Why Don't more People Go To Gun School?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by strambo: On a personal level, if someone owns firearms for self defense and takes that seriously, then it would be wise to attend some training.

I agree.

One need not necessarily travel far for it.

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.

Yep, but one is likely to learn and reinforce bad habits....

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.

Frankly, that is likely true for a lot of people who haven't had the benefit of some instruction.

What bothers me in this thread is the notion put forth by some that training isn't useful or needed or valuable.

I agree.

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.

Excellent point! Even with my professional background in risk management, the applicability of that contradiction to self dense somehow escaped me for a long time.

 

[Old Dog]

Quote:
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.

Yes, but only for themselves. We are wandering into the realm of telling other people what we believe they need ... And when we start saying amongst ourselves that everyone needs training, then we become strikingly similar to the government entities telling the people what they need -- and shall have, or have not.

You're really saying that you don't see an elitist attitude shining through? Sorry, but when the haves start talking about the have-nots ... well ...

I still encourage every gun owner I meet to conduct an honest personal assessment of what they think they may need, and can afford, in terms of firearms training. But I am not going to tell them what to do.

 

[Sam1911]

Not sure who you're referring to, Sam.

No one/anyone in particular. Just commenting on the varying perceptions about the issue.

 

[strambo]

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.

Mike,

Not that I know of...at least not at anything approaching a user-level cost (if you could afford one of these simulators...training wouldn't be an issue!). Dry fire is by far your best bet. With imagination (your gun, the 4 rules of safety and some dummy rds), you can take your dry fire practice all the way to the level of shooting while moving and executing reloads/malfunction drills against clothed, armed 3D targets in your home if you wanted to. Plastic 3D torsos are ~$30 ea., I have 3 and shoot them a lot, they last a very long time.

A step up in expense would be to get a realistic Airsoft gun. It won't have the same trigger feel (dryfire for that), but it will fit your holster and operate the same as your real gun provided it is a high quality replica of your gun model. I have a G19 gas blowback airsoft and a Sig P226. I don't own a real G19, so the Sig P226 is my primary airsoft trainer. Initial cost was $150 plus a spare magazine. It has a realistic weight and balance and working DA/SA trigger and decocker. Shooting it is about 1c per shot.

I can do force-on force with it, clear my house, anything only limited by my imagination. I taught my wife a quick combat shooting course with it before a deployment. It involved drawing, shooting and moving, use of cover etc. 3-10 yds, in our apartment's at the time's single car garage.

Actually, this goes back to training: very realistic and inexpensive practice is easy (other than time commitment and discipline to actually do it)...but you first have to have a good training foundation so you are practicing and reinforcing the right thing as opposed to bad habits.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

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

(Good stuff deleted for space.)

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

And this is, indeed, an important question.

The "need" is based on the individual's perception (right or wrong) of the requirement/desires of his particular circumstances, and the level of risk associated with the circumstances.

One the one hand, we could easily make the case that EVERYBODY would benefit from taking certain courses. But then, that can be said about anything.

Consider myself: I've said that I've never attended any such courses. (I don't count my required 8 hours of CCW training required by SC nor my 20 years in the Navy as a submariner. Small arms qualification is nothing more than classroom familiarization and qualification time on the range, even for the Expert Pistol and Rifle Marksmanship medals I earned.) I undoubtedly would benefit from nearly any gun class I might take.

However, given that I must weigh the realities of my time and fiscal responsibilities into this, my perception is that my current level of experience and knowledge of both my firearm and the laws is sufficient to allow me to safely carry my firearm and effectively use it in most circumstances where I would need to rely on it for personal protection.

I believe someone mentioned in an earlier comment that 2.5 million citizens each year successfully use a firearm in self-defense. That statistic alone should say something, especially when one considers that only a teeny-tiny fraction of those instances are likely to have involved people who had taken gun classes.

Note again: I'm not claiming to be a guru, nor that I cannot learn more, nor that I am on a par with any other given individual. But I DO feel that my personal decision is a fairly informed and open minded one and I freely admit I could benefit from taking such courses.

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?

When faced with the immediate necessity of using deadly force, the NEEDS of one citizen do not, in fact, vary significantly from another with respect to their ability.

