Asked a funny Question...

[drew]

About a week or so ago, I was at the range practicing some CCW techniques. When a gentleman arrived to do some plinking, and was watching me run through some realistic "shit hitting the fan" drills, that I practice whenever I get to shoot. The man asked me while I was picking up empty magazines off the ground if I was an LEO? I replied, not anymore... The next question he had asked me was, what am I training for? I dont know if it was ignorance on my behalf or if he just caught me off guard, when I replied what do you mean? He said if your not in Law Enforcement anymore, why do train like you do? I simply stated at that point, I train like this, because the Shit could hit the fan at any moment, and I want to be prepared at any given moment. And what amazes me most, it looked like he didnt understand my response so I stated "for everyday life" and continued my training...
My question is, Why do so many people think, that just because you know how to shoot with basic fundamentals, that basic fundamentals is all that is required to survive a gun fight? Also, why do so many people think, that the average human being, man and women alike, dont need to take a basic safety class in order to have a firearm? The other question is, why dont alot of people, seek out more Firearms training, other than the "basic safety" class required in some states, when they go to carry a firearm for personal protection or use a firearm for home defense? You wouldnt try flying a jet fighter with out proper training first would you(emergancy excluded)? If you answered yes to the last question, please dont reproduce.... Any enlightment on theese matters would be welcomed...

 

[wahsben]

It is probably because most people go through life in condition white. They think that they will never be in such a situation.

 

[Gooman24]

Being paranoid keeps you and your loved ones alive. It is really that simple.

 

[oldyankee]

Perhaps the same mind set when a newbie purchases a Yamahondazuki zxyr-1200 that is guaranteed to hit 140 mph and goes out to find if it really will. Licensing requirements for firearms require the same competency level that a motorcycle endorsement on a drivers license requires - which ain't much. Not saving that the MSF doesn't try to do its best in teaching beginner riders, but they teach them on 250cc bikes in a parking lot. Similar situation for your basic firearms training course required to obtain a LTC. Unfortunately, there are not many road racing classes available at nearby locations or for reasonable cost. Same for combat weapons training. In all fairness, the purpose of the basic training is to try to keep you from harming someone or yourself, not to make you into Kenny Roberts or Don Wilson (am I dating myself?). Beyond that basic level, it's up to the practioner to seek and learn. Fortunately, the internet has been useful for spreading the word about the availability of training (both for riding and shooting). However, there's a lot of misinformation out there as well, so caveat emptor applies.

 

[Lynne]

Most folks suffer from the knowledge that Denial is a river in Egypt.

 

[P-14]

He was a Fudd.

[sarcasm]No need for evil black rifles and combat shooting - they should be banned. Just let him shoot at bulleyes and keep the skeet gun and he's happy. 2A restrictions are fine with him as long as he can plink, shoot skeet, and hunt. [/sarcasm]

 

[Supermoto]

My question is, Why do so many people think, that just because you know how to shoot with basic fundamentals, that basic fundamentals is all that is required to survive a gun fight? .....The other question is, why dont alot of people, seek out more Firearms training, other than the "basic safety" class required in some states, when they go to carry a firearm for personal protection or use a firearm for home defense?

Not everyone has the time, means or want to practice and drill for something that is 99.99% likely not to happen

Also, why do so many people think, that the average human being, man and women alike, dont need to take a basic safety class in order to have a firearm?

Because of the 2A

 

[seanc]

This one is easy...
Obviously, if you are no longer a LEO, then he expects that you should call the police should anything ever happen.

He is one of those, "the police are there to protect you" people. The concept that any civilian can/ would/ should be responsible for their own lives is completely beyond his comprehension.

In a crisis situation. He expects that the robber, home invader, guy raping his wife. Will be happy to cease all evil activities while he calls 911 (of course, he will get through immediately and be able to relay all information clearly, coherently, and correctly).
Then the 911 operator will immediately engage the transporter.
The police will instantly materialize on the scene to stop the perp before they are actually able to do anything.


In short, as mentioned above, a FUDD.

 

[45collector]

When he asked "Then what are you training for?"

You should've replied:

"The coming invasion of those damned dirty apes!!!!", and then went right back to quick succession double-taps.

He would've left you alone.

