SgtLumpy
Member
If you'd care to discuss your viewpoint and support your theories, I'd be happy to entertain discussion.
Sgt Lumpy
Formal Training Is Bad?
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
If you'd care to discuss your viewpoint and support your theories, I'd be happy to entertain discussion.
Sgt Lumpy
Steve in Vermont
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,969
- Reaction score
- 1,379
I guess I've just lived to long and have seen to many people do stupid things with guns. And I'm talking about things such as basic safety, something they would have received in the first day of a training course. As to laws, you might be surprised how many gun owners have no knowledge of their states gun laws, let alone under what conditions they can (legally) use a gun to defend themselves. If I had not received formal training, both in the military and civilian world, before I started cc I'd have found an NRA instructor and taken the course. The biggest benefit of this instruction was the formation of habits that have stayed with me for a lifetime. Bad habits, whether driving or shooting, are hard to break and I've observed a lot of people who didn't learn properly and demonstrate that fact every time they drive, or handle a gun.
I have enjoyed attending formal training outside of my agency training. I have had to pay for each course out of pocket, but I consider it money well spent. The great thing about these schools is their ability to provide drills you normally couldn't do. Ever sit in a car, and shoot through a windshield at targets? Ever engage targets that were sitting in a motor vehicle? You can read a million articles about these encounters in Gun Rags, or run countless "what if..." scenarious in your head. But until you've physically attempted this stuff, you have no idea what it's like. You have to have a little "nugget" to put away in the back of your brain for future use. That's what these schools provide. Going to a three day SiG, Gunsite, Midsouth, Blackwater (I'm dating myself), HSP or any other course doesn't turn you to a gunfighter, but it does give you extra tools for your toolbox. Just my 2 cents.
venomballistics
Member
ya just made me start to miss those abandoned early 70's full sized cars I used to enjoy back in the woods
Honestly, everyone should try to find some dead road iron to set some targets in.
It changed how I load for road trips.
some folks would be shocked to see how some of the wizzbang hollow points fail so miserably through a car door
Fastbolt
Member
There was this time when a guy, who had received some training in LE over the years, and who worked a special enforcement assignment (where he wore a thigh rig), was being put through a new qual drill for the first time.
It involved having to fire several rounds against a stationary threat target while moving diagonally, first approaching and then moving away from the threat. (Checking for handling & shooting skills while moving, controlling the weapon during more repeated recoil than involved in a "double-tap", etc.) Depending on shooter's movement, it involved distances averaging 9 yds to 4 yds.
The guy ran the course with good confidence. He also missed with every shot. He was quite surprised and asked how he could miss. I discussed some suggestions for easing his shooting posture during movement and raising his pistol higher up into his sight plane. He repeated the exercise and got all hits.
The point?
Shooting is a perishable skill. This fellow had probably received more training than the average cop, and had been working in the field for going on 20 years at that time. It was the movement requirement that seemed to have caused him trouble, until some remedial reminders on how to both simplify and improve his movement and aiming. I also recommended some occasional practice.
Some years ago I was reading how a fairly large state agency had reviewed its OIS's and determined that in not quite 65% of the shootings involving its officers, both the officer(s) and the suspect(s) had been in constant motion. Reportedly, their training practices evolved to take that into consideration. They shoot monthly, BTW.
Here's another thought, though.
While training classes can be both hard to find and expensive, the popularity of IDPA can provide a way for folks to check their actual skills against their perception of them, and against those of other enthusiasts. It might be a less expensive way to begin to assess individual skills, as well as meet other enthusiasts who may well have acquired different levels of additional training. Might even be fun. It might also open the eyes of some folks regarding the extent & level of their actual skills, too.
For those of you who also own Glocks? Why npot take advantage of any GSSF events close enough to you to be convenient? Focus on the adaptibility of your skillset when using antoher pistol make/model. See how well those skills are ingrained under some "range stress" resulting from friendly competition? Who knows? Some folks have won some new Glocks that way.
Mindset, Skillset .... Toolset.
The Toolset (gun, holster, etc) comes out of a box.
The Mindset & Skillset? That takes some development at the level of the individual. The skillset, at least has been shown to be perishable over time. (Complacency is a concern for most of us, I'd suspect.) It can vary among both individuals, as well as within the same individual, over time.