However, I wasn't addressing this. What I was addressing is the individual citizens personal assessment of the risks associated with their life and how they balance that with other factors they must concurrently deal with in their day-to-day lives.

I freely acknowledge that when push comes to shove, every citizen who becomes a victim of a violent act NEEDS to be able to defend themselves.

But the perception of how much to prepare for that event is based upon the individual's risk assessment of their life. If an individual lives in a quiet, small town in a county that hasn't any documented history of violence for decades, then their evaluation might very well be that they don't see a need to attend a class on how to use a gun to defend themselves in a violent attack. Move that individual to an urban environment where gunfire is heard nightly and the little girl next door was just raped two months ago and that risk assessment will be different. In both circumstances, the NEEDS of the citizen during a violent attack will be the same. But the personal assessment of actually being in such a circumstance and requiring such training will be quite different.

Who ever talked about mandating anything?

My comment wasn't about "mandating anything". It was addressing the point of view that lack of time and money aren't valid reasons for people not to take gun classes. To put forth this reasoning, however, DOES identify the person as believing that such courses are, defacto, "required" in their point of view. The key, however, is "point of view".

 

[Old Dog]

Chief, more good stuff, thanks.

I had brought up two other areas, that of weapons retention and unarmed self-defense training; no one's responded to that yet ... again, I see an awful lot of guys buying massively expensive weapons and trying to get lots of trigger time at fancy schools, yet totally ignore these two areas. No thoughts on this from anyone?

Lost in this thread, as is typical on gun forums, is the fact that we all gravitate toward firearms as being the only means of defending ourselves and our families. If we ignore other realities, and focus on the gun as the sole method of defense, all the rounds we get to send downrange at Gunsite or wherever are just wasted.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

^^^^

Honestly, I believe from conversations with a variety of people who have attended gun classes, there is an emphasis on a holistic approach to self-defense...it's not all "gun". There's situational awareness, avoidance, etc.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief:...my perception is that my current level of experience and knowledge of both my firearm and the laws is sufficient to allow me to safely carry my firearm and effectively use it in most circumstances where I would need to rely on it for personal protection.

Do you have a basis for validating that perception?

I felt about the same way at one time...until I started thinking about the risk of a sudden, surprise attack by a rapidly charging, closing, armed violent criminal actor with an accomplice, and realized that my range practice had not given me the tools to mitigate that risk. I need to be able to draw more quickly and hit the moving targets several times very quickly. After a good training session, I learned that I could do that a lot more effectively after the training than beforehand.

When faced with the immediate necessity of using deadly force, the NEEDS of one citizen do not, in fact, vary significantly from another with respect to their ability.

Hence the skills, however they are to be learned, do not vary significantly.

I freely acknowledge that when push comes to shove, every citizen who becomes a victim of a violent act NEEDS to be able to defend themselves.

So, it is prudent to learn to do so.

But the perception of how much to prepare for that event is based upon the individual's risk assessment of their life.

The perception may be, but what will matter is an informed objective assessment.

If an individual lives in a quiet, small town in a county that hasn't any documented history of violence for decades, then their evaluation might very well be that they don't see a need to attend a class on how to use a gun to defend themselves in a violent attack.

...the NEEDS of the citizen during a violent attack will be the same.

That takes us back to strambo's point: "What bothers me in this thread is ...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".

In other words, one must consider the conditional probability. That's basic risk management.

In plain English, if one will not need to be able to defend oneself with a firearm should the need arise, why should one carry one in the first place?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief:...my perception is that my current level of experience and knowledge of both my firearm and the laws is sufficient to allow me to safely carry my firearm and effectively use it in most circumstances where I would need to rely on it for personal protection.

Do you have a basis for validating that perception?

I felt about the same way at one time...until I started thinking about the risk of a sudden, surprise attack by a rapidly charging, closing, armed violent criminal actor with an accomplice, and realized that my range practice had not given me the tools to mitigate that risk. I need to be able to draw more quickly and hit the moving targets several times very quickly. After a good training session, I learned that I could do that a lot more effectively after the training than beforehand.

Absolutely I do. Taliv in post #86 said:

"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..."

