Don't Get Training

[MLeake]

... I don't think most of us are espousing "one size fits all" methodology.

I think what most of us are saying is that there is a pragmatic side, that says for one's own good it's better to have more training than less; and there's a moral side, that says if you think you are willing to draw a weapon in defense of self or others, then you should seek out as much training as you can reasonably afford (in money and time).

Some people feel that there is only the pragmatic argument, and there's no "moral" to it.

I don't think any of us have argued in favor of the government mandating training, nor do I think any of us have said "everybody should train to level X."

But just buying a gun because you can, and not learning about its safe handling, let alone effective employment, is morally irresponsible and pragmatically next to worthless.

[AZAK]

My position is (and always has been) that moral, responsible people will step up & get the training they need, whether or not the state requires it.

If anyone could convince me otherwise, you've done a damn good job of coming close.

pax

Let me express my gratitude for your kind words. And as I mentioned earlier, it is obvious that you are passionate in your beliefs.

"The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be." Socrates

[smince]

Your argument seems a bit amorphous. First you say government is incapable of A. Then you seem to say while government is capable of A it sometimes doesn't succeed. Now you seem to be asking about a cost benefit analysis of A.
What point are you trying to make?

If you read my post, I said .gov training is geared to LCD. Qualification scores are set up so that anyone should be able to pass. To fill quotas often standards must be lowered, and yet we still see barely passing scores regularly. Hopefully it will be enough. If it isn't we have huge sums of tax money to cover the lawsuits...

Reality sucks sometimes, but it is what it is.

Sure, there are specialties you mention like Sniper School and the AMU (among others), but this isn't available to everyone, is it? Only a very small percentage.

Many of these highly dedicated soldiers and LE take classes with money out of their own pockets, because this type of training just isn't available at the Fed/State/local level. Every private class I've taken has had at least 3-4 Mil or LE lamenting the fact that this kind of training isn't offered to them anywhere else.

So I ask: if government training is effective, why do individual soldiers and LE who want the best training seek private instruction?

[mavracer]

The most common definition I can find for moral obligation.

moral obligation - an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong; "he did it out of a feeling of moral obligation"

most common related words.

duty, obligation, responsibility - the social force that binds you to the courses of action demanded by that force; "we must instill a sense of duty in our children"; "every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty"- John D.Rockefeller Jr

Maybe I'm just living in the wrong era, But my understanding of moral obligation means an attempt to be a better more responsible person.no matter what skill is at hand driving, shooting, self defense or whatever you do.

If you excersize your right to bear arms your responsible for your actions if you fire a shot. While you may or may not be held criminally liable for injuring a innocent. You will most certainly feel guilt/remorse, at least I hope you would, weather or not you feel your training is up to snuff.

[robmkivseries70]

Quoting Blue Train,"On the other hand, that makes life interesting." I had to chuckle, It is a preparedness thing, to whit, The phrase," May you have an interesting life." is a Chinese curse. It behooves us all to be prepared.
Best,
Rob

[BlueTrain]

Well, here's a follow up quote to that: "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity."

[sakeneko]

I've been busy for the last few weeks and not around much, but wanted to say a loud AMEN! to MLeake's most recent post. (And thank Pax for bringing up the issue.) Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. The right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility to know how to do so safely and effectively.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by sakeneko

...The right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility to know how to do so safely and effectively.

I like that way of putting it.

[markj]

Well now, go out in the bush with a gun and kill a bunch of things only to come back and find this is still going on.

What markj is asking is that we lower our standards to his

I am not asking you to do anything, I accept the training needed to achieve a CCW here in Iowa and feel for MOST folks is all that is needed. We dont plan on going out, finding bad guys and engage them in a fire fight. No we understand that a gun CCW is for our own personal protection. On the other hand there are states that require no training at all. I for one will not be so vain as to tell them what to do or how to do it, some here may take note of that. I ask again out of all the permit carriers how many have had to shoot someone? What is the percentage? like .003%?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markj
I dont understand this at all, are you saying that a person cannot save the life of a family member without high levels of training? Hog wash.

No, I'm saying that if your family member is more than three large steps away, you will need more skill than your "7 yards" standards.

And you know this how? You assume a lot there not knowing me or my abilities at all.

If a person feels the need for training, guess what? They can go get it and pay for it, but to say or infer that without this higher level of training you will be useless shows a complete lack of understanding.

A gun is and can be a terrible thing, used wrongly or on the wrong person will lead to tragedy so dont be so fast to pull it and shoot. A gun isnt the answer to every situation you encounter in your lifes journey.

