Are gun combat courses becoming expected?

[Texas10mm]

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.

You'll also have the hat!

 

[westernrover]

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.

I remember reading Shooting to Live and the conclusion of the modest training program outlined in there was that the recruit would probably be a lot better off than their opponent. It would seem the most opportunistic criminals and the typical hold-up man are not likely to be skilled in the use of their weapon, have much practice in the weapon's actual use (other than as a menacing threat to their unarmed victims), and they probably have average or cheap equipment. While we shouldn't think that we're immune to a Hi Point in some thug's underwear because we have a Les Baer and a great holster, with a little effort and expense it's not hard to gain an advantage that may or may not become relevant. The same is true for training. With effort and expense, we can train and practice and gain an advantage, but there is no telling whether it will matter. You can be a Gunsite/Frontsite/Thunderanch/SigAcademy ninja, and if a dude with a knife gets the drop on you, you're IDPA scores aren't going to save you. The guy initiating the violence always starts with the upper hand because he knows that violence is going to happen, when it's going to happen, where, and how, and as a defender, you're always going to be catching up. So you really need every other advantage you can get.

 

[BSA1]

Since this dog still has legs...

To insinuate that anyone is negligent for lack of firearms training is stepping into very dangerous territory.

Indeed!

I know that these comments are not going to sit well with many members but I am a big supporter of the poor, single women, minorities and other groups right to own guns without any formal training,

It is clear that many where not raised by a single mother widowed with three young children and were often so poor that she did not have two nickels to rub together. We ate a lot of soup and cheese sandwiches going up.

There are a lot of deadbeat Dads out there. How is a single mom with a child(ern) working as a waitress for minimum wages and tips supposed to be able to afford taking time off of work, hiring a babysitter, paying even a couple of hundred dollars to take the type of training class some of think she needs in order to own a gun? And then to be able to afford the type and quality of gun some think she should own?

$50.00 a month may be hobby money for some but for a single mom it means food and clothing.

How much training does she need when her abusive ex is beating down the front door threatening to kill her and the children and the Police are long minutes away or if they are even responding at all.

Objectively reading the comments there are social, economic, gender and class discrimination attitudes being displayed. It probably is not intentional which is one of reasons of eliminating discrimination is so difficult.

I am not fronting anyone out. Just pointing out how some of comments can be taken to mean.

 

[Elkins45]

View attachment 824414
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.

I don’t see anything budgeted for travel, hotel, meals. If I went to Gunsite that would add probably another thousand.

I’m not arguing against training. I would love to go to Thunder Ranch or Gunsite. But they really are not cheap.

 

[Browning]

I know that these comments are not going to sit well with many members but I am a big supporter of the poor, single women, minorities and other groups right to own guns without any formal training,

I'm a big supporter of anyone being able to own guns without formal training. Not just some people from some individual groups.
Everyone.

Being able to use it effectively is a different story. People choke all the time.

 

[Doc7]

I don’t see anything budgeted for travel, hotel, meals. If I went to Gunsite that would add probably another thousand.

I’m not arguing against training. I would love to go to Thunder Ranch or Gunsite. But they really are not cheap.

Sorry - in the thread that inspired OP to create this thread I detailed that i live only a short drive (45 mins) from the Gunsite 250 location in richmond, where the instructors fly out to a few times a year to offer the course here.

 

[illinoisburt]

Might as well throw in 2 cents, too. I think the point the OP was making was that many online forums seem to push the idea that everyone must have tactical training lest they be deemed irresponsible or improper.

Yes, a firearm can save someone's bacon in a bad situation. Getting training to hopefully better react to those situations is good.

BUT is it wrong to just enjoy owning/shooting/collecting without taking a bunch of classes? I certainly hope not! And looking down on someone for that choice is not very HighRoad.

If you like the classes and think it will help you in your daily life, that's awesome and I hope you get the opportunity to attend a bunch of them. Just realize not everyone wants to do the same - whether it's cost, time, or just plain lack of interest. And pushing it from the "responsibility" angle is exactly how we end up with anti-gun people co-opting the idea and incorporating it into draconian laws hoping to make gun owning unaffordable & inconvenient rather than gun owners really good shots.

