I just took the CCW class with Micheal Bender

In anticipation of CCW passing in WI, I took Micheal Bender's PPA class yesterday. I took the UT carry class that is combined with the Handgun 1 course.

The H1 class was essentially a recover of Hunter's Ed. Instead of covering gun and hunting, it covered gun and defense. Instead of what signs to look for in the woods while hunting, it was what signs to look for on the street while commuting, etc... I have been shooting for some time, and most of this was just a recap. There were a few guys in the class that have not, this H1 class was designed for guys like them as an intro to firearms. I think it is perfect for any non-hunter that is looking for an intro into firearms without the hunting info given in Hunter's Ed.

The UT carry part of the class went over legal issues. When to pull your pistol and when not to pull it. Why avoiding a situation is your best defense. Even if you shoot someone in clear self defense, you'll likely spend $10K defending yourself in court if you win. If it's not clear self defense (even if you feel it was) you'll likely spend more then $10K on defense and the rest of your life in prison. He gave a lot of info on why stopping the threat is the beginning of your fight, not the end.
The topic that I was most interested in hearing was concealed vs open. He made some good arguments why open carry is much more dangerous then concealed carry. Not bringing attention to yourself or making yourself a target, not obligating you to become involved in a situation, not informing "the bad guy" that you are armed, etc... He did however make it clear that open carrying is your right and protected by the 2nd.

I think taking this class is a good idea for anyone that is considering carrying, even openly carrying.

cleveland said:

I
The topic that I was most interested in hearing was concealed vs open. He made some good arguments why open carry is much more dangerous then concealed carry. Not bringing attention to yourself or making yourself a target, not obligating you to become involved in a situation, not informing "the bad guy" that you are armed, etc... He did however make it clear that open carrying is your right and protected by the 2nd.

I think taking this class is a good idea for anyone that is considering carrying, even openly carrying.

Click to expand...

He's incorrect in those aspects. Criminals do not attack hard targets.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?88109-Newest-email-from-Mike-Bender-(PPA)

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...organization&p=1454211&viewfull=1#post1454211

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?87760-The-way-it-will-really-be-unless....

This forum is much more useful for the person who carries than that class, IMHO.

cleveland said:

He made some good arguments why open carry is much more dangerous then concealed carry. Not bringing attention to yourself or making yourself a target, not obligating you to become involved in a situation, not informing "the bad guy" that you are armed, etc... He did however make it clear that open carrying is your right and protected by the 2nd.

Click to expand...

Please remember Bender's negative predisposition toward Open Carry. Did he back up his thoughts with statistics? If not, then he is just perpetuating the myths.

His remark that I remember most is that "open carrying of a firearm is an invite to getting a pipe to the back of the head." I've asked this before here: "Has anybody been piped yet?"

I think that the first thread has the most significance.

I also think that if you look at the total outcome of Mike Bender's handgun courses you will see that it all ends up being a long and drawn out version of the NRA's Personal Protection Outside the Home course. If you want to see the difference in what a handgun course should teach versus what Mr. Bender teaches compare the 2 links below.

Mike Bender's Master Handgun Course: http://www.ppa-wi.com/?aim=handgun5

My FREE open carry course. http://cjdefense.com/Open_Carry.html (Go to the home page and click on the Open Carry on the left side of the page) And this doesn't even list the several hours of range time that is all 1 on 1 associated with this course.

There are more instructors out there that are jumping on the bandwagon as of late, but the truth is that most of them don't agree with OC, or constitutional carry, because it interferes with their pocket books. I think this holds especially true for Mike Bender.

Also, no matter what bender may think, there is no proof that open carry will get you hurt or make you a target. That is a myth that is used to make people think it is bad to open carry.

:dude:

cleveland said:

In anticipation of CCW passing in WI, I took Micheal Bender's PPA class yesterday.

Click to expand...

1) CCW is a crime - the concealed carry of weapons. We already have that; we're trying to get rid of it.
When we get Constitutional Carry, CCW will exist no more except possibly as an enhancer to other crimes.
2) I agree people should take training as they are interested & able, but when an instructor goes off into his opinions I'm not getting my money's worth.

