Are gun combat courses becoming expected?

[Jeb Stuart]

The Lt. Governor, Justin Fairfax, is just as bad on guns as Northam. Actually, Northam staying in office, politically wounded, would tend to stymie his massive antigun initiatives during the rest of his term. He would be busy trying to rehabilitate his reputation.

No, not for everyone. Now, anyone would benefit from training.

If my 77yo mother can keep all her shots center mass with her 38Spl and 9mm at 7 yards, that will most likely be enough to defend herself in her house.
There are countless people with guns and a minimum of practice that have successfully defended their lives and others from threats. May not be ideal but, that is how it is for some.

I would guess that gun owners with formal gun class training are the 98-99th percentile of owners. Everybody would benefit from Skip Barber's driving school but few will take the classes. Are the drivers who don't irresponsible drivers? I'd say no, they just aren't as highly trained.

Where I live, I only wish people would take Skip Barbers driving class. Safety means nothing to the vast majority of car drivers on the road. Text messaging is rampant, as just one example.Most of them will have to take a mandatory driving class only after they caused a accident.

And your comment "There are countless people with guns and a minimum of practice that have successfully defended their lives and others from threats" may be true, I do not know, but on the other hand, I wonder how many untrained or minimal training folks have killed themselves or others. I would bet there are more in the latter.
You cannot take back a bullet.

 

[JohnKSa]

But there is no way a working man can afford to blow $2k plus airfare and housing on a weekend getting lessons on combat shooting.

I doubt that's true. Even "working people" spend a lot of money recreationally. For example, anyone who can afford a new car can easily save well over $2K by buying similar used car instead and driving the car at least a few years past the date it's paid for.

Anybody who gets paid weekly can save more than $2K in a couple of years by putting a single $20 bill from each paycheck in a piggy bank. I'd be willing to bet that many Americans could save $2K in a relatively short amount of time by drinking only tap water for awhile instead of paying for various beverages.

But that's really neither here nor there. There is no need to spend $2K to get professional pistol training. Most major metropolitan areas will have decent pistol training courses available. I've taken a number of multi-day professionally provided pistol training classes and have never had to pay for airfare, housing, or more than $350 in training fees.

I did have to keep my eyes open for classes that looked good, and for the week of the classes, I had to get up very early and drive quite a distance each morning to get to the class on time.

...there seems to be a trend among the internet firearms community that simply buying a pistol and practicing at the range regularly is grossly negligent.

This is a strawman. Not getting training isn't "grossly negligent". I doubt it would even qualify as negligent at all. But it is certainly true that professional training can provide valuable insight and skills development--which is why people are willing to pay for it.

Besides, from what I can see, most people who own a pistol don't even practice at the range regularly--the people who do practice regularly are a cut above the average and I think it would be very difficult to get any traction claiming that they are negligent. Negligence would apply to people who don't take the time to learn or practice gun safety. Failing to take professional training courses isn't negligent.

I think it is definitely possible for a person who is motivated and capable to learn a good deal on their own. However, most people who take professional training will learn faster, avoid bad habits better, and typically gain insights and skills that they would never pick up on their own. Again, that's why people are willing to pay for it.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Deleted

 

[mjsdwash]

I thinks its worth something no one seems to mention, that there have been hundreds of thousands of times where an old rusty heirloom/saturday night special in a drawer, or shotgun in a closet (not to mention bats/golfclubs/tireirons) was perfectly adequate in the hands of someone who hasn't touched it in ten years. I bet thousands, maybe tens of thousands of CCW firearm incidents where someone did just fine with a weapon they fired once, one magazine or box years ago. Your always playing the odds with anything Sure a class will help, but I would wager the majority of successful self defense encounters are by people who do not regularly shoot. I would also bet if class participation was a large enough percent of the population to be statistically significant, the chance of success would not be much higher. I do strongly believe a person new to firearms as an adult should take a safety course, and maybe a range level marksmenship class, I see these for under $300 on the high end. But I don't think most people will walk away from a multi-thousands dollar class with more than bragging rights for their gun that made it through, or doubt for their gun that didn't, and a full bag of buzzwords and philosophies that they will never stick to.

 

[gulogulo1970]

I do not know, but on the other hand, I wonder how many untrained or minimal training folks have killed themselves or others. I would bet there are more in the latter.

I would have to disagree that more people have accidentally killed themselves or others than have defended themselves. If you factor in the many thousands of people who by just producing a gun ran off a threat.

