Are we training towards where crime happens the most?

[karmapolice]

The chart doesn't clarify but a burglary is theft from a residence or structure that is empty (devoid of people). A robbery is anything were the theft occurs with victims there, aka home invasion, a pedestrian robbery, car jacking etc. Burglary is like simple auto theft, the vehicle is devoid of anyone and someone just breaks in and takes off with it. Burglary is way more common than home invasions but that doesn't mean they do not happen, I have responded to my fair share of armed home invasions . Pedestrian robbery's are very very common and probably the most common kind of violent felony in my old work area. They often happen at later hours and on streets/sidewalks.

[WillBrink]

The chart doesn't clarify but a burglary is theft from a residence or structure that is empty (devoid of people). A robbery is anything were the theft occurs with victims there, aka home invasion, a pedestrian robbery, car jacking etc. Burglary is like simple auto theft, the vehicle is devoid of anyone and someone just breaks in and takes off with it. Burglary is way more common than home invasions but that doesn't mean they do not happen, I have responded to my fair share of armed home invasions . Pedestrian robbery's are very very common and probably the most common kind of violent felony in my old work area. They often happen at later hours and on streets/sidewalks.

I would think this chart lacks/fails to clarify quite a bit. For example, are not most violent crimes at a persons home committed by people they know? I'm assuming this chart does not account for crimes by strangers? It reminds of the stat that one is most likely to die in an auto accident close to their home, but that's due simply to the fact most people are close to their homes when driving, etc.

Or of course the all time classic BS stat, which was you are 50 times more likely to die if you have a gun in your home, when that stat didn't account for who actually brought the gun into the home and or it added drug dealers and customers and so forth! Like that...

Point being, like any stat, it has to be kept in context, and usually fails to give an accurate picture of actual risk in terms of say a perfect stranger attacking you at your home and so on.

[Trajan]

I've never understood why many civi spend so much time and $$$ at carbine courses and so little time on handguns considering which is the likely tool they will have handy when/if ever needed.

That's basically what my mindset is now. I don't even care about rifles anymore, since I'll likely never need it.

[Johnny Rico]

I know for sure that I've swung away from carbine-centric stuff, as it's not what I cart about on the daily, and am more keen on getting more practice/training on lowlight handgun, bad-breath-distance encounters, and related. My job and my life has changed, and I've needed to change to match.

Thanks for this. Most seem to recommend the carbine, without taking personal circumstances into account. There are any number of reasons why an AR is a less than an optimal choice. For example, I live in a state where ARs are legal, but they are frowned upon. I can use one of course, but I shudder to think of the scrutiny and negative attention should I ever be forced to use it. And because of the political climate few training courses specializing on carbine use are offered here.

That's not even taking into account gun handling. My AR is a neutered version with the dreaded Bullet Button. Makes much more sense to use a firearm with a detachable magazine, even if it's in a lesser caliber. Plus, with a young child in tow it is very likely that I may find myself in a situation where I have to fight one-handed. I have no idea how to do that effectively with a rifle.

[MistWolf]

The "chart" isn't very detailed because it's an ad for video surveillance

[Treehopr]

I want to comment on this. I have a slightly different thought process why civvies don't attend. It's not that they don't want too attend this type of training but it can be hard to find a shoothouse that will let civvies in. I think most people that offer this type of training only allow .mil/LE to enter their sacred shoot houses and learn the chess game of room clearing. I think it's an ego trip with most trainers that only .mil/LE can attend these high speed type classes. I say that knowing full well there are a few squared away instructors out there that ARE willing to work with lowly civvies and teach them proper 1-2 man clearing techniques. Once you find a trainer that is willing and you have completely vetted their background for knowledge and the ability to safely run a shoothouse your instructor list is pretty slim save for an ex Delta pipe hitter or two and a couple of ex Seals out there (the ones I have in mind are members of this forum ).

I am fortunate enough to have attended a 4 day 2 man shoothouse/room clearing training and would like to attend more. Let's face it, most places that have shoothouses are generally owned by the city and reserved only for the Sherriff's dept and city police. So to find a place that let's civvies in the house generally requires a great distance to travel unless you have an open minded Sherriff/Chief of Police.

Are you a civi?

There are several points that you bring up worth addressing.

As far as distance and accessiblity, in Ohio alone I've attended shoot houses (that were open to civilians) at the Alliance PD range, TDI-Ohio, and Ohio Valley Tactical.

Add in other places such as the LMS Defense facility in Fernley, NV, the ITI shoot house in VA, Pat Goodale's facility in West Virginia, Gunsite in AZ, and these are just the ones I've personally attended.

