Why Don't more People Go To Gun School?

[justice06rr]

I don't really call them "Gun School", more like Courses or Classes. Gun school sounds like a university or some sort of formal educational institution, rather than a Safety Course or Training Class.

I have done IDPA and 3Gun events. I highly suggest them to everyone. If you think shooting with one gun is fun and challenging, try three!

 

[torqem]

I've always considered 3 gun to be a silly waste of time/money. If the pistol can'/t handle it, stepping all the way up to the rifle (preferably sound-suppressed) is almost always a better move than hoping that the shotgun will suffice.

 

[Old Dog]

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...

Snarky? I was speaking purely in the context of this thread; I am well aware of the search function along with the fact that these topics have been discussed perhaps hundreds of times lo these past ten or twelve years on this very forum.

My point is that once again, it seems that people focus solely on the firearm as their sole means of self-defense, and that further, most Gun Schools are in fact gun-centric and do not deal much, if at all, with the topics of handgun retention and unarmed self-defense. And yes, I know there are schools that incorporate these aspects of defense into the curriculum, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

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.

One would expect that most of us here would make that very same recommendation, but there's still the reality that for a large segment of the gun-owning -- and in states such as mine where there's no training requirement to obtain a CPL -- having the gun and the ability to carry it is in itself, in their mind,enough.

Having pondered the OP's question, I think perhaps a better question than, "Why don't more people go to gun school" might be, "How do we encourage and persuade people to go to gun school."

Maybe it's slowly getting better, especially with the advent of the (seemingly) increasing numbers of shows on television (albeit cable outdoors/sports channels) that are have segments on firearms training.

I think there's still a large segment of the gun-owning population that isn't fully aware of all the training opportunities out there. Especially, as I noted, in states such as Washington where there's absolutely no training requirements for licensing.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I've never found an affordable carbine class that fit my schedule. I am sure it would help my scores at Tactical Rifle, because I am pretty much 'self taught' while picking up pointers here and there.

I know my ccw class helped a great deal, as did shooting a lot of IDPA.

Shoot a lot, listen and learn.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Snarky? I was speaking purely in the context of this thread; I am well aware of the search function along with the fact that these topics have been discussed perhaps hundreds of times lo these past ten or twelve years on this very forum.

No, I simply do not have the luxury of ASS-U-ME'ing who knows what about this board or its features. I leave the snark up to the professionals...
=======

Don't forget - there are any number of itinerant instructors out there who 'bring the school to you' - most any suitable flat range will do. These folks save on travel expenses for students by coming to a local range and offering classes there.

See the partial list at http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4964136&postcount=2 - and yes, it needs updating. Sorry ...

 

[torqem]

effective hand to hand skills take a minimum of 200 hours, spread over 6 months, so your body can grow to accommodate the demands. That's if you are male, strong, fit, healthy. Classes of more than 4 students are mostly just a way to build a lot of bad habits, like telegraphing your moves prior to trying them, committing body weight, getting "locked" into one position or stance or way of doing things. So you're looking at 5k$, if you are lucky. As much more, too, to really have ability with the pistol, due to the cost of range time, travel, ammo, etc. Once you get this ability, tho, it's no where near as hard/expensive to keep as people would have you believe.

 

[Ankeny]

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.

Kind of sounds like a good reason to take a class using sims and/or force on force. Hmmmm...I wonder if a USPSA National Champion has any business carrying a handgun if he hasn't gone to a "defensive" gun school. You know, guys like Dave Sevigny, Rob Leatham, Todd Jarrett, etc.

 

[Big_John1961]

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

That's all I needed to know.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Ankeny: I wonder if a USPSA National Champion has any business carrying a handgun if he hasn't gone to a "defensive" gun school. You know, guys like Dave Sevigny, Rob Leatham, Todd Jarrett, etc.

Many, if not most, or the shooting techniques taught by defensive pistol instructors are in fact those used in that kind of competition, and many, if not most, of the instructors are ranked competitors.

The skill sets overlap considerably.

 

[taliv]

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 ...

i understand what you're saying and see this too. i don't think it's intentional class warfare. just well-meaning guys trying to get others 'switched on' as they say.

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.

not trying to dispute this too much because your statement is appropriately qualified, but the implication is still there. what if 90% + of real world defensive gun uses are brandishing with no shots fired?

 

[JustinJ]

I'm too lazy to read all the posts but i'll just post my 2 cents. I suspect that most people learn how to shoot from friends and relatives. So long as safety and basics are sufficiently conveyed and occasionally practiced, I believe most people are adequately prepared to survive the vast majorities of potential encounters out there. Not to mention, the chances that one will actually need to fire a gun to survive an encounter, especially in a situation that requires a high level of skill, is incredibly small. Thus making it harder to justify the time and cost of training. How much time and money should one spend acquiring skills that in all likelihood they will never need? For most, I believe, a joy of shooting is a huge component in the decision to get training. They want to be better prepared but also want to a better shooter just because they love to shoot.

