Reality Check: Do you know how to shoot?

[Sam1911]

He's smart, knows what he's talking about, and I usually agree with him on substance. But he also is the chief representative of my primary dissatisfaction with THR: Most of his posts have the underlying theme, "Listen to me; I'm smarter than you."

That's a tough thing to try to answer, or fix. Especially as that perception is going to be very personal, as seen (or not seen) by each reader. I don't read that in fiddletown's comments at all. Maybe it is because of something about my background, or being used to the forms of debate common here, or some quirk of my own speech/composition patterns, but I tend to hear what he writes in the voice of an old professor of mine. Not mealy-mouthed, not imprecise, not pulling punches, but not mean-spirited or egotistical, either.

We're all just invented screen names with the illusion of anonymity, here. But behind those names are folks who have done things, studied things, learned, written, taught, developed understanding -- or not. While all have equal freedom to speak (so long as they can follow our forum guidelines) not all opinions shared are of equal value. And yet, do we somehow limit those folks who know and say valuable things so that other folks with more minimal experience or less constructive contributions can feel equal?

We are in neither a courtroom nor a law school lecture hall

No, but some of the people who contribute here also spend (or have spent) large quantities of time in those settings, and others of note. And I see no way of requiring that they ... what? soften? de-intellectualize? dumb-down? ... their words so that they do not give anyone a feeling of inferiority.

The distinction of what's pedantic and what's authoritatively knowledgeable is a mighty blurry line. Maybe you'll have to do what I do: read everything as though it is said with a great big smile, among friends.

 

[9mmepiphany]

But he also is the chief representative of my primary dissatisfaction with THR: Most of his posts have the underlying theme, "Listen to me; I'm smarter than you."

I smiled when I read this, because nothing could be further from the truth.

I've spent time shooting with fiddletown when I invited up, after he expressed an interest in a shooting technique I discussed. He is very knowledge able and has had the good fortune to have attended some very good training classes, but he is also very modest. I've found that to be true of many people who have don't well through their own hard work.

Perhaps that time spent with him has biased my take on his writing, but I have always found his contributions very much in a sharing tone as opposed to a lecturing tone.

I've been told that I sometimes fall into that classification of sounding like: Listen to me; I'm smarter than you. I certainly don't mean to, but I do have a tendency to try to steer newer shooters away from the common pitfalls along the road to being an accomplished shooter...and I do tend to insist of using the proper terms for shooting and gun parts.

That doesn't mean I'm really that much better than everyone else, there are many members who are more accomplished shooters than I on this forum. It just means I am willing to share my experience and I try to encourage folks to communicate clearly

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sam, 9mmepiphany, thanks. Let me say that I've learned a lot from you both, and others on this board, over the years.

...If you beleve free will is a god given inaliable right. Then you have the right to choose to do bad things....

Free will is not a right. It is a state. You have free will as a natural consequence of being a thinking being capable of acting and of choosing how to act.

Having the freedom to do wrong does not make it your right to do wrong. It merely gives you the power to do wrong. And if you do wrong, human society will not acknowledge your claim of right to do wrong. Rather it will seek to punish you for having done wrong, and prevent you from doing further wrong -- up to and including depriving you of your freedom or life.

...The weaver is a component of the modern shooting technique. I guarentee Jeff wouldn't suggest you jump out from behind cover and take a weaver stance like some of his detractors would suggest....

Actually, I know for a fact that you are wrong. I know because he personally explained to me in no uncertain terms that, "We always use the Weaver here at Gunsite" and explained to me how to effectively use cover while using the Weaver for recoil management (although he called it recoil control). He did this explaining to me when he was the Range Master for the API 250 class I took at Guniste in 2002.

...natural right = god given right, the legal system doesn't have anything to do with it.
The legal system is not god. It would help if they figured out you can't legislate free will...

So you're suggesting that God gave you the right to kill? That's a very strange way to look at things, and I'd venture to suggest that even God might disagree with you on that.

God gave Cain the power to kill Able, but what followed hardly suggests that God acknowledged that he had a right to do so. And while Adam and Eve had the power to eat of the forbidden fruit, God's reaction suggests that he did not acknowledge that they had any right to do so.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavracer
...If you beleve free will is a god given inaliable right. Then you have the right to choose to do bad things....

Free will is not a right. It is a state. You have free will as a natural consequence of being a thinking being capable of acting and of choosing how to act.

Its actually an illusion so long as we live in a universe of cause and effect but i believe that's a bit off topic.

Quote:
But he also is the chief representative of my primary dissatisfaction with THR: Most of his posts have the underlying theme, "Listen to me; I'm smarter than you."

I smiled when I read this, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Yeah but given that many people act very differently to moderators than regular members you're perspective may be very different than that of others.