We often cite such statistics and draw conclusions to support or refute a particular case. I would say that out of 2.5 million cases of defensive gun uses per year, the vast majority of them were by people who had NO "gun classes" to speak of...yet the vast majority of them appear to have been able to effectively utilize a gun in self-defense for 2.5 million sets of circumstances. So, statistically speaking, I should be able to as well.

Again...don't take this as meaning that I think NO gun classes are necessary, or that people can't learn a lot of valuable information and skills and immensely improve their capabilities. Being able to swing a fist might passably serve one in situations of self-defense, but it doesn't render one a trained martial artist. (That was my attempt at a passable analogy.)

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: When faced with the immediate necessity of using deadly force, the NEEDS of one citizen do not, in fact, vary significantly from another with respect to their ability.

Hence the skills, however they are to be learned, do not vary significantly.

Absolutely. No arguement from me on this!

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: I freely acknowledge that when push comes to shove, every citizen who becomes a victim of a violent act NEEDS to be able to defend themselves.

So, it is prudent to learn to do so.

Again, no argument from me on this, either.

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: But the perception of how much to prepare for that event is based upon the individual's risk assessment of their life.

The perception may be, but what will matter is an informed objective assessment.

Well...ultimately what will matter in the end is whether or not that person's assessment, and the actions they took as a result, were accurate and sufficient to serve them through their life. If one is never attacked, then the answer is "it was sufficient". If one is attacked and successfully defends oneself (regardless of how well the outcome may have been), very likely the answer will be "I survived...but I COULD have been much better prepared." And obviously, if one was attacked and failed to successfully defend oneself, the any and all preparations they may (or may not) have made beforehand have failed.

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: If an individual lives in a quiet, small town in a county that hasn't any documented history of violence for decades, then their evaluation might very well be that they don't see a need to attend a class on how to use a gun to defend themselves in a violent attack.

Posted by RetiredUSNChief:...the NEEDS of the citizen during a violent attack will be the same.

That takes us back to strambo's point: "What bothers me in this thread is ...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".

In other words, one must consider the conditional probability. That's basic risk management.

In plain English, if one will not need to be able to defend oneself with a firearm should the need arise, why should one carry one in the first place?

I think that we're on the same page with respect to "conditional probability" as it applies to risk management.

But with respect to using a firearm, the often cited adage of "the first rule of a gun fight" is "to have a gun". (Yes, I understand not all fights automatically involve guns...but since we're talking about using them for self-defence I'll assume that this applies here as well.) One cannot defend oneself with a gun if one does not HAVE a gun in the first place.

And there is a very distinct difference between "one will not need to be able to defend oneself with a firearm" and "one has assessed the risk of actually requiring a firearm to defend oneself based on circumstances".


So, following this same logic you've presented here with your question, here is another question:

"Can a person adequately defend themselves with a firearm if they've never attended a gun class?"

If the answer to that is, at any time, "yes" for whatever circumstances one may postulate, then why should a person NOT carry a firearm for that purpose?

The ONLY way anybody can say a person should NOT carry a firearm is if the answer to that question is ALWAYS "no".


THAT SAID: There is ALWAYS value in training, especially continued training from competent sources. You'll not get any argument from me on this at all.

 

[justashooter in pa]

a collection of training certificates on the wall often makes incompetent people feel adequate. i don't have time for them. a man is known by his deeds, not by where he went when.

what next? a dress code?

 

[HeadJunter]

[M]en are overconfident and you have to get the skill level up to the confidence. With women you have to get the confidence up to the skill level. -Lana McVey Jimenez

Brilliant words. Training tends to accomplish both of those goals.

 

[strambo]

a collection of training certificates on the wall often makes incompetent people feel adequate. i don't have time for them. a man is known by his deeds, not by where he went when.

what next? a dress code?

Um, wow. My problem is I can't even find my cert. from Gunsite to get credit for the course toward my instructor needed continued ed. requirement. Not sure if there even was a certificate for the course I took with Bruce Gray? I have a massive amount of training, mostly H2H and almost no certificates or any rank/credentials to show for it. Lots of skills though, and isn't that the point of training? And if people attended so many training courses to get a certificate collection...why would they still be incompetent? How would you get to be so competent w/o training as implied in your post?

