How important do YOU think training is?

[HereSinceTheLongHunters]

Had an event where the practice kicked in late at night. Fortunately it wasn't a real threat, but A+ on rapid & ready response.
Things happen fast. IMO, If you don't train you'll likely be the victim of adrenaline and indecision or much worse, a threat to those you intended to protect.
Our brains crave the familiar as a matter of survival and efficiency. The subconscious brain is far more busy and aware, identifying things, assessing threats, decoding verbal and non-verbal communication, etc. than the conscious. Regular practice and training provide skills that can be automatically recalled and instantly utilized when needed... which relieves the subconscious of the gun handling task (providing a tool rather than a puzzle) and allows it to focus on analyzing the immediate problem or threat at hand.. which is a net gain of efficiency, computing power and hopefully, an advantage over the threat!

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

As I read through many of the rationale expressed here... what I'm seeing is the Grand Canyon sized gap between simply knowing where the trigger is and what end of the barrel the bullet comes out.... to the amount of training and practice required to be considered competent to both physically and mentally handle the endless scenarios in self defense.

The question should be something like- What is the amount of training and endless practice that is likely going to make a significant difference in outcome for average Joe? That seems like one heck of a difficult question to answer.

This is an unfair statement. No one is suggesting that people go out and become Rambo.

However, if a gun is going to be used for protection, training is a very good thing. My favorite quote from Jeff Cooper, "Owning a gun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a guitar makes you a musician." Jut because someone defended themselves after not having training doesn't invalidate the value of training.

"Rambo" is a professional in war and guns.
A "musician" is a professional in music and instruments.


And it exemplifies the question of -- What is the amount of training and endless practice that is likely going to make a significant difference in outcome? At last count there were 15 trillion different what-ifs in a self defense situation. So what training is the best bang for the buck, and at what point is the investment in training and practice likely to return very little difference in a self defense situation?

Police get at least some formal training and have to qualify. I often hear claims of general hit/miss average ratios of 50%, and sometimes worse in specific shooting situations. So on just the shooting ability side of the equation, what is the measure of training for average Joe? Should average Joe seek training to at least a minimum for law enforcement?

 

[Rastoff]

What is the amount of training and endless practice that is likely going to make a significant difference in outcome for average Joe?

A brilliant question and really better than what the OP was asking, but it is in the same vein.

It is a difficult question to answer, but not impossible. Here is how I assess the level of training/practice necessary for the average person who is going to use a gun for self defense:

1. Can you explain/demonstrate the 5 step presentation process from concealment and from memory?
2. Can you explain the 6 fundamentals of handgun marksmanship?
3. Can you explain the different levels of awareness?

If you can't answer these questions off the top of your head, I'd suggest at least one training class. For me, the answers don't have to be verbatim out of some training manual. If an understanding can be demonstrated, that's good enough.

Then, everyone who uses a gun for self defense, even if it's just at home, should have some knowledge of their local laws. The laws vary greatly from state to state, county to county and city to city. If there isn't at least a basic understanding of the laws in your area, training should be sought.

That covers gun knowledge and law knowledge, now there is a competency aspect. Can the gun be shot with relative ability to hit the intended target? And, can it be done under stress? It's very difficult to simulate the stress of a real gun fight, nigh impossible. Even so, adding a timer to the practice session is a good start. Here are the standards I hold myself to:

Starting from concealment, can I put two rounds, in the thoracic cavity, within a hand span, in under 2.4 seconds at 7 yards? I use different times depending on distance, but you get the idea. Yesterday I was averaging 2.3 seconds for this drill. If I can repeat this for two magazines, I see no reason to shoot more. I test myself with this at least once a month.


Here I've laid out what I consider a minimum of knowledge and practice. None of this will make you Rambo or Jose Feliciano, but it will make you competent with your gun. Receiving training to this level and doing this amount of practice, will make a significant difference in the potential outcome of any confrontation with a gun.

 

[Smoke]

I got to go to a church sponsored range training session today. We worked on 1 handed shooting, 1 handed reloads, off hand shooting, 1 handed malfunction drills (something I never would have thought about on my own) and off hand drawing (what happens when the very first thing in the attack is the attacker slashing your gun hand?)

Next month we are doing active shooter training with CSPD (that's training I couldn't buy)

Will I ever use any of it? I don't know but I feel much better prepared to defend myself should the need arise

 

[Protected One]

As I read through many of the rationale expressed here... what I'm seeing is the Grand Canyon sized gap between simply knowing where the trigger is and what end of the barrel the bullet comes out.... to the amount of training and practice required to be considered competent to both physically and mentally handle the endless scenarios in self defense.

The question should be something like- What is the amount of training and endless practice that is likely going to make a significant difference in outcome for average Joe? That seems like one heck of a difficult question to answer.

