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

Wildcat Diva said:

I’m moving towards carrying all the time. Even some places I used to be afraid to or questioning if I really should. Unless it’s a hard no like a federal building, I’m more often than not, packing. And if I didn’t see your piddly, faded, small text, not legal 30.06 or gunbuster sign, and you didn’t spot me and reprimand me, well, oh well for you.

Click to expand...

I carry everywhere. Everywhere unless its expressly forbidden of course, because that would be doing something that's expressly forbidden and I never do that. I believe you should carry all the time. Depending on the establishment, I may read their 30.06/30.07 or I may not.

This one may get some folks who don't like it. But I have been shooting for over 50 years, including competitive combat pistol shooting and quite a bit of professional training. Most of the time at the range when an officer came out when our competitive pistol group were training he couldn't get down the course anywhere near as fast or with all of the targets done that we could do, not even in the same class as we were. Then again I was averaging 15,000 rounds of ammo expended a year just for pistols.

With that as my background and as someone who is licensed to carry, I have always said and felt, I am not a police officer. I am neither paid, nor do I have the same legal protections that they do, so unless some ones life is in danger I am not going to get involved. If I had been in that church, most likely the person sitting next to me would have been my wife. My first action would have been to get the two of us to cover, once she is there then if I was armed I would have drawn and assessed the situation, I wouldn't have wanted to put rounds down range if I could hit someone else other than the shooter.

My standard carry is a SAR K2 .45 with 14 rounds in the magazine and another in the chamber, I pretty much always carry another magazine with me. Even with that I would have been woefully outgunned in this situation and all of my rounds would have been defensive in nature. Keeping him back and away from myself and my wife, if I managed to put him down at the time I would have been glad, but my main thrust would have been to keep us safe and not endanger others.

My training is cover first if there is any and then look at what can be done. Otherwise you are a target in the open and you are probably not going to be around to be able to try and deter. Seeing the tactical vest I would have wondered is this ballistic fabric over a plate and probably would have not tried to shoot center mass unless that was the only shot offered. Even with ballistic fabric is the hollow point didn't penetrate it was going to punch him hard enough to maybe break a rib which would again help to meet my primary action which was to protect and deter.

Wondering what other training the guy that was spouting off with NPR could have given me that would have been better than the excellent training that I have already paid for.

The idea that only "trained professionals" (or for that matter, "trained NON-professionals") can respond effectively under fire is simply wrong, and there are so many examples of armed "ordinary folks" responding effectively to emergencies, that thinking otherwise is ridiculous. The simple fact is that many, many "untrained" gun owners have successfully stopped crimes, including crimes in which they were personally under violent attack at the time, by using their guns - we see news stories about this on a weekly basis.
Is it better to have had tactical training? Sure. But just being trained doesn't ensure you will respond well in combat - ask any combat veteran. Speaking of which, how about the many combat veterans who now carry guns as civilians? Even if they haven't been formally trained to counter "active shooters," wouldn't their experience make them more likely to respond well under fire? In my opinion, "yes."
On the topic of why no one shot back in the Sutherland Church - I guess the folks in MA have an unrealistic view of life in TX, but in fact, (at least before now) very few LTC licensees actually carried in church; it was typically considered socially inappropriate. Even gun-friendly pastors and priests often frowned on it, and even without formally posting 30.06 or 30.07 signage, they made it clear they'd prefer the congregation not carry in church. I suspect that will be changing now, however.
I'll point out that I'm not opposed to training, in fact, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. But it is erroneous to assume training is a necessary element of effective response to an "active shooter" scenario. It's certainly handy, but I suspect the individual's personal character and sense of obligation to protect others, is actually far more important when the chips are down.

MTA89 said:

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

Click to expand...

Tell me what you really think.

AustinN4 said:

Tell me what you really think.

Click to expand...

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

Lol. At least you're consistent

robertc1024 said:

Lol. At least you're consistent

Click to expand...

I originally wrote that after I had been drinking a little bit. Too late to turn back now so I figured I would just stay honest hahaha

Shotgun49 said:

The idea that only "trained professionals" (or for that matter, "trained NON-professionals") can respond effectively under fire is simply wrong, and there are so many examples of armed "ordinary folks" responding effectively to emergencies, that thinking otherwise is ridiculous. The simple fact is that many, many "untrained" gun owners have successfully stopped crimes, including crimes in which they were personally under violent attack at the time, by using their guns - we see news stories about this on a weekly basis.
Is it better to have had tactical training? Sure. But just being trained doesn't ensure you will respond well in combat - ask any combat veteran. Speaking of which, how about the many combat veterans who now carry guns as civilians? Even if they haven't been formally trained to counter "active shooters," wouldn't their experience make them more likely to respond well under fire? In my opinion, "yes."
On the topic of why no one shot back in the Sutherland Church - I guess the folks in MA have an unrealistic view of life in TX, but in fact, (at least before now) very few LTC licensees actually carried in church; it was typically considered socially inappropriate. Even gun-friendly pastors and priests often frowned on it, and even without formally posting 30.06 or 30.07 signage, they made it clear they'd prefer the congregation not carry in church. I suspect that will be changing now, however.
I'll point out that I'm not opposed to training, in fact, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. But it is erroneous to assume training is a necessary element of effective response to an "active shooter" scenario. It's certainly handy, but I suspect the individual's personal character and sense of obligation to protect others, is actually far more important when the chips are down.

Click to expand...

