Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 90

Thread: Q: What is so wrong w/ "Training"?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Q: What is so wrong w/ "Training"?

    Specifically, what is the "Root" issue with "Training"?
    I have shared my views and opinions here and have been blasted at by several of the "Regulars"
    I have a strong opposition to "Mandated and/or Regulated" training. With one exception, that an individual "qualify" with his or her own weapon annually, fact is that most all shooting skills are "perishable".
    Fact: An individual "memorizes" muscle memory once he/she has completed the repetitions some where between 3-5,000 times.
    Add any stressful moment to that situation and your chances of getting it "right" diminish significantly.
    More specifically, if you are in a situation where you have no other reasonable means of escape and you must draw your weapon, I can only hope you know your intended target, not the weapon the subject has, cause you will aim for that "threat" and not necessarily the actual threat (subject)
    I can only hope those that OC are as proficient with their side arm as they are with a keyboard, wrench, pencil, frying pan and so forth.
    I am in no way attempting to slam anyone here, just pointing out known facts, all in hopes that none of "US" EVER have to draw down on a threat.
    Take it (Training) for what it is wort, I know many of you oppose "mandated" training, I do hear you!

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Nothing is wrong with training

    Everything is wrong with mandated training. And with as much as it has already been discussed here in this forum I am not going to drudge all the reason up again.

    JUST SAY NO TO MANDATED TRAINING

  3. #3
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Nothing is wrong with training

    Everything is wrong with mandated training. And with as much as it has already been discussed here in this forum I am not going to drudge all the reason up again.

    JUST SAY NO TO MANDATED TRAINING
    +1000000000000000000

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524
    A right that has qualifications or conditions upon the free exercise thereof is a privilege, not a right.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Hef View Post
    A right that has qualifications or conditions upon the free exercise thereof is a privilege, not a right.
    Amen

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member bnhcomputing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,709

    Training is GOOD, MORE TRAINING IS BETTER !!

    Quote Originally Posted by qball54208 View Post
    Specifically, what is the "Root" issue with "Training"?
    I have shared my views and opinions here and have been blasted at by several of the "Regulars"
    I have a strong opposition to "Mandated and/or Regulated" training. With one exception, that an individual "qualify" with his or her own weapon annually, fact is that most all shooting skills are "perishable".
    Fact: An individual "memorizes" muscle memory once he/she has completed the repetitions some where between 3-5,000 times.
    Add any stressful moment to that situation and your chances of getting it "right" diminish significantly.
    More specifically, if you are in a situation where you have no other reasonable means of escape and you must draw your weapon, I can only hope you know your intended target, not the weapon the subject has, cause you will aim for that "threat" and not necessarily the actual threat (subject)
    I can only hope those that OC are as proficient with their side arm as they are with a keyboard, wrench, pencil, frying pan and so forth.
    I am in no way attempting to slam anyone here, just pointing out known facts, all in hopes that none of "US" EVER have to draw down on a threat.
    Take it (Training) for what it is wort, I know many of you oppose "mandated" training, I do hear you!
    QBall:

    I am the ONLY ONE who can QUALIFY you, and it WILL COST you $10K to qualify with me. If I agree with your 3-5000 times, then the guy who only shot 2K rounds can't even get onto my qualifying range.

    Oh, BTW: Did I mention that you will need to bring PROOF of shooting that many rounds, and that can only come from a CERTIFIED individual who charges $5K for the "PROOF" (piece of paper) because he had to sit there and count EVERY ROUND.

    Now the above WAS/IS SARCASM, but I think it makes the point very clearly.

    As to muscle memory, can't comment on that as I don't hove enough knowledge about the actual science of it. What I will say is there have been several instances throughout the US within the last year where a firearm was used "in self defense" and in almost all of those instances the "shooter" did hit their target and I'd bet none of them had shot 5K rounds within the last year.

    ----------------------------------------------

    Completely different point of view: IF firearms ownership/possession is a fundamental right, and you must "qualify" before exercising that right, then what OTHER fundamental right(religion,speech,reading,voting,having kids) do you think you need to QUALIFY yearly for?

    ----------------------------------------------

    Training good, more training better.

    Mandated training/qualification/etc. == BAD

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    69
    I a person thinks they need to be trained, have a nut. Don't think that if it gets mandated, that it will lead to a safer situation. It will only lead to the govenment taking more jing out of our pockets under the guise of permitting and "training".

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Hef View Post
    A right that has qualifications or conditions upon the free exercise thereof is a privilege, not a right.
    X10,000!!!

