"There Is Too Much Social Media On This Firing Line"

[rob_s]

Not sure if this is already being discussed or not, but I'm curious t hear opinions of this article.

http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/26/there-is-too-much-social-media-on-this-firing-line-the-dangerous-future-of-tactical-entertainment/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=twitterfeed

[LittleLebowski]

Well, it is thought provoking and I am glad that you posted it. I will randomly address what I feel like commenting upon.


Regardless of being right, challenging an instructor means challenging his brand and potentially alienating his client base.

Yup, seen that, and been right in the middle of it.


Moreover, challenging an individual backed by multimillion-dollar firms can expedite ostracism from the industry. Consequently, the Tier One credentials valued by government agencies to perform real world missions go undervalued in an industry driven by clever marketing and brand exposure.

Interesting. It sounds like the author feels slighted sans citable facts. I see that he complains about others not taking critique of the temple index seriously. However.....the temple index was dissected in depth on here, with some invaluable remarks by Steve Fisher (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13455-The-Temple-Index/page8) (Steve F). Does the author expect hordes of the dirty unwashed and untrained civilians firearms enthusiasts to be waiting for the chance to pay for his instruction? Does he expect a one way conversation at all times?

All in all, I think the author is upset about the free market and social media. He is upset that those have not endured Selection are imitating the Elite such as himself. He prefers a top down approach, perhaps where the anointed tactical instructors don't receive online comments? His article reminds me of The Cathedral and the Bazaar (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0026OR3LM/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0026OR3LM&linkCode=as2&tag=ratio07-20). Although not even close to being parallel, there are some similarities. The author of the C&B assumed that software should be written in a top down approach with careful vetting along the way. BAM! Open Source happened, people wrote what they wanted, the market and peer review allowed talented folk sans the blessing of theElite/Annnointed-people to rise to the top based upon their talent, not their resumes/education.

I think that he has some valid points about training not conducted properly, especially tactical medicine. With regards to Crossfit, oh well.

However, my net summation is....

Welcome to the free market, buddy. What are you going to do when the pendulum swings back towards competition oriented firearms trainers? Shouldn't you be happy that people want to get out and train? What positive difference are you making in the training world?

[Chris Rhines]

The first comment contained an interesting summation of the problem:

"This is a field where we don’t have good, evidence-based standards on what is “right” and what is “wrong,” nor standardized needs assessments or measurement rubrics, other than overly simplistic things such as time to first shot or group size."

Worth thinking about.

[LittleLebowski]

The first comment contained an interesting summation of the problem:

"This is a field where we don’t have good, evidence-based standards on what is “right” and what is “wrong,” nor standardized needs assessments or measurement rubrics, other than overly simplistic things such as time to first shot or group size."

Worth thinking about.

Agreed. Especially when thinking of the American civilian firearms training student's needs.

[GardoneVT]

His article has a flawed premise; it is that customers genuinely care about being educated shooters.

Don't get me wrong, there are people invested in building real world shooting skill. But for one person like that there are ten people who want nothing to do with actual knowledge about firearms tactics. Those folks - the Cleetii, if you will- are in it for the bragging rights .

I'm not carrying water for the antis, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. They are , from what I've seen , dead on correct regarding the psychology of people who buy and own guns as a matter of personal life meaning. They don't carry guns to defend themselves; they carry them as belt ornaments , props in their own mental movie about being "freedom fighters" for the Constitution. They buy trailer loads of guns and ammo they can't shoot , drive around with NRA and "Glock:Perfection" decals on the family SUV and then decide because they took one advanced carbine course from Cory & Erika RT that they're the expert in all things related to self-defense.

Classes aren't designed to train people in Gun World*, theyre basically organized ammo-consumption powwows where socially maladjusted dudes get to play war with live ammo and cardboard targets. Toss in some secondhand military multicam plus "I did this in the Sandbox" comments and shazam. It is the male equivalent of the girls night in book club, but only half as educational and equally as irrelevant to their self defense needs.

If evidence and facts entered the discussion about skill, oh my. There'd be a LOT of upside down smiles in the gun world. The sound of egos breaking would be louder then a .357 Sig round....
"Sir, the facts are you can't hit a B27 at five yards. How about you put down that 'manstopper' Glock 21 and go join the others at the 'Remedial' lanes."



* I realize a lot of constructive shooting professionals are not in it for these reasons. Regrettably the customers are another matter.

[YVK]

Lil, I agree with your summary fully.

I'd also point out that different instruction has different purposes. A wife of a PF member runs the most basic classes for women who have zero of a previous exposure. She would fail any "accreditation" and her students would be a out of place in a Tier Anything class. I think that her work is probably more important than that of Tiers.



The first comment contained an interesting summation of the problem:

"This is a field where we don’t have good, evidence-based standards on what is “right” and what is “wrong,” nor standardized needs assessments or measurement rubrics, other than overly simplistic things such as time to first shot or group size.".

I brought it up years ago as, I think in a discussion with ToddG, and the consensus was that there will be no consensus of standards of practice, rights, wrongs etc in this industry.
As a separate observation, the "overly simplistic" things he mentions are wonderful because they are easily reproducible, easily measurable and demonstrate instructors/users desire to quantify and assess. I'd like to see suggested technical rubrics/methods that are more relevant to me/most CCW practitioners than those.

[41magfan]

We know what the armed citizen needs in order to do well in a violent confrontation. The problem lies in the fact that it lacks romanticism, it isn’t very marketable and it’s nearly impossible to properly convey in the sterile environment of a square range.

Regrettably, too many folks just want to play cowboys and Indians and the relevance of the training is fairly immaterial as it relates of their preconceived notions about personal protection and security.

Said another way, there are far too many folks out there demanding snake oil to put all the blame on the salesman.

[BehindBlueI's]

I know instructors need to establish a brand. I just get tired of the "this sucks" and "X gun sucks" and "if you don't do this you'll die" speaking points. I especially enjoy when the telephone game gets played and instructor X learned from Instructor Y who learned from Instructor Z that this is the way its done because reasons.

[LittleLebowski]

I don't think that the average armed citizen needs firearms instruction from a former Tier 1 serviceman. I think that the armed citizen needs to know when to shoot, when not to shoot, how to deescalate a situation, how to avoid bad situations, and how to handle themselves after if they had to shoot.

And if citizens want to wear beards and camouflage, FINE. Sure, I might snicker at them a bit. However, they will get something from training. They might even work to become a better shooter. They are miles ahead of the citizen who never has and never will train. They could perhaps even get friends/family into shooting and the mindset of taking responsibility for one's safety.

To put it bluntly, which course do you think is more relevant for American armed citizens and which ones looks like "entertrainment?

FPF Training Street Encounter Skills (http://rationalgun.blogspot.com/2015/05/fpf-training-street-encounter-skills.html)

or these offerings from the author of the SSD article in the OP?

http://www.guerrillaapproach.com/nlsb

http://www.guerrillaapproach.com/gcqht

http://www.guerrillaapproach.com/grum

[Dagga Boy]

It's not that we don't have evidence based standards, it's that we no longer use them. The standards used to be based on performance of students. Are your students safe? Do they perform at a high level when faced with actual lethal force problems? Do you have a significant data base to pull from? Is what is being taught actually being used successfully? Has it been court tested if being applied within the United States? Now......how many "likes" determines applicability (be that on Facebook, other social media, or conversion to dollars for advertisers). Some have adapted well to the new like standard, some live for it, some are struggling, some don't give a crap, and some are adapting. I am in the "don't give a crap" camp, but that may not be the case if our training business was what I depended upon to eat.

The other issue is simple is not cool. Folks want the iPhone 8 of training.....whether it works or not. I miss my pager and a box phone, and my Thomas Guide never took me to the wrong place. Other folks are different and they like what is new and in. Free markets......way of the world. This is an issue in every business, not just ours. As my dad likes to say (honest to God legendary business genius), businesses today are great at and very efficient at talking to themselves and have lost touch with human contact with their customers and how to truly address their individual customers needs. This ties in to modern marketing.....companies and organizations have become experts in telling their customers what they need and defining a need and many are sold on that. The reality, by my standard, if you are a Joe average citizen with a CCW and you are not looking to someone like Tom Given's for training...well you have not properly done your homework, which requires work. Instead, we have folks who do not even carry a gun, yet live on social media hitting massive amounts of people and defining their needs for them and providing "training" (often at the touch of a button) to fulfill it. "Wrong".....I think so, but it is right by free market definition.

[LittleLebowski]

It's not that we don't have evidence based standards, it's that we no longer use them. The standards used to be based on performance of students. Are your students safe? Do they perform at a high level when faced with actual lethal force problems? Do you have a significant data base to pull from? Is what is being taught actually being used successfully? Has it been court tested if being applied within the United States? Now......how many "likes" determines applicability (be that on Facebook, other social media, or conversion to dollars for advertisers). Some have adapted well to the new like standard, some live for it, some are struggling, some don't give a crap, and some are adapting. I am in the "don't give a crap" camp, but that may not be the case if our training business was what I depended upon to eat.

The other issue is simple is not cool. Folks want the iPhone 8 of training.....whether it works or not. I miss my pager and a box phone, and my Thomas Guide never took me to the wrong place. Other folks are different and they like what is new and in. Free markets......way of the world. This is an issue in every business, not just ours. As my dad likes to say (honest to God legendary business genius), businesses today are great at and very efficient at talking to themselves and have lost touch with human contact with their customers and how to truly address their individual customers needs. This ties in to modern marketing.....companies and organizations have become experts in telling their customers what they need and defining a need and many are sold on that. The reality, by my standard, if you are a Joe average citizen with a CCW and you are not looking to someone like Tom Given's for training...well you have not properly done your homework, which requires work. Instead, we have folks who do not even carry a gun, yet live on social media hitting massive amounts of people and defining their needs for them and providing "training" (often at the touch of a button) to fulfill it. "Wrong".....I think so, but it is right by free market definition.


Excellent post, especially the last paragraph. I believe it does tie in with the SSD article's point about an instructor's "brand and client base."

With regards to your first paragraph, it is 2015. We did indeed experience an explosion in firearms training brought on by two recent wars yet we still have former US military SOF firearms instructors putting on classes with a 1:20 instructor:student ratio (do not bother asking me, I won't tell you who it is). Free market, do your research. SOF does not mean you can teach civilians and winning a championship does not mean you can actually impart how to shoot better. Do your research.

[BehindBlueI's]

It's not that we don't have evidence based standards, it's that we no longer use them. The standards used to be based on performance of students. Are your students safe? Do they perform at a high level when faced with actual lethal force problems? Do you have a significant data base to pull from? Is what is being taught actually being used successfully? Has it been court tested if being applied within the United States? Now......how many "likes" determines applicability (be that on Facebook, other social media, or conversion to dollars for advertisers). Some have adapted well to the new like standard, some live for it, some are struggling, some don't give a crap, and some are adapting. I am in the "don't give a crap" camp, but that may not be the case if our training business was what I depended upon to eat.