He made some good arguments why open carry is much more dangerous then concealed carry. Not bringing attention to yourself or making yourself a target, not obligating you to become involved in a situation, not informing "the bad guy" that you are armed, etc...

Click to expand...

Concealed carry is more dangerous because it doesn't prevent the attack in the first place. When criminals don't know you can fight back you're at the same risk of being attacked as any of the sheep. I'd rather prevent an attack than survive one.

[Yes, when states allow concealed carry the rate of violent crime goes down, but there are still people getting attacked. I'd rather not be one of them, & I'd much rather a criminal decide to leave me alone in the first place than that he go to the ER or morgue because of being shot.]

The vast majority of criminals do not target people who can fight back. Most have some sense of self-preservation. Most are cowards, only going after people they know they can overpower. By letting them see that I can fight back, they're much more likely to leave me alone than to attack me.

How on earth did he come to the conclusion that any citizen is obligated to become involved in any situation??? I'm not a cop. I carry to protect myself. I will defend any child. I will defend family or friends who are with me when an attack is made.

I might decide to intervene to freeze a situation until the police can arrive & sort it out, but that would depend on the situation. (Stopping a bank robber w/ a gun pointed at the teller? Yes, even if it means shooting him, because he's threatening someone's life. Stopping a fight between 2 people? Maybe. Depends. Stopping what looks to be a mass murder in progress? How could I do that in a "gun-free" zone?)

cleveland said:

In anticipation of CCW passing in WI, I took Micheal Bender's PPA class yesterday. I took the UT carry class that is combined with the Handgun 1 course.

The H1 class was essentially a recover of Hunter's Ed. Instead of covering gun and hunting, it covered gun and defense. Instead of what signs to look for in the woods while hunting, it was what signs to look for on the street while commuting, etc... I have been shooting for some time, and most of this was just a recap. There were a few guys in the class that have not, this H1 class was designed for guys like them as an intro to firearms. I think it is perfect for any non-hunter that is looking for an intro into firearms without the hunting info given in Hunter's Ed.

The UT carry part of the class went over legal issues. When to pull your pistol and when not to pull it. Why avoiding a situation is your best defense. Even if you shoot someone in clear self defense, you'll likely spend $10K defending yourself in court if you win. If it's not clear self defense (even if you feel it was) you'll likely spend more then $10K on defense and the rest of your life in prison. He gave a lot of info on why stopping the threat is the beginning of your fight, not the end.
The topic that I was most interested in hearing was concealed vs open. He made some good arguments why open carry is much more dangerous then concealed carry. Not bringing attention to yourself or making yourself a target, not obligating you to become involved in a situation, not informing "the bad guy" that you are armed, etc... He did however make it clear that open carrying is your right and protected by the 2nd.

I think taking this class is a good idea for anyone that is considering carrying, even openly carrying.

Click to expand...

I had posted all of that info in my past threads you clearly have not been paying attention.. & it's more like $ 20,000 grand to defend your self after a self defense shoot minimum, did he also tell you that you will be spending at a minimum 1 night in jail. Congrats on going against the grain here.

Glock34 said:

I had posted all of that info in my past threads you clearly have not been paying attention.. & it's more like $ 20,000 grand to defend your self after a self defense shoot minimum, did he also tell you that you will be spending at a minimum 1 night in jail. Congrats on going against the grain here.

Click to expand...

And who exactly are you besides another over zealous couch commando? Not sure why this guy should believe you, random armchair hero #3056, over his instructor?

cleveland said:

In anticipation of CCW passing in WI, I took Micheal Bender's PPA class yesterday.

Click to expand...

How unfortunate.

Had you gone to the yearly Wisconsin Carry, Inc. meeting instead you would have saved money, put your money to good use, learned about how close to Constitutional Carry we are, and what we all can do to help insure it gets passed.

Claytron said:

And who exactly are you besides another over zealous couch commando? Not sure why this guy should believe you, random armchair hero #3056, over his instructor?

Click to expand...

Because Mr Bender's class and stance on carrying a side arm has just recently been discussed at great length in a different thread here. Including direct (negative) quotes and replies from Mr. Bender himself?