In regards to the OP the NRA self defense accounts are full of people succesfully using firearms to defend themselves at home and out who probably had no training what so ever and rarely practiced. That's not an arguement to not become more proficient but many seem to act as though all gun owners need to be ready to ward off Spetsnaz Ninjas to be justified in owning a fiearm. The fact is very few people will ever take a course if they don't enjoy shooting but many who don't are still better served by just having a gun so long as they at least understand basic operation and safety.

 

[mavracer]

jump out from behind cover

and

effectively use cover

mean two different things (at least to me)

 

[Ankeny]

I wasn't particular fond of those many hours I sat in philosophy class discussing natural law/natural rights from Aristotle through John Locke, James Otis, and Thomas Jefferson. Here I am 35 years later...good grief.

So, do we all agree that we all know how to shoot?

 

[heeler]

After reading this long winded thread Ankeny I have my doubts that the answer to your question of what "how to" goes on to the old original question of what 'is' is.
Hire an attorney.

 

[mavracer]

So, do we all agree that we all know how to shoot?

Apparently I can't possibly be competent I've never paid for training. luckily it apparently dosen't matter because I don't have a right to choose use deadly force.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I can't possibly be competent I've never paid for training...

Of course we can't know what you can or can not do. You could evaluate yourself against JohnKSa's outline in post 95 of defensive pistol skills. You could also try your hand at some USPSA or IDPA competition to get an idea of how well you can do compared with others and under the stress of competition. Or you could try a class or two.

One other benefit of some formal training, or at least some competition experience, is that it gives you a chance to see how well you can do the sorts of things you might need to be able to do. Without the opportunity to trot out our skills in some kind of social setting, a class with others or competition, it's tough to really assess our skills. Classes or competition tends to show us what we're doing well. They also tend to show us what we're doing poorly so we can more effectively try to improve.

...luckily it apparently dosen't matter because I don't have a right to choose use deadly force...

It looks like you haven't been following the discussion all that well.

Our society indeed frowns upon one person intentionally hurting or killing another. However, doing so can be justified under some circumstances, such as the reasonable use of force in self defense. But if any of us choose to use lethal force in self defense, it will be up to us to show that we were justified under the applicable legal standards.

That's the way the law works in real life. It's not the same as having a right to kill (heaven forfend), nor is it quite the same as "...a right to choose use deadly force...". But it gives us the ability to defend ourselves and families. That works for me.

 

[heeler]

You know I have absolutely zero problems with good training.
I do have issues though with someone who thinks it should be a prerequisite of a citiizen in good standing to be able to own or carry a firearm.
Then there are the working poor that are constantly in dangers way by the very areas they live in but are still citizens in good standing and I can tell you that the $100-$120 they have to fork over to TAKE the Texas CHL class and then the $140.00 they then have to send to the state to get this "privlidge" legalized is none too damn easy.
And lets not forget the price of the firearm and the ammo required of said test.
Again I have no issues with training but I certainly DO NOT want it to be some sort of prerequisite to firearm ownership or carry regardless of what the lawyers guild of America suggests/insists/lobbys for/etc.
Sadly though reading some of these posts on this gun forum I come away thinking that some here think this should be so or the person owning and holding the gun is damn near an incompetent because he/she did not invest big bucks on the Gun Sight Ridge school of high philosophy of firearms training.
I have owned and used firearms for over 40 years of my life and counting without formal paid for training.
And I know good and well that there are millions of people in this great nation just like me.
Dont fence us in guys.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Killing is not a natural, or any other kind of, right.

No. You have no right to kill

Actually, killing is a Hobbesian natural right: a right that man had in his pre-societal "natural" state. Hobbes asserts that in their natural state:

every man has the right to every thing; even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man...

Oh, and, if it is on topic: have we come up with a definition of competence as it applies to SD shooting abilities?

 

[mavracer]

fiddletown I know it doesn't always come across well when read but I thought I was clear enough that was sarcasm. When I quit paying membership fees to USPSA in '96 I had a A card. I have shot a few IDPA qualifyers for fun with scores in CDP , ESP and SSP good enough to qualify expert and very close to expert in ESR and SSR, eventhough I prefer and spend more time shooting Bullseye type competition.

Our society indeed frowns upon one person intentionally hurting or killing another. However, doing so can be justified under some circumstances, such as the reasonable use of force in self defense. But if any of us choose to use lethal force in self defense, it will be up to us to show that we were justified under the applicable legal standards.

That's the way the law works in real life. It's not the same as having a right to kill (heaven forfend), nor is it quite the same as "...a right to choose use deadly force...". But it gives us the ability to defend ourselves and families. That works for me.