I agree. I teach a short 4 hour block on surviving a street encounter. It's based on my own case files and those of a few of my partners, victim interviews, surviving suspect interviews, surveillance tape and crime scene photos of shootings, etc. I do not incorporate any LEO shootings, only citizen v criminal. The class is only about 1/2 shooting, as shooting is IMO not as important as recognizing an impending attack, avoidance, etc. Round count is very low. There are not long 15 target 3 minutes engagements while hanging from a branch and scanning for ninjas. They are all an adaptation of a real robbery, domestic shooting, etc. It is not sexy. It is not even real marketable. I don't care. I have ZERO desire to be a professional instructor, and I teamed up with an established instructor to run the shooting parts. I simply got tired of seeing the good guys lose because of lack of knowledge or poor tactics and decided this was the way to do something about it. There's a lot of freedom in not having to rely on it for income, I could make more money sitting in a parking lot "guarding" a bar. I tell people what I see, what the limitations of this type of training are, and then direct them to take the next step and get some simunition training or the like, which I don't offer. I do not have to keep class sizes up, I don't have to sell books and CDs, I don't have to maintain a social media presence, etc. The social media and marketing, are, IMO what leads to the "this gun sucks" and "do this you'll die" statements that are too prevalent out there. You can tell people to carry bigger guns, but they aren't going to. You can tell people to train more, but they aren't going to. You can tell people to dry fire 10 minutes a day and work on their draw, but they aren't going to. So, teach them for what skill level they have, hopefully keep them from getting in the shooting in the first place, and move on. Not sexy, not entertaining, but hopefully worthwhile for the participants.

**Edit** I should clarify, I try to make it entertaining to maintain interest via stories of real shootings, laying context, etc. I mean the shooting part itself is not entertaining. They are, frankly, boring. Why? Because that's what I see in the case files. Very short, very quick encounters. Very few street shootings would be an interesting IDPA/whatever stage.

[orionz06]

The author doesn't have a beard... That's all that really differentiates himself from those he thinks he is different from.

[LittleLebowski]

I agree. I teach a short 4 hour block on surviving a street encounter. It's based on my own case files and those of a few of my partners, victim interviews, surviving suspect interviews, surveillance tape and crime scene photos of shootings, etc. I do not incorporate any LEO shootings, only citizen v criminal. The class is only about 1/2 shooting, as shooting is IMO not as important as recognizing an impending attack, avoidance, etc. Round count is very low. There are not long 15 target 3 minutes engagements while hanging from a branch and scanning for ninjas. They are all an adaptation of a real robbery, domestic shooting, etc. It is not sexy. It is not even real marketable. I don't care. I have ZERO desire to be a professional instructor, and I teamed up with an established instructor to run the shooting parts. I simply got tired of seeing the good guys lose because of lack of knowledge or poor tactics and decided this was the way to do something about it. There's a lot of freedom in not having to rely on it for income, I could make more money sitting in a parking lot "guarding" a bar. I tell people what I see, what the limitations of this type of training are, and then direct them to take the next step and get some simunition training or the like, which I don't offer. I do not have to keep class sizes up, I don't have to sell books and CDs, I don't have to maintain a social media presence, etc. The social media and marketing, are, IMO what leads to the "this gun sucks" and "do this you'll die" statements that are too prevalent out there. You can tell people to carry bigger guns, but they aren't going to. You can tell people to train more, but they aren't going to. You can tell people to dry fire 10 minutes a day and work on their draw, but they aren't going to. So, teach them for what skill level they have, hopefully keep them from getting in the shooting in the first place, and move on. Not sexy, not entertaining, but hopefully worthwhile for the participants.

**Edit** I should clarify, I try to make it entertaining to maintain interest via stories of real shootings, laying context, etc. I mean the shooting part itself is not entertaining. They are, frankly, boring. Why? Because that's what I see in the case files. Very short, very quick encounters. Very few street shootings would be an interesting IDPA/whatever stage.

I am dead certain that an armed citizen would get far more relevant training from you or nyeti than the SSD author.

[voodoo_man]

Research is something that relies heavily on student/user/consumer generated reviews and statements. If people who take classes with certain instructors never post anything negative, or positive, how is anyone supposed to know who is capable and who is not.

It behooves anyone who wants to contribute to the community to post, or at least talk about their experiences with people they pay to teach them.

Beyond that, as ive stated before, being a SOF guy with years of real world application means nothing to the average joe ccw guy. Id sooner take a class from someone who carries a gun in bad areas than anyone who has done work with rifles and support in a place ill likely never go. There are instructors ive taken classes with that do not carry while off the range, thats a huge qualifier for me to never take a class from them again, especially if they talk about mindset. Creditenials mean nothing to me at that point since ive seen first hand the persons practice.

The conversation also have to evolve into a "what I need" and "what you teach" comparison. Ive taken distance shooting classes, F2S has a great one for a 762 carbine. We shot out to 600y and further. That is simply something ill never need to do in my AO, most of the time I dont even have that far clear line of sight. Why take the class? Primer for expanding knowledge and experience, contributing to my 556 shooting ability and skillset.

There is also the consideration of marksmanship skillset and tactics since they are two different things that get combined in a poor attempt by many instructors. Ive had an instructors tell me all sorts of things that didnt pass the bullshit meter. As nyeti said, what do people teach and what actually happens may be two different things and people really enjoy getting taught dogma because they can pass it on as accepted, feeling good about themselves

Social media really brings this whole thing together a great mess... "Zomg fast reloads are a must because you might get killed with an empty gun!!!!" "You cant shoot at someone past 10yards! Thats reckless! You could go jail!" And so forth, I tell people I train, and train with to experience things for themselves and not accept dogma as fact, the real world will very quickly destroy all your reconcieved ideas.

[voodoo_man]

The author doesn't have a beard... That's all that really differentiates himself from those he thinks he is different from.

Cant be a real instructor if you dont have a beard.

Heard that on the internet

[BehindBlueI's]

Research is something that relies heavily on student/user/consumer generated reviews and statements. If people who take classes with certain instructors never post anything negative, or positive, how is anyone supposed to know who is capable and who is not.

It behooves anyone who wants to contribute to the community to post, or at least talk about their experiences with people they pay to teach them.

Beyond that, as ive stated before, being a SOF guy with years of real world application means nothing to the average joe ccw guy. Id sooner take a class from someone who carries a gun in bad areas than anyone who has done work with rifles and support in a place ill likely never go. There are instructors ive taken classes with that do not carry while off the range, thats a huge qualifier for me to never take a class from them again, especially if they talk about mindset. Creditenials mean nothing to me at that point since ive seen first hand the persons practice.

The conversation also have to evolve into a "what I need" and "what you teach" comparison. Ive taken distance shooting classes, F2S has a great one for a 762 carbine. We shot out to 600y and further. That is simply something ill never need to do in my AO, most of the time I dont even have that far clear line of sight. Why take the class? Primer for expanding knowledge and experience, contributing to my 556 shooting ability and skillset.

There is also the consideration of marksmanship skillset and tactics since they are two different things that get combined in a poor attempt by many instructors. Ive had an instructors tell me all sorts of things that didnt pass the bullshit meter. As nyeti said, what do people teach and what actually happens may be two different things and people really enjoy getting taught dogma because they can pass it on as accepted, feeling good about themselves

Social media really brings this whole thing together a great mess... "Zomg fast reloads are a must because you might get killed with an empty gun!!!!" "You cant shoot at someone past 10yards! Thats reckless! You could go jail!" And so forth, I tell people I train, and train with to experience things for themselves and not accept dogma as fact, the real world will very quickly destroy all your reconcieved ideas.

I keep asking someone to show me all these people dead with an empty gun who couldn't get it reloaded in time. So far all I get is crickets. People imagine gun fights, or take real gun fights and add "what if" a lot. What if he had missed. What if the bad guy hadn't fled. What if there was one more attacker. What ifs make a scenario quite different then what happeneds.

[BehindBlueI's]

Cant be a real instructor if you dont have a beard.

Heard that on the internet

Can a really tight tshirt and shemagh make up for lack of tactical beard?

[LittleLebowski]

Can a really tight tshirt and shemagh make up for lack of tactical beard?

I think that we're going down a rabbit hole on appearances here but I know you're kidding around anyway. Can a kid with a shemagh and beard on YouTube mature into a good shooter who can mentor other shooters? Can an "operator" on Cooder County SWAT Team mature into making LAPD D Platoon standards? Is a beard is an automatic no-go on an instructor?

[voodoo_man]

I think that we're going down a rabbit hole on appearances here but I know you're kidding around anyway. Can a kid with a shemagh and beard on YouTube mature into a good shooter who can mentor other shooters? Can an "operator" on Cooder County SWAT Team mature into making LAPD D Platoon standards? Is a beard is an automatic no-go on an instructor?

Its all cliché really, the appearance standards people have for instructors.

Ill always try people out to see what they put out and ill usually tell people my experience if asked. Some of the best instructors ive had looked like they just walked off the job site or from being out with their family.

To add, I really enjoy the people who have done the training and spent time working up to certain skillset standards because they arent affected by social media garbage, they know the secret sauce, hard work and experience.

[BehindBlueI's]

Is a beard is an automatic no-go on an instructor?

Only if we're learning to kiss.

Otherwise, no, I don't really care one way or the other. I get establishing a brand, and marketing, etc.

Does anyone want to talk about the difficulties and ineffeciences of a matching market place? Economics nerds out there? Anyone? Anyone?

[voodoo_man]

Only if we're learning to kiss.

Otherwise, no, I don't really care one way or the other. I get establishing a brand, and marketing, etc.

Does anyone want to talk about the difficulties and ineffeciences of a matching market place? Economics nerds out there? Anyone? Anyone?

Marketing and the gun industry is very weird. Some companies go full boat, some refuse to market at all.

[LittleLebowski]

Does anyone want to talk about the difficulties and ineffeciences of a matching market place? Economics nerds out there? Anyone? Anyone?

I think that you've brought up a good point - many instructors have distaste for other instructor's marketing practices. Again, welcome to the free market, fellas. We look forward to your special sling/rifle/trigger/clothes/holster/etc. And if you think that is a new thing, go count how many "Thunder Ranch" edition products there are. However, firearms-trainer-endorsed products certainly have gotten more popular.

[voodoo_man]

I think that you've brought up a good point - many instructors have distaste for other instructor's marketing practices. Again, welcome to the free market, fellas. We look forward to your special sling/rifle/trigger/clothes/holster/etc. And if you think that is a new thing, go count how many "Thunder Ranch" edition products there are. However, firearms-trainer-endorsed products certainly have gotten more popular.

When is it enough though? Seriously, the market is pretty saturated with a lot of things.

Tactical face cream aint gana make you an operator.

[LittleLebowski]

When is it enough though? Seriously, the market is pretty saturated with a lot of things.

Tactical face cream aint gana make you an operator.

Neither is a special knife. It is the free market, the market will decide when it is saturated.