    Training is not mandated for public speech, nor voting. Both of which are enumerated rights, nor should it be to exercise any other right.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    286

    Training

    Quote Originally Posted by qball54208 View Post
    Specifically, what is the "Root" issue with "Training"?
    I have shared my views and opinions here and have been blasted at by several of the "Regulars"
    I have a strong opposition to "Mandated and/or Regulated" training. With one exception, that an individual "qualify" with his or her own weapon annually, fact is that most all shooting skills are "perishable".
    Fact: An individual "memorizes" muscle memory once he/she has completed the repetitions some where between 3-5,000 times.
    Add any stressful moment to that situation and your chances of getting it "right" diminish significantly.
    More specifically, if you are in a situation where you have no other reasonable means of escape and you must draw your weapon, I can only hope you know your intended target, not the weapon the subject has, cause you will aim for that "threat" and not necessarily the actual threat (subject)
    I can only hope those that OC are as proficient with their side arm as they are with a keyboard, wrench, pencil, frying pan and so forth.
    I am in no way attempting to slam anyone here, just pointing out known facts, all in hopes that none of "US" EVER have to draw down on a threat.
    Take it (Training) for what it is wort, I know many of you oppose "mandated" training, I do hear you!
    I've got to agree with you "Qball54208", if training isn't necessary, why does the military and LEO's train. Should shooting qualification be a part of carrying, I say yes. How many will take the time in a voluntary fashion to become proficient in the use of their sidearm. For myself I shoot multiple times a month. I consider that a requirement of carrying. I also agree, NO, I pray to our maker that I never have to draw and use my sidearm. But because I spend time at the range multiple times each month, I know that if forced to use my sidearm in defense of my loved ones, I will be able to end the threat to those loved ones without endangering innocent bystanders.

    If those that are about to "SLAM" me because I respond to your posting about needing training to carry, please come forth with another way to get all into a training mode.

    After all everybody born after 1973 must take training to be able to hunt. (Wisconsin).

    We all took training before we were allowed to drive a car on the highways.

    For driving a car or hunting, training was put in place to prove everybody demonstrated "SAFETY" when doing these endeavors.
    If falls to reason that training for carrying a firearm "safely" falls within reason.

    Once that sheep are shown that the OK corral will not happen on the streets of Wisconsin and the crime rate drops, then we go like AK, AZ and VT. Small steps.

    OK, all start the slamming.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    When you drive you drive under the "Privileges" afforded you by your drivers license. When you hunt and you violate you lose your hunting "Privileges."

    The only way you can lose your RIGHT to bear arms is to become a convicted felon.
    It is common sense for anyone with a firearm to familiarize themselves with it. That doesn't mean it should be mandatory so the government can impose more fees and permits. So the money hungry instructors can empty your pockets for something you can actually do for free.
    Besides shooting at a target and shooting at a human being is two very different things. The closest you can come is at a virtual range with multiple scenarios. Look through the many shooting that have happened already and listen to the shooters who will tell you, that even with all of their training reality is much different and you can only hope for the best outcome.
    Train yourself that the only time you should ever use your firearm is in defense of your life or the life of another period. From there, always and I mean always know your surroundings and what is going on around you.

  11. #11
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by qball54208 View Post
    ...that an individual "qualify" with his or her own weapon annually, fact is that most all shooting skills are "perishable".
    Fact: An individual "memorizes" muscle memory once he/she has completed the repetitions some where between 3-5,000 times...
    Add any stressful moment to that situation and your chances of getting it "right" diminish significantly.
    More specifically, if you are in a situation where you have no other reasonable means of escape and you must draw your weapon, I can only hope you know your intended target, not the weapon the subject has, cause you will aim for that "threat" and not necessarily the actual threat (subject)
    I can only hope those that OC are as proficient with their side arm as they are with a keyboard, wrench, pencil, frying pan and so forth...
    What would such an annual "qualification" look, like and how would it accurately gauge one's probable performance during an armed encounter?

    Muscle memory is much more complicated than simply repeating something many times. For example, clearing a malfunction 5000 times may only result in your "muscle memory" automatically performing a poorly executed malfunction clearance. It's not enough for your response to something to become automatic, it has to be a properly executed automatic response. Muscle memory can ingrain bad practices as well as good practices. A classic (and apparently genuine) example is of a cop who was shot while picking his empty cartridge cases during the middle of a gunfight because it had been so ingrained on the cops in the department that they MUST pick up their empties after their gun runs dry on the range. Yes, one does indeed react as one has been trained.

    A "qualification" test, if it is like most qualifications tests, will perhaps demonstrate that a person can perform basic operation of a firearm--- load it, fire it, unload it. In addition it will most likely demonstrate that a person is reasonably capable of hitting a static target from a static standing position. I won't say this amounts to nothing, but it does amount to very little in the overall evaluation of one's combat shooting proficiency.

