training
- Thread starter apvbguy
- Start date
2
2Awarrior
Guest
That's cool.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
From the article:
And I am a firm believer that this guy is talking out his ass. He gives no stats or cites to back up this bold claim. Many people buy their first weapon after growing up in a home where they were around them and used them since they were children. Just because you're not a highly-trained freakin' gun-Ninja doesn't make you MORE dangerous than before you acquired one. Utter and complete nonsense right off the bat.
More:
Uh....yeah dude, that's what a lot of people think.......because it's true! You're completely unprepared to defend yourself with a weapon if you don't even have one, and you are literally infinitely *more* prepared by acquiring one than before you had it. As far as being "inclined," I would say that anyone who acquires a weapon for self defense is at least inclined to defend themselves, even if not very knowledgeable about tactics to accomplish that end. This guy obviously doesn't even understand the words he's using.
Well yeah, it's "like assuming" that if you're planning on using your newly-purchased guitar as a weapon. This guy is an idiot.
No, I don't see your point, except to say that you seem to consider yourself a freakin' Ninja, so far above the uninitiated masses that you should tell them how useless the knife they bought for umm....cutting things is if they don't have some Super-Ninja training in umm....cutting things.
I've been collecting knives since I was a kid, and been a serious collector for about 10 to 12 years now, I go to the Blade Show every year, I network, trade, buy and sell with other serious collectors, and I literally don't know a soul who buys their knives with the intention of them being weapons. Even most military applications for knives are not hand-to-hand combat, they're mostly for hard utilitarian uses.
Uh, sure thing hot-rod. Poor people should not be allowed to defend their lives with weapons because they can't afford the type of training you're referring to. After all, THERE IS NO EXCUSE, right? Infirm people should likewise not buy a weapon because they don't have the physical abilities necessary to complete the kind of training this arrogant simp is talking about. After all, THERE IS NO EXCUSE, right?
I've got absolutely nothing against people seeking training. I highly recommend and encourage it even. But when people start throwing around declarative statements about someone who hasn't sought the kind of advanced (and expensive) training this guy is talking about being MORE dangerous to their loved ones and others around them, and he includes exactly zero statistical data, or even anecdotal stories, to back it up, he's going well beyond encouragement and into outright lying to people to get them to believe that his opinions are worthy of being taken as fact.
I looked at the "About" page and notice that the group of posters are generally current and ex-military, overseas contract security, airline security etc. Great, their employers pay for, and even require, the level of training this guy says that the average CC'er or OC'er on the street has NO EXCUSE not to acquire. He needs a little training in putting his feet in other peoples' shoes, because there are myriad reasons (or "excuses" in this idiot's mind) why people won't and can't acquire the kind of training he's talking about.
I learned nothing from the piece except that there are people who blog while not having a clue what they're talking about, just as there are people who carry and aren't as knowledgeable about tactics and safety as they could be, but, and this is key, in both cases, they still have the right to engage in the activity. This guy wants to take advantage of his right to talk while clueless, but judge others as MORE dangerous who carry and don't spend every last dime in never-ending training.
Blues
And I am a firm believer that this guy is talking out his ass. He gives no stats or cites to back up this bold claim. Many people buy their first weapon after growing up in a home where they were around them and used them since they were children. Just because you're not a highly-trained freakin' gun-Ninja doesn't make you MORE dangerous than before you acquired one. Utter and complete nonsense right off the bat.
More:
Uh....yeah dude, that's what a lot of people think.......because it's true! You're completely unprepared to defend yourself with a weapon if you don't even have one, and you are literally infinitely *more* prepared by acquiring one than before you had it. As far as being "inclined," I would say that anyone who acquires a weapon for self defense is at least inclined to defend themselves, even if not very knowledgeable about tactics to accomplish that end. This guy obviously doesn't even understand the words he's using.
Well yeah, it's "like assuming" that if you're planning on using your newly-purchased guitar as a weapon. This guy is an idiot.
No, I don't see your point, except to say that you seem to consider yourself a freakin' Ninja, so far above the uninitiated masses that you should tell them how useless the knife they bought for umm....cutting things is if they don't have some Super-Ninja training in umm....cutting things.