MKEgal said:

1) CCW is a crime - the concealed carry of weapons. We already have that; we're trying to get rid of it.
When we get Constitutional Carry, CCW will exist no more except possibly as an enhancer to other crimes.
2) I agree people should take training as they are interested & able, but when an instructor goes off into his opinions I'm not getting my money's worth.


Concealed carry is more dangerous because it doesn't prevent the attack in the first place. When criminals don't know you can fight back you're at the same risk of being attacked as any of the sheep. I'd rather prevent an attack than survive one.

[Yes, when states allow concealed carry the rate of violent crime goes down, but there are still people getting attacked. I'd rather not be one of them, & I'd much rather a criminal decide to leave me alone in the first place than that he go to the ER or morgue because of being shot.]

The vast majority of criminals do not target people who can fight back. Most have some sense of self-preservation. Most are cowards, only going after people they know they can overpower. By letting them see that I can fight back, they're much more likely to leave me alone than to attack me.

How on earth did he come to the conclusion that any citizen is obligated to become involved in any situation??? I'm not a cop. I carry to protect myself. I will defend any child. I will defend family or friends who are with me when an attack is made.

I might decide to intervene to freeze a situation until the police can arrive & sort it out, but that would depend on the situation. (Stopping a bank robber w/ a gun pointed at the teller? Yes, even if it means shooting him, because he's threatening someone's life. Stopping a fight between 2 people? Maybe. Depends. Stopping what looks to be a mass murder in progress? How could I do that in a "gun-free" zone?)

Click to expand...

I think what he meant by that was that sometimes openly carrying a firearm can obligate you to react in certain situations because the gun is visible to other people and they now how more information to go by and you know have one less surprise. If some guy runs into a store with his gun drawn ready to kill the cashier in cold blood, hes probably going to ignore everyone else unless he percieves them as a threat. If he runs in ready to shoot and sees you with a gun on your hip, and hes ready to kill in cold blood, do you really think hes going to just turn around and leave?

At this point if he has seen your gun you are pretty much thrust into an even more dangerous situation, as he will almost definately react to the gun, most likely shooting you the same way he was going to shoot the cashier. Thats a situation where having your gun out in the open has forced you to have to react RIGHT THEN, as opposed to having your weapon concealed, possibly allowing you to stay off his radar and drawn your firearm as he is raising his at the cashier in an obvious attempt to commit murder

Claytron said:

I think what he meant by that was that sometimes openly carrying a firearm can obligate you to react in certain situations because the gun is visible to other people and they now how more information to go by and you know have one less surprise. If some guy runs into a store with his gun drawn ready to kill the cashier in cold blood, hes probably going to ignore everyone else unless he percieves them as a threat. If he runs in ready to shoot and sees you with a gun on your hip, and hes ready to kill in cold blood, do you really think hes going to just turn around and leave?

At this point if he has seen your gun you are pretty much thrust into an even more dangerous situation, as he will almost definately react to the gun, most likely shooting you the same way he was going to shoot the cashier. Thats a situation where having your gun out in the open has forced you to have to react RIGHT THEN, as opposed to having your weapon concealed, possibly allowing you to stay off his radar and drawn your firearm as he is raising his at the cashier in an obvious attempt to commit murder

Click to expand...

What if, what if, what if...Please show me where this happens. Also, what obligation do I have to help anyone else?

939.48(4)
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

939.48 - ANNOT.
A defendant asserting perfect self-defense against a charge of 1st-degree murder must meet an objective threshold showing that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person and that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. A defendant asserting the defense of unnecessary defensive force s. 940.01 (2) (b) to a charge of 1st-degree murder is not required to satisfy the objective threshold showing. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.


939.48 - ANNOT.
A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a 3rd-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F. 2d 79 (1975).

Also if arrested; first don't say anything until you have a lawyer. If you are asked why you carried a firearm do not say it was for self-defense. That automatically injects the phrase "imminent danger" into the issue. Say the firearm was carried as a matter of self security. That too is protected by Art I sec 25. The Wisconsin Supreme court has defined security to mean "protection from preceived danger". There is a vast judicial difference between perceived danger and imminent danger. See Hamdan.