It involved having to fire several rounds against a stationary threat target while moving diagonally, first approaching and then moving away from the threat. (Checking for handling & shooting skills while moving, controlling the weapon during more repeated recoil than involved in a "double-tap", etc.) Depending on shooter's movement, it involved distances averaging 9 yds to 4 yds.
The guy ran the course with good confidence. He also missed with every shot. He was quite surprised and asked how he could miss. I discussed some suggestions for easing his shooting posture during movement and raising his pistol higher up into his sight plane. He repeated the exercise and got all hits.
The point?
Shooting is a perishable skill. This fellow had probably received more training than the average cop, and had been working in the field for going on 20 years at that time. It was the movement requirement that seemed to have caused him trouble, until some remedial reminders on how to both simplify and improve his movement and aiming. I also recommended some occasional practice.
Some years ago I was reading how a fairly large state agency had reviewed its OIS's and determined that in not quite 65% of the shootings involving its officers, both the officer(s) and the suspect(s) had been in constant motion. Reportedly, their training practices evolved to take that into consideration. They shoot monthly, BTW.
Here's another thought, though.
While training classes can be both hard to find and expensive, the popularity of IDPA can provide a way for folks to check their actual skills against their perception of them, and against those of other enthusiasts. It might be a less expensive way to begin to assess individual skills, as well as meet other enthusiasts who may well have acquired different levels of additional training. Might even be fun. It might also open the eyes of some folks regarding the extent & level of their actual skills, too.
For those of you who also own Glocks? Why npot take advantage of any GSSF events close enough to you to be convenient? Focus on the adaptibility of your skillset when using antoher pistol make/model. See how well those skills are ingrained under some "range stress" resulting from friendly competition? Who knows? Some folks have won some new Glocks that way.
Mindset, Skillset .... Toolset.
The Toolset (gun, holster, etc) comes out of a box.
The Mindset & Skillset? That takes some development at the level of the individual. The skillset, at least has been shown to be perishable over time. (Complacency is a concern for most of us, I'd suspect.) It can vary among both individuals, as well as within the same individual, over time.
Last edited:
I think Bernard Getz, on a NYC subway shot 5 very large goblins who were intimidating him and trying to get money. After the shooting they were found to have "Burglary tools". Getz had a 5 shot M-60 with a 3 inch barrel if I remember. 5 shots and 5 goblins. I would be surprised if he had any training beyond how to load the thing.
Without question some training is is better than non. But for a "Training" school to imply that without their training you are a hazard to society, and to add insult to injury, to "Shame" people who do not have said training , weather it is money related or other wise puts the shame on them.
Know how to handle your weapon. Be confident and if the time ever comes, do not hesitate.
Without question some training is is better than non. But for a "Training" school to imply that without their training you are a hazard to society, and to add insult to injury, to "Shame" people who do not have said training , weather it is money related or other wise puts the shame on them.
Know how to handle your weapon. Be confident and if the time ever comes, do not hesitate.
Interesting I read the same article you did and never once got the implication that the guy was trying to get you to take "his" training
feralmerril
Absent Comrade
Several times in the past here I more or less got shouted down when I gave a opinion on Utah not making you go to the range as part of getting your permit. People here thought all states shouldn't make you train as sort of a God given right and no one should have the right to question your ability as a free born American etc.
I retired with 35 years as a armed guard with lockheed aircraft in california. Started in 1965 and worked at a couple other places as armed security before that. When I started out in late 1964 places would give you a gun and turn you loose. Fortunately, lockheed did train us before there was state laws that made them. I think the state board of consumers affairs came out with training laws in the very early 1970s. I have been told by several instructors through the years that I had the lowest numbered open carry in uniform they had seen. That was just because lockheed sent us to the first school soon as it was mandated. We also had to go to "Guard" class`s and test to be a security guard. We had to carry and keep up two separate cards. Guard and gun cards. There was a lot of bellyaching about it as most thought it was really only a money grabbing tool for the state. We at first had to re qualify just once a year. Seems I went every six months a lot.
I retired and moved to utah. Looked forward to getting my CC permit. The day of the "school" I packed up my gun, ammo and equipment. I was disappointed that I didnt need a gun and wasnt going to shoot. Instead it was a day of listening to a filibuster with no range time.
I totally believe in freedom, our God given rights etc, but I do also believe a person should at least have a working knowledge of gun handling and safety instruction. Accuracy I dont think should be mandatory. When people tell me you need farther instruction I keep thinking of that popular video clip about a year ago with that ATF guy that shot himself in the foot while he was bragging to the kids, "ah`s da onlyest person in dis here room dats qualified ta handle dis here glock! Well, that or close to it!