[Dagga Boy]

A lot of this is a purely societal thing. We want things "easier". We live in a society based on that. Look what we went through as kids to simply make a phone call, or what your grand parents did. My kid has never used a phone with a cord. We now press a button or say a name. It should not be a mystery that "training" is expected to be the same way. Watch a video, buy a thing, put on a shirt and poof...you are all set. Training is hard when done right. What needs to get done is simple but not easy (credit to Vickers on that). So, faced with a choice of simple but hard, or complex but easy....well, we live in a complex but easy world.

Marketing....our industry also markets to that as well. Complex, high tech things to make your world easy is the way of the world. We have traded training of those selling to address customer needs to training the customer on what they "need" that corresponds to the item being sold rather than the item being sold matching the customers actually need. It makes it far more efficient for the seller to generate income with far less work. Convince the customer what they need and then press a button and it comes to their door. Much harder to individually address what an individual needs and then cater to that. New world order.

[BehindBlueI's]

I think that you've brought up a good point - many instructors have distaste for other instructor's marketing practices. Again, welcome to the free market, fellas. We look forward to your special sling/rifle/trigger/clothes/holster/etc. And if you think that is a new thing, go count how many "Thunder Ranch" edition products there are. However, firearms-trainer-endorsed products certainly have gotten more popular.

**warning, economics nerdy stuff ahead**

There's "marketing" as in advertising, but I'm talking about "marketing" as in getting goods from sellers to buyers. A matching market place means that the correct buyer and correct seller must meet, and that price is not the only consideration, for a transaction to occur. The opposite is a commodities market place, where any buyer can meet any seller and a transaction can take place. Most markets are somewhere in the middle.

The wheat market, for example, is a nearly pure commodities market. If you want to buy a certain grade of wheat, you can do so on an exchange and neither know nor care who grew the wheat. It is fungible, any bushel of wheat of a certain grade is interchangeable with any other bushel of the same grade. The only thing that matters is price. Any buyer can buy wheat from any seller, and any seller can sell to any buyer. Think of concert tickets as a nearly perfect matching market. If I want to see The Rolling Stones, I have to buy from a distributor of Rolling Stones tickets. I will not purchase tickets to see Justin Bieber because they are cheaper. Similarly, a seller cannot sell Stones tickets to someone who wants concert tickets but hates the Stones. The seller of Stones tickets and the Stones fan who's free that night must meet before any transaction can take place, and price is a secondary consideration.

Education marketplaces, including colleges, are closer to the concert ticket style market place. People have preferences, but often don't know what they are really basing those preferences on. There is no real grading system like you can do for oil or wheat or eggs. Sure, Havard may be a better school than Ivy Tech...unless you want to be a welder. In addition, there are plenty of options that you don't know about, don't know the real pro's and con's of, and thus cannot make an informed decision about. There is no exchange to go to and say "I want a grade B medium defensive handgun class" or "50 barrels of crude marksmanship training, please." You must seek out individuals, research quality and fit, and then arrive at an exchange (money for education). Without the tight t-shirt and beard marketing, how do most people ever learn about trainers? Particularly if you rely on it to feed yourself, you need a thick market of applicants. That's done via advertising. If you don't have a brand, don't have a 'character', don't have a hook...how do potential buyers find you?

Serious question. We can complain about goofballs and edu-tainment training and the like...but as stated that's the free market and people are going to do what they get rewarded for. How do we match potential buyers and potential sellers, and educate the potential buyers on what they really need vs what they think they need, without the showmanship? I have no idea. People who know more about this than me can chime in with the value of some sort of accreditation, like NRA certs or the like, and the marketplace that sets up. Is that helpful? Can it be applied to defensive training? Or is all going to be (mostly) mascot/character driven?

[JSGlock34]

I'd also point out that different instruction has different purposes. A wife of a PF member runs the most basic classes for women who have zero of a previous exposure. She would fail any "accreditation" and her students would be a out of place in a Tier Anything class. I think that her work is probably more important than that of Tiers.

Great point and one I think bears repeating. When I go to the range, I observe a lack of basic safety awareness and generally weak marksmanship fundamentals among 90% of the shooters on the line. Basic safety and marksmanship training isn't sexy, but serves a vital and under appreciated role.

After reading (and re-reading) the article though, I remain a bit unclear as to exactly who the author is taking aim at...

[GardoneVT]

Marketing and the gun industry is very weird. Some companies go full boat, some refuse to market at all.

*** Econ Nerdiness Ahead***

To understand mass market gun training, we have to look at the retail gun business. Think about cell phones for a moment; do we materially need smartphones to live in the same manner we need food ? No.

Yet there's a common social norm in having a late model cell phone.This is due to firms aggresively marketing cell phones as a "need", inducing demand for a product we would be perfectly capable of living without. So it goes for new firearms.
Most people who purchase guns do so because it feels good. Why? Powerful and agreesive marketing of brand new firearms as a "need" which induces demand for the product. Its the same case in the gun world.

Fortunately we live in a safe country where millions of people live just fine with 0 guns or weapons at all.It isnt necessarily a smart life philosophy, but thanks to the unglamorous work of LEOs and other first responders most folks never have a moment where they realize "crap I needed a weapon". This leaves Mr Gunbuyer with a bit of a crisis when literally thousands of dollars of hardware collects dust in his safe for seemingly no reason.Without zombies in the street it seems like six carbines and fifty handguns are a bit much; especially when he and his wife work in gun free zones and concealed carry is either illegal or has a lot of gotchas attached.

Enter EduTrainment. No longer does the guy who's bought into the "never sell a gun!" tagline have to feel left out of the cold wondering what all his gear's for. He can bring his Tapco'd AK out to a meeting of like minded gunnies, and indulge in the social groupthink of "MOAR.GUNS." He may learn something new or he may not, but building skill in a methodical and logical fashion isnt at the top of the list, if it is on the list at all. Were that the case he'd focus only on firearms useful to his specific empirical needs and build his training around that.

The number of consumers who have that mindset are rare. Even if those people are willing and able to pay for focused training, a profit-minded instructor is better off catering to the mass consumers. They can tap into a ready group of ego invested consumers , and the cost of entry into the market is lower then dirt.Want to teach people how to write code? You need certifications and experience.

Want to teach people how to shoot? Buy two used Glocks , get an HD camera and start printing signs advertising "CCW Course!".There's no FASB equivalent for gun teachers. So long as you can outshoot an average person at the range, meaning sub-two hour FAST times at 3 yards, you can look like a rockstar.The product being sold is phony, but -given the aforementioned safety-few will ever find out the hard way. The folks who get shot because they used half baked tactics learned by sumdood 'instructor' who adapted them from Halo wont be able to file a BBB complaint.

The modern gun training market is composed of 'instructors' looking for a revenue stream and monitization of their shooting hobby, selling special-showflake ego boosting validation exercises to consumers already primed to think that way every time they set foot in a Cabelas display.

[voodoo_man]

Neither is a special knife. It is the free market, the market will decide when it is saturated.

Its only special to special people.

The people who use these items either use them for a status symbol or because they fit a very specific function.

[Eyesquared]

I am dead certain that an armed citizen would get far more relevant training from you or nyeti than the SSD author.

I'm sure that's probably the case, but Berruga never claims to provide the optimal set of training for the typical armed citizen. His critique doesn't actually address people taking impractical "high speed" NVG classes or vehicle-carbine-gunfighter-faceshooter classes and such. I think you're reading something that he never wrote down.

The perfect example of what he's complaining about is a dude like Instructor Zero. People on his facebook and youtube channel hug his nuts like crazy, always talking about how great he is both as an instructor and a shooter. People unironically write things like "Zero is the best instructor in the world!" or "Instructor Zero, the man, the myth, the legend. No one like him." (Those are actual quotes)

In reality he was a European .mil guy a long time ago and the stuff he does now has almost no relevance to his actual military background (basically airborne light infantry). If everything he currently teaches came second hand from other "tactical" instructors then why bother learning from him instead of going to the source? Furthermore, for pure shooting skills you could easily (at least in the US) find someone who is a competition badass to teach you technique, so the fact that he's a solid shooter doesn't really mean much to me if he has little to no relevant tactical background. However, many uninformed individuals seeing his youtube or facebook content are totally blown away by him, simply because he has a good publicity machine in Funker Tactical videos.

[RJ]

Not sure if this is already being discussed or not, but I'm curious t hear opinions of this article.

http://soldiersystems.net/2015/09/26/there-is-too-much-social-media-on-this-firing-line-the-dangerous-future-of-tactical-entertainment/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=twitterfeed

I enjoyed reading this, I thought it was a good, thought provoking article.

The part about "Tactical Entertainment" resonated with me. I was at the range last week, next to a small group clucking excitedly about their new black rifle "build" the way I used to brag about cars in the distant past of a mis-spent youth.

But heck, they are practicing their 2A rights, so, as entertainment, I don't see the harm in standing around hero-worshiping the guy in the beard, sleeve tats and a digital camo BCM hat explaining how better to be "tactical". They paid their money, so they get to make the choice.

What I didn't understand was the left turn at the article's conclusion about tactical medical training.

I just completed a 1-day gunshot wound/trauma course, put on by a local Sunstar EMT. The course was professionally run, and aligned with the curriculum and guidelines of DoDs Tactical Combat Casualty Care.

My understanding is that TCCC is an evolving, standards-based curricula that can / is objectively taught by skilled, trained and current EMTs and the like to a basic level to enhance the survivability of GSW management "in the field", be it in Afghanistan or at my local gun range.

I am not sure why the author thought that tactical medicine training would suffer the same fate as those attending BCM-capped instructor classes by 2020.

But all in all I thought it was a pretty good article.

[RJ]

I agree. I teach a short 4 hour block on surviving a street encounter. ...



I would love to take this course.

[RJ]

His article has a flawed premise; it is that customers genuinely care about being educated shooters.

Don't get me wrong, there are people invested in building real world shooting skill. But for one person like that there are ten people who want nothing to do with actual knowledge about firearms tactics. Those folks - the Cleetii, if you will- are in it for the bragging rights .

I'm not carrying water for the antis, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. They are , from what I've seen , dead on correct regarding the psychology of people who buy and own guns as a matter of personal life meaning. They don't carry guns to defend themselves; they carry them as belt ornaments , props in their own mental movie about being "freedom fighters" for the Constitution. They buy trailer loads of guns and ammo they can't shoot , drive around with NRA and "Glock:Perfection" decals on the family SUV and then decide because they took one advanced carbine course from Cory & Erika RT that they're the expert in all things related to self-defense.

Classes aren't designed to train people in Gun World*, theyre basically organized ammo-consumption powwows where socially maladjusted dudes get to play war with live ammo and cardboard targets. Toss in some secondhand military multicam plus "I did this in the Sandbox" comments and shazam. It is the male equivalent of the girls night in book club, but only half as educational and equally as irrelevant to their self defense needs.

If evidence and facts entered the discussion about skill, oh my. There'd be a LOT of upside down smiles in the gun world. The sound of egos breaking would be louder then a .357 Sig round....
"Sir, the facts are you can't hit a B27 at five yards. How about you put down that 'manstopper' Glock 21 and go join the others at the 'Remedial' lanes."




