I'm going to have to disagree there. Especially if we consider things like training in pre-attack indicators, conflict avoidance, etc. in the formal training arena. However even in just the realm of fundamentals of use of firearms, training that reinforced the ability to work the thumb safety could have made quite a difference in several cases in my files.Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Very possibly!
But we live in a world where people get pretty damn judgy if someone is shooting Weaver or using a magwell hold on their AR - don’t tell me it’s not true. There is a lot of prejudice and eye-rolling and harsh criticism from “our crowd” about stuff like that.
Believe me I know firsthand, I’m as guilty as anybody.
Most people who successfully defend themselves with guns have had no formal training.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t advocate for formal training.
I would also argue that some of those MUC things you referred to fall squarely into the realm of confidence/options.
Getting into a fight is really easy. Avoiding one is harder. There are guys out there who don’t even realize avoiding a fight is an option.
Last edited by Jay Cunningham; 09-09-2019 at 06:03 PM.
Are those people doing it based on objective measurements or are they doing it because "feels" or "Grandpa did it that way in WWII" etc? To me, that's the difference.
I'm fully aware of that and would counter that so do most people who don't successfully defend themselves.
If you want to state it that "it's not necessary to have formal training to prevail" I will agree. If you want to argue it has no bearing at all, doesn't change the odds, etc. then I'll strongly disagree. One could perhaps compare the success rate of Tom Givens' students vs the success rate of the "general public" in my case files to see that the percentages do change.
Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 09-09-2019 at 06:13 PM.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
I will state quite honestly that it’s very hard to instill aggression. I have seen many hundreds of shooters both as a student and as an instructor, and the majority of them did not strike me as being able to turn on the aggression. I’d rather have an untrained but aggressive dude on my side of a fight than someone with 300 hours of training but who is otherwise a limp noodle.
Believe me I’m not the standard for epic masculinity, so don’t take me that way. It’s simply an observation.
I will say that I think a lot (hundreds of hours) of formal training can stress inoculate, which is desirable but not the same as aggression.
Yes a very good instructor can bring the aggression out of a person, but it’s tough.
Circling back, a gun and aggression wins most gunfights. Or so the numbers seem to say.
@Jay Cunningham - First, I'm not sure you do rhetorical questions.
Of course, the time and money you put into carbine training weren't wasted. Your expertise with a rifle is probably at a higher level than that of most folks posting in this thread, definitely better than mine. As for the "don't know what we don't know" part, that's me over here, waving my hand.
Most of us on this forum attend training several times a year, and since it's Pistol-Forum.com, that's the majority of our focus. It's predictable that some of us would have holes in our long gun knowledge. You posed a question with undefined, spongy terms - "okay", "average home defender" - in an attempt to elicit a discussion, and the discussion apparently didn't turn out as you'd hoped. (On this forum? Whoda thunk it?) There's nothing wrong with spongy terms, but when you use them, you've gotta be open to seeing the answers bounce all over the place. If more of us had put as much emphasis on the rifle as you did, the answers would probably have been...well, more educated.
On the contrary, I think it turned out great.@Jay Cunningham - First, I'm not sure you do rhetorical questions.
Of course, the time and money you put into carbine training weren't wasted. Your expertise with a rifle is probably at a higher level than that of most folks posting in this thread, definitely better than mine. As for the "don't know what we don't know" part, that's me over here, waving my hand.
Most of us on this forum attend training several times a year, and since it's Pistol-Forum.com, that's the majority of our focus. It's predictable that some of us would have holes in our long gun knowledge. You posed a question with undefined, spongy terms - "okay", "average home defender" - in an attempt to elicit a discussion, and the discussion apparently didn't turn out as you'd hoped. (On this forum? Whoda thunk it?) There's nothing wrong with spongy terms, but when you use them, you've gotta be open to seeing the answers bounce all over the place. If more of us had put as much emphasis on the rifle as you did, the answers would probably have been...well, more educated.
deleted
Last edited by blues; 09-09-2019 at 06:45 PM.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I think we're now entering into the meat of things. (And I don't think much of what you do, Jay, is by accident. (Whether I agree or not.)
Good discussion, indeed.
There's nothing civil about this war.
I disagree. I know a lot of shall we say multidisciplinary shooters on this forum and who’ve cross-pollinated from M4C and the like. I have many many hundreds more hours of pistol training than rifle training. But it’s all formal training under the eyes of an instructor.@Jay Cunningham - First, I'm not sure you do rhetorical questions.
Of course, the time and money you put into carbine training weren't wasted. Your expertise with a rifle is probably at a higher level than that of most folks posting in this thread, definitely better than mine. As for the "don't know what we don't know" part, that's me over here, waving my hand.
Most of us on this forum attend training several times a year, and since it's Pistol-Forum.com, that's the majority of our focus. It's predictable that some of us would have holes in our long gun knowledge. You posed a question with undefined, spongy terms - "okay", "average home defender" - in an attempt to elicit a discussion, and the discussion apparently didn't turn out as you'd hoped. (On this forum? Whoda thunk it?) There's nothing wrong with spongy terms, but when you use them, you've gotta be open to seeing the answers bounce all over the place. If more of us had put as much emphasis on the rifle as you did, the answers would probably have been...well, more educated.
I’m sort of trying to dig down into true value of formal firearms training, without stating the seemingly obvious.
I’m not trying to play with myself, but I admit I might be shaking it just a little bit.
Reply With Quote