RetiredUSNChief

We often cite such statistics and draw conclusions to support or refute a particular case. I would say that out of 2.5 million cases of defensive gun uses per year, the vast majority of them were by people who had NO "gun classes" to speak of...yet the vast majority of them appear to have been able to effectively utilize a gun in self-defense for 2.5 million sets of circumstances. So, statistically speaking, I should be able to as well.

Drawing a conclusion based on facts not in evidence (that they used the firearm effectively). In the vast majority of cases, the citizen produces a gun and the criminal runs away. Or the citizen fires ineptly (maybe hits, maybe doesn't) and the criminal runs away. The majority of those un-trained citizens didn't effectively use a firearm to defend themselves. They just had one, pulled it out, and the criminal ran. So, to say that because 2.5 million people had a gun and survived doesn't mean that 2.5 million people won a gunfight or effectively used a firearm. Had the criminals all fought back, I bet the statistics would be way different. Again, my plan A for firearm defense isn't going to be just having a gun and relying on the criminal to quit...but that's just me.

In response to Old Dog's repeated Q about retention and H2H, I feel that this is most important. I don't view things as "gunfighting", "knife fighting", "ground fighting", etc. It is all just a fight, or violence. The best way to survive is by injuring the threat until they are non-functional via the best method at hand. You always have your body, may or may not, have a gun or knife. If you do have a tool, taking time to try to deploy it may not be the best option anyway. Might be more efficient to deal with threat #1 instantly empty hand, then deploy a weapon for any other threats at a distance still. Getting stabbed or clubbed while reaching for a gun might end you.

But...even fewer people are willing to seek out and attend high level H2H training than firearms training...that would be a real short thread. Ironically, the oft-heard counter point to why people don't bother to get empty hand training is "I don't need it, I have a gun!" (That they haven't trained with either )

 

[Warp]

a collection of training certificates on the wall often makes incompetent people feel adequate. i don't have time for them. a man is known by his deeds, not by where he went when.

what next? a dress code?

You must have accidentally replied to the wrong thread, because...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Drawing a conclusion based on facts not in evidence (that they used the firearm effectively). In the vast majority of cases, the citizen produces a gun and the criminal runs away. Or the citizen fires ineptly (maybe hits, maybe doesn't) and the criminal runs away. The majority of those un-trained citizens didn't effectively use a firearm to defend themselves. They just had one, pulled it out, and the criminal ran. So, to say that because 2.5 million people had a gun and survived doesn't mean that 2.5 million people won a gunfight or effectively used a firearm. Had the criminals all fought back, I bet the statistics would be way different. Again, my plan A for firearm defense isn't going to be just having a gun and relying on the criminal to quit...but that's just me.

Absolutely it's drawing conclusions based on facts not in evidence. It's a personal supposition, which I though I made clear...as well as taliv when he posted the comment I cited. In fact, the 2.5 million statistic isn't even a confirmed one, so even that is in question.

However, I disagree with you about "The majority of those un-trained citizens didn't effectively use a firearm to defend themselves." If the criminal ran away simply because the untrained citizen pulled one out, then it was very much effective in detering the crime.

And you're absolutely correct...Plan A should NOT be dependent upon waving a gun and hoping the criminal will quit. That's not just you!

 

[Sam1911]

"A man is known by...?"

Perhaps the greatest error in that whole puddle is that one takes defensive training to be known as or by something.

It's a skill set. It needs development and maintenance and lifelong study.

You may need it tomorrow and be able to pull together the collection of awareness, skills, and fortitude to prevail in that instant. You may need it tomorrow and have insufficient command of the needed skills to prevail.

You really don't know which until the moment has passed. It makes good sense to continue to strive to be ready no matter what.

(If you pick up some certificates along the way... hey, great. Cheaper than wallpaper, I guess.)

 

[Warp]

I don't have any certificates. Apparently I should? lol

I've received 'advanced' pistol training and received + given fundamental rifle instruction...no certificates though.

I guess I could take one of my blank RWVA certs, which I can sign/whatever, and put my own name on it. lol

The only time I wished I had a certificate was when I wanted an M1 from the CMP...but I got a waiver signed so no problem there.

 

[Warp]

It's not amazing. It's quite off topic. I had a response that was also deleted, surely for that reason. No need to detract from an already less-than-ideal discussion direction.