Dammit this is well written, concise and IMO spot on.

[BehindBlueI's]

I would love to take this course.

First, thanks. The comments in this thread that have been supportive, especially on a forum I'm pretty new to and from a board with a lot of really knowledgeable folks, has been fantastic.

That said, I'd love to have you. I would suppose, though, there are some equally qualified folks who would be a lot closer to you. That's part of what I'm addressing with the inefficient market. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you, but it seems that a lot of travel time and money could be saved if you could find the same content closer to home.

[RJ]

First, thanks. The comments in this thread that have been supportive, especially on a forum I'm pretty new to and from a board with a lot of really knowledgeable folks, has been fantastic.

That said, I'd love to have you. I would suppose, though, there are some equally qualified folks who would be a lot closer to you. That's part of what I'm addressing with the inefficient market. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you, but it seems that a lot of travel time and money could be saved if you could find the same content closer to home.

Maybe we could work something out. :cool:

Can you share where you are (zip code, major metro area, etc.)? If not no problem.

I (just) retired at 56, and we decided to spend our retirement years traveling around the US and Canada. Both of us are foreign born (naturalized), and did not see all of the natural beauty on our continent as kids, young adults or during our working lives.

We have an RV, and are liable to be anywhere in the country.

We just got back in August from almost 3 months out west, getting as far as Astoria OR. We sold our Class B because it was a bit small, and ordered a new Airstream that we are picking up in November in NJ. We are thinking about exploring the gulf coast of Texas, Austin and San Antonio on our next trip.

[PPGMD]

Lets be completely honest, social media is some way is the way to advertise. Every major instructor is on social media in some way, shape, or form.

For some it is being a moderator of a message board, for others it is Youtube channels, and then for the rest the more traditional social media platforms like Facebook.

I know this is going to controversial but, the creds that most people value (military SOF with multiple deployments) have no real value to a civilian shooting course. Few instructor teach tactics, and when they do the traditional military tactics have little value in a civilian setting.

I honestly think that the best creds to be a civilian firearms instructor is USPSA Production GM that is also LE Firearms instructor with years of experience running FoF scenarios that has spent time studying civilian UOF and developing a comprehensive program of basic skills with FoF training mixed in. Out of all the people I've trained with the closet that have come to that is Tom Givens, and Southnarc.

[LittleLebowski]

I'm sure that's probably the case, but Berruga never claims to provide the optimal set of training for the typical armed citizen. His critique doesn't actually address people taking impractical "high speed" NVG classes or vehicle-carbine-gunfighter-faceshooter classes and such. I think you're reading something that he never wrote down.

That seems to be much of what he teaches.


The perfect example of what he's complaining about is a dude like Instructor Zero. People on his facebook and youtube channel hug his nuts like crazy, always talking about how great he is both as an instructor and a shooter. People unironically write things like "Zero is the best instructor in the world!" or "Instructor Zero, the man, the myth, the legend. No one like him." (Those are actual quotes)

People say stupid shit online all of the time. Welcome to social media. There are even people saying good things about Bernie Sanders in social media! :D

I keep circling back to the author being miffed that he is not getting the respect he thinks that he deserves.

[RJ]

I honestly think that the best creds to be a civilian firearms instructor is USPSA Production GM that is also LE Firearms instructor with years of experience running FoF scenarios that has spent time studying civilian UOF and developing a comprehensive program of basic skills with FoF training mixed in. Out of all the people I've trained with the closet that have come to that is Tom Givens, and Southnarc.

Yep.

That's part of the reason I allocated hard cash to attend Mr. Givens' 3 day Tactical Conference 2016 in Memphis next March. Best $325 I've spent so far, I believed, when I registered.

[LOKNLOD]

I keep circling back to the author being miffed that he is not getting the respect he thinks that he deserves.

If his classes are as good as his articles, it sounds like he's getting exactly the respect he needs.

I can't help but laugh that his op-ed on "too much social media" ends with a link to his instagram account.

[Eyesquared]

That seems to be much of what he teaches.

I know, I took a peek at his course listings. I think this is sort of besides the point; he doesn't specifically advocate that your average citizen needs these classes. I think trainers can provide whatever the hell kind of training they want so long as they aren't misrepresenting themselves or the curriculum. At the least he has the real world background to teach these things, unlike some others, and I'm sure there are private security types who could use this kind of class.


People say stupid shit online all of the time. Welcome to social media. There are even people saying good things about Bernie Sanders in social media! :D

I keep circling back to the author being miffed that he is not getting the respect he thinks that he deserves.

I think he has a point when saying that firearms training is not really the same as other free market scenarios. In the case of "tactical" firearms training your life may be staked on your training, and if someone exaggerated their experience or their credentials then in some way, they may be responsible for your unfortunate demise if you fuck up for real. If I got shot doing something I learned from a fraud I certainly wouldn't be very happy! If an instructor claims to teach "tactical" shooting classes the implication is that they're teaching combat relevant and vetted technique. If I ended up getting something that is totally untested except in Instructor Zero's backyard, that seems to be somewhat problematic.

While there isn't any governing body on what is "good" technique in shooting, I think there should be some level of self-regulation in that instructors need to be careful of overstepping the bounds of their experience. For example, I wouldn't want to learn "tactical" shooting from Cory and Erika and I don't think they would be morally correct in offering "tactical" shooting classes without input from someone who's actually vetted the techniques.

[voodoo_man]

There are plenty of instructors who shouldnt morally teach ccw tactics beyond marksmanship, yet people pay top dollar to them.

One of the first questions I ask an instructor ive never trained with before is if they are willing to testify in court and backup what they are teaching. Might be worth starting a trend with that.

[Dagga Boy]

There are plenty of instructors who shouldnt morally teach ccw tactics beyond marksmanship, yet people pay top dollar to them.

One of the first questions I ask an instructor ive never trained with before is if they are willing to testify in court and backup what they are teaching. Might be worth starting a trend with that.

My experience has been that many instructors can't or really don't teach marksmanship. Stuff is boring, not fast, takes patience and practice. It requires very good diagnostic and analytical skills on the part of the instructor, and the communication skills to get their diagnostics appraisals across. Many places have crap for marksmanship standards, and don't even assess targets.

As far as court....forget willing to testify. How about has your training been court tested and in which ones. There are a metric ton of folks training in this industry who may be willing to testify, but are not going to be doing you any favors in a deposition or in front of a jury.

[orionz06]

There are a metric ton of folks training in this industry who may be willing to testify, but are not going to be doing you any favors in a deposition or in front of a jury.

This!

[LSP972]

My experience has been that many instructors can't or really don't teach marksmanship.

Indeed. But you cannot put all the blame on the instructors. The great bulk of my instructor experience has been with a captive audience; they were ordered to be there, and in many cases their continued employment depended upon their performance. THAT, with very few exceptions, is the only real motivator amongst those who haven't seen the elephant, BTW (I know you know this, DB. It was for the benefit of others reading the thread).

But when I began teaching regular citizens who were paying for the experience, the paradigm changed. Now, the students were not under any pressure, and if things weren't going their way, no prob, Bob. They either smiled and nodded (and continued to do it wrong/etc.) or just quit paying attention entirely. And as long as they don't become unsafe, I don't give a shit either. Didn't, I mean; I don't teach anyone anything anymore, except family members and a few select folks I care about who are interested in learning some things.

LL, I read the piece and I didn't pick up on any aggravation at a perceived lack of respect for the author, by the author. Then again, I was too busy agreeing with his portrayal of the current "training market".

.

[Dave J]

First, thanks. The comments in this thread that have been supportive, especially on a forum I'm pretty new to and from a board with a lot of really knowledgeable folks, has been fantastic.

That said, I'd love to have you. I would suppose, though, there are some equally qualified folks who would be a lot closer to you. That's part of what I'm addressing with the inefficient market. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you, but it seems that a lot of travel time and money could be saved if you could find the same content closer to home.

If time, please post or PM me with details. I have family in your neck of the woods, and am overdue for a visit anyway.

[voodoo_man]

My experience has been that many instructors can't or really don't teach marksmanship. Stuff is boring, not fast, takes patience and practice. It requires very good diagnostic and analytical skills on the part of the instructor, and the communication skills to get their diagnostics appraisals across. Many places have crap for marksmanship standards, and don't even assess targets.

As far as court....forget willing to testify. How about has your training been court tested and in which ones. There are a metric ton of folks training in this industry who may be willing to testify, but are not going to be doing you any favors in a deposition or in front of a jury.

They may not be doing you any favors, but there isnt exactly a "this worked in court" law class taught my a lawyer in response to shooting. In LE we have a pretty good metric that goes upside down sometimes but is reliable for the most part.

For ccw guys, its pretty difficult to really put a finger on what works and what doesnt in court, especially since in some states you would be allowed to do something that will land you in jail in othet states.

[BehindBlueI's]

My experience has been that many instructors can't or really don't teach marksmanship. Stuff is boring, not fast, takes patience and practice. It requires very good diagnostic and analytical skills on the part of the instructor, and the communication skills to get their diagnostics appraisals across. Many places have crap for marksmanship standards, and don't even assess targets.

As far as court....forget willing to testify. How about has your training been court tested and in which ones. There are a metric ton of folks training in this industry who may be willing to testify, but are not going to be doing you any favors in a deposition or in front of a jury.

I can only tell people what I've seen prosecuted, what has not been prosecuted, and why. I try to explain bright line, fuzzy area, bright line as far as 'good shoot' vs 'bad shoot' and the like. I use real examples to illustrate it, and will say what factors the screening prosecutor considered.

I'd also add, I don't do handgun training. I don't think I'm to the level of handgun proficiency where I have any business training others in that regard, although frankly in most open enrollment classes just a grasp of grip fundamentals would help most people out tremendously.

I'm also just using myself as an example, I'm not soliciting for students. I have no idea when we'll have time to run the class again. I sincerely appreciate the people who've reached out to me, and if you find yourself in Indiana, PM me and I'd be willing to just sit down and talk about some of the lessons involved in working the cases I've worked. If you learn something, buy me a cheeseburger and we're square. I just want the information out there, I'm not trying to make a living at this, and I don't have a brand to sell.

[MVS]

I can only tell people what I've seen prosecuted, what has not been prosecuted, and why. I try to explain bright line, fuzzy area, bright line as far as 'good shoot' vs 'bad shoot' and the like. I use real examples to illustrate it, and will say what factors the screening prosecutor considered.

I'd also add, I don't do handgun training. I don't think I'm to the level of handgun proficiency where I have any business training others in that regard, although frankly in most open enrollment classes just a grasp of grip fundamentals would help most people out tremendously.

I'm also just using myself as an example, I'm not soliciting for students. I have no idea when we'll have time to run the class again. I sincerely appreciate the people who've reached out to me, and if you find yourself in Indiana, PM me and I'd be willing to just sit down and talk about some of the lessons involved in working the cases I've worked. If you learn something, buy me a cheeseburger and we're square. I just want the information out there, I'm not trying to make a living at this, and I don't have a brand to sell.
Bit of a thread drift.

