Talked my wife out of carrying concealed

[Thebastidge]

True on the false confidence. But people have been carrying firearms for 200 years with less training than that. It depends on the individual. Let's not get into lawyer-land with more concern for liability than for safety.

I bought my sis a firearm and asked her to carry it when she took a job at a car dealership. I would rather she had the option available to her if some weirdo tried to kidnap her in a car test drive scenario, even if she's not a tacticool Rambette. She got her concealed permit and did almost no extra training or practice. But she's not a hot-head that will ever have a problem pulling a gun on somebody for no good reason, so right there that's good enough. Better than nothing, at least. Somebody who would try to harm her is going to be able to overpower her no mater what- she's 5'2". That firearm is a potential leveller, not a guarantee by any means, but nothing is guaranteed in life.

 

[Thebastidge]

When we have shot together in the past I've tried to stress her a little by telling her to "hurry! that zombie pinko commie is getting closer" but she gets flustered. I've tried to work with her on presentation and accuracy but I she gets frustrated with me. So basically when we do shoot now I just let her have fun knowing that if she wants to get better and follow my advice ....

As I've said- you know her best, and the rest of us not at all. But could the problem lie in your approach to teaching?

Instructional methods are not instinctual to everyone. Have you tried possibly finding a way to become more systematic in your instructional presentation?

You might consider taking an NRA pistol instructor course. It's not a great deal of time commitment, and I learned quite a bit of personal use to me during that course. It would help you to be more objective about the way you're trying to get her to learn. You could also approach it in terms of getting her to attend the course with you- the NRA Basic Pistol Instructor course begins with the potential instructor taking the Basic Course and then instructing portions of it to your instructor candidate colleagues the next day while dissecting the intent and methods used to impart the material.

If she attended the Basic Course with you, it could be a bonding experience showing that you value spending time doing important things together, and you could go on to take the Instructor course after she finishes. My girl likes being involved in things I am enthusastic about, as long as she can relate and doesn't feel left out or in over her head (this stresses her out, lots of people feel immense stress when doing things they aren't confident about or competent at). That would give you some "moral authority" later on when re-inforcing and reminding her of her training, as well as showing some humility in taking some refresher instruction for yourself and thereby demonstrating through action how much value you place upon taking instruction.

Later on you could take the instructor courses for the more advanced pistol courses and then talk her into going through those with you.

There's also this:

Emergency Management Institute

 

[shooter58]

Comes down to personal responsibility for your actions (or lack of). I don’t believe I need a requirement from anyone to defend myself. Who among us are qualified to set that bar? More power to anyone who has the backbone to arm and defend themselves from those who are out to do harm. Again, there is responsability for any actions we take in our life. I would encourage everyone to take that responsability seriously!

 

[MountainBear]

I have tried to formulate the proper response to this and cannot get it worded to my satisfaction. Suffice to say that I do not envy the choice the OP had to make. Either he encourages his wife to carry before she is properly trained and risks her being involved in a bad shoot and possibly being incarcerated for a long period of time or he tells her not to carry until trained and risks having her need the firearm to defend herself and not have it. There is bad possibilities either way. I am happy I have never had to make that decision for anyone but myself.

 

[Stomper]

I don't know who should get to decide. Who decided that what a person has to do now is enough? Do you feel that what is required now is enough across the board? To me, just requiring 50 rounds with no stress could give a person a false sense of competence.

I don't disagree with your 50 round pump-chumps and false sense of security, but I saw PLENTY of soldiers who kicked donkey in training, and I mean both the mental and physical aspects, with hundreds and hundreds of rounds down range in every conceivable scenario... only to be reduced to a barely functional caricature of their "training persona" when deployed. Conversely, I saw plenty of soldiers who I had little respect for during training because they were "lame" be outright ruthless combat goons. You can never tell how someone (or yourself) will react under "combat stress" until it actually happens.

 

[irierider]

better to have something... if something happen to her and you said to not carry how would you feel! find her a better gun and get it then!

