Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Page Hometown » Iowa
Posted: 9/6/2010 5:08:28 PM EDT
I guess you could call this a rant or sorts....I am and guess I have always been of the opinion that I would rather have one really quality weapon, and be very good with it than a bunch of stuff and be ok with all of them.
I have always been about being able to take care of myself kind of a personal responsibility thing, learning hand to hand from an early age (martial arts), to learning edged weapons, to eventually becoming old enough to carry a pistol or revolver.
I learned about guns from a bunch of older gentlemen, most of whom were WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam Veterans as a young man. I remember telling my father that I wanted to learn to shoot so he sat me down with a friend who worked part time on the farm for him and I began to learn about guns.
I believe I was around 10 at the time and learned ho to safely handle and take care of a weapon. Of course, learning from men who had carried weapons into war, and that their lives depended on the weapon they carried working....I also learned to take care of what I had, in addition to how to use it.
I guess what I am getting at is this, learning in a classroom is great, a great place to start. Now, thanks to Iowa Carry we are becoming a shall issue state. Again, a great move and many thanks to the members who made this possible.
But taking on the responsibility of standing up to crime, and refusing to be a victim takes on a new meaning..... it is not a game, there is no time out, no foul can be called and what happens on the street can end you or if you survive can cause other equally as damaging in many other ways, financial, emotional, ect.
We have all seen it, folks think they can just pick up a weapon and 50 rounds and go to the range....shoot a few rounds, not knowing how to group, let alone shoot on the move, or from a holster....or from concealment and call themselves armed.
Not many have good equipment, some $5 gun show nylon holster for their $1000 pistol, aftermarket mags, and a belt that can not support such a load. A lot of folks also have no idea on how to properly cover their newly purchased weapon and the either on purpose or by accident draw attention to themselves and get the law called on them. So now you draw a peace officer into the situation.
I guess the basis for my rant is if you are going to step up and be responsible for yourself and your loved ones safety, then don't do it half assed, learn, get out there and see what is out there, see what your chosen weapon system can do, and how far you can push yourself and your system to failure.
Talk to the folks who are teaching, some are great others are not.
Once you have chosen a class, learn from it, practice what you have learned and look for someone else....never stop learning, never stop training....this is YOUR responsibility as a person who has agreed to be responsible for your own safety.
It seems to me at times that by simply having a bunch of guns is indeed fun, part of my addiction to firearms, knives, ect. has been the hunt for what I wanted and it was usually just enough off the beaten path that the things I enjoy are usually not out on the market in every place you look. Now that I have learned to build what I want (rifle wise anyway) I enjoy making quality parts work together for the best, most functional, and accurate outcome....in short something I would bet my life on anytime, every time.

Sorry for the rant, sometimes I just need to get things out there.

Romper
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:05:53 PM EDT
Link

this is an article I saw on KSCCW.com. It is a good read and eludes to the responsibilities and consequences.

You are exactly right, it is a huge thing....... train, practice and get appropriate gear
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 5:03:51 PM EDT
well said!
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 8:41:21 PM EDT
Do i really need to take a class and fork out hundreds of dollars in order to protect my life? I have a RIGHT to protect myself, end of discussion. You worry about yours and i will worry about mine.

Now you can recommend that people take a class and learn from professionals, but in reading your rant it came off more like you are saying people have to and if you dont you are stupid, and will die a tragic death... Truth is alot of ordinary people have managed just fine to protect their lives without formal training, also there have been many cases where someone has taken every precaution and still wound up dead.

P.S. i do intend to take classes and think its a great idea for people to do, but if you dont want to thats your choice...

Paging Septic... when i was up picking up a mag he painted for me he got off on a rant about this, and he put it far better than i have heard the argument ever made
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:20:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JoelAC89:
You worry about yours and i will worry about mine.



