How important do YOU think training is?

[Protected One]

There are plenty of reasons to do those searches unless your house is just one big open space square. You might not be doing any entry but if your house has floors, stairs, corners..et...etc. ..This is quite useful. Standing in an open space shooting bowling pins directly in front of you is no different than shooting at paper targets. If I heard a loud noise in the middle of the night in the basement I have 3 floors and 2 stairwells to clear and neither are straight down

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Some would say that if you're confident that what you heard was someone entering your house, the wisest course of action would be to arm yourself, gather the family, take up a defensive position with cover...and call the police - NOT clearing the house.

 

[Louchia]

I would vote for at least a basic NRA training class so people will know basic safety. That safety , is for others as well. I'm sure you have all been to the range and seen some careless individual. Pretty scary.
Training is always good. What most people do not realize is that the basic training gives you the knowledge to learn. Like going to school. It teaches the fundamentals for you to go out and learn the job, what ever it is.
There is a lot to learn about using a gun safely, especially in a SD situation.
If you can't afford it , there is a lot on You Tube, Pro training vids.
People with the attitude of that knuckle head in the video can be dangerous.

 

[Protected One]

II've owned guns for a long time but I would not think about buying a new one for defense and not at least shooting it enough to make sure its reliable.

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!

Am I advocating "not training"? Absolutely not! I try to take a class once per year (in addition to monthly shooting sessions). Yet there are countless recorded accounts of people saying that they had never even fired their gun before shooting at the threat, and though I wish they'd put 3 rounds center mass each time, they were able to stop the threat....and after all, isn't that the goal?

 

[340PDOperator]

I think training helps with awareness and can teach you good habits but unless you're in an active military unit or swat team, these skills can be perishable. Which leads to the cycle of having to retrain and re sharpen skills. And that equals money. Which most people don't have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[340PDOperator]

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!



Am I advocating "not training"? Absolutely not! I try to take a class once per year (in addition to monthly shooting sessions). Yet there are countless recorded accounts of people saying that they had never even fired their gun before shooting at the threat, and though I wish they'd put 3 rounds center mass each time, they were able to stop the threat....and after all, isn't that the goal?

They call the gun the "great equalizer" for a reason. If you can point and pull a trigger, the gun takes physical impediment, age difference, and gender difference out of the picture. It's definitely easier to learn to shoot and defend oneself with a gun compared to a sword or with martial arts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Donn]

Speaking from experience and observation, until one has experienced the "fight or flight"response, training is a point that is just a topic of discussion.

^^+^^ Precisely. While I'm a firm believer that you'll perform to the level of your training, there's no substitute for experience. 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.

 

[BigCityChief]

I think training in the use of a firearm and the laws governing the use or threatened use of Deadly Physical Force is important for any citizen who owns a firearm. Having said that, tactical training of the sort LEO's, fugitive apprehension teams, special operators, etc., receive is unwarranted and potentially dangerous as it may bring out the "Mall Ninja" in the neophyte. Just my $.02. YMMV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arik]

Some would say that if you're confident that what you heard was someone entering your house, the wisest course of action would be to arm yourself, gather the family, take up a defensive position with cover...and call the police - NOT clearing the house.

And some would say are you sure of what you heard?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[BobR1]

I am in total agreement that everyone who owns a handgun for self defense needs to Train with it.
I am a big fan of shooting a Defensive Pistol Match every month. The match will reinforce your gun handling skills. You will get practice loading and unloading, as well as clearing malfunctions. You also get in Trigger Time on your handgun.

We have Instructors who use our Range for Training. I have been impressed with most of them. Tactical Analisis Group "TAG" put on a Basic Handgun Course last month. I was on site during most of the Class. This was a Follow On to the CCW Class. Even the experianced could have benifited from the course. Going back over how to do things the right way once in a while is a good thing.

Last Saturday we had several new shooters show up at our Reactive Steel Match. One of our Bench Rest Shooters and his wife had gotten Carry Permits. They also bought a pair of compact semi autos. After the match he was back shopping for a more shootable handgun.
Lesson learned here. You need to shoot what you carry. Shooting in a match he figured out that it was hard to get a grip on. It was not real user friendly to operate. It recoiled hard. Short sight radius was hard to shoot well.

