Don't Get Training

[BlueTrain]

It sounds like a few people here are referring to an indescrible urge of most men, especially young men, to prove themselves. Not so much to others but simply to themselves. It is something that will hang over you until you perhaps finally have the experiences the finally get it out of your system. All sorts of experiences seem to count, although combat probably comes to mind first, but it differs for different people. I can't speak for women but I imagine that having a baby is sort of similiar. None of these things necessarily have anything to do with guns but you get the idea.

As for sheepdogs, did you ever notice that some sheepdogs look like sheep while others look like wolves?

And to fiddletown, I understand your point but it seems like no matter what your experiences and training have been, no two situations will necessarily turn out the same. On the other hand, that makes life interesting.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BlueTrain

...And to fiddletown, I understand your point but it seems like no matter what your experiences and training have been, no two situations will necessarily turn out the same....

And that further emphasizes the importance of training. "Chance favors the prepared mind." (Louis Pasteur)

[William Lee]

Sorry guys, but some of the scenarios listed here are so far from what could be expected to happen (even in unexpected scenarios), that preparing for them seems foolish. I doubt anyone outside of the military special forces would ever have enough training to be prepared to engage multiple bgs in a civilian-rich environment. Even the SWAT team takes 1-2 hours preparing before they go into a situation like that, so what are the odds that a single person is going to John Rambo his way through a mall shooting or Mumbai-style terror attack? The best that I could hope for in a situation like that would be to escape with my family unharmed. Screw eliminating the threat, I'm getting out of there.
Now, in the more garden variety sd situations (in which one or two muggers approach you in a dark alley, parking lot, wherever), being able to draw your weapon and hit a target at or inside 7 yards seems like the necessary training cut off for me--let's be real, if you can't hit a target at 7 yards, you might reconsider the choice of carrying a firearm, or you might want to downgrade to a more manageable caliber. Before I started carrying, I was the victim of a few muggings and attempted car jackings, and in most of the situations, I was able to defend myself and my property with nothing but my Timberlands and a pocket knife. In another situation, myself, my girlfriend, and another individual were literally surrounded by 5 large men--no getting out of that one without a gun, that's for sure, but still would have been an easy situation to disarm with my 4" gp100. Even five guys with knives are not going to fare well against one guy with a .357, especially when you can see the hollow points sitting in the cylinder. If I were carrying, I would have drawn when they closed into about 10 yards "asking for a cigarette" (yeah, right), and I'm sure that would have been that.
Then, there is the third scenario--the home invasion--which could come at literally any time and in almost any form (although in my situation, I doubt I'd be the target of anyone more sophisticated than a crack head given my financial dereliction). This, IMO, is why training is important, but not necessarily the type of training that you pay for. Because a threat such as this one may materialize in the middle of the night while you're not fully awake, it's more about how you're prepared to react to the situation. I practice grabbing my revolver from under the bed, or darting to the shotgun in the far corner of the bedroom at strange times and under various levels of mental awareness. Even so, the home invasion scenario is the one that scares me the most personally, because of the unexpected nature of being attacked in your own home. But what can you do? Live in fear of something that's likely never to happen? The best I can do is practice, and teach the wife how to shoot the revolver (always crouch down if you can and aim for the chest, so the bullet is rising when it exits the bg and is not as likely to hit anyone in the surrounding apartments). I'll always grab the shotgun if there's time. Maybe we'll live, maybe not. All we can do is prepare.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Being in a university (we can't carry - bah) but if I were in:

VT
Northern Illinois
Columbine
Ecole Polytechnique
Concordia University
Red Lake Senior High -

etc.

I would want to be competent. Yes, I might flee in terror. If I were in the Ecole Polytechnique scenario and the killer came in and told all the males to leave so he could kill the woman - one might just leave. But if you weren't going to do that - I would prefer to have a reasonable chance of hitting the target and processing stress.

A simple google scholar search on stress and shooting will come up with studies indicating that scenario and simulator training leads to better performance and decision making.

Yep, it's a low probability event. So is a home invasion - most are ongoing disputes or drug related. Some are the horror of the Petits. But even then, I would like to know how to use a light and competently move around the house (if I must, should stay put and jump out the window).

