Why Don't more People Go To Gun School?

[mrdeltoid]

Here is why, and I know this from teaching various types of gun classes:

- Some people simply think they know enough without training, and basically arrogance keeps them from learning things.

- Some people just have busy work schedules.

- Some people look to get their "ticket punched" so they can get a CCW and will take whatever is cheapest and fastest regardless of quality.

- Some people want to get training and just never really get serious enough to actually sign up for something.

It is not the case that it is always too expensive. I teach NRA courses with a team of instructors and we do it for basically the cost of materials. That is sometimes an 8 hour class for $60 and that is all-inclusive. Personal Protection in the Home for about $100.

There is a small slice of the public who thinks about gun ownership and decides to get training and learn to exercise their right safely and responsibly. A smaller portion of those people end up in a class somewhere.

 

[torqem]

there used to be an outfit that taught it right.

dunno if they are still around. They called themselves "WAR", for "within arm's reach". Ralph Mroz (sp?) understands that you often need to "shove and shoot". Most of the prerequistites involve being WAY too slow, from too far away. Wasted time and money. Ask George Zimmerman if you don't need a black belt just to bring your gun "into play" (in time to prevent your head's being beaten in, that is).

"stuff" almost always occurs, for civilians at 5 yds or less, or it's going to be a civil case, you bet. The great majority of such attacks are within 10 ft and a big chunk of them at 5 ft and less. So unless you are very lucky, you'll have no more than 1.5 seconds in which to do something effective, and you might well have less than 1/2 second. Quite often, it starts at punching distance, and there's nothing like time to make a ccw draw. Not, anyway, without first having to block, strike, evade, spit in his face, etc.

 

[Mike1234567]

I have very limited means and can no longer "train for combat" due to health reasons. I see threads like this and sometimes they may me feel completely inadequate and unworthy of owning a self defense firearm.







NOT

 

[torqem]

Old man time caught up with Terminator and Jack Lalang

too. Keep your hand on your pistol, in your pocket holster. Most of the time, just showing it to the punk, (soon enough and from enough distance) is all you need to do. Ask any cop. Having to fire is rare, and misses change a lot of minds, as do poor hits, even with a "mere" .22 or .25.

 

[conw]

I just read this great interview of Tom Givens conducted by Claude Werner.

http://www.examiner.com/article/firearms-trainer-interview-tom-givens

They address some points relevant to this thread.

1) What is the value of training?

Confidence building. Structured and informed practice leads to skill. Skill leads to confidence. Confidence leads to the ability to perform without panic when confronted by a criminal predator.
Competency. Good training helps build the student’s competency in a variety of appropriate tasks to a level that shooters are unlikely to reach on their own.
Liability mitigation. Besides having to win the fight, it is important to survive the aftermath of stopping a criminal predation. Good training helps prepare students for the legal battle that begins after the confrontation ends.

Something really interesting was a statement from Tom about his student demographic.

I think the below quote is relevant to this thread because clearly the demarcation is along white collar/blue collar lines.

Good bad or indifferent, Tom is working with a big data set and this is probably a factor universally at least in the US.

4) Who is your market?
The single largest demographic in my classes are white collar professionals, with Information Technology professionals being the single largest subset. They realize it is a perilous world and take the responsibility of making sure they can protect themselves and their families. Out of approximately 2500 students that I teach annually, only about seven percent are blue collar workers

I wonder why this is. As in this thread finances can't be the primary reason: gun ownership historically skews the other way and if you can buy guns the "can't afford training no way no how" excuse seems weak.

A couple of stabs at it...

-someone who "grew up around guns" vs came into shooting later in life may have a more elevated sense of skill

-military participation being higher among one demographic may do the same

 

[torqem]

Naw, it's that blue collar guys don't have 5k to blow

on a class. I bet if you look at cowboy action, ski ing, any of the high dollar passtimes, it's the same demographic of people involved. those with big money to blow.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by strambo: 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.

The question is, what skills and training would benefit you when you need them. To figure in the likelihood of ever having to use them would place in question the need to mitigate the risk by being armed in the first place. I will argue that if one chooses to have a firearm for defense, one had better be able to use it. And that does not mean shooting slowly at targets at the range.

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.

