Are gun combat courses becoming expected?

[psyopspec]

...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.

...

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

And who on this thread has said that any training should be legally mandated? I think you're beating up a straw man.

 

[westernrover]

The idea of mandatory training is there. There are mandatory classes for CCW licensing and mandatory classes for hunter licensing. The premise of the thread was that there was a perception of shaming if one didn't submit to a social mandate for combat training at a prestigious academy.

I think CCW permitting and mandatory training are an unlawful infringement. But I do think it that on a temporary basis the practice of permitting provided a benefit with a positive affirmation of the lawfulness of concealed carry. Because of such a long history of various local prohibitions, simply ending the prohibition might have left the practice of carry in a kind of moral grey area for a portion of our society. Permitting and preemption laws provided a positive affirmation that this practice was "approved of." There are still some states where "shall issue" and preemption needs to take hold, but then we should see a progression toward "constitutional carry" as we're seeing in the more advanced states.

But permitting created another perception among some, which is that carry is an acceptable practice if the person carrying has met certain requirements, overcome certain barriers so to speak, been trained to a certain level, has proven a certain competence. I think we would probably agree that the content of most CCW classes is reasonable and basic firearms safety is worthy of promotion, but that passing a class is slim assurance that a student is safe, sane or competent. Most of us would be rightly opposed to further legal barriers to carry, but the perception is that there is increasing social pressure to meet criteria like elite academy attendance that's believed to increase skill and competency levels.

Imagine if there were a higher permit class. Say if you attended a week-long elite academy, you got your gold-star card and then you were allowed to carry in post offices, schools, and government buildings. I bet a bunch of you wouldn't be protesting legal barriers to carry. You'd be going and getting your gold-star cards.

 

[psyopspec]

Slippery slopes are the fastest way to get to said strawman. The notion that people ought to train if they reasonably can is not the same thing as legally mandated training, which again not a single person has suggested. Full stop, no pearl-clutching required.

Imagine if there were a higher permit class. Say if you attended a week-long elite academy, you got your gold-star card and then you were allowed to carry in post offices, schools, and government buildings. I bet a bunch of you wouldn't be protesting legal barriers to carry. You'd be going and getting your gold-star cards.

One straw man dies and another springs to life.

 

[DeepSouth]

Imagine if there were a higher permit class. Say if you attended a week-long elite academy, you got your gold-star card and then you were allowed to carry in post offices, schools, and government buildings. I bet a bunch of you wouldn't be protesting legal barriers to carry. You'd be going and getting your gold-star cards.

One straw man dies and another springs to life.

Might not be a straw man.

Someone from Mississippi can correct me if I’m wrong, and I admit right up front I might be. But my understanding is they have some type of two tier permit system. Like a “normal” permit and an “enhanced” permit.

I just remember being told once years ago to obey the “no guns” signs. Because as an out of state person I didn’t have the upgraded permit that one could get. As I understand you had to have the enhanced permit to legally bypass the no gun signs. FWIW: I have no idea what it took to get the enhanced permit.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Might not be a straw man.

Someone from Mississippi can correct me if I’m wrong, and I admit right up front I might be. But my understanding is they have some type of two tier permit system. Like a “normal” permit and an “enhanced” permit.

I just remember being told once years ago to obey the “no guns” signs. Because as an out of state person I didn’t have the upgraded permit that one could get. As I understand you had to have the enhanced permit to legally bypass the no gun signs. FWIW: I have no idea what it took to get the enhanced permit.

That’s just for Rednecks from Mississippi.

Boy have some of y’all gone off topic.
The OP asked,
Are gun combat courses becoming expected?
As an American you have the right to own guns. No where does it say that you have the right to own a gun only if you have proper training.
Now I have seen a lot of people that have guns that really need some type of training, but they are not the type of people that get on gun forums. Now should you get some training? Well, that’s up to you to decide. Should it be required? No.
Now there are a bunch of gun owners that have never been in the military that take combat training courses. There are different reasons they take these courses. Some take them because they are fun and they learn how to handle their weapons better. Some take them because they believe they will be going to war with the government, and then there’s a bunch somewhere in the middle.

