I have nothing against training; I just don't believe that most people can't become safe & competent gun owners without it.
Of course, people who make their living at training might disagree.
Do we scare off would be shooters
- Thread starter olafhardtB
- Start date
- Status
Of course, people who make their living at training might disagree.
What were you? Why do you tell us you are/were an instructor without receiving training but then avoid telling us what instructor you were/are?
olafhardtB
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 393
Since I am the OP here I feel obligated to reply to the 50 + replies here. However I don't have much to say. If someone reads this whole post they can get a good idea of what I was talking about. There has been a good discussion. Thanks.
Then how do they become safe and competent gun owners?
hamp sandwich
Member
Has anyone ever actually heard someone say that they were discouraged from a fun activity because they had to "learn"?
I have not, but if that was the case, I doubt they had any interest to begin with. When someone is interested in a hobby, it's not so much the learning curve that's intimidating, but rather, those instructing. Our attitudes and demeanor towards new shooters is what will invite them in or push them out.
I have not, but if that was the case, I doubt they had any interest to begin with. When someone is interested in a hobby, it's not so much the learning curve that's intimidating, but rather, those instructing. Our attitudes and demeanor towards new shooters is what will invite them in or push them out.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not sure.olafhardtb said:
So you feel that telling folks they should get training, should practice, should clean their guns, etc. scares people off?
I honestly don't recall any threads where someone came here and announced they were looking at getting their first gun and there were inappropriate responses, over-aggressively promoting any of those things.
So you might be "tilting at windmills" here -- fighting a problem that doesn't exist. Where are these inappropriately assertive posts? Which new shooters do you think we've scared off?
I do recall several new shooters who've come here looking for advice and have soaked up everything like a sponge, coming back over and over for deeper insight and supplements to the instruction he/she's receiving at his/her local range.
Where is the evidence that we're doing harm? If you're calling for a change in how things are you'd better have some concrete proof that the bad thing you're worried about is happening.
Ok. Now hunting and ... poaching (really?
) ... requires safe gun handling (so were those guys SAFE? Or did they just manage to kill deer?) but killing a deer just isn't that hard. Hitting an animal standing still 50 yards away (or whatever) really isn't that hard, but we all know how many game animals are missed, or wounded badly and lost. You know hunters ... and poachers (great...
) ... who kill deer "successfully" without any practice? Fantastic! I know hunters who miss shots all the time and manage to wound and lose animals which will suffer, and/or die lost in a bramble somewhere.
What possible point could you have in suggesting that some manage to kill deer? So what? That is not evidence of safe or proficient gun handling.
Of course. That's something any trainer would tell you, too.
But bad practice with a .22 quickly becomes WORSE practice with bigger bores. Without a basis of skills to work off of, you spend the rest of your life fighting bad habits and trying to re-invent the wheel, discovering how to get rid of them on your own.
You question the safety rules? I'm almost amazed anyone would post that "out loud" but, if you aren't sure of what's behind your target, you shouldn't be shooting. Or do you mean you DID know what was behind your target after all? If you were "vigilant" then you would have known the lay of the land and that your shots weren't going to a house, school, road, or some other vulnerable "target."
Two point:
1) Yes, it is a fun sport and you can enjoy it casually without competition and strict goals. Plinking cans is fun. Machine gun shoots are fun. Etc., etc. BUT...
2) "FUN" does not negate the DEADLY SERIOUS nature of using firearms. Fireworks, automobiles, table saws, high voltage, rattlesnakes, alcohol and many other things can be FUN, too, but they are DEADLY SERIOUS. Forget that for one second and someone can be permanently dead. EVERY session with a firearm needs to have that knowledge hanging firmly in the minds of every person involved.
Does it take training to know that? Hmmm...it would seem to help, based on the new shooters (and a lot of old shooters, too) that I've met.
Oh my <diety>.
