Talisman or Tool Claude Werner Article

[The Night Rider]

Talisman or tool? | Tactical Wire

This piece is written in response to Paul Markel's opinion piece, written and posted in Shooting Wire, June 15, 2012. To refer to it, go to

This is an article written by Claude Werner. I really don't know which paragraphs to cut and paste because it's all good.

Quote from article

Despite that, most gunowners don't spend the amount of time training and practicing with their handguns that we of the 'cognoscenti' would like them to. Still, every year hundreds of thousands of people, who have had no training whatsoever and who seldom practice, successfully defend themselves with firearms, often small ones, from villains intending them harm. Accordingly the statement: "But you need to actually train with said gun and practice often if you expect to save your life with it one day" isn't necessarily true.

One of the things Mr. Werner says in his article (paraphrased) is most criminals are looking for a score and not a fight and usually run at the first sign of armed resistance.

That generally aligns with my experience.

I'm not saying tactical training is bad but I don't think it's as necessary as some trainers suggest

 

[shafter]

Would you rather rely on luck or skill when your life or freedom is at stake? For me the choice is easy.

We'll never know the number of people who are murdered every year who may have been armed or otherwise and could have saved themselves if they knew what they were doing.

 

[The Night Rider]

Would you rather rely on luck or skill when your life or freedom is at stake? For me the choice is easy.

We'll never know the number of people who are murdered every year who may have been armed or otherwise and could have saved themselves if they knew what they were doing.

Did you actually read the article?

the main point (as I understand it) that Claude is trying to make is that you don't necessarily need to spend two weeks at Gunsite every year or train like your local SWAT team.

What I read him is saying is that a good basic firearm safety course and some good Marksmanship training and some attention paid to situational awareness is is more than most Citizen Defenders need.

I don't remember where I read this but
someone wrote that they had gone back through every issue of the armed citizen and counted how many defenders had the gun on them, had the gun close by, or had to find the defensive weapon somewhere else.

I remember being surprised at how many were successful after being attacked, breaking contact, and then retrieving a gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

What I read him is saying is that a good basic firearm safety course and some good Marksmanship training and some attention paid to situational awareness is is more than most Citizen Defenders need.

I'd raise the bar a bit.

the main point (as I understand it) that Claude is trying to make is that you don't necessarily need to spend two weeks at Gunsite every year or train like your local SWAT team.

I'll buy that.

I don't remember where I read this but
someone wrote that they had gone back through every issue of the armed citizen and counted how many defenders had the gun on them, had the gun close by, or had to find the defensive weapon somewhere else.

I remember being surprised at how many were successful after being attacked, breaking contact, and then retrieving a gun.

The Armed Citizen is a compilation of good guy wins.

My record includes three successful use of force incidents, all of which occurred before I had had any defensive training. All occurred indoors, and none involved shots fired.

An ambush from around a fuel pump or the rear of my car would have required different skills, and it is best to acquire them before they
are needed.

 

[shafter]

I did read the article and I wasn't blown away by it. I understand what it's trying to say but it's not logical.

A violent encounter can be anything from a non committed attacker who's looking for quick money all the way to multiple committed attackers who know violence very well. It can also include someone on substances who isn't thinking rationally.

The catch is that if that day comes we don't know which encounter we will end up with. We all know there's many situations where the mere presence of a gun will be enough. But there are others where it's extremely violent and complex and the winner and losers will be defined by who's prepared the most.

 

[wayneinFL]

Two things can be true at the same time.

Basic competence with a firearm has saved many gun owners from attacks.

Many people strive to proficiency with a firearm because it would save them from more determined or more proficient attackers.

 

[Jeff White]

Training is often not necessary but that’s not a reason not to train. Training is a personal choice and we shouldn’t criticize the choices others make. I worked with plenty of officers who would take their duty weapon out of the holster only for inspections and qualification. I trained with private citizens who trained more than SWAT officers.

I really don’t know why this is an issue. I read the article and I don’t really know what purpose the author had in mind when he wrote it besides stimulating discussions like this one.

There are professionals who only train to the minimum standard and probably wouldn’t train at all if there was no requirement to train. There are private citizens who view training like a hobby and train as much as their finances and time allows for a situation they will most likely never face.

The only sure thing in this discussion is that if you do have to face a real attacker, having trained will give you a better chance of prevailing than if you hadn’t trained.

