How important do YOU think training is?

[Hodgin]

ChattanoogaPhil,
I can't disagree with you doubt about a significant difference between TN's mandatory and GA's no training. Other than some points on the use of lethal force, the parts of a handgun, the difference between a revolver and semi-auto, basic safety roles, and 50 rounds down range at distances of 3, 5, and 7 yards (maybe a couple at 10 yrs), we didn't do much. Parts of it were helpful to people who had very little or no experience with handguns.

I actually think one of the main reasons for mandatory handgun classes for permits (like TN's) is more political than anything else. Politicians can claim to voters on the fence who otherwise might not be comfortable with handgun carry that permit holders are required to go through mandatory training before receiving a permit. The debate over the recent proposal that just passed the State Senate (25-2) allowing open carry without permit to anyone who legally possesses a firearm is going to be interesting. Still need permit to conceal carry.

 

[Protected One]

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.

Again, your comments address "concealed carry", which is a totally different situation from home defense.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

ChattanoogaPhil,
I can't disagree with you doubt about a significant difference between TN's mandatory and GA's no training. Other than some points on the use of lethal force, the parts of a handgun, the difference between a revolver and semi-auto, basic safety roles, and 50 rounds down range at distances of 3, 5, and 7 yards (maybe a couple at 10 yrs), we didn't do much. Parts of it were helpful to people who had very little or no experience with handguns.

I actually think one of the main reasons for mandatory handgun classes for permits (like TN's) is more political than anything else. Politicians can claim to voters on the fence who otherwise might not be comfortable with handgun carry that permit holders are required to go through mandatory training before receiving a permit. The debate over the recent proposal that just passed the State Senate (25-2) allowing open carry without permit to anyone who legally possesses a firearm is going to be interesting. Still need permit to conceal carry.

I think mandatory training is just one of those things that's easy to make an argument for without any facts, regardless if any facts exist or not, and difficult to argue against without being characterized as a lunatic who wants everyone running around with a gun in their hand without any knowledge of how to safely use it. Generally speaking, I think average Joe is able to somehow manage without government expertise in these matters.

Yup... our boys in Nashville are constantly dreaming up pro gun legislation. I support it based upon 2A principle, and also support doing away with the entire permit program. That said, the latest monthly report shows over 464,000 handgun carry permits issued in Tennessee. I never see anyone open carry.

 

[pawncop]

Training is vital. It can take many forms and can have different descriptions.

Call it "familiarization" for a new firearm to learn how it operates.

For those of us growing up with firearms were trained by our fathers (or other family members) and may overlook our training in the past.

So many new owners do not have his blessing and should have some basic training, review, familiarization, education, call it what you will to be safe, prudent, accurate and a asset to our group.

It does not have to be formal, but thorough and complete.

 

[Rastoff]

The problem with finding data on this is that it's often looking for data that can't be collected. Let me see if I can clarify that statement.

On the Air Force base, motorcyclists are required to wear an orange vest. The idea is that it will make them more visible. The problem is that you can't collect data on accidents that don't happen. So, do the vests prevent accidents? It's anyone's guess. We didn't have any motorcycle accidents before the vests were required and haven't had any since they were required. It's impossible to know if they made any difference.


The same could be said for gun training. Data can't be collected on things that didn't happen. Those who get training, tend to be more watchful. Therefore, they tend to be more likely to avoid altercations. This is universal. A person with training, tends to be more aware and therefore, tends to make themselves less likely to be a victim. They lock their doors, they have home alarms, they make their house less of a target. It's not 100%, but more likely. So, I would counter that a person with training is less likely to need to use that training because they make themselves less of a victim. You won't find any data to support that because it's impossible to collect data on stuff that didn't happen.

 

[sgtsandman]

Whether one lives in a State that requires training or not, I feel some sort of training as much as one has the time and can afford to do is a good idea.