 

[Kevatc]

better to have something... if something happen to her and you said to not carry how would you feel! find her a better gun and get it then!

How does a better gun improve her competence? I don't care if she wants to pack a Red Rider BB gun she needs to be more competent from everything from packing the gun to putting a golden BB right where it needs to be.

 

[receo]

Here's my experience regarding the wife and carrying concealed. She was scared at night in our rural house while I worked late managing a restaurant. She said she wanted a gun for protection. I told her that I would buy her any gun that she wanted but she must take a women's firearm class before I would buy it for her. She ended up taking classes at drrc with An instructor named Michael Jones. If I recall it was a two day class. When she came home she felt comfortable handling a pistol and a revolver. Hell she was excited to go shooting. She is very safe with her sidearm and is honestly a better shot than me having learned from a professional instructor and not just plinking beer cans. Sure, I could have tried to teach her how to handle a pistol but lets be honest, she can get pissed off at me. It is deadly serious that she handles the firearm safely and if I tell her to "keep her finger off of the trigger until she's ready to fire" she will get upset and stressed. The wife unit does not like to be wrong and I can appreciate that. When a professional instructor tells her the same thing she listens like its gospel and doesn't get upset. Boys, if you want your wife to learn to shoot then take my advice and pay for the classes. Then get ready to pay for a pistol for her daily carry,her purse, her black dress,her vehicle, the cute purple revolver she's just gotta have, the AR etc etc etc...

The comfort I get knowing that she has the ability to defend herself if the worst were to happen is worth all the money in the world.

Best of luck.

 

[Thebastidge]

I'm really fortunate in that my fiancee is good with listening to me about things she's not experienced with. $Deity knows she sure as hell gets stubborn enough on other things, lol. When it comes to firearms she is eager to have me show her what to do, and to expand her knowledge.

But I think that Receo is right- often enough, you can't instruct someone who is too close to you, or when pride/dominance issues get in the way.

 

[MountainBear]

I continue to see a reoccurring theme with these posts. It's all "I know how to shoot" or "My girl knows how to shoot". PLEASE remember, it's not only knowing how to shoot, but knowing when to shoot, when not to shoot, and what to do afterwards if you do have to shoot. People seem to say that they would rather have the person have a gun and be okay. I would as well, but I would be almost as pissed if I had to visit my significant other in the Women's Correctional Facility for the next 20 years because she was involved in a bad shoot...

 

[lamrith]

While I agree with what you are saying, His wife should already know when to shoot or not, she took and passed the class and was trained. It sounds like his concern is more with her safe handling and deployment of the firearm under duress.

I continue to see a reoccurring theme with these posts. It's all "I know how to shoot" or "My girl knows how to shoot". PLEASE remember, it's not only knowing how to shoot, but knowing when to shoot, when not to shoot, and what to do afterwards if you do have to shoot. People seem to say that they would rather have the person have a gun and be okay. I would as well, but I would be almost as pissed if I had to visit my significant other in the Women's Correctional Facility for the next 20 years because she was involved in a bad shoot...

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Neither my wife or I have formal training.. both of us are pistoleros. Just as in anything the self taught are usually the best, because they enjoy what they do

She packs a full house S & W .357 as primary and let me tell you no one is likely to get past it or her

We've packed for 31 years now and had to draw numerous times down in the madhouse called commiefornia.. never shot anyone yet but a few baddies had to change their undies and alter their plans. Training cannot impart much if any judgement or cool under fire, those are natural traits that can be enhanced only with experience

 

[MountainBear]

While I agree with what you are saying, His wife should already know when to shoot or not, she took and passed the class and was trained. It sounds like his concern is more with her safe handling and deployment of the firearm under duress.

Yeah, I hate to tell you, but the basic CCW class in Oregon is not the best training tool. It's fairly short and generally very generic. It's a very good start, but should be treated as a start.

 

[lamrith]

Yeah, I hate to tell you, but the basic CCW class in Oregon is not the best training tool. It's fairly short and generally very generic. It's a very good start, but should be treated as a start.