Society has nothing to do with natural rights.
Laws of man have nothing to do with natural rights.
Government has nothing to do with natural rights.
Natural rights and legal rights are distinct.
Natural rights are universal and inalienable.
Legal rights are governed by society.
Which makes them relative to a specific culture or government.
Sure the current government of the US doesn't allow for the murder of a living human, well at least not after the second trimester.
While other governments have not only condoned murder they actively take part in it.
Inalienable rights can not be taken away. Laws of man can not stop somebody from doing harm given their willful desision to do so. At that point it's going to require the natural laws of physics to stop.

 

[mavracer]

I'm curious especially since my other hobby involves pushing automobiles to their limits. How many of you who think we have an obligation to get formal training to CCW have take defensive driving classes and practice these skills on a regular basis?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Society has nothing to do with natural rights.
Laws of man have nothing to do with natural rights.
Government has nothing to do with natural rights.
Natural rights and legal rights are distinct.
Natural rights are universal and inalienable.
Legal rights are governed by society.
Which makes them relative to a specific culture or government.
Sure the current government of the US doesn't allow for the murder of a living human, well at least not after the second trimester.
While other governments have not only condoned murder they actively take part in it.
Inalienable rights can not be taken away. Laws of man can not stop somebody from doing harm given their willful desision to do so. At that point it's going to require the natural laws of physics to stop.

Now I will be blunt.

That all might be fine in your alternate universe. But what does it have to do with real life in the real world?

I'm curious especially since my other hobby involves pushing automobiles to their limits. How many of you who think we have an obligation to get formal training to CCW have take defensive driving classes and practice these skills on a regular basis?

As a matter of fact, when we had Alfa Romeos, I took some classes at Sears Point sponsored by our club. And we used to get track time there on occasion. I've also taken a road racing course when Jim Russell was at Laguna Seca. I do admit that I don't get much practice except for some moderately spirited driving when the circumstances permit.

 

[9mmepiphany]

How many of you who think we have an obligation to get formal training to CCW have take defensive driving classes and practice these skills on a regular basis?

It would only be consistent if we did. I've taken several over the years, done a lot of skidpan work and evasive driving. Never in a personal car, I couldn't afford to maintain the suspension after all the bootleg turns.

I'm much less inclined to try racing down Lombard at 3-4x the speed limit anymore (ah, the thrills of youth), but Hwy 1 still has some allure to the sport driver in me. Laguna Seca really should be on everyone's bucket list

 

[mavracer]

But what does it have to do with real life in the real world?

If you want blunt. It's real damn important to realize that man is only restrained by the laws of nature not by the laws of man. And you may have a problem with calling it a right, but there are those in this world that think it's their god (think allah) given right to kill you.

 

[JohnKSa]

It's real damn important to realize that man is only restrained by the laws of nature not by the laws of man.

The fact that a person is or isn't "restrained by the laws of man" has no bearing on what rights that person has. Only on what he's willing to do and can manage to pull off.

The fact that a person has the CAPABILITY to rape and murder and doesn't care about being caught doesn't mean he has the RIGHT to rape and murder.

Capabilities are NOT equivalent to rights.

It's simple to see if you look at it from the other side.

Let's say a person is incapable of communicating. Does that mean the person has no right to free speech? No, it just means he's not capable of exercising that right. The lack of capability doesn't mean he doesn't have the right, it just means he has no effective way to exercise it. In the same way, having a capability does not imply the existence of a right to exercise that capability.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If you want blunt. It's real damn important to realize that man is only restrained by the laws of nature not by the laws of man.

When a mistake could result in your being restrained in a cell by the laws of man, it's worthwhile to understand those laws. And for those of us who are trying to advance our interests in the RKBA in the real world, it's also important to understand legal and political reality.

 

[mavracer]

Guys I have no problem diferentiating the differences in the laws of man and laws of nature. I also know the difference between my rights that exist in nature and rights bestowed on me by society.
This doesn't mean there aren't concequences for excercizing your natural right.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Guys I have no problem diferentiating the differences in the laws of man and laws of nature. I also know the difference between my rights that exist in nature and rights bestowed on me by society.
This doesn't mean there aren't concequences for excercizing your natural right.

In any case, I'll stick with real life in the real world.

 

[conw]

He's smart, knows what he's talking about, and I usually agree with him on substance. But he also is the chief representative of my primary dissatisfaction with THR: Most of his posts have the underlying theme, "Listen to me; I'm smarter than you."

Forums have a very democratic feel to them, don't they?

Everyone is apparently equal, faceless usually, subject to being judged only on what they have to say and how they say it.

