
Click to expand...
We've seen that conjecture before, but no one has ever provided any support for it. Indeed, I've never seen a lawyer say that.

On the other hand, as a lawyer I would rather deal with attacks on my client because of his training than attacks on my client because of his lack of training.

Consider, for example, the Diallo case. The NYC police officers who shot and killed Amadou Diallo, apparently reaching for a gun in his back pocket but actually getting a wallet, were charged with and tried for manslaughter. They pleaded self defense and were acquitted.

Massad Ayoob has done a detailed analysis of the event and the trial. He has discussed how the officers were able to effectively use evidence regarding their training to show the jury that a reasonable person knowing what they knew would also have concluded that Diallo was a lethal threat and that, given the circumstances, their response with lethal force was justified.

A key factor is what they knew and understood from their training allowed the accused officers to articulate a rational basis for their actions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top