Minimum set of handgun self defense competencies

[Fred Fuller]

As one retired librarian (MLS, U. of Alabama, 1975) to another...

Trundle over to Santa Clara when Louis Awerbuck is in town (http://www.yfainc.com/schedule.html), and subject yourself to his tender ministrations for a day or two. You'll have a much greater working familiarity with the things you need to be able to do with a pistol after that.

 

[conw]

This forum may need to be re-titled "ST&T&RLs."

 

[Librarian]

As one retired librarian (MLS, U. of Alabama, 1975) to another...

Trundle over to Santa Clara when Louis Awerbuck is in town (http://www.yfainc.com/schedule.html), and subject yourself to his tender ministrations for a day or two. You'll have a much greater working familiarity with the things you need to be able to do with a pistol after that.

MLIS UC Berkeley 1978; the Library School closed and re-opened since I was there. Never worked as a librarian, though.

Last group class I took was at Reeds, but it's been a while. (before Yavapai/Awerbuck took it over)

And, no surprise, "All classes begin promptly at 8:30 am." Darn morning persons! Maybe I can get my wife to go, too, and she'll drive the hour down there.

This forum may need to be re-titled "ST&T&RLs."

Remember that the next time a librarian tells you to 'ssssssh' - lot of pent up aggression in those folks ...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Last group class I took was at Reeds, but it's been a while. (before Yavapai/Awerbuck took it over)

And, no surprise, "All classes begin promptly at 8:30 am." Darn morning persons...

I have to say that I've taken a couple of Louis' classes at Reeds, and they are worth getting up before the crack of dawn for.

 

[Mainsail]

Somehow little old ladies with no training whatsoever, and little old men with military training that's stale by 40 years manage to repel robbers and home invaders with peculiar regularity. Training is great, but don't get so caught up in that you lose track of reality.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Let's see.

I spent almost 40 years doing the things most casual shooters do, before I had the chance to attend my first formal class (which happened to be with Louis). Would I have been better off had I gotten formal training much earlier in my shooting career?

In my mind there is no doubt I would have been.

A great many shooters learn much of what they need to know on their own, and with informal teaching from dad, various uncles, friends, etc. Nothing says that safe, capable, competent shooters can't be produced that way - after all, that was the only choice anyone had before places like Gunsite came along. And that hasn't been all that long, in the relative sense of time.

The question is not how well someone who learned on their own can perform. The question (in my mind anyway) is, which is the more efficient way of learning? And for me, formal instruction wins hands down. It saves both time and money in the long run as far as I am concerned. Which is why I encourage it so much.

Of course, some will disagree. That's fine. It's good to have the choice of how to spend time and money.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Somehow little old ladies with no training whatsoever, and little old men with military training that's stale by 40 years manage to repel robbers and home invaders with peculiar regularity...

All that means is that the skills those folks had at the time were adequate to solve their particular problems. If their problems had been different, things might not have worked out so well.

On the other hand --

• If we wind up in a violent confrontation, we can't know ahead of time what will happen and how it will happen. And thus we can't know ahead of time what we will need to be able to do to solve our problem.
  
  
• If we find ourselves in a violent confrontation, we will respond with whatever skills we have available at the time. If all you know how to do is stand there and shoot, that will probably be what you'll do. It might be good enough, or it might not be.
  
  
• The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the more likely we'll be to be able to respond appropriately and effectively. The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the luckier we'll be.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I have to say that I've taken a couple of Louis' classes at Reeds, and they are worth getting up before the crack of dawn for.

Heh. I remember Louis best very early in the mornings at some restaurant, him with a whole pot of coffee at his table. What a character. This was in his Gunsite days.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Hit your target! I don't mean to make obvious statements, but this really is fundamental and truly the most necessary.

Yeah, I'll second that statement.