 

[bearcreek]

I know that these comments are not going to sit well with many members but I am a big supporter of the poor, single women, minorities and other groups right to own guns without any formal training,

Not sure why you think that. I haven't seen a single post in this thread in support of mandatory training of any kind in order to own a gun.

How much training does she need when her abusive ex is beating down the front door threatening to kill her and the children and the Police are long minutes away or if they are even responding at all.

She should need zero training in order to own and defend herself with that weapon. However, that doesn't change the fact that good training would probably be a huge help to her in that situation. If she can't afford it, then that's just the way it is. Unfortunately she'll have to make do with what she has. Perhaps someone who does have good training can help her out. I'm not in a position to know many women like that and the ones that I do know can afford things like TV, smoking, spa days etc. which means they could afford training if they wanted to. I would be very interested in helping with training women (and men) in the position that you describe if the opportunity arose. I've thought about that before, just not sure how that would be done.

Objectively reading the comments there are social, economic, gender and class discrimination attitudes being displayed. It probably is not intentional which is one of reasons of eliminating discrimination is so difficult.

I'll say it again. No one here in this thread that I have seen (maybe I missed a post, if so I'd appreciate if you pointed it out) has said that training should be mandatory in order to own a firearm, or carry one in public for that matter. If you think that it's discriminatory to point out that getting good training in a particular, potentially deadly activity is a good idea, then yeah, don't see how you're going to eliminate "discrimination".

 

[Hasaf]

I'll say it again. No one here in this thread that I have seen (maybe I missed a post, if so I'd appreciate if you pointed it out) has said that training should be mandatory in order to own a firearm, or carry one in public for that matter. If you think that it's discriminatory to point out that getting good training in a particular, potentially deadly activity is a good idea, then yeah, don't see how you're going to eliminate "discrimination".

Agreed, while training is a good idea, it can be used as a barrier. When I was a kid, in a Los Angeles suburb, my father decided to get a California Permit. Keep in mind, this was the '70s. It was a lot harder to get a permit. One thing was the Chief LEO signature. He could only sign it the applicant took a "safety" class.

The class was one evening and cost $2,000 (remember, there has been a bit of inflation, in today's dollars that is $9,334.83). He mentioned it to one of the county supervisors and was told, " it's not a problem, that was never meant for people like you." The County Supervisor sent a memo to the sheriff's department and the permit was issued.

That story should illustrate the danger of mandatory training. It wasn't about the training, for all intents and purposes, there was no training. It was all about creating a barrier.

Next story, I was in lodge and a retired police officer was talking about permits. Before this state set statewide standards towns could set their own standards. He was laughing about a guy who wanted to license a .44mag for carry. The guy planned to qualify with .44 special; nope, the gun said .44 mag and that is what he was required to shoot. If that wasn't enough, the PD required applicants to run an obstacle course and shoot immediately afterwards.

Of course, he was lamenting the 'ole days.

These types of "training" and testing standards are not about training. Even on a cursory glance, they are about creating barriers to entry.

 

[Deanimator]

These types of "training" and testing standards are not about training. Even on a cursory glance, they are about creating barriers to entry.

And usually racial, ethnic and religious barriers.

 

[Browning]

First it was the money issue, when that didn't pan out now we're going to that it might give the anti-freedom crowd the idea to implement a gun version of the Southern 'Literacy Test' as a way of disenfranchising people out of their Second Amendment right to own the most effective tools to defend themselves.

They've already had that idea for years and they use it in many May Issue states. It's too late, they already had that idea. You give them too much credit, it's not like they're scouring gun boards looking for ideas on how to infringe on your freedom, they already know how to do that very well.

We're just saying that training is a good idea and here's some ideas on where to get it. Full stop. That's it.

No one is saying that it should be a requirement to own a gun. Nothing in the Constitution has that requirement.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Might as well throw in 2 cents, too. I think the point the OP was making was that many online forums seem to push the idea that everyone must have tactical training lest they be deemed irresponsible or improper.

Yes, a firearm can save someone's bacon in a bad situation. Getting training to hopefully better react to those situations is good.

BUT is it wrong to just enjoy owning/shooting/collecting without taking a bunch of classes? I certainly hope not! And looking down on someone for that choice is not very HighRoad.