I do believe there must have been countless cases where bad guys have been chased off when a gun was shown. Now, I wouldn't want to rely on that without ammo and knowledge how to use it however I believe its asinine to try and make the case that just because a person doesn't have high training they are better off not having a gun.
Are we to believe most of the instructors out there really have the "experience" of past gun fights that we all should hang on to his vast range of knowledge? I believe the vast majority of honest defensive gunfights aren't much farther than hand shaking distance. Probley the sights aren't used and its instinctive shooting like throwing a rock. I dont think you have to be a master bullseye target shooter for that in most cases. Obviously training wouldn't hurt either but face it, the average working family man isn't going lay out the money, time and effort to be a pro. He shouldn't have to either to "qualify" to have a gun to defend his family with. I do believe he/her should have basic safety training and a quiz on it to qualify though.
I retired with 35 years as a armed guard with lockheed aircraft in california. Started in 1965 and worked at a couple other places as armed security before that. When I started out in late 1964 places would give you a gun and turn you loose. Fortunately, lockheed did train us before there was state laws that made them. I think the state board of consumers affairs came out with training laws in the very early 1970s. I have been told by several instructors through the years that I had the lowest numbered open carry in uniform they had seen. That was just because lockheed sent us to the first school soon as it was mandated. We also had to go to "Guard" class`s and test to be a security guard. We had to carry and keep up two separate cards. Guard and gun cards. There was a lot of bellyaching about it as most thought it was really only a money grabbing tool for the state. We at first had to re qualify just once a year. Seems I went every six months a lot.
I retired and moved to utah. Looked forward to getting my CC permit. The day of the "school" I packed up my gun, ammo and equipment. I was disappointed that I didnt need a gun and wasnt going to shoot. Instead it was a day of listening to a filibuster with no range time.
I totally believe in freedom, our God given rights etc, but I do also believe a person should at least have a working knowledge of gun handling and safety instruction. Accuracy I dont think should be mandatory. When people tell me you need farther instruction I keep thinking of that popular video clip about a year ago with that ATF guy that shot himself in the foot while he was bragging to the kids, "ah`s da onlyest person in dis here room dats qualified ta handle dis here glock! Well, that or close to it!
I do believe there must have been countless cases where bad guys have been chased off when a gun was shown. Now, I wouldn't want to rely on that without ammo and knowledge how to use it however I believe its asinine to try and make the case that just because a person doesn't have high training they are better off not having a gun.
Are we to believe most of the instructors out there really have the "experience" of past gun fights that we all should hang on to his vast range of knowledge? I believe the vast majority of honest defensive gunfights aren't much farther than hand shaking distance. Probley the sights aren't used and its instinctive shooting like throwing a rock. I dont think you have to be a master bullseye target shooter for that in most cases. Obviously training wouldn't hurt either but face it, the average working family man isn't going lay out the money, time and effort to be a pro. He shouldn't have to either to "qualify" to have a gun to defend his family with. I do believe he/her should have basic safety training and a quiz on it to qualify though.
SgtLumpy
Member
I think the clear answer here is that the more trained a person is, the better.
Except for California. Clearly there if you have more than 16 hrs of training you are a liability.
Yeah. That's the ticket.
Sgt Lumpy
Except for California. Clearly there if you have more than 16 hrs of training you are a liability.
Yeah. That's the ticket.
Sgt Lumpy
Fastbolt
Member
Not sure how you arrived at that interpretation.
It's more like the revision of the state's laws don't allow appointing authorities to pick some arbitrary lengthy class requirement, like 40-80+ plus hours, before someone can get their license.
The agencies/counties with which I'm familiar seem to have usually gone with the minimum 4 hour class requirement, although the firearms qualification requirements and potential for additional restrictions can vary.
Folks are certainly free to seek further, more lengthy training, on their own, if they wish. I've can't remember anyone involved in licensing/training say, or intimate, that someone having more training than what's required for the CCW process makes them a liability.
Am I misunderstanding your comments?
I'm going to expand on one of Fastbolts point's: I've been repeatedly horrified by what a great many folks think they know about when they can lawfully use deadly force.
Some years back, I was averaging about 10% of classes walking out because I wouldn't support (flatly told them they'd go to jail) what they firmly believed was their 'rights'. Things have improved since then. I hope I never have to apprear as a prosecution witness against any of the walk outs.
