Sufficient Preparedness for Self-Defense

[OldMarksman]

I think that Glenn's prescient suggestion about starting a thread on training was right on point. some people have required wi th some emotion. While playing lip service to the goodness of training, many have bought up that old saw about how many people have defended themselves without having received any training at all. N now has mined the cases we have read about here for almost a decade in which people without training have been severely injured, killed, charged, tried, and sometimes convicted for using firearms ineptly and unlawfully and for hitting innocent people.

But not all of those outcomes should be attributed to lack of training. We also need to consider mindset.

A person attacked without warning because he is unaware or unobservant may have been better able to succeed due to training, but the real issue is mindset.

Would training better equip one to be aware of a risk that a robber int the sore had an accomplice protect him? I sonnet thing anyone has to take a class to learn that, but one how knows should not ignore it.

The person who observes but ignores danger signals? Same thing.

And then there is disbelief--this cannot be happening. A person who "freezes" may be no better prepared than the person who is not armed.

So, how about the Texas airline mechanic, who, when hearing someone outside, went out with a shotgun to investigate? He was ambushed, attacked, disarmed, and maimed by a man armed with a knife. He survived, but he lost his livelihood due to crippling energy.

Training, or mindset?

 

[OldMarksman]

I said that only to distinguish between simply knowing how the weapon works and knowing something more. I think we all are conceding that a person knows how to operate the weapon they own.

I think no one in his right mind will agree that "knowing something more" would not be much more likely to result in success.

And that is what risk management is all about.

I started shooting handguns around 1961. One handed, as in police training films. Slow fire, as in most training. I read Ed McGivern's works, but they blew by me. I had never seen anything like that in screen fiction.

Over the years, I successfully defended myself against violent felons without ever having had any training. Indoors in all cases, no shots fired.

All good. But it is now abundantly clear to me that my having known "how the weapon works", even with my years of familiarity with firearms, would have prepared me very poorly indeed for the gravest extreme.

Even assuming that I had recognized the threat timely, there was no way that my skill set could reasonably have been expected to have sufficed in reliably stopping an assailant charging rapidly from a distance of, say, four meters.

First, I had never trained to draw quickly while moving.

Second, I had never developed the skill necessary to fire several shots with combat accuracy, very rapidly in the time afforded to a defender. Anyone who does not recognize that necessity should do some research on handgun wounding effectiveness.

I have taken a couple of defensive pistol training courses. I gained some proficiency, but perhaps more importantly, I gained a much greater appreciation of what will likely prove necessary when the balloon goes up.

That's something that people who would suggest reliance on "simply knowing how the weapon works" seem to lack.

 

[Ghost1958]

Nope. Did some - maybe. Was it the majority, nope. Was it even a large segment - nope.

Not being a smart aleck.
You would know this how?
I'm truly curious.

The gov has no clue as to how many guns there are in this country but I've seen guesses they make.
Like 2 guns for every citizen.

So realizing the plain facts that 1. More folks carry without a permit than have one.
2. That permits were not heard of for most of our history and people carried guns as part of their daily lives.

3. A cc permit is not necessary to in fact carry concealed.

4 concealed is not the only way to carry a gun and for over a hundred years hiding ones weapon was the mark of a criminal.


So unless one can come up with someway of computing all private sales there is no record of.

And some other way of counting those who carry besides permits, I see no way to reliably have the first clue how many additional unpermitted folks carried guns in 2000 or any other year.

But maybe there is some way I am not aware of?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Training is certainly beneficial but if the suggestion is that a person will not be able to muster a reasonable defense without it, ..I will politely disagree.

What exactly is the point in stating a reductio ad absurdum argument nobody has made and then disagreeing with it? Nobody has stated it is impossible to defend yourself without training, which is the uncontroversial statement you are disagreeing with. Yes, the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong; but that's the way to bet.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There are people all around the Nation who bought a gun, loaded it .. put it in a nightstand, understood its basic operation and never gave it a second thought until it was needed. Acting on common sense and personal grit, they managed to defend themselves when the time came. Its not a phenomenon in my estimation.

This dachshund fought off a bear (and with no training even!). Yet, I think most of us would assume that the victory was more about a very shallow commitment by the bear rather than assuming the weiner dog was adequately equipped for the fight.