Stay away from known bad places, shop at daytime, stay out of malls and other places where huge gatherings may be. In other words use a little common sense as you go about your daily tasks. Your brain is the best tool you have at your disposal.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by markj

...I accept the training needed to achieve a CCW here in Iowa and feel for MOST folks is all that is needed...

Yes, we know you do. Some of us think you're fooling yourself. And in any case, that is a far lower standard than many of us are willing to accept.

Originally Posted by markj

...to say or infer that without this higher level of training you will be useless shows a complete lack of understanding...

Well then, let's just say that without a higher level of training one is at considerably greater risk of (1) being less effective, and (2) being a greater danger to himself and others.

Originally Posted by markj

...A gun is and can be a terrible thing, used wrongly or on the wrong person will lead to tragedy....

So do the responsible thing and take the time and trouble, and incur the expense, to get some adequate training beyond what may be legally required.

Originally Posted by markj

...Stay away from known bad places, shop at daytime, stay out of malls and other places where huge gatherings may be...

And you think all that will guarantee your safety? You're fooling yourself again.

Originally Posted by markj

...Your brain is the best tool you have at your disposal.

And a trained and educated brain is better than one that is not -- just as a sharp saw is better than a dull one.

[pax]

Originally Posted by pax

I just think it's amazing how many people can't imagine wanting to save the life of a family member who's more than three steps away from them.

Originally Posted by markj

I dont understand this at all, are you saying that a person cannot save the life of a family member without high levels of training? Hog wash.

Originally Posted by pax

No, I'm saying that if your family member is more than three large steps away, you will need more skill than your "7 yards" standards.

Originally Posted by markj

And you know this how? You assume a lot there not knowing me or my abilities at all.

Mark, I'm sorry you took that comment personally. Not my intent. Please allow me to restate:

If a generic person is more than 3 large steps away from a family member in danger, and that generic person intends to save the life of the family member who is more than 3 large steps away, then that generic person will need more skill than just being able to hit a non-moving cardboard target less than 3 large steps away on a calm range.

pax

[OldMarksman]

Posted by markj: If a person feels the need for training, guess what? They can go get it and pay for it, but to say or infer that without this higher level of training you will be useless shows a complete lack of understanding.

Useless? Probably not entirely. Sufficiently skilled to defend yourself against a violent criminal actor or two when events unfold in a second or two? Probably not. Posing a greater than acceptable risk to others in a stressful situation? Probably.

To think otherwise would seem to demonstrate a lack of real understanding about the dynamics of the kind incident in which the use of deadly force would be justified.

MLeake put it well:

But just buying a gun because you can, and not learning about its safe handling, let alone effective employment, is morally irresponsible and pragmatically next to worthless.

So did sakeneko:

Rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. The right to keep and bear arms comes with the responsibility to know how to do so safely and effectively.

Both are assuming, of course, that without sufficient training, one would not have the skills to draw very quickly (say, in 1.5 seconds), hit an assailant in center mass, who is probably moving, twice in, say, another .5 seconds or less, and if necessary, hit another assailant twice in a similar amount of time, at seven yards.

I think that's a reasonable assumption, based on my own experience.

Those of us who have taken the effort to obtain some training believe that if you cannot do that under stress without shooting wide of the mark, you would likely end up in a world of hurt.

Fiddletown, who has taken a lot more training than I have, and who is also an instructor, put it this way:

Well then, let's just say that without a higher level of training one is at considerably greater risk of (1) being less effective, and (2) being a greater danger to himself and others.

Also consider this: if the immediacy of the situation is such that you happen to have time to hit the assailant(s) without the aforementioned skills before he or they seriously injure you, you may well end up unable to mount a successful defense of justification.

[pax]

Originally Posted by pax

AZAK, My position is (and always has been) that moral, responsible people will step up & get the training they need, whether or not the state requires it.

If anyone could convince me otherwise, you've done a damn good job of coming close.

Originally Posted by AZAK

Let me express my gratitude for your kind words. And as I mentioned earlier, it is obvious that you are passionate in your beliefs.

Oh, please don't think it was an insult. It was not. You're a moral and good person, and yet you have argued very compellingly against appealing to anyone's individual sense of responsibility for their own actions. By being the good person you are, and yet arguing the way you have, you have come close to convincing me that many good, moral people feel no need to reduce the chances that they will unintentionally or accidentally kill another person through their own ignorance.

pax

[smince]

Originally Posted by markj

Stay away from known bad places, shop at daytime, stay out of malls and other places where huge gatherings may be. In other words use a little common sense as you go about your daily tasks. Your brain is the best tool you have at your disposal.

Originally Posted by markj

We dont plan on going out, finding bad guys and engage them in a fire fight.

I don't plan on hunting bad guys either.

Sometimes they hunt us, no matter what areas we live, play or stay in and out of.

I use my brain and my common sense to know this...

