Minimum Gun Skills

[molonlabetn]

Tom Givens has had 41 students involved in gunfights (at last count).

They have over 95% hit ratio.

About half of them had multiple opponents.

All but 2 won.

Those 2 had no gun......

So don't give me any CRAP about training having no effect , or that well trained people are always over confident. I guess 16 year old kids are safer drivers too since they have little confidence and little experience driving? I guess I could fly a space shuttle better than an astronaut because he is overconfident. That's just silly.

The Tyler Texas thing was a guy who charged in with a handgun vs a body armor wearing AK armed guy. That was not a failure of training as much as a failure in decision making. I know of plenty of well trained guys that smoked bad guys BECAUSE of their skill and training.

Look, you obviously feel that "least common denominator" training or no training at all is good enough. fine. Your choice. But arguing that training and or acquiring a higher level of skill is bad is just ludicrous.

Seems to me that even if though the 2 who 'lost' were superbly trained, that really didn't matter nearly as much as having a gun in the first place...

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Hard to shoot back with no gun....carry your freakin' gun ON YOU!

[saintsfanbrian]

No one is really saying that at all, Luke. We are just saying that training will certainly help to some degree if you apply what you learn. Conversely, there are people who have a ton of training, are trainers themselves that freeze under fire and do exactly what they shouldn't do. Poor decision making will get you killed.

Remember NO ONE wins a fight between two or more people. The only fight with a winner is the fight that never happens.

[molonlabetn]

I like that.

The most important minimum gun skill is knowing how to get out of a situation and avoid using it.

[GhostDog]

As far as the state goes, I don't think there should be any "minimum" standard to carry for your own protection. That would be like keeping anyone who's not a fireman from buying a fire extinguisher. On the other hand, I don't want the 700lb fireman showing up if my house is on fire.

I think Randy was just suggesting a way to test your skills. That's not a bad idea even if it doesn't directly relate to self defense in every way. Relax guys!

Excellence in anything is always individual. The harder you work, the better you will be at it (whatever it may be). Some folks are serious and work hard, some don't. Make your own choice, you will get back what you put in. It's your butt, you decide what it's worth.

I work as hard as I can while trying to juggle all the other wonderful things I have to do day to day. I try to know what's going on around me and be prepared (not just referring to carry).

What I don't get is why people want to require "minimum" standards for CCW, especially "gun people". That is just another way for the antis to deny CCW to you and me. For crying out loud, the state lets any schmuck with eyesight drive on public roads and cars are much more dangerous than guns will ever be!

[GhostDog]

See Mars, I can be a peacemaker as long as you're not ranting about Glocks!

[molonlabetn]

See Mars, I can be a peacemaker as long as you're not ranting about Glocks!

It might be a valid issue that there should be some greater standard of minimum safety training to carry one of those...

heh-heh...

[Marswolf]

See Mars, I can be a peacemaker as long as you're not ranting about Glocks!

I don't rant. I just tell the truth.

[Guest DaG]

So what skills do you aim for? (I am assuming the basic rules of gun handling were already covered.)

I would still start over with Grip, Stance, and Trigger Control ( accuracy)

DaG

[GhostDog]

Such an elusive target these days.

I have a suggestion for CCW holders. Now, this will not necessarily apply to military or specialized police teams but it surely does for the rest of us, including police patrol officers. We should concentrate on not getting shot, stabbed, or "brained" FIRST and make neutralizing the threat our second priority. It's pretty simple when you think about it.

It's harder to test skill in this area and will hardly spark all the usual debates (Glock vs SIG, 9mm vs 45ACP, ect ect ect) but it's surely a valid strategy to pursue. Being aware of your surroundings, avoiding trouble if you can, moving off line at the start of an assault, quick presentation of a weapon while moving... all these are as important as marksmanship. They just aren't very sexy topics for a gun board.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Guest canynracer]

well said Ghost...

I do think that the skill set for owning a gun, and carrying it are two different topics. they raise two different scenarios and require different skillsets.

[The Rabbi]

I think it is beyond obvious that people who carry (and even more so those who dont) should first and foremost practice avoidance as the best strategy.

The question becomes, what do you do when that fails?

I tell people the second to last thing I want to do is shoot someone. The last thing is to get shot or maimed myself.

We all understand that.

My question was directed to what are the absolute basic minimum skills with a firearm necessary.