 

[OhioGuy]

I like to think of self defense as an onion, each thing I do adds another layer of protection and the more layers you have, the better chance you have against evil doers. Firearms are a great layer to that protection as are a number of other things (ie alarms, dogs, situation awareness, etc.). And I was literally just thinking about this a few hours ago while I was working in my garage - about 11 years ago before kids/house me and my wife lived in a city and one night a drugged out freak tried to get into our apartment. A locked door prevented that. It was all we needed in that situation before the police arrived and arrested the guy. And a locked door is just another layer. I like to think of my guns as one of the last layers and hope that I never need to use one but I am physically and mentally prepared (as best I can be) if I need to.

I like the analogy!

It was through CCW training and research that I became aware of just how unaware I usually am. It's easy to slip into a totally complacent way of life, moving through crowds while looking at my phone screen. Hell, during the Pokémon Go craze, people were being run over in parking lots that way, walking directly into the paths of moving cars. If someone can step in front of a truck, odds are, they won't notice the signs of an individual about to do something bad.

Learning and thinking about situational awareness has changed the way I pay attention to things. If every citizen, armed or otherwise, simply became proficient in paying attention and being on some level of alert, it would be a big step forward.

CCW training was what got that into my head.

 

[OhioGuy]

This dachshund fought off a bear (and with no training even!). Yet, I think most of us would assume that the victory was more about a very shallow commitment by the bear rather than assuming the weiner dog was adequately equipped for the fight.

I was once run off someone's property by an angry wiener dog. I believe I could have prevailed in the fight, but at a terrible cost

 

[FireForged]

What exactly is the point in stating a reductio ad absurdum argument nobody has made and then disagreeing with it? Nobody has stated it is impossible to defend yourself without training, which is the uncontroversial statement you are disagreeing with. Yes, the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong; but that's the way to bet.

because, he seems to be essentially making that suggestion which he seemingly confirmed by saying :

it is a very simple matter of likelihood

I was simply saying that if that was the spirit of what he said, I disagree.

 

[FireForged]

it is impossible to defend yourself without training

I find that comical

I think I have said all I can in regards to my point of view. Anything else would simply be repetitive and unproductive. I wish you all good luck

 

[Ghost1958]

Training is necessary.

Actually the statement was made .

Which is what my comments were directed at for the most part.

I'm not saying don't train if you can find a course worth taking and can afford it. As I said at very least one will shoot alot during the course and that on itself well help.

Just stating it's not a necessity beyond learnimg basic safety, maintenance, and operation of one's firearm which honestly is spelled out in the owners manual.
And ones state SD laws which can also be learned by studying ones state laws on in order to defend oneself with a gun.

I too really have nothing else to contribute to this thread unless asked something.

Carry on.

 

[OldMarksman]

It was through CCW training and research that I became aware of just how unaware I usually am. It's easy to slip into a totally complacent way of life, moving through crowds while looking at my phone screen. Hell, during the Pokémon Go craze, people were being run over in parking lots that way, walking directly into the paths of moving cars. If someone can step in front of a truck, odds are, they won't notice the signs of an individual about to do something bad.

Learning and thinking about situational awareness has changed the way I pay attention to things. If every citizen, armed or otherwise, simply became proficient in paying attention and being on some level of alert, it would be a big step forward.

CCW training was what got that into my head.

I can fully identify with that.

Now, one should not need to take defensive pistol shooting training to notice such things as a parked truck headed out the wrong way next to the door of a store, or a vehicle with license plates hand-smeared with mud, or several people milling independently in a lot on cell phones while looking around, and starting to converge when a potential victim drives up. One should not need training to think about who might be on the other side of that dumpster. One should not need training to avoid sitting with the windows in the car.

No, sirree. That all has to do with mindset, and not skillset

However, training did make me much more aware of such things than I had been beforehand.

Why? Perhaps it was because one of the courses the I took did place a lot of emphasis on consciousness, perception, and awareness.

Perhaps it was because the surprising, chaotic, and threatening nature of the "dynamic critical incident" was discussed. It was made crustal clear the once he attack had dually started, the defender would not have the luxury of thinking about what to do.

Again, that all has to do with the many facets of mindset. One should not need to take a course for that, but none of it came to me naturally.

Now, regarding skillset, defensive skills--moving and drawing, and shooting with the proper balance of speed and precision to match the situation--were also covered.