I shoot what I carry. I have a 442 Pro that I have had a couple years that still looks new. Why??? It lives in the gun safe most of the time. I am getting ready to head to town. I will be putting my 2" SP101 on my belt. I like shooting it, and my 2 Inch K's, my 3" K's, and my 3" GP100's a lot more. They are pleasant to shoot, and I shoot them well.

Training will let you know in a hurry if what you are carrying is the best choice. The smaller and more complicated the equipment, the more you need to train with it.

Bob

 

[Louchia]

Bob R1. I like you comments and out look on all of it. Aside from formal training and organized events it is important that you continue to train on your own. Staying familiar with your gun weather it be your carry or for home defense is important. Regular time at the range can keep you efficient at loading or unloading a mag, clearing issues such as FT feed FT fire, FT eject. etc. Some times buying crappy ammo is a good thing. It forces you to deal with those issues. Practice makes muscle memory.
Think about it, you may have to do it in poor light or dark or you don't have your glasses. The bad guy won't give you a minute.

 

[Kanewpadle]

The following is my opinion based on my experience and observing others over the years.

I have spent a considerable amount of time studying the use of deadly force over the years. Other than family, guns are my life.
This does not however make me an expert.

Having worked part time at three local gun shops for the last ten or so years, I have seen people do things that could be considered stupid or downright ignorant.

I've seen people shoot themselves. Darn near shoot others. And hit everything other than their target.

In my observations the problem areas are:

Administrative handling.
Knowing the laws regarding concealed carry and the use of force.
Lack of quality training.
The right mindset and attitude.

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

When we consider that with the training that law enforcement has and they have a hit rate of less than 50%, why would we not require advanced training for the concealed carrier? And that percentage goes down in low light shootings.

The problem is, by mandating any type of training, we give more control to the government. The other problem is that people don't know or care that quality training is part of a well rounded concealed carry package.

My point is that training should not be mandated by government. It should be a choice. A choice made by those responsible enough to realize that they need training.

Most adults have a drivers license. Some can drive well and some should take the bus. Some know they are good drivers and others think they are. Even with government control, people are killed on our countries roads daily.

So again, it should be a personal choice. Hopefully a choice by a person that is completely serious and dedicated to the concealed carry package.

 

[Kentucky Dave]

I've shot enough in various scenarios over my 50 odd years of shooting that I'd like to think my "training" makes me worthy of my brother's dream.

In the dream, he told me a BG had come into the house, had my short brother in front of him, was holding a gun to him and I was across the room pointing my gun at the BG aiming over my brother's head/shoulders. My brother told me that in the dream situation he & I locked eyes and he said "Do it."

 

[Kentucky Dave]

It is my opinion that everyone except law enforcement be required to have ADVANCED training.

To be honest, many serious shooters have much more "training" and experience shooting than the average police officer.

This is NOT a derogatory comment on LEOs!

It is a simple fact. Most even mildly competitive shooters burn more rounds in a year than the average LEO will burn in their entire time in the academy, additional entry into an agency, and lifetime of semi-annual qualifications.

Obviously there are agencies which demand a lot more training and re-qualification than others. But there are hundreds of smaller towns/cities/counties employing thousands of LEOs whose gun training and experience is not that involved.

When I was a range-master in a rural area, where some of the small town police agencies came to do their periodic training/firing qualifications, it was readily apparent that many police officers are not necessarily gun folk.

 

[Kentucky Dave]

From Policeone.com, in an article by David Grossi entitled,

Police firearms training: How often should you be shooting?

At a recent use-of-force class I was instructing for a Public Risk Management group, the topic of firearms training frequency came up. The discussion was prompted by the fact that during the latest round of FBI suspect interviews conducted for the third book in the Officer Assaulted and Murdered trilogy ("Violent Encounters"), it was revealed that those suspects believed that police officers trained between two and three times a week with their firearms. In reality, most police departments only train about two times a year, averaging less than 15 hours annually. In contrast to our frequency of training, those same suspects revealed that they practiced on average 23 times a year (or almost twice a month) with their handguns.

