YouTube gun guy The Yankee Marshall puts out an awful lot of content. Some of it is awful. But most of his material offers what gun control advocates pretend to offer: common sense. This video, in particular, makes me proud to be on the same side of the Second Amendment fence as the bearded one. TYM tells it like it is: firearms training is not the key to armed self-defense. A gun is. Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of gun buyers can figure it out: bullets face forward, aim, squeeze the trigger. Don’t shoot the wrong person. Don’t leave the gun lying around. Everything else? Bonus. In fact, kudos to TYM for having the guts to say that training-mania helps the anti-gunners (by making guns seems more dangerous than they are) and almost saying that training is more dangerous than not training. That would have really riled ’em up.
It’s what I’ve been saying. If you can safely handle your firearm you’re good to go. Mr. Tweaker isn’t interested in anything other than the fact that you’re armed. Most of the people commenting here have said they will beat feat away from an active shooter so being mall ninja trained ain’t really needed.
The flip side is the attitude, displayed frequently by comments on TTAG, that professional training is a waste of money, silly, of little value and unrealistic.
It always makes me chuckle.
The point is that the Second Amendment places no training requirement on the right to keep and bare your arms for tatts, or something like that.
I mean, after all, we want to help Yeager stay in business.
Right?
I think there’s a big difference between the average populace now than there was when the Constitution was written. Much more people were familiar with and had more daily experience with firearms then than there is now; there was a lot more people who hunted for their own food. Plus the fact the many people just recently finished taking up arms against the British Empire. I’m not saying training should be a requirement, but the fact that more than two hundred years ago people weren’t seeing firearms as dangerous, nasty, evil entities like we are being told today makes a little difference. I can’t believe our founders ever thought they would see the day when most of our population fears guns instead of seeing them as normal necessary tools to every day life.
Dev, stop confusing this conversation with FACTS. Totally unfair.
What facts? Dev didn’t present any facts. He argued, loosely, that the fearfulness of liberal apartment dwellers means concealed carry permits should require formal courses of more than the most trivial sort. He presented no facts to support that. And we see, despite the ‘fear,’ that a majority of Americans in at least 47 of 50 states support concealed carry with either no course or a minimal one. Why because they have friends, siblings, and parents who can teach them the essentials. You lacked these yourself, but that’s just you.
“Plus the fact the many people just recently finished taking up arms against the British Empire.” Less than 3% of colonial people (all, not just adults) took any active part in the War for Independence. That’s no argument. 7.06 percent of current American adults has served a full tour in the U.S. military, receiving formal weapons training. Of course you’re not included in that number, nor is the percentage in San Francisco and NYC very high.
“I can’t believe our founders ever thought they would see the day when most of our population fears guns instead of seeing them as normal necessary tools to every day life.” That’s a joke. In the colonial era, and for the next eighty years thereafter, more than 35% of rural adult Americans were legally forbidden to own firearms (slaves and indentured labor) and were probably afraid of them. In urbanized America along the East coast, few people needed firearms for anything but, oh, self-defense, as is the case today.
Facts? That’s a laugh.
Ropingdown, you’re completely wrong in my assessment. I did not state that people should be required to have any sort of formal training for a carry permit. My statement was that back when the BIll of Rights was written there was a MUCH different attitude towards firearms and other personal weaponry than there is today. The true fact is that guns were a regular part of daily life for more people back then than they are today. That we have in this country a stigma against firearms that is being forced upon us every day by certain types of media and certain groups. You also state percentages; I never stated a majority of people, only that many people did take up arms for freedom. Those were the people who would be part of an organized militia, and those are the people I believe our founding fathers counted on to teach and to spread the idea to everyone else that the freedom of the people needs to be protected by the very government that is appointed by the people.
Lastly you mention the “35% of rural Americans” who weren’t permitted to own firearms. The fact of the matter is that during that time in our history those people, slaves and indentured servants WERE NOT LEGALLY CONSIDERED PEOPLE. Yes, it’s shameful and shocking, but they were legally considered property.
Again, I will reiterate my point: the difference between then and now is that more people then understood that firearms are tools and that they are not to be feared as dangerous evil incarnations as is being told to people today.
