Why Don't more People Go To Gun School?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: ...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.

There are indeed many people who are aware of the risk of attack by violent criminal actors who have made informed decisions to not carry defensive weapons. Perhaps, if they were to explain to us their reasoning, we would understand.

Of course, there are also those who are simply naive. People who frequent high risk areas late at night and who need not do so generally fall into that category.

I do choose to carry, but that doesn't make it right for everyone. However, anyone who does carry owes it to the rest of us to know when to not draw or fire his or her firearm and how to minimize the risk of hitting an innocent.

 

[harrygunner]

I bought guns in case I need to stop something abhorrent, that warrants a lethal response from happening or continuing.

After practicing to get decent groups on paper targets in indoor ranges, it occurred to me surviving a "life and death" fight can't be this easy.

Having spent nearly five grand on two custom handguns, I decided to spend at least that much on training. Otherwise, in my opinion, the money spent on just guns would not meet my need of stopping someone wanting to hurt family or myself.

Ultimately, over a half dozen years, received general self-defense training, Simunitions training of the 'Tueller Drill', shooting into and out of a car. Culminated in pairing with police officers while moving through barriers with live fire.

My overwhelming impression comparing myself before and after training is "I didn't know what I didn't know.". Could this be part of why some don't seek training?

 

[arspeukinen]

I'm from Finland, so I was in army for 11 months. After that I did take courses in reservist shooting and IPSC.

 

[torqem]

baloney on the fair-reporting being "our only hope". The real final hope is the bullet box. After all, we outnumber the cops and troops by 20 to 1, and we have nearly all the guns. Plus a lot of the troops and cops are on our side, and a bunch more won't take up arms against us.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by harrygunner: I bought guns in case I need to stop something abhorrent, that warrants a lethal response from happening or continuing.

I bought guns because I liked to shoot, but I started to carry to be able to defend myself.

After practicing to get decent groups on paper targets in indoor ranges, it occurred to me surviving a "life and death" fight can't be this easy.

You were a lot quicker on the uptake than I was.

I didn't realize that until I was exposed to some training....half a century later.

Having spent nearly five grand on two custom handguns, I decided to spend at least that much on training. Otherwise, in my opinion, the money spent on just guns would not meet my need of stopping someone wanting to hurt family or myself.

I have often said that going to MAG-20, for example, would represent a much better investment than another handgun.

Ultimately, over a half dozen years, received general self-defense training, Simunitions training of the 'Tueller Drill', shooting into and out of a car. Culminated in pairing with police officers while moving through barriers with live fire.

Good.

I haven't done that much, nor am I convinced that it is necessary for lot of people.

I will opine that one try of that Tueller Drill simulation would be a real eye-opener for some of the people who have been arguing that some good training is not necessary.

My overwhelming impression comparing myself before and after training is "I didn't know what I didn't know.". Could this be part of why some don't seek training?

I'm sure of it.

 

[torqem]

You can learn a ton of things from Airsoft training, that can never be learned with live ammo. Like how fast people can and will move, and how hard they are to hit while moving, and while using cover. I've had many a guy get shocked about how close he had to be with that knife, even if I stood still like a dummy. It's a lot closer than any 21 ft, believe it. If I'm free to back up, most never touch me, because I've bounced so many pellets off of their face mask that they gave up on the the idea!

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: I have no formal training but I read much ...

Reading is a good thing, but I really don't think that reading can tell you what you are doing wrong or how to change it.

On the other hand, "formal" training may not be in the cards for some people, either. Quite a number of posts ago, one of our Moderators who is an accomplished instructor mentioned that he provides one-on-one training.

I'm sure that there are others who can do that in reasonable proximity to most locations. You may have to look around and maybe drive a bit to find a range that allows rapid fire (some near me do and some don't), and you may have to do all of your drawing from concealment at home with an empty gun, but if you can arrange with a skills shooter who can teach you, will surely gain a lot more than you would solely from reading.

