• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

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

Canard

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
148
Location
SE, Wisconsin, USA

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.
 

qball54208

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
288
Location
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
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!
 

qball54208

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
288
Location
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

mohawk001

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
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.

I qualified many times with a 9mm in the military, and never used either of those two methods. I only retired just over two years ago, so it's not like my training from that is way too far out of date.
 

qball54208

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
288
Location
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
bnhcomp,
I will give you an example of "muscle memory" most specific, your holster in relation to holstering your firearm. You probably wear it in the same location, right?
So, as an example, when you holster, you need not look, you just place it there in the same place, everyday and every time.
Another example, when LEO administer an Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST) There are common tasks LEO will instruct a subject to complete.
Touch your index finger to your nose. Now c'mon and admit it, you've "picked" while driving, right?
Well for the sake of argument, I do all the time, in fact I'm so damned good at it I no longer utilize the mirror.
Muscle Memory!
 

Shane28

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Pulaski
I qualified many times with a 9mm in the military, and never used either of those two methods. I only retired just over two years ago, so it's not like my training from that is way too far out of date.

Well thats how we did it for both of my deployments with the army
 

skorittnig

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
89
Location
Neenah, WI
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

I agree completely- I would never EVER trust a mandating body. Why allow your government any more control???
 

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.

First, this is an apples/oranges comparison. Hunting and driving are NOT, I repeat, NOT RIGHTS! Hunting and driving are privileges. So this part of your argument is MUTE.

You didn't answer my question: What other fundamental right (speech, church, voting, having children) requires certification BEFORE it can be exercised?

The reason you didn't answer is because the answer is..............

NONE

Fundamental Rights DO NOT have preconditions attached to them therefore mandatory training WILL be challenged in court and thrown out.

BTW: Isn't Mandatory Training a WAVE position???
 
Last edited:

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
First, this is an apples/oranges comparison. Hunting and driving are NOT, I repeat, NOT RIGHTS! Hunting and driving are privileges. So this part of your argument is MUTE.

You didn't answer my question: What other fundamental right (speech, church, voting, having children) requires certification BEFORE it can be exercised?

The reason you didn't answer is because the answer is..............

NONE

Fundamental Rights DO NOT have preconditions attached to them therefore mandatory training WILL be challenged in court and thrown out.

BTW: Isn't Mandatory Training a WAVE position???

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding +10000
 

The Don

Guest
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
397
Location
in your pants
First, this is an apples/oranges comparison. Hunting and driving are NOT, I repeat, NOT RIGHTS! Hunting and driving are privileges. So this part of your argument is MUTE.

You didn't answer my question: What other fundamental right (speech, church, voting, having children) requires certification BEFORE it can be exercised?

The reason you didn't answer is because the answer is..............

NONE

Fundamental Rights DO NOT have preconditions attached to them therefore mandatory training WILL be challenged in court and thrown out.

BTW: Isn't Mandatory Training a WAVE position???

I agree 100%.

And the fee's that were talked about in the profiteering thread...almost guaranteed minimum of $199 dollars...that almost doubles the price of a lot of very good guns out there. maybe not doubles, but another 60 or 75 percent of the purchase cost. enough to make it cost prohibitive for people to carry concealed at all, or carry concealed legally if they need to.
 

Canard

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
148
Location
SE, Wisconsin, USA
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.

You do realize I was quoting and responding specifically to JJC.
 

nevinsb

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
145
Location
NY
Ours was a full silhouette at 50 yards, 40 rounds. Probably depends on the range available.

I would by no means call our training "excellent" seeing as how I was certified to drive a 5-ton truck after about 10 minutes of driving it.
 
Last edited:

Krusty

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
281
Location
Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
Training...

I started my firearms training at 7 yrs old, the first time dad took me squirrel hunting. We hunted every year, several times. I got to use an old .410 and .22 when I was 14. At 15 I bought my first .22 rifle with my own money. At 16 a 20 ga with my own money, and on and on and on.

For me training is a natural event with firearms. Why would anyone want a gun and not know how to properly use it? But we have all seen them. I've seen more than most, but a few words of advice and a little help generally puts even those people on the right track. But MANDATORY pay before you play is not good.

Common Sense dictates that we should know how to use a gun before we are turned loose on society. And little common sense goes a long way.

This is not meant to be an argument, just my own observations.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
So, how should we differentiate 'training' from 'playing'. Just because one is playing with ones toys doesn't make it training.

Training occurs only with critical observation and correction and requires an hierarchy of experienced-trainer and less so student. If we are all equal then I deny the hierarchy.
 

johnny amish

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,024
Location
High altitude of Vernon County, ,
If we had manditory training and permitting then none of us would have the RIGHT to oc today. The anti-gunners would love to see that. How many of us would not have the money to pay for such requirements. The gun rights movement that we see in this state would have been stopped right out of the gate. Training and practice are very important and everybody should gain as much of both as they can. But, it is impossible to eliminate risk, no matter how much training and practice we have. For most of us training is a very natural event, one that did not have to be forced upon us. It is very difficult to force change in people.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
The problem with training is, how stringent do they want to be? They could make it so you have to have 10/10 bulls eyes, and still not give you a "privilege card."
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
If Qball's theory of muscle memory is true then I expect it would follow that it should be a requirement for us to renew our driver's test each year. What could be more threatning to our safety than to have people driving a 2500lb vehicle at 65 miles an hour coming at us head on while they are impaired by not renewing their qualifications. This is a threat we face much more often than a face to face encounter with a criminal. Of course I'm being facetious.

Don't talk to me about firearms qualifications. Military personell and law enforcement personal that pass qualifications by todays standards would have no chance of passing twenty to thirty years ago. I qualified as sharpshooter with M1 Garand, .45auto and M1 carbine 53 years ago believe me the qualification standards were much more difficult back then. The standards have been relaxed in both venues time and time again so that quotas can be met. The military has recognized the shooting proficiency deterioration in the troops.That is one reason why it uses "black" rifles today. The military has replaced precise shooting with volume of fire. Even the FBI states that at a distance of 25 yards if you are struck by a cops handgun bullet during a firefght it is likely happenstance. I don't have the statistics to back up this claim but I suspect most people that exercise their right to carry a firearm are better shots than the average cop because they enjoy firearms and shooting. There is a difference of porficiency between shooting because you enjoy shooting and shooting because you are required to shoot to keep your job. One is fun one is grudge. Just my opinions.

If you want to argue shooting qualification as a means to assure proficient firearm handling, control and safety, fine, argue it on those merits. Don't say it's required because law enforcement and the military require it. By the standards I am familiar with that is hardly an endorsement. Bear in mind I am talking about the core troops not those that are involved in special tasks.

As Hubbert says: Free choice Training Good, More training better, Qualifying good.
Mandatory training BAD, Mandatory Qualifying BAD.

" Our wall of freedom gets taken away one brick at a time". Captain Nemo
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Don't talk to me about firearms qualifications. Military personell and law enforcement personal that pass qualifications by todays standards would have no chance of passing twenty to thirty years ago. I qualified as sharpshooter with M1 Garand, .45auto and M1 carbine 53 years ago believe me the qualification standards were much more difficult back then. The standards have been relaxed in both venues time and time again so that quotas can be met. The military has recognized the shooting proficiency deterioration in the troops.That is one reason why it uses "black" rifles today. The military has replaced precise shooting with volume of fire.
The US Marine Corps still uses the same standards of Marksmanship they did 53 years ago. You must qualify at 500M with your "black" rifle in order to become a Marine.
 
Top