If by "such training" you refer to training addressing basic safety, grip and hold, sight picture, point shooting, trigger control, clearing of malfunctions,reloading, and using cover and concealment, yes, the needs are the same.

But the duties of, and therefore the skills needed by, the sworn officer and the combat soldier extend well beyond those of a citizen in a defensive situation. The required training will differ accordingly.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

You know, for those who say it's bogus to use "lack of funds" or "lack of time" as reasons they haven't taken any gun courses...you're correct, on one level.

However, you're incorrect on another level.

Every decision we make is based on some qualifying criteria and a balance of risk assessment factors and needs/desires. The simple fact remains that not a single one of us has the time or money to do EVERYTHING we should do or would like to do. For one, we just don't live long enough to do this.

So we look for a balance that suits our perceived requirements/desires.

One may have firearms for hunting, plinking, or collecting and yet not have any desire or perceived need to consider them for self-defense. Yet some would look down on this.

Having and carrying a firearm as a concealed weapon is, in itself, a personal choice and many on THR fully support a person's right to do so IF THEY CHOOSE. Yet some argue how stupid many people are for NOT carrying.

Having and carrying a firearm as a concealed weapon with no formal training is, likewise, a personal choice (unless required to some extent by law in some jurisdictions). Yet additional training is a CHOICE for the owner, which he makes based upon a variety of factors, one of which is the actual perceived RISK that they would ever actually have to use it.


So, there's no valid excuse NOT to have gun training? Well, then, what LEVEL of gun training should there be? And who is to say and impose that as a requirement on others?

As a material item, a firearm is a tangible item that lasts for decades. It is actual physical evidence of the time/money a person invested to obtain it. Likewise for the ammunition that feeds it. This can be easily weighed against other tangible things that a person is required to obtain/provide, such as food, diapers, and clothing for babies, utility bills, house/car payments, and so forth.

The fact remains that intangible items, such as a gun class, do not weigh heavily (or at the very least, the same) when compared to the tangible items one must deal with in life. They only become more significant when the perceived or actual need elevates them to a level on a par with these other things.


"I have a gun, but I don't live in an area where violent crime is a concern. I would like to take a gun class, but that takes money and time."

This does not weigh nearly as much as:

"I have a new born baby who needs formula and diapers out of every paycheck, and outgrows all her clothing every month."


If circumstances were different, then perhaps that first statement might be:

"I have a gun and the violent crime in our area has been on the rise. I need to invest some time and money into taking a gun class so I can better protect my family should the need arise."


Now, YOUR assessment may be different, and that's fine. So long as it suits YOU and YOUR needs. But that's not to say that YOUR assessment should override somebody elses assessment, regardless of how silly or stupid you may think they are for it.


We have enough of that from our government.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ Right on!!

 

[Warp]

Some interesting discussion. Some not so much.

As with many (most?) people, my reasons/restrictions are primarily time and money.

Of course, if I spent less money on firearms and ammunition I could spend more money on training. That is probably true of most 'gun people'.

Training is so much more work. You have to find good instruction, get to the location, either pay to travel/stay there or be lucky enough to find something close, there are ammo costs, and of course...the time.

I'm working on it though. I had a couple weeks of good professional handgun training several years ago, I instruct at Appleseeds (even get to shoot once in awhile!), do my own thing at the range(s) that is more than just standing there blasting away mindlessly, and will be visiting Mr Larry Vickers this year for both tactical advanced handgun and carbine 1. But that was not cheap, and even that requires that my wife take a day off work so I can be relieved of "daddy day care" duty on a (lonnng) weekday.

 

[HeadJunter]

Learning, in general, and reading, in particular, are an anathema to many, if not most, people. My gut feeling is that it goes deeper than just Dunning-Kruger.

Perhaps the hard drive gets full during adolescence and cannot accept any more data. Another possibility comes from a paper I read a while ago. It said that the area in the brain associated with processing change is collocated or adjacent to the brain area associated with pain. So change, for some people at least, seems physically painful. Since learning is a form of change, it may well be that learning, even if only intellectually, is physically painful for some.

