Everything you think you know about handguns is dead wrong...
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
Mike Irwin, when my wife and I started shooting and taking classes together, she was a better shooter much of the time. A bunch of my guy shooting buddies gave me a lot of crap about having my wife be a better shooter than me. I was actually a lot more proud than embarrassed that my wife was a better shooter. I was able to put their comments to rest quite effectively by asking, "Given that your wives don't shoot or don't shoot very well, do you want them backing you up with a real gun during a home defense gunfight where they are as likely to shoot you in the back (unintentionally) as the bad guys are to shoot you in the front or would you rather have the person behind you be a much more skilled shooter than you?"
My wife doesn't shoot as much as me and I am happy to note that in 6 years my skills have improved. Even so, I am still more than willing to have her back me up. If she does shoot me, it will be a good, well-placed shot and won't be an accident, of that, I am confident.
Some years ago, there was a thread about a woman that shot her husband. Someone posted a comment that has turned true for many men. It is funny and frightening all at the same time.
"Teach your wife to shoot and expect that some day she WILL shoot you."
My wife doesn't shoot as much as me and I am happy to note that in 6 years my skills have improved. Even so, I am still more than willing to have her back me up. If she does shoot me, it will be a good, well-placed shot and won't be an accident, of that, I am confident.
Some years ago, there was a thread about a woman that shot her husband. Someone posted a comment that has turned true for many men. It is funny and frightening all at the same time.
"Teach your wife to shoot and expect that some day she WILL shoot you."
if your an intelligent person visiting this forum ,you would have to consider the fact, that most topics discussed on line are mostly opinions based on many different conclusions reached by many different people.Hell, i dont even know if i can even trust my own conclusions......so its reader beware and keep the info coming in and maybe someone will learn something yet.With all this said it reminds me of some song lyrics that says it all:::and if i claim to be a wise man it surly means that i dont know.Most people on these forums i have to believe dont claim to have all the right answers but they try to help others with their opinions based on their perceptions.Basically it breaks down to if you dont like the information givin go read a damn book.
OK JohnKSa, I reread your post where you allude to 'taking your own advice' by:
"doing some real research before posting your opinion as fact".
You're halfway there, bud.
Now, all you have to do is actually admit you were repeating a silly and baseless myth when you said:
"Here's one that's true.
Given the same amount of training, women almost always shoot better than men."
Debunking gun myths is what this thread is all about....right?
"doing some real research before posting your opinion as fact".
You're halfway there, bud.
Now, all you have to do is actually admit you were repeating a silly and baseless myth when you said:
"Here's one that's true.
Given the same amount of training, women almost always shoot better than men."
Debunking gun myths is what this thread is all about....right?
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Now, all you have to do is actually admit you were repeating a silly and baseless myth when you said:
"Here's one that's true.
Given the same amount of training, women almost always shoot better than men."
Post your FACTUAL DATA as to why this is a myth. You've called it into question, now it's up to you to provide data refuting the allegation.
I would suspect that were you to poll handgun trainers, people who provide training regularly, you'd be shocked at the answer.
A friend of mine is one of the range training officers for the Metropolitan Washington, DC, Police, and works extensively with the cadet classes during their initial range training.
Most of the officer candidates have little to no firearms experience when the join the force.
Guess which members of the cadet class generally have the top scores through their first few cycles on the range?
Yep, the women.
"Here's one that's true.
Given the same amount of training, women almost always shoot better than men."
Post your FACTUAL DATA as to why this is a myth. You've called it into question, now it's up to you to provide data refuting the allegation.
I would suspect that were you to poll handgun trainers, people who provide training regularly, you'd be shocked at the answer.
A friend of mine is one of the range training officers for the Metropolitan Washington, DC, Police, and works extensively with the cadet classes during their initial range training.
Most of the officer candidates have little to no firearms experience when the join the force.
Guess which members of the cadet class generally have the top scores through their first few cycles on the range?
Yep, the women.
PaladinX13
New member
While a good review, the main problem with the first post is that it falls on deaf ears... IMO, the only people inclined to heed its wisdom already are the the people who avoid such absolutes.
Para Bellum
New member
100% agreed
JohnKSa, your dead right.
JohnKSa, your dead right.
Spot on.....
And I find myself less and less patient with those that will simply repeat the same old tired platitudes like they were facts.
Which Is why I spend less and less time on the boards
As to the guys/gals training issue
I definitely saw it teaching rock climbing
The guys would assume that their arm strength would carry them through and fail
The ladies would pay attention and use their feet and excel
Maybe women are just smarter
And I find myself less and less patient with those that will simply repeat the same old tired platitudes like they were facts.