I've been collecting knives since I was a kid, and been a serious collector for about 10 to 12 years now, I go to the Blade Show every year, I network, trade, buy and sell with other serious collectors, and I literally don't know a soul who buys their knives with the intention of them being weapons. Even most military applications for knives are not hand-to-hand combat, they're mostly for hard utilitarian uses.
Uh, sure thing hot-rod. Poor people should not be allowed to defend their lives with weapons because they can't afford the type of training you're referring to. After all, THERE IS NO EXCUSE, right? Infirm people should likewise not buy a weapon because they don't have the physical abilities necessary to complete the kind of training this arrogant simp is talking about. After all, THERE IS NO EXCUSE, right?
I've got absolutely nothing against people seeking training. I highly recommend and encourage it even. But when people start throwing around declarative statements about someone who hasn't sought the kind of advanced (and expensive) training this guy is talking about being MORE dangerous to their loved ones and others around them, and he includes exactly zero statistical data, or even anecdotal stories, to back it up, he's going well beyond encouragement and into outright lying to people to get them to believe that his opinions are worthy of being taken as fact.
I looked at the "About" page and notice that the group of posters are generally current and ex-military, overseas contract security, airline security etc. Great, their employers pay for, and even require, the level of training this guy says that the average CC'er or OC'er on the street has NO EXCUSE not to acquire. He needs a little training in putting his feet in other peoples' shoes, because there are myriad reasons (or "excuses" in this idiot's mind) why people won't and can't acquire the kind of training he's talking about.
I learned nothing from the piece except that there are people who blog while not having a clue what they're talking about, just as there are people who carry and aren't as knowledgeable about tactics and safety as they could be, but, and this is key, in both cases, they still have the right to engage in the activity. This guy wants to take advantage of his right to talk while clueless, but judge others as MORE dangerous who carry and don't spend every last dime in never-ending training.
Blues
apvbguy
New member
[balance of illogical rant ignored]
how ironic a complaint about someone who gives no stats or cites to back up his bold claims is made with a statement that has no stats or cites to back it up. I grew up in NYC I never saw a gin in the wild until I was 14.
would you operate a crane without training?
Johnny Dollar
New member
Growing up in a home where firearms are owned and used you will at the minimum recieve some type of safety training, did your parents just hand you a gun and say have at it?
However safety training does not teach you to use a firearm in self defense niether does shooting geese.
snatale42
New member
True, too many people stop training after their NRA class. Look at how many innocent people the NYPD shoots every time their gun comes out of their holsters! But to be fair, somebody that's been going to the range for a year shooting with their eyes closed would probably hit less innocent people. Those cops scare the crap out of me. I wonder if in the academy if they actually have targets they have to qualify on, or if they just time team mag dumps?
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Funny you should ask. I was a sign hanger for four years and started learning how to run the crane my first day on the job. I was in the bucket with remote controls that afternoon....by myself, plug-welding a chill-ring on the lowest section of a 200 ft. freeway sign.
I not only would operate a crane without any formal training, I have, and nobody got hurt or died, including me or my co-workers, and most importantly, the job got done on time.
So as a sign hanger, would I be MORE prepared to hang a sign with access to the crane, or LESS prepared? Would a new gun owner be MORE prepared to defend himself with a gun, or LESS prepared? How about being LESS inclined as your "Moat" writer implies? They're all the same question; are you MORE or LESS prepared (or inclined) to use a tool for its intended use if you have it in your possession and control, or if you don't? It only sounds like a stupid question because your Moat-writer promulgated such a stupid premise.
You need as much work on your analogies as your Moat-writer needs in writing something that makes a lick of sense.
Blues
telpinaro
New member
Training is a very good thing. Personally, I think it is amazingly fun, and will probably never consider myself "fully" trained. Does that mean my son is safer if I leave my gun at home because I don't have the amount of training that guy thinks I should have? Definitely not. Training is very expensive, and I can't afford nearly as much as I want. Lots might be available... but that doesn't make it affordable. I save, I take classes when I can. And I carry.
Mandating training, or insisting that everyone MUST HAVE expensive training, NO EXCUSE, before being able to defend themselves isn't fair. There are plenty of people who can't use OC spray or stun guns or the like, but can effectively use a gun.
Incidentally, what exactly does the Moat Group do? They're consultants and bloggers?