BTW, the discussion has moved beyond the garden variety muggers. My moral compass is being competent in a high intensity crowded environment.

Also, try to shoot 5 guys at a distance with a revolver closing from 10 yards and disable all - bet you, some get to you.

[pax]

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

pax

[thesheepdog]

Pax,

It is amazing! Some people just are closed to helping themselves with their rights, rather than extending that assistance to others, for the greater good.
Most have a comfort zone of "well it's not a good idea" or "i may get hurt or killed and it's not worth my time".

[OldMarksman]

Posted by William Lee: Now, in the more garden variety sd situations (in which one or two muggers approach you in a dark alley, parking lot, wherever), being able to draw your weapon and hit a target at or inside 7 yards seems like the necessary training cut off for me--...

Can't disagree. The question is, what should the training for that kind of encounter be?

I took a nine hour defensive pistol shooting course earlier this year. After a fair amount of one on one video-taped training in the basics (grip, sight picture, stance, trigger control, and how to sweep from one target to the next or to follow a rapidly moving target), the training moved to proficiency development.

We fired at not two, but three torso sized steel plates, at seven yards. An audible hit was a hit. The drill was to hit each target rapidly twice, moving from left to right in rapid succession, replace the magazine, and repeat the cycle moving from right to left. The instructors could score twelve hits in about 4.25 seconds. That included replacing the magazine, which was done to develop proficiency in clearing a jam.

The purpose was to develop the skill to handle more than one moving attacker at close range. We then moved to drawing from concealment or from service holsters, with a goal of meeting the Tueller SD standard of 1.5 seconds.

Each participant was personally observed and coached by one trainer in each firing sequence. The five trainers were rotated from one participant to another during the day.

Participants were "taped" (as it were) and timed at the beginning and at the end. Most showed improvements of about 30% in the number of hits and 30% in speed.

I found it very worthwhile, and perfectly tailored to that "garden variety SD situation" involving a couple of attackers at close range.

Those who stayed for the more advance course the second day also found it worthwhile. That one involved shooting wile running forward, sideways, backward, and shooting after having run and dived for cover. Probably a good thing, again for increasing the odds of surviving against two violent criminal actors, but I did not participate this year.

[smince]

Screw eliminating the threat, I'm getting out of there.

I agree with that. What happens when you run into a BG (or three) on the way out? Or find the doors chained shut?

Even five guys with knives are not going to fare well against one guy with a .357, especially when you can see the hollow points sitting in the cylinder. If I were carrying, I would have drawn when they closed into about 10 yards "asking for a cigarette" (yeah, right), and I'm sure that would have been that.

GOOGLE the 'Tueller Drill' OldMarksman mentions in his post and get back with us...

[markj]

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

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.

It sounds like a few people here are referring to an indescrible urge of most men, especially young men, to prove themselves. Not so much to others but simply to themselves. It is something that will hang over you until you perhaps finally have the experiences the finally get it out of your system.

I can follow this, but I am not a young man anymore, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I am fully confidant in my abilities to protect my family. I sure dont need no internet armchair warriors telling me what I need I get enough of that at home...... well not really.

I will stick with what the state of Iowa requires to achieve a permit.

"Know how to", or be able to?

In Iowa you need to be able and show it on a range. Mince words, it is all blah blah blah to me now. This thread is a dead end like the hollow point vs fmj arguements some post in till they are blue in the fingers. Some must feel the pocketbook dictates their level of competancy. Spend more makes you better? Spend more will make the BG fall right down. Now thats funny.

[smince]

I will stick with what the state of Iowa requires to achieve a permit...In Iowa you need to be able and show it on a range...a person should know how to load, unload, and shoot a target 7 yards or so in a safe manner. This is the qualifier here in Iowa...

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

[AZAK]

I am having a "voluntary moral obligatory" moment in returning to this thread:
Glenn E. Meyer states:

Being in a university (we can't carry - bah) but if I were in:

VT
Northern Illinois
Columbine
Ecole Polytechnique
Concordia University
Red Lake Senior High -

etc.

