This Gun Instructor Says Many Who Carry A Gun Aren't Trained To Respond To A Shooter

[easy rider]

Certainly training is good and you can get good at it, but if you aren't using it on a regular basis you can become complacent. How many people wake up every morning thinking "today is the day I am going to have to use my training"? How much training does a person have in any given situation, as far as I know, each one is different.

I'm not an expert, far from it, I can only imagine what I would be thinking if I had been armed and at that church. Of course I would try to get down and find cover, at that moment I'm probably not sure what's going on. Before you can react to a situation your brain has to assess that situation under stress. How many people have clear decisive thinking under a very stressful situations? Now put a time limit on it. Would my mind be able to assess the situation and react under stress in time?

Too many variables to actually say for certain that even armed I would be able to react in a timely manner to save my own life or others. All I can say is that I would rather be armed and have that chance, then none at all.

 

[Kar98]

Right? I'm not a professional race car driver and I still put my seat belt on even though I probably won't need it today.

 

[Kar98]

Plus an extra mag, I hope...

Man, if 18 rounds ain't enough to fix a problem, I dunno if another 17 will

 

[SQLGeek]

I held my nose and perused his blog. In addition to being an NRA Endowment member while referring to the NRA as the enemy, he seems to hold an incredible amount of contempt for his gun owning customers and gun owners in general.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Body armor on the threat is a pretty serious problem.

Man, if 18 rounds ain't enough to fix a problem, I dunno if another 17 will

 

[majormadmax]

Body armor on the threat is a pretty serious problem.

Still, most mass shooters flee at the first sign of armed resistance. Even if there is a minimal chance of being effective, the mere fact that someone was shooting back would likely cause the shooter to break contact and run.

In other words, it beats nothing...

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Man, if 18 rounds ain't enough to fix a problem, I dunno if another 17 will

It's not always just about round count...

 

[pronstar]

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_55ec4b31e4b093be51bbb978

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Younggun]

Bet that 12lb trigger didn't help.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Still, most mass shooters flee at the first sign of armed resistance. Even if there is a minimal chance of being effective, the mere fact that someone was shooting back would likely cause the shooter to break contact and run.

In other words, it beats nothing...

That’s why I want more rounds available to me than less. Once I shoot 11 Rounds and I’m out... well, I’ve just been outgunned. Probably outgunned from the start, but at least I’ve got a better chance.

 

[Lunyfringe]

View attachment 125129


https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_55ec4b31e4b093be51bbb978

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's better than some other shoot-outs with NYPD...at least it sounds like no innocent bystanders were hit.

The idiotic 12lb triggers certainly don't help, seems like trigger discipline training would have been better, but NY politicians aren't known for good choices.

 

[kenboyles72]

One thing on LE training or any other training, you KNOW what to expect and there is no real threat. When you know the target you're shooting at wont fire back, sure you can get a good score. But what if a LEO was handed a supposedly loaded weapon and advanced towards an unknown threat and shots fired? He would be doing the same as any civilian would do, take cover, wait for his balls to clear his throat and then try to asses the situation. If he does not react in time, he could end up amongst the dead or BG finishes his business and makes it out the door and gone. With all the training LEO's have, when there is an active shooting what is it they do? Do they immediately confront the BG or do they hold off and wait to see what's happening? Depending on the situation, it could be one of two answers. If the LEO has plain view of BG and can tell what is happening or about to happen, then he will engage. If threat is unknown or not visibly seen, then they will seek cover and see what develops next. The biggest impact that training does, is to heighten your reflex time and any civilian can do the same on their own. All it takes is a small group of friends, an empty house, the woods, etc with some airsoft pistols. That's the greatest part of it, you have real people, in any number of unknown locations, that could pop out of nowhere and put you to the test.

 

[Charlie]

I know some aren't going to like this but................. basically one "trains" animals and " teaches" people. Training is OK but teaching along with it is necessary.

 

[MTA]

He is just some cocksucker who wants more idiots to give him money for some bullshit training

 

[benenglish]

With all the training LEO's have, when there is an active shooting what is it they do? Do they immediately confront the BG or do they hold off and wait to see what's happening? Depending on the situation, it could be one of two answers. If the LEO has plain view of BG and can tell what is happening or about to happen, then he will engage. If threat is unknown or not visibly seen, then they will seek cover and see what develops next.

