Sufficient Preparedness for Self-Defense

[K_Mac]

OhioGuy, your example of the woman who has concluded that concealed carry is not a good idea because she is unable to hit her target under pressure is an issue of mindset more than skillset in my opinion. Many people who carry a gun for protection have the mindset that the gun and basic skills gives them all they need to stop attacks, slay dragons, and save damsels. When faced with the reality that surviving a gunfight is not a sure thing and things happen quickly, they lose focus and skills. Rather than concluding that more mental and physical training is required to be adequately prepared, they decide that we are better off without a gun. This mindset is lazy, short-sighted, and dangerous in my opinion.

 

[Ghost1958]

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.

Training or no. Alot of the ability to keep ones head when faced with a real life SD situation has more to do with an individual's basic nature than training. Some folks like your probation officer friend simply will fall apart no matter how much training they have, though they are in the small minority.
Others, most actually, will stay rationale enough to defend themselves successfully.

Your office friend is obviously an extreme case of the former.

As far as folks carry guns for SD, it's done by multiple citizens with no additional havoc raised.

Your officer friend is making judgements based on her own reactions. Which with all due respect to her are not close to the reactions of most folks in a known practical exercise where she know she won't be hurt.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ohio - if you worked with human factors psychologists you would be aware of studies that clearly showed that training aided in performance in critical incidents.

If you know research techniques, you know that there is variation in human performance. Her response is part of the variation. One can find numerous testimonies from critical performance fields where folks cite their training as being crucial to their survival and performance.

I'll say again, this discussion ALWAYS devolves to those who don't want to train because of some reason and then then think it isn't worth their time. They then come up with BS reasons - not supported - by experts for their failure to train.

It's pathetic. I would also say as a side issue - now that folks have announced on the Internet that they are lacking competence and refused to correct that - it would make an interesting point if you want to criminal or civil court.

 

[OldMarksman]

I'll say again, this discussion ALWAYS devolves to those who don't want to train because of some reason and then then think it isn't worth their time. They then come up with BS reasons - not supported by experts- for their failure to train.

Yes, that is and was certainly predictable, and it is precisely what we have seen here.

This one has run its course.

It's pathetic. I would also say as a side issue - now that folks have announced on the Internet that they are lacking competence and refused to correct that - it would make an interesting point if you want to criminal or civil court.

Another reason to shut it down, I'm afraid.

Should anyone have anything constructive and meaningful to say, start another thread.