Folks, while BBI and I have had our disagreements on another forum over usually small things, I am impressed and very much appreciate the contribution he makes to help otherwise clueless people become informed with good solid real life observations. He doesn't have to put this info out there, and the majority of people in his position don't.

[Dagga Boy]

LSP972-Yep, and when given the choice of ball and dummy drills and bullseye targets versus push ups on AK's, swat rolls, explosions and zombie targets, and they win in today's world. Especially, if learning high speed shooting with real commandos. The hard thing for me was deciding that it is not worth wanting those folks as students. It is frustrating to watch folks doing things wrong. Now, like many other things in the world, I just don't care. Want to do a shoot house with a bunch of folks who have not mastered basic marksmanship or gun handling shooting around you....great, enjoy the experience.

Vman-the fact is there are a ton of folks with a lot of YouTube material that attorney's would have a field day with in court. Also, I have had the reasonable standard of use of force with many folks, and it is surprising how many do not grasp the basics. Also, the amount of crap spewed in classes is obscene. Every time a "former/active cop" telsls someone to pull a body in the house if you shoot them outside, God kills liters of puppies. The former mil folks discussing rules of engagement for people in the US, or discussing wound ballistics when many (outside a very small group) have only experienced wounding mechanisms by FMJ/Ball ammunition. There is a ton of folks out there that could do great harm when talking to an investigator, or in a deposition on your behalf.

Another observation is that many folks now want to train with a certain personality and getting an autographed certificate as the goal rather than actually train and learn something. Customer driven market, and many are capitalizing on that. Good for them, welcome to America.

[JSGlock34]

My experience has been that many instructors can't or really don't teach marksmanship. Stuff is boring, not fast, takes patience and practice. It requires very good diagnostic and analytical skills on the part of the instructor, and the communication skills to get their diagnostics appraisals across. Many places have crap for marksmanship standards, and don't even assess targets.

Absolutely. In my experience, one of the key factors in quality marksmanship training is class size (though I could just as easily drop the word 'marksmanship' from that sentence and it will continue to hold true). It is one of the reasons why I recommend instructors like Ernest Langdon, who cap their class sizes so they can focus on individuals. Some of the 'big name' instructors can have 25+ shooters on the firing line - you're just not getting a lot of individual attention and coaching in those settings.

The more I think about the article, the more I dislike the fact that the author appears to present a binary solution set. Whether he intends to or not, he draws a black and white contrast between 'Tier One credentials' and the 'unaccredited', whereas in reality there is a wide spectrum in-between that includes a great deal of quality instruction. But possessing Tier One credentials does not necessarily convey the ability to instruct effectively or apply best training practices. Tier One personalties who would meet the author's criteria are among those that hold training courses with over 25 students on the line - perhaps the curriculum is well vetted but how effective is that setting in transferring the knowledge to students? How much individual attention is a student getting in these classes? Just because an instructor has these credentials does not mean that instructor is immune from holding a 'tactical entertainment' class.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Great thread. 3 comments:

1. One can grow a beard for other reasons. Mine is in accord with my intellectual status in the professoriate and thinking shaving is pain. Also counter culture rebellion in my youth.
2. Givens is a great instructor. He picked up a booboo of mine that others didn't and greatly improved my marksmanship.
3. In firearms education and other kinds of education - folks don't want to get a bad grade. That may lead instructors to praise crappy performance and tolerate tactical wannabees. Most of the instructors I've had - tend to shut down that kind of talk. I have lots of certificates - this is a function of printers and Staples.

[TCinVA]

Absolutely. In my experience, one of the key factors in quality marksmanship training is class size (though I could just as easily drop the word 'marksmanship' from that sentence and it will continue to hold true). It is one of the reasons why I recommend instructors like Ernest Langdon, who cap their class sizes so they can focus on individuals. Some of the 'big name' instructors can have 25+ shooters on the firing line - you're just not getting a lot of individual attention and coaching in those settings.

The more I think about the article, the more I dislike the fact that the author appears to present a binary solution set. Whether he intends to or not, he draws a black and white contrast between 'Tier One credentials' and the 'unaccredited', whereas in reality there is a wide spectrum in-between that includes a great deal of quality instruction. But possessing Tier One credentials does not necessarily convey the ability to instruct effectively or apply best training practices. Tier One personalties who would meet the author's criteria are among those that hold training courses with over 25 students on the line - perhaps the curriculum is well vetted but how effective is that setting in transferring the knowledge to students? How much individual attention is a student getting in these classes? Just because an instructor has these credentials does not mean that instructor is immune from holding a 'tactical entertainment' class.

I'm beyond my limit with all this "tier one" nonsense.

Reality:

Everyone who was legitimately in a Tier 1 unit isn't necessarily a good shooter.
Everyone who was legitimately in a Tier 1 unit isn't necessarily a good teacher.
Everyone who was legitimately in a Tier 1 unit isn't necessarily a good resource for the realities of your UOF constraints.
Everyone who was legitimately in a Tier 1 unit isn't necessarily a good human being.

Everyone who has legitimately won a competitive title isn't necessarily a well-rounded shooter.
Everyone who has legitimately won a competitive title isn't necessarily a good teacher.
Everyone who has legitimately won a competitive title isn't necessarily a good resource for the realities of your UOF constraints.
Everyone who has legitimately won a competitive title isn't necessarily a good resource for the other important aspects of self defense.
Everyone who has legitimately won a competitive title isn't necessarily a good human being.

Lots of people out there "instructing" are doing so without having first really learned how to be a student.
Lots of people out there "instructing" are doing so without having first come to grips with how much they don't know.
Lots of people out there "instructing" are doing so with a thimble's worth of depth.
Lots of people out there "instructing" are doing so by covering their suck with TACTICAL!!!!!
Lots of people out there "instructing" are a squawking parrot incapable of doing anything but loudly repeating something they heard somebody else say.

You want to know how to gauge a good instructor? Use the Givens test. Tom wasn't in a Tier 1 unit, to the best of my knowledge. Tom doesn't have his own action figure. Tom doesn't have a record-setting social media campaign.

All he has is a background of dealing with violent criminals, a track record of success in competition, a track record of success as an expert witness, and tens of thousands of satisfied customers...a chunk of whom have had to shoot bad guys and have done so with 95% accuracy and no criminal convictions.

In other words, there is quite a bit involved in being a good instructor. The proof is in the performance.

[Surf]

As a guy who was in involved in the early days of social media and online content I have a huge insight on how the social media or online content contingent grew to what it is today. I know very well how it works and how many use it to accomplish whatever their online goals are and how they may relate that content to their real world activities. This includes valid social media content, but also includes slimy ways of perhaps reproducing online content without proper context and personal expert knowledge base to go with it. Could I have easily parlayed that social media content to a successful private venture that included civilians? Yes, easily, but it was not my thing at that time, still is not. However social media can be a positive for business and I would not discount this in the future, just done with professionalism in mind. Also with still being active on our teams, to also being very closely related to the industry, I have some trepidation about how to reply to this thread topic as it could be very offensive to some individuals who are in "the business".

I have never wanted any relationship of my online content / notoriety to bleed over to my everyday life. Even when I traveled to events, I never mentioned who I was in relation to my online activity, unless if it was specifically to meet that individual who I may have made the connection with via social media. I say this because I travel and attend courses with the same concept of anonymity. Nevermind the social media stuff, but my position does often draw certain attention and I like to go into a course as just another guy in the class. Again not implying that I am anything special, as I am not, but I may be treated differently, either in a flattering way, or a negative way and that can negatively affect the training. In fact I just attended 2 courses from 2 of THE most recognized names in the business and it was day 3 before one of the guys actually nailed down my job duty with my employer. The second guy in the other class, I never related who I was and I share a similar title on a couple of forums and we have interacted numerous times online. Hell I have met a couple of the SME's here in the past and I have not talked about it with them.

With this concept of anonymity in mind I have traveled coast to coast taking courses over the years, from LE, Military to civilian instructors. From major manufacturers, Major Local, State and Federal agencies, training organizations that are small to oversized, specialized units of agencies / branches of service. Basically seen pretty much everything from A-Z. I have been in more than my fair share of open enrollment courses but my training preference is a closed course pertaining to LE / Military. I pretty much won't take a course that is open unless if the trainer is on my "bucket list" so to speak and that is the only way to get together with them. Even then I will probably avoid it in the future.

Before I discuss why I dislike open enrollment I will back up a bit. I am sure we have all seen a proliferation of trainers develop over the years due to the surge in the markets demand for firearms training. This interest is a good thing. Unfortunately as the article mentions there are waaaaay more guys teaching topics that are above their heads, or at a level that is not commensurate with their own skills / knowledge base. Some are completely out of their lane, so to speak. Add the competitive factor of the current saturation of the market and you see some absolutely stupid shit. The bad is that many new shooters are easily influenced and have not done their homework properly before finding their own personal gurus, be it training companies or individual trainers.

Now if I move on to open enrollment. There is a reason that I keep student to instructor ratios at 5-7 students per instructor. It absolutely sickens me to see courses with 15-30 people and only the 1 instructor. Or maybe the course "host" who is "assisting" as an RSO, but who is mostly just dealing with logistics, in exchange for their "complimentary training slot(s)". The individual instruction, yep, is almost non-existent. I don't need a guy that is just going to tell me how to run a drill, show a quick demo (if that), that is usually half assed and then not give any feedback to the students on how to improve skills wise. What generally happens? Breeze through the fundamentals, because it isn't sexy or fun and quickly get to doing trigger masturbation with a loud and glorious bang, then stroke some student ego's, maybe do just the opposite in a sly way and give them a funny moniker or nickname, all so you get hired to come back and make another $15K for a couple days work.

Many courses are simply a way to say that "I trained with xxxxxxxx". It is often just a shooting orgy where the individual gets up close and personal with their man-crush trainer, swaps some cool stories, blasts a shit ton of rounds and finishes off the day with some lightly cooked cow carcass, cold beers and telling of more stories. The actual learning curve is almost non-existent at least as far as shooting goes. The individual attention to details is almost non-existent. The personal instruction, yep almost non-existent. Hell, for the money I paid for the brass fest and the class, we could have just skipped the shooting and got to the lightly cooked cow carcass, cold beer, cool stories and eyed up some of the local talent and dropped some dollars on them.

Don't misunderstand what I am saying as there are a ton of great trainers out there, just look at the ones who interact right here on this forum. I hope the need for training keeps up, because that means that people are still involved and interested in shooting and that supports the shooting sports world in general. As a student, perform the due diligence with the company or person you wish to train with. Even after that, keep an open mind as to what else is out there. If you have found "the best" and there is no need to look further, then it's time to take up golf or something else. Don't get into my kung-fu master is better than your's, because he isn't. Keep an open mind.


