Why Don't more People Go To Gun School?

[Deaf Smith]

As for Askins yes he was what he was a man of his time. He was brutally effective. He could not have been or done so with out the approval of his superiors or they the superiors simply looked the other way.

Yes, back in those days if you tried to kill a Border Patrolman you risked payback (as Askins did when he shot the man in the back running across the Rio Grand to escape Askins after he tried to kill him.)

Yes, unless it was blant murder they would declare it justified. Now as Ayoob wrote about him, he was a good fellow to have a drink with but not to get drunk with. Getting him drunk and rilled up was not a good idea.

In a way I compare him to Wild Bill Hickok. Decent guy as long as you don't cross him and a heck of a shot.

One more thing guys, about going to a shooting school.

Even if you are a real good shot, go there not to show YOUR skills but to find out what skills you can pick up.

If they shoot a different way than you do, do it their way. Later you can decide if you want to use any part of the methods you learned.

Sort of Jeet Kune Do. Pick what is useful for you, discard what is useless for you. But do go there with an open mind.

Deaf

 

[easyg]

Why Don't more People Go To Gun School?

I believe that most folks don't take shooting classes because they just don't see the need.

Most folks that I have met believe that they are competent enough to defend themselves should they ever be attacked.

And I believe that most of them are correct in that belief.

Using a firearm for self defense is not difficult nor complicated.
This is why they are so popular with both good guys and bad guys.

 

[mbt2001]

Uhh. "Gun school"?

Don't you mean combat/tactical/etc training?

Most of us have been to gun school, by that i mean I have been shooting all my life and have had decades of informal training. I have also had formal tac training and will get more, but gun school makes it sound like many haven't a clue about guns, when that simply isn't true.

FFT. Sgt York was a product of decades of informal training... Sure the army played a part, but....

 

[benEzra]

For me, cost. It's something on my "very much want to do" list for both handgun and carbine, but well below things like "have food in the cabinet", "get tires with more tread for the car", and "keep the utilities turned on".

In the past few years, I've had to sell several of my guns (including my dad's Nylon 66 I learned to shoot with as a kid, the Ruger Standard Model that my dad had a "save" with in the mid-1970s, the Bersa .380 that was my first handgun, and my 7.62x39mm AK, which I miss the most) to fund daily life or meet the needs of my kids. If I could afford to shell out $500+ in tuition and ammo for a class, I'd very much love to do so, but it's not in the cards yet.

 

[9mmepiphany]

If they shoot a different way than you do, do it their way. Later you can decide if you want to use any part of the methods you learned.

Sort of Jeet Kune Do. Pick what is useful for you, discard what is useless for you. But do go there with an open mind.

This can't be stressed highly enough.

I got into defensive shooting by adopting the Weaver ad shot that way for years...except when I shot on the departmental PPC team; because everyone shot a sort of Isosceles. By continuing to attend training, usually at my own expense, I saw the advantage and moved to the Modern Isosceles. More training showed me why it was optimal for what I wanted to accomplish and how the Weaver fell short in several cases.

And yet, I went to Gunsite, the birthplace of the Modern Technique to try the Weaver again. It seemed foolish to critique something without understanding its origins, its intentions, and its philosophy. So, for 3 days of the 250 class, I gave it a dedicated try. While I did find that the technique was pretty much what I expected, I did learn many other things from the course; after all it is a Fighting School as opposed to a Shooting School...and now I'm a member of The Family

 

[9mmepiphany]

Most folks that I have met believe that they are competent enough to defend themselves should they ever be attacked.

And I believe that most of them are correct in that belief.

What would you base that belief on?
I've found that folks who believe that will often set unrealistic parameters (distance, time, environment) on their competence to justify their assertion

As already stated more than once, most folks don't even know what they don't know.

Two things I'll point out from my personal experience:

1. There isn't a competitive shooter, who having reached a high skill level, wouldn't have paid for instruction to reach that skill level sooner in their career.

2. There isn't a LEO or other trained civilian, who has been involved in a shooting, who has said they wished they'd had less training before the incident

 

[GBExpat]

Sorry, but I have been distracted ever since reading this:

I look like an Anime perverted monk who got a haircut by Vida Sasson.

 

[tomrkba]

Males always tend to set up an hierarchy of authority and then require conformity to the peer structure. I don't blame an instructor for keeping a lid on the monkey dancing and sharpshooting that could happen, it would divert the class and be a waste of forward momentum getting the agenda accomplished. What's missing is that many who would attend bring that with them - they are there to improve their sociological ranking and don't care to take a place where they actually stand.