It's an impossible question to answer, because the "average Joe" would have to experience every different possible self-defense situation, with someone monitoring to assess his response to determine how significant a difference his training and practice made vs the "average Joe" without the training.

As to Coopers statement...he was a brilliant man...but that doesn't mean everything he said was correct. Owning a gun does not make you armed, but having a loaded one in your hand (whether you're the owner or not) DOES indeed make you "armed".

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

It's an impossible question to answer, because the "average Joe" would have to experience every different possible self-defense situation, with someone monitoring to assess his response to determine how significant a difference his training and practice made vs the "average Joe" without the training.

As to Coopers statement...he was a brilliant man...but that doesn't mean everything he said was correct. Owning a gun does not make you armed, but having a loaded one in your hand (whether you're the owner or not) DOES indeed make you "armed".

I agree. The statement is colorful but isn't all that helpful. A musician is a professional. Just because I've learned the parts of the guitar, first position chords, and can strum a love song to my woman does not make me a musician. But that's all I expect from me and a guitar. Likewise with arming myself.

As for what traning will make a significant difference, we all answer that question for ourselves one way or the other. Typically folks don't prepare for every possible situation. We prepare to our own satisfaction for what we think is the likely need and to make a significant difference in outcome.

Generally speaking, what minimum level of training do you think is likely to make the most difference for armed average Joe?

I think what Rastoff posted makes sense. It ain't Clapton, but more likely to get the desired result than randomly plucking strings. That said... still lots of women will be thrilled and bad guys will run no matter how terrible you are on the strings or trigger.

 

[Rastoff]

I think the guitar reference is apt. Granted our definition of musician might be different. Even so, no one picks up a guitar and thinks they can immediately start playing Bach. But, plenty of people think they can pick up a gun and shoot great the first time out.

That first trip to the range is an eye opener for anyone who's honest with themselves. Still more never go to the range and continue in the illusion that they can shoot well.

The intimidating value of just presenting a gun cannot be denied. It works because the one it's being pointed at believes the person holding it can shoot too. However, to rely solely on that intimidation factor is not wise.

I guess I just don't understand why people are so afraid to get training.

 

[Protected One]

I think the guitar reference is apt. Granted our definition of musician might be different. Even so, no one picks up a guitar and thinks they can immediately start playing Bach. But, plenty of people think they can pick up a gun and shoot great the first time out.

That first trip to the range is an eye opener for anyone who's honest with themselves. Still more never go to the range and continue in the illusion that they can shoot well.

I guess I just don't understand why people are so afraid to get training.

I don't believe the guitar reference is apt. for the following reason.

A person generally possesses a guitar for one of four reasons:
1)Decoration. There like the way it looks in their home.
2)Collecting. They know certain guitars appreciate in value, and thus make good investments.
3)Plucking. Maybe learning a song or two...playing for fun only.
4)Professional play. Earning a living through its use. These are the "musicians" (IMO),and no matter how nice a guitar one has, owning it does not put you in this group.

A person generally possesses a handgun for one (or more) of four reasons:
1)Collecting
2)Sport
3)Hunting
4)Defense
Regardless to which applies, a person with a loaded gun in hand is armed - trained or untrained, and in the first moment of picking it up is able to defend themselves...though perhaps not as well as a person with specific training.
Coopers quote, while very catchy, does not stand the scrutiny of examination.

The intimidating value of just presenting a gun cannot be denied. It works because the one it's being pointed at believes the person holding it can shoot too. However, to rely solely on that intimidation factor is not wise.

Isn't it interesting that with all the caliber debates and training debates that take place on the forum...the overwhelming majority of the time it doesn't matter? I think I heard it said that 90% of the time the mere presentation of a gun ends the threat. This in spite of the fact that the threat does not know the shooters skill level, the caliber being presented, or for that matter...if the gun is even loaded!
Though the odds are greatly against me ever needing to use my gun in defense, I train for the 1 in 10 possibility when presentation won't be enough.

 

[Protected One]

I guess I just don't understand why people are so afraid to get training.

I don't believe it's a question of "fear", but rather the following:
It's expensive.
It's time consuming.
and in many eyes - largely unnecessary.

If I didn't carry concealed, and only kept a firearm for home defense I would be inclined to agree with them.
Now, if I were a instructor I would think EVERYBODY needed training!

 

[Rastoff]

I really do think it's fear. In the US, males are afraid that if they take a class they'll find out that they aren't as good as they think they are. Not having time or money is the excuse.

