Don't Get Training

[Wildalaska]

With what Glen posted, this thread should be done.

WildthatsitinanutshellAlaska ™©2002-2010

[pax]

Guys,

I think part of the reason we're all talking past each other is because a lot of folks who haven't trained with a really good instructor think that firearms classes are simply about improving your marksmanship. "I can hit this piece of paper without training, so what's the big deal?" That's an understandable attitude, esp when it's based on the assumption that marksmanship is all that's taught in classes.

Flip side of that (and oddly, sometimes even coming from the same folks in different threads) is the belief that learning more than simple marksmanship marks you as a mall ninja or a Walter Mitty. "Who needs to be a fantasy warrior? These folks are nuts!" Again, that's an understandable attitude from someone who has only a vague picture of what might be taught in firearms classes that move beyond basic marksmanship.

None of that really erases the basic point: if you are the kind of person who would pick up a deadly weapon and intervene to save the life of another person, you'll need more skills than if you wouldn't. Failing to get those skills vastly increases the chance that you will kill an innocent person who otherwise would not have died.

As Glenn said:

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

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.

pax

[OldMarksman]

Posted by MarkJ: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...

Posted by smince: What markj is asking is that we lower our standards to his.

Actually, no, he is stating what he thinks is adequate for him, which, by the way is what is required to get a permit in Missouri. However, every Missouri instructor will tell you that that level of proficiency is not enough to keep you alive if things go south.

If one is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and if it is immediately necessary for one to employ deadly force to defend oneself, the ability to shoot a target at seven yards in a safe manner is necessary, but it is not sufficient. There is also the manner of time. The terms imminent and immediately should give at least a partial clue to that.

The law enforcement term "violent criminal actors" is fitting. If you are justified in shooting someone, he is about to kill you--not waiting for you to shoot him like a target at the range. The whole concept of self defense is that if you do not stop him first, he will kill or injure you.

One has to be able to produce his weapon very quickly and shoot very quickly. Getting at least two immediate hits per assailant after a nominal draw time of a second and a half should give one a chance, and there is a fair chance that there will be more than one assailant.

To be able to do so while running for cover would be even better.

Maybe, just maybe, one might be able to develop the necessary skills through practice alone. In my case, and I have more than half a century of shooting experience, I found professional training invaluable.

[smince]

Actually, no, he is stating what he thinks is adequate for him,

Well, not really:

I feel this is enough for most CCW people.

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

the items I outline should be enough

So no, not just what he believes is adequate for himself.

On the other items, we agree. Personally, I am not content with watered down 'training' aimed at the lowest common denominator.

Lot of excuses why THEY don't need to train shared by both civilians and armed professionals.

[JohnKSa]

I believe that where I live that they got it right: no need for permit, period. How about them standards?

Two strawmen in two sentences.

This thread is not about whether or not you should be required to have a permit to carry/own a firearm.

This thread is also not about whether or not you should be required to meet mandated standards to carry/own a gun.

[Buzzcook]

My only disagreement with the original thesis is that government training is worthless.

There are lots of examples of government training people in complex skills, including the use of firearms.

Not only military and police either. One of the shooting classes I took was through a city park.
There is no reason that some government agency couldn't be involved in training shooters. The parks system is already set up to train people by the thousands.

No I am not speaking of or for mandatory training.

My granddaughter took eight weeks of swim lessons for $55. The taxes of the folk in my county took up the rest of the freight. The same idea is true of hunters safety class another example of good government training
I don't see why accessible quality firearm training couldn't be done the same way.
I think that is also an initiative that would find support amongst people that support gun control.

On another topic in this thread. I don't think morality is involved. We have a simple self interest to increase our ability to protect ourselves.
We also have a legal responsibility to not harm others. That responsibility may be mitigated by other factors, but it still remains. If we can show that we have trained for the unlikely event of a shoot out, it can be argued that we have shown due diligence. Our responsibility in collateral damage would be further mitigated.
Morality is all well and good till someone has you strap on an explosive vest.

[AZAK]

JohnKSa states:

Two strawmen in two sentences.

If you read the post immediately preceding my post, you can see that what I said was in context to that post.

and continues:

This thread is not about whether or not you should be required to have a permit to carry/own a firearm.

This thread is also not about whether or not you should be required to meet mandated standards to carry/own a gun.

I would say that even if this was not the OPs original intention, although read the first six words of the OP:

In states where training is required

these topics have surfaced in the course of discussion and are germane to the topic.

Glenn E. Meyer states:

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

I will say it again, NO ONE on this thread has argued against training being a positive asset.

And therein lies the rub: some folks have voiced a concern for others using "Morality" as a "motivational factor" to "influence" their own "degree of training".
Perhaps as a professional ethics issue; given LEO or similar background. Perhaps as a civic/legal responsibility; given existing laws or possibility of civil suits and repercussions.
Or even perhaps as an "I just enjoy additional training" issue.

And speaking of "Morality" Tamara states:

Isn't separating the "legal" from the "moral" one of the whole points of this thread?

Glenn E. Meyer states:

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.

Given my understanding of the founding documents and history of this country, my personal understanding of "Morality" and its role in history, I respectfully choose to "leave it" when framed as it has been here; and by that I specifically mean that I still value additional training for myself over time, yet disagree strongly with your stated "moral obligation" to do so.

[smince]

There are lots of examples of government training people in complex skills, including the use of firearms.

We will have to disagree on this.

Because of things like the ADA, EOC and other PC bs the .gov are the #1 reason for this lowest common denominator training. It has been 'dumbed down' so that unmotivated (or down-right lazy) can still 'pass' and keep their jobs. Read some of the posts in other threads about cops not wanting to train unless being paid or it being mandatory.

Why else are they happy to hit the streets with an 80% or less score?

The vast majority of the time, any 'advanced' .gov training will actually come from the private sector - either as civilian contract work or the instructor brought it back after taking private training.

My granddaughter took eight weeks of swim lessons for $55. The taxes of the folk in my county took up the rest

I'm having trouble finding the Constitutional mandate for this. It's not the .gov's responsibility to teach my kids to swim with my tax money.

Firearms training, either.

[BlueTrain]

Is there a government mandate to build roads? Have schools? None of those were particularly common when the constituation was written. Roads? Ever hear of a turnpike? Maybe not a bad idea. It's coming back. Privately owned roads, too, perhaps foreign owned. They have to do something with all that money.

[thesheepdog]

I don't know if it makes sense to assume that an individual will be useless without training

Makes perfect sense. It's common sense actually. Think about what SF troops go through with training; they're the best of the best and they usually survive major firefights because of their trainin. Yes this is an extreme contrast to a civilian, but heck, why get comfortable?

Do any of you really feel safe with your level of training? Just because there is a handgun stuffed in your waist, does that make you feel secure?
Just because you have a CHL, doesn't mean you're safe. All a CHL does is give you permission to walk into the gladiator's arena, while armed.

[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.

pax

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams

A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue. -- Jean Jacques Rousseau

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. -- Jacob Hornberger

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you please unless it causes others harm. With it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences. -- P.J. O'Rourke

[Buzzcook]

We will have to disagree on this.

Well having shot with men who went through sniper school, were on Army pistol teams, and others who learned shooting from Uncle Sam, I can say that they shoot with a bit of skill.

There are a lot of things that are not mandated by the constitution. One of those things is public education. Yet I don't know of one of the founding fathers that didn't support public education in one form or another.

One thing that is mandated by the constitution is your right to bear arms.
While we can argue about the details, the over arching reason for that is because it is a public good.

When something is a public good, whether it's roads or firearms ownership, it is a role of government to maximize that good.

[Wildalaska]

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.

Plus 1.5 million++++

And I'm going to add that training includes a solid grounding in ethics, legal and moral philosophy, not just Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

You young guys...turn off the TV and read. You don't even need a college education

"Man is master of his actions; and yet, in so far as he belongs to another, i.e. the community, of which he forms part, he merits or demerits, inasmuch as he disposes his actions well or ill: just as if he were to dispense well or ill other belongings of his, in respect of which he is bound to serve the community."

"How do you know that your blood is redder than the blood of your fellow?"

WildstartwiththesummathologicaifyearechrisianorthetalmudifyearenotAlaska ™©2002-2010

[thesheepdog]

When something is a public good, whether it's roads or firearms ownership, it is a role of government to maximize that good.

A role of the people you mean?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by pax

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....

And while one indeed has free will and may choose to act in a less than responsible manner, he shouldn't expect to be congratulated for making that choice.

[BlueTrain]

Well, around here the government builds most (but not all of the roads). The people don't build any.

[smince]

...men who went through sniper school, were on Army pistol teams...

Thank you for making my point - what's available for dedicated, motivated persons vs the LCD training available for the masses.

Well, around here the government builds most (but not all of the roads). The people don't build any.

Infrastructure is quite different than swimming lessons and other forms of .gov waste.

[Buzzcook]

A role of the people you mean?

Nope

The role of government is to do what the people are unable to do themselves

Or with more authority.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government.
Lincoln, Abraham

I would like to add that there are some things which some of the people can do on their own, but that not all the individuals can do.
Things which we believe that is to the benefit all the people. An example is high school drivers ed. Not all people can afford to take a similar drivers ed class on their own, but we are better off if all potential drivers do so.


Once again I am not a fan of using "morals" in this context.

[thesheepdog]

The role of government is to do what the people are unable to do themselves

Much like they do today, where they even think for us?

[Buzzcook]

Much like they do today, where they even think for us?

Nope. I was not trying to score a cheap rhetorical point.

Thank you for making my point - what's available for dedicated, motivated persons vs the LCD training available for the masses.

Nope, the point you tried to make was that government training is ineffective.
I don't see how examples of effective government training bolsters your point.

[thesheepdog]

Nope. I was not trying to score a cheap rhetorical point.

Hmm; government involvement shouldn't ever be necessary. It's not fully moral obligation either-though i agree on this mostly.

[smince]

Why doesn't the .gov spend the time and money to train all soldiers and police to the level of Sniper School students and the AMU team then

[JohnKSa]

Given my understanding of the founding documents and history of this country, my personal understanding of "Morality" and its role in history, I respectfully choose to "leave it" when framed as it has been here; and by that I specifically mean that I still value additional training for myself over time, yet disagree strongly with your stated "moral obligation" to do so.

Ok, then, WHY do you value additional training?

And speaking of "Morality" Tamara states:
Quote:
Isn't separating the "legal" from the "moral" one of the whole points of this thread?

That's the point I was making as well. This thread isn't about raising/imposing legal standards on people, rather it's about the self-imposed obligations that result from understanding the implications of owning/carrying a firearm.

Legal restrictions are imposed on people from the outside to regulate their behavior.

The obligations that the OP is talking about should be imposed from the INSIDE as a result of that person understanding the ramifications of owning and carrying a deadly weapon for the purposes of self-defense.

I would say that even if this was not the OPs original intention, although read the first six words of the OP:

The OP mentions mandated training (as it pertains to privately owned/carried firearms) to point out that even when required it is minimal and also to highlight the fact that if we all act responsibly that there's no need for state mandated training at all.

The point of the second paragraph in the OP is to move AWAY from state mandated training--"there's no reason for the state to get involved in the training issue".

The whole idea that started this thread was that we should each, as responsible firearms owners/carriers SELF-impose training standards on ourselves with the standard being that we should get as much training as we can. That state imposed training standards for private carry when they are required at all don't meet the higher standard that we as individual responsible firearms owners should each impose on ourselves.

My only disagreement with the original thesis is that government training is worthless.

That's not in the original thesis. The original thesis states that government training as it applies to private ownership and carry of firearms is minimal and is oriented not towards enhancing the skill of the individual to handle difficult situations but is rather oriented towards preventing the individual from being a danger to others. It points out that the value of this particular type of training is limited but it does not state categorically that all government training is useless nor does it even go so far as to state that this particular type of government training is worthless.

It also starts off by noting that it's only provided in some states in which statement is implicit the fact that it's not required/provided in other states. I suppose in that case it could be stated that it's worthless as it's difficult to argue that it has value when it doesn't exist.

[ZeroJunk]

I'm sure this subject is near and dear to all of you, but to most it isn't. I do not know anybody in this community who does not have guns in their house, and it has been that way for generations. And, they have a pistol or two if they can remember where it is, or where they locked it away if they have children around. Other than hunting season most people don't give them a lot of thought. I'm sure they are aware that they are available for a home invasion or such, but it is so unlikely that nobody thinks about it much. So, when I see ownership/carry the ownership part throws up a flag with me.

Now, if you are talking about concealed carry in public places that is another level of responsibility. I have a concealed carry permit, but I have never carried in a public place and it is unlikely that I ever will. Of the dozen or so people with concealed carry permits that I know none of them carry with any regularity if at all. It was more of a convenience not having to go through a background check and avoiding a hassle if you happened to have a pistol in the car going or coming hunting and that type of thing.


Obviously, where you live the hazards that you face can be entirely different. And, if you decide to carry everywhere you accept an entirely different level of responsibility.

I can see no one size fits all consensus on a level of training, at least for the ownership/ part.

[Buzzcook]

Hmm; government involvement shouldn't ever be necessary.

Well that's your personal feeling on the matter. As Lincoln said though

From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government.

Why doesn't the .gov spend the time and money to train all soldiers and police to the level of Sniper School students and the AMU team then

smince you have to be joking. Just because every soldier is not a trained sniper doesn't mean that government is incapable of training people to do complex tasks.
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?