Reality Check: Do you know how to shoot?

[mavracer]

As this is S&T, we could indeed limit the discussion to defensive shooting principles. And, perhaps that's what orangeninja intended with his opening post.

I didn't get that from the OP who included this statement

Forget combat techniques, forget tactical this or that, I’m talking about the base lined mechanics such as consistent trigger pull, sight alignment, hand positioning, shooting stance

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's clarify that. You may have an individual who attends a very good defensive pistol class who then shoots fifty rounds per practice session twice a year, for the next ten years. And those fifty rounds might be from a booth at the shooting range with a target hung at 7 yards. How well do they really shoot ten years later?

Another self-taught individual, might shoot 1000 rounds a month at a variety of targets at various distances and from various positions....

But it's not as simple as that. It's not just a matter of how much shooting one does.

If you properly learn and understand the fundamentals well, you still need to practice properly. If you don't, your skills will deteriorate.

But if you haven't properly learned and understand the fundamentals and you just put rounds down range without really knowing what you're doing, you will not get better. You will just become very good at shooting badly.

One wants a solid foundation in the fundamentals and then to diligently and regularly practice -- always paying close attention to what he is doing on concentrating on doing everything right every time. One is most likely to get the best and strongest foundation with some good professional training.

...So please think about this thing we sometimes call shooting, not in terms of being able to successfully and safely discharge rounds downrange, but in terms of being able to prevail in a fight involving guns if it comes to that...

I do think that way and agree. What is sad is to take notice of how many people are at the range who really aren't able to successfully and safely discharge rounds down range and don't seem to know how to, or be concerned with, reaching even that modest plateau. That is the observation which, I believe, opened this thread.

 

[orangeninja]

I didn't get that from the OP who included this statement

Well that was what I was talking about but the discussion need not be limited to that. Hunters who cannot shoot account for a lot of misery both on the part of animals and on the part of other hunters in missed opportunity and legislatively. There's nothing funny about a gut shot deer.

But my original post was meant to specifically center on handguns and their deployment in self defense situations.

 

[orangeninja]

Which paragraph in the 2nd Amendment agrees with that opinion? Aside from the drawing part, that's what most people at public ranges are doing. The Original Poster just thinks they should be more technical with that practice. I disagree.

If we get to splitting hairs it could be implied in the "well regulated militia" part or it could be the spirit of the law as this document follows the Declaration of Independence complete with the ...life, liberty and pursuit of happiness..." part but I'll just leave all the speculative constitutional interpretation alone and say that you have no right to impede upon the rights of others and that includes your right to bear arms. If you shoot and injure or kill another in the exercise of your rights then you are criminally and civilly liable by law and you should be. The constitution does not provide an avenue for either purposeful or accidental injury to another whether through negligence or intentionally.

 

[twofifty]

gun = good luck charm?

Seems to me that a lot of what we are talking about (people not taking courses, or having taken a course then not maintaining their skills) comes from a mindset where a perceived need -self defence- is addressed with hardware rather than software solutions.

So we buy new guns, bigger calibers, higher cap mags, laser grips, gimmicky sights....all with money that could be spent on instruction and practice.

Other examples of this hardware vs software mindset:
To ski better, we buy new skis not skiing lessons.
To improve at trap, we buy a new gun rather than hire an instructor.
To improve our marriage, we buy a bigger flat screen rather than spend time with our spouse and kids.

A gun definitely is a good luck charm to the untrained or unskilled.

 

[CDR_Glock]

There are a lot of people with a minimum level of familiarity, not competency. This is in reference to safety as well as basic techniques. Unfortunately, many people do not go beyond that stage. I went shooting with a friend who had been carrying concealed for a couple of years. Thank God that I went out with him. He couldn't hit a target well, at all. Honestly, there should be a prerequisite for concealed carry. He could have been a set up for a major liability. He's shooting significantly better with more precision, accuracy, but he needs more experience and training on shooting while moving, shooting multiple targets at different distances, and shooting moving targets.

Fewer people are in the active mode of shooting: shooting on the move, shooting various different targets at different distances, shooting moving targets, using single or weak handed technique and shooting in various positions.

Only a select few ever get the chance to practice shooting while being shot at, except for in settings of recreation such as paintball outings, which is similar but not necessarily the proper context.

 

[conw]

fiddletown, I agree that the 2nd amendment is good, a good idea, necessary, and has precedence. Just for clarification purposes.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I agree that the 2nd amendment is good, a good idea, necessary, and has precedence. Just for clarification purposes.

I never doubted that you did.

 

[KodiakBeer]

"It isn't the ODDS that matter. It's the STAKES."

My vote for the best pro-gun line ever uttered in this forum!

 

[Ankeny]

Honestly, there should be a prerequisite for concealed carry.

I used to think there should be a requirement for proficiency, and for demonstration of safe gun handling. I even said so on this forum several years ago. Of course, I caught hell (as well I should) from a bunch of the second amendment advocates.

My position has softened in recent years for several reasons. One of which is an incident involving a friend of mine who by all accounts doesn't know how to shoot. However, he did successfully thwart a deadly attack on himself and on his family by employing deadly force with a handgun. For that matter, how many people who really don't know how to shoot are alive today because they used a firearm for self protection?

