How important do YOU think training is?

[Kentucky Dave]

So now, I finally went and looked at the video.

IF the OP means "training" ONLY to apply to "trained by a professional" as the bozo in that video repeatedly says, and the OP means that people do not need that "training" - fine. No problemo.

However, if "training" means practice and learning how (through experience) to safely and reasonably accurately handle and shoot your handgun, you need it, which is my point above.

That "training" can come from your dad, your big brother, your knowledgeable friend/neighbor OR even from some good books combined with some real range time. But without some real "training" (i.e., acquiring some degree of knowledge & skill) however you get it, a handgun is more dangerous than not... Our beloved granny-shooting-the-bad-guy notwithstanding.

 

[Hodgin]

So now, I finally went and looked at the video.

IF the OP means "training" ONLY to apply to "trained by a professional" as the bozo in that video repeatedly says, and the OP means that people do not need that "training" - fine. No problemo.

However, if "training" means practice and learning how (through experience) to safely and reasonably accurately handle and shoot your handgun, you need it, which is my point above.

That "training" can come from your dad, your big brother, your knowledgeable friend/neighbor OR even from some good books combined with some real range time. But without some real "training" (i.e., acquiring some degree of knowledge & skill) however you get it, a handgun is more dangerous than not... Our beloved granny-shooting-the-bad-guy notwithstanding.

Exactly, it's just hard for me to imagine someone who has never used a firearm going into a gun shop, buying a gun, taking it home, and using it without anything but maybe a manual. That was the scenario Marshall seemed to me to be describing. Now, you do what you've got to do to protect yourself but someone who starts messing with a loaded gun, especially a semi-auto pistol, and no training at all is asking for trouble.

If his point was that you don't have to have formal training or military experience to use a pistol effectively, then I'll agree. That type of training is desirable but one doesn't need to forgo the use of a firearm for defense until he/she receives it.

 

[Protected One]

Exactly, it's just hard for me to imagine someone who has never used a firearm going into a gun shop, buying a gun, taking it home, and using it without anything but maybe a manual. That was the scenario Marshall seemed to me to be describing. Now, you do what you've got to do to protect yourself but someone who starts messing with a loaded gun, especially a semi-auto pistol, and no training at all is asking for trouble.

If his point was that you don't have to have formal training or military experience to use a pistol effectively, then I'll agree. That type of training is desirable but one doesn't need to forgo the use of a firearm for defense until he/she receives it.

Regardless to how hard it is for you to imagine - it happens all the time. Not only the "grandmas" are firing for the first time in a self defense situation, but many who aren't even close to being considered old.

As I said in an earlier post, there are 10 cases this year alone in the area where I live of EXACTLY that occurring. The gun owners even admitted as much when questioned by local media, and as far as we know the only person they proved to be a danger to was the thief trying to rob them - 5 of which were killed. So think what you like, imagine what you like, but facts are facts.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I don't buy this lack of training is a good thing BS. ANYBODY can pull a trigger and get lucky.

For example, some people think they are good drivers because they went from point A to B. HOW they got from point A to B is what counts.

You don't pick up a set of clubs and play a round or two and be good at it. If you stink, you need instruction and practice.

I'm willing to bet that most people also had training wheels on their bikes when they first started riding it.

To advocate that training is not necessary is irresponsible and it's sets a bad example. A simple "familiarization" is not enough.

 

[Protected One]

Perhaps this illustration will make my point more apparent for you:

Person "A" goes to the local gun range and rents revolver they were told would make a decent home defense gun. After shooting a box they decide to purchase the gun new, along with a box of jhp ammo. They load and fire 5 rounds of JHP down range. Once home, they load 5 rounds and the gun goes in the nightstand drawer ...never to be touched again unless needed. Two years pass and they have had no "need" to use the gun, and of course any benefit of the few rounds they fired has long since vanished into the wind.

Person "B" buys the exact same gun in the same manner, but decides to make time each month to go to the range and shoot. Over the two years time they even take a class or two in an effort to learn and refine their skill.

Now. Which of the two posses a greater danger to themselves/others?
As crazy as you will probably think this sounds - I say it's person "B". Since "B" has handled his/her gun AT LEAST 24 times over the two years, that represents 24+ opportunities for something bad to happen. Since person "A" has not, and WILL not be touching their gun unless needed there is "zero" opportunity for them to harm someone.