What I was referring to is that she knows her rights legally and when she can and can't shoot and carry. As a response to the one comment about visiting her in jail for the next 20yrs..

 

[MountainBear]

What I was referring to is that she knows her rights legally and when she can and can't shoot and carry. As a response to the one comment about visiting her in jail for the next 20yrs..

Don't take offense. I hope we are all so knowledgeable...

 

[Thebastidge]

Training cannot impart much if any judgement or cool under fire, those are natural traits that can be enhanced only with experience

This is simply incorrect. From what you say of your experience, I can see why you would get that impression, but rigorous studies have proven that to be false. What you may see as an inherent trait is as much a product of your environment (informal training) as formal training would be. And good judgement is simply the result of applying reason to the sum total of your experience. A strictly logical being with no experience would not have good judgement. Coolness under fire comes from being experienced and competent, having a trained reaction to fall back on rather than stress-induced panic and "noise" overwhelming "signal" in your brain.

Several folks on this forum and other places constantly make statements that "you can't know what you'll do under fire until you've been there". This is true for a given individual. No matter how good the training, an untried person MAY fail under stress. A tried and true person may eventually reach a breaking point and fail under stress. But in life we have to play the percentages, and those percentages say that training improves people's ability to react correctly under fire more than 75% of the time. A trained individual is far more likely to react correctly under fire than an untrained individual. The methods used for training soldiers have increased our kill rate from 15% to over 85% between WWII and post-Vietnam conflicts (the rate of our soldiers actually willing and trying to kill the enemy).

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549

Training is a controlled surrogate for real-life expereince. Thus it's only as good as its design. Exercise design is a study in itself; you have to break down the elements of the task to be accomplished and design a task that embeds the essential sequences of action into the training scenario, along with trigger points on the decision tree that simplify the OODA cycle.

Are there extreme personality types on each end who cannot benefit from training- almost certainly yes. But 98% fall somewhere in the middle, and training does make a difference. Whether you train yourself or someone else trains you. The benefit to having someone else involved in your training is the critically objective observer. Just the mechanics alone benefit from having someone watch you and make suggestions.

Self taught people who love to do what they do can accomplish amazing things. I am a big fan of the amateur- but the people who advance human knowledge through their "amateur" efforts are generally the one who put a LOT of effort and STUDY into it, and while they may not attend college to learn it, they generally converse with people in the academic and research communities on a regular basis, benefiting from that as well as their own observations. True "amateurs" (one who loves what he does, and does it for the love of the thing) don't spurn any sources of information. They are often the most avid about suggesting new lines of research for formal study and attending lectures, seminars, and other industry or academic gatherings to gain information.

I am not saying this to promote credentialism, either. I use the credentialing system to good purpose in my career, but I am cynical about it.

 

[Misterbill]

A couple of points from someone who trains a lot of women and not a few husband-wife pairs.

1. Something to ask yourself: " If the transient had broken in with a knife intent on raping my wife, do I want her with a gun or without?"

Remember that a lot more bad guys run like Hell at the sight of a firearm than get shot with them by good-guys. Not in favor of viewing the gun as a talisman, but merely having it out may make an otherwise serious attacker decide to run. Skill at the range may never even come into it, but her life may still be saved. As long as she's WILLING TO PULL THE TRIGGER (My main concern) I favor being armed.

2. Husbands should NEVER teach wives about guns, shooting, shooting improvement, or anything else related. It's both a waste of time and a very good way to make your wife never want to go shooting, sabotage her self-confidence and get into arguments. And no, it doesn't matter how supportive YOU think you're being.

If you go to the range together, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, let her do her thing and you do yours. The only thing out of your mouth should be compliments with no suggestions. I've watched this stuff so many times and I have NEVER seen a case where a husband actually helped with his wife's shooting. So you're dead right that she should get training someplace else.