At the very least, a trainer should help you improve your stance, hold, grip, and trigger control and show you how to make rapid hits to center mass on moving targets, using stationary targets as a surrogate.

 

[JustinJ]

There are indeed many people who are aware of the risk of attack by violent criminal actors who have made informed decisions to not carry defensive weapons. Perhaps, if they were to explain to us their reasoning, we would understand.

Just ask them. The vast majority of people don't. What we must remember is that the risk of being the victim of crime is not the same thing as the risk of being in a situation in which a gun is needed to avoid serious harm or death. The latter is extremely, extremely rare for law abiding citizens. Many will realize that there is a fair chance that they could be robbed or mugged but don't see such as a justification to carry a gun. Many would much rather lose their purse or wallet than shoot somebody. They may also worry about the liability of carrying a gun as in negligent discharge or having it stolen and used against them. Some just dislike or fear guns.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Just ask them. The vast majority of people don't.

Actually, my comment was rhetorical.

When it comes to those whom I know who do recognize the risks and who choose to not carry, I generally do know why. And in most cases, I will not criticize or second guess their decisions.

And yes, your examples are valid ones.

 

[Mike1234567]

Reading is a good thing, but I really don't think that reading can tell you what you are doing wrong or how to change it.

On the other hand, "formal" training may not be in the cards for some people, either. Quite a number of posts ago, one of our Moderators who is an accomplished instructor mentioned that he provides one-on-one training.

I'm sure that there are others who can do that in reasonable proximity to most locations. You may have to look around and maybe drive a bit to find a range that allows rapid fire (some near me do and some don't), and you may have to do all of your drawing from concealment at home with an empty gun, but if you can arrange with a skills shooter who can teach you, will surely gain a lot more than you would solely from reading.

At the very least, a trainer should help you improve your stance, hold, grip, and trigger control and show you how to make rapid hits to center mass on moving targets, using stationary targets as a surrogate.

Again, I'm partially quoted without any indication of the snipping. I also stated that I never panic. Maybe that's because I don't care as much as I once did or maybe it's because no one is relying on me anymore. Maybe it's both.

My previous points restated: Although training is a good thing and I do support it... not everyone can afford it and not everyone is healthy enough for it. I later agreed with other posters who remarked about a certain elitist attitude that seems to exist regarding this matter... and no one has addressed that point.

 

[Warp]

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

What you are referring to is the fact that the vast majority of knowledgeable and experienced firearms enthusiasts recognize, and openly state their opinion that, training is good...and more training is better.

So, as a personal recommendation...please seek out training.

PS: It's fun.

 

[Sam1911]

I later agreed with other posters who remarked about a certain elitist attitude that seems to exist regarding this matter... and no one has addressed that point.

I guess no one really can. Anyone who has done something and then says that other people SHOULD do it (if they can) could be labeled an "elitist" by others who haven't done that thing and for whatever reason do not wish to or don't like to be reminded that they haven't.

(They may even be internally resisting the conviction that they should -- an uncomfortable personal struggle for most folks.)

I could tell you that you really SHOULD drink Chimay Blue Trappist Ale, if you can, because it is an incredible, life-enriching experience. But it's like $14 a bottle most places and that is going to seem an "elitist" thing to say to folks who have conditioned themselves to like Coors Light or Budweiser and can't imagine paying more than a buck a can for beer.

It may be an elitist thing to say. It is also completely true that it is a life-enriching and wonderful experience and folks "should" try it.

Sometimes statements are true and also not appreciated by others at the same time.

 

[jrdolall]

We are talking about guns.

Why don't people go to High School? College? Grad School? Medical school?

Because they don't think they need to, don't think they have the time, or don't have the money. Sometimes these are legitimate excuses and sometimes they are just that, an excuse.