I have never experienced this with any of the instructors I have trained with. I have attended more than 22 classes since 1999.

Where have you seen this behavior?

Major league shooters are supposed to conform to sociological stereotypes - Todd Jarrett or Col. Askins. If they wear glasses and aren't the average physique, they get dissed. Goes to why Mas Ayoob has his detractors - they simply can't respect his skills, it gets involved in other "demographic" issues.

Craig Douglas is a small guy. He does not conform to the "gun guru" stereotype and certainly does not have an attitude problem. Other guys I have trained with were overweight and older. They do just fine and provide solid classes. One really good long range shooter/trainer wore overalls to class. There was a target on the wall with an 11" group. The distance was 1,760 yards. EVERYONE was very respectful of him, including the other instructors. My revolver instructor lost the use of both legs in Iraq to an IED and teaches from a wheelchair. He is a very quiet guy except when teaching. He also fixed my rapid fire technique.

Someone is going to bad schools or misinterpreting a whole bunch of stuff.

 

[easyg]

What would you base that belief on?

History.
People have been successfully using firearms for self defense since firearms have existed.
When Europeans finally gave firearms to native Americans, the native Americans quickly became proficient with those firearms with just the barest of weapon familiarization.
This is because firearms are simple tools.
In just a few hours you can teach an 8 year old to effectively use a firearm.

I've found that folks who believe that will often set unrealistic parameters (distance, time, environment) on their competence to justify their assertion

I have not had that experience.
Most folks that I have met who actually went out and bought a firearm had a very good grasp of the reality of things.
The ones who I felt did not a realistic grasp on firearms and self defense are those who are anti-gun.

As already stated more than once, most folks don't even know what they don't know.

Of course, you don't know what you don't know.
But that does not mean that you can't effectively use a firearm for self defense, provided that you do know how to actually operate the firearm.

1. There isn't a competitive shooter, who having reached a high skill level, wouldn't have paid for instruction to reach that skill level sooner in their career.

Competitive shooting is a whole different animal than just using a firearm for self defense.
That would be like comparing the IDPA to the Olympic Biathlon....it's apples and oranges.
And there is no reason to believe that a competitive shooter would react or fare any better than the "untrained" shooter in a real world life-and-death situation.
Some of the tricked out handguns and holsters I've seen in competitive shooting wouldn't even be carried in real life.

2. There isn't a LEO or other trained civilian, who has been involved in a shooting, who has said they wished they'd had less training before the incident

Probably not.
But there is really no way to definitely claim that more training would have made a difference.
All soldiers receive the same Basic Training. Some survive combat with that training while others die with that same exact training.
Luck plays a huge part in combat.

Shooting schools make sense IMO for those who are likely to have to defend themselves (law enforcement, bail bondsmen, bodyguards/security, military, etc...).
But for the average guy who wants a firearm to protect his family and himself, I just don't see such schools worth the money or time.
Especially in the U.S.A....
After all, who doesn't have a friend or relative who has served in the military, or who has been a lifelong shooter, or a hunter.
Gun culture is very strong in the U.S.A., and most folks can get informal training for free.



__________________

 

[another pake]

I wonder too ...
why don't more people go to gun school?

I used to tell everyone that money was the issue, and it is, but that is only part of the reason.

First of all I have a lot of time consuming relationship obligations. Husband, father of five, grandfather of sixteen,foster dad to three (currently), etc, etc.

A few years ago I retired from gainful employment and I thought that the time issue would be solved. Was I wrong! I don't know how I had time to work. What has happened is that now I spend more time on all of my interests, and according to my wife, I have too many of them. I don't know whether that is possible but for example...

I spend more time now snowshoeing and other outdoor winter activities.

I spend more time now cooking. I would love to take some classes to improve that interest.

I spend more time now in paddle sports. I have always loved canoeing, but now with more time, I take more wilderness trips. Some last weeks. I would love to take some classes to improve my white water skills.

I spend more time doing woodworking. I have spent quite a bit of time outfitting my shop to make it and me more productive. I would love to take classes to build Windsor chairs.

I spend more time shooting now than I used to although I spend less time hunting, except that I do make sure that my grand kids, both the boys and the girls, get to spend range time and "sittin in the blind" time with me. I would love to take an elk hunting trip with a few of the older kids. And

I spend a lot more time reloading now. It seems to fit with a few of my other interests, like

Building black powder guns. I would love to add classes on engraving.... And

I cast my own boolits..... And make my own bp....