Dev, it is true that more people needed to shoot game for food in those days. It is not true that people in those days were more trained to do so. I hope it is obvious that I picked on your post because you distinctly did make the connection that training was more important now because “the fact that more than two hundred years ago people weren’t seeing firearms as dangerous, nasty, evil entities like we are being told today makes a little difference.” –A little difference to what? Obviously you meant “to the need for training these days. Perhaps you meant that that was a good argument for firearms training in schools? I would agree with that. In general a much larger percentage of our population has had military training in firearms use that was true two-hundred years ago.
You and Paul are, in fact, thinking of different things when speaking of training. You mean “one way or another, learn to use your firearm responsibly so that you don’t become fodder for the anti-gun people.” He means “take a professional course such as those offered by Aysmetric Solutions.” I’m all for the former, whether it involves friends, family, or a paid instructor. The later are fine if guns are your hobby, but I don’t believe the average person needs them in order to perform effective safe self- or home-defense.
I also, and primarily, was taking issue with Paul’s “fact” snark. I don’t agree that your comment was full of facts. I do think it was full of reasonable opinion and good intentions.
Ok, thanks for the response Ropingdown. It looks to me like we’re on the same page.
I think professional training is blown way out of proportion in todays society……. most of it is driven by the instructors who want to get paid to teach classes so they perpetuate the bull shit……..my saying is this…….if you need to shoot thousands of rounds through your firearm to be proficient then you have no business owning them…….that’s not to say I am against practice and training but some people are WAY overboard………I learned to shoot from my father who learned from his father……..I use my guns for hunting and self defense……..I go out and shoot about 8-10 times a year max……..ranging from clay targets with my duck gun or handguns for self defense……..mostly just messing around on my buddies farm with whatever I feel like shooting………pop off a couple hundred rounds and shoot the shit with the fellas………I could pick up any gun tomorrow and be proficient and accurate with it, why? because I am a liberty loving American male who was raised on firearms and doesn’t need a professional training class to be “tactical”………
Man, do you see James Yeager’s face in your dreams at night? You are obsessed with him! Or perhaps you think that constantly talking about him and riding his popularity will get you more views?
Golf Clap…Well said TYM.
OK, gonna put on my asbestos suit and say–YAYYY!! I came within a hair of posting something like this on the 1911 thread, after all the postings about “1911’s are easy to use for SD–just train, train, train, and train some more. And if you don’t, you don’t have any business carrying a gun for SD”. I just wonder, how many of our “DGU of the day” postings here involve someone who goes to the range weekly, dry-fire practices daily, takes a Tactical Response course yearly, that kind of thing. I have fired my guns plenty, enough that I am familiar with them, and I handle my carry gun daily (obviously) but like most ordinary folks, I don’t do any of the above -mentioned with any regularity now. And I think it borders on smugness to tell any of a number of Joe Citizens ( or Mrs. Joe, or daughter Susie Joe), who have bought a DA revolver and know how to load, point and pull the trigger and have enough respect for it to not point it at things they don’t want to see shot, that they should really not have it and to leave this self-defense stuff to people who train, train, and train some more.
But I can defend myself more betterer if I know how to press-check the hell out of my weapon system while I superficially scan left and right for secondary/tertiary tangos.
You’re not an operator unless you’re checking for quaternary tangos.
I always check for peripheral mambos, but I’ve never seen one. Still, I remain hopeful.
Ralph,
If I had your ability to turn a joke I’d try and find a way to turn a profit on it too. Thanks for offering it here free of charge though. That one made me choke on my water.
The key problem word here is “required”. Which training should not be.
That said I do very much enjoy facilitated training, self training and just general practice. Lets face it. If you like to shoot going out to shoot some more is probably going to be an enjoyable time. More VOLUNTARY training for everybody!!!
I have to admit, I’m still on the side that prefers individuals get a simple fire arm safety course before purchasing a firearm.
I had some financial troubles so I wasn’t able to purchase my first handgun, but I decided ot take a hunter’s safety course before I purchase a firearm. By the way the hunter’s safety course teaches the same as the normal firearm course at the local gunstore but is only 25 bucks… my local stores charge 75 for the same 3 hr class lol.