I have two graduate degrees but I decided not to pursue a PhD because in my field it really was just a bragging point unless I wanted to become a college professor(no thanks). That was my excuse. I have been through FBI firearm training and DEA firearm training but I have never been to "gun school" because I don't think it is necessary. That's my excuse. It doesn't mean I don't think it would be useful.

 

[Mike1234567]

I guess no one really can. Anyone who has done something and then says that other people SHOULD do it (if they can) could be labeled an "elitist" by others who haven't done that thing and for whatever reason do not wish to or don't like to be reminded that they haven't.

(They may even be internally resisting the conviction that they should -- an uncomfortable personal struggle for most folks.)

I could tell you that you really SHOULD drink Chimay Blue Trappist Ale, if you can, because it is an incredible, life-enriching experience. But it's like $14 a bottle most places and that is going to seem an "elitist" thing to say to folks who have conditioned themselves to like Coors Light or Budweiser and can't imagine paying more than a buck a can for beer.

It may be an elitist thing to say. It is also completely true that it is a life-enriching and wonderful experience and folks "should" try it.

Sometimes statements are true and also not appreciated by others at the same time.

Bolded emphasis within your quote is mine...

But, Sam, most who are arguing the importance of training (no names mentioned) are not using the qualifier "if they can". They're intentionally ignoring it and pushing forward with insinuations that if we don't then we're either ignorant or irresponsible or lazy or cheap or have our priorities skewed. To blatantly ignore the affordability/time/health issues is de facto elitist... they just don't "see" or "accept" some of us. One simply cannot be more elitist than that. If those people are so disconnected from the realities of everyday lives of others... they're elitists. If they know of stated economic and health limitations of others and have no compassion for it... that's even worse.

 

[strambo]

So where is this "elitist attitude" accusation coming from? Are there any examples in this thread of anyone being elitist or condescending towards anyone for not getting training? Plenty have recommended it, say every gun owner "should" (would be a good idea and useful to) get it. But where has anyone said that you are lesser than or inferior if you don't get it or think it is needed?

To the contrary, those advocating for training in this thread have been called "elitist" and "gun snobs" something along the lines of "young know-it-alls"and my personal favorite (because it is so ironic) "incompetent." Yep, if you get a lot of training it is because you are incompetent. So who is calling who names and why? Why is this personal to anyone?

The thread is about why people don't go to "gun school" or get training. Basically either finances, time, perceived lack of need or a combination thereof. Just like anything else in life.

If you are ever to have to do something critical (perform a surgery, fly a plane, climb a mountain, get in a firefight), realistic training to prepare you for that ahead of time is a good thing and useful.

The odds of a civilian in the US getting into a firefight are about nil...so playing the odds will work for 99.999999999999999 percent of the population.

Edit: I re-read some of my posts since they were probably some of the blunter ones in this thread. I want to be clear (and I've said it in this thread before) I'm totally OK with someone not being able to afford training or it not being a priority. I also don't look down on anyone for not getting training. My responses were motivated by the statements about how training isn't useful or needed.

If someone thinks training is useful and wants to get some, but thinks they don't have time or money etc., I highly encourage them to re-asses. I'd be willing to bet there is a way to reasonably get 99% of those who think they can't, some high quality training this year.

I was briefly a personal trainer. The day I had a very obese young mother tell me she couldn't afford my services while also bragging about the expensive late-model Tahoe she just bought, I realized that line of work wasn't for me. I don't look down on her or judge her for her decisions at all. Totally her business, but I'm not going to try to make a living convincing others to re-arrange their priorities for what I think is their own good.

So, the opposite of what I'm being accused of as elitist here. I'm passionate about training because I hate reading about crime victims knowing that with some good quality training, the biggest nightmare of their lives could have been avoided. If someone wants to learn, I'm all about helping them and I train many folks for free. If someone doesn't want to, that's groovy, drive on, that's what freedom is all about.

I do look down upon gun owners who haven't taken the steps needed to learn how to handle firearms safely though, there isn't a valid reason for that. I wouldn't mandate safety training though, that is an individual responsibility that is the flip side of freedom.