I enjoy making knives, mostly Nordic. I would love to study under a master.

And that reminds me of Leatherwork.

I spend a fair amount of time making Native American style flutes...

And I still farm a little...

I'm sure that I'm forgetting something...oh yeah, there's that 48 Chevy pick-up getting rebuilt, and stationary gas engines, and, well you get the picture.

Even under the most optimistic scenario, I'm a heckuva lot closer to the end
than I am to the beginning. And I'm really starting to realize that I'm not going to get everything done,
cuz I'm busier than a one legged man in a butt kickin contest.

But I'm still smilin. 8^)

 

[easyg]

another pake,
After reading that post, I feel like the laziest slug on Earth.

 

[Mike J]

For me it is time or money. This past year I spent 5 months working out of town. I was home on the weekends but that was it. I felt obliged to spend the 2 days a week with my family. Most of the rest of the year was spent working 6 days a week. The one day I did get off I spent taking the family to church & spending time with them. Now for the moment I am furloughed so I'm trying to watch my pennies & stretch things as far as possible until I go back.

I did find a more affordable option that is local and more affordable than I have seen in the past. I intend to pursue it as soon as I can but I have to keep the wife & kids took care of first.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...People have been successfully using firearms for self defense since firearms have existed...

And people have failed for just as long.

If someone is successful, his knowledge and skills were sufficient to solve his particular problem. If the problem had been somewhat different, the outcome might not have been as satisfactory. And those who failed, whose knowledge and skills weren't up to the task, might have fared better had they been more able.

You can not know ahead of time what you will need to be able to do to solve your problem. But the more you can do, and the better you can do it, the luckier you'll be.

As already stated more than once, most folks don't even know what they don't know.

Of course, you don't know what you don't know.
But that does not mean that you can't effectively use a firearm for self defense, provided that you do know how to actually operate the firearm....

Only if you're good enough to solve whatever your particular problem is. If you're not good enough, you'll be a statistic. And maybe some training would have made the difference between success and failure.

...who doesn't have a friend or relative who has served in the military, or who has been a lifelong shooter, or a hunter.
Gun culture is very strong in the U.S.A., and most folks can get informal training for free.

And from some of the things I've seen lifelong shooters do, "free" would be far too much to pay.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Two things I'll point out from my personal experience:

1. There isn't a competitive shooter, who having reached a high skill level, wouldn't have paid for instruction to reach that skill level sooner in their career.

2. There isn't a LEO or other trained civilian, who has been involved in a shooting, who has said they wished they'd had less training before the incident

I will posit a third:

3. There isn't anyone who has survived a self-defense deadly force encounter despite a lack of training and not been motivated to go get trained.

 

[taliv]

but statistically, according to the national self defense survey, there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. i suspect the number of people attending training to be somewhere around .01% of that (not counting ccw classes and hunter safety etc)

even if off by a couple orders of magnitude...

 

[strambo]

easyg
People have been successfully using firearms for self defense since firearms have existed.

And people have been being victimized and/or failing to successfully defend themselves with firearms since they have existed as well.

The most inept fool with a gun has a decent chance of survival if they resist vice capitulation, but doesn't it make sense to ENORMOUSLY increase the odds of survival with some training?

Your basic training analogy also is misplaced. Yes, some live and some die with all having gotten the same training...but how does that make the point for NO training? What would the casualty rates be like then? Because the issue in his thread is no training vs. getting some training.

The excuses in this thread for not getting training are all pretty weak IMHO. They are great for not going to multiple training classes or being a training junky, but 1 solid 2-3 day course with ammo and travel will cost about the same as a good quality pistol. So, anyone who owns more than one good pistol (for defense) and says they can't afford training, could have...

The other excuses; "can't practice after so I'll wait" It isn't like the skills are so perishable that at any point down the road without practice you will be the same as never going. You will be way better after training no matter how much you practice. Further, with dryfire practice using dummy rds you can get 90% of the benefit of live fire practice for free and improve your skills, not just maintain them, so the "can't practice" excuse is just that.