 

[Blitz1]

Because thaose damn zombies aren't going to kill themselves...

 

[drew]

The 2nd Amend. has nothing to do with learninig safe handling of firearms. Alot of people think that safe handling knowledge is common sense, anyone who has been around long enough knows, that common sense isnt very common. Every now and then, its good to get refreshed on the simple things that we take for granted.... The other problem is so many instructors are getting certified and teaching half ass classes.... I have seen the results of theese half ass classes, and it needs to stop...
How the hell can you teach newbies safe gun handling when theres 15+ students in a 5 hr or less class. Students should be taught how properly hold, pick up, set down, hand off, receive, load and unload, how to properly clean and maintain firearms, how to properly store firearms, also students should be going to the range if they have never shot before, taught range rules, remind them about respecting other peoples property, not to shoot glass and sheetrock and most important how clear malfuctions safely... Ive seen way to many people who have taken supposed safety class, and they shouldnt be allowed to fog up a mirror never mind carry a gun.... Things like pointing an unloaded gun at people not realizing that its wrong, loading firearms with their finger on the trigger, pointing firearms at people while their loading them, it goes on and on... So please, stop teaching half ass classes for the profit, and think of safety, and how what you teach the students reflects other people around them... To the newbies, if you havent been taught theese thing then you need to speak up and post it... Stop thinking that basic fundamentals is enough to get you through a real life SHTF moment... We as responsible gun owners/Instructors are always going to looked at "gun nuts"... Lets make sure that we have positives from now on... Was away for a while but i'm back now... Sorry for the rant, but I needed to get that off my chest...

 

[cekim]

Alot of people think that safe handling knowledge is common sense, anyone who has been around long enough knows, that common sense isnt very common.

Two modern problems compounding to create this situation:

1. Lack of firearms in the home in places like MA means no basic familiarity or familial instruction as a child.

2. General abdication of responsibility for their children's eduction by liberals...

"It takes a village" could be accurately rephrased for those who use this catch phrase as "Someone else raise my kids please"...

Put these two together and you have the public safety disaster that you describe...

Grown men and women touching a gun for the first time in their 30's with NO basic frame of knowledge to draw upon to handle them safely...

 

[Supermoto]

The 2nd Amend. has nothing to do with learninig safe handling of firearms.

Correct it doesn't and I sure as hell am not going to be in favor of restricting someone rights because someone else doesn't feel that they are adequately trained.

It is personal responsibility that will dictate the level of training that you feel is adequate. not me, not you, not the government.

Stop thinking that basic fundamentals is enough to get you through a real life SHTF moment...

Once again, not everyone has guns for SHTF

 

[drgrant]

My question is, Why do so many people think, that just because you know how to shoot with basic fundamentals, that basic fundamentals is all that is required to survive a gun fight?

Because even people who've never fired a gun in their life have defended themselves with a firearm?

While training is certainly a good thing, and I think anyone who uses a firearm for self defense should probably obtain some kind of formalized training, there is horrendous myth floating around that minimally trained individuals should not carry or use a firearm to defend themselves, and frankly, I think it's a load of crap.

Also, why do so many people think, that the average human being, man and women alike, dont need to take a basic safety class in order to have a firearm?

Uhh, because it';s their RIGHT? maybe? Hmm. Most states don't require any kind of training to own a gun, and at least a couple of them
don't even require training to carry one in public. Oh noes!

Further, as likely stated by others, not everyone buys a gun for protection. Hell, even among a lot of the shooters I know, only a
portion of them carry a gun for protection on a regular basis. (Although I will say, as a "circle" NES has a lot more individuals who CCW on a regular
basis, than I've run into in other groups of gun owners, on a per capita thing. )

The other question is, why dont alot of people, seek out more Firearms training, other than the "basic safety" class required in some states, when they go to carry a firearm for personal protection or use a firearm for home defense?

A lot of it is cost. These courses are not cheap, and the ammo is even more expensive. Not a problem for a lot of us here, but for others it
may be a big consideration. Some of it is just trepidation on the part of the person wanting to take the course... eg, fear of whether or not
they're "good enough" for the material being offered, etc.