The idea that "I have a gun and I can hit tin cans with it, so I'm ready to defend myself" is a BIG part of why we end up with these stories of "good guys" ending up in jail for "defending themselves" with their gun the way their common sense told them to.
Yeah, if you're a crack shot with your plinking gun, you might hit your target. But the laws pertaining to self-defense are NOT AT ALL what average Joe picks up from his peers and his favorite movies and TV shows.
When we tell people they need training for self defense, THEY DO. And a big part of that training is NOT about how to shoot.
So, again, what is the problem you are asking us to solve with your opening post, and where is your evidence that it IS the problem you seem to think it is?
Last edited:
AZ Desertrat
Member
I think it is pretty basic that if shooters do not take this activity seriously, they should NOT be in the hobby. And women, due to their nature and lack of ego, make way better
and safer students of the sport than men. My wife is one of those. She is finally taking her
first gun/shooting course after being "afraid" for years. Safe shooting to all!
and safer students of the sport than men. My wife is one of those. She is finally taking her
first gun/shooting course after being "afraid" for years. Safe shooting to all!
Of course, more "training" would have prevented this: :banghead:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/us/washington-movie-theater-shooting/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/us/washington-movie-theater-shooting/index.html
What were you? Why do you tell us you are/were an instructor without receiving training but then avoid telling us what instructor you were/are?
At this point I'm going to call that you are not and never were a firearms instructor, based on what you have been posting (and not posting).
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
We don't know anything about the shooter's background, so why would we make an assumption either way.
Clearly there is NOT enough training and reinforcement of the idea that a gun belongs in a holster when out in public, and not in your hands.
But would that man have ignored the training, and whatever built-in internal warnings, and done it anyway? Maybe.
What does that prove? Nothing at all about training.
It's quite possible that it would have. Why was he doing anything with his gun in public, in a crowd?Shaq said:
The Four Rules of safe gun handling grew up on a hot range where it is customary to indeed go about with one's gun(s) loaded and where people are trained who will indeed be going around with loaded guns out in the world and about their normal business.
Gunsite is a hot range. The pistol in your holster, or the rifle or shotgun slung over your shoulder, is expected to be always loaded. So this is posted on every range at Gunsite:
A while ago I received the following (quoted in part) in an email from another Gunsite alumnus:
Real life in the real world is a hot range.
By following the safety rules and practicing.
I think training is a good idea but it is not necessary to become safe and proficient.
Anyone that cares about safety & proficiency will make the effort to be so, anyone that doesn't won't.
Also there have been some examples in the news and on you tube that some so called experts aren't always safe and or proficient themselves.
If you take lessons from these people you may actually be more dangerous.
Training from someone highly skilled is a good idea, training from someone who might have a piece of paper but is not highly skilled probably not so good.
Mandatory training bad.
I wasn't asking a general question, I was asking Shaq specifically how he expects people to become safe shooters without training, which he hasn't answered.
But since you've taken the question up:
How does one follow the safety rules without learning them?
If you learned them, then you've been exposed to some form of training.
I think Shaq is hung up on the idea of paying people for classes, which is not an all-encompassing concept of "training." Self training is still training. Informal training from fellow shooters is still training. Very low cost basic levels of training from sources such as NRA or Appleseed classes is far from the higher-cost schools Shaq was mocking in an earlier post.
That's the point. Training on some level is 100% necessary to learn safe gun handling, and stating otherwise is pure ignorance. The layered rules of gun safety are NOT intuitive, and are NOT common sense. "Common sense" often leads to stupid, tragic mistakes, and simply being smart (or thinking you are) isn't enough to learn a critical skillset.
But since you've taken the question up:
How does one follow the safety rules without learning them?
If you learned them, then you've been exposed to some form of training.
I think Shaq is hung up on the idea of paying people for classes, which is not an all-encompassing concept of "training." Self training is still training. Informal training from fellow shooters is still training. Very low cost basic levels of training from sources such as NRA or Appleseed classes is far from the higher-cost schools Shaq was mocking in an earlier post.