IANAL These are my opinions.

Thanks for those statutes Captain. The words privilege allows us to help, but does not require us to. In good conscience, I do not see why someone would not want to help another in distress.

phred said:

Please remember Bender's proclivity to Open Carry.

Click to expand...

FYI, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

The use of that word implies Bender tends to open carry and that you dislike the habit. Like claiming someone has a proclivity to drink too much, speed, etc.

Claytron said:

And who exactly are you besides another over zealous couch commando? Not sure why this guy should believe you, random armchair hero #3056, over his instructor?

Click to expand...

Clayton, as an instructor that has talked with GLOCK34 on many occasions, I have had the chance to see that he is not (as you say) a "Armchair Hero", but in fact educated on this matter. (Lest we forget forum rules about personal attacks)

Also, as an instructor with actual self defense experience, and far more teaching and practical experience in this matter than Mr. Bender, as well as an extensive military and civilian firearms training background, I can tell you first hand that this man has limited knowledge, and while his legal knowledge is exceptional, Bender is not a lawyer, so the legal aspect what he teaches someone is purely speculative. Aside from that the methods he teaches for the use of a handgun are dangerous.

He is selling a false sense of security. Thats It, Nothing More. Several friends of mine who are instructors, as well as myself, have made it a point to make sure that our courses are all inclusive, and not just a teaser for what the next class will be. When we offer courses, we make sure that our students are prepared in accordance with what we have offered for that course.

He has made clear that his opinion is all that he considers to be truth, and that is all that matters to him. As MkeGal hinted at, an instructor's opinion should never play a part in appropriate instruction. Opinion is not personal experience, and the best instructors in the world will tell you that it doesn't matter what they think, it only matters what happens.

Wow...uh, where do I start.

protias, He did state that criminals skip hard targets. He talked about how criminals profile targets, etc.. I think letting everyone that know your packing only informs the bad guy, it doesn't stop him. If anything, it steals away your element of surprise. If the bad guy has a gun to the back of my head, am I going to hand it over or am I going to try to reenact a scene from Rambo? A gun is valuable, it's worth stealing.

phred, I don't see how his opinion on concealed carry vs open carry makes him the enemy. He doesn't like open carry, and gave his reasons. He doesn't need to site statistics. Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to, that includes perpetuating the myths.

CalicoJack10, The NRA's Personal Protection Outside the Home course sounds like a nice course. I don't have $250 to throw at a course anytime soon, but it looks like a good one to squirrel some cash away for. Thanks for the suggestion.

MKEgal, Open carry doesn't necessarily prevent the fight either. It's certainly a nice idea, one I could believe, but it's not a fact. As for the obligating someone, Claytron did a fine example of explaining it.

Glock34, Claytron once again covered that nicely.

HandyHamlet, I read the post about Bender's email (after I posted this thread) and frankly it looks a lot like a flame war. I am truly surprised to hear that people here are upset that he is charging for his courses. I thought most gun nuts were capitalists and most people against capitalism were liberals. As for constitutional carry, I'm on the fence. On one hand I believe that concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. I'm not talking about owning guns, or carrying them in the open. I'm talking about carrying them concealed in public. On the other hand I believe that I see that any moron can get a license to drive, so how effective can a permit really be? Either way, I will be happy to see it finally pass sometime later this year.

protias, The obligations would be the example that Clayton posted. Obligations that you do not willingly engage in.

Captain Nemo, Thank you. I'm very interested in learning the do's and donts of the aftermath. What do I say when I call the police that wont give the anti-gun WI-DA another tool to incarcerate me? Etc...

Wow, that was a lot of responding! I am not against open carry, and I'm not against concealed carry. I just don't think that being for one makes you the enemy of the other.

CalicoJack10 said:

Several friends of mine who are instructors, as well as myself, have made it a point to make sure that our courses are all inclusive, and not just a teaser for what the next class will be.

Click to expand...

It seems that they are similar courses with similar costs (PPA vs NRA), the difference is that he has broken his up for cost effectiveness. Am I wrong here?