You wouldnt try flying a jet fighter with out proper training first would you(emergancy excluded)? If you answered yes to the last question, please dont reproduce.... Any enlightment on theese matters would be welcomed...

Sorry, but this is bogus. Flying an aircraft and carrying a gun are not even in the same universe in terms of knowledge or ability required. It doesn't take rocket science to carry a gun safely. Can we stop pushing this myth around? Please?

-Mike

 

[Maj. Boom Boom]

+1

Because even people who've never fired a gun in their life have defended themselves with a firearm?

While training is certainly a good thing, and I think anyone who uses a firearm for self defense should probably obtain some kind of formalized training, there is horrendous myth floating around that minimally trained individuals should not carry or use a firearm to defend themselves, and frankly, I think it's a load of crap.



Uhh, because it';s their RIGHT? maybe? Hmm. Most states don't require any kind of training to own a gun, and at least a couple of them
don't even require training to carry one in public. Oh noes!

Further, as likely stated by others, not everyone buys a gun for protection. Hell, even among a lot of the shooters I know, only a
portion of them carry a gun for protection on a regular basis. (Although I will say, as a "circle" NES has a lot more individuals who CCW on a regular
basis, than I've run into in other groups of gun owners, on a per capita thing. )



A lot of it is cost. These courses are not cheap, and the ammo is even more expensive. Not a problem for a lot of us here, but for others it
may be a big consideration. Some of it is just trepidation on the part of the person wanting to take the course... eg, fear of whether or not
they're "good enough" for the material being offered, etc.




Sorry, but this is bogus. Flying an aircraft and carrying a gun are not even in the same universe in terms of knowledge or ability required. It doesn't take rocket science to carry a gun safely. Can we stop pushing this myth around? Please?

-Mike

 

[M1911]

I've been asked the same question in the same circumstances.

 

[cekim]

Sorry, but this is bogus. Flying an aircraft and carrying a gun are not even in the same universe in terms of knowledge or ability required. It doesn't take rocket science to carry a gun safely. Can we stop pushing this myth around? Please?

Pretty please?

There, I asked nicely... I won't ask nicely again

Much of the act of putting effective rounds into a bad-guy at the typical distance an unlucky civilian will find themselves engaging (in the rare instance that they do), is rather intuitive... More so than driving a car, and on a different planet than trying to pilot a plane in 3 dimensions...

What isn't intuitive are the multitude of laws you have to obey and the act of trying to put all your shots in a 1-2inch region (which simply isn't required to "use" a firearm effectively - it sure helps, but you can do a lot without it).

Frankly, thinking about all those laws will get you killed if you are engaged...

As others have said - Should you train? YES!

Should you need to train to exercise your rights? NO!

Do you need to go train with camera guy on the berm to become a "low-drag switched on warrior" spending thousands of dollars to pretend you are 10X the bad-ass you really are? Absolutely not...

Primarily what you need to teach yourself (or learn) is accuracy, aim, judgment (when to shoot), getting from holster to target and reloading...

Most of which you can do with a little reading and practice (within the bounds of become "functional" - certainly you can always benefit from professional instruction)...

The key is to get the important stuff in your muscle memory, because of all the BS that MR "low-drag" says, what he says about your performance under stress is absolutely correct... Your performance will degrade to at or below the level of skill you have MASTERED...

 

[beaker07]

Grown men and women touching a gun for the first time in their 30's with NO basic frame of knowledge to draw upon to handle them safely...

Hey, that is me!

The only thing I've shot is a BB gun. But I want to learn to properly fire different types of guns once I get my proper certification. I have to say that Mike-Mike gave a great class and was really hands on with multiple types of guns.

I'm at least smart enough to know what I don't know and once I get my LTC-A I'm going to spend several weekends taking private instruction to learn proper technique. I'd rather learn it right in the beginning than try to fix a bad habit later. Too many people think that once you cross that low bar, getting your license, you are good to go and know all you need. It would be like thinking that just because you successfully got a girl pregnant that you know all you need to know about raising a kid.

 

[cekim]

Hey, that is me!

Not your fault, its just a hole in our education that used to be filled at home...

At home, if you demonstrated poor safety practices as a kid, you'd be punished, and presumably not have a gun for a while... As an adult, there's no one around smacking sense into you

 

[dwarven1]

May I jump in here with another entity to blame? How about Hollywood?

How many movies have we seen that makes it look easy to defend yourself, no training needed? How many movies have you seen where the bad guys can't hit an elephant in the back seat of your car, but the good guy can make headshots at fifty yards with a snubby?

People tend to believe the BS that gets funneled into their soggy little brains through the TV and the movie screen. Remember Death Wish (I can't believe I'm dumping on one of my favorite movies...)? Bronson makes it look easy to just pick up a gun and shoot the bad guys... and at that, it was probably one of the more realistic movies around, since he DOES get injured in the course of his revenge.

Sure, it's easy to pick up a gun and pull the trigger... but you lose your fine motor control under extreme stress - making it that much harder to get your gun into play during a REAL mugging. Drew, your practice is no doubt because you're aware of this, and you know that your reflexes will be the only thing to save yourself with... but most folks do NOT know this. Like your spectator at the range the other day.

 

[Coyote33]

Maybe he wanted to try it, but was too shy or timid to come right out and ask. Maybe next time you could ask if he would like to try it with you (if you didn't already do it this time).

 

[drew]

Your average gun fight is 3 ft 3 shots 3 second now, that is within arms length away. I understand that 90 % of the population will probably never have to use their firearm for personal protection, but it does happen or else you would never see it in the news. Alot of people out there wont do something unless they are mandated by law, not saying all laws are good or even make sense. I'm simply stating too many people let their egos get in the way of good judgement. I have taught alot of Military members the basic safety class, half of which have never even picked up a hand gun before. All of them learned something that they were never taught before. The spectator did specify that he only has firearms for hunting. I think some states have a good idea when it comes to carrying for Personal Protection. Must take a Personal Protection course that covers the laws and the ups and downs of carrying a firearm for self preservation and the defense of others.

 

[dwarven1]

A lot of people out there won't do something unless they are mandated by law.

Yup, lots of

out there.

I'm simply stating too many people let their egos get in the way of good judgement.

Yeah, that's why we request people to check their egos at the door at all Appleseed Shoots. (not that it always WORKS, but we do ask! )

I think some states have a good idea when it comes to carrying for Personal Protection. Must take a Personal Protection course that covers the laws and the ups and downs of carrying a firearm for self preservation and the defense of others.

*sigh* Unfortunately, that way lies control for the State - What kind of course does the person have to take? Does the instructor have to be certified? Who certifies him? How much does the instructor have to charge? Hell, how much does the instructor have to pay to KEEP his certification?

What part of "shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

And before you go blasting off at me, I think that getting training is an EXCELLENT idea; I've taken a few classes myself, and I'll take more when the money is there. I just think that allowing the State to get it's grubby paws on the legal mechanism for requiring it is a spectacularly BAD idea. Look at what MA is trying to do with the proposed CMRs regulating that sort of thing!

 

[JWalker]

Continuing education and practice is always prudent...in any industry, sport, hobby, or profession.

 

[drew]

Theres alot more to CCW, than just laws though.. Ex: how to aquire target properyly without hurting yourself or others, draw, grip, presentation, where to place the rounds, the Psychological aspects, the physical limitations(tunnel vision, sweaty hands, trembling, loss of hearing, and most of important awareness of surroundings) how many rounds to fire, how to communicate, who to communicate too, all theese things to look at, and you think common sense will pravail, without training.... Two words for ya, Your Dreaming.... As far as Instructors teaching the CCW course, would have to certified, would have to know the Laws and would have to certified through a well known Instructional School... Fees are up to the Instructor on the course being taught... Instructor certs would be assesed by a panel of Qualified Instructors.... Just my .02..

 

[Supermoto]

Drew, since you are advocating training, what do you feel is the minimum skill required in order to carry?

 

[drgrant]

Theres alot more to CCW, than just laws though.. Ex: how to aquire target properyly without hurting yourself or others, draw, grip, presentation, where to place the rounds, the Psychological aspects, the physical limitations(tunnel vision, sweaty hands, trembling, loss of hearing, and most of important awareness of surroundings)

Yes, but even if you train for these things, s**t happens. I agree that knowing what to do (training) ahead of time can make the odds tilt in your
favor a lot better, though.

how many rounds to fire,

You shoot until the guy stops attacking you/flees. Not rocket science. One doesn't need a PHD to understand "proportional response". You shoot to
stop the threat. This is not quantum physics.

how to communicate, who to communicate too, all theese things to look at, and you think common sense will pravail, without training.... Two words for ya, Your Dreaming....