The flip side is that I had to learn…which I already forgot, crapload of regulations and useless stuff regarding hunting which doesn’t apply to me, but w/e.
Point is I am the type to believe: You should get any type of firearm safety class before purchasing a weapon. Are things common sense yes, but many things we believe common sense is really knowledge imprinted on us by those with more wisdom over a long period of time, and eventually we see things clearly as they did. So common sense isn’t something that magically gets passed down in the blood, it has to be taught.
Sorry, but “common sense” is referred to as such for a reason. That which must be learned is “common knowledge.”
Anybody capable of critical thought can figure out that “bullets come out one end, don’t touch this if I don’t want bullets to come out.” Or “I’d better not leave this gun on the floor so my toddler can get his sticky fingers on it.” They don’t need to pay $50-500 on a 3-30+ hour class to hear someone tell them that which common sense has already dictated.
Training should NOT be required, for exactly the reasons YM points out. MOST adults (and way more children and teenagers than most people want to admit) can figure out how to handle a gun safely. And those who can’t, shouldn’t be trusted with a car or steak knife, let alone a firearm.
Or, if you prefer the Constitutional approach, “infringe” is synonymous with “burden.” And a requirement of training on those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights places a burden of both time and money on those people.
You can make the argument that it’s a *good idea* for people to get training, but those who say it should be *required* cross the line.
Shooting is a perishable skill.
And practice is fun. All the reason we need to do it. No need to mandate training/practice for the average person on any level.
Ain’t it the truth. Especially in competition. If you can’t compete and try to make it up in a formal indoor range, it’s just nowhere near the same.
Perishable indeed. Ask a 60 year old to ride a bicycle after he hasn’t touched one in 30 years. In that case shooting is exactly like riding a bike. You manage to barely load the gun after 5 attempts and shakily point it and squeeze. Much like your elderly cyclist will pedal 3 times before losing his balance and giving up after struggling to remount and hurting themselves.
Everything is like riding a bike. And if it’s worth remembering I am likely to practice it. That goes for everyone.
Riding a bike is like sex. You never forget how to do it, but if you haven’t done it for a while you may not be able to do it well.
Yup, practice makes perfect.
I never fell off during sex.
Except that you can generally ride a bike whenever you damn please. . .
“I’m not as good as I once was, but I’m as good once as I ever was.”
Poop. I’m elderly and haven’t ridden a bike in a zillion years and got on one about 2 months ago and rode just fine.
I’m with you. I’ve done bikes off and on over the years, the basic ability did not “perish” over the years in between. I went a bit gingerly at first, but after the first few minutes I was fine. Similarly with motorcycles, come to think of it.
Sure, getting really tight groupings and dealing with crazy situations is perishable but most DGU is no more complicated than “Grog point at bad guy. Grog line up sight. Grog pull trigger.”
Simply put: there is no fixing stupid. Everyone has the God-given freedom to be stupid. The Nanny state can not understand this.
If you want to assume greater risk to your life by receiving no training and not practicing regularly to maintain a decent proficiency with your weapons that is your right.
The RKBA presumes no particular level of intelligence and common sense.
People who don’t receive formal training are hardly “assuming greater risk to their life.” Please refrain from such condescending blanket statements.
Many, many, many people (more old-timers than young people) have only received the training that experience can offer, through years and years of just going out and doing it. No teacher required. And I’d wager that they’re a whole lot more proficient than many of today’s firearm aficionados, from the standpoint of both firearms safety and shooting proficiency.
People who choose not to practice and train with their firearms have more of a chance of using it effectively.
Simple enough, dontcha think?
Paul, “dontcha” realize you just argued against your own case?
“To practice/train” and “To receive training” are not the same thing. As *ropingdown* said, you argued against your own case, but that’s tangential.
Those who practice and train are more easily able to handle it effectively. Some will have more of a knack for it than others and will thus be able to handle it more effectively with less training and practice. And more importantly, receiving training as you’re arguing it is NOT required in order to handle it effectively. Practicing and training by oneself is most definitely sufficient.
Risk your life?
Ok, I probably should just walk away, but this is just melodramatic.