There are possible issues with mandated training. Content, cost and length being the major ones. I don't think you have to be special ops qualified to defend yourself. The biggest issue I see is overcoming decades of media presented BS. Then there's the issue of instilling fundamental skills and that they need to practice those skills and improve them. I once read a line I think is largely true: Most folks practice until they can do something right. Professionals practice until they can't do it wrong. Or at least they do if their agency has the budget.
IDPA and the like can let folks get an appreciation of their actual skill level. One great problem is that many match stages are situations that one wouldn't survive in the real world.
Some years back, I was averaging about 10% of classes walking out because I wouldn't support (flatly told them they'd go to jail) what they firmly believed was their 'rights'. Things have improved since then. I hope I never have to apprear as a prosecution witness against any of the walk outs.
There are possible issues with mandated training. Content, cost and length being the major ones. I don't think you have to be special ops qualified to defend yourself. The biggest issue I see is overcoming decades of media presented BS. Then there's the issue of instilling fundamental skills and that they need to practice those skills and improve them. I once read a line I think is largely true: Most folks practice until they can do something right. Professionals practice until they can't do it wrong. Or at least they do if their agency has the budget.
IDPA and the like can let folks get an appreciation of their actual skill level. One great problem is that many match stages are situations that one wouldn't survive in the real world.
To quote Mr Miagi, "No such thing bad student, only bad teacher."
Training in and of itself is not a bad thing, provided you don't get some yahoo or someone who is truly clueless about the subject they are teaching. I feel that a person should have more than just a working knowledge of their personal defense weapon, maybe not go so far as saying that they should have an intimate knowledge of the gun, but somewhere in between. There are exercises that you can do at home with a snap cap like practicing your draw and presentation and re-holstering until it's close to second nature. Being able to draw, present and get the 1st shot off smoothly and safely is probably the most important, with accuracy coming in a close third.
Training in and of itself is not a bad thing, provided you don't get some yahoo or someone who is truly clueless about the subject they are teaching. I feel that a person should have more than just a working knowledge of their personal defense weapon, maybe not go so far as saying that they should have an intimate knowledge of the gun, but somewhere in between. There are exercises that you can do at home with a snap cap like practicing your draw and presentation and re-holstering until it's close to second nature. Being able to draw, present and get the 1st shot off smoothly and safely is probably the most important, with accuracy coming in a close third.
Last edited:
SgtLumpy
Member
Here's what I read that you posted in the other thread -
***
26165. (a) For new license applicants, the course of training for issuance of a license under Section 26150 or 26155 may be any course acceptable to the licensing authority, shall not exceed 16 hours, and shall include instruction on at least firearm safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a firearm.
***
Perhaps the intent is/was different than my interpretation. I read it as "the course of training...shall not exceed 16 hours"
I don't read it as "the licensing authority shall not require a course exceeding 16 hours"
I read each comma delimited phrase as a qualifier. ie -
Was your course -
- acceptable to the licensing authority
- did not exceed 16 hours
- include instruction on at least firearm safety [etc]
If your course satisfies the clauses, the requirements are met.
Again, I may have indeed not interpreted the statuatory language to mean what the California legislature intended to convey. And perhaps part of my viewpoint prejudice is that I'm not expecting the CA Legislature to write laws in FAVOR OF making it easier for it's population to obtain CCW permits. I'm likely expecting the opposite.
Sgt Lumpy
Every stage I have ever watched fired was that way, in my opinion. Ditto for the equipment I saw being used. No one I know is willing to walk around with a full-size pistol and 5 or 6 magazines(!) - and that is ignoring the fact that there is no practical way to conceal something like that.
That said, I don't take the position of opposing competition shooting of any type, nor do I think it is unreasonable to say that any safe gun-handling exercise/competition is a good thing, in the big picture. If it teaches people to handle the gun safely, it's doing at least one-third of the job, IMHO.
The title is offensive... "pretending", really? That page goes on to say, "I am a firm believer that without training on the weapon you carry…you are MORE dangerous to yourself and loved ones than you were when you didn’t have one." This is just self-serving marketing hype and blather.
This is what I was talking about.....telling someone they are Pretending, is Shaming them into doing something different, like taking their course.
Fastbolt
Member
Yep, surprising, wasn't it?