"Don't need to learn combat skills" I didn't realize the threat to one's life in a firefight in a house in Fallujah circa 2004 is any different than the threat in a firefight in your house circa time now. Multiple armed threats in a structure...is multiple armed threats in a structure (or on the street.) The problem is the same, whatever weapons and training/tactics work best in combat work best at home. The difference is you don't have a team, therefore, your tactics have to modified for only one person...that just increases the threat! It certainly doesn't make it like you need no training at all because you grew up plinking and hunting...

"Lack of Time" I call BS...everyone can clear their calendars for 2-4 days once this year to make it happen. It's not like you have to go to training once per quarter, or year, or even decade...but if you keep a gun for protection you should at least get high quality training once! Then practice an build on that base.

"Instructors teach their own thing etc." I haven't found this to be true at all. From the NRA LE handgun/shotgun instructor course, to Practical Fundamentals with Bruce Gray, to Gunsite 250, to my military and contractor training...all of it has been over 95% the same! The differences are minor and peripheral. Good trainers are teaching combat proven methods that have stood the test of time and are slowly modified over the years, but not radically so. Trainers teaching something off the wall and demanding dogmatic adherance to that are the outliers.

When I finally got to Gunsight (the last training course I attended) the thought actually struck me how much what they are teaching is the same as I previously had. It was great training and really built upon, and improved my skills, but other than holding my hands/arms in the "Weaver Stance" the rest was all just reinforcement and high quality supervised skill building and practice.

I don't practice or shoot nearly enough...but that's totally on me. I don't have any excuse for it other than lazyness/complacency...

 

[9mmepiphany]

I will posit a third:

3. There isn't anyone who has survived a self-defense deadly force encounter despite a lack of training and not been motivated to go get trained.

An excellent point. This has been my experience also...I think it has to do with now knowing some things that they did not know, that they did not know

 

[dbp]

Very short answer -- too expensive for me. With all that life has thrown at me over the last few years I just don't have the disposable income to spend. I would love to got to a good SD training course, but ----.

 

[strambo]

but statistically, according to the national self defense survey, there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. i suspect the number of people attending training to be somewhere around .01% of that (not counting ccw classes and hunter safety etc)

even if off by a couple orders of magnitude...

Very true, that is because in the vast majority of cases at the first sign of armed resistance the criminals give up/run away.


I don't know about anyone else...but should despite the odds, I find myself in a life or death struggle, my "Plan A" isn't gonna be relying on the statistics or the criminal deciding to quit if I pull a gun out because whatever informal shooting experience I have is "good enough".

No; I train and prepare for the hard core home invasion crew who will beat me to w/in an inch of my life then rape my wife and little girls, then burn the house down with us still alive in it. If they decide to quit early at the first sign of resistance, I guess that's a bonus.

Similarly, when I train for hand to hand combat I train to break body parts until the threat can't function anymore...again, if they quit early due to pain or whatever, that is a bonus and I'll take it, but the worse case is they are high and/or on an adrenaline dump and won't quit until structurally broken or unconscious.

No, the odds are overwhelming that I will never be a victim of a violent crime. I figure my rational choices are A. don't worry about it or prepare at all like 99.99% of the population. Or B. train and prepare well for it taking responsibility for my own safety.

C. half-as##d preparation as an in-between step because "who needs combat training?" or "the statistics say they'll quit" just doesn't make sense to me. Either prepare or don't.

A sizable number of people who take classes in the hand to hand system I train have been victims of violent crimes. Pretty sad, statistically they shouldn't have been and now that they have, odds are really good they'll never be victimized again. They are spending lots of time and $ training to close the barn door after the horse already got out. At least they'll be prepared if there is a next time...too bad for all the victims who weren't lucky enough to survive and then take training after the fact.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I have not had that experience.
Most folks that I have met who actually went out and bought a firearm had a very good grasp of the reality of things.

And yet, you continue to post those same kinds of parameters to justify your position

effectively use a firearm

a very good grasp of the reality of things.

does not mean that you can't effectively use a firearm for self defense, provided that you do know how to actually operate the firearm.

a whole different animal than just using a firearm for self defense

But there is really no way to definitely claim that more training would have made a difference.

Luck plays a huge part in combat

Gun culture is very strong in the U.S.A., and most folks can get informal training for free

This one is too obvious not to address indiviually

And there is no reason to believe that a competitive shooter would react or fare any better than the "untrained" shooter in a real world life-and-death situation.