Guns, when used improperly, are plenty dangerous. As are cars, knives, food processors, electric toasters, etc. etc. etc.
I love the phrase “Is gun, is not safe” It makes me chuckle everytime I read it or think it. That said, guns are extremely safe. Negligent discharges happen when someone does something stupid. Guns do not just “go off” on their own. You are right, you can’t fix stupid, but a person without “training” is not necessarily stupid.
If some schmoe goes into a gun store, buys a gun, and abides by the 4 rules they are probably as good to go as they absolutely need to be.
If some other schmoe buys a gun, goes to training, tacs up, acts all gung-ho, and does something stupid all that training will not protect them.
I know plenty of gun owners who just buy a gun, a few rounds, and that’s it. They don’t handle their weapons in an unsafe manner, they don’t do stupid things, and I honestly don’t worry about them. That said, I wish they would practice. Going out shooting is fun. But I also get it because I have not had the time to go practice and practicing can be expensive. Especially if you live in an area where you have to pay just to shoot.
Training does not fix stupid. Training can improve proficiency, may impart valuable information an individual may not have gotten otherwise, and can help hone skills. Training will not make a douchebag safe, an idiot smart, or suddenly convert a nervous nelly into Chuck Norris.
for the question he discusses (someone faces a threat and buys a gun) I worry less about training and more about will. Most DGU’s require little skill. Point gun and bad guy decides to make someone else’s life miserable. But what about when pointing isn’t enough?
Does this person possess the will to act to defend him or herself? I think the average human does have deep ambivalence towards using deadly force on another human. How much is conditioning vs inborn is a huge debate but that ambivalence could mean that a criminal (who lacks said ambivalence) can wrest that gun. And you may or may not be WORSE off, but you’re not BETTER off.
If you pull a gun you have to mean business. If you don’t possess that will, conditioning (training) can take its place but you have to get it.
Short version: There are some people I’d only recommend have a gun after training. There are others who would absolutely be competent to defend themselves without training.
“If you pull a gun you have to mean business. If you don’t possess that will, conditioning (training) can take its place but you have to get it.”
Very good point.
Firearms training is a moral responsibility, but absolutely should not be a legal requirement. Use of a firearm for purposes of self-defense can be accomplished by anyone, including blind people. Even a child can do it (and have!).
Explain how it is a “moral” responsibility.
Apparently it comes as a shock to some to assume that the better you learn how to deploy your firearm the less risk you assume if you ever have to use it.
Oh well.
Did you pull that out of your nether region or do you have some proof?
I am not able to prove self-evidently true assertions to the satisfaction of those who are invincibly ignorant. But, thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
What does that statement have to do with your initial claim. The fact is, when examining cases where people shoot themselves with a firearm, people with extensive training offend at a higher rate than non-trained people. You can argue that is because of their amount of exposure, but the reality still exists that your assertion has no evidence to back it up.
What is this “deploy” crap. You pull your gun and shoot if you aren’t already too full of holes. In real events its the “pull your gun” part that screws people, more than the “accurate” part. That’s a fact. Some people hesitate. Some fumble. Some freeze. Most people would do well to practice drawing for speed in front of a mirror with the gun they actually carry, in the holster they actually use, wearing the clothes they typically wear, and with somebody or electronics to randomly signal “go,” with a timer. Jelly was right.
People should learn to shoot. They should learn their weapon. They should establish an iron ritual of carry. They should read a book or two and the law. Then they should go back to what they normally do. Unless guns are their hobby. (Hello!) I should shoot even less than I do. Nah….
It would be amusing if it were not so frustrating to listen to many gun rights advocates breathlessly extol the 2nd Amendment and immediately try to place a burden on new gun owners and will sneer down their nose at anyone who does not hold to their standards.
For people who make this their primary hobby and/or passion you may have lost the perspective that shooting is expensive.
I wrote a post that was published here at TTAG awhile back about “The True Cost of Gun Ownership” and if I recall correctly just purchasing the bare minimum and using the Glock 19 as an example it was over $700. That is a hell of an entry point. Then many gun owners want that same person to invest in a gun safe ($300 to $500 depending on model) and training ($75 to $200 depending on class and area). That doesn’t even count potential taxes, licenses, and other burdens that may be specific to area.
