Gunsite acadamy and etc. training

Status
Not open for further replies.
I bet the number is higher than 1% but that really has nothing to do with what I said. We were talking about people who don't think that professional training is important and/or people who think they can "self train" themselves just fine without input from a good instructor.

I think the probability of using said training is very relevant to the discussion.
 
Probability of employment of your handgun to save your life or life of someone you care about is admittedly small. However, you can't enjoy the knowledge of if and when it may happen, or how it will go down, so the only logical response, should you elect to carry a handgun, is be prepared. Preparation obviously is training, practice, and mental readiness. The level of preparation is up to the individual and their perceived needs.
 
I think the probability of using said training is very relevant to the discussion.
The OP made this statement,
A $30 dollar book from walmart and a range trio a month will get you to paper plate accuracy out to twenty yards which is the same standard these "DELUX SCHOOLS" sale you on.
As you may have noticed in this thread so far, anyone who has actually had to fight with a gun for real will tell you that that statement is utter nonsense. Statistically, you're not likely to need your gun, but if you do need it, you're going to be a hell of a lot better off knowing how to fight with it, not just how to "shoot" it. If free men are going to keep and bear arms for defense of life and liberty, they should listen to the advice of those who have actually used arms to defend life and liberty. I'm sort of mystified as to why anyone who believes in an armed, free society would disagree with that.
 
It's been said that it's not the odds; it's the stakes. A critical incident might be very low probability for the ordinary person, but if it happens it's probably life or death.
I had actually never heard it stated in this way before, but that’s a good way to sum it up IMO.
 
A good training facility with qualified trainers can help students become efficient with their chosen firearm, where a book can not. By watching the student and not the target, the trainer can help the student to become the best they can with their chosen firearm and related equipment. Just as LE and Military folks receive firearms training, so should every citizen that own s a firearm...as they say, when seconds count, help is minutes away.
 
Some of these academies besides training individual civilian self-defenders can also provide vocational training. Some of them specifically advertise LE and Military training and classes exclusive to those disciplines. But we shouldn't think that LE and Military are the only vocations that demand protective, defensive and combative skills using firearms. There is a substantial demand for the skills these schools teach from people that work in private security and executive protection. While states often have fairly low training criteria for a "Mall Security Guard" to carry an exposed firearm, there are civilian jobs that go far above and beyond that. There's also people that work what might seem like mundane and un-glamorous jobs like armored truck driver, convenience store owner, or mall jewelry store manager that feel like it's worth investing in more than just a standard 8 hour state permit class. Then there's bail bond recovery agents (bounty hunters) and on and on...

Civilian contractors that work internationally (like Academi for example) are more likely to recruit government-trained personnel and they have their own training facilities. Their employees might not be in the beginner classes, but I sort of doubt that these schools other classes are of no interest at all. On the far opposite end of the skill spectrum, what about a church that is wanting to put together a security team or add active-shooter response skills to their existing security team. While there are books they can buy from Amazon, it's reasonable that an executive pastor that is running a church with 400 employees and a $30 million annual budget is going to decide the security team needs to do more than read a do-it-yourself book about church security. Gunsite among others have classes specifically for that. Obviously, Gunsite can't teach them everything they need to know for every aspect of their job, but it's a good start for basic weapons handling skills and developing active shooter response doctrine. A lot of smaller churches' security teams are all-volunteer, but that doesn't make their training just a hobby.

A friend of mine is ex-USMC and when he got out of the corps, he started working security for a local billionaire. This guy's net worth is a little more than Donald Trump's but he's a lot lower profile. Still, with more than a few billion dollars this guy cannot just have his daughter at school with everybody else's kids and not have to think about the possibility of somebody kidnapping her for a million dollar ransom. Besides that he has his own security to be concerned with whether he's at home, at his office, or traveling the world on his private jet, and besides that, also the security of his many properties and businesses. My friend ended up graduating college and taking a different career path, but one can imagine his former employer has a demand for a skill set that goes beyond reading a book from eBay about how to choose a pistol and a laser sight. And he is certainly not the only high net worth individual or corporate officer that is looking for executive protection agents that have more weapons skills than what come out of reading a book. The curriculum at small-arms academies like Gunsite or Thunder Ranch certainly don't include all the specialized skills in first aide, emergency medicine, evasive driving, and empty-hand combatives that such agents are expected to possess, but where else would they go for the weapons skills? Most experts agree that these are perishable skills and just because a dude was SpecOps or a government contractor 10 years ago doesn't mean they don't need to keep those skills current. They're not likely to join you in the "101" class, but it would be foolish to think the advanced classes are just full of mall ninjas and gentlemen shooters with costly custom 1911's and plenty of disposable income left-over for a tactical-skills vacation.