In that part of the training, it became very clear to the most casual observer that simply knowing "how the weapon works" would leave one very poorly prepared.

Self defense is about a lot more than firing a gun.

 

[OldMarksman]

I am reminded of someone's sig line: "a gunfight is not the place to learn new skills".

In three separate defensive gun use incidents, I successfully defended life and limb having had no defensive training, and knowing only how to shoot the firearm reasonably proficiently.

The incidents all involved home invasions. No shots were fired. I happened, by chance, to be able to access the gun timely, and to prevent any of the perps from grabbing any family members.

I would not recommend taking my mindset and skillset of the time out doors while carrying a gun, and expecting to defend oneself lawfully and effectively against one or more attackers who were coming in unannounced and "fast and furious".

But that was lost on me then. I continued to shoot at targets at seven yards, for some reason. I simply had no understanding of anything else.

Then someone whom I had met at a party strongly suggested that I take a course he had just finished.

I did. It was worthwhile, but it was by no means sufficient. It was all still about "running the gun" at a target I was already facing.

And that's not what self preservation is about.

 

[Cola308]

I do not have much to add to this other than if you are defending yourself in your house you need to practice at 24 feet and less.

 

[John J. McCarthy Jr]

The decisions we make regarding how we train must be based on our own, as OldMarksman said, risk assessment. There are the cliches: train for the worst and hope for the best, expect the unexpected, blah, blah. I prefer the old military idea: train hard, fight easy.

 

[OldMarksman]

I do not have much to add to this other than if you are defending yourself in your house you need to practice at 24 feet and less.

Generally speaking, yes. Good observation!

 

[Rangerrich99]

In response to the OP (post #1):

First, I agree with your post. Training is helpful, but most (perhaps all) training doesn't address all issues associated with reality.

Using my own experience in my career, which is as a commercial pilot, we are required to train for emergencies annually. Typically we start training events with small emergencies, such as yellow caution alerts or things like bird strikes and build up to cabin fires, engine fires, rapid decompressions, etc. This kind of training begins well before a pilot gets his first job, so by the time I'd had my first engine failure in flight, I'd probably practiced the various procedures hundreds of times. In fact, after years of practicing emergency procedures for engine failure in the sim had become boring and old hat. Fast forward to my first engine failure in cruise in a real airplane.

I was relatively new to the company and the airplane, it was around 10 at night, and it had been raining/snowing steadily for most of the flight. I was about an hour out of El Paso, TX when I lost power in the left engine.

Now my training partially took over and I automatically went through the diagnostic crosschecks to attempt to validate the alert. But the sudden yaw to the left told me this wasn't a training event and my mind knew it wasn't. Physiologically my heartrate jumped. Once I confirmed that the engine wasn't making power, but that it wasn't on fire, I proceeded to consult the QRH (quick reference handbook).

Which is when I noticed that the plane was losing altitude. We call that an 'uncommanded descent,' and it's a 'no bueno moment,' according to my chief pilot. I won't bore everyone with all the details of what I did for the next few minutes, but the plane descended several thousand feet before leveling off at just a couple thousand feet above the minimum safe altitude (a couple thousand feet above some mountains). While it descended towards a ridge of mountains that I couldn't see, my hands got a little sweaty, my mouth went dry, and I started to get a bit of tunnel vision.

Contrary to all of my previous simulated training, this wasn't a walk in the park. Everything, not just that ridge, was reaching up towards my crippled aircraft out there in the clouds and dark, while I tried to fly the plane, communicate with ATC, check my charts for an alternate airfield, etc. And my overall disposition wasn't improved when I realized that I'd forgotten to bring my low-level chart which had significant topography on it, and the closest place I could safely land was actually El Paso, an hour away. My blithe confidence during training was completely gone by this time, and I ground my teeth continuously as I worked the problem, attempting two engine restarts, both of which failed.

Of course, I made El Paso safely and landed without issue, in spite of the half dozen things I did wrong in my first real emergency. But I never took emergency training lightly ever again.

So, did all of that training really help me at all when it became the real thing? Yeah, without question. Most small aircraft/private aircraft fatal accidents are the product of civilian pilots not having sufficient/consistent emergency training. Commercial pilots train constantly. Which is part of the reason why commercial aviation is so much safer than civilian aviation. Consistent training means I don't fumble around in my mind trying to remember what I'm supposed to do; I just follow my training. And in aviation, many times seconds really do count.