3. Just sit down with her, and schedule a class. How she does after that is up to her. But she may be lacking the self-confidence to go to training and so leaving it up to her may mean that even though she'd do fine, she'll never schedule it because of inertia. This is the one place you can actually help. I've a had a lot of husbands schedule their wives and never had a woman complain when the course was over, even though some started out very unmotivated and a bit frightened.

4. There are a lot of great options for purse carry. The idea is not to shoot from inside the purse. In fact, that's a LAST resort. Galco makes a whole line of purse-holsters. There are down-sides to purse carry, but there are downsides to lot's of on-body methods as well.

For me, I'd rather have my wife (even if she didn't shoot well) have the gun than not. My main concern would be her willingness to use it. If THAT isn't there, then forget it. Sell the gun and get her pepper spray or something she WILL be willing to use.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

This is simply incorrect. From what you say of your experience, I can see why you would get that impression, but rigorous studies have proven that to be false. What you may see as an inherent trait is as much a product of your environment (informal training) as formal training would be. And good judgement is simply the result of applying reason to the sum total of your experience. A strictly logical being with no experience would not have good judgement. Coolness under fire comes from being experienced and competent, having a trained reaction to fall back on rather than stress-induced panic and "noise" overwhelming "signal" in your brain.

Several folks on this forum and other places constantly make statements that "you can't know what you'll do under fire until you've been there". This is true for a given individual. No matter how good the training, an untried person MAY fail under stress. A tried and true person may eventually reach a breaking point and fail under stress. But in life we have to play the percentages, and those percentages say that training improves people's ability to react correctly under fire more than 75% of the time. A trained individual is far more likely to react correctly under fire than an untrained individual. The methods used for training soldiers have increased our kill rate from 15% to over 85% between WWII and post-Vietnam conflicts (the rate of our soldiers actually willing and trying to kill the enemy).

Source: On Combat,The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace: Dave Grossman,Loren W. Christensen: 9780964920545: Amazon.com: Books

Training is a controlled surrogate for real-life expereince. Thus it's only as good as its design. Exercise design is a study in itself; you have to break down the elements of the task to be accomplished and design a task that embeds the essential sequences of action into the training scenario, along with trigger points on the decision tree that simplify the OODA cycle.

Are there extreme personality types on each end who cannot benefit from training- almost certainly yes. But 98% fall somewhere in the middle, and training does make a difference. Whether you train yourself or someone else trains you. The benefit to having someone else involved in your training is the critically objective observer. Just the mechanics alone benefit from having someone watch you and make suggestions.

Self taught people who love to do what they do can accomplish amazing things. I am a big fan of the amateur- but the people who advance human knowledge through their "amateur" efforts are generally the one who put a LOT of effort and STUDY into it, and while they may not attend college to learn it, they generally converse with people in the academic and research communities on a regular basis, benefiting from that as well as their own observations. True "amateurs" (one who loves what he does, and does it for the love of the thing) don't spurn any sources of information. They are often the most avid about suggesting new lines of research for formal study and attending lectures, seminars, and other industry or academic gatherings to gain information.

I am not saying this to promote credentialism, either. I use the credentialing system to good purpose in my career, but I am cynical about it.

I'm sure you would say this to the famous gunmen of the old west?

 

[Thebastidge]

I'm sure you would say this to the famous gunmen of the old west?

Yes, lol.

You'd be surprised at what eye-witness acounts of gunmen of the Old West report, rather than what the "penny dreadful" novels about them sensationalized. Wild Bill was a showman, and much of the trick-shooting that the travelling shows performed was under fairly tightly-controlled conditions, long after the danger of gunfights and Indian battles were largely gone.

Most gunfights in the Old West were probably under the influence of alcohol, from knife distance. I read a report of one where both individuals unloaded their revolvers at a distance of 6-8 feet, neither one hit anything, and they went back to drinking together afterward.

Cowboys carried pistols to protect themsevles from horses and cattle run amok, wild critters, and Indian attacks. A pistol cost about a month's salary, and people didn't spend much time on target practice because ammunition cost too much. They had no clue about the ergonomics of stable shooting positions, except for a few Army sharpshooters, who had nothing like the modern science of shooting to support thier practice.