Reading the various accounts that are published, it seems to me that people with the most minimal experience get by just fine. The deciding factor seems to be the attitude that "I will not become a victim."

And on the other side, I don't recall any stories where the victim would have come out OK had he had better training.

Thus my view that training for self-protection is a marginal proposition at best.

Is it possible that lightening-fast mag changes will save your life? I guess. Is that the deciding factor in any significant number of armed encounters? I would think not.

[Guest 270win]

Do not have any training requirements. I have yet to hear of any problems in those states regarding licensees carrying handguns for self defense. In Alabama and New Hampshire, you can carrying virtually anywhere, including schools, restaurants, bars, and signs have no legal weight there, if ever posted.

[The Rabbi]

Do not have any training requirements. I have yet to hear of any problems in those states regarding licensees carrying handguns for self defense. In Alabama and New Hampshire, you can carrying virtually anywhere, including schools, restaurants, bars, and signs have no legal weight there, if ever posted.

No one is talking about govt-mandated requirements for licensing. I would have thought this was obvious in all the pages devoted to this topic.

[GhostDog]

How can training be bad (or, to be more specific, of no use)? Of course, training is always good. Now, there is more useful and less useful training, but no bad training. It is true that some people with minimal ability/experience do well when they are forced to, but is that something to count on? Most criminals (in particular street criminals) are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, but do you want to bet your life on it? Their #1 objective is to get what they want and get out, but these days it seems they would just as soon kill someone as look at them. I prefer to better my odds however I can. I agree that the "will" is a decisive factor but most people have developed that attitude from some kind of experience. If one's first experience with "up close serious social encounters" is when they have to defend their life, it's a crap shoot as to how/how quickly they may react. ANY experience beats no experience at all.

If I had to play a one-on-one basketball game next weekend against a stranger FOR MY LIFE, you can bet I would practice. The only real question is: what to practice and how is the best way to do it. But... that's a whole 'nother debate.

I don't think you can judge based just on reading the success stories. We all see the "not so successful" stories all the time in the news. The NRA isn't going to print stories about gun people who are caught unawares any more than the news media will print stories about people who use guns to defend themselves. I can't really prove a negative to you. For example, I don't think any of us will ever see this story; "Well trained and aware young man not targeted by street thug" or "Young woman, paying attention to her surroundings and armed, passed up by rapist for softer target". See what I mean?

Do whatever you think is best for you, it is your own skin. But... to suggest that self defense training has no value seems to me to be silly.

[Guest 270win]

Yes, i do think that good proper training and consistently practicing is important to carrying a firearm or other weapon for protection. I apoligize if my reference to states not requiring training for licensing was misunderstood. Many police departments only require officers to qualify twice a year. I know back in the old days in Little Rock (50's-70's), LEO relatives of mine were required to go to the police range every month, unless the weather was bad. If you missed range time, you got a week of pay suspended.

I usually go to the range once a month and follow the standard two hand, dominant hand (my right), and left hand shooting. I also practice slow and rapid fire. I have heard initial TN handgun carry permit classes do not require drawing? I asked for permission at RangeUSA in Bartlett to draw from a holster but was denied b/c i haven't taken a special class. I found that odd b/c i was allowed to draw from a holster on a range in Little Rock as long as i had an Arkansas Concealed Handgun License. Has anyone taken a course that allows he or she to draw and fire on a range? What are such courses like?

[Guest DaG]

I think what the Rabbi is asking is what skill set / gun handling skills should be taught......(me thinks anyway)

DaG

[The Rabbi]

I think what the Rabbi is asking is what skill set / gun handling skills should be taught......(me thinks anyway)

DaG

Close/

The question had to do with the minimal skills necessary.

Training is probably never bad. But is it necessary? I have seen statements to the effect that if you dont have extensive training then you are just a liability on the street. I think that's nonsense.

I think a lot of what is taught is nonsense. Fast reloads with retention are nice skills to have, but are they really necessary? No, I dont think so. Shooting at long distances fast and accurately looks impressive, but is that really a survival skill or more akin to a parlor trick?

Frequently you see or hear "but what if you were in X situation?" The answer is two-fold: 1) X situation hasnt happened more than 10 times since people started carrying weapons. The chances of it happening to me are zero. 2) No amount of training realistically will help in X situation.

