How important do YOU think training is?

[Protected One]

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.

Thats almost exactly what I said in post #54.

 

[Kentucky Dave]

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

No offense and please excuse me if I'm wrong. But reading between the lines, I've gotten the impression that you are relatively new to this.

There are a lot of folks here who have spent decades in shooting, handling, studying, training and gathering experience in the world of firearms.

It is often good to sit back, read and consider their thoughts quietly.

 

[Smoke]

If I ever (God forbid) have to use my gun for self defense I don't care where it is, I want every advantage I can have

 

[Protected One]

No offense and please excuse me if I'm wrong. But reading between the lines, I've gotten the impression that you are relatively new to this.

There are a lot of folks here who have spent decades in shooting, handling, studying, training and gathering experience in the world of firearms.

It is often good to sit back, read and consider their thoughts quietly.

Great idea...and maybe enjoy a cup of coffee while you do.

 

[Kentucky Dave]

Great idea...and maybe enjoy a cup of coffee while you do.

I do, frequently. And like I said, if you're one of us who've been doing it for decades and I misinterpreted - I apologize.

I've been playing guitars even longer than I've been shooting and still learn stuff on the Martin forum, as I do here. I try to impart a bit occasionally, too.

 

[Protected One]

I do, frequently. And like I said, if you're one of us who've been doing it for decades and I misinterpreted - I apologize.

I've been playing guitars even longer than I've been shooting and still learn stuff on the Martin forum, as I do here. I try to impart a bit occasionally, too.

Yep, for a few decades. No need to apologize...we all misinterpret things from time to time.

So...now you're talking guitars? My other love! Been playing since 1967. Professionally for about 6 years, but gave that up in the late 70's. Even had an opportunity to tour in Europe for a year in the back-up band of a Motown group. Favorite ax?....Fender Telecaster.

 

[Kentucky Dave]

Cool! PM sent.

(of course, my point of view is it's your thread and you can drift it if you want.)

 

[JustPeg]

Very thought provoking indeed.

I didn't follow that link but I recognize the title and yes contrary to the title I agree with his theory as long people use common sense, exercise safe handling and storage. I also think he's referring to professional training and there are a lot of people protect their family & homes that have not had professional training and do just fine. Of course I am the sort that presumes everyone thinking about using a gun will use commonsense and do some in-depth research online or otherwise to educate themselves on the proper handling of a firearm before jumping in trigger finger first.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

There are plenty of examples of people defending themselves with no training whatsoever.

That said, a lot of people that have had perfect outcomes to bad situations and/or still alive because they had training. But those people don't know what they don't know.

Also, a lot of people have avoided having to shoot someone because they have had good training... which is of course the great irony of good training being put into practice.


My rule of thumb is... if you own multiple guns that total in cost more than you have spent being trained, you're doing it wrong.

I despise the idea of mandatory training, but I also believe it's our responsibility to get training.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

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.

Any statistics would be marred by the simple fact that those who have had home invasion training will be more aware through their training how the majority of attacks happen. The natural reaction to that would be to minimize the chance of that happening and go and make their house more secure.


The simple awareness of threats is a huge start to personal security - avoidance is better than dealing with a threat.

Someone pointed out to me recently that he was actually a fairly confrontational guy... but since he started carrying a gun and took training... he understands that every encounter he has is an armed encounter.

Straight away, just by avoiding getting into stupid arguments in public that can be avoided, he has reduced his chances of being in a violent encounter drastically.

I think that's a good idea of why good training is important. Learning to avoid trouble, de-escalate trouble... as well as how to deal with it when it's unavoidable.

 

[Rastoff]

Also, a lot of people have avoided having to shoot someone because they have had good training... which is of course the great irony of good training being put into practice.

Not ironic, that's the goal. The best fight is no fight. Good training will help you avoid the fight as much as it helps survive it.

My rule of thumb is... if you own multiple guns that total in cost more than you have spent being trained, you're doing it wrong.

I think I understand what you're getting at here, but I think this is over the top.

As an instructor I'll bet that I've spent more on training than 99% of the people here. Through my instructor training and classes I've taken just as a student, I have spent more than many have on their guns. Even so, what I've spent on training doesn't come close to the dollar figure I've spent on guns alone.

