Formal Training Is Now Bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trunk Monkey

Trunk Monkey

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
4,120
Location
Colorado
On another forum I read occasionally someone posted a thread about the desirability of aquiring professional training with the following article linked.

http://themoatgroup.us/post/71687081355/without-training-you-are-just-pretending

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

Maybe I read it wrong but I get the author as saying if you’re going to carry a firearm you need a little more than basic firearms safety training. But most respondents said that the concept of formal training was unnecessary and elitist.

To me carrying a gun is serious business and I want all the instruction I can get. Am I the weird one?
 
I don't see what you're seeing. I see 40 or so folks who "liked" it.

You're not going to read much here that downplays the importance of good training and regular practice.

There are the occasional, "self-taught, I do ok" responses, but by-and-large quality training is a highly valued thing in these parts.
 
A link to the forum that hosted the negative feedback would be helpful here - everything at the article source (so far) was supportive.

ETA - Well ... maybe not so helpful after all. Forget I said that.
 
I get the impression that plenty of people on THR are strong advocates for getting as much training and practice as you can. Training is a cornerstone of responsible gun ownership. That being said, not everyone can afford reqular training (especially if your like me and you blow all your money on reloading supplies and hunting gear), so reading books and self-practice are the best they can do. If you can't afford training and you have someone telling you that you shouldn't be carrying, I can see how people could take that as elitist.

Take a look at some of the most recent threads in strategies, tactics, and training. Even your own recent post TrunkMonkey about your reaction to shots fired in your vicinity, people gave a lot of responses regarding training and mindset.
 
That does indicate a very good point. This is one of those areas where a tough balancing act needs to take place. It is vitally important to stress just how very important training is, without coming out and saying, "YOU shouldn't carry a gun."

(Sort of like in other discussions where we dance around the matter of flaunting wealth and/or taking dumb risks but have to avoid "blaming the victim" when dissecting a specific attack or self-defense encounter. Same kind of delicacy/tact involved.)

Then again, some folks -- manly men at keyboards, mostly -- feel you have to "tell it like it is" and not pull any punches ... and that tends to cause enough smoke and dust to fly so as to obscure the value in the point they were making.
 
But most respondents said that the concept of formal training was unnecessary and elitist.
Click to expand...
That statement in itself is elitist at best and mostly self deluding

People who usually say that don't know, what they don't know
 
Tony k said:
That being said, not everyone can afford reqular training (especially if your like me and you blow all your money on reloading supplies and hunting gear), so reading books and self-practice are the best they can do.
Click to expand...
While I do understand this POV, I lean toward it being a false savings.

It depends on how highly you value the ability to be able to operate in a defensive deadly environment. For less than the price of a 2nd gun, you can get professional training and acquire skills it would take you hundred of hours and countless wasted rounds to learn on your own. Putting off one hunting season, could make you highly competent with a handgun
 
The question is "what constitutes training and how much training is acceptable?"

We could be at one end of the spectrum and say that so long as a person knows and is capable of understanding the Four Rules, then he/she should be allowed to carry.

We could traverse to the opposite end of the spectrum and say that unless a person has had extensive self-defense/combat experience and a degree in criminal law centered around firearms then he/she should NOT be allowed to carry.


Regardless, there has to be a balance. One does not have to go through life knowing every little aspect about every little detail of the world in order to survive...but they DO need a good grounding in the basics from which to derive well thought out courses of action.

I don't think you'll find very many people, if any, on THR who would argue that more training would be bad. Probably plenty who would disagree on a minimum, perhaps.

My opinion is that, as a rule, anybody considering carrying a firearm for self-defense needs the following:

1. Well grounded in the Four Rules.
2. Well grounded in the mechanics and operation of the firearm being carried.
3. Proficient enough with the firearm being carried to reliably hit center of mass at 7 yards (or greater).
4. Well grounded in the legal definition of deadly force for the state they carry in, including when deadly force IS AND IS NOT authorized.


NONE of this requires formal training to obtain. It'd be nice to get it, but it's not rocket science here. For myself, I've never taken a formal course...but I'm planning on one because I think it's the smart thing to do.


And part of this training necessarily includes having an open mind about learning more or to being corrected. Too many times, even on this site, I've seen people with gross conceptual errors in their legal judgement which could result in very tragic circumstances for them if acted upon...yet rather than learn what the laws actually SAY, they continue to insist upon reading what they WANT them to say.

The law isn't about what you WANT it to be...it simply is what it is. If it doesn't honestly say what you want it to say, then you'd better face up to that and learn what it really means.
 
I think training is important, but I think this part is overstated and could result in some negative pushback:
I am a firm believer that without training on the weapon you carry…you are MORE dangerous to yourself and loved ones than you were when you didn’t have one.
Click to expand...
If you interpret that as "formal training", then that statement goes way overboard, I think.
 
TM, you lost me.


I didn't see any push-back on the comments in that article.


As Tony K pointed out, you've realized you have some gaps and explored those here.

That's OK. Before training we all had the same gaps.

Men like to think they are natural-born car mechanics, great lovers, and hot shots with guns. But once we mature a bit and stop pretending, honestly look in the mirror, swallow that pride and self-assess we can admit we are ignorant and need some guidance.


Only the foolish think they know it all, and what they don't know they can figure out on their own. Egos are funny like that.


I'm with 9mmepiphany on this one. A lot of folks would be much better served by not buying yet one more, need-to-have gun and putting those dollars into learning how to fight with the gun they have now.


So I'm not sure the point of this thread. If you want to be talked into taking a class, or talked out of one, just decide who you want to listen to because you can find defenders for either position.

I'll say this though - I've never, ever, not once seen a novice student walk away from a class intended to teach him how to fight with a gun say at the end, "That was a waste of money and time. I knew all that stuff already. I'm a crack shot and he didn't teach me nothin' I couldn't have figured out on my own."

I've lost track of how many had their world expanded when they suddenly realized how much they didn't know.
 
totally in agreement with the above post.

Training (with an instructor that is) is a much better investment than
purchasing another firearm or swapping for a bigger caliber.

Ideally, training should be followed up with self-directed training in the form of drills, exercises. A timer helps to measure one's progress.
Doing those with friends who have also take formal training, or doing so in an IDPA/USPSA environment, can yield big dividends.

A guy who claims to be proficient should nurture his skillset; that takes money for ammo rather than another gun.
 
I'll say this though - I've never, ever, not once seen a novice student walk away from a class intended to teach him how to fight with a gun say at the end, "That was a waste of money and time. I knew all that stuff already. I'm a crack shot and he didn't teach me nothin' I couldn't have figured out on my own."

I've lost track of how many had their world expanded when they suddenly realized how much they didn't know.
Click to expand...
I'll expand on this and say that I've seen above average shooters who have their eyes opened, after attending good training, to things that couldn't even imagine doing before the class.

I taught with a shooter that friends called the "Human Machine Rest" for his ability to to shot machine sized groups freehand during classes. One of the things clients loved was a parlour trick we used to do at the end of class. We'd have each of them insert a playing card, edgewise into their target, have them back off 5 yards and shoot at the card, cutting it in half. Then they get their picture taken with their card.

It was just a demonstration of trigger control, but it also proved to themselves that they could do something they had previously believed undoable
 
The thread I'm talking about with all the negativitywas on another vbulletin forum which shall remain nameless. I was referencing the comments made by respondents there.

The interesting thing is that the people that are the maddest insist that the article says that if you don't train to the perceived level of the author you aren’t fit to carry a gun and I’ve read the article through and I don’t see it. I see the author saying training is good stuff get what you can. They also have said over and over that just growing up around guns was all the training they needed

I think part of the reason that the article stands out to me is because I’ve been able to get some professional training through my involvement in my church’s security team and I’ve been amazed at how much I didn’t know.