While I agree with your point that you have a right to protect yourself, it is the above statement that I question. If the only negative consequece of an untrained individual operating a weapon were injury to themselves, I wouldn't be as worried, but sadly it is usually a bystander that falls victim to the untrained individual with a weapon. Therefore, promoting firearms training is actually another method for me to protect my loved ones. YMMV
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:01:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rlarge10:
While I agree with your point that you have a right to protect yourself, it is the above statement that I question. If the only negative consequece of an untrained individual operating a weapon were injury to themselves, I wouldn't be as worried, but sadly it is usually a bystander that falls victim to the untrained individual with a weapon. Therefore, promoting firearms training is actually another method for me to protect my loved ones. YMMV


At some point you have to realize that you cant control every variable in life... In the perfect world everyone would be a perfect shot, and bullets would magically stop inside the bad guy. But in that world no one would need a weapon to protect themselves because there would be no crime, but only for the sporting purpose.

Lets not forget, even with training mistakes are made... our law enforcement and our military prove that point all the time.

And i have no problem with promoting firearm training, but im not going to push it on someone and tell them they are stupid for not (witch as i stated is how i interpreted the OP's rant)...

Not only will classes improve your skills, but at the same time they look like a great way to spend a day... They look like they are alot of fun, witch is another reason i wish to start taking some.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:26:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JoelAC89:
Originally Posted By rlarge10:
While I agree with your point that you have a right to protect yourself, it is the above statement that I question. If the only negative consequece of an untrained individual operating a weapon were injury to themselves, I wouldn't be as worried, but sadly it is usually a bystander that falls victim to the untrained individual with a weapon. Therefore, promoting firearms training is actually another method for me to protect my loved ones. YMMV


At some point you have to realize that you cant control every variable in life... In the perfect world everyone would be a perfect shot, and bullets would magically stop inside the bad guy. But in that world no one would need a weapon to protect themselves because there would be no crime, but only for the sporting purpose.

Lets not forget, even with training mistakes are made... our law enforcement and our military prove that point all the time.

And i have no problem with promoting firearm training, but im not going to push it on someone and tell them they are stupid for not (witch as i stated is how i interpreted the OP's rant)...

Not only will classes improve your skills, but at the same time they look like a great way to spend a day... They look like they are alot of fun, witch is another reason i wish to start taking some.

I believe professionally driven training should be sought by all those who wish to use a firearm in a defensive role. But, I'll play devil's advocate though, mostly cause I love to stir the pot, how many courses and events are enough to adequately defend yourself? Should one attend two courses a year? quarter? a month? Should they be shooting their chosen weapon at least once week given , especially given how quickly pistol skills degrade?

If they can't afford a regime like that, should they be denied their right to defend themselves with that weapon? I mean the vast majority of self defense shootings, by non-Leo, involve people who have only had one or two range trips at the most and no professional training.

Secondly where do we place the metric to meet adequate training, ? Most, gun owners get to the range once a year to zero before deer season. Most, Leos, depending on department, get access to department driven training every 4-6 months (this is just my very little experience, could be very wrong)? When I was in the service, firearms tng at that level would get and has gotten people killed. I remeber every six months we would have a 3-4 week gunnery and that was only for .50 and the Mk-19, not including the M9, m4/16, M240 b, M-203 and m249 I was required to proficient on, plus the other skills and equipment, just to let you know I had to know more sights and radios then weapons. Where is the equilbrium that we declare one is good enough to defend themselves with their mossberg 500 or S&W model 15 .38 revolver, without denying their god given rights?


In a way I think this argument is much like when people talk about a candidate's qualifications for a president. Technically there are only 3, he/she must be natural borne, lived here for at least 14 years and at least 35 years old. Thats it, no other experience required, though I sure as shit would like the man to have been in the military, civilian executive exp... What I am getting at is simply this the law outlines very simple requirements for the purchase of firearms, but as firearems owners and people that defend ourselves is that where we want to the minimum to be? Do we include fitness and mental health evals? If one is unable to deal with stress, both mentally and physically, in day to day life how are they going to deal when haji, zombies, thugs, or russians come crahsing through their door or jump around the corner.