If you like the classes and think it will help you in your daily life, that's awesome and I hope you get the opportunity to attend a bunch of them. Just realize not everyone wants to do the same - whether it's cost, time, or just plain lack of interest. And pushing it from the "responsibility" angle is exactly how we end up with anti-gun people co-opting the idea and incorporating it into draconian laws hoping to make gun owning unaffordable & inconvenient rather than gun owners really good shots.

Great post.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

You can't teach awareness either.

No, but you can most certainly develop it. All it takes is spending time somewhere where awareness is a basic survival skill.

I say train all you want to but at the end of the day be honest with yourself. This is just a game we pretend at. By the way remember that awareness and the seatbelt on the way to the range because driving is riskier than any imagined assault by bad guys

So, the NEXT time someone tries to rob me can I just tell them "Hey guys this is just a game I pretend at." ?

 

[westernrover]

A certain level of training should be a part of civics in High School. Many of us have taken 8-hour CCW license classes. The curriculum for those classes doesn't teach introductory firearms handling and shooting -- the students are expected to already possess a basic competence. But it would only take a couple more hours to bring most students up to the level they're expected to be on. If you've also taken an 8 hour Hunter Safety Training class like my state requires for a license, a good portion of the book study, the classroom lecture, and the hands-on exercises address the proper use of firearms. The hunting part should probably be improved with hands-on lessons in skinning and dressing game and caring for the meat. Thankfully, my local 4H does just that. A lot of kids also have no-cost access to an introduction to shooting sports through 4H. Put those three things together and improve them a bit so that students are taught and get hands-on experience with firearm safety and lawful self-defense and concealed carry, hunting with rifles and shotguns, and competitive shooting sports, and you have at least a rich academic quarter's worth of priceless education that no high-school senior should continue in ignorance of.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

My daughter does not plan to take on the world or get in a shoot out in her neighborhood, bet she does carry a gnu

Doesn't that get heavy

 

[Labguy47]

No because self-defense isn't combat ... Unless actually thretened with bodily harm or death most civilian gun owners should run away from the sound of gunfire.

No it’s not and pray to whoever is watching over us that you never have to experience that!

 

[bearcreek]

Agreed, while training is a good idea, it can be used as a barrier.

It can be, but that hasn't been suggested by anyone in this thread. I'm not entirely sure why it keeps getting brought up. Should I try to inject a Glock vs. 1911 debate into this thread too, while we're bringing in off topic subjects?

 

[mjsdwash]

You'll also have the hat!

Midsouth just sent me a hat, cant have too many hats!

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Doesn't that get heavy

I have to remember to proofread and not trust spellcheck.

 

[Casefull]

"No, but you can most certainly develop it. All it takes is spending time somewhere where awareness is a basic survival skill."

Keep telling yourself how high speed you are next time you pretend you are outdrawing your pretend bad guy. Stay away from the real bad guys so you do not have to find out difference between real and pretend.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

"No, but you can most certainly develop it. All it takes is spending time somewhere where awareness is a basic survival skill."

Keep telling yourself how high speed you are next time you pretend you are outdrawing your pretend bad guy. Stay away from the real bad guys so you do not have to find out difference between real and pretend.

Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest he be wise in his own eyes

 

[Nuclear]

First, the OP DID ask if there was a kind of expectation that everyone should get high zoot training. And from my experience, there is on-line, and in real life around a lot of gun people. There shouldn't be, other than the safety rules, because guns are really pretty easy to use.

Some one also asked about training course experiences. I went to Gunsite a few years ago after moving to Arizona. I took the intro handgun course 250. It was in August, we had about half the normal size of a class and three really good instructors. The instructors were all former military, LEO or both. The 12 class members consisted of 3 current LEOs, one retired, one young woman who had shot once before and rest were gun enthusiasts. Since I didn't want to get up at the crack of dawn every morning and drive two hours, I stayed nearby, thus not saving me any money other than airfare. The quality of instruction on the range was excellent, and by the end of the week I was able to accomplish things I couldn't imagine I could do at the beginning. The classroom instruction was good, but most of it I had gotten elsewhere before attending. What stuck with me was one account by a jeweler who said that he was always thinking a gunfight WOULD happen to him, not that it could never happen to him. I ended up with blisters, no desire to shoot for a few weeks, and a greatly improved ability to draw, shoot and hit the target quickly. To be clear, I took the course because I had been reading Col Cooper's columns and hearing about Gunsite for decades. It was on my bucket list, and I could afford the time and money to do it. If you have the time and money, I endorse it.