I do totally agree everyone who owns a gun would be better taking formal training. And training is better than luck. But realistically people will only train for a perceived need vs the cost in time and money. Some will say, I can make hits on targets with ideal conditions and no pressure while standing like a tree, once a year and they think they are good for their needs. Others will competitively shoot and say, I'm good enough. Others, I am a military veteran or Police officer, I got it. Some will take classes and say, I'm good or I have much more to learn yet. Many others will live their whole lives and never own or pick up a gun and live til they die of natural causes. It is all cost vs benefit and risk vs reward in their mind.

I'm poorly trying to say is no one can know for sure what level of training another person will need.

 

[JohnKSa]

I thinks its worth something no one seems to mention, that there have been hundreds of thousands of times where an old rusty heirloom/saturday night special in a drawer, or shotgun in a closet (not to mention bats/golfclubs/tireirons) was perfectly adequate in the hands of someone who hasn't touched it in ten years. I bet thousands, maybe tens of thousands of CCW firearm incidents where someone did just fine with a weapon they fired once, one magazine or box years ago.

This is probably accurate. However, it's worth keeping in mind that a big part of why guns are very effective weapons for self-defense has nothing to do with how well people shoot them. There was a study some years ago that revealed in something like 8 out of 10 successful self-defense firearm uses, the gun wasn't fired. In over 90% of successful self-defense firearm uses, the attacker is either not shot or is not seriously injured.

So yes, it's true that untrained people (even people who don't practice at all and may not even be able to shoot accurately or operate the firearm) do use firearms very successfully on a regular basis. But it is NOT because they can wield them effectively, it's because criminals are highly predisposed to give up when faced with a defender carrying a firearm.

I suppose that it might make sense to some people to just count on the effective deterrent value of a firearm and never bother learning to use it--I've even run into a few folks who don't load their self-defense firearm because they plan to rely exclusively on the deterrent value. Obviously training provides no value added in those cases.

But I don't think most people will walk away from a multi-thousands dollar class with more than bragging rights for their gun that made it through, or doubt for their gun that didn't, and a full bag of buzzwords and philosophies that they will never stick to.

I think that there's some truth to this, but I believe it overstates the situation. I think that the really high-end training offers lasting and very practical benefits that are difficult or impossible to find in the more reasonably priced training classes. There's only so far you can go on a square range or without moving targets. However, it is true that there is a point of diminishing returns.

I would say that the important thing to understand about any kind of training is that the training helps you to understand what you need to do on your own as far as remedial work and practice. I think a lot of people believe that the completion certificate confers upon them some magical "readiness" level that persists no matter how long ago they took the training and whether or not they have tried to follow up with personal practice.

I'm poorly trying to say is no one can know for sure what level of training another person will need.

True. In fact we don't even know what level of training, we, ourselves, will need. Some take that to mean that they don't need to worry about training at all since there's no way to know in advance exactly that they will need. Some take that to mean that they need to be trained to the Nth degree since there's no way to know in advance what they might need to do. Some take a more reasoned approach, balancing training needs with schedule and budget to arrive at a balanced approach to training.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Nothing wrong with training courses especially for people that are new to guns. Never been to one but I suspect the "Name Brand" courses are like anything else, good quality but overpriced. The only training courses I have been to were for obtaining carry permits. Each time I left knowing that I am much more competent than most and that is just because I have far more opportunity to practice than the average guy. I'm sure I would enjoy and benefit from professional training but I have other interest that occupy my time so I won't be going to any.
I will also say that if I felt the need for "Gun Combat Training" for my everyday life, I would find a safer place to live.
To insinuate that anyone is negligent for lack of firearms training is stepping into very dangerous territory.

 

[Slamfire]

There is nothing wrong with firearms training. Being exposed to new thoughts and ideas is always good. And it is better to take a couple of courses from different teachers. They each are a little different in their approach. At some point of education, you have to be able to decide which system more closely matches reality.

 

[Doc7]

Sorry, guys, but I still see no indication Whatsoever that Gunsite 250 is overpriced. 1750 for 5 days, a class that is universally well spoken of and not by the James Yeagers of the world, by real life people on message boards just like this one. Comparing it a one day 250 dollar class by a local (albeit, well-qualified and good instructor) is disingenuous. I really dislike the summary of this thread, even among the pro training posters, that “Sure training is good, but the ones paying for Gunsite are incompetent people learning a bunch of buzzwords and throwing their money away”.

Regarding the cost, as my budget sheet goes, I am allocating over 2 years less than $50 dollars a month to training plus a little over 40% of a few hours of overtime and 2 x $1,000 bonuses. (Of my overtime and bonus money, after taxes, tithing, retirement, my wife and I each take a this amount for an annual bigger purchase than our 112 a month budget). That is 50 dollars a month plus 1300 dollars total. Many folks here are certainly spending 50 dollars a month on hobbies (which in my family includes fast food and snacks and meals at lunchtime at work if there are groceries in our fridge at the house) and buying $1300 worth of guns in the next 23 months. That’s one mid range rifle and scope.