Which Is why I spend less and less time on the boards
As to the guys/gals training issue
I definitely saw it teaching rock climbing
The guys would assume that their arm strength would carry them through and fail
The ladies would pay attention and use their feet and excel
Maybe women are just smarter
I know that all of this is really as simple as a chunk of lead moving really fast and I assume that this chunk of lead is of a reasonable size (.2in-.5in diameter 40-300 grains) and moving at a reasonable speed (500fps-4,000fps).
I also know that the effectiveness of this chunk of lead is determined by its trajectory which is determined by the barrel as well as various other variables.
The destructive nature of this chunk of lead in addition to the gun that fires it demands respect as it is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death.
I also know that the effectiveness of this chunk of lead is determined by its trajectory which is determined by the barrel as well as various other variables.
The destructive nature of this chunk of lead in addition to the gun that fires it demands respect as it is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death.
LOL
Is everything I think I know about guns wrong?
Ill probably quote myself later in caliber wars.
I would also like to add that the exact trajectory of the chunk of lead is determined by so many various variables that it is not really capable of being completely determined.
Is everything I think I know about guns wrong?
Ill probably quote myself later in caliber wars.
I would also like to add that the exact trajectory of the chunk of lead is determined by so many various variables that it is not really capable of being completely determined.
XavierBreath
New member
Here is what I have seen............
Thin, good looking women dressed in the latest fashion generally improve quickly. If they wear red fingernail polish and heels, the improvement is even greater. Overweight frumpy women do not improve nearly as quickly if at all. Everyone remembers Miss Fashionable and everyone forgets Mrs. Frump.
I do not believe this improvement, although I have seen it, is a product of the woman, or how she recieves instruction. I believe it is a product of how the instructor provides instruction, and the instructors do not want to admit this.
In the pre-range safety lecture with new shooters, this idea of expectations is generally disseminated to the pupils. The cute women smile, the men start to get pissed. The stage is set for propogation of a fallacy. At the range the instructors generally align themselves near Miss Fashionable. Whether it is to be ready for a turning muzzle, or to get a better view is irrelevant. Miss Fashionable gets more attention as a result. The men see this, and begin to tune out the instructor. The fact is, if the instructors were all women, you would see the reverse effect, with the old geezers out shooting everyone. Want to see it happen? Attend one of Kay Clark's classes.
When it comes to shooting, and learning to shoot, men and women have the same level of ability given the same eyesight, motor skills and intelligence. As soon as they enter that class though, the bias and prejudices of the instructors begins to take hold, and it is accepted as gospel truth. Any man who has attended a class with two male instructors, four good looking female students, two men, and an elderly woman know exactly what I am saying.
When instructors find these results, they need to look inward.
The level of improvement in any student of any endeavor depends on two factors, the ability of the instructor to communicate what is to be taught, and the receptiveness of the student to that instruction. All students enter a class receptive to instruction. If that were not the case, they would not be there at all, would they? Some classes, such as at a police academy and CCW classes may be an exception, but in a voluntary class, this is always the case. Then within the first hour, or during the first break, the instructor begins to separate out the expected ability of his students based on nothing more than his own prejudices. The students have spent this time fearing they might fail, unsure if they will perform adequately, and wondering who will do best, and who will do worst. Then the instructor, the one who instructs, unleashes this "women shoot better" idea. The events that follow and how everyone views them are thus preordained.
Nomex on.
edited to add: Heck, we see the same thing on this forum. A male newbie comes along and posts a question about being new to shooting, and wanting to learn. He gets two encouraging responses, three flames, one criticism of his grammar, and the thread dies.
A newbie poster with a name like MissRedHot makes a post about being a new shooter and she gets over 30 responses of encouragement, ten invitations to go shoot, she is told she will outshoot everyone in two weeks, and the thread continues until it is revealed the ISP is the same as the first poster. Don't laugh. It happens on almost every forum.
Thin, good looking women dressed in the latest fashion generally improve quickly. If they wear red fingernail polish and heels, the improvement is even greater. Overweight frumpy women do not improve nearly as quickly if at all. Everyone remembers Miss Fashionable and everyone forgets Mrs. Frump.
I do not believe this improvement, although I have seen it, is a product of the woman, or how she recieves instruction. I believe it is a product of how the instructor provides instruction, and the instructors do not want to admit this.
In the pre-range safety lecture with new shooters, this idea of expectations is generally disseminated to the pupils. The cute women smile, the men start to get pissed. The stage is set for propogation of a fallacy. At the range the instructors generally align themselves near Miss Fashionable. Whether it is to be ready for a turning muzzle, or to get a better view is irrelevant. Miss Fashionable gets more attention as a result. The men see this, and begin to tune out the instructor. The fact is, if the instructors were all women, you would see the reverse effect, with the old geezers out shooting everyone. Want to see it happen? Attend one of Kay Clark's classes.