 

[Zerodefect]

Trained or untrained.

You going to get smoked, if you go up against someone trained, when you're not. Practice makes perfect. How many pathetic, real world, youtube vids do we have to go through of people shooting for their lives, like circus clowns.

One of my favorites, dum dums with empty chambers:


Nobody is saying training should be mandatory. But I will say that training is more important than your cable bill.

 

[Styx]

I've never had training beyond watching videos, seeking advice on web forums, and then applying some of that advice at indoor shooting ranges. I don't see myself ever having to use my gun in a self defense situation, and even if I did, I'm confident that I can make hits at self defense distances without spending thousands on tactical training... Plus, the attitude and demeanour of some of the trainers and people in these classes are a turnoff for me... YMMV

I'd go as far to assume that only an extremely low percentage of accual law abiding gun owners have the time, money, or desire to take these expensive classes. It may seem common in the online gun community, but it's my opinion that it's not common in real life.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Trained or untrained.

You going to get smoked, if you go up against someone trained, when you're not.

That's rarely true [after thinking about it I'll take back my "rarely true" but it's certainly not a fast rule] . I personally lost two LE friends to two different untrained drunks. Both cleared their guns, one didn't get a shot off. The other did. I also almost lost another well trained Army friend to a fat untrained coward who was banging his wife while deployed, that hid behind the door and waited on him to walk outside. Luckily he had a 22 and the round penetrated the skull and went around the brain, sparing his life but leaving him with sleep issues and migraines. My "trained" friend never fired his gun nor seen it coming. Ive also shot with many great folks from many branches and departments. All "trained" at least more so than any "untrained" person. Less than a quarter of them would I choose to have beside me over many of my untrained hunting buddies or competition shooters in an SD situation. Some were truly horrible shooters. A few very impressive, but more of the former by far. Special forces get killed by less trained people. The "trained" British were once defeated by farmers. Etc

I've taken classes myself but I've also heard more than one instructor (especially former military) say that luck has much more to do with surviving in the beginning of a gunfight than training.

If you can afford to take a class go for it. I enjoy them and luckily there are many locally. If I had to fly I'd just forget about it. If not then practice. Find someone who has trained and take them shooting. They can likely teach you quite a bit. All the instructors ive learned from have given conflicting info. Some like different tactics. Different guns, different gear etc. The basics are the same but then things get confusing.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I don't see myself ever having to use my gun in a self defense situation,

That's your first mistake because if you ever do have to defend yourself with a gun you're going to have to cycle from "I don't see it ever happening to me" to "OMG it is happening to me." before you even begin to defend your self.

 

[Styx]

That's your first mistake because if you ever do have to defend yourself with a gun you're going to have to cycle from "I don't see it ever happening to me" to "OMG it is happening to me." before you even begin to defend your self.

No, I'm just being realistic. You can be both realistic about real world facts and statistic, and defend yourself if need be. Recognizing the indisputable fact that most of us and most people, including L.E., will never have to use their weapon does not make us incable of doing just that. I don't expect to get into a car accident every time I'm behind the wheel, but I'm still able to drive defensively whenever some idiot suddenly cuts me off...

Plus, if my statement is read in its entirety, I'm saying that "it probably will never happen, but I believe I can defend myself if it does..."

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I’ve said this before but I used to think I did pretty good practicing on my own until I got a chance to attend a professionally instructed class. I wasn’t 5 minutes into the class before I realized how much I didn’t know. It wasn’t until I got some hands on competent professional training that I realized how many areas I was completely over looking. Once I started getting some regular training and corrective criticisms my skill level increased exponentially.

Training also gives me the opportunity to try out my equipment the way I really wear it under stress. I've had a couple of equipment failures on the range during a training class that I'm pretty sure would have had a pretty serious negative outcome if they'd happened during a real self defense encounter.