This isn't rocket science. The really good shooters got that way because they mastered the fundamentals. That's it. Master the fundamentals through a slow, deliberate process until you have them down. Then increase the speed of the process. Learn to make good hits at reasonable distances, and take the shots slowly if you need to so you make the hits.


If you carried, I'd encourage you to practice smooth draws as well. But it sounds like you can't. But learn to make hits first, then learn to do it faster.

 

[beatledog7]

Slow leads to smooth; smooth leads to fast. Everything one can learn to do smoothly one can learn to do quickly. But that means one has chosen to learn.

The right to keep and bear arms as codified in 2A doesn't specify a set of training requirements or proficiency standards, but it does call for defending our way of life from tyranny. That clearly implies some sort of firearm proficiency, but once we start talking about standards we begin bleeding over into regulation, and that's exactly where antigun folks want to go.

We ought to encourage every gun owner, especially those who carry or keep a gun at home for defense, to develop an ever-increasing cadre of skills, but we must also recognize that many defensive gun owners cannot or will not devote very much time, energy, or money to this endeavor. That is their choice, and there's nothing in 2A that compels them to do otherwise.

If we support 2A, we have to allow for that choice, and we must not demean those who make it.

 

[9mmepiphany]

If we support 2A, we have to allow for that choice, and we must not demean those who make it.

I don't think they should be demeaned either...however, they should not be lead to believe that they can competently utilize deadly force at that level of non-training.

We should encourage responsible ownership...with responsible including a certain proficiency or competence

 

[BullfrogKen]

Yup.

We can encourage proficiency without mandating it by a law.

 

[Hangingrock]

The following is quoted from Jeff Cooper:

As the after action reports keep coming in, we notice that most defensive shooting situations take place under circumstances, which do not call for expert marksmanship. Of course the shooter must know the fundamentals of hitting a target, and he must know correct gun handling, but in a street fight he is almost never called upon to shoot with match winning precision.

What he needs in a gunfight is control of his nerves, or what we call the “combat mindset”. It seems clear that when faced by deadly threat the primary requirement is self-control. It is how ever important to note that such self-control is more available to a combatant who that he can always hit what he aims at.

Thus we teach element basic marksmanship for a couple of days before we introduce the student to combat simulation. When the red flag flies, all you really need to concern yourself with is a clear picture of your front sight and a compressed surprise break that’s all. It does not come naturally. It is never “instinctive”. It is a combat reflex and that we can teach.

 

[Sam1911]

Hence, the problem with asking for a general set of minimum competencies.

Who's? Why? To prove what? If this is for an agency looking for some baseline above which it considers its officers safe "enough" to carry a department-issued firearm in a duty setting, that's all fine and good. Someone picks a set of basic skills that are stringent enough to prove that the officer at least could safely fire his/her weapon under range conditions and hit a static target (mostly to impress/satisfy the department's insurance carrier) -- but which are lax enough that almost every candidate to be an officer will be able to meet those standards with some not too time-consuming instruction.

I think relatively few of us would say that the minimum standards most law enforcement officers must meet to "Qualify" are really comforting when you start studying the skills needed to fight with a handgun.

On the other hand, few if any of us are willing to see a legislatively mandated set of minimum standards applied to who among the citizenry can be allowed to carry or use a defensive firearm. Those with the greatest need for a force equalizer are often those who would also have the hardest time proving their mastery of those weapons. Granny doesn't need to shoot a great 50 yd. bullseye score to put a bullet in some mugger's gut at contact distance.

On the third hand () what standard should be applied to YOU if you're going to be drawing and firing your weapon in self-defense in a public place where I might be standing? Your name had better be Leathem or Jarrett! (That's a joke, ok? Sort of. "Sevigny" will do, as well.)

Really though, the problem with a self-applied minimum standard is the issue of complacency. No two gunfights are exactly the same. The only guarantee about the "average gunfight" is that yours won't look like it. You very well may dominate your attacker with a very pedestrian "3-shots at 3 yards in 3 seconds." Or, you may be capable of clearing an "El Prez" drill in 7 seconds flat -- and may find that that just wasn't enough when your moment of need arrived. There IS NO good enough. There isn't a point at which you can say, "Well, because I can shoot X,Y,Z in abc, seconds, I'm sufficiently skilled to handle what may come."