I've seen it many times. A guy, long time hunter, will shoot Trap for the first time. He will break all 25 clays and proclaim the game too easy. In every case, I've offered to buy the ammo and targets for them to do it again. I'll tell them, "If it's so easy, there's a ton of money to be made." To date, not one person was willing to shoot a second round even when I was making it free. Why do you suppose that is? I believe it's because they are afraid that the first was a fluke and aren't willing to admit it.

In my experience, females don't have this fear because generally they don't automatically think they're great shots. They tend to seek the training.

 

[Smoke]

I'm not sure how directly relevant this is to this thread but I see a connection.

One of the people that attended our range training day yesterday (I think) works as an armed security guard for a company that I had the incredible fortune not to be hired by earlier this year.

Without going into a great amount of detail, this woman made it perfectly clear that she was unfamiliar with her weapon, unfamiliar with her equipment and unfamiliar with the training being presented.

The church security team is supposed to carry their firearms concealed. This woman shows up with a duty belt and a level 2 retention holster under a concealment shirt that looks like a dress on her and the first thing she did when the training started was to put the belt on over her shirt and open up the retention devices on the holster. She also has to be told repeatedly that she can not have her hand on her weapon while waiting to start the rotation. (IOW she's on the line with her hand on her gun getting ready to draw every rotation and still isn't making the times)

So clearly she is not training with her equipment the way she's going to wear it on duty and she still can't manage to get the gun out of the holster and get off 2 consecutive shots.She alibi'd on every rotation.

I won't say that she was unsafe as such but only because the RSO and the head instructor stayed in her back pocket the entire class and didn't give her chance to be.

Now I don't live in that woman's head but one assumes that if she is working as an armed security guard she must think she's equal to the task. Before I took my first training class I thought I was equal to the task.

Gary Kleck talked to 5000 people (and we have no idea how many of them were being truthful) and from that number extrapolated an estimated 2 million DGUs a year in which no shots are fired. What happens when the mere sight of your handgun isn't enough to scare the bad guy away?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I'm not sure that being afraid is the overriding issue, but rather most folks don't think it's worthwhile.

In Tennessee only about 10% of adults have a carry permit. So right there tells you that few people even think carrying a gun is worthwhile. Of those with carry permits, I'd be surprised if half carry much of the time, and just a very small fraction carry all the time. Few who carry will ever need to shoot anyone in self defense during their entire lifetime. It's no surprise that formal trainng is a hard sell to average Joe.

I suppose there are some who are reluctant to seek training for the same reason that some are reluctant to ask for directions even when they are lost. Embarrassment, pride, and maybe fear plays a part... But I think most just don't think it's worthwhile, and right or wrong believe they will be up the task in the unlikely event of a SD situation requiring use of a gun at home or while carrying. And if Kleck's numbers are anywhere close to being real, I guess more often than not it works out ok.

 

[Protected One]

I'm not sure how directly relevant this is to this thread but I see a connection.

One of the people that attended our range training day yesterday (I think) works as an armed security guard for a company that I had the incredible fortune not to be hired by earlier this year.

Without going into a great amount of detail, this woman made it perfectly clear that she was unfamiliar with her weapon, unfamiliar with her equipment and unfamiliar with the training being presented.

The church security team is supposed to carry their firearms concealed. This woman shows up with a duty belt and a level 2 retention holster under a concealment shirt that looks like a dress on her and the first thing she did when the training started was to put the belt on over her shirt and open up the retention devices on the holster. She also has to be told repeatedly that she can not have her hand on her weapon while waiting to start the rotation. (IOW she's on the line with her hand on her gun getting ready to draw every rotation and still isn't making the times)

So clearly she is not training with her equipment the way she's going to wear it on duty and she still can't manage to get the gun out of the holster and get off 2 consecutive shots.She alibi'd on every rotation.

I won't say that she was unsafe as such but only because the RSO and the head instructor stayed in her back pocket the entire class and didn't give her chance to be.

Now I don't live in that woman's head but one assumes that if she is working as an armed security guard she must think she's equal to the task. Before I took my first training class I thought I was equal to the task.

Gary Kleck talked to 5000 people (and we have no idea how many of them were being truthful) and from that number extrapolated an estimated 2 million DGUs a year in which no shots are fired. What happens when the mere sight of your handgun isn't enough to scare the bad guy away?

What you have there is a woman on the FAR left side of the spectrum. On the far right side is the person who can perform the Manchurian drill with deadly accuracy at 10 yards, with 5 or 6 different handguns. Most I suspect fall somewhere closer to the middle.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Isn't it interesting that with all the caliber debates and training debates that take place on the forum...the overwhelming majority of the time it doesn't matter? I think I heard it said that 90% of the time the mere presentation of a gun ends the threat. This in spite of the fact that the threat does not know the shooters skill level, the caliber being presented, or for that matter...if the gun is even loaded!
.