In short, people who claim to be for gun ownership also want their to be a cost of entry that is well past $1000 just to get started.
That sounds very country clubbish, and also totally at odds with how gun culture used to be.
But of course, you don’t need to buy a Glock 17 to get into shooting, so your argument just has so much fail.
Some truth to your point, but at @500 the Glock is not the most expensive, and is only a couple-three C-notes above the least expensive, before you plunge down into Saturday night special territory. I don’t think the point he made goes all to hell over that.
There was absolutely no fail in his argument. Shooting is expensive, especially for those of us who live in urban areas. The gun could be a Glock or a Hi-Point. Gun ownership, with the attendant practice and storage can be expensive. You took offense at Ralph for asking you to prove what you contend was a self-evident truth. Well, you basically just did the same thing with a guy who has provided those facts. (Btw, he said Glock 19.)
YM has rapidly become one of my favorite channels. He delivers equal doses of food-for-thought, and poking fun and stupid jokes. Because of this, he’s the first gun channel I introduce people to. Well, him and Tim at MAC, since his videos are so shiny and polished. And have pretty guns.
Way I see it, you’ve really got to work your way into the Youtube gun world, not just go 0-to-Nutnfancy. People skip ahead, forget the IV8888 or MattV steps, or accidently start with Carni-Kon, you’re never gonna shoot like Hickok 45, or vector tangoes like Dynamic Pie.
Huzzah.
The darned things were invented specifically to require NO TRAINING to use with reasonable effectiveness in normal everyday life and situations.
The “you absolutely need special training” myth is promulgated by anti-gun folks and people who do for-fee training. They each use the same arguments to promote this idea.
-D
Holy shit snacks.
I’ve never seen Paul so upset lol.
Apparently RF just rustled Paul’s jimmies.
I love me some training, but I’m not the “train or die” type…
As a firearms owner just be able to operate a firearm property and safely, you’ll do fine, that’s the most important thing. So, you can have fun, or deal with Mr. Criminal late one night, if need be.
Myself, I practice and take training as often as I possibly can because…
1. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” — I want to be well regulated, meaning well trained, can’t be well trained without actually training.
2. Guns. Need I say more?
Anyone who’s read the manual that came with the gun knows that it has all the information you’d ever need to handle and store the weapon safely (if you take it to heart).
Also, training is not the same thing as practice; the two can be mutually independent. Being told things you may not have thought of is not required to be safe with a gun, utilizing some actual common sense is. Practicing, in the context of training or not, is also a great idea, and can be accomplished at home and the range, without help.
Anyone who has read the manual that comes with a car knows all he needs to know about using a car safely and effectively.
Actually, yes. If you read the manual, and the laws pertaining to driving, then you know everything you need to, at a bare minimum. You might still need some practice to operate the car well, especially in public, but you can do that in a private parking lot and then go and take your test for a license. Why should firearms, many of which have fewer controls than a car, be any different?
Also, please don’t put words in my mouth…I didn’t say ‘effective’, I said ‘safe’. I understand that there is a difference.
I’ll let you carpool down the highway with the do-it-yourself car drivers, ok?
You’re taking the basis of the argument to facetious extremes.
I’m not proposing that someone forego training and become a security guard, any more than I propose that people with no driving experience head up a carpool.
The point is that you can get a driver’s license and putt around town without a training requirement, and the same should apply to owning and carrying a firearm for self defense.
Meh – at one team I was a legit operator. Well, not legit enough to have the half beard and youtube channel but legit enough.
Then I got old(er) and fat. Oh well. I still know enough not to shoot myself or loved ones.
If I’m not mistaken, the “got to get training” mentality was advocated by Mr. Farago himself a few years ago. I may be wrong, but that’s how I remember it.
The value of firearms is that they require little training to use effectively and require little strength or skill. Skill is valuable for accuracy and for efficiency, but not for basic use. A ninety pound, ninety year old granny can protect herself with a gun and almost nothing else.
Yes. We’ve been reading post after post on this site about babysitters, grandmothers, urban single mothers with kids….successfully defending themselves with firearms. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries Americans effectively defended offices, farms, ranches, factories, trolleys, and homes with firearms. Approximately none of them took a formal shooting course.