 

[The Night Rider]

I'm not saying and I don't think this article is saying that training isn't necessary. Especially given that the author makes his living as a trainer.

I think what he's saying is that there is a point past which your training for things that are highly unlikely to ever happen.

I think I have better odds of winning the lottery then I do of running into a group of committed attackers no violence very well.

Multiple committed attackers who know violence very well aren't hanging around looking for somebody to mug in the Planet Fitness parking lot.

They're looking for the bank manager's home or the Korean (culturally unlikely to trust banks and more likely to have quite a bit of untraceable cash in their home) guy who owns the laundromat.

I'm sure that Jeff White can confirm to us The majority of home invasions are criminals ripping off other criminals or people who are know to have large amounts of cash in their home.

 

[fastbolt]

Paragraphs. The article needs paragraphs.

Read it. Nothing really new.

It's always interesting to hear from the Tactical Professor, though.

FWIW, he's also a big fan of the venerable snub revolver for personal self defense.

J frame – tacticalprofessor

Posts about J frame written by tacticalprofessor

thetacticalprofessor.net

While the current state of dedicated firearms training is a relatively recent innovation in America, it's already shown us how it's been insinuating itself into our lives in recent decades in everything from entertainment, to sport, to sales of firearms, etc. It's become a major driving force, and has even drawn the ire of a number of anti-gun political forces.

While there's a long list of people who have successfully defended themselves and family by using a gun without formal training, it's also not hard to find modern video clips where someone's lack of knowledge, skill and abilities has caused them problems in actual confrontations.

Some states require some degree of formalized training for their CCW licenses, and some don't. Even in most states who do require it, it's usually most aptly described as minimal.

LE firearms training is typically more exhaustive, at least time-wise, in academies. Once graduated and working, though, the required in-service training is all over the map when it comes to the almost 18,000 LE agencies in the nation. Qualification has been held by the courts not to be 'training', per se.

So, is the gun a talisman or a tool? Is the implied question really one of "How much training does a talisman require?" in order to be effectively used?

 

[The Night Rider]

FWIW somebody named Headhunters started the same discussion in June of 2012. So it's obviously not a new article

 

[The Night Rider]

I think there's a balance. What I get out of this article when I read it is that I'm not an easy target for the next mugger that I run into just because I don't take every tactical class offered in my area.

There are a lot of trainers who (for obvious reasons) teach that. There are also a lot of Shooters out there who are into the Tactical Training for a hobby or because they think it's necessary for survival who get on internet gun forms and tell everybody else that if you don't spend two weeks every year a gun site or you don't take classes from Wilson Combat you're just easy prey for the next junkie (who's probably doing good if he can get both shoes tied) you run into.

When I got my armed guard license my employer put me through a week-long training using the NRA's Basic Handgun Safety Course as the curriculum.

That course didn't teach me how to shoot. It didn't even teach me when or when not to shoot. It just taught me the basic workings of my M&P40 and how to safely use it. Then they sent me out in the street by myself to (within limits) seek out confrontations with Petty Criminals.

I survived and I never had to shoot anybody. I never even had to spray anybody. More importantly, I never got shot either.

 

[fastbolt]

As a retired firearms trainer, I had my own variety of experiences, and at the same time I also had to march to the drum beat passed down from those above me making the decisions.

That said, there were some interesting things, regarding training, I heard from some of our folks who had been involved in both on-duty and off-duty OIS incidents.

Things like "Your training worked!! (Someone who wasn't a gun guy at all, and only came to the range for quals because it was mandated) ... to someone asking for even more emphasis on one of the many aspects of training and quals scenarios we used (and periodically revised and recycled) ... to someone on the firearms training staff saying they wished they'd seen a technique I was allowed to introduce (copied from something shown by a rep from one of the gun companies, from their in-house training academy) a technique to the instructor staff) before their previous 2 OIS incidents.

Feedback from folks who have benefited from various levels of training, and who have seen the elephant, is often going to provide some interesting perspectives and insights. For the LE/Gov field, though, agency General Orders and Policies & Procedures are always (understandably) going to exert control over what's taught, but then the laws - and the courts - have their own say, too. Acting outside policy and the law are 2 cutting edges of the same sword for LE.

For the Public/Private gun owner? Talk to your attorney, or listen to the attorneys who may teach classes for whatever self defense coverage or legal defense program you may subscribe to. Hope you understand what they discuss.