And that is more my point: advanced gun handling skills probably never make the difference between success and failure over minimal skills. If people want to train and develop skills, that's nice. It's fun. People (myself especially) enjoy it. But it isnt the "survival tool" it is often touted as being.

[saintsfanbrian]

Personally, I think that proficiency with your weapon is a good thing. I get to the range as often as I can and I dry fire practice at home.

That being said, I know a bunch of people that carry a bunch of different weapons in a bunch of different locations. While variety may be the spice of life, if the SHTF I don't want to have to think about where my gun is, which one is it, do I have to remove the safety or can I just, as windows suggested, point and click.

Training, sure if I had the time and extra money. I don't right now (work, family, school doesn't leave much time for anything else.) If and when I do, sure.

I meant to put in here that being able to hit 1" targets at 30 yards with a handgun is great. I am damn proud that you can do that, but lets be realistic as to what we should be striving for. When I practice I go 25 feet or less. I am pretty good at this not great but pretty good. I don't have a problem admitting that I could be better but if the **** hits the fan, I will be able to hit my target and neutralize the threat.

[TGO David]

The State already has a capability certification as part of the Handgun Carry Permit process. It's called being able to get 30 of 50 shots into the black area of a B-27 target at a certain distance.

Should re-certification be mandatory? Well, sure! But let's also make sure that we start requiring re-certification for Driver's Licenses as well.

There are damn sure more people out there injuring and killing folks with cars every day than there are people killing folks with guns. Let's start the re-certification process where it would do the most good since any such routine re-cert process will carry a huge procedural overhead for the State to implement and enforce.

Meanwhile, let's be socially responsible as HCP holders and gun owners, and encourage each other to strive to shoot better, shoot more accurately, and be more proficient with our weapon(s) of choice. We can remedy the lack of expertise on our own. We really don't need the State being our nanny.

[The Rabbi]

The State already has a capability certification as part of the Handgun Carry Permit process. It's called being able to get 30 of 50 shots into the black area of a B-27 target at a certain distance.

Should re-certification be mandatory? Well, sure! But let's also make sure that we start requiring re-certification for Driver's Licenses as well.

There are damn sure more people out there injuring and killing folks with cars every day than there are people killing folks with guns. Let's start the re-certification process where it would do the most good since any such routine re-cert process will carry a huge procedural overhead for the State to implement and enforce.

Meanwhile, let's be socially responsible as HCP holders and gun owners, and encourage each other to strive to shoot better, shoot more accurately, and be more proficient with our weapon(s) of choice. We can remedy the lack of expertise on our own. We really don't need the State being our nanny.

Did you actually read any of my posts??

[Cruel Hand Luke]

While there certainly are folks who do survive lethal force encounters having had no training that hardly makes the argument that someone with no training is just as likely to win as a master level shooter who has had the stress innoculation of good pressure tested training.

I see all levels of shooter/fighter in the classes I teach and in the continuing education classes I attend as a student. From guys who have just bought their first gun to Army Spec Ops with multiple trips to hot sandy places and everywhere in between. The constant among all of these is the guys who have their gunhandling down to a level that they can run the pistol "unconscously" ALWAYS outperform the guys who have to look at their gun to make it work and who have to look at their gun to get it out of the holster or reholster it. When these folks are put into a fairly benign environment (the range) and asked to perform pretty basic drills like drawing their pistol and hitting an 8" circle on an IDPA target at 4 yards they can generally do it no matter the skill level. But when we bring them up in front of the class one by one and have them shoot the same thing but under time pressure and peer pressure things tend to start to fall apart for the guys who are not solid in their gun handling.

But when we introduce the Force on Force part and replicate the same thing, but making them go off of a visual cue instead of a timer's buzzer, and they now have tha added pressure of a real live thinking moving opponent, hands turn to flippers , people screw up their draw, drop their guns and typically get "stabbed or shot" the first few times they run the drills. If the first time you see this is on the street with REAL weapons and REAL thugs, your chances of coming out of that OK are significantly lower.

The guys who have their gunhandling down tend to do A LOT better even if they have never seen a live opponent trying to stab them before. Their brain is still multi tasking just like everyone else, they just have 1 less thing to worry about. They have confidence that they do not have to worry with getting their gun out and making it work. Those who do not have that confidence tend to look like they don't know whether to pee or wind their watch. So having a GOOD grasp of the skills to get your gun into play and make it throw projectiles where you need them is NEVER bad and ALWAYS better than NOT having that skill.