Then there's an entirely different class of vocational trainee: the myriad people involved in the gun culture press and journalism. They write magazine articles, publish books, online blogs, websites, produce gun review or entertainment videos. Maybe they just own a big gun store and range and they host events. It seems reasonable that any of these people would be willing to invest in acquiring a little more than do-it-yourself skills. Whether they run a business, publish an online blog, or produce product review videos, I'm sure they'd like to be able to demonstrate a skill level that doesn't embarrass them in front of their audience. They may be primarily media people with careers and professional skills in media, but with an interest and aptitude that draws them to produce media around the gun industry and culture. Their audience doesn't demand they're all IPSC champions or former Navy Seals. People want quality media: entertaining and informative video, well-written articles, or just a well-run gun store and range. But the professionals that deliver that might want more than beginner skills with the guns.

There's no reason to belittle the schools that can teach people meaningful skills that can absolutely, certainly be useful to them. The skills are not just useful on a contingency basis in case of some improbable incident. They are basic necessities for many people's vocations where they cannot practically expect acceptance, employment or success without them.
 
There is no substitute for qualified hands on instruction when it comes to firearms training. Full Stop. End of sentence.

I say that after being trained with rifles, shotguns and handguns in by both the U.S Army, POST certified academy, and a few instructors I brought in with my agency's limited training budget. Everyone KNOWS that they're an expert, until they get into the class.

But honestly, was I the only one who thought of this classic clip?
 
The OP made this statement, As you may have noticed in this thread so far, anyone who has actually had to fight with a gun for real will tell you that that statement is utter nonsense. Statistically, you're not likely to need your gun, but if you do need it, you're going to be a hell of a lot better off knowing how to fight with it, not just how to "shoot" it. If free men are going to keep and bear arms for defense of life and liberty, they should listen to the advice of those who have actually used arms to defend life and liberty. I'm sort of mystified as to why anyone who believes in an armed, free society would disagree with that.

I am certainly not disagreeing with the benefit or effectiveness of training. I'm pointing out the reality that a very low percentage of gun owners have it, and don't see a need for it. I know the initial crux of the thread was how a book or self training can be just as effective - I don't agree with that. I would never begrudge or belittle anyone who gets and has extensive training. I actually admire and appreciate it.

I don't have a conceal carry permit (required in my state) yet. I have firearms, in part, to protect my home and family. I'm willing to take the risk that I can handle a situation arising at my home without extensive combat training. I have lived and worked in the same place for almost 50 years and don't see a high risk. It's all about managing risk. I won't be a lot of help to the militia if a war is waged on our liberty. Sorry for that.
 
It's been said that it's not the odds; it's the stakes. A critical incident might be very low probability for the ordinary person, but if it happens it's probably life or death.

It's both. It's probability times stakes. Just like figuring gambling odds.

Edited to fix boneheaded mis-type. Thanks to rpen'.
 
Last edited:
When the topic is training or improvement of some skill (any skill, not just firearms or self-defense stuff), a couple of key questions are "how good is good enough" and "is there a reason to spend time/money getting better than 'good enough'"?

I'm always amazed at how reluctant gun people are to acknowledge/vocalize that, in part, their interest in firearms proficiency is as a martial art. They are into it for not only utilitarian reasons, but also as a vehicle for self-exploration and self-improvement, as a way of developing some discipline, as conferring some level of confidence and self-assurance that can help one achieve inner peace in general, etc. (I think it's because we are so attuned to the constant demand to defend our right as being responsive to some "need," but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

In reality, the level of competence required to be "good enough" to deal with the majority of already-unlikely situations is not that high. But there are plenty of reasons to want to go beyond that, and some serious training can help.

One thing I would say, though: I have seen a few Gunsite graduates come into competitive shooting environments; based on what I have seen, I wouldn't pay a whole bunch of money for their particular training. Not that it's bad or that graduates are doing unsafe things or being incompetent - just that I haven't seen them turning out a bunch of jedi knights in terms of pure shooting performance. I express no views on whatever tactics they are teaching, as that wouldn't really come up/get shown in competitive shooting games.
 
Last edited:
Labnoti,

Front Sight academy in Pahrump, NV offers all of the ancillary courses you identified, i.e., emergency first aid, unarmed defense, home protection, courses for family members (children) and emergency vehicle operations
(This one is coming soon).

I can't speak to Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, or others as to any of their curriculum offerings.

As note in earlier entries, the level of skill needed or perceived is up to the individual's perceptions.
 
Last edited:
While states often have fairly low training criteria for a "Mall Security Guard" to carry an exposed firearm,

That in and of itself is a great argument for supplemental training. Anyone who thinks they are skilled enough to professionally wear a firearm just from the state mandated security training courses is nuts. I have to do several state level security qualifications every year, and they are all a joke.


On the far opposite end of the skill spectrum, what about a church that is wanting to put together a security team or add active-shooter response skills to their existing security team.

Funny note about that. A rather large church has an all volunteer inside security team, with uniformed and licensed security on the outside. The volunteer team are people with CCWs who have been shown the Sheepdog Active Shooter training course. They had a third party group do an active shooter training session with them a couple of weeks ago. Every single one of them got "killed" by the "shooter" during the practical exercise at the end of the class.

So, what happened?