Certainly all can benefit greatly from good training. Probably the greatest value people and society can gain from training is equipping people with the means to use better judgment regarding when a gun is to be employed.

Personally, I've received informal training from some highly competent and skilled people but have never taken an actual class. I've done lots of reading on the legal considerations as well. I feel that I'm adequately equipped to use my gun in the vast majority of realistic scenarios, but certainly have plenty of room to improve. I intend to take courses eventually but its driven largely from a simple desire to get better rather than feeling a need to do so.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...what if 90% + of real world defensive gun uses are brandishing with no shots fired?

Well, for one thing, you have no way of knowing ahead of time whether your incident will be one of the 90% or one of the 10%. One needs to consider both the odds and what's at stake.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well, for one thing, you have no way of knowing ahead of time whether your incident will be one of the 90% or one of the 10%. One needs to consider both the odds and what's at stake.

Exactly.

Always assume it might go south and have a plan for that. To presume all you need to do is wave the gun around is to find out some people don't scare. They may be drug addicts, hardened killers, enraged individuals, or just plain stupid.

And that is also an argument to carry as much gun as you can carry.

Yes most of the time you won't need to fire, just as most of the time you don't need a spare tire or fire extinguisher. But the news papers are full of people who found out otherwise.

Deaf

 

[Sam1911]

There are lots of difficult to fathom questions involved.

"Most" folks go through their entire lives completely unarmed (in every sense) and live until cancer or heart disease hands them their final reward.

Some of us fall into an appreciation and understanding of guns, shooting, and the RKBA -- for various reasons -- and thus decide to be armed. (Nominally, at least.)

A few of that set then decide we should be armed as close to ALL the time as we can be, and thus start carrying a sidearm in day-to-day living.

How many people is that? Well, not bloody many, for sure.

Then in that small, small set are those who (suddenly?) realize that having a gun and whatever bit of skill with it has come to them organically through their acquaintances, jobs, hobbies, etc. is really quite distressingly limited and they could be 10 times as proficient and prepared to USE their weapons if they availed themselves of actual professional instruction.

Generally, that last set -- that 0.1% of the 0.1% of the 40% of society -- isn't any more at risk, or less at risk, than others in their same socio-economic situation and geographical location. And the kind of violent death they face isn't any more deathly, or less deathly, than which their peers may meet.

So it becomes more of a question of self-realization or the fulfillment of personal goals, to take training with this hunk of metal I've decided to carry around with me all the time.

"Hey, if I'm going to carry this uncomfortable (and legally weighty) hunk of metal around with me all the time, and I'm going to accept that I may be attacked with lethal force someday, and I'm going to be willing to reach for this gun to defend myself -- if all that is true -- then all that effort is a waste if I've not sought out the skills needed to keep someone from killing me before I can use it, or taking it away and beating me with it..."

Someone who doesn't own a gun and/or have any fighting skills is ignoring the reality of the interpersonal risks of violence in society.

Someone who has guns but doesn't carry is ignoring the reality of the interpersonal risks of violence in society.

Someone who carries a sidearm but doesn't pursue a fairly vigorous training program is still ignoring the reality of the interpersonal risks of violence in society.

 

[Old Dog]

Here then, is the situation we've created:

Someone who doesn't own a gun and/or have any fighting skills is ignoring the reality of the interpersonal risks of violence in society.

Someone who has guns but doesn't carry is ignoring the reality of the interpersonal risks of violence in society.

Someone who carries a sidearm but doesn't pursue a fairly vigorous training program is still ignoring the reality of the interpersonal risks of violence in society.

We are thus stating that someone who does not own a gun and/or have any fighting skills should acquire both.

Someone who has guns but doesn't carry should carry.

Someone who does carry, but doesn't train, should train.

We are decreeing that people need something.

Now that we have established our position, what makes us any different than the government entities whose rules we so strongly oppose -- when we maintain that we should not have to pay to exercise a fundamental right? That we should not have to ask permission to exercise a fundamental right? That we should not have arbitrary training requirements levied upon us before we may exercise a fundamental right? That somehow, every citizen desirous of exercising a fundamental right must be trained? And who decides?

Most people I know who don't own or carry firearms, and those who own them but don't pursue training, aren't necessarily ignoring the reality of the risk of violent encounters -- they are simply performing their own personal risk management assessment and choosing priorities. I've met women who've been rape victims who still don't even carry OC, let alone a gun. I know guys who've been victims of street muggings , same. I know people who don't have one single fire extinguisher in their homes or vehicle, people who don't have good home insurance policies ... and on and on ...Most people are well acquainted with the violent realities of life in this era, in this country. How can you not be, if you get out of your home or own a television?