When it comes to shooting, and learning to shoot, men and women have the same level of ability given the same eyesight, motor skills and intelligence. As soon as they enter that class though, the bias and prejudices of the instructors begins to take hold, and it is accepted as gospel truth. Any man who has attended a class with two male instructors, four good looking female students, two men, and an elderly woman know exactly what I am saying.
When instructors find these results, they need to look inward.
The level of improvement in any student of any endeavor depends on two factors, the ability of the instructor to communicate what is to be taught, and the receptiveness of the student to that instruction. All students enter a class receptive to instruction. If that were not the case, they would not be there at all, would they? Some classes, such as at a police academy and CCW classes may be an exception, but in a voluntary class, this is always the case. Then within the first hour, or during the first break, the instructor begins to separate out the expected ability of his students based on nothing more than his own prejudices. The students have spent this time fearing they might fail, unsure if they will perform adequately, and wondering who will do best, and who will do worst. Then the instructor, the one who instructs, unleashes this "women shoot better" idea. The events that follow and how everyone views them are thus preordained.
Nomex on.
edited to add: Heck, we see the same thing on this forum. A male newbie comes along and posts a question about being new to shooting, and wanting to learn. He gets two encouraging responses, three flames, one criticism of his grammar, and the thread dies.
A newbie poster with a name like MissRedHot makes a post about being a new shooter and she gets over 30 responses of encouragement, ten invitations to go shoot, she is told she will outshoot everyone in two weeks, and the thread continues until it is revealed the ISP is the same as the first poster. Don't laugh. It happens on almost every forum.
Last edited:
PaladinX13
New member
Xavier brings up a good point... even if there is a tendency for women to advance more quickly, we shouldn't jump the gun and use anecdotal evidence to "prove" causation anymore than using any one measurement (caliber, capacity, velocity, mass, etc.) to dictate "stopping power" through anecdotal evidence.
There has been studies done based on teacher expectation... teachers told that X students are exceptional, despite scoring no differently than the control group pre-course, and that Y students are slower... afterwards, the outcome is almost always X out-perform the control students who out-perform the Y students.
There has been studies done based on teacher expectation... teachers told that X students are exceptional, despite scoring no differently than the control group pre-course, and that Y students are slower... afterwards, the outcome is almost always X out-perform the control students who out-perform the Y students.
Not so (that word "always" is the giveaway).
I've helped with classes where it was soon readily apparent that one of the students did not want to be there, for whatever reason. Sometimes this is a woman dragged along by her nagging husband, sometimes it was a young man dragged along by his father, sometimes a cop whose boss persuaded him that he needed extra training, sometimes ... well, you get the picture. People show up at shooting classes for a lot of reasons, not always for the purpose of learning to shoot.
However, I think the rest of your post was closer to the mark than most would like to admit.
pax
XavierBreath
New member
Yeah, absolutes will kill a statement everytime won't they? I guess what I am trying to say is that any person who, on their own, seeks out a shooting instructor to learn to shoot is receptive to learning when they leave for the class. Darn..........I did it again didn't I? Almost any person..........
Interesting thread... Just to throw in my two centavos worth, I have never seen any studies on women's ability to learn shooting vs. men's so we are left with anecdotal stories. And there are plenty of them on this thread! I have noted, though, after 50 years of driving airplanes that women pilots are generally better pilots because they listen and don't think they know it all. In short, their male ego is missing. Perhaps the same thing is true in shooting...I really don't know. I do know that my lovely bride (58 years old) decided two weeks ago that she wanted to shoot my Kimber Ultra Carry. As you know, this is a light weight, 3" barreled .45 and she is 5'2" 110 lbs. She promptly plunked 4 rds into a 2" circle at 20'. I figured it was a fluke, but handed her the Walther P-22 and a box of ammo and turned her loose. She did very well. She promply joined the gun club and has been at the range practicing every evening for an hour. The Walther is screaming for mercy but she is relentless. Singleminded. We're going back to the Kimber tonight so she can practice with the bigger weapon. She signed up for a CCW course in January and I'm getting her a Springer Micro Compact for Christmas.
Her only instructor is me. While I am not impervious toher charms, I am used to them. I am also not a professional instructor, merely a guy who has been shooting for a lot of years. But she listens to me. Actually, she's developing into a damn fine shot and I'm very proud of her.
Her only instructor is me. While I am not impervious toher charms, I am used to them. I am also not a professional instructor, merely a guy who has been shooting for a lot of years. But she listens to me. Actually, she's developing into a damn fine shot and I'm very proud of her.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"All students enter a class receptive to instruction."
God I wish that were truly the case.
But it's not.
Whether active or unconscious, some people are highly resistant to being "taught."
God I wish that were truly the case.
But it's not.
Whether active or unconscious, some people are highly resistant to being "taught."