Shows basic competency and helps, imo, prevent incompetent "spray and pray" shooters.
The DGU stats seem to imply that "little to no training" is an acceptable self defense standard. It's uncomfortable to seriously contemplate for those of us who train, but facts are facts.
I'm not sure how much it does the latter. It's certainly better than not doing that bit, though.
I'm not familiar with those statistics, so I can't speak to them. The common issue with statistics, of course, is that someone has to categorize, and the choice of categories can change the statistics. That makes it hard to take much nuanced information from statistics about something so variable as self-defense.
Re-reading this, I realize that I wasn't very clear about what I mean here. What I mean is that DGU (Defensive Gun Uses) statistics for the U.S. a low estimate of a tad under 30,000 per year, to a high of over 1,000,000 with most of the dependable statistics hovering in the 30,000 to 70,000 range. That means that every year somewhere around 30,000 to 70,000 people use a gun to defend themselves from criminals in the U.S. The U..S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime and victimization survey averages just shy of 50,000 per year for the 5 year period of 2007-2011 and 83,000 per year for earlier periods. Most people correctly compare that to the number of murders with a firearm (somewhere around 9,000-11,000 per year) and draw a favorable conclusion for the use of firearms in defense.
Okay, I see your point there. We end up with the same question we have with MA: "Should we train for things that are unlikely to happen?" Those "things" being having to fire the gun (for CCW) and something like knife attacks (for MA).Re-reading this, I realize that I wasn't very clear about what I mean here. What I mean is that DGU (Defensive Gun Uses) statistics for the U.S. a low estimate of a tad under 30,000 per year, to a high of over 1,000,000 with most of the dependable statistics hovering in the 30,000 to 70,000 range. That means that every year somewhere around 30,000 to 70,000 people use a gun to defend themselves from criminals in the U.S. The U..S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime and victimization survey averages just shy of 50,000 per year for the 5 year period of 2007-2011 and 83,000 per year for earlier periods. Most people correctly compare that to the number of murders with a firearm (somewhere around 9,000-11,000 per year) and draw a favorable conclusion for the use of firearms in defense.
But there's another statistic which is very important as part of this and in reference to this sub-topic of minimum training and competency requirements. That is the "shots fired" statistic. Statistic for how often one or more shots are fired by the DGU range from between less than 10% up to just shy of 25%. That means that between 75% and 90%+ of the time the person defending themselves with a gun never fires a shot! When a gun is displayed (or implied) the bad guy suddenly finds he has somewhere else he really needs to be. So what level of training and minimum competency is required for a "didn't actually use it but still had a 75%-90%+ success rate?" Read that again. Somewhere over 75% of the time, a person doesn't need any training or competency at all to successfully defend themselves with a gun!
That's akin to people using <cough> "martial arts" for self defense with their effective training being "I took a Cat Stance and used my constipated face." ...with 75%+ success rate.
Literally this means that the vast majority of the time no train is required for effective self defense use with a gun.
So why train at all? Well, what happens if you're that unfortunate guy in the 10%? Right. Go train.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I would also assert that "no training" is really only required if the gun isn't loaded (chance of AD during handling and when presenting, for instance), but you covered that with your original "no or minimal" statement.Re-reading this, I realize that I wasn't very clear about what I mean here. What I mean is that DGU (Defensive Gun Uses) statistics for the U.S. a low estimate of a tad under 30,000 per year, to a high of over 1,000,000 with most of the dependable statistics hovering in the 30,000 to 70,000 range. That means that every year somewhere around 30,000 to 70,000 people use a gun to defend themselves from criminals in the U.S. The U..S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime and victimization survey averages just shy of 50,000 per year for the 5 year period of 2007-2011 and 83,000 per year for earlier periods. Most people correctly compare that to the number of murders with a firearm (somewhere around 9,000-11,000 per year) and draw a favorable conclusion for the use of firearms in defense.
But there's another statistic which is very important as part of this and in reference to this sub-topic of minimum training and competency requirements. That is the "shots fired" statistic. Statistic for how often one or more shots are fired by the DGU range from between less than 10% up to just shy of 25%. That means that between 75% and 90%+ of the time the person defending themselves with a gun never fires a shot! When a gun is displayed (or implied) the bad guy suddenly finds he has somewhere else he really needs to be. So what level of training and minimum competency is required for a "didn't actually use it but still had a 75%-90%+ success rate?" Read that again. Somewhere over 75% of the time, a person doesn't need any training or competency at all to successfully defend themselves with a gun!
That's akin to people using <cough> "martial arts" for self defense with their effective training being "I took a Cat Stance and used my constipated face." ...with 75%+ success rate.
Literally this means that the vast majority of the time no train is required for effective self defense use with a gun.
So why train at all? Well, what happens if you're that unfortunate guy in the 10%? Right. Go train.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
It also means that those minimal CCW training classes that everyone likes to denigrate as "not actual training"... well, 75% to 90%+ of the time really is sufficient.
I'm going to visit that thread, Kirk.
and I wouldn't go to a guy for opinions on how to keep a hold of my firearm who didn't have any training or experience in it.
It depends upon the department. There are varying standards within States even, from Department to Department.
And I wouldn't go to a wrestler to learn gun retention. There's some crossover if the wrestler has gun experience, and if the firearms instructor has grappling experience.
Actually, a lot of people go to first aid courses specifically to learn first aid and don't really give a flip about whether there's a certificate or not. I go back every decade or so for that reason, and a lot of the folks I motorcycled with did the same (to have some hope of helping should someone wreck).
