Formal Training Is Now Bad?

[22-rimfire]

Few dissagree that formal training is a good thing. It is only when the government REQUIRES the training that I dissagree with the concept. That is where the elitist comments come from. The same would hold true if there was a $1000 tax on the purchase of any firearm, only wealthy people and bad guys would own firearms eventually.

 

[powder]

Yeah.

"Training" in the last 5 years has become a monstrous industry, in my guesstimate expanding 10 fold.

There are tons of pretenders out there phishing for those dollars, and THAT is where I'd put any sort of warning per training: research and verify your "instructors" creds.. BTW: Ask to see their current credential classifications and proof of insurance-if they balk, they would be a no-go scenario.

I just had a fellow "trainer" call me and want my commitment to attend a 3 day carbine class with him in 6 months, no specified 3-day window just a certain month, round count for carbine and pistol(1200), $300 fee, and he would not give me the Instructor's credentials or last name. << This is how desperate some people are to receive "training", that they will agree to attend and pay for that crap.

If you are wanting some decent training: watch a bunch of YouTube vids, make your own activities schedule from that, and go to a range and try it out for yourself at 1/4 speed. "Training" does not have to be 1000 rounds, $300, and multiple days out on the road with strangers.

 

[Big_John1961]

One of his Dos was to get training so that it could be brought up that you were so responsible and concerned, about the safety of others, that you pursued training, at your own expense, to be more competent and were able to be more skilled than the local LE agency, based on their qualification standards

This is exactly why I've enrolled in my first defensive handgun class at a local training facility (Firearms Academy of Seattle). Even with pretty extensive experience shooting, I've finally gotten to the point where I feel like I need to get some "formal training," not to learn how to kill more effectively, but for the reasons you listed. Confidence in anything is a good thing, but particularly so with carrying a concealed firearm.

 

[Fred Fuller]

"Training" does not have to be 1000 rounds, $300, and multiple days out on the road with strangers.


There's this thing called "due diligence" that applies to any significant investment, and it's asking for trouble not to do the work before writing the check. My wife and I just bought our retirement home, for example. The property was listed at 19 acres. We hired a surveyor to verify the property lines since it had not been surveyed since the 1920s. The last thing we wanted was to buy into a disagreement over property lines.

Guess what? It turned out to be 14 acres - surveying methods on mountain property have changed since back then, and there was a mistake on the existing survey as well. It really upset the sellers - they had not intended to defraud, that's what the original deed had said, and that's what they believed was the case. Since the property lines were 'off,' that meant the fences were not in the right place either, and that had to be remedied.

And we had a home inspection done as well, to include water testing and radon testing. And I went to the county courthouse and ran the deeds on the property all the way back, to make sure all the water and mineral rights were intact and that there were no easements outside the ones I knew about. And we got title insurance too.

That's due diligence...

If you plan to pay for training, KNOW what you're going to get. Read AARs from other students. Look at the instructor's website. Investigate his or her background - and verify it to the degree you are able. Check with places like THR and see who knows what about a given school or instructor. Do your due diligence...

 

[easyg]

In my opinion, the reason for the backlash is obvious!
The author of the article is just wrong on so many points....

Without training, You are just pretending

This is 100% wrong.
Everyday, all around the world, "untrained" folks successfully use firearms (and bladed weapons) to defend themselves.
It's a fact!

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.

This statement is just wrong.
If it were true then an untrained gangbanger with a gun would actually be more dangerous to his fellow gang members than to his intended victims!
But we all know that this notion is just idiotic.

If an unarmed person threatens a cop, the cop might use pepper-spray or his baton or a taser.
But if a person armed with a knife or handgun threatens a cop, the cop will probably shoot that person, regardless if that person has been "trained" or not.
Why?
Because the cop knows that the armed person is MUCH more deadly to the officer than the unarmed person.
Criminals also know this to be true.

Carrying a knife with the intention of protection without the proper training is no more effective than carrying a firearm without proper training.

This is more BS.
Everyday, in prisons all around the world, untrained men and women use edged and pointed weapons to successfully defend themselves.
Since before recorded time mankind has used edged weapons to defend themselves...long before "training" ever existed.
To claim that the average person, without "training", cannot defend themselves using a knife is just wrong.

Far too many folks are under the impression that by buying and carrying a blade and/or firearm now makes them more prepared or more inclined to defend themselves.

Having a weapon does make one MORE prepared to defend themselves rather than less prepared.
Even the most primitive of mankind quickly learned that weapons made the odds of survival much better than not having weapons.
Mankind is at the top of the food chain for two reasons:
1) We are very intelligent.
2) We use weapons beyond our natural ones (which are pathetic when compared to most other creatures).

This mindset is like assuming you know how to play guitar by simply going to the store and buying one.

This is a very poor analogy...
Anyone who owns a guitar can play the guitar.
Maybe not well, and maybe not pleasing to the ears of others, but one can still "play" in their own fashion.
But if one does not have a guitar, one cannot play the guitar, regardless of training.
Simply having the instrument is half the battle.
After all, the very first human to ever create a stringed instrument had no "training".

Is it easier to go down to the store, buy a blade, and tuck it in the pants than it is to research training classes then travel to and participate in it? Of course. However, if the day ever came that you had to employ your weapon to defend yourself or a loved one…you fall to your level of training….if you have no training….well you see my point.

Again, folks have been using knives and guns to successfully defend themselves since knives and guns have existed.
To say that an "untrained" man cannot use a knife or gun to defend himself flies in the face of the truth.
People do it everyday.

If you truly care for the loved ones you claim you are protecting, you will make it a priority to seek training (blade and firearm alike).

This is a really crappy remark....
It suggest that if one does not seek "training" then one does not truly care for their loved ones.

More people die from heart attacks and choking than from gun shots.
But only a jackass would say "If you truly care for your loved ones you will make learning CPR and Basic Life Saving a priority".
My mother and father never learned CPR, and they raised 5 children.
And I'm sure they loved us all very much.

Seek training. Quit pretending you know what you’re doing. You don’t know what you don’t know…and you don’t know anything.

This is another arrogant and stupid remark from the author...

So if one does not have "training" then they don't know anything and they're just pretending?!?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Everyday, all around the world, "untrained" folks successfully use firearms (and bladed weapons) to defend themselves.
It's a fact!...

Well it's no more a fact than the "fact" that everyday, all around the world, untrained people try to use firearms (and bladed weapons) to defend themselves and fail.

Being successful just means that your abilities, skills and knowledge were sufficient to solve the particular problem you faced. If you failed, your abilities, skills and knowledge weren't up to the task.

Greater ability, more and better skills and more knowledge (i. e., more education, training and [good] practice) means you'll be more likely to be able to successfully manage a greater range of more difficult problems. The more you can do and the better you can do it, the luckier you'll be.

 

[Biohazard1993]

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 strongly agree. These listed points are the minimum for a safe firearm carrier. Everything after that as far as "professional training" goes while nice is not needed to qualify someone as a safe holder of a firearm. I believe that I have all the experience I will ever need, being taught by my grandfather who is a veteran for our country and his father who was and will always be in my heart a veteran for our country. While this is not "professional training" I believe that it is just as good if not better in some ways. Maybe I am wrong and in some future situations I will say I wish I had more training, time, ect but I would never consider myself unsafe in anyway. I believe the extra "professional" training after the numbered points is icing on the cake, a way to give extra practice to the carrier if you will. As in many things, methods of making money and imposing control are dangerously associated with ones safety. Which in this case leads to the implication to say an individual without professional help is dangerous. A very dangerous and faulse implication indeed but thought of by people none the less. This is just my two cents. God bless fellow countrymen.

 

[torqem]

I disagree with a lot of what is taught

A great many were taught the Weaver For 20 years, Jeff said that if you could do really well at the matches with a given technique (or gear) then you were good to go with that technique and that gear. However, when Isoceles started winning, and the (already too heavy and bulky for ccw) 1911 Gov't Model got compensated, etc, suddenly match performance was not the answer anymore (per Cooper).

Careful study shows that most of the time, firing is not necessary and when firing is needed, the ranges are very short indeed. I don't see a lot of really high speed, close range ccw stuff being taught. Indeed, I see a lot of what amounts to slowfire bullseye being taught.

As to the comment about practicing at "1/4 speed", uh, how fast is that?

 

[Sam1911]

I don't see a lot of really high speed, close range ccw stuff being taught. Indeed, I see a lot of what amounts to slowfire bullseye being taught.

I think that has changed quite dramatically in the last 5-10 years.

I do find it frustrating that many or most folks going into a "defensive pistol/carry" class are going to spend (and probably NEED to spend) something at or over 50% of their class range time working on shooting fundamentals instead of fighting with the gun. That part sure does look like slowfire bullseye often enough.

However, with the rise of the sorts of classes that SouthNarc (Douglas) teaches, among a few others, there are opportunities to learn intensely practical, extreme-close-range (contact, grappling, etc.) fighting with guns and other weapons.

It is very neat to live in an era where you have the option of a defensive shooting (etc.) class that might require a helmet and knee pads, along with that holster and snazzy carry gun.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I don't see a lot of really high speed, close range ccw stuff being taught. Indeed, I see a lot of what amounts to slowfire bullseye being taught.

There are Shooting schools and Fighting schools...the difference is the ability to "run" the gun as opposed to the ability to "use" the gun as a fighting tool The problem is everyone thinks they shoot well enough already to attend Fighting schools.

Rather than kick paying students out of a class for not having the qualifications needed, schools started alotting some of the class time to teaching fundamental shooting skills.

I've worked with instructors where we tried to set minimum qualifications to attend a more advanced class...it is very difficult, unless you have a school which has a progression of courses which a student can work their way through. It is easier on the competitive side of the house as there is rankings in various disciplines

 

[torqem]

I"d say that $50 an hour, and probably needing 50 hours or more, is a pretty good "excuse", on top of travel expenses, etc. After all, cops screw it up all the time, and they have 50+ hours of instruction. Granted, highly paid instructors probably do teach you a lot better than most cops are taught, but still, you are probably looking at spending $10,000, if you want to be really on top of this.

 

[Officers'Wife]

In my opinion, the reason for the backlash is obvious!
The author of the article is just wrong on so many points....

I'm not going to go point by point on your essay. I'm only going to say this. I've seen a lot of guys that have told me they can drive anything with wheels. I've seen some of those guys with a disk wrapped around a telephone pole or dragging ten rod of fence and not have a clue of what happened. Had they listened to the experienced employee in the suicide seat trying to train them they might have become a machine operator.

I remember a time when I thought I was an expert shot with my little handgun. Then my Dad and my uncle started giving off war whoops each time I started to squeeze the trigger and my string of bullseyes became completely missing the target.

Then there was the city guy that told me that "anybody" could jump a 36 inch woven wire fence with my horse Shadrack and not to put on airs. When I invited him to show me, he was foolish enough to try. Had he but asked I could have given him two little pieces of advice that would have saved him a lot of embarrassment and a lot of time washing the mud out of his clothes, shoes and body.

In a life or death situation you have a lot more to lose than a job, self-esteem or a slide through a mud hole. A couple hours of "adverse" practice could make the difference between coming home in one piece and being a slip of paper in some police officer's file folder. Just remember Napoleon had a technical term for his untrained soldiers - cannon fodder.

 

[Trent]

A lot of combat is luck. Someone can get *completely* lucky and just happen to do everything right, be in the right place, have a bad guy not paying attention (slips & falls, whatever). Someone can also get *incredibly* unlucky and die without ever knowing what hit them.

In high school I once got in to a fight against a varsity football player. MUCH bigger than me. If he'd got a hold of me, I'd have been torn to pieces. He charged me after school in the parking lot, and at the last second I stepped aside. He was diving to tackle me, and ran his forehead in the to back metal bumper of an old volkswagen. Knocked him out cold.

He didn't remember how he lost, he just knew he had the mother of all shiners. I never got picked on after that. He was the baddest boy in school and got whooped by a string bean.

Luck ... plays a part. But so does skill.

(I'd been training in martial arts for over a decade at that point, timed my side step JUST right, and left my foot in place for him to trip over).

But, of course, the best way to win a fight is not to be IN one when it happens. There's a lot to be said about avoiding a fight and living to see another day.

If you have no choice, training (and PRACTICING what you've been taught), makes a really big difference.

EDIT: I still strongly disagree with it being MANDATORY by law, to merely "get the privilege" of having your rights to self defense. There should be no entry fee on your basic right of self-defense.

 

[torqem]

hmm

I guess inflation doesn't apply to the instruction industry. Cooper was charging $50 an hour 30 years ago. Given the average annual rate of inflation, that would be $200 an hour in today's money. Frankly, I'd say that you need 50 hours of just the legal and psych aspects, per Ayoob. I've been attacked, or nearly attacked, quite a few times, so I want every bit of skill that can be had, especially for ccw draw speed. I should have stated that the 10k includes the ammo, though, Sorry about that. And at least one "spare" gun. I've probably spent 20x that much over the years, including travel to matches, entry fees and the like. But we are talking a lot of years here.

 

[Biohazard1993]

"Without that sentence, I think the article as a whole would be more on point. Formal training *is* good and should be a priority, but it is not and should not be a mandatory prerequisite for self-defense."

I think this statement sums it all up nicely.

In my opinion nothing should be manditory for self-defense; it is an imbuned right by nature and nature's God to human kind to protect ones self and others who are in danger. Training does help with taking the edge off of situations and making it smoother but when it comes down to it if any individual with moderate instincts (which we are slowly losing in this country) needs to protect itself from real harm it can. When faced with a known threat on one's life or anothers it comes down to simple mechanics when you or another is faced by a known dangerous threat, which formal training can improve but formal training is not needed to learn it. 1. unholster 2. aim 3. shoot 4. assess for other dangers,dispose/stop dangers 5. call 911. As stated before training may help with the fine cracks of this and smoothness but anyone can learn and practice this on their own. Formal Training nor anything else should be manditory for the protection of ones self or fellow people.

 

[Hangingrock]

The following excerpt is taken from Shooting Illustrated February 2014 Straight Talk Sherriff Jim Wilson-Field Editor:

“In his mindset lecture, Col Jeff Cooper said that marksmanship challenge in most criminal attacks is not great. In fact even someone with mediocre shooting skills could get the job done if he or she possesses the proper mindset. The skills needed at marksmanship and gun handling can be rather quickly acquired, especially when one avails himself of professional training. However mindset is a different matter entirely.”

 

[torqem]

Even in Ancient Greece, with every man expected to be trained at combat, of every 100men, only one was rated as being a "true warrior", but 9 more were said to "make the battle.". 90 were said to be nothing more than targets, while 9 were completely useless in combat. Today, the numbers are at least 10x as bad.