 

[Protected One]

I don't buy this lack of training is a good thing BS. ANYBODY can pull a trigger and get lucky.

For example, some people think they are good drivers because they went from point A to B. HOW they got from point A to B is what counts.

You don't pick up a set of clubs and play a round or two and be good at it. If you stink, you need instruction and practice.

I'm willing to bet that most people also had training wheels on their bikes when they first started riding it.

To advocate that training is not necessary is irresponsible and it's sets a bad example. A simple "familiarization" is not enough.

Who said lack of training was a good thing?

 

[BaaBaa]

Unless you've been deployed military in combat or a LEO that's been involved in a stress situation, you don't know how you'll respond when the shooting starts.

OK for those of use who are not LEOs and not military, How do we simulate the fight or flight to get realistic training?

 

[Protected One]

It is my opinion that everyone except law enforcement be required to have ADVANCED training. A basic course is not enough.

Here again, this topic is not geared toward concealed carry, but rather home defense. If ADVANCED training were made a requirement the result would be a reduction in the number of people arming themselves due to the inability (as SHOULDAZAGGED stated) or unwillingness to pay for such training. That would NOT be a good thing.

 

[G.T. Smith]

agreed!

So now, I finally went and looked at the video.

IF the OP means "training" ONLY to apply to "trained by a professional" as the bozo in that video repeatedly says, and the OP means that people do not need that "training" - fine. No problemo.

However, if "training" means practice and learning how (through experience) to safely and reasonably accurately handle and shoot your handgun, you need it, which is my point above.

That "training" can come from your dad, your big brother, your knowledgeable friend/neighbor OR even from some good books combined with some real range time. But without some real "training" (i.e., acquiring some degree of knowledge & skill) however you get it, a handgun is more dangerous than not... Our beloved granny-shooting-the-bad-guy notwithstanding.

And after watching that video, I have decided that I'll have whatever that little dude had.
Peace,
Gordon

 

[Kanewpadle]

Who said lack of training was a good thing?

Don't mind me. Just having a senior moment.

 

[Rastoff]

I am in favor of a good hunter safety class, however in instilling the 10 rules of gun safety .

10 rules? Wow, your list is long. I teach 4 and the NRA teaches 3.

Exactly, it's just hard for me to imagine someone who has never used a firearm going into a gun shop, buying a gun, taking it home, and using it without anything but maybe a manual.

This is not hard for me to imagine at all. I've seen the results of this in co-workers and people at the range. The result is not pretty. 10 minutes of instruction puts them on the path to happy and safe shooting.

Now. Which of the two posses a greater danger to themselves/others?

I understand your reasoning and statistically it's true. But the real question, because the guns were bought for self defense, is which shooter is better able to effectively defend themselves?

OK for those of use who are not LEOs and not military, How do we simulate the fight or flight to get realistic training?

Through professional training.

There are 5 possible responses to a threatening situation; fight, flight, freeze, posture and submit. For this discussion I'll leave out posture and submit. For self defense either fight or flight is an acceptable response. Both seek to alter the attacker's ability to succeed at the attack. Freeze is what you want to avoid.

It is really difficult to know how you'll react and even harder to change that without real training. This post is long enough as it is. There are things you can do to prepare, but it will take too much room here.



I see training like this:
Training should not be mandated. Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. However, a responsible gun owner will seek some kind of training.

 

[Protected One]

I understand your reasoning and statistically it's true. But the real question, because the guns were bought for self defense, is which shooter is better able to effectively defend themselves?

In theory I'll agree with you, but in the absence of any data to support it...? I actually read/hear MORE stories about untrained people successfully defending their homes than I do trained people.

Training should not be mandated. Owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. However, a responsible gun owner will seek some kind of training.

Agree wholeheartedly!

 

[Smoke]

OK for those of use who are not LEOs and not military, How do we simulate the fight or flight to get realistic training?

Force on force training

 

[Protected One]

Force on force training

Would you agree that even force on force does not produce "precisely" the same effect as an actual encounter?
In training we at least know that (barring an accident) we will come through it safely. In a real life encounter we have no such guarantee...and that produces a different adrenalin dump than training. Training is great, but there is no replicating a real encounter.

 

[WR Moore]

Would you agree that even force on force does not produce "precisely" the same effect as an actual encounter?
In training we at least know that (barring an accident) we will come through it safely. In a real life encounter we have no such guarantee...and that produces a different adrenalin dump than training. Training is great, but there is no replicating a real encounter.

