You don't need Firearms Training-Do you?

[VERDAD Investigations]

You don?t need professional firearms training | Gun Nuts Media

 

[wolf_fire]

The author recommends every firearm owner to take a class at Gunsite.

Who do you know that has an extra several thousand dollars lying around? $1600 for the course. One will need over a thousand rounds (there's another few hundred dollars). One will need lodging accommodations for at least five days unless they already live in AZ. How about the cost of airfare to get there?

Seriously?

Yes, training is important to those that wish to handle a gun responsibly, but to recommend it should be with Gunsite? This guy sounds like he works for them. Save your money and find a good, reputable instructor in your neck of the woods. Many NRA certified instructors give solid quality classes from beginner to advanced.

 

[whodat2710]

Yeah, this is like that site Eidolon or apvbguy posted about that said if you didn't take their training you were more dangerous to yourself and society and should just disarm yourself.

 

[flintlock62]

That article sounds like an advertisement. Even with the best training in the world, it won't do you any good if you don't practice, practice, practice. I took an advanced course that cost me $160 +500 rounds of ammo. It was local, and well worth it. Geez, I thought the $160 course, and $150 for the ammo was a lot of money!

 

[Eidolon]

I don’t see anything unethical about Gunsite promoting their training classes, they are in business to make a profit. Can you get training just as good at home? That’s your decision , get the amount of training you think your life is worth .

 

[Eidolon]

Yeah, this is like that site Eidolon or apvbguy posted about that said if you didn't take their training you were more dangerous to yourself and society and should just disarm yourself.

Was it Josef Gobbles or Saul Alinsky that said if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth?

 

[telpinaro]

Yes, training is important to those that wish to handle a gun responsibly, but to recommend it should be with Gunsite? This guy sounds like he works for them. Save your money and find a good, reputable instructor in your neck of the woods. Many NRA certified instructors give solid quality classes from beginner to advanced.

No kidding. If nothing else, I wish he had said whether he worked for them or not. If it's someone unaffiliated, I'd value his advice a bit more... Not that I can afford it either way. If he does work for them... it might not be unethical, but it's kind of underhanded not to identify that right away.

Plus, some local instructors are willing to work with you if you're in a tough spot financially. One near here arranged for me to be able to take the Cornered Cat 2-day defensive handgun class, and I will be forever grateful. At some point, I am determined to get through all the range classes they offer, and some of the others... it'll just take a while.

 

[mappow]

Having had training both professionally and in the military I can say ANY education you receive is education you may need. The extent of your education is only limited by your limits you hold, ie......AS, BS degree or post grad work. Totally up to you.
-
I would always recommend education verses stupidity. BUT keep in mind, a lot of courses and people on this site believe that training as a para-military commando is where you need to be. I, on the other hand, know that being a armed civilian limits me to ONLY defense engagements. I train and educate myself and wife on multiple engagements on a civilian side. NOT a aggressive LEO side as some spew on this site. (That's right, spew. You know it and will respond as know all see all) Believe me I'm NOT saying don't train to tactics. What I am saying is aggressive engagement per training that is documented could be held against you in a court of law.

 

[Eidolon]

I don’t think anyone on this site is suggesting that your normal everyday carrier needs to be trained to the level of a PMC (Private Military Contractor not Para Military Commando). I think what is being said is get the amount of training you think your life is worth.

I would recommend at least going through some level of FoF where you aren’t in control of the training to everyone. I understand that not everyone can afford but I get the impression that some here refuse to acknowledge that it’s a weak spot in your armor.

I’ve said before that experience is the best teacher but never forget she is a brutal one.

 

[Eidolon]

What I am saying is aggressive engagement per training that is documented could be held against you in a court of law.

Can you provide some case law documentation please?

 

[wolf_fire]

I don’t see anything unethical about Gunsite promoting their training classes, they are in business to make a profit. Can you get training just as good at home? That’s your decision , get the amount of training you think your life is worth .

Did anyone in this thread mention anything concerning this being "unethical"?

Also, is it really Gunsite promoting this? I have no clue. I surmised this guy might work for them.

He calls himself Verdad Investigations. If his name is actually a business then this is what you will find out of New York: Home - Verdad Investigations

 

[JimTh]

Was it Josef Gobbles or Saul Alinsky that said if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth?

Yeah right...the lie is that every one needs your style of dictated training to defend their own lives. Why don't you tell us all how only those with "proper training" actually survived episodes of violence throughout history. Please site examples of self defence gone awry because the one defending themselves had no training.

 

[Bikenut]

I don’t see anything unethical about Gunsite promoting their training classes, they are in business to make a profit. Can you get training just as good at home? That’s your decision , get the amount of training you think your life is worth .

Ummm.... not trying to be a jerk ... And I am greatly in favor of voluntary training..

Many folks value their lives, and the lives of their spouses/kids, very highly indeed. Yet many simply cannot afford much in finances or time beyond the basic course they have to take to get their carry permit (where required by law)... and some folks can't even afford to get a carry permit at all. (Which, to my mind, makes an argument that the monetary criteria for getting a permit discriminates against those who likely need a permit the most but can't afford it. But that is a side track.)