That said I am against any mandatory training standard for firearms ownership

 

[bearcreek]

I don't see myself ever having to use my gun in a self defense situation, and even if I did, I'm confident that I can make hits at self defense distances

"Making hits at self defense distances" and fighting with a pistol are two totally different things.

without spending thousands on tactical training...

I don't get it. Why do some of the people in this thread who don't think training is important insist on saying that it costs "thousands"? It can, but it doesn't have to. Repeatedly saying that makes it seem almost as if you're trying to convince yourself, for some reason, that you can't afford professional training.

Plus, the attitude and demeanour of some of the trainers and people in these classes are a turnoff for me... YMMV

So go to a different trainer.

 

[GEM]

There is expense involved. We get that. That most DGUs have no shots fired and those that do are usually successful in stopping the crime (if not disabling the opponent) we get that. That untrained folk don't shoot as well as trained folk - that's been demonstrated by research studies at the longer distances. That you will make hits under stress cannot be taken as gospel because you are sure. From police studies, we know that hits don't always happen. Taking a good FOF course, demonstrates that your hit ability decreases under real time stress and uproar. Yes, that costs money.

Some attitude of trainers is a turnoff for me. Well, be a moderator on a gun forum and you can say that about the attitude of some posters.

The idea that you proclaim that you won't benefit from training is a different one from discussing the financial practicalities or the risk of mandated training to gun rights.

 

[psyopspec]

Might not be a straw man.

Someone from Mississippi can correct me if I’m wrong, and I admit right up front I might be. But my understanding is they have some type of two tier permit system. Like a “normal” permit and an “enhanced” permit.

I just remember being told once years ago to obey the “no guns” signs. Because as an out of state person I didn’t have the upgraded permit that one could get. As I understand you had to have the enhanced permit to legally bypass the no gun signs. FWIW: I have no idea what it took to get the enhanced permit.

So does North Dakota. However, I've seen no evidence that the tiered permit system sprang out of the idea that some level of training beyond basic safety and into the realm of tactics for personal protection, nor do those tiered permit systems touch on tactical training AFAIK. The two are not related.

 

[Styx]

"Making hits at self defense distances" and fighting with a pistol are two totally different things.

I'd assume so. This isn't a loaded question... I'm asking because I want to know your opinion. What, in your opinion and with regards to situations civilians are likely to encounter at distances they are likely to be able to legally defend themselves at, are the main differences?

I don't get it. Why do some of the people in this thread who don't think training is important insist on saying that it costs "thousands"? It can, but it doesn't have to. Repeatedly saying that makes it seem almost as if you're trying to convince yourself, for some reason, that you can't afford professional training.

We repeatedly say this because more often than not, it does cost that much, but like you said, I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule somewhere out there. Plus, we're not just including the cost of the class itself in this figure, but also cost of ammo, travel, room and board, equipment, etc. Sure, you can take a short course or two and spend a less; however, for most complete training courses that I'm aware of, it's usually all inclusively expensive.

Some attitude of trainers is a turnoff for me. Well, be a moderator on a gun forum and you can say that about the attitude of some posters.

The idea that you proclaim that you won't benefit from training is a different one from discussing the financial practicalities or the risk of mandated training to gun rights.

So go to a different trainer.

First, I never stated that, and I do not believe anyone in the thread has stated that, training could NOT be of some use or benefit. I never "proclaimed" that I personally could not benefit from training. Some have, including myself, have questioned whether it's the end all be all that some make it out to be. As touched on in the OP, I disagree with the assumption of many but not all in the firearm community who all but make the assertion that you'll become a fumbling idiot when it comes time to defend yourself unless you take these courses. That without the course, we all will in fact crumble under pressure. As the OP put: "trend among the internet firearms community that simply buying a pistol and practicing at the range regularly is grossly negligent," and "you must spend hundreds of dollars in ammo and gear and shoot weekly or else you're nothing but a hazard to others and shouldn't even bother being armed."