I love Gun School. I am going to take a class from Ayoob at FAS and boy, am I stoked. But I can afford it, and I have deemed further training as essential to my life (as well as my family's) and my job. I encourage people to take training courses, but I am not gonna tell them they should ... (even though I may believe this).

 

[Sam1911]

Now that we have established our position, what makes us any different than the government entities whose rules we so strongly oppose

Well, that's pretty obvious. We have no ability to COERCE them to do what we think they should do.

None of us are offended that the government THINKS we should have health care, or THINKS we should give up arms. We only care what the government can FORCE us to do.

Until I FORCE someone to take training, I'm in entirely a different, and quite positive, position role than is the government.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Now that we have established our position, what makes us any different than the government entities whose rules we so strongly oppose -- when we maintain that we should not have to pay to exercise a fundamental right? That we should not have to ask permission to exercise a fundamental right?...

We're not government. We're private citizens. And we, each of us, has the freedom to hold our individual opinions about what's good or right or appropriate. We also have freedom of association.

Someone has the legal right to walk down the street looking like a gang member with his baggy jeans down below his butt and his cap worn sideways. But I don't have to invite him to my house.

You may have the legal right to acquire and carry a gun without any training at all. But it that's your choice, I'm not going to congratulate you for it.

 

[Sam1911]

Most people I know who don't own or carry firearms, and those who own them but don't pursue training, aren't necessarily ignoring the reality of the risk of violent encounters -- they are simply performing their own personal risk management assessment and choosing priorities. I've met women who've been rape victims who still don't even carry OC, let alone a gun. I know guys who've been victims of street muggings , same. I know people who don't have one single fire extinguisher in their homes or vehicle, people who don't have good home insurance policies ... and on and on ...Most people are well acquainted with the violent realities of life in this era, in this country. How can you not be, if you get out of your home or own a television?

They are more or less well acquainted with them. They are still disregarding (ignoring) them.

And that may work out perfectly well for them. Or not.

I encourage people to take training courses, but I am not gonna tell them they should ... (even though I may believe this).

So you won't say what you believe to be true?

"I encourage you to, but I won't tell you you should?"

Seems nonsensically contradictory to me. At the very best it is a mighty fine hair to split.

This thread isn't about forcing, coercing, or otherwise pressuring anyone into doing what they don't want to do.

The question is "WHY don't more people go to gun school?"

Maybe it's because the rest of us are so AFRAID to tell they they should.

 

[Old Dog]

So you won't say what you believe to be true?

"I encourage you to, but I won't tell you you should?"

Yeah, you're right -- it's a fine hair to split. And, heh -- I always tell people what I believe to be true. But I am now old enough to have seen what works, and what doesn't work, when you have to confront another person and attempt to cajole them to improve their own circumstances (when, in your own judgement, it's for their own good). How well does it work out for most of you when you tell another individual (when not in the context, for example, of supervisor to employee, NCO to recruit, manager to assistant, wife to husband, father to son) what they SHOULD do? Especially if it costs them what may be to them a substantial amount of money and time away from work or family?

I really don't want the anti-gun faction in our governments to start publicly clamoring for training requirements for gun-owners and gun-carriers after they conclude that a plurality of folk in the gun community state that everyone who owns or carries a firearms NEEDS training ...

The system has worked pretty well up 'til now. Gun-related accidents or fatalities due to lack of training on the part of gun-owners happen regularly, but don't seem to be of enough statistical significance to sway public opinion much one way or the other (the high-profile active shooter incidents are another issue). People who want to get training find a way to obtain it. "Gun schools" seem to be flourishing. More and more private citizens are seeking out training than ever before, and this seems to be a growing phenomenom.

This thread isn't about forcing, coercing, or otherwise pressuring anyone into doing what they don't want to do.

No, but we sure seem to have a lot of members (and most of the moderators) going on record stating that everyone needs training.

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah, that's true, and I've said it myself. Folks should get training. No one should ever be FORCED to get training in order to own or carry a firearm.

 

[undeRGRound]

Can you keep your brass? If not, that's enough reason right there for me. I couldn't bear the thought of losing that much brass.
Guess you could always go the steel route.

Several thousand rounds of brass is a real DEAL BREAKER!

That is part of their "profit margin" lol

 

[torqem]

when you figure the odds

most people never have a violent confrontation in their entire lives. and when you take the 40% who do have ONE such, 90% of the time, brandishing suffices, and of the remaining small %, many would be attackers will have their minds changed by some near misses, poor hits, wussy loads, etc.