I do agree it would be nice for people to exercise the initiative of gaining competency with a handgun before packing it around. But how do we define "competency"? If we limit it to "fundamentals" how do we define "fundamentals"? If we go beyond "fundamentals" what skills are included and how do we define good enough?

 

[esheato]

I'm fairly competition minded, and I've done the shotgun leagues, IDPA, USPSA, and benchrest games. I do fairly well at all of them so I must be doing something right.

Now, I know shooting at paper under time pressure isn't the same as people shooting back at you in real life. Maintaining handgun fundamentals and gun manipulation in that environment has to convey some competence, right?

Yes, I've had formal training, but it was CCW/defensive in nature (in addition to the state requirement). Additional training is on my list (carbine) and I'm in a prime area to take some without traveling to far. Just need to find some time/money.

 

[mavracer]

Well that was what I was talking about but the discussion need not be limited to that. Hunters who cannot shoot account for a lot of misery both on the part of animals and on the part of other hunters in missed opportunity and legislatively. There's nothing funny about a gut shot deer.

I agree with you about bad shooting. I just disagree with the "you gotta pay for training to be competent" part. I'm not saying that formal training is a bad thing either, far from it. I'm saying that with a little self-motovation a good level of competence can be reached without it.
Unfortunatly you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Every one of the fools I've seen at the range pattering their crunchentickers at 5 yards could have recieved some free mentoring for the price of asking politely.

 

[conw]

I can't help but think in people who refuse to get formal training (in the context of "tactical firearm use") are acting to some degree out of cognitive dissonance.

If you do it "your way" for years and practice a lot, it might kind of hurt to admit that there could be a better way. Thus I think people avoid formal training even when it may be beneficial, so as to avoid admitting - or finding out - that "their" way is wrong or suboptimal.

Sure, some people can't afford it, but let's be honest: most people on this forum have 3-4 handguns costing $300-1000. That's probably below the median actually. I can't help but figure that aside from the people who are genuinely unmotivated to train (which excludes our hypothetical "self-taught" frequent practicer, anyway) or unaware of the benefits of formal training (which excludes most anyone on the internet, or who can engage in even a superficial amount of thought as to why many police, military members, etc, go through extensive training rather than wing it), most of the people who avoid training are avoiding it because they're afraid they'll be shown they don't quite have it nailed.

If someone was self-taught and could afford a class, and had an open mind, I'd be surprised if he came up with a good reason to avoid formal firearms training altogether. If you're self-taught, you can surely admit there's some limit to what can be achieved solo...I have trouble believing people who are self-taught truly think they are using 100% optimal methods, etc. Self-teaching works to a point but there is a reason we have schools/education to teach people things, employers training employees, and technical and skilled labor is in high demand: people simply don't self-teach that well most of the time.

I think I made my point but if anyone doubts it, have a look at a few of the comments posted earlier. If your best argument for avoiding formal training is "Those guys are a bunch of blowhards/idiots"...maybe you ought to consider that you're acting out of cognitive dissonance.

 

[orangeninja]

I agree with you about bad shooting. I just disagree with the "you gotta pay for training to be competent" part. I'm not saying that formal training is a bad thing either, far from it. I'm saying that with a little self-motovation a good level of competence can be reached without it.
Unfortunatly you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Every one of the fools I've seen at the range pattering their crunchentickers at 5 yards could have recieved some free mentoring for the price of asking politely.

You do not necassarily have to pay for training for it to be adequate to good, however advice, like most things, tends to be worth what you do pay for it. When it comes to shooting, getting professional help will be the most efficient way to learn and if you count the cost of ammo over a lifetime, maybe even the cheapest way to learn.

 

[bomberbill357]

Get quality instruction on a regular basis, you'll never regret it. You'll be surprised how much your technique will erode without someone to critique you on a regular basis.

 

[mavracer]

so as to avoid admitting - or finding out - that "their" way is wrong or suboptimal.

When it comes to shooting, getting professional help will be the most efficient way to learn

SO it begs me to ask.
Which is the right way sighted fire or point shooting?
Weaver or Isosceles or modified Weaver?
Shoot to slide lock or make a tactical reload?
etc.
If you can get everyone to agree on the right way to do things it'll be easier from there.

 

[orangeninja]

SO it begs me to ask.
Which is the right way sighted fire or point shooting?
Weaver or Isosceles or modified Weaver?
Shoot to slide lock or make a tactical reload?
etc.
If you can get everyone to agree on the right way to do things it'll be easier from there.

At least you'll have an informed basis to make choices from. BTW when I go to the range and casually watch other hand gunners I rarely see any form whatsoever. In that case anything is better. Or you could just burn up hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of rounds trying to figure out what works for you rather than simply learning from the efforts of others in the past and building from there.

Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[orangeninja]

Get quality instruction on a regular basis, you'll never regret it. You'll be surprised how much your technique will erode without someone to critique you on a regular basis.

Foundational concepts should stick. More advanced stuff maybe but the basics should at least be a forethought.

 

[Ankeny]

Which is the right way...