That's the point. Training on some level is 100% necessary to learn safe gun handling, and stating otherwise is pure ignorance. The layered rules of gun safety are NOT intuitive, and are NOT common sense. "Common sense" often leads to stupid, tragic mistakes, and simply being smart (or thinking you are) isn't enough to learn a critical skillset.
Last edited:
Theohazard
Member
You're right, it's not a good comparison; driving is a lot easier for the average person to learn. Virtually everyone today knows many people who are good drivers and most people least have access to a car even if they don't own one themselves; so the vast majority of people can easily have someone teach them to be a good driver. And most teenagers will receive extra training in high school. Add in the constant societal pressure to be a safe driver, from police on the street, to TV ads, to other drivers, to parents and friends; the average person is constantly reminded of how to be a good driver and constantly faces ridicule, punishment, and higher insurance rates if they aren't.Shaq said:
However, many people don't grown up learning anything about guns. The don't have parents who can teach them and sometimes they don't even know anyone who owns a gun. So what's the best way for them to learn how to safely and effectively handle a firearm? Just buy a gun and watch YouTube videos? That might work. But what's better is to get training and then reinforce that with practice and by hanging out with other, more experienced shooters. Now, the training I'm referring to doesn't have to be a formal class. But after spending years watching terrible shooters "teach" their newbie friends using bad techniques and poor gun handling, I think a formal class is the safest bet for the average new shooter.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,091
While some folks can and do become safe and competent gun owners without formal training, many will develop bad habits which are hard to reverse by doing so. This is where even the most basic training, will help, like what you find in State Hunter Safety courses.....many of the being on-line now, will help prevent.
I've found that the majority of the time, I'd feel safer in the field with my newly graduated 12-14 years olds hunting for the first time, than I would when hunting with their Grandfathers, who have been hunting and handling guns for over half a century.
The safety rules are in the firearms manual when you purchase the gun and available elsewhere if the person really wants to learn what they are. All you have to do is read and follow the instructions. No training involved just putting into practice what you've read. In other words self-taught.
Only effective for those that will do it though but training even from others doesn't guarantee that either, and if your trainer has bad habits it can actually make you less safe.
You did mention self-training which is self taught and I think that is what Shaq is talking about, that you don't necessarily require training from others. It really depends on what one puts into practice. All the training in the world isn't going to stop accidents with everyone and in some instances trained people become overconfident and actually make things worse.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
"If your trainer has bad habits..."
Well sure, that's kind of a self defeating objection. If your drivers ed instructor teaches you bad habits you'll learn to be a bad driver. If your scuba instructor teaches you bad habits you'll... Probably not resurface.
You can't say "training's not that important because you might get a bad instructor" any more than you can say "life jackets aren't that important because you might get one that doesn't float."
Well sure, that's kind of a self defeating objection. If your drivers ed instructor teaches you bad habits you'll learn to be a bad driver. If your scuba instructor teaches you bad habits you'll... Probably not resurface.
You can't say "training's not that important because you might get a bad instructor" any more than you can say "life jackets aren't that important because you might get one that doesn't float."
Bingo! Exactly what I meant. Refreshing to read a logical, coherent post!
For a change.
And on the other hand, with all the abysmal marksmanship and atrocious gun handling I see all the time at the ranges I frequent, the average person has a lot of difficulty learning to shoot.Theohazard said:
And if one goes it alone, he will go only as far as whatever natural talent he has will take him. If he has a great deal of natural talent, that might get him fairly far. But no matter how far he might be able to get on his own, good training will take him further.buck460XVR said:
To most people those will just be words on paper. All one needs to do is watch untrained folks handle guns to see how difficult it is to put those safety rules into practice without some good help.wahsben said:
At our Basic Handgun classes, the students read the safety rules, we discuss them, we put them on our big screen TV and recite them together at various times during the class, and the instructors model safe gun handling at all times so that the students constantly and consistently see the safety rules in action.