I believe any training, from watching DVD's and/or setting up self defense scenarios using targets and an air soft gun in a garage/home/back yard to mega bucks training schools, is valuable and can increase a person's chances of surviving an encounter. But to equate a person's ability to train to how much they value their lives ignores the reality of mortgages, college funds, grocery bills, car payments, Obamacare insurance bill, and a crappy job where the bread winner MUST not miss much time in order to keep that job so he/she can pay for all those things that happen to us financially in real life.

Oddly enough it would appear that many folks do quite well with a multitude of different levels of training:

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

Monday, 29 September 2008 00:00 Written by Administrator
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives
-snip-

For some reason I suspect very few of those folks went to a training school like gunsite.. in fact I suspect most of those folks didn't have any training beyond what was required to get a carry permit or what they learned about guns growing up. But I do believe each and every one of them, regardless of their level of training or lack thereof, thought their life was worth carrying a gun and using it to defend themselves.

 

[apvbguy]

What I am saying is aggressive engagement per training that is documented could be held against you in a court of law.

please cite a case where training has been found to be a reason for prosecution.
I know that there are many over zealous prosecutors who might try to introduce that kind of nonsense in a trial but any lawyer with a minimal level of experience should be able to have such comments struck from a case

 

[mappow]

Swaying a jury your training was aggressive not defensive COULD be viewed as just that, aggressive. I post the sentence again; "could be held against you in a court of law." No case law to site, just making a statement. Your choice, your way of life. Not dictating just voicing an opinion.

 

[Eidolon]

Swaying a jury your training was aggressive not defensive COULD be viewed as just that, aggressive. I post the sentence again; "could be held against you in a court of law." No case law to site, just making a statement. Your choice, your way of life. Not dictating just voicing an opinion.

Of course it also could be brought up that you were so responsible and concerned, about the safety of others, that you pursued training, at your own expense, to be more competent and were able to be more skilled than the local LE agency, based on their qualification standards

 

[mappow]

Of course it also could be brought up that you were so responsible and concerned, about the safety of others, that you pursued training, at your own expense, to be more competent and were able to be more skilled than the local LE agency, based on their qualification standards

That's were you're wrong and your mentally is confused between having a LEO mind set and a civilian. I DO NOT TRAIN TO PROTECT the safety of others. I am licensed to protect me and my family defensibly. LEO's are allowed to be aggressive and escalate. I am not. I don't care about exceeding LEO's qualifications whether Federal, State or Local. I train for protection not take down and arrest.
=
This is really the last interchange with you Eidolon. You're just focused on the way you see things and care not to understand any other prospective. What a shame, you can't learn if you never listen.

 

[flintlock62]

I studied law a bit, which doesn't make me a lawyer, but it does make me a paralegal. It would be called *speculation*, and is not admissible in a court of law. Any training what so ever could be held against you if such things were allowed. First, they must prove intent.

Swaying a jury your training was aggressive not defensive COULD be viewed as just that, aggressive. I post the sentence again; "could be held against you in a court of law." No case law to site, just making a statement. Your choice, your way of life. Not dictating just voicing an opinion.

 

[Eidolon]

That's were you're wrong and your mentally is confused between having a LEO mind set and a civilian. I DO NOT TRAIN TO PROTECT the safety of others. I am licensed to protect me and my family defensibly. LEO's are allowed to be aggressive and escalate. I am not. I don't care about exceeding LEO's qualifications whether Federal, State or Local. I train for protection not take down and arrest.
=
This is really the last interchange with you Eidolon. You're just focused on the way you see things and care not to understand any other prospective. What a shame, you can't learn if you never listen.

I don’t think I’m the one who’s focused on the way I see things. Do the words collateral damage mean anything to you? Any time my hand gun comes out of its holster the safety of others (as in not causing any collateral damage) had better be a primary concern.

If any training I have can be shown to lessen the possibility of endangering the lives of others if I ever have to defend myself wouldn’t that be to the good?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by mappow View Post
That's were you're wrong and your mentally is confused between having a LEO mind set and a civilian. I DO NOT TRAIN TO PROTECT the safety of others. I am licensed to protect me and my family defensibly. LEO's are allowed to be aggressive and escalate. I am not. I don't care about exceeding LEO's qualifications whether Federal, State or Local. I train for protection not take down and arrest.
=
This is really the last interchange with you Eidolon. You're just focused on the way you see things and care not to understand any other prospective. What a shame, you can't learn if you never listen.

I don’t think I’m the one who’s focused on the way I see things. Do the words collateral damage mean anything to you? Any time my hand gun comes out of its holster the safety of others (as in not causing any collateral damage) had better be a primary concern.

If any training I have can be shown to lessen the possibility of endangering the lives of others if I ever have to defend myself wouldn’t that be to the good?

Ok... I'll bite... what level of training do you consider/recommend as the lowest level of training "acceptable" for the common person before they should be allowed to carry a gun for self defensive purposes?