I am going to speculate. The anti-gun crowd sees the armed citizen as untrained in the safe use and operation of a fire arm; therefore they present a hazard to themselves and everyone around them. Being armed gives you a fighting chance to survive an encounter. Being unarmed leaves you no choice, unless retreating and sheltering in place are options. Armed citizens have engaged the criminal element and have been successful. Those stories are out there and you read them in the Armed Citizen. Recently, an armed citizen thwarted a sexual assault in Austin,TX. In a perfect world more training is better. However, in a perfect world, if evil did not exist then we would not need to be armed and trained.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GeorgeandSugar said:

I am going to speculate. The anti-gun crowd sees the armed citizen as untrained in the safe use and operation of a fire arm; therefore they present a hazard to themselves and everyone around them. Being armed gives you a fighting chance to survive an encounter. Being unarmed leaves you no choice, unless retreating and sheltering in place are options. Armed citizens have engaged the criminal element and have been successful. Those stories are out there and you read them in the Armed Citizen. Recently, an armed citizen thwarted a sexual assault in Austin,TX. In a perfect world more training is better. However, in a perfect world, if evil did not exist then we would not need to be armed and trained.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Retreating and sheltering aren’t options, they are last resorts.

Act mean!
Throw items!!!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Does that include bullets?

pronstar said:

Act mean!
Throw items!!!

View attachment 125487


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

My employer has endorsed this "run, hide, fight policy" at our offices, our CSO is former Federal LEO, and one of those leftists that believe only the police and military should have guns.

They even gave examples of what you could throw in our "training"... it referred to "something heavy, like a stapler"

I made a comment about how the floor layout at my office could prevent- "run"... if the shooter was in one particular location, they could cover all exits. "Hide" was not an option, all of the rooms on our floor either were locked already (and peons don't have a key), or they didn't have locks at all. That left us with "fight", using staplers... so can we get some tactical stapler training?

That earned me a phone call from the CSO himself... didn't matter, nothing changed- he made it clear that he depended on the overwhelming odds against such a shooting ever happening... Eventually they moved the 'office space' to another part of the building... but I don't go there.

So glad I work from my house now.

Run. If that doesn't work...
Hide. If that doesn't work...
Die.

This is literally what they're advocating.

It's a feel-good measure that at least you're doing SOMETHING, pay no attention to the fact that it's ineffective at best.

It's akin to the Cold War "if a nuclear attack is imminent, hide under your desk" bullshit that we were taught in school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Lunyfringe said:

My employer has endorsed this "run, hide, fight policy" at our offices, our CSO is former Federal LEO, and one of those leftists that believe only the police and military should have guns.

They even gave examples of what you could throw in our "training"... it referred to "something heavy, like a stapler"

I made a comment about how the floor layout at my office could prevent- "run"... if the shooter was in one particular location, they could cover all exits. "Hide" was not an option, all of the rooms on our floor either were locked already (and peons don't have a key), or they didn't have locks at all. That left us with "fight", using staplers... so can we get some tactical stapler training?

That earned me a phone call from the CSO himself... didn't matter, nothing changed- he made it clear that he depended on the overwhelming odds against such a shooting ever happening... Eventually they moved the 'office space' to another part of the building... but I don't go there.

So glad I work from my house now.

Click to expand...

If they are dependent on the odds of it never happening then there is no purpose for the training. They must feel that the odds of it happening are high enough to justify some sort of training as they went to the trouble and expense to give it. Yet they understand that the training will result in the same deaths as it's ability to save lives is dependent on it not being needed.

The double think is strong with that one.

pronstar said:

Act mean!
Throw items!!!

View attachment 125487


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Click to expand...

1> Run Till you are in a comfortable range to be effective.
2> Hide Take cover to expose only a minimum of your body
3> Fight Keep shooting until he's down or you run out of ammo.

avvidclif said:

1> Run Till you are in a comfortable range to be effective.
2> Hide Take cover to expose only a minimum of your body
3> Fight Keep shooting until he's down or you run out of ammo.

Click to expand...

That certainly wasn't the version they are advocating... whomever authored "run, hide, fight" (I think it was a homeland security concempt) was clearly a hoplophobe, and anti-gun... I think there was a version shown to all DHS employees, (including armed officers, who found it ridiculous.)

And for example- my employer is posted "no weapons" at all facilities I have been to (including the TX ones having 30.06 and 30.07 signs). Company policy makes it clear you will be fired on the spot, and prosecuted if appropriate for bringing weapons or "parts of weapons" (including a single bullet) into the workplace... irrespective of whether you hold a LTC or CHL... (their property, their rules)


ETA: Looks like DHS has learned (administration change?), and their presentation is better thought out than just a knee-jerk hoplophobic program (video uploaded Aug 1, 2017)

My facility is government contracted and had to take down their gun buster sign. They instituted a new weapons policy that at least discussed the option of carrying at work with all kinds of stipulations. We were encouraged to apply to do so if we wanted. (I kind of thought it might be a trap).

I did end up applying, and was told there would be a “training” of some sort to follow and they would get back to me on the next step. I think it’s been a year now, and I think I’m the only person who’s ended up applying. I guess my 2A rights can just wait indefinitely lol.

We all know the true solution to the problem of shooters in the US is putting up "gun-free zones" signs. Criminals definitely will turn around and give up when they see those signs. Seriously though, who's less safe from a shooter than a guaranteed gun-free room full of peaceful citizens?

I just became interested in firearms recently and the attack by dumb people is overwhelming

Dickulous Nickulous said:

I just became interested in firearms recently and the attack by dumb people is overwhelming

Click to expand...

Get used to it.

The only education many people get about guns is from a biased media, it's no wonder so many are misinformed.