Beyond that hypothesis, I will leave it to the psychologists to delve into the reasons.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: Now, YOUR assessment may be different [from "I need to invest some time and money into taking a gun class so I can better protect my family should the need arise"], and that's fine. So long as it suits YOU and YOUR needs.

The question is, how can one know what does fit his or her needs, without having been exposed to appropriate training?

I had been firing handguns--rimfire, centerfire, cap and ball; single action revolvers, double action revolvers, and various kinds of semiautomatics--for about fifty years before I finally attended a high performance defensive pistol shooting class. After starting to carry, I went to the range regularly, and looked with interest at the size of my groups and those of the people around me.

When I finally took the class, I learned a little more about grip, hold, sight picture, and trigger control for rapid fire shooting. I was trained to shoot very rapidly at more than one target (more likely needed than not) in rapid succession, in a manner that would score hits on moving targets (also a likely need, should actual defensive shooting ever be required). My previous practice had not prepared me for any of that.

Like many of the participants, I found that my percentage of hits to center mass at close range improved by about 30%, and that my speed increased by about 30%.

Before participation in that session, and before really thinking about what I would likely be faced with in an actual defensive encounter, I really had no way at all to judge whether my abilities would suffice in the gravest extreme.

I strongly suspect that the same applies to most people who have never availed themselves of proper training.

I have for quite some time now believed what Tom Givens opined in his interview with Claude Werner: that most people have been heavily influenced by entertainment media.

Think about it: in almost every shooting we see on the silver screen (other than the old Dodge City fast draw malarky), the protagonist knows that trouble is brewing before it happens, and he or she has plenty of time to prepare for the encounter; he or she sees the one "bad guy" in plenty of time; he or she can squeeze off an accurate shot while the "bad guy" conveniently stands still; and that one shot stops the "bad guy" instantly, or even knocks him over backward.

One who has come to believe it likely that his or her life or death encounter would happen like that will certainly think that his or her skills are at least adequate.

Yes, the determination is a personal one, but it really should be an informed decision.

 

[dbp]

It is not the case that it is always too expensive. I teach NRA courses with a team of instructors and we do it for basically the cost of materials. That is sometimes an 8 hour class for $60 and that is all-inclusive. Personal Protection in the Home for about $100.

Now this is reasonable. If I could find something like this in my state I would seriously consider it.

 

[Mike1234567]

OT but related: Are their any training video games available? I don't own a gaming console because I have no interest in playing video games. However, if such software existed, I'd likely try to save the money to buy it and the associated hardware. I realize it's not the same as a live 3D environment but it's probably better than nothing.

 

[GBExpat]

Now, YOUR assessment may be different, and that's fine. So long as it suits YOU and YOUR needs. But that's not to say that YOUR assessment should override somebody elses assessment, regardless of how silly or stupid you may think they are for it.

Amen.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: So long as it suits YOU and YOUR needs.

One other question: from the standpoint of ability, just how and why might the needs of one citizen suddenly faced with the immediate necessity of using deadly force differ materially from those of another?

I can see how the need for instruction in basic gun handling may well vary widely depending upon shooting experience, but when it comes to the higher level skills needed to improve the likelihood of successfully defending oneself in a violent encounter, what might introduce differences in needs?

 

[torqem]

yes, priorities need to be set/gone-by. Like in "each kid costs25k per year, and I aint got it, so I'm not gonna have a kid (yet)". and "after I get the 1/4 million to do so, I'll have a kid. Doing it sooner is unfair to the kid and to us, and I'm not going to mooch off of the taxpayer to cover my kid's education".

 

[Old Dog]

Arriving late to the party, as usual ... and I cannot answer the OP's question nor provide any special insight into this issue.

RetiredUSNChief's post #101 contained some balanced perspective, yet still folks seem to be pushing the notion that there is absolutely no excuse for not obtaining advanced training.

Maybe it's just me, but I almost feel that I'm seeing the somewhat elitist attitude coming through ... those who've had the time and money to attain quality firearms training implying that those who've not attempted to obtain training are somehow ... just not good stewards of the gun-owning/gun-carrying community, somehow inferior to the rest ...

I already see a divide in the greater gun community with the gun snobs (my brand/model/platform is superior to any other). And if you frequent other forums (no names required), you know that we have training snobs.