My experience has been that many instructors can't or really don't teach marksmanship. Stuff is boring, not fast, takes patience and practice. It requires very good diagnostic and analytical skills on the part of the instructor, and the communication skills to get their diagnostics appraisals across. Many places have crap for marksmanship standards, and don't even assess targets.Agreed. This is the majority of the issues, even in a "basic" or 101 level course that I see many instructors or outfits teaching.

Nyeti gets what follows but I am going to expound on what he is saying.

The biggest key to an instructor is one that is able to correctly diagnose a shooters issue as many issues have multiple possibilities as to what is causing it. This also means that there are numerous ways of being able to fix a student as there is no "one" solution to most problems. Most average instructors can't even make the appropriate diagnosis, much less fix the problem. With the heavily packed classes that do have top notch instructors, they are often over loaded with a low instructor to student ratio and there is not enough time to give enough personal attention. On Friday, we just concluded our first 2 weeks of what I consider "basic firearms" to guys who are "trying out". This past entire week was our basic rifle course. One entire week of irons only. 14 students, no less than 4 instructors present at any time working closely with them. Heavily based in fundamentals because fundamentals is everything in shooting. Now not many have the time or resources to commit to this, but some training groups / trainers need to keep the student / instructor ratio to a more appropriate level and give more attention to fundamentals. Yes I know many students just want a shooting orgy, but lets do them a favor also and teach them properly.

[Dagga Boy]

Outstanding post Surf.

[Tamara]

I would love to take this course.

I know, right? He's in my 'hood, too. Where do I sign up?

[rob_s]

I tend to agree with those that say it doesn't really matter. Provided you aren't learning/doing anything that's inherently unsafe to others (I really don't care if you come home from a course and put your gun to your temple, that's largely only you that's in danger), it probably doesn't really matter what you're learning, or not learning, because you're not ever going to need it anyway. Learned to breach a door wrong, or assault a fortified position wrong? Meh, you ain't doin that shit anyway, so how you do it is irrelevant.

That said, I also agree with those that pointed out that these people are all at least becoming/voting pro-2A, which is a good thing. Provided, of course, that they keep their mouth ps shut to the general public and don't become so enraptured that they turn others off.

My first training course was post-9/11 (exactly a year after, I think) but well before the impact that had on the training world. I've gone the cycle of falling for the BS, to seeing through the BS, to finally arrive at not really caring (or training, for that matter). As several here have pointed out, it's not really about the shooting or the defense anyway.

[MDS]

Does anyone want to talk about the difficulties and ineffeciences of a matching market place? Economics nerds out there? Anyone? Anyone?

Mind blown. Seems fair to say that much/most of what good people would propose to fix the training business - things like universal performance standards and meaningful instructor credentials - are all just ways to improve the mechanics of the matching market. But in a market where the product is so deeply tied to emotion and ego, the buyers don't want objective facts to dilute the subjective value of their investments. And the sellers don't want anything interfering with their ability to deliver that subjective value with minimum overhead. Buyers and sellers interested in objective value - like, say, actual improved odds in a violent encounter - almost seem like a shadow economy in this context.

Fascinating line of thought.

[rob_s]

If anything, the shadow economy is the student with a real need, and a matching instructor with relevant experience and teaching skills. For those making a living in the biz,maths entertrainment nature is a well established, and a known formula.

[mizer67]

I thought Surf's post was one of the best I've read on this topic.

I've been to a handful of classes (most of those I've attended) where the student to instructor ratio never dipped below 10 to 1. The classes were mostly just running through various range drills. I think the total number of words spoken to me by the instructor(s) was under 20 across the three classes. There's not much value gained for the dollars spent without some level of personal attention, in my opinion.

[LittleLebowski]

The more I think about the article, the more I dislike the fact that the author appears to present a binary solution set. Whether he intends to or not, he draws a black and white contrast between 'Tier One credentials' and the 'unaccredited', whereas in reality there is a wide spectrum in-between that includes a great deal of quality instruction. But possessing Tier One credentials does not necessarily convey the ability to instruct effectively or apply best training practices. Tier One personalties who would meet the author's criteria are among those that hold training courses with over 25 students on the line - perhaps the curriculum is well vetted but how effective is that setting in transferring the knowledge to students? How much individual attention is a student getting in these classes? Just because an instructor has these credentials does not mean that instructor is immune from holding a 'tactical entertainment' class.

Exactly.

[BehindBlueI's]

Mind blown. Seems fair to say that much/most of what good people would propose to fix the training business - things like universal performance standards and meaningful instructor credentials - are all just ways to improve the mechanics of the matching market. But in a market where the product is so deeply tied to emotion and ego, the buyers don't want objective facts to dilute the subjective value of their investments. And the sellers don't want anything interfering with their ability to deliver that subjective value with minimum overhead. Buyers and sellers interested in objective value - like, say, actual improved odds in a violent encounter - almost seem like a shadow economy in this context.

Fascinating line of thought.

Another thing we'd have to consider is that not every student wants the same thing. Some people want "one stop shopping" and learn everything from one guy. I, personally, am to the point I'm seeking subject matter experts in specific things. I want to be a better shooter. I can learn this from upper end competition shooters, among others. I don't really care what that person has to say about pre-attack indicators or "how things work in the street" because he's probably playing telephone or read it on the Internet. I care what that person has to say about recoil management, grip fundamentals, etc. He is a demonstrated expert in that arena.

Similarly, I've had training from this guy:

http://spottinglies.com/default.aspx?menuitemid=159&menugroup=Public

That's great training for street survival. It involves zero handgun work, or weapons work of any kind. It's all about observation and reaction, seeing an attack forming and getting ahead of the curve in formulating your counteroffensive. I don't know or care how good of a shot Dr. Rhodes is (although I do know he's a rodeo clown as a hobby...) but I believe he knows his stuff in this realm. The fact he's not a Grand Master SWAT Scuba K9 Operator 7 Gun Champion is irrelevant. He's got something to teach me.

Everyone brings their own value to the marketplace of training. The difficulty is, especially for the low information consumer, is learning how to tell what that value is. When King Paper Puncher explains Dem Streetz, is he credible? When Tactical Timmy is recounting his squad's counter-narcotics dynamic entries, does that have any bearing on you getting robbed for your cell phone at the bus stop?

It would be fascinating to see some standardization, someone like the NRA would probably have to be the push behind it, to quantify and qualify subjects of interest and relevant instruction.

[PPGMD]

The more I think about the article, the more I dislike the fact that the author appears to present a binary solution set. Whether he intends to or not, he draws a black and white contrast between 'Tier One credentials' and the 'unaccredited'...

Which is why I mention that the creds people think matter really don't IMO.

The guy that I train with most regularly is a USPSA National Champion, USPSA GM, a Ranger, and a good instructor.

Of those, only three matter to me, he knows how to shoot and win, and knows how to instruct. Heck I didn't know he was a Ranger until I friended him on Bookface.

[Kevin B.]

Personally, I believe it is up to me to identify my training needs and properly vet the instructor. The ability to effectively communicate is part of the vetting process.

At this point, I divide instructors into two categories; technical & tactical.

Technical instructors have a fairly low bar to get over; they need to perform as well or better than I do as it pertains to the course material.

Tactical instructors need to have the following:
• legitimate background applying the material they are teaching in the real world.
• be a graduate of an appropriate instructor school or equivalent (with multiple schools being preferred)
• belong to an organization that has a track record of success in the area being taught
• been tasked by their organization as an instructor.

That effectively eliminates a lot of people but I am rarely disappointed.

[BehindBlueI's]

Technical instructors have a fairly low bar to get over; they need to perform as well or better than I do as it pertains to the course material.


Do you think Olympic gymnastics couches can perform better than their students, or ever could? What about champion boxing coaches?

[Kevin B.]

Do you think Olympic gymnastics couches can perform better than their students, or ever could? What about champion boxing coaches?

No. But they would meet my criteria for tactical instructors, so I would listen to what they had to say about my back handspring or my right cross.

[BehindBlueI's]

No. But they would meet my criteria for tactical instructors, so I would listen to what they had to say about my back handspring or my right cross.

Right, but these people are technical instructors. A boxing coach who teaches you how to punch may have had a lousy defense and been a horrendous boxer...but a great puncher. You can learn the technical aspects of punching even though he's not a better boxer. Of course, real champion level athletes have teams of people who all specialize in some minute part of the sport.

I'm just saying I've learned from people who I can out shoot in a game. I'm not saying take classes from someone who can't hit the broad side of a barn while standing inside it, but even someone who can't outperform you may have things to teach you.

[Kevin B.]

Right, but these people are technical instructors. A boxing coach who teaches you how to punch may have had a lousy defense and been a horrendous boxer...but a great puncher. You can learn the technical aspects of punching even though he's not a better boxer. Of course, real champion level athletes have teams of people who all specialize in some minute part of the sport.

Again, it is up to me to vet the boxing coach. If he is a great puncher and I want to work on my punch, he may be my guy. Probably not going to be my guy if I want to work on my defense or to provide me general instruction on boxing.

Again, my way of looking at the problem. The beauty of my system for selecting instructors is that it only has to make sense to me. :cool:


I'm just saying I've learned from people who I can out shoot in a game. I'm not saying take classes from someone who can't hit the broad side of a barn while standing inside it, but even someone who can't outperform you may have things to teach you.

No arguement. I have attended plenty of training where, though I was a better shooter, I learned something. In some cases, plenty. I have also attended training where the salient take-away was not to do anything that particular instructor advocated.

But that was when I was fortunate to have significant resources/time to put against training. These days, that is not the case. I would never be arrogant enough to suggest that the local NRA Instructor does not have something to teach me. The issue is whether the Saturday and 200 rounds I commit to his class could be put to better use elsewhere. In almost every case, though not all, the answer is "Yes."

Do I risk potentially missing out on quality training? Absolutely. But I avoid wasting limited training time and/or resources.

[RevolverRob]

You can learn from almost anything. Even if it's just how to "not do that". But the difference is you should be paying for a proper education not "how not to do something". This is a beef I have with many of my academic colleagues, who invest too little of their time in teaching. They fall back on used an abused rhetoric that is simply a reflection of their skewed priorities. Me, I learned a long time ago - credentials mean jack and shit. It's results that tell you something. From how students do in terms of grasping and understanding fundamentals, to the application of them in more complex, real world, scenarios. I'm not just talking about shooting - I'm talking about everything.

I look at student's results. From selecting a graduate advisor (I picked someone who'd had a few students already, and whose students were categorically exceptional in some way or another, and whose students had jobs similar to what I want for myself), to select a gun-school instructor (I pick someone who reflects my personal principles, who challenges me, and whose students have had results similar to what I want for myself). In that realm, I wouldn't pick a class with Travis Haley or Vickers pretty much ever. Nyeti, Tom Givens, Southnarc, Langdon, Todd - these guys are focused on what I am focused on. Accurate technique, under duress, with a real world application of the fundamentals to help solve a problem (which doesn't always involve shooting someone).