As far as me being turned off by most trainers I've seen online and as well as conversed with in person, it is what it is. From my personal experience, I'm turned off by the attitudes, demeanor, and/or rhetoric most that I've come across have. That's just my personal experience for only one of the reason why I haven't taken classes locally. Obviously and it should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, there maybe someone somewhere that'll better suit me; however, I know of none thus far. That's my personal experience from my surroundings, and isn't meant to be offensive to those who have taken training or who are trainers..

 

[DeepSouth]

I've seen no evidence that the tiered permit system sprang out of the idea that some level of training beyond basic safety and into the realm of tactics for personal protection, nor do those tiered permit systems touch on tactical training AFAIK

I would have thought that was the entire point, but again I have no idea how all that works. In AL we give money, they give permit and their all the same.

Either way this is nowhere near the point of the OP, which I believe has more credibility than has been given in this thread.

 

[GEM]

If you have crappy trainers, let us know your locale and we can probably find someone decent. I've trained with many folks and I can think of one jerk. He was not invited back for follow ups or more classes.
As far as the money, I can come up with quite a few folks with firearms who drive cars that would allow them to take most courses without a dimple in their finances.
I've said other places, one obstacle to men going for training, is that they think they are natural warriors. Another is that when you take a truly realistic course, you can look like a total dunce and feel a loss in the monkey dance dominance hierarchy. Such total failures are the best learning experience and those who train you understand how to make such a good learning experience. You can't go into a class and expect to shine out like a golden heroic beacon. Some people aren't up to that and just want a feel good paper puncher class.

 

[illinoisburt]

I've said other places, one obstacle to men going for training, is that they think they are natural warriors. Another is that when you take a truly realistic course, you can look like a total dunce and feel a loss in the monkey dance dominance hierarchy. Such total failures are the best learning experience and those who train you understand how to make such a good learning experience. You can't go into a class and expect to shine out like a golden heroic beacon. Some people aren't up to that and just want a feel good paper puncher class.

All well and good, but it misses the point of the thread. Classes can be great, but why are people insuating that folks who aren't interested in classes are somehow unmanly or whatever? I hunt, plink, and shoot trap occasionally with a wide variety of guns. No interest in combat handgun courses at all. So does that mean I'm being irresponsible?

* added highlight to quote

 

[Zerodefect]

Make your mistakes in training, not while under attack.

 

[GEM]

When you carry a handgun in common venues as an instrument of lethal force to protect yourself or others, it is not a hunting, plinking or trap scenario. Yes, you can shoot someone with your shotgun (VP Cheney) or have a hunting accident - but those uses are quite different from a fight, perhaps in a crowded situation and with a much different level of stress. I never expected a TX turkey to be a difficult lethal return threat to me.

About being unmanly, take it for what it is - there are reasons for not training. I understand completely the financial aspect and folks who say it costs thousands need to get off that you have to go to Gunsite. You don't. My local area can provide a decent intro to handguns from $100 to 200 per course. If that's too much, and you can only afford a cheap revolver or Hi-point 9mm for home use, I complelety understand that.

The big however, is that if you can afford it and you carry a gun in public - I will say straight out it is due diligence to have a little more skill that punching a paper at 3 yards or shooting a clay bird.

Should it be required by law - that's another debate. Let's put it this way - you can vote and be an ignoramus. The Constitution doesn't require education to vote. States did as a way to prevent minority voting with literacy tests. Should a person know something to vote as an ethical choice - I would say so. But it's not required. Maybe you can't afford books, media or internet - there are public libraries that will give you such for free.

If you carry a gun in public and you can screw up, should you know what you are doing? I would say so. The only reason not to have some basic competency is expense.

I've asked folks to come out to an IDPA match which only costs $20. They say they can't until they practice more at the square range as they will embarrass themselves. A decent club will not let that happen. We are very supportive of new shooters. If you come as self-taught cosmic commando - you wlll get some flack.

To repeat, if you are going to be shooting in a life and death situation outside of the home, would it not be better to have idea of what's up? If you can't do a class - there are some pretty CDs by good people who aren't jerks. There are some exercises for the square range that are more than paper punching.

 

[Browning]

All well and good, but it misses the point of the thread. Classes can be great, but why are people insuating that folks who aren't interested in classes are somehow unmanly or whatever? I hunt, plink, and shoot trap occasionally with a wide variety of guns. No interest in combat handgun courses at all. So does that mean I'm being irresponsible?

'Unmanly'? Seriously? That's a funny way of putting it.

Unmanly, no.

Not quite as good as you could potentially be? Yes.

As far as being irresponsible that's more a question of safety. Especially when shooting to try and save your life. That adds a new dimension to things and either you're used to operating under stress or not.

 

[Hangingrock]

Whom trained Jeff Cooper? We have six books authored or coauthored by Cooper. Jeff Cooper’s Modern Technique was based on his theories not on experience which people thought was gained from combat experience of WW2 and Korea. He was not involved in ground combat but did participate in Naval Gunfire Assessment as the Marine Detachment CO on the battleship USS Pennsylvania. During the Korean War he did not see service in Korea but was in the Far East

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I have been in a few life or death situations over the years, if not for my training I would have been in fewer of those situations and not here to post on this forum. Now a lot of those situations came about due to my job, but that's the path I chose in life.
Now why do some of us sagest that if you carry that you should get some training? At one time we had no training and know what training can do for you. Now are you less of a person for not training? No, You just don't have the training.
If you’er one that feels that training will not help you and your satisfied with where you are, then be happy and ignore the ones that say you should get some training. The world will keep turning.
If you’re in the military or law enforcement, yes, you need training.
My ex-wife got a new gun a few months ago, a Glock 23. I asked if she had shot it yet and her reply was that she knew how to shoot a gun. I set up a target and told her to put three rounds int it on the word go. She wanted to shoot a 15 yds, but I made her move up to 7. On the word go, from the ready, she fired off three rounds and completely missed the full size silhouette target. I then pointed out some of the mistakes she made and took her step by step. In 30 min. she was able to put three round center mass in less then 3 seconds.
Everyone can benefit from training. I spend two to four days in gun training classes a year and I'm still learning and getting better.

 

[SSN Vet]

Personally, I don't spend much time worrying what people on the internet think about me, or my tactical readiness....

To quote my favorite sailor philosopher,
"I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam."

 

[Styx]

I have been in a few life or death situations over the years, if not for my training I would have been in fewer of those situations and not here to post on this forum. Now a lot of those situations came about due to my job, but that's the path I chose in life.
Now why do some of us sagest that if you carry that you should get some training? At one time we had no training and know what training can do for you. Now are you less of a person for not training? No, You just don't have the training.
If your one that feels that training will not help you and your satisfied with where you are, then be happy and ignore the ones that say you should get some training. The world will keep turning.
If your not in the military or law enforcement, yes, you need training.
My ex-wife got a new gun a few months ago, a Glock 23. I asked if she had shot it yet and her reply was that she knew how to shoot a gun. I set up a target and told her to put three rounds into on the word go. She wanted to shoot a 15 yds, but I made her move up to 7. On the word go, from the ready, she fired off three rounds and completely missed the full size silhouette target. I then pointed out some of the mistakes she made and took her step by step. In 30 min. she was able to put three round center mass in less then 3 seconds.
Everyone can benefit from training. I spend two to four days in gun training classes a year and I'm still learning and getting better.

Most of us go to the range, fire, and become familiar and more accurate with the firearms we carry. When I and, from what I've witnessed on forums over the years, other felt they needed pointers on improvement, many of us seek advice from forums and social media. We (gun collectors and enthusiast) aren't just buying a gun, putting one mag through it (if that), and calling it a day. Now, do I believe training classes can help make people even better, sure. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether they are a necessity, and respectfully in GEM's case, whether it should be or needs to be required by law.