I would want to be competent. Yes, I might flee in terror. If I were in the Ecole Polytechnique scenario and the killer came in and told all the males to leave so he could kill the woman - one might just leave. But if you weren't going to do that - I would prefer to have a reasonable chance of hitting the target and processing stress.

Unless I am mistaken, your examples are currently "gun free zones"; unless you are LEO or the like. Are you advocating illegally carrying in gun free zones? Am I missing something here regarding the choice of your examples?

markjs quote:

I will stick with what the state of Iowa requires to achieve a permit...In Iowa you need to be able and show it on a range...a person should know how to load, unload, and shoot a target 7 yards or so in a safe manner. This is the qualifier here in Iowa...

To which smince replies:

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

To which I reply, Note that markj began his statement with "I"; his opinion, that he did not say you must adhere to. And then he refers to the Iowa state standard; for those of you who continue to dismiss regulation: compare Alaska, Vermont, recently Arizona to the District of Columbia, California, and New Jersey. "Standards" and "regulations" exist and are a real issue.

pax states:

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

I have seen no evidence suggesting this on this thread. What amazes me is that this thread continues for pages and pages when NOT one person has argued that training is not good.

[aarondhgraham]

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

What markj is saying,,, Wait a second,,, I have no idea what matkj is saying,,,

I do know what I keep getting from this thread,,,
And that is that some folk are seriously dissing other people,,,
Those people being those who don't feel the need for high-level training.

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

In what world is this statement not offensive and insulting?

It is amazing! Some people just are closed to helping themselves with their rights, rather than extending that assistance to others, for the greater good.
Most have a comfort zone of "well it's not a good idea" or "i may get hurt or killed and it's not worth my time".

Again, how is this not insulting?

One gentleman keeps using the term

"high(er) morality"

.

No one in this forum has the right to dictate morality levels for any other person here,,,
The more training folk will say, "We never said that." or "That's not what we meant",,,
Then the folk who say less training is okay say, "Yes you did" or "well what did you mean then.",,,
Whereupon the argument strays away from any point and simply becomes a miasma of semantics and word play.

I will state that whether it was blatant, tacit, or unintentionally stated,,,
This thread has taken on a tone of ~we who get more training are more moral and better folk than you who do not~

Pax: Is this really the direction you wanted this discussion to go when you made the original post?

I am a bit dismayed that this post has caused me to see what huge divisions there are in our gun-toting or gun-loving ranks.

My personal hope is that this thread gets closed soon,,,
Before any more animosity surfaces between our brethren.

.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Azak - you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said. Cheap rhetorical tricks.

Currently in TX and others, there is a move to allow school carry. Check out Colorado. The TX state legislature is probably going to take up the bill again.

What I said about training also applies to any crowded local. Your church, temple, mosque, etc. might be the site of a high intensity critical incident.

I prefer to have ability beyond shooting a paper target at 7 yards under minimal stress. I also think that if I contemplate shooting in such an environment that I have the responsibility to have at least tried to have competency.

If that is not clear, then there is nothing else to say to you. Avoid the issue

[psyfly]

Hey, I think I'm with Aaron on this one.

I think I'll go home and have a cold beer.

Best,

Will

[William Lee]

@ smince: I understand the logistics behind the Tueller Drill, and in a situation where an attacker was hell bent on hurting you regardless of the consequences to himself, I understand the concern. The problem I have with this is that in real life, people usually don't want to get shot if they can avoid it. My perception of the 5 guys who approached me was that a) they counted on their advantage in numbers to intimidate us into getting what they wanted and b) that they did not anticipate meeting with any resistance (they did not, since I didn't have anything on me worth protecting at the time and they did not directly threaten to harm my girlfriend). That being said, I think the mere presence of a gun would have disarmed the situation, scattering the robbers who would later regroup to target a more vulnerable victim. Remember, crime is a business, and it doesn't come with good worker's comp benefits. Either way, I'd rather take the chance at having the gun and possibly get run down by one or two of the knife-wielding criminals. In reality, if all five of these guys were hell bent on killing me, I doubt anything I could have done would have stopped them--unless possibly I had some kind of high cap autopistol that would have landed me in jail in NJ.