If you get your 'knowledge' from online videos and gun forums, ask yourself whether any of the self-proclaimed experts are actually SME's, and whether they're going to be appearing to testify on your behalf if you find yourself seated at the 'wrong' table in a criminal or civil proceeding. (And, whether you'd even want them to do so.)

Just some thoughts ... which only matter to me.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Claude's thinking applies to aggressors that are rational.

An aggressor that's drunk, high on drugs, emotionally disturbed, psychotic and crazy, or driven by sheer determination (like a controlling ex-boyfriend or husband that's just been served with a protection order) might not react to being shot or shot at like one would expect a "normal" person to react.

Simple techniques that are easy to remember and to perform successfully under extreme stress are best.

 

[fastbolt]

... aggressors that are rational...

Rational criminal aggressors.

That might be one of the more interesting convolutions of terms, or oxymoron, I've heard lately.

 

[scaatylobo]

Talisman or tool? | Tactical Wire

This piece is written in response to Paul Markel's opinion piece, written and posted in Shooting Wire, June 15, 2012. To refer to it, go to

This is an article written by Claude Werner. I really don't know which paragraphs to cut and paste because it's all good.

Quote from article

Despite that, most gunowners don't spend the amount of time training and practicing with their handguns that we of the 'cognoscenti' would like them to. Still, every year hundreds of thousands of people, who have had no training whatsoever and who seldom practice, successfully defend themselves with firearms, often small ones, from villains intending them harm. Accordingly the statement: "But you need to actually train with said gun and practice often if you expect to save your life with it one day" isn't necessarily true.

One of the things Mr. Werner says in his article (paraphrased) is most criminals are looking for a score and not a fight and usually run at the first sign of armed resistance.

That generally aligns with my experience.

I'm not saying tactical training is bad but I don't think it's as necessary as some trainers suggest

As I have seen and learned from experience.

The act of aiming or pointing a gun at a threat,does NOTHING in many cases to STOP the threat.

Too many YES including police get into the rut that just pointing that "talisman" at a threat will stop it cold.

They learned that from the movies & TV shows.

It does not work more times than it could./should.

I am sure the NRA gets it correct as to the display of a weapon stopping a threat.

But the times it does not are not reported as often,they are deadly and embarrassing.

As a retiree I learned it the hard way,from perp's that just said " go ahead and shoot me".

And yes many times I had the right,but did not want to take a life.

I had to retrain myself to NEVER use or threaten DPF unless I was truly about to use it.

Just my 00.02 cents.

From the perspective of an old man [ 76 ]

 

[shafter]

As I have seen and learned from experience.

The act of aiming or pointing a gun at a threat,does NOTHING in many cases to STOP the threat.

Too many YES including police get into the rut that just pointing that "talisman" at a threat will stop it cold.

They learned that from the movies & TV shows.

It does not work more times than it could./should.

I am sure the NRA gets it correct as to the display of a weapon stopping a threat.

But the times it does not are not reported as often,they are deadly and embarrassing.

As a retiree I learned it the hard way,from perp's that just said " go ahead and shoot me".

And yes many times I had the right,but did not want to take a life.

I had to retrain myself to NEVER use or threaten DPF unless I was truly about to use it.

Just my 00.02 cents.

From the perspective of an old man [ 76 ]

This is true. Often the perp either wants to die or is completely unconcerned with the possibility of death.

 

[The Night Rider]

This is true. Often the perp either wants to die or is completely unconcerned with the possibility of death.

I think it's more likely that they don't believe you have the balls to pull the trigger.

Almost every time I ran into a crackhead the first words out of their mouth were "What are you going to do shoot me?"

And that's when all I was doing was telling them that this is private property and I have to ask you to leave.

But once the OC spray came out I never once had somebody questioned whether or not I would spray them.

 

[shafter]

I think it's more likely that they don't believe you have the balls to pull the trigger.

Almost every time I ran into a crackhead the first words out of their mouth were "What are you going to do shoot me?"

And that's when all I was doing was telling them that this is private property and I have to ask you to leave.

But once the OC spray came out I never once had somebody questioned whether or not I would spray them.

That's definitely true also. People are in a state of disbelief about consequences whether it's jail or death.

But I still stand by my earlier comment. So many of these people just don't care about living or dying. Their life is garbage and they know it and they know there isn't any hope of getting out of whatever mess they're in.