If for nothing else, than keeping familiar with their weapon. Just buying a pistol and throwing in a drawer is generally not conducive to a good reaction and response to a real life self defense situation.

There muscle memory to keep up, figuring out if your firearm is functioning properly, and if it will hit where you aim it. Not to mention if you holster and dress will work. It's a maintenance and upkeep thing.

With all that being said, training should not be a requirement but a responsible firearm owner will do so. Maybe even take some formal classes.

 

[Protected One]

The problem with finding data on this is that it's often looking for data that can't be collected. Let me see if I can clarify that statement.

The data COULD be collected, it just isn't.

On the Air Force base, motorcyclists are required to wear an orange vest. The idea is that it will make them more visible. The problem is that you can't collect data on accidents that don't happen. So, do the vests prevent accidents? It's anyone's guess. We didn't have any motorcycle accidents before the vests were required and haven't had any since they were required. It's impossible to know if they made any difference.

The vest don't prevent accidents (as evidenced by no change in results). They do however allow someone to feel good about "thinking" they have done something worthwhile...and perhaps even garner a few points with the upper level military brass.

Data can't be collected on things that didn't happen. Those who get training, tend to be more watchful. Therefore, they tend to be more likely to avoid altercations. This is universal. A person with training, tends to be more aware and therefore, tends to make themselves less likely to be a victim. They lock their doors, they have home alarms, they make their house less of a target. It's not 100%, but more likely. So, I would counter that a person with training is less likely to need to use that training because they make themselves less of a victim. You won't find any data to support that because it's impossible to collect data on stuff that didn't happen.

In all honesty if I didn't carry concealed I would not spend the amount of time and money that I do on training. My home would be reasonably secured - as it was before I started carrying, and in the event of a break-in I would rely upon defending the door of our bedroom while waiting on police. Something that (IMO) does not demand training.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Data can't be collected on things that didn't happen.

No argument there. Let's look at it in a different way. There's hundreds of thousands of permit holders in Georgia running around without government mandated formal training. If it was that big of deal there would be blood running in the streets from permit holders shooting innocents or themselves. But ya can't report what isn't happening.

We're gun enthusiasts here, and I think it's easy to lose sight of the typical gun owner who rarely if ever goes to the range or practices in any way, but has a gun stashed in the nightstand drawer. Gary Kleck estimated up to 2.5 million uses of guns for self protection (not usually shot) per year. Critics say it is much lower, but in any event I think it's fair to say it's a big number. Now I can't say how many might have done better with formal training, but the sampling of folks who answered the survey, the overwhelming majority likely had no formal training or practiced regularly, somehow lived to tell about it and were not in jail.

 

[Rastoff]

The data COULD be collected, it just isn't.

No, it's impossible to collect data on something that didn't happen.

The vest don't prevent accidents (as evidenced by no change in results).

The lack of change in accidents only shows that the vests didn't cause accidents. It tells us exactly nothing about preventing accidents.

In all honesty if I didn't carry concealed I would not spend the amount of time and money that I do on training.

There are many that have this same approach. So, I'll ask again, do you think that training adds no value to a person in protecting their home?

Obviously, I'm a little biased being an NRA certified instructor. Even so, I'd gladly run you through the NRA Personal Protection Inside The Home class. If at the end of the class you didn't learn anything to help you protect yourself at home, I'd not charge you for the class. In fact, I offer a full refund to any student taking any of my classes if they don't feel they got any value out of it.

 

[Rastoff]

There's hundreds of thousands of permit holders in Georgia running around without government mandated formal training.

I can't argue with that. There's also millions of gun owners who haven't shot themselves or anyone else who've never had any formal training.

The point I'm getting at, and always will work toward, is that training is good. A decent training class can't make you worse, but not having training doesn't make you better.



I was going to say that all training is good, but that's simply not true. There are instructors out there that are teaching things that are not only wrong, they will get you killed. So, no training is better than wrong training.