It almost gives the impression that we ARE all equal, and we don't really have a right to act otherwise, but that's a dangerous illusion. Many people lack the filter to know they don't understand something, precisely because of their lack of knowledge; therefore people who do feel they know something tend to speak as though they are knowledgeable. And really, what's the harm in acting knowledgeable if you are (or think you are)?

Obviously this applies equally to people who do, and do not, actually have valid information to share.

The only real solution is for you, the reader, to review the merit of what each poster is saying, and attempt to filter out the tone, or at least realize that the vast majority of people posting here, regardless of rhetorical style, mean well and are attempting to communicate at least ostensibly valid ideas.

But don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because the context is an internet forum that everyone's opinion is equal, or that an offputting tone makes someone's view less valid.

 

[aeriedad]

It almost gives the impression that we ARE all equal, and we don't really have a right to act otherwise, but that's a dangerous illusion. Many people lack the filter to know they don't understand something, precisely because of their lack of knowledge; therefore people who do feel they know something tend to speak as though they are knowledgeable. And really, what's the harm in acting knowledgeable if you are (or think you are)?*

...

The only real solution is for you, the reader, to review the merit of what each poster is saying, and attempt to filter out the tone*, or at least realize that the vast majority of people posting here, regardless of rhetorical style, mean well and are attempting to communicate* at least ostensibly valid ideas.

But don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because the context is an internet forum that everyone's opinion is equal, or that an offputting tone makes someone's view less valid.

So, if I understand you correctly, I should filter out your tone, even when it says, "Listen to me; I'm smarter than you," and then listen to you anyway, because you may or may not be smarter than me?

Would you at least agree that one could boil down your response above to, "Listen to me; I'm smarter than you?"

*Bold added by me for emphasis.

 

[aeriedad]

OP, sorry for continuing the topic drift. FWIW, I've had a fair amount of formal instruction in firearms, in terms of basic marksmanship, weapons handling and tactics during 20+ years active duty in the Marine Corps (retired now four years). I've not paid extra for training as many on this forum have done, mostly because of money and schedule. Three of my five children are in college now, with the other two in high school. I take one or two of them to the range with me almost every time I go, and their marksmanship and weapons handling skills are reasonably good. More formal training is always welcome, and I view regular practice as essential to maintaining our skills. By "regular practice," I mean at least twice a month, more often when funds and schedule are on my side.

 

[Sam1911]

So, if I understand you correctly, I should filter out your tone, even when it says, "Listen to me; I'm smarter than you," and then listen to you anyway, because you may or may not be smarter than me?

Honestly, not to put too fine a point on it -- YES. There's people in the world who are smarter than me. There's a LOT of people in the world who know things or understand things I don't know or understand. I can choose not to listen to them because I don't care for the tone I think I'm hearing in the words they write. Or I can try to put that aside and evaluate the information presented on its merits.

Would you at least agree that one could boil down your response above to, "Listen to me; I'm smarter than you?"

I don't know about conwict, but I will certainly agree that I often write in terms meant to express the sentiment, "Here is something I understand and you DON'T understand, and so I'm sharing this with you."

Now I try pretty hard sometimes to make it come across as politely as possible and do attempt never to make someone feel bad about what they didn't know or were mistaken about, but how can I express (what I believe to be) a truth, especially in correcting someone's mistake, if I don't say in essence, "You're wrong, I'm right?"

(Smart really doesn't enter into it. I know plenty of smart guys who don't get certain things, and some who don't come off as real "smart" who understand those same things intuitively.)

 

[aeriedad]

Honestly, not to put too fine a point on it -- YES. There's people in the world who are smarter than me. There's a LOT of people in the world who know things or understand things I don't know or understand. I can choose not to listen to them because I don't care for the tone I think I'm hearing in the words they write. Or I can try to put that aside and evaluate the information presented on its merits.

I don't know about conwict, but I will certainly agree that I often write in terms meant to express the sentiment, "Here is something I understand and you DON'T understand, and so I'm sharing this with you."

Now I try pretty hard sometimes to make it come across as politely as possible and do attempt never to make someone feel bad about what they didn't know or were mistaken about, but how can I express (what I believe to be) a truth, especially in correcting someone's mistake, if I don't say in essence, "You're wrong, I'm right?"

(Smart really doesn't enter into it. I know plenty of smart guys who don't get certain things, and some who don't come off as real "smart" who understand those same things intuitively.)

I don't disagree with a word of that, Sam. I'm by no means the smartest person I know, and I don't pretend to be. But, really, many folks here mainly just look for people to correct, sometimes proudly or pedantically. When fiddletown says in post #123,

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

it just sounds a little proud to me. Never mind that he's right technically, a more friendly tone carries more credibility with me.

That's just one example, and providing further examples would be tedious and likely unproductive. We're far enough off the original topic of this thread, which I actually enjoyed until the lecturing started.