When posts get deleted it's usually a good sign that you shouldn't post the same thing again.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: I would say that out of 2.5 million cases of defensive gun uses per year, the vast majority of them were by people who had NO "gun classes" to speak of...yet the vast majority of them appear to have been able to effectively utilize a gun in self-defense for 2.5 million sets of circumstances. So, statistically speaking, I should be able to as well.

Surely you are aware of the fact that of that estimated annual number of "defensive gun uses", the vast majority do not involve shots fired.

That was true in the three cases in which I have defended myself against violent criminal actors.

However, it would probably not be very prudent at all to rely upon that outcome.

The indisputable logic remains, if you are going to have to fire your gun, you had better be able to do so, timely and effectively, without hitting any unintended targets. That means accessing the firearm very quickly, shooting it very quickly and getting hits, and avoiding wild shots. And for most people, it is FAR better to have someone teach them how to do that and how to not try that than to try to find out how to do so under stress when the occasion demands.

As one of our members likes to say, a gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

I would not advise anyone to carry a firearm for defensive purposes without having availed themselves of some kind of training that would prepare them for real-world encounters.I do not consider slow-fire bullseye shooting practice to meet that need.

Of course, the best thing to do is to avoid having to use it at all. But that wasn't the subject of the thread.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I had brought up two other areas, that of weapons retention and unarmed self-defense training; no one's responded to that yet ... again, I see an awful lot of guys buying massively expensive weapons and trying to get lots of trigger time at fancy schools, yet totally ignore these two areas. No thoughts on this from anyone?

This forum has a search function. Look for Southnarc. See how many folks here recommend his training. Go to http://shivworks.com/ and see what he teaches, or search the web if you want to see more.

Ignore those areas?

Hardly...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Surely you are aware of the fact that of that estimated annual number of "defensive gun uses", the vast majority do not involve shots fired.

That was true in the three cases in which I have defended myself against violent criminal actors.

However, it would probably not be very prudent at all to rely upon that outcome.

The indisputable logic remains, if you are going to have to fire your gun, you had better be able to do so, timely and effectively, without hitting any unintended targets. That means accessing the firearm very quickly, shooting it very quickly and getting hits, and avoiding wild shots. And for most people, it is FAR better to have someone teach them how to do that and how to not try that than to try to find out how to do so under stress when the occasion demands.

As one of our members likes to say, a gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

I would not advise anyone to carry a firearm for defensive purposes without having availed themselves of some kind of training that would prepare them for real-world encounters.I do not consider slow-fire bullseye shooting practice to meet that need.

Of course, the best thing to do is to avoid having to use it at all. But that wasn't the subject of the thread.

If I wasn't aware that the vast majority didn't involve any shots fired, then strambo's last post would have informed me!

But still...the gun WAS a deterent.

And I wholeheartedly agree that relying on the deterrence factor alone is bad juju.

Darned skippy people should learn the things you pointed out...but my point never said they SHOULDN'T.

 

[Warp]

I had brought up two other areas, that of weapons retention and unarmed self-defense training; no one's responded to that yet ...

I have received some training in each of those.

I also choose a "Level III retention" (according to the manufacturer, anyway) holster for the times I open carry

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'd also highly recommend seeking instruction from Michael Janich. While known primarily for his knife techniques, he actually covers many areas of defensive tactics

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

On the subject of firearms training opportunities within range, I just found one that meets the criteria for me (when I'm back home in SC, that is):

http://www.scgunschool.com/Defensive-Pistol.html

Just 10 minutes away, $120, and a full day! 400 rounds of ammunition needed (got plenty on hand).

I need to find something like this in the Hampton Roads areas of VA, too...anybody got some helpful links, I'm open to it!

 

[MICHAEL T]

Seems to me people in this country, do very well every day. Defending themselves with handguns or long guns , with out any real training. Many have never fired the gun till they need it. Their alive and BG is in hospital or dead. . The firearm is the delivery system Your the weapon and your will to live or protect you family makes all the system work .

 

[torqem]

Any time that it's more than plinking or slowfire group shooting, 90+% don't like it, at all. Make them ccw draw really fast, say, sub 1 second, to react, draw and hit, at 10 ft and make them hit fast, sub .20 second per repeat shot, and they hate it. Cause it's work, and it's dangerous work if you have not put in the requisite hours of focused practice.