I get the impression that most of his students are just getting their first gun and want to know more. His coarse really seemed suited to that. If you like what you are learning and want more, get the next course. If not, why pay for the rest of the course?

cleveland said:

I don't see how his opinion on concealed carry vs open carry makes him the enemy.

Click to expand...

He's the enemy because he believes the State should permit one's inalienable Right, including a prerequisite class... a class he teaches nonetheless.

cleveland said:

Wow...uh, where do I start.

protias, He did state that criminals skip hard targets. He talked about how criminals profile targets, etc.. I think letting everyone that know your packing only informs the bad guy, it doesn't stop him. If anything, it steals away your element of surprise. If the bad guy has a gun to the back of my head, am I going to hand it over or am I going to try to reenact a scene from Rambo? A gun is valuable, it's worth stealing.

Click to expand...

There is only one instance where this has happened to a regular person. Out of 80+ million firearm owners in the US, that is a pretty small percentage. There are many documented cases where a person carrying (either openly or concealed) prevented a crime. I posted this before and I'll post it again, please read it.

cleveland said:

phred, I don't see how his opinion on concealed carry vs open carry makes him the enemy. He doesn't like open carry, and gave his reasons. He doesn't need to site statistics. Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to, that includes perpetuating the myths.

Click to expand...

So if statistics can lie, how do you know if he is telling the truth?

cleveland said:

CalicoJack10, The NRA's Personal Protection Outside the Home course sounds like a nice course. I don't have $250 to throw at a course anytime soon, but it looks like a good one to squirrel some cash away for. Thanks for the suggestion.

Click to expand...

If he can make money from it, good. However, the beef many of us have with him is that he would rather have a license in WI with required training so he can make money. What he doesn't realize is, if Constitutional Carry passes, he will most likely see more business like the instructors in AZ are seeing.

cleveland said:

MKEgal, Open carry doesn't necessarily prevent the fight either. It's certainly a nice idea, one I could believe, but it's not a fact. As for the obligating someone, Claytron did a fine example of explaining it.

Click to expand...

Prove it. A certain pancake place in Kennessaw, GA says otherwise.

cleveland said:

HandyHamlet, I read the post about Bender's email (after I posted this thread) and frankly it looks a lot like a flame war. I am truly surprised to hear that people here are upset that he is charging for his courses. I thought most gun nuts were capitalists and most people against capitalism were liberals. As for constitutional carry, I'm on the fence. On one hand I believe that concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. I'm not talking about owning guns, or carrying them in the open. I'm talking about carrying them concealed in public. On the other hand I believe that I see that any moron can get a license to drive, so how effective can a permit really be? Either way, I will be happy to see it finally pass sometime later this year.

Click to expand...

See above post for the first part. As for CC being a privilege and OC a right, neither the state nor federal law stipulate the method of carry. We have the right to bear arms.

cleveland said:

protias, The obligations would be the example that Clayton posted. Obligations that you do not willingly engage in.

Click to expand...

Again, I am not required by law to help anyone. Please show me in any statute/case law where I am required to help my fellow man.

cleveland said:

Wow, that was a lot of responding! I am not against open carry, and I'm not against concealed carry. I just don't think that being for one makes you the enemy of the other.

Click to expand...

Agreed! I firmly believe we have the right to bear arms where, when, and how we please, if we want to carry.

[rant]
If someone doesn't want to carry, fine, but please do not hinder me.
[/rant]

Trip20 said:

He's the enemy because he believes the State should permit one's inalienable Right, including a prerequisite class... a class he teaches nonetheless.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Owning a firearm, having the right to carry it are inalienable rights. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a right, it's a privilege.

If he was not an instructor and believed that the class should be required, would he still be the enemy?

cleveland said:

I disagree. Owning a firearm, having the right to carry it are inalienable rights. Carrying a concealed weapon is not a right, it's a privilege.

If he was not an instructor and believed that the class should be required, would he still be the enemy?

Click to expand...

Where in the 2nd Amendment or Article 1, Section 25 says conceal carry is a privilege and open carry is a right?