 

[Hangingrock]

The average person as an example one obtains a driver’s license with a written test a basic demonstration of driving skills. Being average is to be adequate, with no major errors in judgment, and hopefully not be negligent by causing tragic incidents. Most drivers get thru life like this without taking advanced driver training.

The driving experience I realize may not be the best comparison. Maybe the average shooter falls into the same category as the average driver.

Back to firearms it would be safe to say that a Trainer is not going to tell you that you don’t need training. Most likely hell would freeze over before that occurred. Why not a training standard? It seems there are individual trainers pursuing their envisioned idea of what is or is not training.

If we use Gunsite course number 250 (GNC250) is an example of basic measure of competency level then we have a standard reference point of qualification. If your experience or training meets the criteria of GCN250 then basic competency is being achieved. If your level of training or experience is less than equivalent to the standards of GCN250 then you are less than basically competent.

Then there would be the next levels of ascending expertise using Gunsite course numbers 350 and 499 or equivalent as examples.

Last but not least is the subject is Mine Set and knowledge of the laws pertaining to self-defense.

 

[Mike1234567]

strambo... No one has blatantly called anyone inferior... just insinuated that training is paramount and must be done... and ignored addressing the fact that some people cannot attend such training for various reasons. Rather they continue espousing the necessity without recognizing some peoples' inability to follow "their lead".

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If we can't get Joe or Jane CCW to go to the range once a month and just shoot 100 rounds, how are we going to get them to spend $500-1500 for a properly professional training class and then have them follow up that class by attending a location or range where they can actually practice what they learned????

Shooting is a perishable skill and so are many of the skills learned at gun schools. So you have been to gun school, say three years ago. Great. Are you going through your drills at your location range and actually training or are you just sort of going and shooting?

I will say this, the vast majority of the public has no clue about gun schools or even that there is much in the way of good defensive training in their area (if there is). They probably know a lot more than they did 15 or 20 years ago, thanks to the internet, but most are still clueless.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Mike1234567: But, Sam, most who are arguing the importance of training (no names mentioned) are not using the qualifier "if they can".

A much more appropriate qualifier is "to the extent that it is practical for them."

They're intentionally ignoring it and pushing forward with insinuations that if we don't then we're either ignorant or irresponsible or lazy or cheap or have our priorities skewed.

Not at all.

To blatantly ignore the affordability/time/health issues is de facto elitist... they just don't "see" or "accept" some of us. One simply cannot be more elitist than that. If thsoe folks are so disconnected from the realities of everyday lives of others... they're elitists. If they know of stated economic and health limitations of others and have no compassion for it... that's even worse.

All of us have varying degrees of time and economic constraints, and not a few of us have health issues and other problems.

Those are practical issues. They are the realities of life.

To say that persons who carry a firearm for personal defense should be able to handle one effectively cannot in any way be considered "elitist".

That leads to the next question: what constitutes "effectively"? Just as in driving a car, few people will have any basis whatsoever to question their own competence until they have actually been shown how they would fare in the event.

Could you handle a Tueller Drill? I'm not sure I could, but I do know now that I would have stood little chance before availing myself of some training.

 

[Torian]

Simply put: I don't need a GUN SCHOOL to exercise my 2nd amendment rights.

Beyond principle...it is also a matter of time I'm willing to invest, money for the course and ammo, and paid vacation which I don't feel like blowing on it.

I've received a myriad of training on rifles and handguns during my time in the DoD, and at the end of the day, I don't feel any different carrying concealed than before I joined the force.

 

[Mike1234567]

IMHO, successful self defense without collateral damage is just as much about lack of fear or panic than about shooting skills... both about equal. It's like people who squirm and cry when receiving a hypodermic shot or getting a tooth pulled or having a broken bone set or having a few sutures to tie together a little gash. If those little things strike fear in your heart then facing a bad guy with a gun or knife will render your shooting skills useless. That fear will cost you your life.