 

[Protected One]

I can't argue with that. There's also millions of gun owners who haven't shot themselves or anyone else who've never had any formal training.

The point I'm getting at, and always will work toward, is that training is good. A decent training class can't make you worse, but not having training doesn't make you better.



I was going to say that all training is good, but that's simply not true. There are instructors out there that are teaching things that are not only wrong, they will get you killed. So, no training is better than wrong training.

I don't want to get into a "hair splitting contest" because I have a feeling that on matters related to handguns, self-defense, and training we would be in agreement on 95 out of 100 issues. Having said that, there is a difference between something (in this case: training) being "helpful" vs being "necessary". If handgun/shotgun ownership (for home defense use) were restricted to only those who've had training there would be a lot fewer guns in homes, and a lot more thieves still walking this earth.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The point I'm getting at, and always will work toward, is that training is good. A decent training class can't make you worse, but not having training doesn't make you better.

I was going to say that all training is good, but that's simply not true. There are instructors out there that are teaching things that are not only wrong, they will get you killed. So, no training is better than wrong training.

I think you are right, and that's pretty much how I entered this thread saying... Unless you're dealing with a maniac like James Yeager, I don't think a person can go wrong with training and more training.

 

[Grayfox]

I got the impression that the question was regarding should training be required to own a firearm?
Should you get training? Yes.
Should you practice with your firearm? Absolutely.
Should training be required to own a firearm? NO!

Do those of you who support required training to own a firearm realize that you're advocating a restriction on a Constitutional Right?

 

[Protected One]

I got the impression that the question was regarding should training be required to own a firearm?
Should you get training? Yes.
Should you practice with your firearm? Absolutely.
Should training be required to own a firearm? NO!

Do those of you who support required training to own a firearm realize that you're advocating a restriction on a Constitutional Right?

The question is - "Are guns too dangerous for untrained individuals" (making them a danger to themselves and others)?
The question is in reference to people who have them FOR HOME DEFENSE - not concealed carry.

I say No, otherwise we would have an epidemic of people being shot or killed by the guns in their home

 

[Smoke]

I don't want to get into a "hair splitting contest" .

With all due respect it looks like that's exactly what you want to do

If handgun/shotgun ownership (for home defense use) were restricted to only those who've had training there would be a lot fewer guns in homes, and a lot more thieves still walking this earth.

By all means please feel free to quote any post in this thread that says that firearms ownership for home defense should be restricted to those who have had training

 

[Ranger514]

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

You can buy this gear or rent it to set up your own realistic scenarios. LEOs use it all the time in their Force on Force training. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airsoft

 

[CowboyKen]

You fellows might want to read this article in the current issue of American Handgunner: American Handgunner May/June Digital Edition Page 76 = if you turn to the index and click on: Gun Rights by Alan Korwin = Are carry-license trainers our enemy?.

Again, there are about a dozen states that do not require training to carry a firearm and there is no evidence to support the contention that folks with firearms, even those that carry them, are a greater danger to themselves or others (except for true miscreants) in those states then those in states that do require extensive training.

Ken

 

[wheelyfun66]

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

Walk through the West Bank with a star of David on your tee shirt?
Walk through Compton with a Rebel Flag?
Take a walking tour of Iraq?
Or, tell my wife how much money I spend on guns and ammo every year!

 

[Protected One]

Walk through the West Bank with a star of David on your tee shirt?
Walk through Compton with a Rebel Flag?
Take a walking tour of Iraq?
Or, tell my wife how much money I spend on guns and ammo every year!

Thanks for starting my day off with a big laugh....that is hilarious!!!

 

[Donn]

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

The short answer, you can't. Don't understand me too fast, that's no slam on you or anyone else here. Trouble is, no matter how realistic the training might be, you know in the back of your mind you'll be going home when it's over. That's the difference between training and the real thing. Till it actually happens, (and let's hope it never does), you can't know how you'll respond.