Mandating training, or insisting that everyone MUST HAVE expensive training, NO EXCUSE, before being able to defend themselves isn't fair. There are plenty of people who can't use OC spray or stun guns or the like, but can effectively use a gun.
Incidentally, what exactly does the Moat Group do? They're consultants and bloggers?
Without actually knowing the individual, I couldn't say that I know more about firearms than the trainer BUT I do know my experience. I'm fully confident in my gun handling capabilities. I also realize there are many new(and not so new) gun owner who need to acquire knowledge in some way.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Here's a link to their "About" page. If what they say there is to be believed, they are generally legitimate higher-end security and military types. The problem is, at least concerning the writer of the piece, they seem to be rather elitist in their legitimacy, in that they can't imagine someone not having as much training as most of them get paid to acquire. For us normal folk, like you allude to, it's the other way around - we have to pay, and pay dearly, to get that level of training. That's my knock on the piece. I have no reason to disbelieve that most of them are very well-trained, and certainly don't believe that training is a bad thing. I just don't like elitists talking down their noses to tell us normal folk that we have "NO EXCUSE" to not be as well trained as they are.
Blues
wolf_fire
New member
Mandatory anything in this country is a bad idea. It forces people to do against their will.
I'll give a healthcare analogy. I have a wife that I am responsible for. I want to make sure she is well-cared for. I have provided health care for both of us, since I have been married to her. I do this because it is a phenomenally good idea. However, to force every American to purchase health care against their will.... hmmmmm, you decide.
apvbguy
New member
like buying health insurance at overly inflated prices?
OK, so before I can say anything about this article I have to admit to a bias. I have seen the very first picture posted in the article (the guy standing sideways with the Glock) posted on another forum and the user it was associated with was the extreme other end of the spectrum from the people the author is writing about. If it’s the same guy, he alludes to being an instructor so you getting training is his bread and butter. And his attitude is that if you haven’t taken every advanced tactical rifle course available and hold at least two or three black belts and ever walk out your door with less than a gun , a backup gun 4 reloads , a couple of folders and a Kubotan , you’re merely low hanging fruit for any mugger that comes along.
But even with the bias I think the basic premise of the article is sound. Based on my own experience I have no problem believing that majority gun owners or even the majority of permit holders aren’t prepared to defend themselves with a firearm.
You don’t need documented stats to tell you that most gun owners don’t have concealed carry permits so most gun owners don’t even carry their guns unless it’s to the range or to go hunting. In fact, while I can’t prove this, I would say that the most common situation for a gun owner is either someone who takes his deer rifle out of the closet once a year, sights it in (maybe) and then takes it hunting after which it goes back in the closet until next year. Of gun owners that own a firearm for home defense I’ll bet that most of them have a handgun (might or might not be loaded) in their sock drawer or a shotgun in the closet that hasn’t seen the light of day in years.
If you look at just this forum which is comprised of firearms owners who actually take at least at some level an interest in self defense and have had some training I’ll bet the majority don’t know the laws governing lethal force in their home state. You could post a poll right now and I’ll bet 30% of those with a concealed permit would tell you they only carry the gun when they think they might need it and that even if they do carry the gun they do so with an empty chamber and zero reloads.
I didn’t see anywhere in the article that the author suggested mandating training. I personally think that if I have to mandate that you get training then you won’t pay any attention or retain any of it anyway. All I see him saying is don’t delude yourself into thinking that just because you have a .38 snubby in your pocket (sometimes) you’re qualified or even prepared to defend yourself.
But even with the bias I think the basic premise of the article is sound. Based on my own experience I have no problem believing that majority gun owners or even the majority of permit holders aren’t prepared to defend themselves with a firearm.
You don’t need documented stats to tell you that most gun owners don’t have concealed carry permits so most gun owners don’t even carry their guns unless it’s to the range or to go hunting. In fact, while I can’t prove this, I would say that the most common situation for a gun owner is either someone who takes his deer rifle out of the closet once a year, sights it in (maybe) and then takes it hunting after which it goes back in the closet until next year. Of gun owners that own a firearm for home defense I’ll bet that most of them have a handgun (might or might not be loaded) in their sock drawer or a shotgun in the closet that hasn’t seen the light of day in years.