    I certainly HOPE my shooting proficiency is somewhat better than my proficiency with the keyboard, a wrench or frying pan. Lives do not depend upon my proficiency with those things. I can (and do) make many keyboarding errors, and it matters not one bit to anyone. (Except for the typo police, and they don't count.)

  12. #12
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    The only way you can lose your RIGHT to bear arms is to become a convicted felon.
    If only there were actually true! (For example, see the "Lautenberg amendment.")

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pulaski
    Posts
    67

    military

    The military has two ways that they quailfy with m9 pretty simple first one you are presented with 30 targets and have 40 rounds to do in 5 stages.
    http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/23-35/fm23-_4.htm

    this is the alternatve way
    http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/23-35/FM23-_5.htm
    I have never meet a single person who has failed to quailfy. Its not hard and most get expert which is 26-30 targets hit. I for one have only shot about 100 rounds through the weapon and always qualify expert. The Familiartizion fire is only 3 rounds shot.
    The point is its not diffucult to qualify and no where near what you guys are talking like 5000 rounds.This also doesnt included dry fire exersizes and weapons PMI (Preventive Maintenance Inspection) classes. That being said the M-9 was never intended to be a primary weapon and it is far more important for the military to train on primary weapons. The military has to have qualifactions to make sure there soliders can meet standards set forth.
    Last edited by Shane28; 09-18-2010 at 03:52 PM. Reason: changed link had wrong link inserted

  14. #14
    Regular Member Touchdown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    22
    According to John Lott in "More Guns, Less Crime", training does nothing to reduce crime, and increased training requirements only results in less people getting permits due to time and cost constraints.
    The one thing Lott has proven, however, is that training does coincide with fewer firearm accidents. Makes sense, I guess. If you are trained in using your firearm, proper safety methods, etc., there seems reason to believe that you will not shoot yourself in the foot, or blow your youhoo off when you tuck a gun in your belt.

    So I think everyone will agree that training is a good thing. More and better training is a better thing. I have a LEO background and have been trained in shoot/don't shoot scenarios, searching a building looking for an armed perp, and tons of range time shooting from multiple positions, quick draw, etc.

    But having the government mandate training in order for someone to constitutionally carry? That is something I'm honestly torn on.

    Most people who carry (Like the OCDO, and WI Carry, Inc. members) can be trusted to carry safely, and know how to use a firearm if needed. What about someone who has no clue about not only how to shoot, but when they are permitted to use deadly force? It's those people about which I worry, not the people I meet at gun shows or open carry picnics.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288
    I asked the question to get a feel for this hotly debatable issue, I did so to help me understand the mind sets here.
    Not that it is good or bad, it just is.
    I stand where I stand however I do respect the comments made here.
    I am a firm believer in what I believe I am not here in any attempt to sway any persons opinions or beliefs.
    Thanks for the input so far.

  16. #16
    Regular Member johnny amish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    High altitude of Vernon County, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by JJC View Post
    I've got to agree with you "Qball54208", if training isn't necessary, why does the military and LEO's train. Should shooting qualification be a part of carrying, I say yes. How many will take the time in a voluntary fashion to become proficient in the use of their sidearm. For myself I shoot multiple times a month. I consider that a requirement of carrying. I also agree, NO, I pray to our maker that I never have to draw and use my sidearm. But because I spend time at the range multiple times each month, I know that if forced to use my sidearm in defense of my loved ones, I will be able to end the threat to those loved ones without endangering innocent bystanders.

    If those that are about to "SLAM" me because I respond to your posting about needing training to carry, please come forth with another way to get all into a training mode.

    After all everybody born after 1973 must take training to be able to hunt. (Wisconsin).

    We all took training before we were allowed to drive a car on the highways.

    For driving a car or hunting, training was put in place to prove everybody demonstrated "SAFETY" when doing these endeavors.
    If falls to reason that training for carrying a firearm "safely" falls within reason.

    Once that sheep are shown that the OK corral will not happen on the streets of Wisconsin and the crime rate drops, then we go like AK, AZ and VT. Small steps.