And even with all of that, when our students do the various "hands-on" exercises, handling guns under the one-on-one supervision of an instructor, we must still correct their gun handling practices to reinforce and inculcate the application of the safety rules.
And how well you demonstrate that you really don't know what you don't know.Shaq said:
I suggest that you take some time to study a well documented phenomenon, the Dunning–Kruger effect:
It would be a safe assumption that if he has a CCW, he received some "training" or, at least testing in proficiency & basic safety." The point is, he was stupid enough to get intoxicated, then carry his gun & negligently discharge it. There is no training that would prevent an idiot from doing something idiotic. Gun safety is a matter of the person, not their training & no amount of training will change a reckless idiot into a responsible person.
It would be a safe assumption that if he has a CCW, he received some "training" or, at least testing in proficiency & basic safety." The point is, he was stupid enough to get intoxicated, then carry his gun & negligently discharge it. There is no training that would prevent an idiot from doing something idiotic. Gun safety is a matter of the person, not their training & no amount of training will change a reckless idiot into a responsible person - any more than sending a drunk driver to driver training classes will prevent him from driving drunk.
Your ignorance is showing, and folks should know better than to assume anything. The incident occurred in Washington State. There in no training required to get a CCW in Washington State, so there's no reason to assume that his kid had any training.Shaq said:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Ok. I can accept that there are some people predisposed to be too reckless as a matter of personality.
SO WHAT?
It is in the nature of our very belief system to assume that such persons are rare and that the majority are capable of being taught and of being trained and of learning and engraining the lessons taught.
So your example of one doofus who couldn't or who chose not to really boils down to an argument that if this one guy couldn't be thoroughly indoctrinated in proper habits, that no one else can either and so training is useless.
And when you see that argument in its naked, shriveled glory, it doesn't hold a drop of water, now does it?
Say, I guess nobody else is going to ask, so what kind of instructor were you, anyway?
SO WHAT?
It is in the nature of our very belief system to assume that such persons are rare and that the majority are capable of being taught and of being trained and of learning and engraining the lessons taught.
So your example of one doofus who couldn't or who chose not to really boils down to an argument that if this one guy couldn't be thoroughly indoctrinated in proper habits, that no one else can either and so training is useless.
And when you see that argument in its naked, shriveled glory, it doesn't hold a drop of water, now does it?
Say, I guess nobody else is going to ask, so what kind of instructor were you, anyway?
entropy
Member
Agreed. I'm a 4-H Shooting Sports Leader, and we've been getting a lot more girls, and more suburban boys also. The farm boys are not a problem, their Grandpas and Dads taught them to shoot a .22 when they were 5 or 6 usually, and drilled the safety rules into them. (usually.) And the girls usually are not a problem either; they actually listen to both the rules and the training. They usually out shoot the boys. It's the suburban boys who think they are all Navy Seals because they've played Call of Duty or such, and think they know everything about guns.
But once they are taught that this is reality, not CoD, and that they will be taken off the firing line until they realize that, they usually straighten up. I believe that if I can teach them the right and safe way when they're young, and still foster an interest in shooting, It's a win for everyone.Never been through BRM, have we?
Though even there, it isn't 100%.
200Apples
Mojave Lever Crew
.
I am no one in particular, but I think this thread is excellent. Thanks to everyone that has taken the time and made the effort to post.
I think this is a good point at which to insert the Short Form of the Dunning-Kruger effect:
"Often wrong, but never in doubt." ...a condition which has manifested itself from time to time in my own existence (to put it mildly). I think training helps to alleviate it's symptoms.
.
I am no one in particular, but I think this thread is excellent. Thanks to everyone that has taken the time and made the effort to post.
I think this is a good point at which to insert the Short Form of the Dunning-Kruger effect:
"Often wrong, but never in doubt." ...a condition which has manifested itself from time to time in my own existence (to put it mildly). I think training helps to alleviate it's symptoms.
.
- Status
Similar threads