I know Paul Howe has a shoot house at his place in TX that I haven't been to yet that's open to civilians (I attended a Shoot House Instructor course of his that was restricted to mil/le at a Federal LE facility)

As far as instructor "ego trips", read some of Pat Roger's AAR's on his shoot house classes (I've attended two) and one of the consistent themes is how quickly good shooters can start to disintegrate once they're in a 360 degree environment. There is liability and significant ones at that.

Most gun owners/shooters will not be at a proficiency level to train in a shoot house doing 2 person room clearing because they will not have the willingness to invest the time in basic courses and self paced practice for it.

As Paul Howe noted, even if you apply a pre-requisite, e.g., attend XYZ Pistol I and Pistol II, how long ago did they take that course? 5 years ago? 2? Did they continue to train or was that their last formal training?

As far as vetting instructors, how does a student with no room clearing experience have any qualifications to "vet" an instructor? If simply going off a resume, does it account for how many civilians that instructor has trained? Or is it simply another example of cherry picking anybody with a "Tier 1" background?

Attending formal classes is expensive; in time, tuition, ammo and travel expenses. There is no way around it. If a shooter, whether mil/le or civilian, decides that this is a gap in their training that needs to be addressed then there should be no excuses as to "how far" they have to travel to get it. I have attended numerous open enrollment courses where police officers or military members paid their own way to attend the course.

[WillBrink]

Attending formal classes is expensive; in time, tuition, ammo and travel expenses.

Correction. It was expensive. Now it's very expensive.

[C4IGrant]

The "chart" isn't very detailed because it's an ad for video surveillance

The first part of my post is where the real meat is. The chart was just thrown in for the reading impaired.



C4

[C4IGrant]

Thanks for this. Most seem to recommend the carbine, without taking personal circumstances into account. There are any number of reasons why an AR is a less than an optimal choice. For example, I live in a state where ARs are legal, but they are frowned upon. I can use one of course, but I shudder to think of the scrutiny and negative attention should I ever be forced to use it. And because of the political climate few training courses specializing on carbine use are offered here.

That's not even taking into account gun handling. My AR is a neutered version with the dreaded Bullet Button. Makes much more sense to use a firearm with a detachable magazine, even if it's in a lesser caliber. Plus, with a young child in tow it is very likely that I may find myself in a situation where I have to fight one-handed. I have no idea how to do that effectively with a rifle.

The AR is hands down the best effective tool available to Civy's and LE. Its positives are:

1. Easy to shoot (and hit things).
2. Light weight and compact (collapsible stock and 16" barrel).
3. Much more lethal rounds than say a pistol.
4. Mounting white lights and RDS on them is easy.
5. Hi-Capacity (in non-ban States).

The negatives are:

1. Hard to maneuver well in tight spaces (especially without proper training on how to do so).
2. Can be harder to get to in a home (VS a pistol).
3. Seldom is carried on person around the home (unlike a pistol).
4. LOUD.
5. Negative opinion when seen by anti-gun (VS a pistol or shotgun).


For me, if I can get to an AR, that is ALWAYS the first choice. If not, then a pistol is my fall back.



C4

[Packeagle]

The AR is hands down the best effective tool available to Civy's and LE. Its positives are:

1. Easy to shoot (and hit things).
2. Light weight and compact (collapsible stock and 16" barrel).
3. Much more lethal rounds than say a pistol.
4. Mounting white lights and RDS on them is easy.
5. Hi-Capacity (in non-ban States).

The negatives are:

1. Hard to maneuver well in tight spaces (especially without proper training on how to do so).
2. Can be harder to get to in a home (VS a pistol).
3. Seldom is carried on person around the home (unlike a pistol).
4. LOUD.
5. Negative opinion when seen by anti-gun (VS a pistol or shotgun).


For me, if I can get to an AR, that is ALWAYS the first choice. If not, then a pistol is my fall back.



C4

I'm looking to purchase a carbine in the future. Your pro and cons list looks to be very complete and similar to the one I made. I like the idea of the tradtional AR style carbine. I can't seem to overlook added benefits of a 16" barreled bullpup, like the Tavor or AUG. Living in a state that bans SBRs the bullpup seems like a great carbine for my uses as home defense.

I agree that my pistol training is probably more important as I generally have it on my person when dressed, but a bullpup for bumps in the night would only add pros with minimal added cons.

Im interested in your take on this assessment, as you seem to have a logical thought pattern and a better grasp on the carbine market.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2