Could some of them make extremely difficult shots? Sure. I've seen a guy in Oregon who can out-shoot me with his pistol upside-down, too. My NRA pistol instructor was re-certifying him to be an instructor, and basically told everyone else in the class- "He can shoot anything, any weird ole way. Don't pay attention to him, he's been shooting 'wrong' so long he got good at it, but you won't have the same success he does unless you put in 40 years of shooting all messed up too. If you shoot the way we tell you to, you'll be approaching his accuracy in months or a handful of years, depending on how much you shoot."

Besides, you seem to be missing the point here. "Training" is both formal and informal. Informal training consists of experience under uncontrolled conditions. Formal training is experience under controlled conditions. From the standpoint of developing habits and muscle memory, there's little difference, except that formal training has a better signal-to-noise ratio and compresses the amount of experience into a shorter time frame, which has the benefit of being quicker, and by reinforcing on a shorter timeline, is better maintained than the lessons of random experience spread out over a long period of time.

It makes me laugh when 'old timers' are so convinced they have nothing to learn from anybody. There's a saying that a wise man can learn something from anybody; even a fool. Even if it's simply how to avoid being a fool. Actively engaging in training can cause you to notice something and learn from it, even if it's not what the instructor intended you to learn, and the more advanced you are, the more likely this is to be the case, but the exercise of actually engaging in critical thought during the practice is the key point. I always tell people "practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfection." Lacking perfection in practice, "mindful practice" makes improvements.

 

[oknow]

Yes, lol.

You'd be surprised at what eye-witness acounts of gunmen of the Old West report, rather than what the "penny dreadful" novels about them sensationalized. Wild Bill was a showman, and much of the trick-shooting that the travelling shows performed was under fairly tightly-controlled conditions, long after the danger of gunfights and Indian battles were largely gone.

Most gunfights in the Old West were probably under the influence of alcohol, from knife distance. I read a report of one where both individuals unloaded their revolvers at a distance of 6-8 feet, neither one hit anything, and they went back to drinking together afterward.

Cowboys carried pistols to protect themsevles from horses and cattle run amok, wild critters, and Indian attacks. A pistol cost about a month's salary, and people didn't spend much time on target practice because ammunition cost too much. They had no clue about the ergonomics of stable shooting positions, except for a few Army sharpshooters, who had nothing like the modern science of shooting to support thier practice.

Could some of them make extremely difficult shots? Sure. I've seen a guy in Oregon who can out-shoot me with his pistol upside-down, too. My NRA pistol instructor was re-certifying him to be an instructor, and basically told everyone else in the class- "He can shoot anything, any weird ole way. Don't pay attention to him, he's been shooting 'wrong' so long he got good at it, but you won't have the same success he does unless you put in 40 years of shooting all messed up too. If you shoot the way we tell you to, you'll be approaching his accuracy in months or a handful of years, depending on how much you shoot."

Besides, you seem to be missing the point here. "Training" is both formal and informal. Informal training consists of experience under uncontrolled conditions. Formal training is experience under controlled conditions. From the standpoint of developing habits and muscle memory, there's little difference, except that formal training has a better signal-to-noise ratio and compresses the amount of experience into a shorter time frame, which has the benefit of being quicker, and by reinforcing on a shorter timeline, is better maintained than the lessons of random experience spread out over a long period of time.

It makes me laugh when 'old timers' are so convinced they have nothing to learn from anybody. There's a saying that a wise man can learn something from anybody; even a fool. Even if it's simply how to avoid being a fool. Actively engaging in training can cause you to notice something and learn from it, even if it's not what the instructor intended you to learn, and the more advanced you are, the more likely this is to be the case, but the exercise of actually engaging in critical thought during the practice is the key point. I always tell people "practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfection." Lacking perfection in practice, "mindful practice" makes improvements.

would his name be chuck?