 

[bearcreek]

First, the OP DID ask if there was a kind of expectation that everyone should get high zoot training. And from my experience, there is on-line, and in real life around a lot of gun people.

I'm entirely certain that when the OP said "expectation", he was basically talking about peer pressure, not a desire for legislation. Did it not seem like that to you?

There shouldn't be, other than the safety rules, because guns are really pretty easy to use.

Depends what you mean by "easy". If by "easy" you mean simply to "get it to launch it's projectile out of the muzzle", then yeah, easy. If we're talking about being accurate with it, being fast with it, knowing how to carry it and deploy it in odd, uncomfortable positions, knowing how to deploy and use it in the midst of a physical fight, knowing how to reload it quickly, knowing how to reload it with one hand immobilized or busy, knowing how to use it while around other people without endangering them, knowing how to use it along with other people who are also armed, etc. etc. then, not at all easy.

 

[Trey Veston]

I went to Gunsite a few years ago after moving to Arizona. I took the intro handgun course 250. It was in August, we had about half the normal size of a class and three really good instructors. The instructors were all former military, LEO or both. The 12 class members consisted of 3 current LEOs, one retired, one young woman who had shot once before and rest were gun enthusiasts. Since I didn't want to get up at the crack of dawn every morning and drive two hours, I stayed nearby, thus not saving me any money other than airfare. The quality of instruction on the range was excellent, and by the end of the week I was able to accomplish things I couldn't imagine I could do at the beginning. The classroom instruction was good, but most of it I had gotten elsewhere before attending. What stuck with me was one account by a jeweler who said that he was always thinking a gunfight WOULD happen to him, not that it could never happen to him. I ended up with blisters, no desire to shoot for a few weeks, and a greatly improved ability to draw, shoot and hit the target quickly. To be clear, I took the course because I had been reading Col Cooper's columns and hearing about Gunsite for decades. It was on my bucket list, and I could afford the time and money to do it. If you have the time and money, I endorse it.

I was surprised that the basics I learned at Gunsite in regards to the three-step drawing from concealment process are the same ones that my brother teaches to new shooters and is the current process being taught to most law enforcement officers.

When I was in a situation a couple of years ago in which I had to draw a weapon and move tactically, I don't remember doing it, but witnesses said I looked like a high-speed secret squirrel military operator. All of my military training from decades ago just kicked in. The more recent Gunsite stuff took a back seat to older training. Weird.

 

[psyopspec]

Since this dog still has legs...



Indeed!

I know that these comments are not going to sit well with many members but I am a big supporter of the poor, single women, minorities and other groups right to own guns without any formal training,

It is clear that many where not raised by a single mother widowed with three young children and were often so poor that she did not have two nickels to rub together. We ate a lot of soup and cheese sandwiches going up.

There are a lot of deadbeat Dads out there. How is a single mom with a child(ern) working as a waitress for minimum wages and tips supposed to be able to afford taking time off of work, hiring a babysitter, paying even a couple of hundred dollars to take the type of training class some of think she needs in order to own a gun? And then to be able to afford the type and quality of gun some think she should own?

$50.00 a month may be hobby money for some but for a single mom it means food and clothing.

How much training does she need when her abusive ex is beating down the front door threatening to kill her and the children and the Police are long minutes away or if they are even responding at all.

Objectively reading the comments there are social, economic, gender and class discrimination attitudes being displayed. It probably is not intentional which is one of reasons of eliminating discrimination is so difficult.

I am not fronting anyone out. Just pointing out how some of comments can be taken to mean.

Who has actually asserted that training should be mandatory, as opposed to a good idea that people ought to do when it's in their means? Plenty of posts in this thread have been beating up that straw man, but I haven't seen anyone actually saying that's the case.