Besides, the numbers aren't really equal. An M&P is a fine defensive handgun. They are available for less than $600. Buy two and you've spent $1,200. A trip to a prestigious gun school will cost around $2K so, according to your formula, that's the right amount of training. What if I buy a Wilson Combat? Now I only have one gun and that trip to the same school is not enough now because it doesn't cost more than the gun? See, it doesn't track.

I think training should be recurring, just like practice. One trip to any school doesn't make anyone an expert. A training class a year would be great, but not everyone can do that.

I, like most here, think that training shouldn't be a mandatory prerequisite to owning a gun. However, a conscientious gun owner, who wants their gun for defense, will seek training rather than try to justify not having it.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

Not ironic, that's the goal. The best fight is no fight. Good training will help you avoid the fight as much as it helps survive it.

The act of carrying a gun for protection making you statistically less likely to need a gun for protection is definitely irony.

Doesn't make it illegitimate. Just something that often gets overlooked - in particular by anti-gun-rights people.

I think I understand what you're getting at here, but I think this is over the top.

As an instructor I'll bet that I've spent more on training than 99% of the people here. Through my instructor training and classes I've taken just as a student, I have spent more than many have on their guns. Even so, what I've spent on training doesn't come close to the dollar figure I've spent on guns alone.

Besides, the numbers aren't really equal. An M&P is a fine defensive handgun. They are available for less than $600. Buy two and you've spent $1,200. A trip to a prestigious gun school will cost around $2K so, according to your formula, that's the right amount of training. What if I buy a Wilson Combat? Now I only have one gun and that trip to the same school is not enough now because it doesn't cost more than the gun? See, it doesn't track.

I think training should be recurring, just like practice. One trip to any school doesn't make anyone an expert. A training class a year would be great, but not everyone can do that.

I, like most here, think that training shouldn't be a mandatory prerequisite to owning a gun. However, a conscientious gun owner, who wants their gun for defense, will seek training rather than try to justify not having it.

My comment isn't an exact algorithm, it's more of a statement regarding those people that buy guns citing self defense and never/rarely train or take a class. You know, the guys that think a gun is a magic talisman and because they can shoot a piece of paper at 10 feet then they are good to go.

Still, I don't think it's unreasonable as a general statement. Most people I know that aren't instructors have spent more on instruction and practice than guns. Makes sense really to be able to use the thing than have more of the thing.

 

[340PDOperator]

There are plenty of examples of people defending themselves with no training whatsoever.

That said, a lot of people that have had perfect outcomes to bad situations and/or still alive because they had training. But those people don't know what they don't know.

Also, a lot of people have avoided having to shoot someone because they have had good training... which is of course the great irony of good training being put into practice.


My rule of thumb is... if you own multiple guns that total in cost more than you have spent being trained, you're doing it wrong.

I despise the idea of mandatory training, but I also believe it's our responsibility to get training.

Some folks prefer collecting and playing with guns more than training to be soldiers. It's a difference in interests and priorities.

When something bad hapoens, most people will be a lot better off just being armed. Being trained will be a great edge in bad situations but the likelihood of plain jane civilians experiencing a situation where they have to shoot someone is terribly remote.

This remoteness will cause some people to shift their priorities and money to other things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rastoff]

Some folks prefer collecting and playing with guns more than training to be soldiers. It's a difference in interests and priorities.

This is an unfair statement. No one is suggesting that people go out and become Rambo. Neither is anyone suggesting that tons of money be spent on training if all they want to do is collect and shoot at the range.

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.

 

[Road Rat]

I remember taking the mandatory (and paid for!) safety driving classes while being a test driver. That was an awesome experience, lots of stuff learned and lots of fun doing so.

NOW, driving is a place where this country could do with some GOOD training!! I have always believed that EVERYONE should have to take a defensive driving course that takes a full week of classroom and on the track.

That would pay for itself in lives saved.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

Some folks prefer collecting and playing with guns more than training to be soldiers. It's a difference in interests and priorities.

This thread is in the Concealed Carry and Self Defense Forum. If you believe concealed carry and self defense is playing soldiers, I don't understand why you are here.

If people like collecting and playing with guns, that's fine. That's not what anyone is talking about here. This about people that have guns primarily for self defense.

Even in the home, the idea of having a tool that you are not as sharp as you can be baffles me. Taking responsibility for protecting yourself and your family is a lifestyle choice and for most people a part of a larger lifestyle choice of self reliance.

Derogatorily calling the choice of taking responsibility of protecting yourself and your family "playing soldiers" completely baffles me.