 

[conw]

what makes us any different than the government entities whose rules we so strongly oppose --

I'm not personally advocating the advent of a new law or going out enforcing my beliefs with force to coerce people to follow them. Pretty simple. I'm using words (digital text). That's the difference. Also... Pretty different.

You are misinterpreting the word should. It doesn't mean the same thing as must, nowhere close.

That somehow, every citizen desirous of exercising a fundamental right must be trained?

No. You are creating a false premise, one that no one I've read in this thread stated.

In any case you're generalizing it to anyone who says should, and doing so uncharitably in any case.

There is a big difference between must and should and almost as big a difference between should and "should...if....", a qualified should. The qualifiers may not be readily apparent but they are there.

And who decides?

Each individual. Show me the statement you read as being incompatible with mine that we are all (pro training proponents in this thread) fine with individuals deciding.

Further proof: if we weren't, we would be busy lobbying for new laws (to enable coercion) instead of wasting time attempting to persuade with words on a discussion forum.

...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?

Most people are wrong then. Unless they are comparing present day to fictional Mayberry their impressions of this era being uniquely violent are perfectly inverse to the reality, DUE TO television and the way it skews perception of this issue.

We are at the current low point in a rather long trend of decline in overall violence (Steven Pinker wrote a well received book: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature)
...

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

So you refuse to attempt to persuade someone of one of your own convictions or beliefs using words and logic... because you see it as being equivalent to a government entity passing a law that enforces that law with coercion? That's almost unbelievable to me.

 

[strambo]

I wish the thread title didn't have "Gun School" in it. There have been a lot of posters talking about how they don't need to go to "Gun School" because they have LE, FBI, DOD, Military training et al. Roger, you have received formal firearms training as opposed to none so it makes perfect sense not to spend personal time/$ to get more or why it isn't a priority.

I have yet to attend a carbine training course, from all my infantry days and deployments it is a strength of mine. I went to "Gun Schools" and H2H courses to work my weaknesses the military didn't address well. My next training will probably be carbine though because that skill is starting to atrophy.

 

[tomrkba]

Most people suck at shooting. This is a fact demonstrated daily at ranges all over the country. Calling me a "training snob" because I said it does not change this fact. Call me racist for all I care since the name calling is used to deflect away from the name caller.

In the end, people need to grow thicker skins and swallow their pride if they want to learn a new skill. Many folks are afraid to fail and jealous of those who move past them. Programming computers is far harder than defensive handgun shooting and I have to pull people aside and talk them back into finishing the job or the shooting string. It is annoying, but its human nature to stay within known boundaries.

I watch this avoidance behavior at work all the time. Guess what? The IT guys who get ahead forge new ground, cram their brains with the latest info, seek out new techniques and build bigger and better projects. Others sit on their hands and do the same job daily with no interest in change. They freely offer their complaints about "those arrogant overachievers". In almost every case, the "overachievers" help the low achievers when asked and occasionally encourage them, but cannot force them to do anything. Being a good example and assisting when asked works best at work and on the range. Otherwise, just leave the poor performers alone to their jobs or range fun.

 

[Mike1234567]

Okay... so maybe the meaning of the word "should" should be defined...

should (Merriam-Webster): 1."obliged to, ought to" or 2."an expression of condition" or 3."obligation, propriety, or expediency" or 4."expression of futurity from a point of view in the past" or 5."expression of what is probable or expected" or 6."expressing a request in a polite manner or 7."expression to soften direct statement".

It seems that "should" can easily be misunderstood but "should if one is able" is not misunderstood. Too, if I can control my fear and practice shooting often then why "should" I seek the training that you think I should? If I become so incognizant (and this will certainly happen someday) that I cannot trust myself with a firearm then I'll sell them all. All the training in the world doesn't prepare us for that. And I'll no longer drive either.