The "shooter" had shown up to service earlier in the day and watched the volunteer team. Specifically where they keep their ID badges and radios. One of each was promptly stolen by the "shooter". The "shooter" then stole an electronic key fob from the purse of a volunteer who wasn't paying attention. When it came time for the class and drill, the "shooter" was in with all the volunteers taking the class. No one ever noticed the odd man out. When the drill started, the "shooter" wiped out everyone in the main sanctuary without a single radio call getting out, then proceeded to move through the rest of the church using the stolen key fob. People the "shooter" ran into after that hesitated because of the stolen ID badge and got taken out themselves.

You don't learn gunfighting by taking a 6 hour course and going to the range once in a while.
 
You don't learn gunfighting by taking a 6 hour course and going to the range once in a while.

I don't think the tactics of the "shooter" in your exercise are going to get solved by any kind of "gunfighting." Mistaken identity can impact gunfights, but I don't think it's really something that "gunfighting" skills are going to solve anyway.
 
Did they learn a lesson from that? A intelligent person set on evil can do terrible things with some planning. I've been a 'shooter' and set up an ambush that wiped out a team of trained people. They learned from their mistakes.

Even the armed forces can fall for a well executed ambush. The Iraqis, not known for military prowess, pulled off a well executed ambush of Apaches helicopters that set them flying for safety.
 
but I don't think it's really something that "gunfighting" skills are going to solve anyway.

That's why I've previously said that there are important skills and knowledge that aren't gained by trigger presses. Being able to recognize the threat is as important a skill in gunfighting, especially in personal protection or security applications, as is being able to deliver accurate fire.

Did they learn a lesson from that?

You bet they did. They already change how radios and ID badges are stored and distributed, altered key fobs so that they only have specific area access and most importantly started team training sessions. I highly doubt the Chameleon Infiltrator tactic is going to work on that group again.
 
To expend on ClickClickD'oh's post, mindset is a key component to any defensive (or offensive, as his case in point illustrates) strategy. I was raised with it; my Dad was an inner city cop in a time where disrespect for LE and rioting were not uncommon. Couple that with my love of military history, and I developed a mindset that has seen me through life without being personally attacked. (I did have to produce a handgun once to defend a friend who was being threatened because of his race.) Not everyone is going to have the same background, however. "Head on a swivel" does not come naturally to a guy who owns a small shop, he's busy with worrying about inventory and overhead, but if he can't afford to hire someone to protect his shop, maybe he can take a course on threat levels and identifying threats that will help him much more than Handgun 101, though that is a good start.

A bunch of insurgents in West Africa managed to wipe out 4 US special forces (or other "operator") soldiers plus a bunch of their native force compatriots in an ambush about a year ago.

And a stopped clock is right twice a day. Greater numbers may defeat a smaller, better armed and trained force if they have surprise,and luck, on their side. Such is not the usual result of groups attacking SF.

That's why I've previously said that there are important skills and knowledge that aren't gained by trigger presses. Being able to recognize the threat is as important a skill in gunfighting, especially in personal protection or security applications, as is being able to deliver accurate fire.

Exactly what I was trying to say, thank you. There's more to defending ones' self than gun handling. As always, that should be the last resort, and unless it is an out-and-out ambush, means you've failed on the intellegence gathering (mindset and OODA loop) end of things.
 
And a stopped clock is right twice a day. Greater numbers may defeat a smaller, better armed and trained force if they have surprise,and luck, on their side. Such is not the usual result of groups attacking SF.

No doubt, but it does demonstrate, in part, the advantages that accrue with surprise. To carry that over to the personal context, no amount of training is going to help if you are, for some bizarre reason, targeted for assassination by someone who doesn't care about getting away with it and they just shoot you in the head from behind from some distance... your survival will depend solely on their competence or lack of same.

Fortunately, for US residents who aren't involved in the drug trade or other serious criminal enterprises, that doesn't come up much. Nor does the sophisticated mass shooter who was acquired deceptive clothing and access cards.
 
The reality is that most cases of non-cops who engage in successful self defense shooting involves people with little or no formal training.
 
The reality is that most cases of non-cops who engage in successful self defense shooting involves people with little or no formal training.

Well yes. When the vast majority of people that own guns have little to no formal training, then that's just logical.
 
I am certainly not disagreeing with the benefit or effectiveness of training. I'm pointing out the reality that a very low percentage of gun owners have it, and don't see a need for it. I know the initial crux of the thread was how a book or self training can be just as effective - I don't agree with that. I would never begrudge or belittle anyone who gets and has extensive training. I actually admire and appreciate it.

I don't have a conceal carry permit (required in my state) yet. I have firearms, in part, to protect my home and family. I'm willing to take the risk that I can handle a situation arising at my home without extensive combat training. I have lived and worked in the same place for almost 50 years and don't see a high risk. It's all about managing risk. I won't be a lot of help to the militia if a war is waged on our liberty. Sorry for that.
I appreciate your candor. I don't agree with your choice not to get training, but at least you're not deluding yourself into thinking that you can get the same results from a reading a book and you're not claiming that you can't afford it. Also, FWIW, I wasn't just talking about a "war" on liberty, ( although that is something I believe Americans should train for). There is more to life than just not being dead, which means there may, at some point, be more to defend than just "life" at that moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top