Confidence is the other issue. Guys who have that confidence exude it. They are the ones you see who no matter their size give off the vibe that they are not worth the trouble it would be to mess with them. And there is a lot to be said for that. I see this all the time in matches even. The master level guys carry themselves differently than novices. Confidence. The Masters KNOW they can do whatever they need to with the gun ON DEMAND and they don't have that mental clutter where they have to conscously THINK about running the gun.

Now I'm OBVIOUSLY not suggesting that ONLY master level shooters can survive a violent encounter. I'm suggesting that the more skill an individual has the more he can focus on all the other stuff involved and the less HAS TO focus on getting the mechanical device to cooperate with what his reptile brain wants to happen. Also if he has seen some real time encounters in Force on Force training he is less likely to panic. Your subconscous doesn't know the difference between real and a drill. It just catalogs good and bad results. That is why people say "my training just took over". NO your subconscous took over. It did what gave best results last time you saw a problem similar to this one in front of you.

If you have never seen it before (or at least visualized it before) panic is much more likely. Panic is just the lack of a pre planned response. I'm not saying it is a meticulous plan like the invasion of Normandy, more a rough subconscous roadmap that steers you in certain directions depending on what the road signs say is coming up ahead. But if you can't get your gun out from concealment and make good hits on the other guy QUICKLY, then all of this means nothing. If the likely engagement is over in 3.5 seconds from the go signal and it takes you 3 seconds to get your gun out.........hmmm not much time to work with there for the shooting and the not getting shot part.

And if the encounter is CLOSE (0-5 feet within arms reach) you are LIKELY to get your draw fouled by the BG and or your gun grabbed or redirected. This OFTEN casues malfunctions. You now have a very inefficiant club in hand until you get the gun cleared. Can you clear that malfunction? And guys who say well "I'll just draw and shoot him before he can get to me" might be fooling themselves.Most folks really have no concept of how FAST things move when the BG is SERIOUS about hurting you. I'm 6' 240lbs and I can cover 3.5 yards in about .5 of a second. If you just stand and draw you WILL get stabbed in that situation. Sorry . Life sucks.

But SEEING this stuff in advance like you do in GOOD training programs, gives you a HUGE advantage over the average guy who just reads gun magazines. And seeing it in advance and combining it with good gun skills and awareness and knowing what the universal cues of impending criminal assault look like in real time makes you a VERY uninviting target for Mr. Badguy.

But I'm sure just having a gun probably does the same for you too....

[The Rabbi]

But I'm sure just having a gun probably does the same for you too....

Yeah. And that's why we read all the time about armed citizens who are constantly shot and stabbed by bad guys. If they had only listened to Gabe.

[TGO David]

Did you actually read any of my posts??

No, did you post something useful?

I kid, I kid.

Edit... Ok so I just went back and skimmed your posts. Where did you say something that would have lead you to believe that my post indicated a failure to comprehend your point? From what I've read, you have been arguing the probability of an armed citizen needing to know advanced gun handling skills. That's a fine point to argue, but I think you can distill the issue to an even simpler level which is what I tried to do.

I believe that the theory of "creep" has merit. When the government gets involved in an issue and makes laws to address it, their influence and meddling eventually "creeps" into other areas that weren't intended to begin with. We need less government, not more.

[The Rabbi]

No, did you post something useful?

I kid, I kid.

No. Unless you consider information that would save you from total embarrassment "useful". Stuff like:

A guy comes to you. He doesn't really know anything about guns and he isnt into shooting, doesnt have the time, etc.

But he feels like he needs one for protection. He wants you to teach him everything he needs to know so he will be safe either at home or on the street. So what skills do you aim for? (I am assuming the basic rules of gun handling were already covered.)

Right, I didnt mean a legal requirement. I think people ought to be able to buy and carry guns with very minimal restrictions.

I meant as a recommended skill level for someone.

No one is talking about govt-mandated requirements for licensing. I would have thought this was obvious in all the pages devoted to this topic.

But feel free to post whatever comes to your mind.

I read your edit. You still don't get it. The thread has nothing, zero, nada, to do with government requirements. If you want to discuss what the gov't ought to mandate for a carry permit, start another thread. It is off topic for this one. This one is about the private citizen who has a permit (or doesnt) and wants to know the minimal skill set he really needs realistically to be able to defend himself on the street or in his home or business.