I push all the people I work with to obtain additional training far beyond what our employer provides us. 40 hours of initial firearms training and a couple days a year on the range to re-qual is far from sufficient to "qualify" the average citizen to carry a gun in my book, let alone be sufficient for those whose firearms skills are a condition of their employment.

Yet, I know many, many folks that truly cannot get the time off from work or away from family responsibilities, let alone afford the cost of even a local weekend course plus ammunition, folks who want to get more training, but haven't been able to. And it's not the hypocrites who keep buying thousand-dollar handguns but don't spring for even a modest two-day offering at their local gun club ...

I've also seen some guys who have a lot of disposable income who keep buying high-end guns (and cars and watches, etc.) who have gone to Gun School, yet have never taken any training in weapons retention or unarmed self-defense/martial arts. What about those guys? Shame on them, too, right? I mean, if you carry a gun, you have to know how to fight without one, and to keep the bad guy from getting yours ...

Who's qualified to say who needs what amount of training? Who here really knows why so many gun-owners, who presumably could afford both the time and money for training, have never gone to Gun School?

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ This.

 

[justashooter in pa]

Amen, Old Dog.

We get so tired of the newbs that show up on these forums running around telling us that we need "training". Many of us have more experience than the "trainers" that we are urged to emulate, and have no need to be lectured by boys in short pants or men with egos equal to the displacement of Mighty Mo. Newbs have a tendency to project their own needs onto other people, because it makes them feel more centered. What they don't understand is that we don't have any interest in accommodating their needs.

 

[Sam1911]

Interesting. I'd have thought it was the old hands who were the biggest training proponents, trying to get the newer "I can make this go bang" shooters to broaden their skills.

I do suppose there are plenty of "I've been around guns forever and no body's got anything to teach me types" who wear long pants, though, and who certainly aren't "newbs."

You run into them frequently enough... "Man, I was in the Army, so ..." etc.

 

[Old Dog]

Not sure who you're referring to, Sam.

I have been around guns forever, and I'm learning new stuff every day. I would never say that "nobody's got anything to teach me" even though I have been blessed to be the beneficiary of quite a bit of what some here might consider "high-speed" training. I love training and will continue to seek it out ... at my own expense, too.

I am not only the biggest proponent of training of anyone in my circles (folks around me get tired of me telling them to seek out training opportunities), I especially tell newbs to try and work something out, anything, that will broaden their skills.

I'm just saying that I do see certain attitudes creeping through, and I do understand the perspective of some (not all, though) people who maintain that it's just not feasible for them (at this time or in the near future) to go to Gun School. And frankly, I do believe that there are those who just might not need any training (for whatever reasons, I'm not here to judge them) and I'm not some almighty, all-seeing guru who would presume to tell them that they must get training ...

 

[strambo]

...

Now, YOUR assessment may be different, and that's fine. So long as it suits YOU and YOUR needs. But that's not to say that YOUR assessment should override somebody elses assessment, regardless of how silly or stupid you may think they are for it.

We have enough of that from our government.

Who ever talked about mandating anything? I think the whole country should be Constitution Carry provided you meet the legal criteria for gun ownership and I think the NFA act should be repealed.

On a personal level, if someone owns firearms for self defense and takes that seriously, then it would be wise to attend some training. Since I posted the "no excuses" post...I'll elaborate a bit lest I be labeled a "gun snob" or elitist.

First off, though my background is military and contractor, I paid for my own training in areas I felt the military particularly lacking (handgun and hand to hand combat/self defense), one particularly expensive course I took while out of the military working as a hospital security guard. I know all about cost/time vs. family and immediate finances.

My view isn't that everyone has "no excuses" not to attend a "gun school" or "advanced combat training" (whatever that means.) My view is that there really isn't an excuse not to, at some point, take at least 1 (one) good quality defensive firearm course of 2 days. That is provided they have no (zero, zip) firearms training in defensive firearms use.

As many others have posted about their training, the proper grip, stance, trigger control, draw, movement etc. along with legal considerations are all very important and aren't something you are likely to pick up informally.

I teach soldiers who are avid gun owners often how to shoot handguns. As they don't get anything official from the Army, my brief instruction before a pistol qual is it. Pretty much all of these mostly combat experienced infantry NCOs and officers...have pretty poor handgun skills. Poor grip, stance, trigger control, and manipulation.