[AZAK]

Oh, please don't think it was an insult. It was not. You're a moral and good person, and yet you have argued very compellingly against appealing to anyone's individual sense of responsibility for their own actions. By being the good person you are, and yet arguing the way you have, you have come close to convincing me that many good, moral people feel no need to reduce the chances that they will unintentionally or accidentally kill another person through their own ignorance.

pax, I was being sincere in my comment to you. I appreciate your good graces concerning your comments in addition to other's comments. I apologize for the confusion.

Regarding "morally obligated":
"It is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory." Spock - from the latest Star Trek

[BlueTrain]

To smince in Alabama, would you first explain the use of the expression ".gov," why you use it and what is implied by that curious way of reference? There's something troubling about it that I can't quite put my finger on.

About swimming lessons, I am not aware the government (around here, anyway) gives free swimming lessons, so there is no waste. But in any case, the purpose of swimming lessons is usually not to produce highly qualified competitive swimmers but rather to produce people who won't drown. Everything hinges on how you judge the results. But in the case of driver's ed in high school, there are sometimes claims that it is worthless. One usually grows up sitting next to your parent driving and by the time you've reached high school, you already know it all, good habits or bad.

Finally, what is your basis of saying that government training is geared to the LCD, which I take to mean lowest common denominator. Just saying "government" is a little vague to begin with. Which government? I realize you may have already fully explained this a few pages back but I missed it. And when is a quota involved? Are you also saying that the passing scores should be higher? As the expression is in police work and in the military, you have to "qualify." Is the argument then about what "qualified" is?

Are you saying everyone should be above average?

[psyfly]

Thank you again, PAX, you have a way of helping a person (helping me, at least) distill their thoughts.

The numbers of ways that a good, moral person can; “…unintentionally or accidentally kill another person through their own ignorance…” is simply mind-boggling and most of them are unrelated to firearms. There is no way to adequately prepare for a meaningful percentage of them.

I recently completed a 2x/week 12-week course in Krav Maga. From BlueTrain’s question, am I qualified? For what? I asked my instructor at the end of my training period how justified I was in my increased self-confidence. His answer was intended to be reassuring, but I remain(ed) unconvinced and my confidence is tempered. I have no desire to subject my training of any such kind to actual empirical test.

My point has been that a good, moral person may very well spend a lot of time thinking about training and ‘qualification’ during idle moments but is unlikely to spend any time thinking about such things before deciding to act if she thinks she can make a difference in a life-threatening situation.

Of course this does not mean we shouldn’t train when we can, but most good, moral persons will act, will try, if they think they can make a difference, independent of training, qualifications, or “feelings” of confidence.

I have no way of knowing, but I doubt that Al Gratia spent any significant time thinking about such matters before he acted.

Best,

Will

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by psyfly

...I doubt that Al Gratia spent any significant time thinking about such matters before he acted...

You might consider explaining what Mr. Gratia's situation has to do with all of this. Yes, I know who he was and what happened. He made a completely human attempt to come to the aid of his wife in an extreme crisis. His action was also futile, and he and his wife died.

We can never know what was going through his mind at the time. Maybe he had some vague hope of doing some good. Or maybe he had simply decided that the woman he loved was not going to die alone.

Originally Posted by psyfly

...My point has been that a good, moral person may very well spend a lot of time thinking about training and ‘qualification’ during idle moments but is unlikely to spend any time thinking about such things before deciding to act if she thinks she can make a difference in a life-threatening situation....

But the points still are:

[1] A person without training is more likely to be mistaken about whether or how he can best make a difference in a life-threatening situation.

[2] A person's training will affect whether, or how, he intervenes in a life-threatening situation.

[3] A person with training is more likely to act effectively and expose innocents to less risk from his actions.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We know that in extreme emergencies, people are more likely to act. Studies are plenty on that. That is irrelevant to being competent in a complex situation. Esp. if there are skills that are useful.

Al Gratia would have been better off if he could have legally carry. He seems to have had time to act. That's why the law was passed in TX with a training provision (granted it is minimal, emphasizing law and conflict resolution). The shooting test does screen the totally inept and unstable.

In Texas, if you look at Vilos - Self-Defense Gun law book - you find the sections that indicate you have criminal and civil risk if you shoot an innocent during a legit SD incident. His example is someone who might spray and pray in a critical incident. Training minimizes that risk to some extent.

Studies of police have clearly shown that in shoot decision simulators, training and experience lead to clearly, faster and more accurate responses.

A good moral person might try to act - since we like vivid examples. Sanjay Gupta is a neurosurgeon and a CNN reporter. While in Iraq, he was faced with an injured soldier - he performed emergency surgery, improvising instruments.

He could have demurred but as a moral person, he act AS he had the skill.

Would the untrained moral person attempt neurosurgery and the improvision of surgical instruments? Doubt it.

Granted shooting your gun isn't brain surgery. But you can blow someone's brains out if you screw up. Thus, if you feel that you will morally enter the fray - be nice to make the attempt not to do so by achieving some competence.

[BlueTrain]

I somehow doubt I'd react at all in most situations involving a potential shooting. I don't have that killer instinct that seems to seperate the good from the bad. Is that something I could overcome with training?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In training, we see folks who freeze up. I don't think I would call it killer instinct necessarily. There are panic responses that freeze a person and there are folks who cannot bring themselves to deal with interpersonal violence.

One might have A, B and AB responses. Training clearly helps with the freeze response. It might help with the latter. I've seen a big tough guy get pushed all over and finally on his butt, while holding a gun (training rounds). No response at all - avoid, fight, whatever. Previously, he had proclaimed his martial arts wonder status.

I've also seen two women come into conflict. One froze, the other shot her (training rounds). The former said that when it was a real gun, she couldn't do it, despite plenty of square range practice.

So training is way to test and correct problems. If one can't act, time to find out.

Again, such responses are not just gun related but standard critical incident effects. Freeze or can't do the action.

[markj]

You guys are funny, this isnt about me, it is about a few folks that belive CCW permit holders need a higher level of training. but it has been entertqaining specially from them that are "trainers". Of course they will take this position, if they said otherwise folks would not come to them and pay them fo0r this service, so any non comercials out there want to post on this subject?

Speaking to trainers is like a auto mechanic telling me I cant do my own repairs effectively and I was ASE certified for over 20 years Back in 1980 I took some training, was body guard stuff, how to be a sheild, how to drive out of danger, how to unarm a person etc. I do not belive a person that wants to carry a gun concealed needs this level of training.

I have read hundreds of accounts from people that had no training triumph over the bad guy and lived to tell the tale. I also belive some will not survive no matter how much you train them, some just dont have the mind set for active shooting specially when it is against another person.

Now I can also tell you about my years as a bouncer it was in a rough part of town, I was shot at, stabbed once, removed weapons from a few. I have been shot in the left shoulder. Had my calf ripped open to the bone once. Got bones in the right hand that were broke and didnt set right. I have seen a lot of violence in my life, much of it could have been avoided. Almost all of it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Whatever, BTW - the Army has had problems with low shooting rates in battle. They came up with training schemes that have improved the rate. Sure, some never get it but lots of folks with no previous experience did.

As far as pushing training to make a buck - you know what I get paid for my opinion on this forum. Does the term "Zero" mean anything?

Also, many of the trainers got into the business because they want to help people defend themselves. Most have other jobs and training isn't a big money maker for most.

To each his own. Here's a test - if you in a critical incident, shoot an innocent and are sued - will you not contest the lawsuit and pay up any reasonable amount? If charged with negligent homocide or an assault charge - which can happen, will you plead guilty. Castle laws don't protect from such in many states. They protect you from the BG in a legit shoot but not if you whip one in a kid across the street.

[AZAK]

The numbers of ways that a good, moral person can; “…unintentionally or accidentally kill another person through their own ignorance…” is simply mind-boggling and most of them are unrelated to firearms. There is no way to adequately prepare for a meaningful percentage of them.

And this is an excellent example of why wording involving "morality", when promoting additional gun training, gets us into trouble.

I have a Jeep that came with air-conditioning from the factory. I live in Alaska. I turn on my air-conditioning every once in a while, just to make sure that it still works; not because I have ever had need of it.

Now if I lived in Arizona, that air-conditioning in my Jeep might save my life and the lives of others; not passing out while driving due to heat exhaustion. Living in Alaska, I would be better off having the factory install better winter tires instead of the air-conditioning; more likely not to lose control endangering my life and the lives of others.

Adding a "morality" statement to this mix becomes troublesome quickly; Everyone should have air-conditioning in their vehicles out of a moral obligation to themselves, their families (other passengers), other drivers and pedestrians.

I realize that we all "could" benefit from more and more and more training (just like we could all benefit from more and more and more practice, practice and practice); however, making it a "moral obligation" is a bit judgmental given a lack of understanding of the individual recipients situations and beliefs.

"It is morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory." Spock - from the latest Star Trek

And whether you look "into the future"/Spock or just go back to the beginnings of Western Civilization/Greeks/Plato this same thought has been echoing around for a while.

[smince]

Blue Train;

Sorry my use of the abbreviation .gov 'troubles' you so

Thus being the case, any explanation I could give you concerning LCD training and quotas would probably have you wringing your hands in angst. It would be decidedly non-PC.

I'm out.