I’ll point out the Department of Defense, through the four services, presents every new admiral and general with a pistol, but essentially no training. The same goes for pay officers in the field, who (in my experience, anyway, were issued a pistol to protect the loot, but no training. They just figure he can shoot the thing at one or two yards.
I’m 100% in favor of mandatory familiarization and safety training. In every public school. Starting at age five, with age-appropriate information.
I’m not naive enough to think that there must be target practice with live ammunition, though it should be available at some point for those who want it. Safety education and firearms familiarization would be part of the Common Core in my version of America.
I’d like to see some stats.
In particular, I’d like to see the press ask any of the residents of Detroit (for example) who have smoked an intruder if they’ve had any training. Any at all. If they’ve had some, I’d like to know how much and from where.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but my gut tells me that none of those people in those dire neighborhoods can afford a weekend at some operator ninja school on some high-tech range. I’m going to wager that none of them could afford the 500 or so rounds of ammo for the course of fire. From looking at that High-Point carbine we saw a few weeks back here on TTAG, I’ll wager that no one has taught these folks how to maintain a gun, either.
But now, every one of those residents has some actual, on-the-ground experience with something that many of these operator ninjas don’t: killing someone that was attacking them.
So: Who should be teaching whom, and what, hmmm?
So some folks get off a lucky shot and this proves firearm training and deliberate practice is not something a wise gun owner will avail themselves of if they can?
This all or nothing mentality displayed in the TTAG comment section is really something else.
There’s a big difference between “wise” and “required.”
Unsurprisingly, Paul, you falsely characterize the comments. People haven’t argued all or none. They have suggested that no mandatory training course is required when people have books, friends and family, and nearby ranges…all of which help them acquire basic skills.
You are not advocating basic handling skills. You were already going to the range yourself when, according to your own words long ago “published” in a post here, you were, as a result of a chance conversation, invited out to Asymetric Solutions, which is the sort of course you advocate.
I’m not advocating no training. I’m saying that there are two observable issues here to counter “You all should get expensive training!” advocates:
1. There are lots of people who have little to no training who successfully defend themselves and their homes without training.
This is true in other levels of attack. There are people who successfully defend themselves from a physical assault who haven’t studied a lick of martial arts, MMA, boxing or Krav Maga fighting. I used to know a guy who was a radio operator on maritime marine and cargo vessels for 60 years, who when attacked by three 20-something-year-old thugs in a public restroom in Buffalo, NY, proceeded to send all three to the hospital with serious injuries… while walking away himself – at the age of 81. He finally passed away at the age of 92 a couple decades back. Nicest guy you could have ever known, but he had the experience of being in bar fights in ports all over the world for decades.
What’s a martial arts, MMA or other trainer going to teach a guy like that? Probably not much.
2. Lots of these training schools are being staffed by people who have never been in an actual gunfight. Sure, they’re good at gun handling, marksmanship, etc. But being in any actual fight is a far cry from taking instruction. All the greatest plans don’t survive the first two seconds in any actual fight, whether hand-to-hand or gunfights.
When I took courses with Jim Cirillo, I sought out him and his classes specifically because he had been to see the elephant more than a dozen times. He had real first-hand experience as to what happened in a gunfight.
So I’ve taken training – from a guy who had been in actual gunfights. I’ve taken training from lawyers who were also POST certified and knew the ins and outs of what will happen after a DGU – because they had defended their DGU clients in courts in multiple states. That’s the level of training I seek out.
The only really dangerous aspect of firearms is a lack of respect. Newbies occasionally show a lack of respect for firearms by neglecting to read the owner’s manual and learning how the firearm functions. Pros sometimes get complacent and end up with a negligent discharge. Then you’ve got the complete idiots like the guy a couple of weeks ago that made the news because he was showing his girlfriend how safe guns are when they’re not loaded by dry-firing his weapons at his head (of course he forgot to unload one of them). I don’t think all the training in the world would help that guy.
I would add this one piece of advice, if you feel the need to practice your quick draw technique, save some ammo and do it with an empty gun.
