RSOs view of the world.. Training or the lack of it :)

[NHT3]

What I don't understand is, for the most part they aren't interested in seeing what I do to clear a double feed or any issue I resolve for them? You have a firearm with a stoppage and you don't care to know how to fix it? Every time I go to a training class I learn a little more of what I don't know. These people don't know and don't want to know. Their thought process is a puzzle that is impossible to understand.
[FONT=&amp]NRA Life Member / [/FONT]Basic Pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] / RSO[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Under pressure, you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training. That's why we train so hard" [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Unnamed Navy Seal[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
“Ego is the reason many men do not shoot competition. They don't want to suck in public”

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Aron Bright[/FONT]

 

[rhino]

What I don't understand is, for the most part they aren't interested in seeing what I do to clear a double feed or any issue I resolve for them? You have a firearm with a stoppage and you don't care to know how to fix it? Every time I go to a training class I learn a little more of what I don't know. These people don't know and don't want to know. Their thought process is a puzzle that is impossible to understand.

I think that in many of those cases, they are incapable of processing that it's even possible that using firearms entails any complexity. The see how simple it is on television and believe that they now have an inclusive command of the entire body of knowledge. Offering to demonstrate or teach them doesn't make any sense to them, so they disregard.

 

[Max Volume]

I have been carrying since somewhere around 1983. All the new firearms enthusiasts are a good thing and they are all where I was at one point. Granted I am far from being any sort of expert by any means and am in need of recurrency training much like being pilot but I have come to realize that carrying a gun is little better for defense than owning a rolling pin is to be considered being a baker. So much to study such as force on force, weapons retention, etc.

The manager of a large urban grocery store years ago told me of a customer complaint about a person with a handgun. It was holstered on a belt and when the guy reached up for a shelf the "security guard" put his hand on the guy's gun. I personally thought that anyone unexpectedly putting their hand on a gun was a bad thing and told the previously stated manager that his security guard was lucky. The customer was perfectly legal and I thought anyone with a handgun who realized another person was reaching for their firearm should put that person on the floor.

 

[ColdSteel223]

I think that in many of those cases, they are incapable of processing that it's even possible that using firearms entails any complexity. The see how simple it is on television and believe that they now have an inclusive command of the entire body of knowledge. Offering to demonstrate or teach them doesn't make any sense to them, so they disregard.

They don't know, what they don't know, and they don't care. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[rhino]

They don't know, what they don't know, and they don't care. Ignorance is bliss.

It's even more aggressive than that! Some who are ignorant can acknowledge that fact when confronted with the truth. Some of those may take measures to improve the situation. The people to whom I referred are apparently incapable of comprehending that there is something they don't know.

 

[NHT3]

It's even more aggressive than that! Some who are ignorant can acknowledge that fact when confronted with the truth. Some of those may take measures to improve the situation. The people to whom I referred are apparently incapable of comprehending that there is something they don't know.

Exactly Joe.. In my dictionary that's the difference between ignorant and stupid. Many of the folks we are discussing are incapable of learning, hence stupid.
[FONT=&amp]NRA Life Member / [/FONT]Basic Pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] / RSO[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Under pressure, you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training. That's why we train so hard" [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Unnamed Navy Seal[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
“Ego is the reason many men do not shoot competition. They don't want to suck in public”

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Aron Bright[/FONT]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What I don't understand is, for the most part they aren't interested in seeing what I do to clear a double feed or any issue I resolve for them? You have a firearm with a stoppage and you don't care to know how to fix it?

Starting to see why I recommend revolvers for those who won't train?

 

[rhino]

Starting to see why I recommend revolvers for those who won't train?

Or maybe a good ol' fashioned stick?

 

[NHT3]

Starting to see why I recommend revolvers for those who won't train?

