Concealed carry training ???

[Excalibur]

I highly encourage people to get training, any training on a basic level is good. Just going to a familiarization class to know your gun is a start. Just simply taking your new gun to the range after watching a couple youtube vids isn't gonna cut it in a life or death situation.

 

[GIJEW]

I understand what you are saying, but most gun owners wouldn't be considered yellow belts. Most will never take their first class.

Not even being yellow belts might be over stating it. Informal training can--depending on the 'trainer'--teach a lot. I think the reason that training can be a hard sell, is SOME competence can cause people to over estimate their ability (Krueger-Dunning effect?) because people don't know what they don't know.

 

[chipbennett]

I hope this isn't a dupe. I tell people in my classes that my estimate is that less than 25% of LTCH holders have actually had any real concealed carry training or ANY training for that matter. What I mean by structured training is simply drawing from your holster and shooting at a piece of paper in a structured class. The 25% is a figure that is just my personal estimate but I have been involved in enough training and classes with Coach and BBIs to believe that's a realistic number. It's shocking to see how accuracy fades with the smallest bit of pressure, especially when the pressure is applied, not by the instructor but the students themselves. I'm sure some will disagree but I believe the lack of training that most that carry regularly have had is nothing short of dangerous. Believe me, you have no idea how much you don't know until you get some training. I suppose I should make this a poll but I'm not sure how Do you think my estimate is high or low and how do you convince someone carrying a handgun how essential training is to their own safety and survival?
[FONT=&amp]NRA Life Member[/FONT][FONT=&amp]-- [/FONT][FONT=&amp]GSSF member[/FONT]
Certified Glock & M&P armorer
NRA Basic pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] /[/FONT][FONT=&amp] RSO[/FONT]

I say this as someone who has taken a fair bit of training, and who believes in the inherent value and wisdom of training (thanks, Coach; I'll be back for more when travel allows!): I do not believe that evidence supports a claim that a lack of training is dangerous.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I say this as someone who has taken a fair bit of training, and who believes in the inherent value and wisdom of training (thanks, Coach; I'll be back for more when travel allows!): I do not believe that evidence supports a claim that a lack of training is dangerous.

I'd be curious as to what evidence you have that supports a conclusion in either way.

 

[chipbennett]

I'd be curious as to what evidence you have that supports a conclusion in either way.

What would be the "danger" represented by lack of training? Accidental firearm-related injuries/fatalities, and/or unjustified shootings? (What else would be on the list?)

The evidence would be the lack of occurrence of such incidents. I would hazard a guess that there is no statistical difference in rate of occurrence of such incidents among carriers with and without training (primarily because the overall rate of occurrence of such incidents is already near - or at - the plausible floor for occurrence).

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What would be the "danger" represented by lack of training? Accidental firearm-related injuries/fatalities, and/or unjustified shootings? (What else would be on the list?)

The evidence would be the lack of occurrence of such incidents. I would hazard a guess that there is no statistical difference in rate of occurrence of such incidents among carriers with and without training (primarily because the overall rate of occurrence of such incidents is already near - or at - the plausible floor for occurrence).

How do you know there is a lack of occurrence of such incidents?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What would be the "danger" represented by lack of training?

Criminal prosecution.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The 25% is a figure that is just my personal estimate but I have been involved in enough training and classes with Coach and BBIs to believe that's a realistic number.

No possible way. It's 1% at most.

750K LTCH holders in Indiana. I would be shocked if there are 10K gun school graduates.

 

[Coach]

Not nearly enough have training.

 

[dwh79]

I have taken what was supposed to be a intermediate course and it was ok. I did learn things for sure. My problem is training is expensive and I want to get my money's worth. So I do not want to have to take everybody's beginner class because there is no standardization between trainers on what is recognized as passing one skill set and ready for the next. That is probably what holds me back the most from having signed up for more training is how do I know it will be recognized by another class that will keep me from starting all over.

 

[Coach]

I have taken what was supposed to be a intermediate course and it was ok. I did learn things for sure. My problem is training is expensive and I want to get my money's worth. So I do not want to have to take everybody's beginner class because there is no standardization between trainers on what is recognized as passing one skill set and ready for the next. That is probably what holds me back the most from having signed up for more training is how do I know it will be recognized by another class that will keep me from starting all over.

Come see us at Parabellum.

 

[VERT]

I have taken what was supposed to be a intermediate course and it was ok. I did learn things for sure. My problem is training is expensive and I want to get my money's worth. So I do not want to have to take everybody's beginner class because there is no standardization between trainers on what is recognized as passing one skill set and ready for the next. That is probably what holds me back the most from having signed up for more training is how do I know it will be recognized by another class that will keep me from starting all over.

I have never run into this problem. I suppose there are some national schools that require people to take the classes in order. But in that situation I would want to take the lower level level class. In fact I personally try to make it to introductory types of courses from time to time. Especially if they are within easy driving distance and I can fit it into my schedule.

 

[chipbennett]

How do you know there is a lack of occurrence of such incidents?

CDC and FBI UCR statistics, primarily. As far as I can tell, such incidents are lost in the noise, for all intents and purposes.

 

[chipbennett]

I have taken what was supposed to be a intermediate course and it was ok. I did learn things for sure. My problem is training is expensive and I want to get my money's worth. So I do not want to have to take everybody's beginner class because there is no standardization between trainers on what is recognized as passing one skill set and ready for the next. That is probably what holds me back the most from having signed up for more training is how do I know it will be recognized by another class that will keep me from starting all over.

You will absolutely get your money's worth in one of Coach's classes. I certainly did.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

CDC and FBI UCR statistics, primarily. As far as I can tell, such incidents are lost in the noise, for all intents and purposes.

Which of those do you think tracks accidental discharges resulting in injury?

 

[chipbennett]

Which of those do you think tracks accidental discharges resulting in injury?

CDC tracks accidental injury (and death) due to firearm discharge. "Accidental" (i.e. negligent) discharges are a subset of those incidents.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

CDC tracks accidental injury (and death) due to firearm discharge. "Accidental" (i.e. negligent) discharges are a subset of those incidents.

Link to firearms injuries and break down of trained vs untrained?

 

[chipbennett]

Link to firearms injuries and break down of trained vs untrained?

CDC accidental injury statistics:

FastStats - Injuries

And, as I originally stated: the entire class of firearm-related injuries is statistical noise. There is no use in breaking down the class further.

I believe, when I last looked up the numbers, in a given year:

15K accidental firearm-related injuries
30M total accidental injuries

And for 2001-2014:

231K accidental firearm-related injuries
393M total accidental injuries

(Source: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html)

Firearms-related accidental injuries (from both trained and untrained persons) account for fewer than 0.05% of total accidental injuries for 2011, and fewer than 0.06% of total accidental injuries for 2001-2014.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So your argument is firearms aren't dangerous because there's only 15k injuries a year. Therefore it's irrelevant if training reduces the number of injuries. That seems more like some hybrid of a hunch and a philosophy then "evidence", and is much less interesting to me.

I'll go ahead and keep collecting data on unintended discharges and the circumstances so that perhaps that number can be reduced.

 

[chipbennett]

So your argument is firearms aren't dangerous because there's only 15k injuries a year. Therefore it's irrelevant if training reduces the number of injuries. That seems more like some hybrid of a hunch and a philosophy then "evidence", and is much less interesting to me.

I'll go ahead and keep collecting data on unintended discharges and the circumstances so that perhaps that number can be reduced.

Yes: in absolute terms of ascribing firearms as "dangerous", they are not. Some 15K accidental firearm injuries in a total of 30MM accidental injuries among a population of 300MM (of whom 100MM are firearm owners), is insignificant.

If you have numbers to differentiate between accidents involving the trained and the untrained, please present them, and show that there is statistical significance in the difference in the rate of accidents involving those two cohorts. Until then, what *you* are presenting is some hybrid of a hunch and a philosophy, and not "evidence".

I don't say that to be snarky. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that failing to get firearms training is "dangerous". I'm presenting numbers that merely demonstrate the landscape/context of any evidence you might find: firearms *overall* are not "dangerous", so it will be extremely difficult to justify a subset of the group subject to accidental firearm injury as being more "dangerous".