I hope this is a April fools joke or the Yankee Marshall is…. than I thought…naw it has to be a joke.
I don’t think you need expensive training but I’ve seen way too many people show up for classes who did not know how to even load their guns without pointing it at themselves, and had no idea how it worked. There might have been a time when every adult male had experience with firearms mostly passed down from family members. I hardly go to public ranges these days because of all the natural ability morons who are risking every living things life within range of their guns while displaying their “natural abilities”.
Excuse me while I go cook up some Fugu for the family, never done it before but I know my built in common sense will make sure I do it right.
I think you may have to explain what Fugu is for the “I don’t need none of that-there training” crowd.
: )
Paul, do you realize how unjustified that pit of pomposity was?
Not just Paul. I don’t know what fugu is, but I can fry eggs (or even scramble ’em), boil beans, make refrigerator soup, chicken-fry a steak, handle a wok–you get the idea. And not a day in culinary-arts school. But my mama did show me a thing or two, and I did realize stoves are hot and they make the pans that sit on them hot too, and I read some cookbooks and asked a few questions of more experienced folks. I also can’t take down a crack-house single-handedly, and if I had to go room-to-room against multiple armed bad guys I would almost certainly be toast. But truthfully, I expect there is a very good chance that Paul and Crunk would be too. And if a bad guy jumps out or comes running at me on the street with a club or a knife I can draw, point, and pull the trigger on my DA Mak or P-64, just like Paul and Crunk presumably would with their Sig or Glock or tricked-out Wilson Combat.
60 is elderly ? Crap in a couple years I guess I should retire from the fire dept ( took my 20 something probie roof training yesterday and kicked his butt) , and stop doing crossfit I guess.
You youngster ‘s are funny.
It is so funny reading the “I don’t need no stinkin’ training crowd” have their little melt-downs.
Required training? No.
Wise to get training? Yes.
The arguments made that firearms are so easy to operate that all one needs is the user manual is just about the most absurd thing I’ve read to date in these debates.
The visceral hatred some display toward any kind of formal firearm training bespeaks a deep sense of insecurity and defensiveness on their part.
But, as always, makes for cheap entertainment.
The only one I see having a meltdown in this thread is you.
This thread is giving me bad flashbacks to my Lutheran confirmation classes.
JeffR, that made me laugh. Having a Swedish wife and spending a lot of time there year to year, I’ve watched most of Bergman’s films in Swedish, and in that language pompous self-importance comes off even more repulsive. I keep getting this intuition that if Paul were ever given the power, which he hasn’t been, to be an old-line Lutheran cleric, he would be just like the abusive pompous “I know best in everything” pastor in “Fanny and Alexander.” I’m still laughing.
I’m going to go out on a limb here Paul. Correct me if I get the basic facts a little off. Judging by your pictures I’m going to say you’re advanced middle aged. You’re a preacher, lutheran, in middle America. Missouri I believe.
The image I get from your comments is a man that has never been military or police. Never been under fire or even in too many fights outside of the schoolyard.
You hang around a bunch of former operators, but you yourself are in the terms we vets use, a virgin. An FNG. And it bothers you that you’ve never had your test, your moment of truth.
To compensate for that you preach all sorts of mall ninja stuff and try to drum up business for your idols, the x operators. I usually see this level of fanboism in the 18 to 20 yo crowd, but maybe you’re a late bloomer.
Now I’m gonna let you in on a little secret that really shouldn’t be that secret. Getting shot at sucks. Having to shoot at another person really sucks too.
Guess what? If I could trade my 17 yo to 20 yo self for your 17 to 20 yo self I’d do it in a minute. No hesitation.
You’re in a stable marriege with all that entails and no doubt you’re a respected member of your community. Be happy with that.
Be happy that, god forbid and protect you from that moment, that you never have to use the courses you’ve been taking for your mid life crisis.
You don’t need any more training. Take the money and take your wife for a weekend getaway. She’s earned it.
Paul doesn’t need the, quoting him, 16 courses he took. He just knows you need them. Laugh.