I don't know if I have told you this but I was certain you were wrong about suggesting a revolver to anyone, especially a new shooter. BUT your logic in this situation is inescapable. I suppose I didn't want to admit to myself that some (or possibly most) people are NOT going to train, not even a little. The simplicity of a revolver dictates the person that refuses to train IS less likely to have an ND with a revolver than a semi auto. No doubt revolvers are harder to shoot accurately but if the primary use is a security blanket rather than self defense a revolver is a better choice. We both know the person that will not train should not own a a firearm of any sort but we also know they will buy one. SO, when confronted with those that refuse to train I suggest a revolver purely for their own safety.
Did I just say that out loud?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't know if I have told you this but I was certain you were wrong about suggesting a revolver to anyone, especially a new shooter.

I know. I get it from a lot of people who train, compete, and only deal with the trained population. That's a small percentage of the gun owning population. As you are now seeing, what semi-autos do is let people miss faster, hurt themselves, and stare in bewilderment when their gun goes down. They are more complicated to run. Not rocket surgery by any stretch, and a bit of training would solve the worst of the issues, but they aren't getting a bit of training.

I took my son to the range today. His target was the cleanest on the range, and he was using a .22 revolver. I have to cock it for him so his finger will reach the trigger, but he's more accurate than most adults. Yet I keep hearing how hard revolvers are to shoot well. If you can't learn to shoot a 4" k-frame well, you suck or your trainer sucks.

 

[Twangbanger]

...I took my son to the range today...he was using a .22 revolver. I have to cock it for him so his finger will reach the trigger...Yet I keep hearing how hard revolvers are to shoot well. ...

lol

 

[churchmouse]

I know. I get it from a lot of people who train, compete, and only deal with the trained population. That's a small percentage of the gun owning population. As you are now seeing, what semi-autos do is let people miss faster, hurt themselves, and stare in bewilderment when their gun goes down. They are more complicated to run. Not rocket surgery by any stretch, and a bit of training would solve the worst of the issues, but they aren't getting a bit of training.

I took my son to the range today. His target was the cleanest on the range, and he was using a .22 revolver. I have to cock it for him so his finger will reach the trigger, but he's more accurate than most adults. Yet I keep hearing how hard revolvers are to shoot well. If you can't learn to shoot a 4" k-frame well, you suck or your trainer sucks.

Bingo.

 

[Skywired]

I took my son to the range today. His target was the cleanest on the range, and he was using a .22 revolver. I have to cock it for him so his finger will reach the trigger, but he's more accurate than most adults. Yet I keep hearing how hard revolvers are to shoot well. If you can't learn to shoot a 4" k-frame well, you suck or your trainer sucks.

That brings back fond memories of my Dad & I pheasant hunting when I was 5 years old. I carried a single shot .410. My Dad had to reach over and Pull the hammer back so I could shoot. Sounds crazy, but it worked!

 

[bwframe]

I have heard revolvers are better for women and kids.

 

[Brad69]

Revolvers are the best weapon for any person regardless of gender or age that does not want to invest the effort to operate a automatic.

 

[bwframe]

As long as there is somebody to pull the hammer back, right?

 

[cedartop]

I had to laugh when nationally recognized trainer Marty Hayes had his revolver go down while teaching the long range pistol class I was in. He had it back up and running in about 10 seconds (a lifetime), but he has over 40 years of training with them. Your average shooter would have been screwed.

 

[rhino]

All good points.

Revolvers may be simpler for untrained people to operate, but when they do malfunction . . . better have a second revolver handy.

 

[Ark]

Starting to see why I recommend revolvers for those who won't train?

Call me crazy, but I honestly think if you're so lazy and obtuse and blatantly unwilling to learn that you HAVE to limit yourself to a revolver because you can't figure out how to reliably run a semiauto, then maybe the rest of the world...is better off...without...you...carrying...

 

[churchmouse]

Call me crazy, but I honestly think if you're so lazy and obtuse and blatantly unwilling to learn that you HAVE to limit yourself to a revolver because you can't figure out how to reliably run a semiauto, then maybe the rest of the world...is better off...without...you...carrying...

I know many people who carry a revolver for other reasons. A lot of them. Not lazy. Limited yes but not blatantly unwilling. There are so many of these folks you are referring to but not all folks are in that group.