Someone referenced my incident the other night and while in retrospect it was a pretty minor even I think the training I’ve had is why I handled it as well as I did.
 
Support the OP 100%.
As far as i am concerned ... There is nothing more important than excellent training.
I would rather have great traing and an average weapon ...
Than the other way around.

CA R
 
I am wondering what percentage of CCW holders can claim to have "good training"? There is no requirement, for example, in New York State to even have touched a firearm before being issued a permit to carry. All you need to do is sit through a "hands-off" class. It is largely an individual decision to get good training, and I believe many untrained CCW holders are delusional about the security a firearm provides them. Ditto for legal matters.

Good training needs to be more affordable to the masses, I think, as well as more attainable in terms of location. The average YMCA or community college is not likely to offer CCW training in the same context as Ballroom Dancing or Ceramics, and I don't think your average working guy is willing to invest a week or more of his vacation to travel a great distance to learn a skill that likely he may never need. (I'm not suggesting this is right, just saying it's a reality.) Training also needs to be recurrent, so keeping it local and affordable takes on added significance.

What's affordable? Well, notice I didn't say cheap. It really becomes a matter of how you allocate your existing funds; for example, putting $1,500.00 dollars worth of heating oil in your tank instead of buying tickets to the Superbowl. I believe most would opt for the heating oil and then watch the game on television. All I'm saying is that I believe there's a market out there for good training at a price that will encourage folks to partake of it.
 
I just moved to North Carolina and a few co-workers were telling me about self defense shootings where the CCW holder had formal training, or had modified his gun (trigger job) and these things cost him dearly in civil court. It was ruled that he was "looking for a fight" because he had been "trained to kill". I guess there were no criminal charges that stuck because he was within the law as far as using self defense, but was held liable in civil court because of his training.

Crazy.
 
Model4006. ... Yes that is crazy.

But thanks for pointing it out ... Because more training should not produce a more aggressive attitude. It still pays to walk away from a fight if that can be done without anyone getting hurt.

CA R
 
I haven't had much formal training, but certainly see the value in it. It's nearly impossible to carry where I live (at least today), but I do have a good understanding of the four rules and my "handy gun." When I can carry regularly, I will be much more energized about receiving further training.

My local state rifle association's range offers defensive pistol and other training that includes LEOs and civilians in the classes (I picked up a big OWB Safariland rig to be ready to take the plunge and not look like a total noob). It seems to me that, along with Massad Ayoob's guidance on using ammo used by your local LEOs, that receiving training that is nearly equivalent to that of local professionals can only make you more competent AND less likely to look like a cowboy in the tragic event of actually having to use your weapon to defend yourself or your family.
 
"I am wondering what percentage of CCW holders can claim to have "good training"? There is no requirement, for example, in New York State to even have touched a firearm before being issued a permit to carry. All you need to do is sit through a "hands-off" class. It is largely an individual decision to get good training, and I believe many untrained CCW holders are delusional about the security a firearm provides them. Ditto for legal matters. "

I don't have a problem with people bearing arms (of course) but do have concerns about what you said. Things can unfold on the street in so many different ways that it can be difficult to make a good judgment when shots are fired ... Or a lethal threat emerges. I am surprised that the "small army" of CCW gun bearers has not already had some major legal issues. I have to guess that those consequences are coming. To me ... This is an excellent argument for more training.

CA R
 
Model4006 said:
I just moved to North Carolina and a few co-workers were telling me about self defense shootings where the CCW holder had formal training, or had modified his gun (trigger job) and these things cost him dearly in civil court. It was ruled that he was "looking for a fight" because he had been "trained to kill". I guess there were no criminal charges that stuck because he was within the law as far as using self defense, but was held liable in civil court because of his training.
Click to expand...

I would want to see some documentation before I believed those stories. Especially if they were the "friend of a friend" variety
 
CA Raider said:
But thanks for pointing it out ... Because more training should not produce a more aggressive attitude. It still pays to walk away from a fight if that can be done without anyone getting hurt.
Click to expand...

When I was training in self defense years ago I noticed that I was getting less and less aggressive. Displays of bravado and aggression usually happen when someone is afraid or insecure. There's also a sense of responsibility that should go along with having a lethal weapon in your possession.
 
Good training needs to be more affordable to the masses, I think, as well as more attainable in terms of location.
Click to expand...
No kidding. I live in the middle of Wyoming in a town of 650 people. Formal training is not very available and whe it is available it is expensive in terms of travel, motel rooms, fees, etc.

I have had one "formal" training class, and that was a competition class from Ron Avery. The rest of my training was done one on one with friends who coached me through the years. Some of those coaches were LEO trainers, some were PPC shooters, some were USPSA shooters and the list goes on. It is possible to become very well trained without spending a dime on a class, if a new shooter can find a competent coach. Unfortunately, that is a huge "If".

I'll throw this out for food for thought. When I was in my prime shooting form (USPSA Grandmaster) I looked around for some "self defense" training classes. I abandoned the whole notion because almost all of the classes I found were the fundamentals of how to run the gun followed by square range drills, along with some basic legalities of the use of deadly force. In order to get an advanced class on fighting with a gun, I had to take the prerequsite classes. The costs would have been in the thousands of dollars.

FWIW, I would wager less than 10 per cent of the folks packing a gun in Wyoming have ever had a training class. Most of those 10% are perhaps former military and their handgun training would be minimal. For that matter, I personally know self taught shooters that are USPSA Masters, and one of them wins guns at GSSG (Glock) shoots on a fairly regular basis. Should they be packing a pistol?
 
Rider,

There are very few locations in America where someone who wanted training wouldn't be able to get it somewhere near his home. Might need to drive a bit, but there'd be no need for an airplane ticket. That wasn't true 20 years ago. It is now.

A week or two of vacation? As heard on ESPN, C'mon man. Instructors could never get a class even half-filled running one that long. The absolute longest class I took ran Friday to Sunday. Most classes are Sat/Sun deals, and some offer one-day classes as well.

Affordable? I've seen class tuition rates range from $50 - $150/day, depending on all sorts of variables. Compared to most things that matter in life, that's pretty affordable. 9mm and I aren't far off when we say a good class will cost about the same as a quality gun.


SleazyRider said:
All I'm saying is that I believe there's a market out there for good training at a price that will encourage folks to partake of it.
Click to expand...

It's already out there. It's been there since the explosive growth of the Shall Issue states at the turn of the century. Folks don't partake because of the reasons this thread explores. It's not the time or the money. It's ego, pride, and a belief in fairytales and talismans.


Fortunately most people will never come up against real predators, the truly violent thugs who will offer a fight. Those guys are a very small portion of the population. So for many the talisman and fairy tale offers comfort and never gets challenged.
 
9mmepiphany said:
While I do understand this POV, I lean toward it being a false savings.

It depends on how highly you value the ability to be able to operate in a defensive deadly environment. For less than the price of a 2nd gun, you can get professional training and acquire skills it would take you hundred of hours and countless wasted rounds to learn on your own. Putting off one hunting season, could make you highly competent with a handgun
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with an added point, self teaching can allow development of problem areas that can be quickly seen and corrected by a second set of experienced eyes.

On the negative side, how do you determine who is an "expert?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Training vs. Experience
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Infidel4life11
I
P
  • Locked
Training Log Book. By Rob Pincus
Replies
2
Views
609
possum
P
B
  • Locked
Monthly Training in Indy & Ft. Wayne
Replies
1
Views
160
Brian@ITC
B
Cump
  • Locked
Thumbs up to FASTER Teacher Training
Replies
3
Views
558
Cump
Cump
M
  • Locked
Bad guys, police and armed citizens
2 3
Replies
65
Views
4K
TooTaxed
T
Back
Top