[AZAK]

Glenn E. Meyer states:

Azak - you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said. Cheap rhetorical tricks.

In no such way. I am wondering why you would choose to use examples of such a nature to prove your point; in the least they are misleading and confusing the issue IMHO.

I will also reiterate, "Hear, Hear!" to aarondhgraham.

[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.

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 aarondgraham

In what world is this statement not offensive and insulting?

Aaron, I'm sorry you read it that way. Please re-read with this thought in mind: several people have suggested that the only skill they can possibly imagine needing is being able to pull out a gun and hit a target a few steps away.

Go back to my original post: if you personally would intervene to save the life of an innocent person (including a member of your own family) more than a few steps away from you, you should learn how to do that. Some people here got hung up on the "Would I save a stranger" aspect, and overlooked the fact that family members sometimes get more than a few steps from each other.

pax

[thesheepdog]

Again, how is this not insulting?

Ummm let's see, it's not. It wasn't direct, nor did it specify an idividual.

I have just seen too many comfort-zoned-people reply on this thread. And that scares me!

My point: Why the heck carry if you will be regarded useless in a situation-due to lack of training?

[William Lee]

Sheepdog: I don't know if it makes sense to assume that an individual will be useless without training. There is the possibility that he/she will be unable to respond to certain situations appropriately, but maybe not. Maybe they'll just get lucky.

[pax]

Originally Posted by William Lee

Maybe they'll just get lucky.

If you're fighting for your life today, today is not your lucky day.

pax

[William Lee]

^^ too true.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here, here - Pax. To Azak, you again avoided the issue and my reply.

Maybe I will say it slowly.

Critical incidents occur in crowded environments.

I gave an example of such to show what could happen.

Moves are being made to allow carry at schools.

Some have been successful.

There are other crowded environments.

Thus, if I was at a crowded church or mall or business - where I could carry - and a rampage broke out, I opine that I have the responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to have the skills not to screw up there.

That easy enough for the crowd?

Denial of this responsibility to be competent, as Pax laid it out, is saying more to me that you don't want to be challenged or bothered to attempt to have competence than anything else. The reason could be financial or personal (fear of failure). It is being couched in pseudo-philosophical terms.

Aaron - get off it - no one is dictating your moral level. You can reach some moral plane or wallow in the depths of immorality by your own choice. But don't expect us to close this or not express our opinions because you don't like the argument. You are free to leave it. So that's baloney.

And I will say it - if you are going to use an instrument of lethal force in a manner that may harm innocents, if you don't try to achieve some competency, you are less moral than those who do. Take it or leave it.

I once went to a meeting and one psychologist sat next to another. The first had the latest journal. Some old toot next to him, said: Oh, I haven't read one of those in years.

Guess what new studies have found new treatments. Shown that some old ones don't work. Old toot was immoral for not keeping his training up to date as he could hurt innocent clients. Extend that to fire, police, EMTs, MDs, who keep up.

Empirically, those with training do better in critical incidents. Deny that evidence if you want to.

If you only act in isolation, go ahead - shoot paper at 7 yards. If you say, that you will never use a firearm in that critical incident but flee, fine.

If you say that you will try to use it and you don't at least try to be competent in that stress level and dynamic environment, you have lost a moral step up.

I don't think it is immoral to flee. That's a good choice. Go for it. But if you act - you should be competent.

Last thought - the term voluntary as I explained before was to mean that we were not talking about a government mandate for a permit or license. But a course of action that I think should be made by your own choice. Should - Understand that?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Tacoma Mall Guy and Tyler, TX guy didn't have lucky days. Most analyses indicate a failure of competency and training.

Google it.

Brave guys - screwed up.

[smince]

a person should know how to load, unload, and shoot a target 7 yards or so in a safe manner.

I feel this is enough for most CCW people.

Know the permit laws (classroom) be able to load aim and shoot 7 to 10 yards...I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed.

So to put this in perspective, the items I outlines should be enough

That's how I came to post this

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

[AZAK]

I belive it is all a person needs to do to be able to get a permit to carry concealed.

I believe that where I live that they got it right: no need for permit, period. How about them standards? Kinda sounds like:" the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."