TexasCHLforum.com

I'm sure y'all have read the other thread about a homeowner shooting through a closed door. This thread examines a completely different aspect of this type of situation. Specifically, what does the level of training have to do with such an incident?

Let me start by quoting from the column "Cop Talk" by Massad Ayoob in the March/April issue of American Handgunner regarding cops competing in IDPA style events:

Massad Ayoob wrote:One of my mentors was Charlie Smith, the ex-FBI instructor who founded the Smith & Wesson Academy. Charlie told us that through his career training other instructors, he always asked them who on their departments were doing the bad shotings, and who were the cool ones who never fired at the wrong moment. He said two profiles emerged. The guy who would panic and fire prematurely was the cop who barely qualified and was uncertain of his skills, and didn't think he could win a gunfight unless he shot preemptively. The guys who would perfectly handle the most difficult situations were the best, most proven shooters. They, Charlie said, had the confidence to wait an extra half a second to be sure they had to shoot.

I believe this is very relevant here. While many on this forum admitted we don't have all of the facts, most folks say they would have held their fire rather than shooting through the closed door (myself among them). I contend that this is because the majority of forum members are above average in terms of their training with firearms and generally would have felt more confident that they could prevail in a gunfight even if they waited to see and confirm their threat before shooting.

On the other hand, I suspect that the shooter in the Dallas case was probably in the group of shooters that either barely qualified or rarely practiced (or both) and lacked confidence in his ability to prevail unless he fired pre-emptively before the attacker could see him and have a chance to engage.

What do you think? Does the shooter's level of training affect this type of shoot/no-shoot decision?

I will agree that a shooters training is a major contributor. I also believe ones experience will also play a role. Shooting at paper is a big difference as everyone is well aware of. The training you receive with IDPA and the others are a step above the rest and would prepare one even more, but until the actual "event" happens we really don't know what we will do. We can say we would do, but the REAL TRUTH is . . . (pray it never happens.)
Quick Example: I went through many hours of traffic stops. My first traffic stop was a disaster. After the stop was complete I bailed out of the car, left it in drive and it rolled into the violator's vehicle So much for practice and training.
Training is a plus for shoot/don't shoot. I agree with you.

I think we better be very careful about what we wish for. Once "training" is tied directly to, or becomes some type of subjective requirement for "gun ownership", you can kiss the Second Amendment, as we know it, good by.

mr surveyor wrote:Once "training" is tied directly to, or becomes some type of subjective requirement for "gun ownership", you can kiss the Second Amendment, as we know it, good by.

I agree. Any kind of licensing is a tool for making the requirements so onerous that no one can fulfill them.

We saw this with the armed pilots program. Pilots who wanted to carry weapons on planes had to undergo psychological testing and take training on their own time in the inner suburbs of hades.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 090203.asp

- Jim

Maybe I missed the statement, but I didn’t notice anyone claiming more training should be required by the state. I think the point of the post was better trained folks may respond better in gunfight situations then poorly or untrained individuals…

I personally think training, practice, and scenarios make the likelihood you will survive a gunfight much higher. Having said that, I’m not advocating state mandated training before you can purchase or carry a firearm. If someone is comfortable with getting into a gunfight without training or practice, that’s their business…and as far as I’m concerned, their right. But I don’t think it’s smart…

That's a great quote GlockenHammer!

It rings true to me.

I'm certain that safety, marksmanship, and gun handling training is important for every shooter... and that IDPA shooting and more advanced training is desirable.

But you need actual experience or force-on-force training to put everything together and get a real gauge of how a person will react.

If you think training is important and would like to know just HOW important read "On Combat" by Grossman, Dave. PPCT Research Publications, 2004

A truely great read for any who carry.

Paladin wrote:That's a great quote GlockenHammer!

It rings true to me.

I'm certain that safety, marksmanship, and gun handling training is important for every shooter... and that IDPA shooting and more advanced training is desirable.

But you need actual experience or force-on-force training to put everything together and get a real gauge of how a person will react.

I couldn’t agree more…

Experience will definitely tell you a lot about yourself, but only if you survive. After all, for the civilian, experience in gunfighting implies your situational awareness did not keep you out of the situation, your ability to de-escalate was unsuccessful, and there were no reasonable way out. If you survive, it’s called experience, if not, it’s called a funeral.

Force on Force is about as close as you can get and nobody gets killed, although you will get shot quite a few times, which by itself is a good lesson in humility

FoF will teach you, cover is good, but rarely available in time, moving targets are harder to hit and if your opponent is moving it’s harder to win, taking time to aim is not always good, and if you stand still you will surely be shot.

I strongly support getting some FoF exposure…it’s a real eye opener.

Doors are always that factor you don't think about till its too late, or you are so in the "white" that "some" don't think about it before they open the door...

I have a solid wood door...No windows, only a peephole...No one on either side can see whats going on...

My secret...No one I know drops in unexpectedly on Casa Steve...Not that they have to call, but its just been that way for the most part...

I would say that I have the advantage of knowing that if the person on the other side is seriously kicking my door, obviously trying to gain unwelcome entrance, and they probably don't know I am inside the house...It would be a safe bet that its not going to turn out too good for them...But thats just keyboard bravado I suppose...I'll of course wait till they get in before I tell them to stop, and blah blah blah...The rest is kinda anti-climatic...

I have a high school friend of mine who lives back in the nieghborhood still who's mother and grandmother were shot and killed by someone who shot through the door at them...All for the keys to his NSX in the driveway...It was a high school kid who went to Clear Brook High years ago...He's still in prison...

"Duke", my friend, and I took a renewal class together years ago...And we talked about the incident...It's sad...I liked his grandmother, but he's learned from it, so doors are not an issue anymore for him...

As silly as it sounds...Those video surviellance systems for external monitoring of doors and other accessways are a way to counter this issue...

Just my opinion...