So, if you are serious about self defense, it is a really good idea to figure out how to attend a good 2-3 day class from solid instructor. There are many now, it is like the golden age of high-quality firearms training.

I'm trying to figure out how to convince my wife to attend a 2 day course near me. When I am away (which is often), all my training and experience doesn't mean squat to protect my wife and kids if I'm not there. Not to mention there is a huge force multiplier in having 2 armed and trained adults responding to an incident.

Again, I'm OK with the time/cost of training not being a high priority in light of immediate financial needs vs. the very low likelyhood of being in a self-defense shooting. What bothers me in this thread is the notion put forth by some that training isn't useful or needed or valuable. Or conflating low risk of being attacked with it being a low severity. The severity and consequences of a deadly force attack are the same and completely divorced from the probability.

I know lots of people who own many guns and have never attended a formal firearms training course. I'd say the majority of casual gun owners I know are like that. Knowing the huge value of training in hindsight, I'd take a solid 2 day class and a $250 used handgun over multiple guns adding up to over $1000 any day.

As far as age vs "young guys", chronological age and length of calendar time owning guns doesn't mean anything. What is the quality of of your experience relative to the issue at hand? That is all that matters.

My uncle is way older than me and taught me how to shoot growing up. He has been shooting and hunting all his life. When it comes to the defensive use of firearms there is just no contest, I smoke him in every way, due to my training and experience in that specific arena.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Old Dog: ...yet still folks seem to be pushing the notion that there is absolutely no excuse for not obtaining advanced training.

Excuses, or rather reasons, aside, that begs the question of what constitutes "advanced training."

I was an experienced shooter before I took a one day course intended to teach the skills needed to draw quickly and to hit a couple of fast moving targets several times in rapid succession. I thought it worthwhile. It was characterized as training in high performance defensive pistol techniques. Some might call it "advanced training." Would you?

They offered a second session that involve shooting while running forward, backward, sideways, and up and down stairs, strong hand and weak hand. I was unable to take it.

One can find training with shoot-noshoot exercises; motorized targets; FoF exercises; shooting from automobiles through windshields; confrontations in "shoot houses"; how o avoid crowing concealment and cover; and more. Those would, in my mind, constitute "advanced training." I have never tried any of them, but I do try to learn a little from programs about them.

Maybe it's just me, but I almost feel that I'm seeing the somewhat elitist attitude coming through ... those who've had the time and money to attain quality firearms training implying that those who've not attempted to obtain training are somehow ... just not good stewards of the gun-owning/gun-carrying community, somehow inferior to the rest ...

I don't see it.

I do see discussions about what might be prudent for a person to do to prepare for the unthinkable. The decision is a personal one, but again, it should be an informed decision. The vast majority of the people I have met at the range simply do not have the knowledge to make that decision.

I push all the people I work with to obtain additional training far beyond what our employer provides us.

Good.

40 hours of initial firearms training and a couple days a year on the range to re-qual is far from sufficient to "qualify" the average citizen to carry a gun in my book, let alone be sufficient for those whose firearms skills are a condition of their employment.

What would that 40 hours cover, if not at least some "advanced training"?

Who's qualified to say who needs what amount of training?

Presumably, those who have taken some and observed more can make an informed decision about what they do need.

 

[Warp]

^I will say that in my (limited!) experience, the most difficult to instruct are middle age males who 'know what they are doing' and seem to be, in their mind, going just to show what they can do and get scores, not to learn what to do. Or that same demographic, even with the best attitude, has the hardest time because they are un-learning old (often bad) habits instead of learning from scratch.

That kind of thing is probably rather frustrating for some people, and it's much easier to go to the range on your own time and do your own thing the way you like and are comfortable with.

(incidentally I suspect that middle age males who have been shooting firearms a long time are the majority of members and posters on forums like this, so there's probably a lot of that ^ present)

in short 'Gun School' forces you out of your comfort zone. People don't like that.

And it's not just a firearms thing of course. Not by a long shot. Somebody mentioned an advanced vehicle/driving analogy earlier. Same thing. Doing your own thing is just more comfortable. And easier.