A guy by the name of Gregg Ellifritz did a study of self defense shootings (An Alternative Look At Hangun Stopping Power). His findings were that common centerfire calibers from .380 on up had little affect on outcome. Nevertheless, some would curl up in the fetal position and stay at home if not armed with a .45ACP and at least two spare mags. But somehow those with .380s still manage.

I think there are some similarities in this discussion. Generally speaking, more training and larger caliber is better. But after the smoke clears, what is the likely measurable benefit in outcome for average Joe?

 

[Rastoff]

Let me see if I hear you guys correctly. Shot placement doesn't matter. Caliber doesn't matter. Skill with the gun is irrelevant and training is a waste of money and time. Just having the gun is enough to stop most crimes. Does that about sum it up?

 

[JJEH]

Let me see if I hear you guys correctly. Shot placement doesn't matter. Caliber doesn't matter. Skill with the gun is irrelevant and training is a waste of money and time. Just having the gun is enough to stop most crimes. Does that about sum it up?

Yup! Smart guns are the answer. Just download the app on your iPhone, sync it with your gun and punch in first- and last name of the person you wanna shoot. It's also asking for the SSN of the soon to be shot person, but you can disable that function.

No training necessary anymore. The gun is only available in one caliber, the universal caliber. It measures 6.66mm in diameter and shoots environmental healthy bullets.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Let me see if I hear you guys correctly. Shot placement doesn't matter. Caliber doesn't matter. Skill with the gun is irrelevant and training is a waste of money and time. Just having the gun is enough to stop most crimes. Does that about sum it up?

Well sure shot placement matters. How how much training is required to have precise control over shot placement in a SD situation is another matter.

What exactly do you mean when you're talking about shot placement? Police at least get some formal training and are required to qualify. The few studies that I have seen on NYPD hit ratios is being lucky to hit somewhere, anywhere, on the human body under 50% of the time at best. Is that the level of shot placement matters you're talking about? Or are you talking about average Joe, or in the case of the OP's video, grandma seeking training and performance well beyond that which you might expect of law enforcement?

You're the trainer here. Sell your product. Ya got to do better than arguing some training is better than none. If Kleck's numbers are only half right, that's one million cases of gun uses per year (ranging from investigating a cat jumping on a garbage can lid to use of deadly force in self defense). There are at least 100 million gun owners in America (NRA estimates 150). So that puts use of a gun about once in 100 to 150 man years for a gun owner. That's pretty steep odds of ever using a gun, including false alarms. Not an easy sell.

 

[kevin in nh]

You live or die by how you train....when the SHTF you revert to your training instantly....theres no hesitation...you don't think you act....I drew down on more than one person in 17 years and when you skin the smoke wagon you better be ready to use it....

 

[Rastoff]

Well sure shot placement matters. How how much training is required to have precise control over shot placement in a SD situation is another matter.

What exactly do you mean when you're talking about shot placement?

I've stated several times what I mean. Look back and read what I said about what I consider necessary for training criteria and how to determine what is needed.

Police at least get some formal training and are required to qualify. The few studies that I have seen on NYPD hit ratios is being lucky to hit somewhere, anywhere, on the human body under 50% of the time at best.

Kinda answers your question doesn't it? If a professional, who supposedly has training, can't hit a target, wouldn't that lead you to think that a person with no training will be worse? Just supports the value of more training.

That's pretty steep odds of ever using a gun, including false alarms. Not an easy sell.

With logic like this, there is nothing I can say. Why own a gun at all if your thought process is that you'll never need it?

I've never claimed that an individual should be required to have training. It's a personal decision. I've always said that any person's ability with any tool will only go so far without training. From a hammer to an Aircraft Carrier, the ability to use it depends on the user's knowledge base. Can you learn on your own? Sure. That learning will be much faster with professional training.

I don't really know how I can say it better than I did before. Come to the class. If you don't learn anything, don't pay. What could be a better offer?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I've stated several times what I mean. Look back and read what I said about what I consider necessary for training criteria and how to determine what is needed.

I read twice but did not find a specific answer that would apply here.

What exactly do you mean when you're talking about shot placement matters?

The few studies that I have seen on NYPD hit ratios is being lucky to hit somewhere, anywhere, on the human body under 50% of the time at best (gunfights show a 17% hit ratio). Is that the level of shot placement matters you're talking about? Or are you talking about average Joe, or in the case of the OP's video, grandma seeking training and performance well beyond that which you might expect of law enforcement?

Your argument seems to rely on that some training is better than none. I agree. But to convince someone of the value, you need to place a value on it. Formal gun training, qualifying, and daily real world situational awareness and high stress situations equals a 17% value for NYPD. What value should average Joe expect from the basic training that you've outlined? About the same as NYPD? Less? How much better than none?