HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Pickin a Fight about Training!
- Thread starter CalicoJack10
- Start date
CalicoJack10
Regular Member
In that case let me return fire and go on the offencive.
I am one of the few instructors available to civillians in the US who has ever even been considered or slotted to teach influential people such as senators and their staff. And while the scheduling and details are still being hammered out for an upcoming course, this is a reality, and much like other people who have doubted me, wait and see. I think that as soon as Walker signs the bill, there will be several people that will come out publicly and let this be known.
Additionally, I could post video after video of LEO's and morons who have mishaps with firearms after thinking that they didnt need advanced training just to handle them. Much less influince their ability to use a firearm for self defense.
By the way, I am a vet, and I have taught military firearms courses for a great number of people. And I can tell you from experience, the dynamic of military self defense with a firearm and civillian defense with a firearm are drastically different. Defendng yourself in combat, and defending yourself against an attacker may seem to be the same thing, but they are far more different than they are similar.
I challenge anyone to PROVE me wrong!
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
You seem to be proving that training doesn't do Jack S.
What is your position again?
If your position is that you are for government mandated training then I'll go head to head.
See my post above.
Last edited:
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
CJ, not to sound like an ass, but what is your training that makes you more qualified than a 2nd Bat Marine?
100% of Marines have 99.9% more pistol training the public.
100% of Marines have 99.9% more pistol training the public.
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
NO, they don't. Depending on your MOS, you may never handle a handgun except for boot camp and I know plenty who did not even have that opportunity. Handgun qual is optional unlike rifle qual. We don't need to exaggerate here.
I did not associate you with WAVE nor make any accusations to that effect. I simply pointed out that the statement that untrained individuals are a danger to the general public is what WAVE uses in their playbook when they oppose Open Carry and Concealed Carry. It is what the WI Senate and Assembly representatives used to push for more mandatory training. Making that statement on this board a year ago would result in any of several members hounding you until you never wanted to post here again. Most of those members have been banned.
I am not dismissing everything you have said. I agree that the decision to carry a firearm is a serious one and that you should not do so unless you are prepared to use it. Prepared includes knowledge of the legal ramifications along with an essential level of proficiency. The decision to draw your handgun carries consequences which will change your life forever and often not for the better. I would like to think that people would be honest with themselves when it comes to something so important.
I believe that most people who understand all of the aspects of their decision to carry will seek training. I do not believe that it should be a requirement for someone to defend themselves. There are plenty of "trained" individuals who are not mentally prepared even after taking advanced training. When the SHTF, they will fail to perform.
There is a difference between advocating advanced training as a recommendation and saying that anyone without it is more of a hazard to everyone around them and should not be allowed to carry at all. There is a difference between mandatory government mandated training and simply being a responsible firearm owner and being as well educated and trained that you can reasonably be.
The whole premise of this site is that everyone has a right to carry without government oversight. We all have a God given right to self defense and a firearm is a critical part of the ability to defend yourself. It does not take advanced training to stop an attacker with a firearm in a legitimate and deadly force justified self defense scenario. To make a blanket statement suggesting that anyone without it has a high probability of harming innocents and that highly trained individuals have a low chance of doing so would be to ignore the police involved shootings we read about every day.
One of the more compelling reasons to encourage advanced training is so that individuals understand the options of response and know just when deadly force is justified. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. We do not have a castle doctrine in WI and unless your life is in imminent danger, you may not draw that firearm. Prison is surely in your future if you draw for any less of a threat so you had better be prepared with other options.
Last edited:
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
^^^^^Who are you and what did you do with Interceptor_Knight?
CalicoJack10
Regular Member
To combat several statements, I will reply as follows.
What makes me more qualified, almost 11 years of civillian instruction, as well as 5 years of military instruction experience.
Does being a 2nd bat marine make someone more qualified, I have to refrence what someone else said and repeat "Depends on what your MOS was" I teach marines on a regular basis. Even a prior USMC Recon guy that will be taking a course on Tuesday.
What do i think of Mandated training, I wipe my A$$ with mandated training. There is no doubt that self defense is a god given right, but so is the need to stand for those who can not stand for themselves when their life is in danger. And for that reason I repeat "It doesn't matter if it is books, dvds, courses, or anything else. But we still have to practive a lot, mainly because shooting is a perishable skill".
The point is that the minimum is not good enough. I don't believe that training should be mandated by anyone other than those that need the training. I don't care if you were a Marine 5 years ago, or a Navy SEAL 10 years ago. If you are not practicing, you are not nearly as good as you used to be.
That being said, I DO believe that the idea of hunters safety being enough is a dangerous!