Since the tactical debacle that was the response to the Columbine shooting, police training on this point has evolved. I'll leave it to LEOs to talk about how, with specifics, if they want. My takeaway is that the police now understand that time spent "see(ing) what develops next" is generally time in which people are dying, i.e. entries tend to happen more quickly these days.

I'm anxious to be schooled by those with valid training and experience.

 

[Darkpriest667]

When I worked with and around LE guys I surprisingly found out they went to the range less than I did, now this was 15 years ago when I only went maybe 4 times a year. They typically only went when they qualified! I'm not sure it's fair to say they are better trained to SHOOT at someone. Then again, most civilians that carry probably don't make it to the range that much either.

 

[kenboyles72]

Since the tactical debacle that was the response to the Columbine shooting, police training on this point has evolved. I'll leave it to LEOs to talk about how, with specifics, if they want. My takeaway is that the police now understand that time spent "see(ing) what develops next" is generally time in which people are dying, i.e. entries tend to happen more quickly these days.

I'm anxious to be schooled by those with valid training and experience.

As do I. I have several buddies in LE and haven't had a chance to talk to them yet, one is DPS, two are in SD and one in local PD. I guess it will depend on the geographic on which the level training is required and which academy they went to. I know DPS goes through rigorous and regular training, but not so much for local PD, which may only have higher training for special operations or SWAT if they have a team.

 

[stdreb27]

I don't think it's absurd at all. People become comfortable in their surroundings, especially in a small town. For many in small towns or living in more rural areas they will grab a gun to head to the pasture but not to go to the grocery store or church.

I think it's very believable that not one person in that small church would be armed. Hell, I'm guilty of it. I often head in to my small town unarmed but if I head to the city I carry. This event has made me reconsider my reasoning behind that decision.

Couple that with it being the first weekend of deer season....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't think it's absurd at all. People become comfortable in their surroundings, especially in a small town. For many in small towns or living in more rural areas they will grab a gun to head to the pasture but not to go to the grocery store or church.

I think it's very believable that not one person in that small church would be armed. Hell, I'm guilty of it. I often head in to my small town unarmed but if I head to the city I carry. This event has made me reconsider my reasoning behind that decision.

From a statistical standpoint, with approximately 55 people in the church, 8 of which were children, probably another couple or more that were between 18 and 21, it would not matter where the church was, chances are that nobody was carrying. Depending on who you interview for your numbers, despite the number of LTC holders who only comprise a small % of the Texas population and then only a very small percentage of those carry on a regular basis, you would have needed more than 100 people in the church before you would expect 1 person to be carrying (statistically speaking). For Sutherland Springs, you have maybe 45 people who were legally of age to carry. Of those, not all were necessarily legal immigrants or legally able to have an LTC because of legal issues. Never mind the those who were very old and infirm who would not be apt to carry, mothers with small children who would not be apt to carry, or those who would consider it an affront to God to carry in his House and those with the small safe town mentality

So it isn't really a matter of being believable, but one of being actually probable and as it turns out, actual.

But let's say a person was carrying. How many people were shot through the walls before the gunman even made entry into the building? Said person could have been rendered combat ineffective before even having a known target to fight. Of course, there is no indication that anyone was armed in the church and certainly no reports of anybody fighting back.

 

[dsgrey]

I don't think it's absurd at all. People become comfortable in their surroundings, especially in a small town. For many in small towns or living in more rural areas they will grab a gun to head to the pasture but not to go to the grocery store or church.

I think it's very believable that not one person in that small church would be armed. Hell, I'm guilty of it. I often head in to my small town unarmed but if I head to the city I carry. This event has made me reconsider my reasoning behind that decision.

I live in a very small town with a police department that doesn't cover 24x7 and the sheriff department doesn't venture to this area. While I feel comfortable in my town, I always carry when I leave the house. I may be in gym shorts and a tshirt for a quick trip but that's also why I own a small mouse gun that will clip on the waistband. Having lived here for a long time and knowing many regulars I know any store I visit will also have other people carrying.

I'm not tactically trained as mentioned in the other part of this thread but that applies to whether I'm using my fists, a stick or a gun. I do practice fast draws and close shooting at the range without sights on a regular basis. Hopefully a fist or stick fight won't be to the death but I do feel more confident if I were in a situation where I felt the need to draw my gun in defense. Maybe the bad guy will be less competent but let's hope I never find out.