    OK, all start the slamming.
    If training is so necessary then why do we now have three states in the union that require no training and no permitting and don't show any signs of wanting it. If this society would be in so much danger without manditory training wouln't we see reckless acidents in Vermont, Alaska and now Arizona. We still have hunting accidents and car accidents eventhough we require training and permitting. There is no way to eliminate the risk factor out of life. With that said, is extra training good, yes, important, yes, responsible, yes. Should it be manditory, no. Manditory training = privilage. The second amendment is not about duck hunting, it gives us the RIGHT to bear arms. We as a society should not be so affraid of freedom. Freedom is best when given to all even if we don't like what someone does with it. If we are going to be willing to supress someones RIGHTS then we should not be surprized when someone else want to supress ours. The foundation for our beliefs should be the constitution and nothing else. Carry on [without a permit]

  17. #17
    Guest
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Green Bay
    Posts
    232
    Shane, you missed the point about muscle memory. Its one thing to do something easily at a range, when no one is attacking you. Now add in the stress of actually being attacked, with your adrenaline pumping and tunnel vision setting in, and that easy task all of a sudden can be harder than trying to figure out women.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane28 View Post
    I have never meet a single person who has failed to quailfy. .... The point is its not diffucult to qualify and no where near what you guys are talking like 5000 rounds......
    What you are really trying to say is that whatever "military" you are in, the M9 training offered to you sucks...

    Take a look at some USMC M9 training....

  19. #19
    Regular Member Canard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by JJC View Post
    I've got to agree with you "Qball54208", if training isn't necessary, why does the military and LEO's train. Should shooting qualification be a part of carrying, I say yes. How many will take the time in a voluntary fashion to become proficient in the use of their sidearm. For myself I shoot multiple times a month. I consider that a requirement of carrying. I also agree, NO, I pray to our maker that I never have to draw and use my sidearm. But because I spend time at the range multiple times each month, I know that if forced to use my sidearm in defense of my loved ones, I will be able to end the threat to those loved ones without endangering innocent bystanders.

    If those that are about to "SLAM" me because I respond to your posting about needing training to carry, please come forth with another way to get all into a training mode.

    After all everybody born after 1973 must take training to be able to hunt. (Wisconsin).

    We all took training before we were allowed to drive a car on the highways.

    For driving a car or hunting, training was put in place to prove everybody demonstrated "SAFETY" when doing these endeavors.
    If falls to reason that training for carrying a firearm "safely" falls within reason.

    Once that sheep are shown that the OK corral will not happen on the streets of Wisconsin and the crime rate drops, then we go like AK, AZ and VT. Small steps.

    OK, all start the slamming.
    Spoken truly as one who stands to profit from the potential of required training. That will really suck for you if the State goes constitutional carry and the money you spent to be certified as an instructor goes for naught. For the rest of us we would finally be able to exercise the right we are currently being denied.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    I don't think so. I am very familiar with MG,LC, 1st & 3rd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Touchdown View Post
    The one thing Lott has proven, however, is that training does coincide with fewer firearm accidents.
    Citation please.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Gu...g_requirements
    Training requirements

    Lott examines the effects of training requirements on crime rate and accident rate. He finds that training requirements have very little effect on both crime rates and accident rates.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Canard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    Thanks Doug, good stuff. Should this be true then the only person that stands to benefit from training is the person who is actively using self defense. I do my own training to help ensure (no guarantee in the heat of the moment) I hit my aggressor, aiding in my defense of self. You don't want to train that is a ok with me. I got my own back.

    I have no stats to back this up but I bet most LEO haven't even burned thought 5000 rounds.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Canard View Post
    the only person that stands to benefit from training is the person who is actively using self defense.
    What about the NRA's teaching that a fee is a pedagogical necessity? That's what my training counselor taught.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Canard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Huffman View Post
    What about the NRA's teaching that a fee is a pedagogical necessity? That's what my training counselor taught.
    Of course it is if that is crucial to the survival of the organization. I guess I'm going to have to start sending myself bills

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfielddx40 View Post
    Shane, you missed the point about muscle memory. Its one thing to do something easily at a range, when no one is attacking you. Now add in the stress of actually being attacked, with your adrenaline pumping and tunnel vision setting in, and that easy task all of a sudden can be harder than trying to figure out women.
    You got it, too bad I do not have the 64,000K to give you!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Canard View Post
    Spoken truly as one who stands to profit from the potential of required training. That will really suck for you if the State goes constitutional carry and the money you spent to be certified as an instructor goes for naught. For the rest of us we would finally be able to exercise the right we are currently being denied.

    Canard, in RE to your post, #19, you'd be right to infer that if you'd know what you're talking about.
    I love all the exercise some of you get get by flying off the handle, jumping to conclusions and running people down.
    Please go back and re-read my original post then come back and apologize. No where in there did I indicate that I would benefit monetarily.
    I simply shared my personal experience, and I would go out on a limb and say that if you did not have the same or similar training, this I do infer, I would stand a far better chance than most.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •