I agree with this 100%. It should be any gun owner's goal to be more effective with a firearm, especially if you CCW, would you really want to trust your life with the only training being that 50 rounds you fire, and dont even have to hit the target, that you get during the CCW class? No, it is each individual's duty to seek more training if needed. I am firmly against anything that gives the government more control over the people.
I agree with this 100%. It should be any gun owner's goal to be more effective with a firearm, especially if you CCW, would you really want to trust your life with the only training being that 50 rounds you fire, and dont even have to hit the target, that you get during the CCW class? No, it is each individual's duty to seek more training if needed. I am firmly against anything that gives the government more control over the people.
My response was in response to statements like this:
Of course I cherry-picked the quotes, but we're gun owners talking about ways to further limit the god-given right to carry a weapon. If we don't stop it, we may get our way.
and
Of course I cherry-picked the quotes, but we're gun owners talking about ways to further limit the god-given right to carry a weapon. If we don't stop it, we may get our way.
I wasn't referencing the OP. It's the follow-up comments that get me.
See my previous post.
Woops, didn't mean to jump on you. Sorry.
My response to this quote
is punishing irresponsible gun usage. The whole point is that we don't want innocent bystanders getting shot, or guns being brandished in situations where they shouldn't be, so people doing those things will have a strong incentive not to do those things. Whether they want to accomplish that by not carrying, or carrying responsibly is really up to them.
So I have to ask this then: is question #1 a problem? Has that happened lately?
Same question for your question #2? I mean brandishing as in the real definition of brandishing, not some shirt tail flapping ion the breeze and exposing accidentally.
Why do we want to discourage people from carrying by threatening punishment if they do it wrong? The more people that carry, the safer we all are. It puts the perps at ill ease, which slows them down. Statistics seem to prove that.
Now if you shoot someone because you acted/reacted incorrectly, you pay the piper, sure.
MB's article had some good points, but some times we seem to be trying to fix problems that don't really exist.
I'm all for proper training. People should have the ability to handle their weapon of choice, but does training at a range actually prepare us to face down a guy with intent to do us bodily harm? You may be able to hit the steel 9 out of 10 times, but could you do the same if the steel was shooting back?
I've read some news articles recently about people shooting warning shots inappropriately, drawing when they shouldn't, etc. The worst was a woman in Chicago who fired a shotgun at a 12-year-old kid for throwing rocks at her window or something. That got me thinking, and reminded me of the guy at that church shooting in Texas who hit a girl on the other side of the shooter.
I'm not saying it's a problem, but anything to mitigate this kind of problem is a Good Thing.
For the record, I support legalizing open carry to protect people from being prosecuted if they print or their shirt rides up or something. That's a separate issue.
Yeah that's what I mean.
Dude if I had the means I'd be doing force-on-force training at least twice a year. But I don't, unfortunately.
I don't know how well range training translates to a gunfight, and it's probably different for different people, but my money is on a guy who pushes himself and does BSA drills regularly over a guy who just took the state required class.
Keep in mind that most of the good guys who've won gunfights hand no more than square range training as preparation. What's more important is the ability to read lethal intent and a willingness to meet it with equal or greater force, without hesitation. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the events where good guys lost could be traced back to a failure to recognize the danger in time, or a fatal hesitation to respond. Lack of shooting ability may be attributable, but in most cases it isn't the main flaw.
This is very true. Do you know a good resource for information on things like mental conditioning or reading body language?
I'm told that No Second Place Winner by Bill Jordan has good material but I've never read it. However, based on what I've read from Charles Askins, Border Patrol agents of that period sure knew a thing or two about winning quick-and-dirty gunfights.
Practical Unarmed Combat DVD is one. http://www.moaarmory.com/details.php?prodId=37&category=11&secondary=&keywords=
Here is a summary of the managing unknown contacts portion. http://www.safeism.com/pdfs/SNContacts.pdf
I have taken the Advanced Concealed Carry class at USSA and a lot of this is covered and you get to practice doing some of these things - escalating verbage, moving, drawing from concealment (standing, sitting, on the ground), extreme close-range shooting, etc. It is a one day course and one of their less expensive courses. Highly recommended.
All of Jordan's work is good. So is Askins, but he's VERY un-PC.
I still like a lot of Ayoob's early work, even though he focuses too much on the aftermath. I use his stuff to reinforce good responses for ensuring a clean shoot if it comes to that. Jim Cirillo's stuff is a little harder to find, but well worth the effort.Grossman is a good read on the clinical aspects of mental preparation. Some complain that a lot of the work is not his own, but he ties it all in well. Most of my body language training is via classroom investigator's courses from companies like Reid, Eckman, Wicklander-Zulawski, Chameleon, etc. You can find lots of stuff on the internet at places like policeone.com and some of the self-defense blogs and forums.
I'm sure others can chime in with more resources.
Similar threads