(That was another thread topic where I listed the excerpts and the link to the full statutes, wasn't it?)You have to remember that back when the laws were revised, it was apparently decided that it was significant enough of a change when they decided to restrict applications based upon residency (with a short-term, 1-time business provision).
The hours of training were given a limit (and the minimum 4 hr class permitted certainly benefits the licensee), and they even extended the standard license from its previous 1 year duration to 2 years. There are also 2 year & 3 year licenses for other categories of persons, meaning judicial officers and LE reserves not designated L1's, as well as a county population threshold for issuing an "open carry" license seemingly intended to benefit small population rural counties.
I suspect that one of the things that surprises some applicants the most is the variability of what firearms are allowed, and the number of firearms that may be listed on a license, depending on the issuing authority. The laws allowed a lot of leeway on the part of the issuing authorities, instead of making them part of the state-wide changes. I've known of a few guys who had several firearms listed on their standard 2 year licenses.
Last edited:
feralmerril
Absent Comrade
I dont recall even knowing a person with a concealed permit in california. I lived in los angeles county from 1964 to 2005. The schooling and hoops to jump through I described were for uniformed and armed guards. I cant accurately recall how long now but I/we had to attend class`s just to get blessed with a guard card. It was a seperate deal for the extra gun card. We even had to attend a class for mace. (I never carried mace) but my ex went to get certified so she could carry it. It always was my understanding that in los angeles city and county you had to have some high up political pull to get a concealed carry card. You know, like "Beretta" Robert Flake. I will say I knew people there that didnt worry about no stinking card. I slid through on two incidents myself by level headed LEO`s.
Last edited:
FLSTFI
Member
I would agree that training is always good, and I would always say so if someone asked "my" opinion. However, the reason I am apprehensive about making it mandatory is the slippery slope it starts us down. Everyone has a different definition of how much training should be the minimum amount needed. How do you make sure the requirements don't get ridiculous? It also would allow for a situation when gun control advocates are in power to make the training requirements so rigorous a lot of people would not even take the time to even try to get a CCL.
We are all adults and should be able to make our own decisions. Some of us are smarter and more responsible than others, but who gets to draw the line stating who is "smart enough or responsible enough". I certainly don't trust our elected officials to make that decision. Especially since they have proven time and again they are on the low end of the "smart" scale.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Fastbolt
Member
It's generally been my understanding that it's not uncommon for large metro places like LA & SF to be somewhat restrictive (or, at least limited) in issuing CCW licenses. In other parts of the state, though, it can be close to almost being a "shall issue" matter.
I've had the chance to meet quite a lot of licensees over the years when I was volunteering to teach some classes for private citizens.
Without wanting to paint subjects like this with too broad of a brush ... (definitely not my intention) ... one of the things I've almost always noted with non-LE/Gov folks in some classes & range qual settings is that a dismaying number of folks are seemingly lacking in comfort and confidence when selecting and safely using holsters. For a goodly number of these folks, it's not their first time having carried a handgun, either. This can easily (and obviously) lead to potential safety & manipulative concerns.
Loading & reloading (which is still loading, done again), especially under even minimal time constraints, also seems to be something also that causes a surprising amount of stress and fumbling.
I'd like to think that some further formal training, as well as discussions about different holster/carry methods, might be very useful to a lot of folks.
Doesn't matter whether it's LE or non-LE private citizens, loading & unloading handguns, and holstering/unholstering handguns, can be inherently dangerous unless strict attention and proper handling is always involved. Just like driving (starting/stopping, turning, entering/leaving a roadway, etc) can be dangerous without attention and good driving habits. It's not just shooting the handgun (intentionally), but handling it and carrying it around
Training can help identify and resolve a number of important, even critical, issues for any number of folks.
Last edited:
feralmerril
Absent Comrade
Its odd how we have to demo straight you know how to drive to get a drivers license yet in some areas you can get a gun permit with no test. Evidently drivers license requirements aren't set in stone either. Once I handled a asian woman that almost ran over a group of people at our plant. She ran a gate and ended up crashing in a fence. When I got to her it was apparent she couldnt speak a word of english and it appeared she didnt know how to drive. Yet she had a drivers license! I forgot now exactly how I found out, but I was told she was one of those Vietnamese refugee`s that was given a drivers license as part of the package when they got to this country without even testing. This was in the early 70s. I agree, you give people power over other people and soon they are mandating there own personal idea of what they would like the rules to be.