To my mind you can identify the core basics of great shooting right here, without the need for credential dick-measuring. Darryl and Wayne focus on fundamentals, seeing the sights, working the gun, but also recognize shooting isn't all that's going on. Additionally, they challenge you to take those fundamentals and apply them to real-world challenges. Tom, Lynn, and crew focus on the same things. Excellent fundamentals and challenging marksmanship drills, combined with real world scenarios. You need only look at Rangemaster's record for students involved in shootings to see the success on their walls, it ain't from trophies or participation certificates. With Ernest and Todd, you really start to work in speed/gaming components (not that HiTs or Rangemaster neglect speed), but both men are about running guns fast for accurate hits, also these are the guys I'd go straight to for specialized work running DA/SA semi-autos and for challenging drills like FAST. Then you have Craig and the ECQC-type coursework. Which brings together your fundamentals with startling real-world, up-close, scenarios patterned after what we commonly see in criminal assaults. Add those together and you have a hell of a good package. (Which is why Paul-E-Palooza is so amazing and why I regret not going this year). Seriously - HiTs, Rangemaster, Langdon Tactical, Shivworks. That's a great curriculum that needs only be aided by a good tactical/wilderness first aid class for preparedness the world over. These guys all have their credentials, but more importantly their curricula have proven to work and work again and work again and again and again. Results matter more than you creds.

I see this "we need credentials" cry - as a whine by someone who is relying on credentials, not results, to draw in students. The social-media aspect is certainly part of it. Folks definitively want their "Celebrity Range Time". Without realizing that their range time means nothing, if it doesn't fit their goals and desires. To me, if my choice was spending the afternoon with Tier 1 OP-ER-RATE-OR learning to run a carbine or the dude at the range who shoots a Colt Delta Elite and chews the centers out of targets at 25 yards I think I know which one I want to work with.

-Rob

[Chance]

Side stepping the discussion on training: I'm still kind of lost as to what the author's objective with that article was. The entire thing can be summarized as, "Media creates distortion, and social media is especially troublesome." To this I would reply, "Yes" and then shrug.

He's not providing insight into a phenomenon that's observed in hundreds of fields, which is: the Internet can be a bitch in terms of SNR. He put together a very verbose rant, took a swipe at people who aren't "qualified", then said, "By the way, I'm qualified, and here's a link to my company."

[rob_s]

Side stepping the discussion on training: I'm still kind of lost as to what the author's objective with that article was. The entire thing can be summarized as, "Media creates distortion, and social media is especially troublesome." To this I would reply, "Yes" and then shrug.

He's not providing insight into a phenomenon that's observed in hundreds of fields, which is: the Internet can be a bitch in terms of SNR. He put together a very verbose rant, took a swipe at people who aren't "qualified", then said, "By the way, I'm qualified, and here's a link to my company."

That's one way of viewing it, especially to those that maybe already reached some of the conclusions. When I reposted it on the facebook (ironic!) I commented that, at best, it seems to be preaching to the choir. But, it sparked some discussion here, and may have gotten some folks to think about the issue.

But, I'm trying to ignore the source (I intentionally did NOT look up his own credentials or company) and focus on the content. Specifically with the members of this forum who I know generally consider themselves a cut above.

I can't really find fault with Kevin's criteria. yes, every pro golfer has a coach, every pro boxer, every pro gymnast. But, as he pointed out, it's his system and only has to work for him, and it's on him if he misses out on some secret sauce that only comes from someone that can't (or, didn't). In this saturated market, I doubt that anyone has the lock on any secret sauce, so whatever one might get from a nobody is unlikely to be anything better than what they can get from a tier 0, all else (training ability, proximity, cost & logistics, etc.) being equal.

Where I think a lot of people might want to "settle" is on the logistics side. if the only place that real-deal, face-shooting, GM-level, super-ninja instructors are instructing is 2,000 miles and $1,000 away, then many people might start to settle for someone closer with lesser creds. What I would like to see is more of those type instructors slanting towards basic marksmanship than fake-ninja (if you've never shot anyone, and you have a "defensive" course in your course list, IMO you're doing it wrong), but as has been mentioned here that's not what sells.

I ran a local monthly carbine drills night and match on and off for something like 10 years. Maybe 7 or 8? At any rate, in all cases, when we did things that worked on basic skills I might hear 5% of the participants cheer and 50%+ jeer, regardless of the fact that most of that 50% couldn't achieve the stated standards. Have them all roll around on the ground and scream "contact!" at them and the ratio would reverse.

[BehindBlueI's]

(if you've never shot anyone, and you have a "defensive" course in your course list, IMO you're doing it wrong),

There's plenty of thugs with a notch or two on their gun belt. That doesn't mean they know anything, and vice versa. Everybody can have what ever criteria they want, but having had to pull a trigger is not one of mine any more than I need someone who's stabbed someone to death to teach me knife fighting.

[Dagga Boy]

A couple thoughts. I agree with a lot of you.

Kevin....I use similar criteria.

Whoever was talking about instructor abilities.....I for one can say I do not shoot better now than I did 25 years ago. Age, eyes, injury and arthritis have helped that. IF I had known what I know now about shooting when I was 25.....look out world. The key is it took 25 years of serious "studentry" in the art of gunfighting to know what I do now and I like to be able to pass that on. I would prefer to be passing that on to the folks in the agency I worked for, but that was not in the cards, so the public is stuck with me. Also, in regards to Revolver Rob's kind words. People seem to just do stuff different based on their experiences. Based on my experiences and those of Wayne and the people who have blessed us with mentoring, we figured out that we really couldn't prepare for the chaos and unique nature of domestic application of lethal force. Way too many factors and variables, and those are problem solving exercises. We simply determined that the one thing that was consistent as a solution to many of the problems encountered was that those that could rapidly execute the fundamentals of shooting at speed and in a rational state win fights. The goal is that. Find a means for folks to execute the fundamental and stay in a rational state in conditions that are often not imaginable. We want those fundamentals to be simple and easy and at a over learned subconscious level so the brain is free to deal with some extremely complex activities going on. Funny, several other folks with deep records of their students dominating fights do almost the exact same thing and use very similar methodology. What we see happen is folks who do not have the deep records, the years of data, the vast experience levels on their own doing what you are trying to convey (which is why real world experience is important when getting into the actually shooting other humans aspect of this when teaching truly fighting with a firearm), seem to need to be different to cut out their share of the market. Social media and modern marketing are a means to do this. We also have a huge issue with honesty. Some people simply want to hit the trigger on the range with uber-commandos and gun celebrity's. If that is what you are about, just be honest about it. I went to the Richard Petty driving school (and kicked ass)....because the King was one of my all time favorite drivers, it was cool, I got to wear a helmet and a real nomex driving suit, got to drive a real NASCAR car on a real high bank NASCAR track. Did I learn some stuff. Yep. Would I have gotten some better practical skills elsewhere for street driving, yep. Would I have enjoyed it as much as playing race car driver and crushing all the other little wussy's in fantasy camp with me......not a frigging chance. I can be honest. I learned cool stuff, came away with a far better appreciation of NASCAR and learned that what I learned chasing crooks in high speed pursuits was a better preparation for doing well at fantasy camp than the accountants, IT and business guys there. As far as day to day street driving....been to far more applicable training at the San Bernardino County Sheriff's EVOC school.

Instructor ratio's. We use multiple instructors with different strengths. It is not as cost effective or profitable....but it is far better for the students. I am blessed to teach with a marksmanship and assessment guru. I have been to a lot of classes with stellar instructors, and Wayne is the best I have seen at assessment and teaching marksmanship. This free's me up to pay attention to gun handling issues that are my passion. Students get people looking at them and their performance from different angles and looking for different things. How a single instructor can run more than about 8 by themselves is baffling to me if they are actually instructing versus running a line.

[rob_s]

There's plenty of thugs with a notch or two on their gun belt. That doesn't mean they know anything, and vice versa. Everybody can have what ever criteria they want, but having had to pull a trigger is not one of mine any more than I need someone who's stabbed someone to death to teach me knife fighting.

While having shot someone doesn't mean they know anything, NOT having shot someone means there's at least one thing you don't.

[BehindBlueI's]

While having shot someone doesn't mean they know anything, NOT having shot someone means there's at least one thing you don't.

As far as I know, our range LT has never shot anyone. He does respond to every police action, talks to the investigators, surveys the crime scene, etc. He then puts together simunition versions for the next in-service. We've got a real good record, especially if you remove ambushes were not much could have been done other than "don't be there". Like I said, you can have whatever criteria you like but when multiple people over many years trained by someone credit that someone's training as being instrumental in them winning, I don't care how many notches they have on their belt. They've proven they can crank out shooters who win in the real world, and that's plenty good enough for me.

Plus, you know, its free and I sorta have to go to keep my job. :D

[voodoo_man]

As far as I know, our range LT has never shot anyone. He does respond to every police action, talks to the investigators, surveys the crime scene, etc. He then puts together simunition versions for the next in-service. We've got a real good record, especially if you remove ambushes were not much could have been done other than "don't be there". Like I said, you can have whatever criteria you like but when multiple people over many years trained by someone credit that someone's training as being instrumental in them winning, I don't care how many notches they have on their belt. They've proven they can crank out shooters who win in the real world, and that's plenty good enough for me.

Plus, you know, its free and I sorta have to go to keep my job. :D

I like your LT.

[Dagga Boy]

I am not a believer either as having to have actually been in a shooting to understand the dynamics, but you should have extensive experience in the same problems that lead to them. In some cases, some guys are not in shootings due to lack of trying, it is due to being too good. Most LE shootings are a result of a tactical error (often the job produces the error...like driving a 100 mph to get in a pistol fight with people with rifles when the tactically correct thing to do is drive the other way...nature of the job). Some folks are really good at getting ahead of things and avoid needing to finish the trigger press. When you have dealt with thousands of evil felons successfully and just haven't gotten to dump one....doesn't make you a failure in my book and there is a lot of learning to be had. On the other hand.......having L/E jobs with no felon contact, or a citizen with no real interaction with bad people, keep your expertise on felon behavior and what you would do to yourself.

[JHC]

I am not a believer either as having to have actually been in a shooting to understand the dynamics, but you should have extensive experience in the same problems that lead to them. In some cases, some guys are not in shootings due to lack of trying, it is due to being too good. Most LE shootings are a result of a tactical error (often the job produces the error...like driving a 100 mph to get in a pistol fight with people with rifles when the tactically correct thing to do is drive the other way...nature of the job). Some folks are really good at getting ahead of things and avoid needing to finish the trigger press. When you have dealt with thousands of evil felons successfully and just haven't gotten to dump one....doesn't make you a failure in my book and there is a lot of learning to be had. On the other hand.......having L/E jobs with no felon contact, or a citizen with no real interaction with bad people, keep your expertise on felon behavior and what you would do to yourself.

Agree. I would take a class from a pure shooter for marksmanship but if it's a class about fighting I want a teacher who has fought.

[BehindBlueI's]

I like your LT.

Me too. He was my LT on the street for awhile before he took over the range. He's 100% copper's cop. If he called me right now and asked "Would you..." I'd say yes and head his way, he can fill me in enroute.