Thomas
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:48:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Originally Posted By JoelAC89:
Originally Posted By rlarge10:
While I agree with your point that you have a right to protect yourself, it is the above statement that I question. If the only negative consequece of an untrained individual operating a weapon were injury to themselves, I wouldn't be as worried, but sadly it is usually a bystander that falls victim to the untrained individual with a weapon. Therefore, promoting firearms training is actually another method for me to protect my loved ones. YMMV


At some point you have to realize that you cant control every variable in life... In the perfect world everyone would be a perfect shot, and bullets would magically stop inside the bad guy. But in that world no one would need a weapon to protect themselves because there would be no crime, but only for the sporting purpose.

Lets not forget, even with training mistakes are made... our law enforcement and our military prove that point all the time.

And i have no problem with promoting firearm training, but im not going to push it on someone and tell them they are stupid for not (witch as i stated is how i interpreted the OP's rant)...

Not only will classes improve your skills, but at the same time they look like a great way to spend a day... They look like they are alot of fun, witch is another reason i wish to start taking some.

I believe professionally driven training should be sought by all those who wish to use a firearm in a defensive role. But, I'll play devil's advocate though, mostly cause I love to stir the pot, how many courses and events are enough to adequately defend yourself? Should one attend two courses a year? quarter? a month? Should they be shooting their chosen weapon at least once week given , especially given how quickly pistol skills degrade?

If they can't afford a regime like that, should they be denied their right to defend themselves with that weapon? I mean the vast majority of self defense shootings, by non-Leo, involve people who have only had one or two range trips at the most and no professional training.

Secondly where do we place the metric to meet adequate training, ? Most, gun owners get to the range once a year to zero before deer season. Most, Leos, depending on department, get access to department driven training every 4-6 months (this is just my very little experience, could be very wrong)? When I was in the service, firearms tng at that level would get and has gotten people killed. I remeber every six months we would have a 3-4 week gunnery and that was only for .50 and the Mk-19, not including the M9, m4/16, M240 b, M-203 and m249 I was required to proficient on, plus the other skills and equipment, just to let you know I had to know more sights and radios then weapons. Where is the equilbrium that we declare one is good enough to defend themselves with their mossberg 500 or S&W model 15 .38 revolver, without denying their god given rights?


In a way I think this argument is much like when people talk about a candidate's qualifications for a president. Technically there are only 3, he/she must be natural borne, lived here for at least 14 years and at least 35 years old. Thats it, no other experience required, though I sure as shit would like the man to have been in the military, civilian executive exp... What I am getting at is simply this the law outlines very simple requirements for the purchase of firearms, but as firearems owners and people that defend ourselves is that where we want to the minimum to be? Do we include fitness and mental health evals? If one is unable to deal with stress, both mentally and physically, in day to day life how are they going to deal when haji, zombies, thugs, or russians come crahsing through their door or jump around the corner.


Thomas


While I agree that people are born with the right to carry a weapon and protect themselves, I have yet to meet anyone that was born with the knowledge to do so. Many athletes are born with God-given skills to run, jump, swim, etc, but they still have to practice their craft. NFL teams practice for game day, so why shouldn't we? I'm NOT suggesting that this level of training be mandatory. I believe it is more of a personal responsibility issue. Professional trainers help raise issues that the individual may not have considered and help overcome deficiencies in a training environment. Compare it to driving. Look how much training people are required to have just to drive a car, which only prepares them to operate at a minimal level of proficiency. And just like kids getting their driver's license, some people are a little over-confident in their firearms skills. If it is important enough for you to arm yourself, why not seek out a high level of training to provide you with skills to do so competently? You are also correct about shooting being a perishable skill. Training doesn't absolutely mean that you will triumph in a deadly force situation, but I think it would be hard to argue that it does anything but increase your odds. This isn't limited to firearms, but also physical fitness, situational awareness, disaster preparedness, etc. In the unlikely event that you are forced to use your weapon, there are no second chances. You must be prepared to bring everything you have to the table. In critical incidents we don't rise to the occasion, we fall to our level of training.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:21:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rlarge10:

Originally Posted By BobRoberts:

Originally Posted By JoelAC89:
Originally Posted By rlarge10:
While I agree with your point that you have a right to protect yourself, it is the above statement that I question. If the only negative consequece of an untrained individual operating a weapon were injury to themselves, I wouldn't be as worried, but sadly it is usually a bystander that falls victim to the untrained individual with a weapon. Therefore, promoting firearms training is actually another method for me to protect my loved ones. YMMV


At some point you have to realize that you cant control every variable in life... In the perfect world everyone would be a perfect shot, and bullets would magically stop inside the bad guy. But in that world no one would need a weapon to protect themselves because there would be no crime, but only for the sporting purpose.

Lets not forget, even with training mistakes are made... our law enforcement and our military prove that point all the time.

And i have no problem with promoting firearm training, but im not going to push it on someone and tell them they are stupid for not (witch as i stated is how i interpreted the OP's rant)...

Not only will classes improve your skills, but at the same time they look like a great way to spend a day... They look like they are alot of fun, witch is another reason i wish to start taking some.

I believe professionally driven training should be sought by all those who wish to use a firearm in a defensive role. But, I'll play devil's advocate though, mostly cause I love to stir the pot, how many courses and events are enough to adequately defend yourself? Should one attend two courses a year? quarter? a month? Should they be shooting their chosen weapon at least once week given , especially given how quickly pistol skills degrade?

If they can't afford a regime like that, should they be denied their right to defend themselves with that weapon? I mean the vast majority of self defense shootings, by non-Leo, involve people who have only had one or two range trips at the most and no professional training.

Secondly where do we place the metric to meet adequate training, ? Most, gun owners get to the range once a year to zero before deer season. Most, Leos, depending on department, get access to department driven training every 4-6 months (this is just my very little experience, could be very wrong)? When I was in the service, firearms tng at that level would get and has gotten people killed. I remeber every six months we would have a 3-4 week gunnery and that was only for .50 and the Mk-19, not including the M9, m4/16, M240 b, M-203 and m249 I was required to proficient on, plus the other skills and equipment, just to let you know I had to know more sights and radios then weapons. Where is the equilbrium that we declare one is good enough to defend themselves with their mossberg 500 or S&W model 15 .38 revolver, without denying their god given rights?


In a way I think this argument is much like when people talk about a candidate's qualifications for a president. Technically there are only 3, he/she must be natural borne, lived here for at least 14 years and at least 35 years old. Thats it, no other experience required, though I sure as shit would like the man to have been in the military, civilian executive exp... What I am getting at is simply this the law outlines very simple requirements for the purchase of firearms, but as firearems owners and people that defend ourselves is that where we want to the minimum to be? Do we include fitness and mental health evals? If one is unable to deal with stress, both mentally and physically, in day to day life how are they going to deal when haji, zombies, thugs, or russians come crahsing through their door or jump around the corner.


Thomas


While I agree that people are born with the right to carry a weapon and protect themselves, I have yet to meet anyone that was born with the knowledge to do so. Many athletes are born with God-given skills to run, jump, swim, etc, but they still have to practice their craft. NFL teams practice for game day, so why shouldn't we? I'm NOT suggesting that this level of training be mandatory. I believe it is more of a personal responsibility issue. Professional trainers help raise issues that the individual may not have considered and help overcome deficiencies in a training environment. Compare it to driving. Look how much training people are required to have just to drive a car, which only prepares them to operate at a minimal level of proficiency. And just like kids getting their driver's license, some people are a little over-confident in their firearms skills. If it is important enough for you to arm yourself, why not seek out a high level of training to provide you with skills to do so competently? You are also correct about shooting being a perishable skill. Training doesn't absolutely mean that you will triumph in a deadly force situation, but I think it would be hard to argue that it does anything but increase your odds. This isn't limited to firearms, but also physical fitness, situational awareness, disaster preparedness, etc. In the unlikely event that you are forced to use your weapon, there are no second chances. You must be prepared to bring everything you have to the table. In critical incidents we don't rise to the occasion, we fall to our level of training.