It has been proven time and again that under crisis, people default to their lowest level of training. For some, this is curling up into a ball and squealing, for others it is to respond with rapid and effective force...it depends on what your lowest level of training is

 

[easyg]

The most inept fool with a gun has a decent chance of survival if they resist vice capitulation,

"Vice capitulation"???
This is a new one on me.
Did you make this term up or did you hear it somewhere?
And how does it relate to shooting?

but doesn't it make sense to ENORMOUSLY increase the odds of survival with some training?

But not all training will ENORMOUSLY increase your odds of survival.
You may train in hopes that it will increase your odds, but some training is just a waste of time and money.

Because the issue in his thread is no training vs. getting some training.

You are mistaken.
The issue of the thread is why don't more people go to "gun schools?".
Just because one does not attend a "gun school" that does not mean that they are "untrained".

The excuses in this thread for not getting training are all pretty weak IMHO.

IMHO, the excuses for paying lots of money for "training" of dubious use is extremely weak.

"Don't need to learn combat skills" I didn't realize the threat to one's life in a firefight in a house in Fallujah circa 2004 is any different than the threat in a firefight in your house circa time now. Multiple armed threats in a structure...is multiple armed threats in a structure (or on the street.) The problem is the same, whatever weapons and training/tactics work best in combat work best at home. The difference is you don't have a team, therefore, your tactics have to modified for only one person...that just increases the threat!

You don't see the difference between a civilian defending himself from a criminal attack, and a soldier kicking down doors, chasing the enemy down, and killing the enemy?
You really don't see the difference???

"Lack of Time" I call BS.

Most folks have a lack of time for things that they perceive to cost more than they're worth.

"Instructors teach their own thing etc." I haven't found this to be true at all. From the NRA LE handgun/shotgun instructor course, to Practical Fundamentals with Bruce Gray, to Gunsite 250, to my military and contractor training...all of it has been over 95% the same!

If all of this is true, then yeah, such schools are for you.
You sound like a prior military security contractor, not the average civilian who wants a gun to defend himself from a possible random criminal attack.
Most civilians will never encounter any real violence in their entire life.
As military or private contractor during war, you will most likely encounter violence.
Huge difference.

I don't practice or shoot nearly enough...but that's totally on me. I don't have any excuse for it other than lazyness/complacency...

Enough for what?
For self defense as a civilian living in American suburbia?
Or as part of a strike team going in to take out a target in a hostile enemy filled area of the world?

Navy SEALS train as they do because it is their purpose to fight for this nation.
The guy working at the Ford dealership does not need the same firearms training just so he can defend himself.

 

[strambo]

You completely miss the point. The threat posed by armed intruders in your home is the same as the threat posed by armed terrorists in a house overseas. Humans with guns trying to kill you is just as dangerous no matter where it occurs geographically or why the people with guns are trying to kill you.

Odds of getting into a gunfight in one location vs. another have nothing to do with what skills are needed to best be prepared to survive a gunfight. If the guy working at the Ford dealership finds himself facing multiple armed criminals in his home or one the street, I'd argue that he needs the exact same training when it comes to the core skills of drawing, placing rapid and accurate hits under stress, while moving, at threats who are moving, using cover, weapons manipulation etc.

Does he need to know military tactics? Nope. Land navigation, parachuting, small unit fire and maneuver....no. The operator level shooting and manipulation skills are all the same though.

Oh yeah,

Vice -preposition
instead of; in the place of.

It's fine (IMO) to say training isn't worth the time and money because the odds of needing it/being a violent crime victim are so low. But to say that such training would only be useful to a soldier in combat etc. and not useful to a civilian facing a violent criminal is very misplaced.

 

[easyg]

Look, I'm not saying that all training sucks.

I'm saying that most folks don't attend shooting schools because they feel the cost does not justify the benefit.
And for the most part, I agree.

The same is true of most martial arts schools.
I've seen plenty of guys with years of martial arts training get stomped by untrained brawlers.

Training is not always the answer.

 

[9mmepiphany]

"Instructors teach their own thing etc." I haven't found this to be true at all. From the NRA LE handgun/shotgun instructor course, to Practical Fundamentals with Bruce Gray, to Gunsite 250, to my military and contractor training...all of it has been over 95% the same! T

Once you've trained in Practical Fundamentals with Bruce, all the rest is gravy. Bruce is likely the finest shooting instructor out there, the exact opposite of all the bad points of instructors...plus he loves show tunes

 

[HeadJunter]

I bet this guy wishes he had gone to a shooting class about how to use a flashlight. Or better yet, just stay inside.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/nov/28/wandering-man-with-alzheimers-shot-killed/