Level of Training

[VERT]

So have most of the people who have never taken a training class. They have gone out with fathers, brothers, friends, or received advice (good or bad) from other people on the ranage. Almost no one does this in a vacuum.

Point taken. My father taught me to shoot and coached me through 3 national championships and 2 national records. I did not receive any formal marksmanship training until college and that was still a shooter/coach relationship.

 

[bingley]

Point taken. My father taught me to shoot and coached me through 3 national championships and 2 national records. I did not receive any formal marksmanship training until college and that was still a shooter/coach relationship.

And Aristotle taught Alexander the Great privately. I'm not sure I'd say Alexander had no "formal schooling." Extensive teaching/coaching, even by your father, may differ from what we think of as "formal training" by only a piece of paper. But this is just semantics.

 

[David Rose]

Yea, I've just had the basic handgun course, not defensive training. I'm at the point where I'm having fun going to the range getting used to my pistols, trying different ammo, and getting comfortable with them. Don't know that I'll ever carry, although it definitely makes sense for an overall protection strategy (i.e. coming home when someone is in my house...guns strategically place inside the home don't do much good).

When I get to the point I'm very comfortable I'll probably get additional training. If I ever decide to carry, I'll definitely get more training.

One thing I've notice in reading a different "national" forum (Smith & Wesson) is a lot of the other states seem to have mandated training to get a carry permit. Don't mean to open a can of worms, but that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

bradrob,
A common misconception is that you need to get comfortable/confident first and then go take training. That's what good training should be designed to do, help you become more comfortable/confident with the task the training covers. If you really want to move forward in an area you are interested in, seek out competent instruction. You will be glad you did.

As far as mandated training something to consider:

The training you took that left you feeling uncomfortable and undertrained is the core of the training that most states mandate.

If the state stamped "good enough" on you right now, would you be more or less likely to seek out better training?

 

[Coach]

The training that I have received has been in the defensive pistol and defensive rifle areas. The pure shooting of both rifle, pistol and shotgun have come in the forms of observation and trial and error. The internet, dvd's, books and such have help greatly with many things. But I was not coached by a father, uncle or the like. I came up through competition via trial and error. I got my self to master class this way. I am pretty observant and have great experiences in athletics on how important fundamentals are and I knew when it came to shooting that I was looking for proper fundamentals.

My advice is do not do it this way. I can teach someone things in a couple of hours that I took months or years to learn and figure. In the long run training is faster and cheaper and you are less vulnerable along the journey.

 

[bingley]

Alright, I guess that means Coach is a cartel hitman…

 

[bradrob]

bradrob,

As far as mandated training something to consider:

The training you took that left you feeling uncomfortable and undertrained is the core of the training that most states mandate.

If the state stamped "good enough" on you right now, would you be more or less likely to seek out better training?

David
I never said the training I received left me uncomfortable and undertrained. I was very happy with the Basic Handgun Course I had. In fact, I feel the training was sufficient for handling my handguns for what I intend to use them for (target and home defense). As I stated previously, I would definitely seek out more training if I decided to carry. My point is (opinion only) that the a lot of people who own and carry have no training, let alone a basic course. Until I started reading up and visiting Forum's, I didn't even know what training was available. I don't think many disagree that if you carry, you should be get some level of formal training. If no training is required, I worry about how many will purchase their gun, ammo, and holster and start carrying as soon as they get their permit without fully understanding how much trouble they could be getting themselves and others into.

 

[jaschutz79]

bradrob

This is the problem with only taking one class. There has been alot of discussion in the training world about the dangers of taking one class. The problem is the overconfidence getting you in trouble. I promise you that if you take a Force on Force class, you will realize that Basic Handgun is not enough to defend your home. Manipulating the handgun is only a fraction of the skill base you need in a defense situation.

 

[GIJEW]

OP you are not alone. There are other people who choose to own a gun for their home but do not want to carry one on their person. My wife is one of those people. She has taken basic pistol marksmanship, a room clearing course and comprehensive IN gun law. She has made the choice not to carry. She is also a huge advocate for training. She is the inspiration behind our offering NRA Basic Personal Protection in the Home twice a year and routinely gives me feedback.[/QUOTE
Vert, I'm curious about what you think about the PPitH class. I decided not to be NRA certified to teach it because 1)it's designed, by necessity, to be applicable in all 50 states--like NJ for instance where 'castle doctrine' doesn't exist and you have a "duty" to retreat until you're cornered and 2)as an NRA instructor you have to teach the class "as designed"--I realize that clause is to protect the NRA from liability for possible bad instruction. But IMO planning your HD around available "choke points" and actual cover (ie 2nd floor landing behind a staircase of hardwood boards) is required to make an effective defense, rather than retreating to a "safe room" (are the walls&door lined with steel plate?) to declare that you're armed and the PD have been called. Having to teach the class "as designed" doesn't seem to leave room for distinctions like "in NJ do 'A' but here in IN, TX etc 'B' is a better choice".
There really IS a lot of great of info in the class and the text book is worth more than it costs, BUT "teach as designed" seems to force you to teach an inferior if not dangerous 'strategy' for HD. How do you handle that?

 

[VERT]

Good question GIJEW. Not sure how I missed those earlier. I will address later from a computer and not my phone. Simple answer is that the curriculum is designed for all 50 states. That does not mean we teach NJ or TX law. That is why lesson 3 is so vague. We cover IN law. Also the instructors are allowed to add material. We spend a considerable amount of time talking about chock points and positioning yourself in an area that gives you advantage.

Actually that answers your questions pretty well. My only real critisim of PPITH is that it is too easy to get the certification to teach it. If people try to teach the class to the letter of the book or would not work well in some areas. I can tell you we stick to the curriculum as much as possible but we are not afraid to add or subtract a little based on the facility or the students. My assistant instructors are very experienced.

 

[ru6797]

take all the training you can ask others were they trained so are good and some are bad, don't let some one force his training on you , no body knows it all and we learn every day