It's actually pretty rare to have "shoot him into the ground", with lots of swift chest hits using a powerful load. Good thing, cause there's only a very few thousand people in the entire US who could manage the task (and who also ccw a real gun often enough to be ready for it.)

IPSC only has 50,000 competitors, IDPA about half that. 10% are A class (ie the only ones who might be good enough) and at least half of A class doesn't ccw or they have no combat mindset. Yes, there's about as many more who used to compete, don't anymore and are still competent. Whoopee, 10k people, tops, in the entire USA are at the levels where they could (probably) handle it, and who actually ccw. Probably less than half that many, actually.

I've seen SEAl advertising sorts of video demos, and with handguns, they didn't impress me a bit. I've seen SWAT cops that were no better, and in fact, many are much less skilled than the SEALS.

I've been told, by a trainer of the Delta Force that "shooters they ARE, gun men they aren't".

 

[lobo9er]

The point is, I believe training is essential, but many folks are getting great results from training aids and dry fire drills, etc. To those that say:
"You gotta have x,ooo rounds through your carry weapon"

I say




PS: I would attend a good training school if one were:

1. LOCAL
2. AFFORDABLE
3. ON WEEKENDS

i agree with this guy on the 1st page of posts

 

[JustinJ]

Most people I know who don't own or carry firearms, and those who own them but don't pursue training, aren't necessarily ignoring the reality of the risk of violent encounters -- they are simply performing their own personal risk management assessment and choosing priorities. I've met women who've been rape victims who still don't even carry OC, let alone a gun. I know guys who've been victims of street muggings , same. I know people who don't have one single fire extinguisher in their homes or vehicle, people who don't have good home insurance policies ... and on and on ...Most people are well acquainted with the violent realities of life in this era, in this country. How can you not be, if you get out of your home or own a television?

Without going into specifics which would derail this thread, there are numerous steps and activities people could engage to mitigate far greater risks to their life than bad guys. The chances that a normal law abiding citizen will ever need a gun to survive an encounter is so ridiculously small most would be shocked. So I certainly would not consider people who choose not to carry irrational or ignorant of threats either. They just simply don't see the threat as great enough to warrant the hassles and responsibilities of carrying a firearm. I personally enjoy shooting so the I don't really see it as a hassle to train and study enough to be adequately proficient but I can fully understand why others don't. But hell, i carry a gun every day but started smoking again so my risk analysis/mitigation abilities are far from perfect.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Old Dog: I really don't want the anti-gun faction in our governments to start publicly clamoring for training requirements for gun-owners and gun-carriers after they conclude that a plurality of folk in the gun community state that everyone who owns or carries a firearms NEEDS training ...

I think that the greater risk is that of a swing of the pendulum against permitting lawful carry.

At least two things could conceivably bring that about. One is a nonsensical reaction to incidents of "gun violence". The one remaining newspaper in our city, which has a very high rate of violent crime, is on that bandwagon again, and the social media indicate that there is a large amount of pent-up energy in support of that opinion. Reason and fair reporting are our only hope.

The other is the possibility of a series of publicized incidents in which the reaction of lawfully armed citizens of results in wrongdoing or accidental death. Our hope there is prevention. We've seen a few really dumb and very unfortunate actions already. We need to keep the frequency very low.

Where I live, an eight hour course is mandated for anyone who wants to carry concealed. The shooting portion will not prepare anyone for a dangerous encounter.

My experience, and comments from instructors I know, indicate that a fairly sizable number of applicants who take the class are actually surprised to learn that they should not be try to hold persons who have committed misdemeanors at gun point, or shoot at fleeing vandals or burglars or prowlers, or shoot at trespassers. It goes back to Tom Givens' comment that too many people have learned too much in the way of misinformation from television.

I think we will all agree that we do not want armed citizens breaking the law or acting negligently. I believe that the best way to prevent that is to impart skills and knowledge to them.

Whether the means to do that should be mandatory is debatable. But I sure prefer the imposition of mandatory training to the prohibition of the carrying of firearms.

And that was the choice faced by our legislature some years ago. The compromise led to mandatory training, a minimum age of 23 (since amended to 21) and the establishment of too many "gun free" zones. On that last one, private businesses put up "no gun" sings all over, but most have come down.

...we sure seem to have a lot of members (and most of the moderators) going on record stating that everyone needs training.

I'll go on record in saying that every person who carries a firearm needs to be able to use it safely and effectively, and when and to know how to avoid using it unlawfully, the latter for our benefit as well as theirs.

When and if someone comes up with a way for people to gain those skills and that knowledge without education and training, I will gladly agree that there is a reasonable alternative.