Formal Training Is Now Bad?

Officers'Wife said:

On the negative side, how do you determine who is an "expert?"

Click to expand...

You don't need an expert. You just need a good instructor.

The ST&T Library sticky has a little write I did a few years back that has proved helpful in separating the wheat from the chaff.

It also contains a pretty large list of instructors and classes. It's not exhaustive; I know some intinerant instructors who aren't on it, but it's a good starting point.


Ankeny, living in a Wyoming town of 650, no doubt you're used to going without a lot of the things in life that living in a denser population center offers.

I've seen a variation of this debate in quite a few places. Arguments against the benefits of training are few and far between. Arguments against mandatory training are common, and I happen to agree with them.

Perhaps a different argument than the OP has raised, but the two issues are sometimes confused.

Nowhere in this thread is anyone pushing for mandated, required training.

So let's not confuse the topic with that sidebar discussion, shall we?

Arguments over training usually default to:

1) I got all the training I need growing up

2) We don' need no steenkin' trainin'

3) Discussions of who gets to say what level of training is mandated for legal concealed carry, and whether that's right/fair/Constitutional etc

4) Training is elitist. Requirements for training for legal concealed carry are elitist and unamerican.

5) And a few folks (most of whom actually have some level of training as supplied by professional trainers) who say that training is better than no training, as well as being a faster and less expensive way overall for most people to reach good skill levels.

And so on.

So, what percentage of private citizen gun owners actually carry a gun every day?

What percentage of those actually have professional (paid for) training beyond that necessary to get a concealed carry permit in their state of residence?

Not a lot of people actually invested in this argument, I'd say. But they tend to make up for it in volume (loudness).

I can understand the opposition to formal training some have mentioned. They may see it as a future requirement if we support it and if it became a requirement then many would be denied the right to carry simply because they couldn't afford the training.

A little over a year ago I was seeking out some training and found that it was not an option for a mobility impaired person like myself. To put it simply I was told no. So I fall back on my military training and practice time.

So I use USPSA and other pistol matches as training opportunities for handgun and I shoot the occasional rifle match. Of course when this current mess manifested itself I basically stopped shooting. I've only shot about 1,500 in 2013 vs nearly 25,000 in 2012.

It's really the same issue about driver education. But, for the sake of the thread, let's escalate the level.

I frequent a forum where high performance cars are built from kits. The average baseline car will have less than 8 pounds per hp available, and the insurance is significantly higher because of it. The average daily driver tends to run double the pounds per hp.

Most of the owners don't even try to get professional training to learn how these things handle, even tho the highly emulated original maker made his entrance into the market doing exactly that - he hired professionals to teach driving to others. Add to that, the forum has no commercial sponsors of driving courses. They are out there, some even from the day when the original maker was in competition, but there is apparently no money or market to entice these kit builders.

I see the gun market exactly the same. How many gun and rifle training vendors advertise here? I can't even find the links.

Gun training and handling courses must not be important, or the ad rates too high to justify on the return from this market. There's your factual answer to how much regard it gets. At least I got my professional training in the service - but MO won't even give it any regard, IN/MP or not. I still had to take a CCW class to qualify.

That is the atmosphere we live in and why the comments are out there.

What surprised me as the backlash against the concept of formal training that the article produced.

Click to expand...

It's weird...

About a year or so ago, I ran into similar irrational angry posts on another forum where members screeched long and loud at me for trying to stress the importance of safety and situational training. They seemed to think that "anyone telling them anything about firearms doesn't know as much as they do already w/o the training."

I very rarely visit that forum since.

I went back and read the article again. The author never does indicate any particular level of training. He might be talking about a total newbie simply taking an NRA class, who knows?

The author does make mention of

In this day and age with an abundance of training institutions and experience offerings in the marketplace THERE IS NO EXCUSE.

Click to expand...

I agree with that assessment. However, there are training venues other than group instruction at "shooting" schools.