But even the best training in the world doesn't replace the experience of an actual event. Training can't truly simulate a real emergency, because the participant always knows that he/she really can't be hurt/killed in the simulation, and how you react mentally and physiologically is a big part of how one might behave when it is a real life, no-bull emergency. My chief pilot used to always say that training gets you about 80% of the way. Learning from real life experience gets you another 10 to 15. Luck, good or bad, makes up the rest of it.

Based on my two engine failures, a landing gear sensor failure, and an aircraft that was outside its weight-and-balance envelope, I fully agree with him. Training is definitely beneficial, and yet it only takes you up to a certain point. After that, it's how the individual has prepared, both inside and outside of training, and how they react under severe stress. I've seen new guys freeze in the sim, but years later bring a plane in safely under very difficult circumstances.

But more training and prep is always preferable to none at all, at least from my perspective.

With no training at all, there's just too much luck involved in that. I mean, how many of you would want your pilot to have had no emergency training at all before taking you and your family up in that shiny big jet? Anyone?

 

[Ghost1958]

In response to the OP (post #1):

First, I agree with your post. Training is helpful, but most (perhaps all) training doesn't address all issues associated with reality.

Using my own experience in my career, which is as a commercial pilot, we are required to train for emergencies annually. Typically we start training events with small emergencies, such as yellow caution alerts or things like bird strikes and build up to cabin fires, engine fires, rapid decompressions, etc. This kind of training begins well before a pilot gets his first job, so by the time I'd had my first engine failure in flight, I'd probably practiced the various procedures hundreds of times. In fact, after years of practicing emergency procedures for engine failure in the sim had become boring and old hat. Fast forward to my first engine failure in cruise in a real airplane.

I was relatively new to the company and the airplane, it was around 10 at night, and it had been raining/snowing steadily for most of the flight. I was about an hour out of El Paso, TX when I lost power in the left engine.

Now my training partially took over and I automatically went through the diagnostic crosschecks to attempt to validate the alert. But the sudden yaw to the left told me this wasn't a training event and my mind knew it wasn't. Physiologically my heartrate jumped. Once I confirmed that the engine wasn't making power, but that it wasn't on fire, I proceeded to consult the QRH (quick reference handbook).

Which is when I noticed that the plane was losing altitude. We call that an 'uncommanded descent,' and it's a 'no bueno moment,' according to my chief pilot. I won't bore everyone with all the details of what I did for the next few minutes, but the plane descended several thousand feet before leveling off at just a couple thousand feet above the minimum safe altitude (a couple thousand feet above some mountains). While it descended towards a ridge of mountains that I couldn't see, my hands got a little sweaty, my mouth went dry, and I started to get a bit of tunnel vision.

Contrary to all of my previous simulated training, this wasn't a walk in the park. Everything, not just that ridge, was reaching up towards my crippled aircraft out there in the clouds and dark, while I tried to fly the plane, communicate with ATC, check my charts for an alternate airfield, etc. And my overall disposition wasn't improved when I realized that I'd forgotten to bring my low-level chart which had significant topography on it, and the closest place I could safely land was actually El Paso, an hour away. My blithe confidence during training was completely gone by this time, and I ground my teeth continuously as I worked the problem, attempting two engine restarts, both of which failed.

Of course, I made El Paso safely and landed without issue, in spite of the half dozen things I did wrong in my first real emergency. But I never took emergency training lightly ever again.

So, did all of that training really help me at all when it became the real thing? Yeah, without question. Most small aircraft/private aircraft fatal accidents are the product of civilian pilots not having sufficient/consistent emergency training. Commercial pilots train constantly. Which is part of the reason why commercial aviation is so much safer than civilian aviation. Consistent training means I don't fumble around in my mind trying to remember what I'm supposed to do; I just follow my training. And in aviation, many times seconds really do count.

But even the best training in the world doesn't replace the experience of an actual event. Training can't truly simulate a real emergency, because the participant always knows that he/she really can't be hurt/killed in the simulation, and how you react mentally and physiologically is a big part of how one might behave when it is a real life, no-bull emergency. My chief pilot used to always say that training gets you about 80% of the way. Learning from real life experience gets you another 10 to 15. Luck, good or bad, makes up the rest of it.