I wasn't arguing that one should not seek out training and believe that we, as a community, should exert some peer-pressure upon our fellow shooters to do so. Mine was more a pragmatic argument about how the individual should apply their meager resources towards increasing the ability with a firearm in a self defense situation. If I were to pose the question "How many training classes should I attend?", I would receive a myriad of answers running the gambit of none to you should be working the gloryhole for more money to attend classes. Somewhere there is an a happy medium tailored to the individual's perceived needs for self defense.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 6:55:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 7:02:48 PM EDT by Romper]
I was kind of starting to wonder when this would spark some discussion.....
Ok, from someone who carries a weapon for a living, I usually try to get to 1-2 advanced weapon classes per year, sometimes more, sometimes less. Are the classes cheap? Usually not, an advanced class from someone with an impressive background who I respect usually runs between 400 to 600 for 3 days. Am I saying this should be mandatory for CCW...hell no, but I enjoy shooting and it kind of blends into my line of work. I also shoot just about once a week with work or on my own with friends.
For me, this is like my yearly fishing trip...get away from work with some friends and put some rounds down range and learn something.
How much training to I think CCW holders/firearms owners should get? Well, as much as you are willing to, and can afford....I guess that is kind of a personal choice we all have to make.
One of the reasons I usually tent to seek out groups like AFCOM is a basic like minded attitude, lets face it we all feel comfortable with people who share the same value systems as we do.
I venture to say that most of us grew up pretty much the same, learning about responsibility, a code of ethics, and a strong sense of wrong and right.
When I teach a women's self defense classes I usually start out with thanking them for refusing to be a victim, and taking the first step to understanding how to not be a crime statistic. But when I talk to them weeks and months after class I usually will ask how many times they have practiced since the class?
I guess the point of my rant, is this....do you have to seek out training other than the state mandated class/training to get your CCW permit.....no, you don't.
And can you defend yourself without following up on training...yes, possibly. But if you knew there was something out there that could have helped you....and things go wrong, how would you feel then?
I see some other folks talk about my brothers and sisters in blue, brown, and green....what are the cops doing? Well, just like any other group, some practice and seek out training and some don't. Which one do you want to come to you in your aid in your worst possible moment?


Please keep in mind I am not trying to be a jerk about this, it is just something that I am very passionate about and would like people to keep front and center in their minds. As a person who makes a living as a public servant, responding to people, usually at the worst possible moments in their lives, I carry what I do with me.
I don't like to see victims, injured people, victimized people....who would?
I am of the belief that if there is something you could do to keep you and yours safer....why would you not?

Romper
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 2:02:28 PM EDT
I like this kind of discussion. I agree training is key to a lot of things. Mind set is also a large factor. I have a buddy who got his CCW but has no clue as to the understanding of what it means. He did it to look cool ( way wrong reason in my opinion).

I practice my draw at home all the time (unloaded of course! ) but again the big part is the mind set. Always pay attention to your surroundings. Be aware of what is "normal" and not so.

But OP is right training is a key, how much and what kind well I guess thats up to the individual. I personally can not afford to take classes all the time so I read alot. I practice what I can when I am out shooting and try to do it at least twice a month if not more.

Oh and when septic has those shoots at his place I found paying attention to those like OP you can learn a lot!
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:10:44 PM EDT
YouTube training has never steered me wrong. I don't even have to change out of my jammies.

J/k, Great discussion!
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 3:36:10 PM EDT
Here's another pot-stirrer.