During a poll taken during this class which represented about a half dozen Florida law enforcement agencies, I asked how many train more than twice a year. No hands went up. When asked how many train or qualify with their duty guns only once a year. Everyone raised their hands. Hence, the genesis for this article.

 

[Big Cholla]

"How important is training?" Oh, IMHO, no more so than the importance of your continued life. ............... Big Cholla

 

[Louchia]

You don't have to be a competitive shooter to shoot more rnds than many LEOs. I have talked to many Chicago officers who only shoot once before their yearly qualify for a fearly total of 100 rnds. Really?
The requalification is very easy. It is not much different than the test for a CCL. Which is 70% of 30 shots, 10 at each 3,7,and 15 Yrds. at a 24 x 40 in. B27 target with a full size silhouette.

 

[shouldazagged]

Of course training is important. I'd love to have more of it. I can't afford it. It's extremely rare for me to be able to find or afford .38 Special practice ammo or range time. I'm on a very small fixed income in retirement. I doubt I'm the only old guy living on Social Security and a tiny pension who is in this situation.

But I'm not going to stop carrying a gun. I'll soon supplement it with a canister of a good OC stream product--a pit bull mix belonging to a neighbor tried to get into my apartment and eat my little dog yesterday--but a pocket-carried J-frame will remain my final defensive option. I'm old and half-crippled and walk with a cane, and look like an easy target until you look me in the eye.

Further training or not, I'll be packing. I don't see a choice.

 

[Protected One]

How easily (and quickly) a thread drifts away from the original topic.

The question was NOT-is it good to have training? [That's a no-brainer]...the question was - does NOT getting immediate training after purchasing a firearm make the person a danger to themselves/others?

My two-cents?: I don't see that it necessarily makes them any more dangerous than a trained individual. Keep in mind, we are not talking about ccw but rather home defense purposes. The people I know personally who have guns in their home but don't train ALSO don't handle the guns on a routine basis. It's just there "in case". If the need to use it arises, I don't think they are any more of a danger to themselves or family than any other gun owner, and there are no stats that say otherwise.

People who train (and thus handle their guns more frequently) are more likely to experience some kind of negligent discharge, possibly resulting injury to themselves or a loved one.

 

[Kentucky Dave]

How easily (and quickly) a thread drifts away from the original topic.

The question was NOT-is it good to have training? [That's a no-brainer]...the question was - does NOT getting immediate training after purchasing a firearm make the person a danger to themselves/others?

My two-cents?: I don't see that it necessarily makes them any more dangerous than a trained individual. Keep in mind, we are not talking about ccw but rather home defense purposes. The people I know personally who have guns in their home but don't train ALSO don't handle the guns on a routine basis. It's just there "in case". If the need to use it arises, I don't think they are any more of a danger to themselves or family than any other gun owner, and there are no stats that say otherwise.

People who train (and thus handle their guns more frequently) are more likely to experience some kind of negligent discharge, possibly resulting injury to themselves or a loved one.

Sorry, but anyone who buys a gun - especially a handgun - for the first time (or inherits and keeps or has a visit from Santa Claus...), keeps it and ever intends to be able to use it and who doesn't train is a dangerous fool.

Anyone who thinks that being shown how to load & unload the gun, put the safety (if applicable) on & off, by the guy behind the counter selling them the gun, is all they need to know, then goes home and says "NOW, I have a home defense gun" is delusional. A handgun is not a magic wand.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Saw the following video which I though was thought provoking. Evidence supports what he is saying but I wanted to hear from you gentlemen.

Guns Are Too Dangerous 4 Untrained Civilians - YouTube

Grandmas have been driving off and dispatching criminals with the old Model Tens they keep in their underwear drawers for a very long time now. A basic understanding of the function and safe handling of the weapon, combined with a willingness to use it, covers 95% of what's necessary. Graduation from a tactical school might improve real world results by another 5%.