In a forum subsection titled Strategies – Tactics – Training, one could assume (ass-u-me) that the responses would be as an example pro-training. I recall an article excerpt written by Dave Spaulding. He elaborated on the different training he partakes in annually. He pointed out that not all courses are good training. One in particular he questioned the instructor on the number of rounds fired as opposed to instructional content and competency standards being taught. Spaulding was disappointed with the instructor’s methodology. (If you can’t dazzle with brilliance baffle with BS)

I’m old enough to say in my formative years that I read books and articles’ by both Askins (corresponded with him while in the military) and Cooper. The question would be who taught/trained either of these individuals. The answer would more complex than it appears to be for each.

Askins was lethal due to his mentality, superb shot, Border Patrol activities, and military experience (retired as an ARMY O-6). He went on to be a writer and dangerous game hunter of note.

Cooper’s WW2 experience was as a Marine Detachment-CO on the battleship USS Pennsylvania. His land warfare experience was bombardment survey assessment after the landings were made. I believe he was involved in very limited shooting incidents. During the Korean War he was in clandestine activities. Cooper would go on to be the originator of The Modern Technique.

Each would appear to be more self-taught than instructed.

Since the rest of us are not like the previously mentioned Askins or Cooper then we all need to rise to the level of our incompetency and go from there.

It is not that formal training is bad.

I am not aware of any argument against training. Arguments about training should not be mandated is a different issue.

^^^^

Bingo. I wish I could have been this concise.

I read the article. I can see why the author could have got negative response. It is not because he values training, but it has to do with his attitude "without training, you are just pretending." Although, I do not have an argument against training, I would not say someone is "pretending " for not have attended a formal class.

I'm talking about people who can't draw from a holster smoothly, take more than a second to break their first shot,

Click to expand...

I have timed dozens upon dozens of shooters on various courses of fire. There are precious few shooters that can bust the magical one second draw from concealment with their normal carry gear, cold and on demand. Just how high are we going to set the bar before we consider one properly trained?

I credit Massad Ayoob with my reluctance to take a formal course. I fully admit I don't have much of a skill set beyond basic safe gun handling and a knowledge of the laws regarding self defense. I realize a class could be helpful but I'm kinda afraid to take one. Here's why:

I was an avid reader of gun mags in the early 80's/early 90's and it seems like every other article was by Ayoob warning about juries and their perceptions. He warned about using reloads for SD. He warned not to select a gun with an aggressive name because a prosecutor could convince a jury to hold it against you---no Mossberg 'Persuader', no 'Hellfire' ammo, no Street Sweeper shotgun. Juries, according to Ayoob, could be convinced you were looking for a fight and turn a good shooting into a bad one based entirely on perceptions.

It sunk in, and in my head I imagined myself sitting in the witness box while a prosecutor pointed a finger at me and shouted at the jury, "He wanted to shoot somebody so badly that he actually enrolled in a gunfighter school to learn how to kill!" Crazy? Maybe, but I still choose ammo called something friendly like Gold Dot instead of something threatening like Black Talon or Zombie Killer. Ayoob made me paranoid of what juries might say about factors not even remotely related to whether a shooting was reasonable or justified.

Hay gize! Eff yoo formel trane yow get a tairning sckars!!! Tariners gonna punching yor inna FAYSE! I'TS DANJERUSS!!!

Hangingrock said:

… Each would appear to be more self-taught than instructed. …

Click to expand...

But can an individual be exclusively self taught? I'm not talking about knowledge of the legalities, I'm talking about hands-on defensive shooting. Can a motivated and reasonably competent individual study books and video materials authored by the experts, and train themselves at home and on the range?

SleazyRider said:

But can an individual be exclusively self taught? I'm not talking about knowledge of the legalities, I'm talking about hands-on defensive shooting. Can a motivated and reasonably competent individual study books and video materials authored by the experts, and train themselves at home and on the range?

Click to expand...

Of course. We know this, because every technique came from an individual with an idea.

BUT...

More often than not, people are not as exceptional in this way as they think they are. Most people benefit from training.

But can an individual be exclusively self taught?

Click to expand...

I fit that mold for some years. I did well at IPSC/IDPA shoots and considered myself reasonably well versed. First class I paid for (Tiger McKee at http://shootrite.org/) showed me how to fix a couple of vexing problem areas that 30+ years of shooting had not.

Heck of a lot cheaper to have a good coach/trainer/teacher observe and correct you over a weekend than spend years wasting ammo making the same sub-optimal movements.