 

[PastureOfMuppets]

NOW, driving is a place where this country could do with some GOOD training!! I have always believed that EVERYONE should have to take a defensive driving course that takes a full week of classroom and on the track.

That would pay for itself in lives saved.

I actually used to teach defensive driving. Personally, I don't understand in the chain of importance why people don't priorities that over owning a gun. I know the answer is guns are fun and driving is a chore for the vast majority of people, but still.

I sometimes open self defense classes asking how many people own fire extinguishers. The number is remarkably low each time given statistically a house fire is more likely to claim your life or your home than an assault. Driving... given how safety features in cars have improved so drastically, the chance of dying is lower than it has been but injury is still a huge threat and pretty much everyone drives.

 

[340PDOperator]

This is an unfair statement. No one is suggesting that people go out and become Rambo. Neither is anyone suggesting that tons of money be spent on training if all they want to do is collect and shoot at the range.



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.

This thread is in the Concealed Carry and Self Defense Forum. If you believe concealed carry and self defense is playing soldiers, I don't understand why you are here.

If people like collecting and playing with guns, that's fine. That's not what anyone is talking about here. This about people that have guns primarily for self defense.

Even in the home, the idea of having a tool that you are not as sharp as you can be baffles me. Taking responsibility for protecting yourself and your family is a lifestyle choice and for most people a part of a larger lifestyle choice of self reliance.

Derogatorily calling the choice of taking responsibility of protecting yourself and your family "playing soldiers" completely baffles me.

Didn't mean to offend. And I'm somewhat surprised you took offense. I don't think you need to defend your decision to get trained. Be glad you are trained. I pray you'll never use it.

But there are a lot of people who can't afford the money or time to do so. And they too will very likely not use it. They would be funneling that unspent cash into other priorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harkrader]

The fact is, if you follow self-defense shootings, a startling number of people have never fired a gun of any kind until they successfully used one to defend their lives.
For 25 years or so I worked with an organization in Milwaukee that served poor and sub-poor women who were being victimized by violent "significant others."
The issue was never whether the women could safely store and use a firearm. It was ALWAYS whether they had the will to shoot the*^&*&* *******. who had deceived them into thinking the beatings they and their children received were their fault and not that of the abuser.

We could never recommend that any of them get a firearm (there were sources that would provide them for free) until we were convinced they could resist the &^$^^'s constant relentless lies as to them being responsible for his violence. Even educated, intelligent women would repeatedly fall prey to these vicious monsters, over and over again.

It was imperative to get them to recognize their own self worth so that they would really shoot to defend themselves and their children.
I remember one terrible case where the violent soon-to-be-former spouse entered the woman's house while her children were there, and she had gun in a kitchen drawer, but he succeeded in nearly beating the life out of her. Even facing what she knew was going to be a potentially deadly beating and possibly her own death and that of her children, she could not shoot him.
It ended when two things happened. 1: her father and a brother staked out -the house and when the about-to-be-former spouse showed up they showed him a couple shotguns. (Yes, she had an injunction against him. A cop has to witness the event before they will take action.)
2: He had his buddies following her to and from work and the childrens' schools, and drove their pickups through her yard at night, tearing up the sod while blowing their horns and yelling obscenities. The father and brother got pix and visited the homes of these ^&#^$holes and showed them to the spouses.
The point is, training made no difference. She needed the will to fight someone who had successfully bullied her into submission.

As I see it, of course everyone should get training in safety and marksmanship. But to actually use a gun to lethally defend one's life requires will. I don't know how to train that.

 

[mc5aw]

Does a 20 page booklet, Driver's Ed class, and computerized DMV test make a competent driver? Not any more than a NRA course certificate of completion and newly printed CCW permit makes a competent shooter. Practice and continuing education is what makes a safe and skilled firearms owner.

During my collecting over the last few decades, I have picked up several S&W orphans ... little used revolvers that had been relegated to desk drawers and shoe boxes, waiting for a chance to be fired as intended. I cringe to think about their respective owners, who felt the mere presence of a firearm was enough to ensure their safety. A firearm that has not been practiced with is about as useful in the hands of a neophyte as a frying pan or bowling bowl when it comes to self defense scenarios. And I dread to consider the collective fate of many recently purchased handguns by first time owners/shooters whose inexperience may steer them toward a belief that the firearm alone is some magical entity that masters itself.