Good question. I operate on the premise that beginners need a place to start and that place should be the commonly accepted and proven shooting platform for the discipline they are learning. In the case of "defensive shooting", the most popular and accepted grip, stance, etc. is the place to start. As I stated earlier, the problem is a true newbie has no way of knowing if what he/she is learning is an appropriate place to start if their instruction is informal from someone who may or may not know much to begin with.

At the risk of getting flamed, I see a lot of really poor shooting skills from new shooters because they are developing bad habits that they learned from a friend, relative, etc., who tried to get them started, but took them down a pretty bumpy road.

I live in Wyoming and I would be willing to say that more than 99% of the folks carrying concealed have no formal training from a recognized source. There are precious few "defensive training" classes offered in Wyoming. The cost of time off from work, travel, motel rooms, instructor fees, etc. can be very high even if one does find a class. Besides, in a fiercely independent state like Wyoming, most people feel they know how to shoot simply because shooting is a way of life here.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I used to think there should be a requirement for proficiency, and for demonstration of safe gun handling. ....

My position has softened in recent years for several reasons...

Fine, but even if it's your right it's still irresponsible to go around with a loaded gun without some training, including basic proficiency and the laws governing the use of force.

I have no interest in softening my view. I, my family, my friends and other people I care about are going about in the world. We are the potential collateral damage if some guy, with a legal gun but without the appropriate knowledge and skills, makes a hash of his efforts to deal with someone he has perceived, perhaps wrongly, to be a threat.

Those of us who carry a gun (as I do whenever I legally can) for our personal defense owe it to our community to at least be safe, reasonably proficient and knowledgeable. Many of us have made the effort to be thus. Whether or not it should be required by government is beside the point. We should require it of ourselves.

SO it begs me to ask.
Which is the right way sighted fire or point shooting?
Weaver or Isosceles or modified Weaver?
Shoot to slide lock or make a tactical reload?
etc.
If you can get everyone to agree on the right way to do things it'll be easier from there.

A well trained individual would have all those tools available and the ability to use the appropriate tool under the circumstances.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Where do you get that owning a gun is a natural right?

Look up the Second Amendment, kinda outlines that for us Americans.

 

[9mmepiphany]

If someone was self-taught and could afford a class, and had an open mind, I'd be surprised if he came up with a good reason to avoid formal firearms training altogether. If you're self-taught, you can surely admit there's some limit to what can be achieved solo...I have trouble believing people who are self-taught truly think they are using 100% optimal methods, etc.

That is one of the reasons that I make the standing offer: "If you take a lesson from me and you don't improve, you don't pay"...the worst thing that can happen is that you get better and have to pay. If you don't get better, you would have at least had a good time shooting for the afternoon and have something to compare your skills against.

I used to travel and team teach a 2.5 day class, most students thought the first full day was worth the whole cost

SO it begs me to ask.
Which is the right way sighted fire or point shooting?
Weaver or Isosceles or modified Weaver?
Shoot to slide lock or make a tactical reload?
etc.
If you can get everyone to agree on the right way to do things it'll be easier from there.

That is like asking for agreement on which is better between Pepsi and Coke...the good thing is you don't have to choose. A good trainer should be able to teach all the above and a well rounded shooter (especially defensive) will be able to utilize all the above.

The really is an optimal technique to shooting well in a defensive or competitive (action) setting, but it isn't between the choices listed above. Once you've become proficient in the optimal technique, you could use it in all the above situations.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Where do you get that owning a gun is a natural right?

Look up the Second Amendment, kinda outlines that for us Americans.

No, I addressed your lack of understanding in post 94:

...there has been some recognition in Western culture of a natural right to defend oneself. To follow just one tradition, there is an associated recognition through English jurisprudence of some form or other of a right to keep and bears arms. That led to the protection in our Constitution of an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That is not the same thing as a "natural right to own a gun."...

 

[Loosedhorse]

Do you know how to shoot?

Of course I do: every time I get done at the shooting range, there are more holes in front of me than on either side or behind.

Well, most times.

Seriously, are we trying to establish a minimal shooting competence for SD? If not, then the goal of "adequate" skills is like the horizon: the farther you walk toward it, the farther it recedes.

Unless you just won a world championship, you probably leave the range with the same feeling I do: I should practice more.

 

[aeriedad]

Originally posted by fiddletown
Where do you get that owning a gun is a natural right?

Originally Posted by FIVETWOSEVEN
Look up the Second Amendment, kinda outlines that for us Americans.

Originally posted by fiddletown
No, I addressed your lack of understanding in post 94:

Originally posted by fiddletown
...there has been some recognition in Western culture of a natural right to defend oneself. To follow just one tradition, there is an associated recognition through English jurisprudence of some form or other of a right to keep and bears arms. That led to the protection in our Constitution of an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That is not the same thing as a "natural right to own a gun."...

Yes it is.

fiddletown, why do you always talk as if everyone on this forum is so dumb? It's supposed to be "The High Road," but folks like you make me want to just mind my own business rather than advance the cause of R2KBA. I've been an NRA member for 11 years (Life Member for about five), but if every NRA (and THR) member were just like you, I might never have joined.