What makes me more qualified, almost 11 years of civillian instruction, as well as 5 years of military instruction experience.
Does being a 2nd bat marine make someone more qualified, I have to refrence what someone else said and repeat "Depends on what your MOS was" I teach marines on a regular basis. Even a prior USMC Recon guy that will be taking a course on Tuesday.
What do i think of Mandated training, I wipe my A$$ with mandated training. There is no doubt that self defense is a god given right, but so is the need to stand for those who can not stand for themselves when their life is in danger. And for that reason I repeat "It doesn't matter if it is books, dvds, courses, or anything else. But we still have to practive a lot, mainly because shooting is a perishable skill".
The point is that the minimum is not good enough. I don't believe that training should be mandated by anyone other than those that need the training. I don't care if you were a Marine 5 years ago, or a Navy SEAL 10 years ago. If you are not practicing, you are not nearly as good as you used to be.
That being said, I DO believe that the idea of hunters safety being enough is a dangerous!
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
I'm late to the party, am not current on any other threads, and am not going to try and catch up since my time (as is my phone browser) is limited. With that said I'll throw out a few comments, all of which should be considered an opinion.
First off, the active participants in this discussion forum are a minor subset of society as a whole, and gross generalizations about the people here can not be made as though they were representative of the whole population outside of this forum.
Second, when I read someone stating that they don't need any training , since this is a subset, I assume that the person is actually stating that due to their past training and experiences they don't feel like they need additional training.
Next, any argument can be picked apart. For example someone above stated (begin quote) "martial artists who have had force-on-force training are much better equipped to adopt HG (I'll say weapon carry, in general) carry as a force multiplier" (end quote) . To this specific statement, I have seen and known people with "Black Belts" in various martial arts who got their belt at a belt factory type of dojo or club and even though they had force on force training it was more along the lines of very restrained and limited contact. Those types of martial artists I tend to put into the same category as players of role playing gamers who have little actual first hand understanding of what real and unrestrained fighting and violence is like in real life. Some martial artists would be better equipped to add a handgun to their defensive options, but others would be less equipped due to their artificial training. Please don't read this as an attack, consider it an observation.
As to training, a Reasonable and Prudent person should always be open to get additional training, both physical and mental.
The jewelry store owner currently in the news appears to be mainly concerned about armed citizens interveining (sp?) If something happens in his store. To that point I will say that Hunter Safety training does not inform a person that a CCW Permit does not grant them Law Enforcement authority. I have other opinions about the jewelry store owner but those are better placed elsewhere.
One course and training I took out west got into all sorts of stuff relating to private citizen carry, got into limitations of authority, got into shoot/don't shoot scenarios, got into civil and legal ramifications, got into escalation of force, got into all sorts of stuff. If the WI government wants training then it should be along those lines, anything less does not make sense to me. The current legislation training requirements basically say that a citizen should know to not look down the barrel and pull the trigger to see if a firearm is loaded, and even that is no guarantee. I know of a former Marine who was cleaning a handgun and had an accidental discharge and the bullet missed his roommate's head in the adjacent room by less than a foot, I believe it was either a .357 or .44 magnum revolver. Accidents, and negligence, happen, and previous training does not ensure that a trained person will not have a lapse in judgment.
Things can, and probably will, change when the party majority shifts, so what is written today can easily change in a few years. I'm still debating if I'll get a permit, maybe I'll wait until the Rumble in the WI Supreme Court gets settled to decide because I'm fairly certain aspects of this lew legislation will end up there.
Probably just fuel for flames, I'll go rest my thumbs now. Off to go find a stick and some marshmallows.
Don't taz me bro, just stating some opinions.
First off, the active participants in this discussion forum are a minor subset of society as a whole, and gross generalizations about the people here can not be made as though they were representative of the whole population outside of this forum.
Second, when I read someone stating that they don't need any training , since this is a subset, I assume that the person is actually stating that due to their past training and experiences they don't feel like they need additional training.
Next, any argument can be picked apart. For example someone above stated (begin quote) "martial artists who have had force-on-force training are much better equipped to adopt HG (I'll say weapon carry, in general) carry as a force multiplier" (end quote) . To this specific statement, I have seen and known people with "Black Belts" in various martial arts who got their belt at a belt factory type of dojo or club and even though they had force on force training it was more along the lines of very restrained and limited contact. Those types of martial artists I tend to put into the same category as players of role playing gamers who have little actual first hand understanding of what real and unrestrained fighting and violence is like in real life. Some martial artists would be better equipped to add a handgun to their defensive options, but others would be less equipped due to their artificial training. Please don't read this as an attack, consider it an observation.