Wherever you are, work to get better.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I think relatively few of us would say that the minimum standards most law enforcement officers must meet to "Qualify" are really comforting when you start studying the skills needed to fight with a handgun.

Truth be told, the standard to qualify is only for the department to be able to say that the officers had a level of training to limit liability.

When forced to enter a situation with a new trainee, of whom I had yet to determine their skill level, I always had them go first. At least I had confidence I could hit a target pass them

 

[Deaf Smith]

Throw a tin can up in the air. If you can keep it jumping you are well within the minimum complacency for carrying!

Lacking that... what do you mean 'minimum'? There is no 'minimum' bad guy, or 'minimum' shootout.

You practice as much as you reasonably can, carry as much gun as you can control and conceal, and then you keep alert. No guarantees in this life but taxes and death.

Deaf

 

[David E]

This question is often asked in a myriad ways. I am constantly amused by both ends of the skill spectrum some think are required. From "5 shots, 5 yds, 5" plate, 5 seconds" to being able to talk down a hostage-taking jihadist while shooting his partner in the head, from the hip in the dark as you complete your 100 yd sprint up a "down" escalator.

Obviously, most of us want to get better. Then again, most of us think we are already skilled enough to take on any scenario presented.

But what of our friends? What is the "minimum set of skills" they should have to be considered competent? I think that's what the OP was after.

If you have IDPA targets, set up the 90 rd Classifier. If you make Marksman, you have a well rounded set of basic skills.

If you have IPSC targets, set up the 12 rd El Presidente, which was designed to test multiple skills in a short time. A Hit Factor (points divided by time) of 6 would be a good baseline. That would be all A zone hits in ten seconds. I might even go with a Hit Factor of 5 (all A's, 12 seconds)

Then, from there, work on getting good.

 

[sidheshooter]

Looking over some of the responses here, I might get flamed for saying this, but here I go anyways:

Massad Ayoob has famously stated that owning a gun is a right, and carrying it in public is a privilege. I would go one step further, and say that having to use it in public and walking away unscathed both physically and financially is somewhere between a survival skill and high art.

I'd be just as happy if anyone with a clean record could own anything. But I feel it prudent to make sure that those that actually carry have at least a basic grounding in the law surrounding that carry. I'm more interested in the latter half of post 3's standards, so far as granny and her CCW, than the first half, and I don't think it's prudent to 2A champion our way into excusing the idea of folks carrying with no training whatsoever as good; that is just setting people up for the potential of massive, but avoidable, failure. There is enough potential for massive unavoidable failure as is to not stack the deck as much as possible, IMHO.

But this is all coming from a guy who has spent a boat load of time and scarce dough to study up on this stuff, so I would say that. OMMV.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Folks, this thread is not about whether people should get training, must get training or the government should make people get training. That's not the question the OP asked.

Do not let this thread get sidetrack.

 

[Kleanbore]

The question comes up from time to time, worded variously.

For that reason, Frank's Post #16 is now a sticky in ST&T.

 

[SSN Vet]

I'll venture to add a few thought to Frank's excellent post...

> you need to know how to keep you mouth shut and mind your own business.

By this I mean that your decision to carry for personal defense is not something that you should talk about loosely with every Tom, Dick or Harry. And showing interested parties your carry piece while out and about is, imho, usually immature and imprudent.

> you need to be psychologically prepared for the possibility that using a firearm in self defense may very well result in you having to look someone in the eye and then shoot them dead.

There is a significant amount of resolve and hardness involved with such actions and, imho, if you're not clear about your own personal ability to do so, you probably should not carry.

Self defense is a form of combat... combat is both serious and psychologically traumatic.