Can a record of you attending 'tactical' courses be used against you in a court of law if you were forced to defend yourself with lethal force?
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 6:45:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2010 7:07:19 PM EDT by Romper]
Cool, this is starting to go back to the direction that I wanted to do.....create a discussion about something near and dear to all of us, exercising out rights to defend ourselves, and how to be the most effective in our chosen method.
I have to admit that I wish I were more articulate sometimes....that is on me. I NEVER wanted to say anything about the rights of the individual to carry, or be able to defend themselves. I think those members who know me on here understand that, but I have not met everyone yet.....that is why we have get togethers like at Septics once or twice a year.
Mindset.....excellent addition to the discussion. You are 100% correct, that is more important than most people give credit. Because I have seen people who have taken all the high speed classes and have all the "tacticool" toys, yet when talking to them they are looking more at getting more toys or how this will help them in IPSC or 3 gun type matches. Yes, training will help in this type of "game" but do you think about "what if" situations when 3 gunning or IPSC then you are far ahead of the game.

Being able to afford training.....well, we all know money is tight for everyone. No one can afford to go to everything out there, what I am saying is read, talk to people in the know, choose your training carefully.....with trainers there are some really good ones out there and some not so good. Read the after action reports, get in your mind what you are looking for out of a class and seek it out. After your training, practice, practice, practice.

Learning on line.....well, I guess I am kind of torn on this. There is some truly great info on on line forums.....and some real crap. If you are just starting out, I would recommend staying away from this type of learning until you understand the difference between crap and gold. Probably this single biggest training detriment that I have ever seen is movies and T.V., yes....even with coppers, I see the "Sabrina high 5" from Charlie's Angles all the time, when teaching.
Someone also brought up dry fire practice, or drawing at home (unloaded weapon of course).....also excellent and the best part is that it doesn't cost you anything.

Gear selection....my grandfather told me when I was a little boy that if you are going to get something you will use every day or something that your life may depend upon then this is not a place to skimp. I can't count the number of people I know who made a great weapon selection, several hundred to thousand dollars and then carry the gun in a $5.00 nylon holster, or wear that on a skinny cheap belt.
Look at your belt, holster, weapon, ammo, and magazines as well as how you train as a system. This is what I mean by not going at self defense "half assed".

Can you control every situation....by no means unless you stop to change into a cape and tights and have a big red S on your chest....but can you, through training be better prepared to take care of yourself if the need does arise?

Another really good point, "Can your taking a tactical course hurt you in court", as a trainer professionally I have never heard of anyone having training being a negative in court....about the only thing I have seen a training record hurt someone after a lethal force incident is a "lack of training". I have been to a lot of use of force trainings over the years, the last and probably the best class I have been through was a Force Science class taught by the Force Science Institute out of Mankato State. This class covered things like vicarious liability, how the human body perceives threats as well as reacts from psychological to physiological. Basically the only way seeking out qualified training would hurt you in a court case is if you go above and beyond what a normal person would deem as justified in the defense of your own safety...but then again, if you did not seek out training you would still face this.

With rights come responsibilities, like it or not we as the shooting community owe it to ourselves, our families, and everyone around us to remember this.

Romper
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 8:48:06 PM EDT
Good info, Romper, but I'm not sure we're on the same page. For LEO's and the like, I could see where lack of vs. electing to take a weapons/tactics/training course would be bad, however, for a civilian, who has to actively search out such training, could be a different story, no?
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 9:09:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2010 9:13:23 PM EDT by yammerschooner]
At the end of the day it should come down to "was the shoot justified?" This is an entirely different subject than amount of training, which may or may not actually help out in a given situation.

If that isn't what it comes down to and you are still able to go home alive, does it really matter?

I mean, really, if you want to stir the pot, shouldn't you proclaim that it doesn't matter whether or not you have reloads in your firearm for self defense? I saw one of these get fairly heated a few years ago on a thread that Mas Ayoob was kind enough to step into.
Link Posted: 9/11/2010 11:43:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 12:04:29 AM EDT by Romper]
Originally Posted By SamW:
Good info, Romper, but I'm not sure we're on the same page. For LEO's and the like, I could see where lack of vs. electing to take a weapons/tactics/training course would be bad, however, for a civilian, who has to actively search out such training, could be a different story, no?