One of the benefits of the electronic age is that remotely monitored sensors can be installed on a wonderous number of things. From this, we have learned that extensively trained, experienced LE/Military personnel in force on force drills will put their fingers on the trigger at inappropriate times. There are also other lessons learned.

Now, these experienced personnel KNOW, intellecutally, that the scenario is simply training. At a sub-concious level, it's still a threat and appropriate (and possibly inappropriate) behaviors are elicited. So are elevated pulse and respiration rates.

I go through inservice training every year plus 24 hours of continuing eduction every 3 years to maintain instructor certs with mulitple weapons systems. I learn things at every training experience and I've been at this over 30 years.

I wouldn't go to Billyjoejimbobs School of Gunology, but some cautious shopping can be productive. I'd suggest paying with a credit card and if the BS alarm is frequently sounding, don't be afraid to bail and ask for a refund. You can always get the CC issuer to intervene.

 

[Kentucky Dave]

Yet many people do exactly that...and successfully defend themselves with the same gun. Locally, we've had no less than 10 instances of this in 2014, with 5 of them fatally wounding the threat. When interviewed by the media only 1 of them said they had any training. One person had just got the gun two weeks prior and was able to fend off 3 home invaders...one of whom was armed with a gun too!

Any chance of getting links to those stories/reports?

Thanks

 

[Rastoff]

In theory I'll agree with you, but in the absence of any data to support it...? I actually read/hear MORE stories about untrained people successfully defending their homes than I do trained people.

Of course you do, there are at least 10 times the number of those with no formal training. Therefore, they are 10 times more likely to show up in the news.

Are you actually suggesting that those without formal training are better at defending themselves?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Just rambling thoughts... no particular order and some contrarian views mixed in.

How important is training? I suppose it depends on the type and level of training, as well as the individual. Unless you're dealing with a maniac like James Yeager, I don't think a person can go wrong with training and more training. The importance is not so easy to measure. I would guess that most everyone here is likely to live their entire lives never requiring the use of a gun in self defense. So I guess it could be said that most self defense gun training doesn't manifest as measurably important for most folks. Probably good nutrition and diet training of gun owners would save more lives.

I think many would say that rudimentary safety training and gun handling is important regardless if a gun is ever used in self defense or not, but most, though not all, of that is simple disciplines and common sense rather than reaching any degree of skill level. For example, keeping your grubby paws off your carry gun doesn't require much technical training or mastery of skills, yet a lot of folks who are otherwise knowledgeable of the basics just cant do it. A vid was recently posted of a seasoned sheriff shooting himself and endangering the lives of others in a gun store because he didn't have the simple discipline to keep his carry gun holstered.

Mandatory training is required in Tennessee to get a carry permit. An idiot who walks in the classroom will be the same idiot who walks out having completed mandatory training. Georgia is a border state and requires no training for a carry permit. I don't think that the good people of Georgia suffer any more problems with those who carry than we do here. I have asked those who support mandatory training to supply evidence to the contrary between TN/GA and other similar pairs of border states... nothing but the sound of crickets chirping.

What I think gets missed a lot are the most rudimentary issues that pertain to the specific gun, individual, how and where it is carried. Let's say a guy chooses a pocket gun. When does he learn that a pocket gun is rather useless in the pocket if he can't get it out of his pocket while sitting in his car getting car-jacked? This kind of Gun Carry 101 simple stuff isn't taught in Tennessee's mandatory training class.

For those who are new to carry, I think a one-on-one day with a good instructor would be well worth the time and cost. Not just for basic safety and gun handling, but for a basic overview of law and what are the most common issues and misunderstandings with the law. Much beyond that I'm not so sure of the cost/reward for average Joe.

 

[Protected One]

Of course you do, there are at least 10 times the number of those with no formal training. Therefore, they are 10 times more likely to show up in the news.

Are you actually suggesting that those without formal training are better at defending themselves?

I'm suggesting that there is no evidence to support the notion that IN HOME INVASSION CASES trained individuals fare any better than untrained.
The trained individual "should" have a higher percentage of shots that hit on target, but considering that the goal is to "end the threat" (which doesn't necessarily mean hitting the target) that doesn't make them better at defending themselves.

 

[Protected One]

Any chance of getting links to those stories/reports?

Thanks

Google home invasion shootings in Detroit for 2014.