It must piss you off then to have to accept the fact that many untrained or minimally trained people have defended themselves successfully with a firearm. Maybe some of them got lucky, sure, but had they not had a gun, they would have been a lot worse off. Not to mention, the deterrence effects of firearms in general. Many criminals have decided to spontaneously rethink their victim selection process once they realize their intended victim has a gun. Apparently that has no value to you, of course.

As far as Instructors teaching the CCW course, would have to certified, would have to know the Laws and would have to certified through a well known Instructional School... Fees are up to the Instructor on the course being taught... Instructor certs would be assesed by a panel of Qualified Instructors.... Just my .02..

Thanks for advocating that we restrict our rights even further by adding another mandatory layer of crap into the laws, probably increasing the time and monetary cost of acquiring a license by an order of magnitude or two. This is exactly what the anti gun legislators want, and you're serving it up to them on a silver platter. This is without getting too deeply into the fact that the compliance burden would likely reduce the number of good instructors to the public who will find the requirement too cumbersome to continue maintaining "certification".

-Mike

 

[cekim]

Drew, since you are advocating training, what do you feel is the minimum skill required in order to carry?

The law according to Drew... And so it was written and so it shall be done... [sad2]

The problem is that one can pontificate endlessly as to how we could all be better off if only the "good people" had access to dangerous things...

The trouble is the definition of "good people" in the past has been defined at various times as (some fine examples from around the world - the first 5 are from the US):
1. Only land owning white men
2. Only white men
3. Only white men and women
4. Only those who can pay a poll tax
5. Only those who can pass a poll test
6. Only those of "noble birth"
7. Only Christians
8. Only Jews
9. Only Muslims
10. Only friends of the dictator

Starting to get the picture?

Sure, it would be "reasonable", but we are talking about something many of us (including those who wrote the constitution) believe to be a fundamental right of existence... Not just of citizenship, but the fact that you are here on this earth gives you the right to defend yourself, however ill prepared you might be to do so...

Frankly, I'll take my chances with the accidents over the certainty of the abuse as demonstrated by history... The odds are greater that I will be a victim of abuse of government power than of being shot by a ND...

If government is given the power to decide who gets them based on "reasonable restrictions", this power WILL be (not may - WILL be) abused...

[sarcasm]I suggest that those who do not understand such an important concept of our nation's founding are not qualified to vote. You need more education or we all risk you electing bad people and supporting bad law

 

[Maj. Boom Boom]

Yes, but even if you train for these things, s**t happens. I agree that knowing what to do (training) ahead of time can make the odds tilt in your
favor a lot better, though.



You shoot until the guy stops attacking you/flees. Not rocket science. One doesn't need a PHD to understand "proportional response". You shoot to
stop the threat. This is not quantum physics.



It must piss you off then to have to accept the fact that many untrained or minimally trained people have defended themselves successfully with a firearm. Maybe some of them got lucky, sure, but had they not had a gun, they would have been a lot worse off. Not to mention, the deterrence effects of firearms in general. Many criminals have decided to spontaneously rethink their victim selection process once they realize their intended victim has a gun. Apparently that has no value to you, of course.



Thanks for advocating that we restrict our rights even further by adding another mandatory layer of crap into the laws, probably increasing the time and monetary cost of acquiring a license by an order of magnitude or two. This is exactly what the anti gun legislators want, and you're serving it up to them on a silver platter. This is without getting too deeply into the fact that the compliance burden would likely reduce the number of good instructors to the public who will find the requirement too cumbersome to continue maintaining "certification".

-Mike

I agree. you already have to go through enough just to get an LTC. when i want & can afford more training i'll get it, it should not be mandatory.

 

[Jose]

I think some states have a good idea when it comes to carrying for Personal Protection. Must take a Personal Protection course that covers the laws and the ups and downs of carrying a firearm for self preservation and the defense of others.

I strongly disagree with you.