If you look at just this forum which is comprised of firearms owners who actually take at least at some level an interest in self defense and have had some training I’ll bet the majority don’t know the laws governing lethal force in their home state. You could post a poll right now and I’ll bet 30% of those with a concealed permit would tell you they only carry the gun when they think they might need it and that even if they do carry the gun they do so with an empty chamber and zero reloads.
I didn’t see anywhere in the article that the author suggested mandating training. I personally think that if I have to mandate that you get training then you won’t pay any attention or retain any of it anyway. All I see him saying is don’t delude yourself into thinking that just because you have a .38 snubby in your pocket (sometimes) you’re qualified or even prepared to defend yourself.
wolf_fire
New member
Did you read what came next in my post, or do you just pick and choose? What came next in the post that you replied to was this:
wolf_fire
New member
Then why are there approximately 2.5 million defenses with a legal handgun every year on average? I'm assuming that 6850 per day that did defend themselves with a firearm are not prepared to defend themselves according to you ideologies? Of these defenses nearly half a million occur outside of their home, meaning they are armed and walking the streets prepared. You claim you have no statistics, this one thing we agree on.
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
Did they defend themselves or did their attacker break contact when he saw the gun? How many of those 2.5 million were situations where the gun owner was actually threatened as opposed the thinking they might have been threatened? And how many were situations in which the gun owners "prevailed" by luck?
How many of that 2.5 million are situations like the one described in a thread on this forum where a guy gets out of his car to borrow money off 4 people and the gun owners somehow thinks that consitutes an attempted mugging?
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Umm....if you're being attacked and draw your weapon, and the sight of your weapon is what stops the attack, you did defend yourself with a gun.
Did you even glance at the link that Wolf provided as his source? How about the lengthy list of cites the GOA list is based on? Your challenges are only valid if the information can't be found at the site Wolf gave as his source, and even then, any challenges should be directed at the multitude of researchers and authors who distilled the raw data down to understandable statistics compiled in such a way that laymen can understand. Certainly Wolf isn't responsible for re-researching the data embedded within the GOA list.
And how would you or Wolf or GOA or the embedded research quantify such a ridiculous question? Even giving weight to the possibility that any of those defensive gun uses prevailed out of dumb luck, so what? Were they not still defensive gun uses, and therefore perfectly valid data points within the various studies the GOA piece is based on?
And what's with emphasizing the word "this forum" in relation to the thread you're referencing? There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 54K or 55K registered members here, but only a tiny fraction of those are regular participants, but even if they were all participating every day, the venue for the speech has no responsibility for the idiotic speech of each individual member. And in the thread you are referencing, if we were to attempt to hold the general tenor of the board responsible for its content, that thread had the OP in the unenviable position of having to explain and defend his OP for the duration of the thread, starting precisely in the first reply to it from BC1. So what did this forum do wrong by allowing one member to spout absurdities?
It's rather strange that you join today and immediately come to the defense of a link that has taken a few shots over its validity, start challenging a regular member over source material that isn't his own, and reference a thread where another member says something kind of ridiculous which you seem to blame the entire board for. Did you come here with an axe to grind against USA Carry, or is finding one to grind just your normal way of introducing yourself to a crowd that you're new to?
Either way, welcome to the forums.......I think.
Blues
snatale42
New member
Seriously, WTF with all these low post count trolls lately? Is this what 2014 will bring?
Is anyone who doesn’t agree with you guys a troll?
I emphasized this forum in my second post as a way of saying one of the examples is right here, right under your nose.
Maybe a part of my POV comes from the fact that I am one of those training elitists you guys are talking about. My employer requires as well as provides continuing training as a condition of employment. My work life could be characterized as a 3 phase rotating cycle of up time, recovery time and training time. So, I get a lot of good training free and I take full advantage of it.
I will admit that putting any training into use is a pass/fail event and if 2.5 million people walked away from their event then they passed but training elitist that I am when you don’t know basic things (like carrying spare ammunition , or keeping your weapon in a ready to fire state or the first rule of gun fighting ,bring a gun,) I don’t consider you to be adequately trained no matter how lucky you get.
And I'll also add that just because you got lucky with a crack head on main street does not mean I want you behind me while I'm clearing a building
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.