16? Really, I don’t begrudge anybody doing all that training, if that’s what you want to do. And if I had spent all that money and time on that sort of thing, I might be a little upset at some yay-hoo saying it all wasn’t necessarily, uhhh, necessary. But what I really mind is the kind of snobbery that says, anybody not willing to do regular training beyond the basics of knowing your weapon and how it operates and how to handle it safely has no business, if not to say no right, owning a firearm for SD purposes. That is just about a half-step away from that old bromide “only the police and military are to be trusted with firearms”.
Where’s will Burke when you need him…
Some of it is awful
SOME of it?
Let’s not confuse safe weapon handling with effective weapon employment in defense of your life. Safe weapon handling is simple, follow the 4 rules and don’t be an idiot. Effective weapon employment is not simple. Put aside your egos and get trained.
Firearms are point-and-click compared (*compared*) to their predecessors like crossbows, which were point-and-click compared to bows and arrows and swords and the like, which tended to require a lifetime of training and practice to be proficient at. Partly (*partly*) why the samurai banned firearms for 200-300 years: poorly trained peasants could suddenly put up a decent fight against the samurai class that had spent their entire lives training for warfare. So, yeah, operating a firearm to put holes in stuff isn’t THAT complicated.
Training is fun. It may be helpful. Most people aren’t going to end up in a DGU. Most of those people probably won’t need HSLD skills. It *may* help in a minority, though. WTF ever. Yah makes yah choices, yah takes yah chances.
Why are we having this conversation again? Oh, because Paul likes making strawman arguments and putting words in peoples’ mouths so he can feel like hot shit instead of acknowledging that people might take a nuanced position on a subject. “Visceral hatred” my ass.
The chances are my house will not burn to the ground, but I still buy insurance in case it does.
I’d rather have training and not need it, than need it and not have it.
It is amusing that the only response finally to arguments for training come down to some on TTAG resorting to ad hominem logical fallacies.
Required training? No, there is no word about it in the Second Amendment. Period. I hope most of would agree with that point.
Is training wise, helpful, important? Yes.
What kind of training? Whatever you feel comfortable getting.
But the constant disparagement of any training that goes beyond shooting a box or two of ammo a few times out at the old range at static paper targets, standing still, is entirely wrong-headed and foolish.
If you can’t afford more, fine, do what you can.
If you can afford to get some truly professional level training, I and many others would strongly encourage it.
RSO here. I don’t think there should be a requirement for training, but the issue that new gun owners face is that they don’t know what they don’t know. If i had a dollar for every time I’ve been muzzle-swept at the range, I’d own the damn place. So yes, lots of people understand not to point a gun at anyone who doesn’t need to be shot, but lots of other people don’t, or they’re too careless and cavalier about the whole thing.
People new to guns might not know that there are several cardinal rules for safe gun handling unless they get at least a brief rundown with someone else who has gun experience. That doesn’t mean a week at Thunder Ranch, but it does mean spending 5 or 10 minutes with a RSO or someone similar who can put them on the right path.
So there’s the issue of basic safety. Next there’s the issue of competency. Most people’s only exposure to guns is through movie and tv. They think that bullets magically find their way to the bad guy, regardless of proper grip, stance, sight alignment, front sight focus, etc. I’ve seen plenty of people that could barely hit a full-size silhouette at 21 feet, but with a little coaching, they can significantly tighten up their groups.
Commense sense is available for most people, but unfortunately , there seems to be more and more Tards, as time goes on. Im a vet also and unless you have really experienced the real deal. You really should not be making any comments about what training or no training as a reccomendation..other wise it is subjective fluff ! Listen to the old-timers, they are seasoned and their experience is real ! Not this Super-Tacticool Mall-Ninja, Look at me because i move like a robot, and wear the latest tacticool gear.. bunch of silly little kids in GI-joe gear.. Trying to live out some damn fantasy, most of them would shit their pants if they had to go through what WW11 and Vietnam, Korea Vets went through.. In this Day an age the term Hero is way overused and mis-appropriated verbally to describe events and people..
Kurt Vonnegut (WW 2 veteran) said saying you’re good with a gun is like saying you’re good with a cigarette lighter.
Yankee marshal is a complete tool. Not one video of him actually firing a weapon. Not one. I believe it is because he only believes in jailhouse wallet carry and can’t make it past the censors.