Based on my two engine failures, a landing gear sensor failure, and an aircraft that was outside its weight-and-balance envelope, I fully agree with him. Training is definitely beneficial, and yet it only takes you up to a certain point. After that, it's how the individual has prepared, both inside and outside of training, and how they react under severe stress. I've seen new guys freeze in the sim, but years later bring a plane in safely under very difficult circumstances.

But more training and prep is always preferable to none at all, at least from my perspective.

With no training at all, there's just too much luck involved in that. I mean, how many of you would want your pilot to have had no emergency training at all before taking you and your family up in that shiny big jet? Anyone?

All 9f which is why I refuse to fly, period. Lol.

 

[Rangerrich99]

All 9f which is why I refuse to fly, period. Lol.

Ha. You'd be even less inclined if you really knew what I know about pilots in general . . . Just kidding.

 

[OhioGuy]

In response to the OP (post #1):

First, I agree with your post. Training is helpful, but most (perhaps all) training doesn't address all issues associated with reality.

First, wow, and I will never again complain about having a bad day at work!!!

I've worked with Human Factors Psychologists who've studied how training effects the mind, and the question of how to make it realistic has been around for a long time. I've been told that the root of the issue is, no matter how realistically you can simulate a scenario, if the human knows it's only simulated, they'll never react in a fully realistic way. The pilot still knows that there's no sudden crash at the end. The cop or soldier knows those plastic bullets flying at him won't actually kill him. And so forth.

Still, making training as realistic as possible ought to be a goal, and from what I've experienced, much firearm training isn't terribly realistic.

I had a long conversation once with someone who'd been in LE for about a decade. I can't recall quite what her role was, but she did describe it as "having the authority to arrest, but no duty to pursue." I think it was in parole enforcement or something. Anyways, she had the option to carry a weapon but not the obligation. She took the training that was available to her, which sounded quite a lot like advanced CCW training (moving, cover, concealment, compromised positions, point shooting, etc.) It culminated in a force-on-force simulation with simulated ammo, acting out scenarios and the like.

She said that as soon as she was being engaged by other people who were actually shooting back--and even knowing it was safe--she and many others completely forgot all the training and couldn't hit anything.

So kudos to the trainers for making it fairly realistic, right? But her takeaway was that, at least for herself, no amount of simulation would actually prepare her for a real gunfight. She chose not to carry, believing her odds were higher of injuring someone with stray shots, than of actually being shot herself. She was willing to make that trade and take the risk.

Anyways, that carries over into her view of CCW. She's not formally opposed to it, but she thinks it's a very bad idea, reasoning that if she and others who received training could fall apart under stress, how much worse would someone do if they only had the required 8 hours of training for CCW? Or 4 in some states, or 0 in others?

I will grant her point. It made me wonder where the tipping point is for me, at which I feel like I'm well enough trained. And I realize I'll never feel well enough prepared because crap happens and it'll always take me by surprise.

It also makes me think that training on scenarios with "shoot or don't shoot" decisions would be very helpful. The number of cases in which a pistol actually could be used effectively for self defense, without causing more chaos and collateral damage, strikes me as rather small.

 

[OldMarksman]

And I realize I'll never feel well enough prepared because crap happens and it'll always take me by surprise.

I am the same way.

If whatever it is does not take one by surprise, one has made a bad decison somewhere along the line beforehand. If it does, it's scary stuff.

It also makes me think that training on scenarios with "shoot or don't shoot" decisions would be very helpful.

Yes indeed.

The number of cases in which a pistol actually could be used effectively for self defense, without causing more chaos and collateral damage, strikes me as rather small.

I wouldn't put it quite that way.

The likelihood that one will be faced with a situation in which the use (not necessarily the shooting) of a pistol will be necessary for preservation on any one day is immeasurably small. The likelihood that it will happen in any one year is less than remote. But the likelihood that it will occur at least once during one's lifetime is much, much higher, and it depends upon a a nimblerof variables.

If the incident involves a sudden attack at close range that presents an imminent threat to life or an imminent threat of great bodily harm, a pistol cancertainly be helpful.

There are two remaining questions:

1. Is the display or use of the pistol immediately necessary (ie, is there preclusion)?
2. Can and will the defender r use it effetively?

Reading the latter, it comes soon essentially to two questions: (a) will the defender see and be able to react to what is coming before it is too late, and (b) will the defender's practiced responses automatically support the timely actions necessary to use the firearm effectively before it is too late?