I will check with an attorney friend, but I really can't see how as a civilian, seeking advanced training could hurt you. Just like any other form of advanced training in any other topic it could be argued to being a more responsible person (CCW holder). On the other hand, we all know how things can get twisted into/out of context in court, and could possibly be played against you. I am assuming that this is what you are referring to. A good attorney should be able to bring the topic at hand back to within reason.
Yammerschooner also brings up justified shoot vs non justified shoot.....excellent point.
Again, I ask is this something gaining more training can hurt?
In the end of the day, YES, going home safe and sound to your family IS the most important thing.....I guess the point of my bringing this thread up is helping to make sure that happens, or at least helping one of the good guys stay in one piece.....as for the bad guy, well if they choose to attack an armed and trained individual then they probably will not make that mistake again.
Have people with minimal to no training successfully protected themselves? Yes they have, but....once again most or at least a good percentage of the women I have had in self defence classes have been assaulted prior to attending a class and while speaking with them I was told that was the catalyst for attending.....I guess I am putting it out there that you don't have to be a victim to realize there is a threat out there. And gaining extra training can make you more confident in your decision making process on what situation to avoid if possible.
About carrying reloads in your carry weapon.....well, I don't recommend it by any means, but that is another topic for another day.....nuff said.

Gaining more training and knowledge will make you more confident, help with judgement, and the obvious more proficient with your chosen medium. And legally speaking I really don't see anything here that can harm you either criminally or civilly. As long as you act/react as a reasonable person would in whatever given situation.

Romper
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 5:37:45 AM EDT
good discussion...

i see this very simply... i will never support a requirement or a mandate in any fashion that forces free born americans to train. the right to self defense is God given and supercedes the constitution even... at the primal core we are here to avoid death and procreate - nothing else. eating, drinking, sleeping, all fall under "avoid death"... lol. therefor, saving my own life isn't something that requires training, whether it be a gun, a baseball bat, a pitchfork, or whatever blunt stick happens to be lying around at the point of no return...

however, taking life isn't something i look forward to. i advocate taking the very highest level of training you can afford and your body and mind can withstand... i advocate knowing and holding a clear understanding of the law. if you're going to skin that smoke wagon and send one downrange there are life long and serious ramifications to your actions, and you'd better be right. so the responsibility falls on you for all these things. i phrase it that way as i believe that since your safety is a personal responsibility those things that surround it, like keeping yourself alive through force, also are your responsibilities...

so, skip the training if you like and take your chances, but you're not being as responsible as you can be. is that prudent or wise? while i think not, it is your choice. but i also believe uncle sam has zero business forcing you to... also, if you graze my wife or worse when sending some hot shit downrange in your act of force, you'll have far more to worry about that a court opinion...

Link Posted: 9/12/2010 7:47:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2010 7:48:37 AM EDT by BobRoberts]

Originally Posted By SamW:
Good info, Romper, but I'm not sure we're on the same page. For LEO's and the like, I could see where lack of vs. electing to take a weapons/tactics/training course would be bad, however, for a civilian, who has to actively search out such training, could be a different story, no?

Sam, you could be held to a higher standard by the court for your training, but this would be mute if it was a "good" shoot. The training thing would def. come up in civil case if there were innocent people hurt by a reckless or negligent discharge by yourself. But, if you seek out good training it should mitigate the risk of such an event and thus is practically mute in of itself.

Thomas
Link Posted: 9/12/2010 8:05:39 AM EDT
Makes sense. This was more theoretical.

We all have the same mindset, but if you were to come upon a liberal P.A. and a matching liberal judge, I would have to imagine you're now facing an uphill legal battle, as well as the emotional, financial, and other ramifications.

Will it stop me from training? No. Simply b/c I like to do what I do well.

Page Hometown » Iowa
Top Top