As to training, a Reasonable and Prudent person should always be open to get additional training, both physical and mental.
The jewelry store owner currently in the news appears to be mainly concerned about armed citizens interveining (sp?) If something happens in his store. To that point I will say that Hunter Safety training does not inform a person that a CCW Permit does not grant them Law Enforcement authority. I have other opinions about the jewelry store owner but those are better placed elsewhere.
One course and training I took out west got into all sorts of stuff relating to private citizen carry, got into limitations of authority, got into shoot/don't shoot scenarios, got into civil and legal ramifications, got into escalation of force, got into all sorts of stuff. If the WI government wants training then it should be along those lines, anything less does not make sense to me. The current legislation training requirements basically say that a citizen should know to not look down the barrel and pull the trigger to see if a firearm is loaded, and even that is no guarantee. I know of a former Marine who was cleaning a handgun and had an accidental discharge and the bullet missed his roommate's head in the adjacent room by less than a foot, I believe it was either a .357 or .44 magnum revolver. Accidents, and negligence, happen, and previous training does not ensure that a trained person will not have a lapse in judgment.
Things can, and probably will, change when the party majority shifts, so what is written today can easily change in a few years. I'm still debating if I'll get a permit, maybe I'll wait until the Rumble in the WI Supreme Court gets settled to decide because I'm fairly certain aspects of this lew legislation will end up there.
Probably just fuel for flames, I'll go rest my thumbs now. Off to go find a stick and some marshmallows.
Don't taz me bro, just stating some opinions.
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
So you do not believe in the 2nd amendment?
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Good enough for me!
The rest of it is just personal opinion and hearsay so I won't comment on it.
Besides, I still have to figure out why I've agreed with IK twice in as many days.
Maybe there's something wrong with me..........:lol:
Last edited:
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
The NRA thread has made me lose a lot of respect for CJ.
I've had tenured professors, with 40 years experience, who were not competent to teach preschool.
All I see is poor marketing.
I've had tenured professors, with 40 years experience, who were not competent to teach preschool.
All I see is poor marketing.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Not even a little Devil Dog......
Come shoot an Appleseed. You will be suprised about how much you have forgotten regarding shooting a rifle on a KD course... To say that A Marine Corps vet has all of the training she/he will ever need, especially when it comes to handgun carry on the street is just plain silly....
Last edited:
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
Not even a little Devil Dog......
Come shoot an Appleseed. You will be suprised about how much you have forgotten regarding shooting a rifle on a KD course... To say that A Marine Corps vet has all of the training she/he will ever need, especially when it comes to handgun carry on the street is just plain silly....
You're missing the point.
To say that a 0311 Force Recon Marine is rusty, is one thing. To say he needs additional training to be allowed to CCW is highly insulting.
Last edited:
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
Where did you get that from any of these threads? SB93 gives all vets a pass and even the training advocates in these recent threads have stated that they do not want more mandatory training. My point is that not all jarheads are 0311s so some have received no practical handgun training in the Corps. They have, however received more than sufficient firearms training to qualify under SB93, Florida, etc...
Last edited:
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
You Bet!! Just let me know when... so long as I am not working days...
PM sent....
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
I haven't been to Hooter's in years... I wonder if my ex still works there lol
Last edited:
qball54208
Regular Member
I guess if that's what you get out of it, you get nothing!
The spin off of SB93's "training" mandate is what caused the concern for others to become more proficient, safe and mindful of more than just holstering up.
We, now as potential concealed carriers (cuz there will be an increase of firearms carriers besides us that OC) will be held to a standard, a standard of training that is at best minimum, can't argue that. The focus here is to get individuals to a level where their judgements will have the least impact on a helter skelter situation.
I do care about individuals carrying a firearm, I care that they have the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision, implying that there has been some type of formal firearms training. Specifically with situations that you can not walk away from, the consequences of those actions, what you can and can not do and so on addendum.
This is similar to a Father showing his young son for the first time how to handle a firearm, we just would like to see an imitative from the following to do the same, just take it to the next level.
Hats off to those that decided to go to that next level.
There is no difference here than anyone seeking out additional knowledge, on anything for that matter.
An old saying come to mind, Contempt prior to further investigation for shall ever leave you in the darkness of ignorance.
Truth can not be argued by ignorance.
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
You should meet up with IK and I for lunch next week.
I have spent most of my adult life overseas, where I was not allowed to carry a hg. Anyone can be carrying a hg. ANYONE. Did they have training? More than likely not. The second amendment does not state that we have a right to carry arms after training, we have the right to carry arms, period. I am a member of a gun club, and carry almost daily. While I am more than confident in my competency, it is not my, nor the government's, job to dictate training.
,