The $2,500 number I referred to includes courses, ammunition, and gear I currently lack, shown in the sheet.

 

[Zoogster]

Of course not.

As said most people that own guns bought one, maybe were into it for awhile, then put it away. They then often are able to retrieve said firearm and use it to deter or stop a crime without hurting themselves or others. A lot of that is certainly because most of the time a shot was not necessary.
Yet even when it is necessary consider how basic and simple using a firearm is. You have basic controls. If you understand how to load it, use whatever safeties it has, and use the trigger you can make it work as long as you are capable of aiming it. Even knowing how to load it is not always required and many wives that knew little about their husband's firearms have retrieved it to deal with something, though it is certainly advised in case of issues.
Maintaining them is certainly important as is cleaning and the more you know mechanically about them the better you can do that, but one hardly ever used and stored well needs minimal maintenance.

Then it is a journey to improve upon that and a lot of improvement over that should be what anyone that plans to use firearms regularly should pursue, but not all will care to take that journey.

People should certainly know what to expect when they use it, and for that they need to have practiced with it at least some. They should also know how to be safe but are unlikely to devote much time to that if they are not even going to shoot much, and is why the four rules were brilliant to the point and simple.
You don't over complicate things for people that are not going to make firearms a big part of their life or they won't absorb much of it.
If you don't point it toward or allow it to point towards anything that you wouldn't want to put a hole in, and keep your finger off the trigger you tend to avoid most accidents and the firearm is only fired at what you wanted to fire it at when you make that decision. Bullets also go through things and we miss, so what is beyond your target is also important. You always assume a gun is loaded as it applies to risk and don't get comfortable treating unloaded ones casually or you will make the same mistakes when it is loaded eventually.
At that point you are left with how good of decision makers your population is, and we will never be happy with that, and can always work on improving it.

For those people that choose to know more they certainly gain additional benefits.
But those are the people choosing to make firearms a bigger part of their life.

 

[Browning]

Sorry, guys, but I still see no indication Whatsoever that Gunsite 250 is overpriced. 1750 for 5 days, a class that is universally well spoken of and not by the James Yeagers of the world, by real life people on message boards just like this one. Comparing it a one day 250 dollar class by a local (albeit, well-qualified and good instructor) is disingenuous. I really dislike the summary of this thread, even among the pro training posters, that “Sure training is good, but the ones paying for Gunsite are incompetent people learning a bunch of buzzwords and throwing their money away”.

I don't believe that it's overpriced, especially not for 5 days.

It's more like for people on a budget $200 to $500 for a two day course + 1000 rds is more within reach financially. Especially if the price also doesn't involve lodging and airfare/rental car + fuel or a long distance drive/fuel. That means that people are more likely to actually go.

Training with a competent and reputable instructor for two days and 1,000 rds is better than blowing off the idea and experience altogether as completely unreachable.

The people who are going to attend Gunsite or Thunder Ranch will still go regardless, however many people don't know about local schools.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Could you imagine how much higher the homicide rate would be if the thugs and gang banger started taking combat course. My department had just under 100 homicides last year, but we had many more attempt murders. About 80% were drug related, bad guy shooting it out with bad guy. If they were to get some good training the numbers would skyrocket.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

About 80% were drug related, bad guy shooting it out with bad guy. If they were to get some good training the numbers would skyrocket.

Could be a good thing then. Bad guys eliminate each other, lessen the burden on law enforcement and the courts, fewer innocent bystanders hit by stray bullets.

 

[psyopspec]

Could you imagine how much higher the homicide rate would be if the thugs and gang banger started taking combat course. My department had just under 100 homicides last year, but we had many more attempt murders. About 80% were drug related, bad guy shooting it out with bad guy. If they were to get some good training the numbers would skyrocket.

Off and on over the years there have been gang members who joined the military then took what they learned back to the streets. For most smalltime gangs I assume turnover is such as to make it not worth it, but if you’ve got an organization with enough people and enough need for violence I can see why they’d want to.

 

[Browning]

Could you imagine how much higher the homicide rate would be if the thugs and gang banger started taking combat course. My department had just under 100 homicides last year, but we had many more attempt murders. About 80% were drug related, bad guy shooting it out with bad guy. If they were to get some good training the numbers would skyrocket.

You mean like Andres Reya?



Or Michael Platt.

 

[BSA1]

If this thread goes to 11 pages then we need an intervention.

I think it is ready to be shut down now.

So far lots of opinions and people talking over each other.

No one has posted about what courses they have taken, who taught it, the course content and their opinion of how much it benefitted them.

 

[Hangingrock]

I think it is ready to be shut down now.

So far lots of opinions and people talking over each other.

No one has posted about what courses they have taken, who taught it, the course content and their opinion of how much it benefitted them.

There are those that have differing opinions on the value of courses to take or not to take and why.

 

[Old Dog]

For those who've never been there, you simply have to see what Gunsite has available to believe it. Believe me, the facilities are amazing. I've not been to Thunder Ranch, but I hear that it's got some really, really cool stuff as well.

How many of you posting in this thread have ever been in a real "shoot house?" Until you've gone through, practiced some tactics and shooting in one, you simply do not know what you do not know.

The quality of professional instruction available at these places -- as well as my local school, Firearms Academy of Seattle (not in or near Seattle, by the way) cannot be overstated. Rationalize, justify, excuse away, but don't try and have the rest of us believe that the best training is simply not worth the time or money and that all you'll come away with is

a full bag of buzzwords and philosophies that they will never stick to.

That's just a load of bullcrap.

 

[mjsdwash]

For those who've never been there, you simply have to see what Gunsite has available to believe it. Believe me, the facilities are amazing. I've not been to Thunder Ranch, but I hear that it's got some really, really cool stuff as well.

How many of you posting in this thread have ever been in a real "shoot house?" Until you've gone through, practiced some tactics and shooting in one, you simply do not know what you do not know.

The quality of professional instruction available at these places -- as well as my local school, Firearms Academy of Seattle (not in or near Seattle, by the way) cannot be overstated. Rationalize, justify, excuse away, but don't try and have the rest of us believe that the best training is simply not worth the time or money and that all you'll come away with is

That's just a load of bullcrap.

Certainly not everyone, and I realize I come off as a jackass saying that. I certainly would never say someone was wrong to go, or say their money could be better spent. But just like any training, withing a year or so, people forget. I absolutely cannot imagine that everyone who goes to one of these classes it a cop, security guard, military empolyed/contractor, competitive shooter. The simple reality is that the hi end classes attract people with hi end wages, and that rarely translates to dirty dangerous jobs. All skills that aren't practiced are lost in enough time. After the skill is lost, what do you have but memories and bragging rights? But I am speaking to the OP question of the necessity of attending class as presented by an increasing number of internet personalities, and not the value of the classes themselves. Apologies for the poor humor. I suppose being in line at the gun counter and waiting 20 minutes so the clerk can listen to JoeBob (not his real name, thats a state secret) prattle about his time in "the Nam/Sandbox", and quarterly SWAT/offsite clandestine training burned me.

 

[P5 Guy]

(2) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
(i) Basic firearms safety rules;
(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;
(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;
(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
(v) Safe handling of firearms; and
(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers.

I live alone, never fathered a child and none ever visit me, pretty much no one visits me.
Like when I was in my employer's group health plan I had to buy maternity coverage. (LOL!)
(ii), (iii), (iv) really are moot points in my life.

 

[buck460XVR]

I see a big difference between defensive firearms training and so called "combat" training. So much of the "combat" training I see makes the trainee the aggressor, which for the most part, no civilian will not or should ever be. So, IMHO, combat training for civilians are just "gun games". I get a kick outta watching those fat and outtashape guys(both the trainers and the trainees) trying to run thru shooting houses and other courses, in their tactical clothing, trying to impersonate a scene from S.W.A.T. Reminds me of guys in their Eddie Bauer Safari Clothing and Filson hat, posing with their domesticated goat, shot at a feeder in a high fence game farm. Gotta dress the part, right? Like golfing in blue jeans or shooting sporting clays with a grouse gun.

That said, I have no problem with gun games. I do them all the time at my personal gun range on my son's property. We converted some of the old Paint ball course we used to have and now run drills around those same obstacles changing their position and distances to the targets at regular intervals to keep it fun. For the most part it is just fantasy, as no one there is going to chase down a bad guy thru the streets and not be shot back at. Like FPS video games, there's no real fear of dying other than starting over from the last checkpoint. Experience with your firearm under stress, away from a bench and when short of breath gives one a little inkling of what it might be like.......but just a little. There's no fear or Adrenaline rush. No real dead bodies to step over. In a real EOTWAWKI, finding food, water and shelter will be first and foremost. How many folks that take multiple "combat courses" have taken a single survival course, make a fire without a lighter or matches or could walk a straight line in the woods or desert, without their cell phone GPS?

Time spent at a regular range for the most part will do as much good for the average civilian as any amount of combat training. For the most part we will pull our weapon while standing still and will live or die within 5 feet of where we take that first shot. If we have time to take shelter, we probably should before we draw and we should probably avoid exchanging fire unless there is a real and unavoidable threat to our lives. Chasing after someone with a gun with the intent of initiating a gunfight, for the most part, is not really a legal or legitimate option. But.....playing a game doing it can be fun and without risk(other than tripping over a untied tactical shoelace).

 

[BSA1]

For those who've never been there, you simply have to see what Gunsite has available to believe it. Believe me, the facilities are amazing.

How many of you posting in this thread have ever been in a real "shoot house?" Until you've gone through, practiced some tactics and shooting in one, you simply do not know what you do not know.

So how about sharing your experience at Gunsite?

What course(s) did you attend?

When you attend?

Cost?

How long was the course(s)?

How many instructors per student?

What age group, sexes and occupations was the training intended for?

What was the course content?

What type of shooting skills did they teach? (i.e. one hand, weak hand, two hand weaver stance, clearing malfunctions, shooting on the move, shooting laying on your back, etc.).

How many rounds did you shoot? per day?

How physically challenging is it? Shooting in hot weather can quickly become not fun.

You mention the "shoot house." You sound like you enjoyed it. Is these because it was a fun experience or something that benefits you in real life such as on your job?

Using myself for a example for the training I would like to have...

I have a lot of experience, played in IPSC and CAS, NRA firearms instructor, carry Beretta 92 as edc. I am not resume bragging. Rather my situation I suspect (believe) my shooting skills are a bit sloppy and need some refinement. Nothing major...maybe small adjustment to my grip or stance. Eyesight is getting worse so how do I compensate for that? I need to improve shooting at speed. (Indoor ranges discourage that). I need a coach standing over my shoulder watching me to catch my flaws.

Shooting on the move at a walking pace would be helpful but I ain't doing any running. I can go play IPSC at the local range for that much cheaper.

What I don't need is training laying on the ground on my back or trendy "operator" training where the shooter brings the gun close to their body and looks both ways before holstering.

But shooting from a vehicle would be much more valuable due to increase of road rage incidents than going through a "shoot house."

In fact when I have discussed training classes that are close to where I live the instructors have told me I would be teaching the class.

 

[giggitygiggity]

I am not belittling or discrediting any training course. Recognizing that most people will not be in s gunfight, I think a lot of guys use training courses as an excuse to buy guns, ammo, and gear and to engage in a few days of fun under the guise of “these are important skills that may save my/my family members’ lives.” There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that justification. I just think some people take it a step too far when they say training is necessary and that you’re a cheapskate or don’t care about your family if you don’t drop a couple grand for a few days of training. I think instead of promoting courses by saying that they’re essential or not attending courses is irresponsible, it is more receptive to me if theyre sold as opportunities to learn a few things and see how different instructors/companies do things.

 

[shafter]

Often a little professional instruction can lessen the learning curve to such an extent that you would save a lot of money on ammo that you would have spent trying to get there on your own. Not only that, but I think a good course will give you a realistic idea of what you can do, and where you're lacking and need to train more.

 

[Odd Job]

I can tell you that the anti-carjacking course I took in South Africa was definitely worth it. Some of the topics covered:

1) Prevention is better than getting into a situation where you have to shoot. This covers things like breaking daily routine, leaving space between your vehicle and the one in front, timing your travel so you don't end up stopped at a red light, and making some changes to the house access. It comes under the heading of driving and awareness of your vulnerabilities and what to do to reduce those.

2) By demonstration and practice, the manoeuvring and difficulty involved with quickly getting out of a car and finding the best cover you can, is appreciated.

3) Firing from inside a car produces a tangible blast wave off the inside of the windscreen. Doing it without earmuffs will be memorable! Another thing is, I was distracted by the .45 cases from my team-mate's HK USP which were ejected from his gun onto the roof of the car and then rolled down the windscreen. I heard them and saw them whilst I was firing out of the driver's side window. I remember clearly seeing them stacking up on the windshield wiper.

4) There are several hindrances to do with a seat-belt which need to be planned for.

5) There are blind spots around the car, and goblins are aware of these and use them on approach. A small extra convex mirror attached to your wing mirrors can eliminate some of these blind spots.

6) Coordinating a response on the fly is difficult. It takes practice.

7) There are unavoidable injuries when doing some things in and around a car. I had scratched up forearms and a badly bruised thigh after that course.