I am not a believer either as having to have actually been in a shooting to understand the dynamics, but you should have extensive experience in the same problems that lead to them. In some cases, some guys are not in shootings due to lack of trying, it is due to being too good. Most LE shootings are a result of a tactical error (often the job produces the error...like driving a 100 mph to get in a pistol fight with people with rifles when the tactically correct thing to do is drive the other way...nature of the job). Some folks are really good at getting ahead of things and avoid needing to finish the trigger press. When you have dealt with thousands of evil felons successfully and just haven't gotten to dump one....doesn't make you a failure in my book and there is a lot of learning to be had. On the other hand.......having L/E jobs with no felon contact, or a citizen with no real interaction with bad people, keep your expertise on felon behavior and what you would do to yourself.

Concur 100%.

[41magfan]

As far as I know, our range LT has never shot anyone. He does respond to every police action, talks to the investigators, surveys the crime scene, etc. He then puts together simunition versions for the next in-service. We've got a real good record, especially if you remove ambushes were not much could have been done other than "don't be there". Like I said, you can have whatever criteria you like but when multiple people over many years trained by someone credit that someone's training as being instrumental in them winning, I don't care how many notches they have on their belt. They've proven they can crank out shooters who win in the real world, and that's plenty good enough for me.

Plus, you know, its free and I sorta have to go to keep my job. :D

I could have lawfully shot at least three people in my 24 years, but I had such a tactical advantage in two of those situations I simply elected to do otherwise. Several people that I've trained have been involved in fatal and non-fatal shootings and they all reported back to me that what I exposed them to in training was relevant. One even said it was EXACTLY like I told him it would be.

If you've looked through or over the sights enough times when the decision to shoot was simply hinging on a furtive movement or continued non-compliance, putting a few pounds of pressure on the trigger is pretty much just an administrative function.

In the over whelming majority of the shootings that I'm personally familiar with, the officer(s) prevailed simply by the grace of God and/or the fact the guy they tangled with was pretty much inept. When most COPS run across someone determined and/or squared away, everyone involved usually sheds some blood.

I realize it's not a perfect analogy, but there are a lot of Purple Heart Medals awarded to folks you couldn't melt and pour into a fight, but they still enjoy the same recognition as those that earned them honorably.

[TGS]

Where I think a lot of people might want to "settle" is on the logistics side. if the only place that real-deal, face-shooting, GM-level, super-ninja instructors are instructing is 2,000 miles and $1,000 away, then many people might start to settle for someone closer with lesser creds. What I would like to see is more of those type instructors slanting towards basic marksmanship than fake-ninja (if you've never shot anyone, and you have a "defensive" course in your course list, IMO you're doing it wrong), but as has been mentioned here that's not what sells.

I have to disagree with you here.

John Murphy is a perfect example of someone who has never shot anyone (or at least doesn't make it a public fact), and synthesizes and presents defensive material and coursework extremely well for his intended audience; an average citizen with a CCW.

Most LE firearms/tactics instructors have never shot anyone.

The same can be said for a peace-time military cadre.

[Dagga Boy]

I have no idea how many folks I could have legally shot. Had I done everyone I could have, I d have Hamer numbers. I have made the decision to shoot on at least 7 different folks where I was fully on the trigger and pressing it with intent to finish that press. I only finished the press on two. What I can comment on that those who have not made these decisions is what time does, and bodily reactions and inputs. I think you will find most of the people who have done this a lot tend to be the least concerned with working at maximum speed because we have a different outlook on what fast is. With that said, I learned as much from those I was pressing on and did not finish and those I did, including figuring out a very specific benefit to hammer fired guns. When I teach my class on the training habits of highly effective gunfighters, one of the things clarified early is the separation between lucky and skill and we only look at skill based input in trying to figure out what the dominant winners are doing. We can learn a ton from these people, but my key was how I was getting the insight and data that may be very different from others.

So....there is some things to learn from those who have been in shootings, but it is part of the big picture, not the entire picture.

[John Hearne]

Agree. I would take a class from a pure shooter for marksmanship but if it's a class about fighting I want a teacher who has fought.

Why that is a nice thought, it doesn't mean that they can convey what allowed them to win. They may not have won based on skill, but because they sucked less than their opponent.

I'd rather train with someone with a proven track record of teaching others to win fights.

[SLG]

Why that is a nice thought, it doesn't mean that they can convey what allowed them to win. They may not have won based on skill, but because they sucked less than their opponent.

I'd rather train with someone with a proven track record of teaching others to win fights.

Couldn't agree more. I would never hold myself up as a great warrior, but I have successfully taught dozens of people to win some pretty challenging gunfights. Against domestic criminals in the U.S., and actual terrorists overseas. Those are some of the things I am most proud of.

[scw2]

With that said, I learned as much from those I was pressing on and did not finish and those I did, including figuring out a very specific benefit to hammer fired guns.

Is this something you'd be able/willing to clarify? Would be interested since I'm learning on a hammer fired gun currently. Thanks!

[Dagga Boy]

Is this something you'd be able/willing to clarify? Would be interested since I'm learning on a hammer fired gun currently. Thanks!

Sure. Looking back I realized that I could not really distinguish trigger weight in the shootings I was in and simply remember movement and being conscious of trying to press smoothly but didn't remember much on tactile feedback. This is why I have placed such importance on a subconscious auto-pilot trigger press (I learned that "overlearning" is what we were doing in training this way from John Hearne who deciphered the science to why we were seeing what we were seeing). The other thing I noted is that while tactile input was dull, visual acuity was through the roof and hyper sensitive to details. One of those details was being able to see the hammer moving. I attributed a smooth trigger press to being able to see the trigger press and confirm it was smooth visually rather than tacitly. I called some older cops from the revolver days who were in multiple shootings and also confirmed this phenomenon once I pointed it out, at least on the first shot. This is the kind of stuff you can learn from actual events and experiencing an actual shooting, or multiple events that a pattern sticks out. It is minutia stuff that wouldn't detract much from a solid instructor who hasn't been in several lethal force situations, but it is indicative of some of the things you can pick up that will be different from others.

[BWT]

I'm debating contributing anything because I'm woefully unqualified to talk about anything here.

But, I can't sleep and I think I have some thoughts to share on this.

I've come to a simple realization like others have outlined. I think it's important to practice the skill that you're most likely to use/need and to train accordingly. Being a civilian with a CWP; I think that pistol-oriented instructors and people with strong backgrounds in concealment are valuable for me. Will I ever take a carbine class? Maybe. But I think that should be the last skill I should develop realistically. Not saying it isn't fun, but just being honest.

A simple statistic that I can't cite that I've heard before is that many shootings occur with one hand; which means handguns. That $2,000+ SBR is a wonderful weapon that will be in the same place it is now more than likely if I'm ever called upon to shoot a gun in violence. Also, comparatively a handgun versus a rifle; the skill required to shoot a handgun is much higher versus a rifle.

I've also realized being back in college for the last two years that there are incredibly capable people that are simply not good teachers. Teaching is a skill set of it's own, and I think a lot of people forget that.

My elementary evaluation of the situation is to look at individuals who have a solid background building programs and teaching, shooting, and shooting the way that I need to.

Honestly, I'm thinking if I get a chance a class with Mike Pannone doing Covert Carry would be great given his background in the development of the FAMS program and his skill set in shooting currently (USPSA, etc.), perhaps Tom Givens (if he's ever in the area), nyeti, Chuck Haggard, or even Scott Warren but I don't believe he does open enrollment classes (FBI HRT but before that he was a High School Teacher (IIRC from his Ballistic Radio interview); he was an individual capable of teaching and managing groups of willing and unwilling individuals and shot in one of the best organizations in the world). I'd like Todd G because of his doctorate level of education (let's be honest odds are a lawyer can communicate well verbally), skill, and years of experience but I don't think he'll ever teach again, or Ernest Langdon because of his achievements and his time as an instructor with many different organizations within the government and private sector. Southnarc would be good as well, but anyway I digress.

I think my next best firearm investment is a Glock 26 or Glock 43 (perhaps a J-Frame) because I'm not carrying enough these days; trying a different carry method and finding some solid concealment oriented pistol instruction. That's my biggest thing; I want to be more conscious and regular in my carry habits.

I would look at Tier 1 shooters and other top shooters like Pro Athletes; there are some wonderfully skilled Athletes out there that can do things I simply can't. But not all of those guys are cut out for a coaching job.

Food for thought.

Also, don't judge everybody in a beard. Some people have baby faces. My wife loves me in a beard, and started dating me after I grew one; I've kept it ever since. I'll take the snears at growing a beard if it makes my wife happy. I still don't own a plate carrier or any 5.11 stuff.

God Bless,

Brandon

[rob_s]

Why that is a nice thought, it doesn't mean that they can convey what allowed them to win. They may not have won based on skill, but because they sucked less than their opponent.

I'd rather train with someone with a proven track record of teaching others to win fights.

The idea that one must have been involved in violence in order to be able to properly teach how to deal with violence is not mutually exclusive of teaching ability. I don't know why people insist on being simplistic about this. Perhaps it is those who have never seen violence but believe that their own teaching ability makes up for it that are being defensive about their own choices.

To be clear, what I'm talking about is the accountant or engineer or lawyer or gas station clerk that goes and takes a bunch of classes, and then starts teaching "gun fighting" without any exposure to gunfights, or knowledge of gunfights, or relevant experience outside of those classes and what they have read on the Internet. I don't care how well you think you can teach, that doesn't make up for lack of experience.

What I don't get is, many of those same people are good to excellent shooters. Why, then must they create courses based on fantasy rather than simply teaching to their skill level and experiences?

[TGS]

I don't know why people insist on being simplistic about this.

I think some of us feel the same way pertaining to your stance on the matter.

Some people can teach defensive tactics, some people can't.

When a well respected shooting instructor who used to be on this forum tried to delve into DT in one of his courses, specific to close quarters/hand-to-hand stuff, it was pretty apparent he didn't know what he was talking about. It was a huge turn off, especially when he tried to be snarky about it.

I get it.

But that doesn't mean others cannot teach good material based on reality, not fantasy. Will the quality of the course be commensurate to SouthNarc, Givens, ect? Probably not.....but that doesn't mean they can't teach solid foundation skills/mindset as it pertains to defensive scenarios.

[orionz06]

The idea that one must have been involved in violence in order to be able to properly teach how to deal with violence is not mutually exclusive of teaching ability. I don't know why people insist on being simplistic about this. Perhaps it is those who have never seen violence but believe that their own teaching ability makes up for it that are being defensive about their own choices.

To be clear, what I'm talking about is the accountant or engineer or lawyer or gas station clerk that goes and takes a bunch of classes, and then starts teaching "gun fighting" without any exposure to gunfights, or knowledge of gunfights, or relevant experience outside of those classes and what they have read on the Internet. I don't care how well you think you can teach, that doesn't make up for lack of experience.

What I don't get is, many of those same people are good to excellent shooters. Why, then must they create courses based on fantasy rather than simply teaching to their skill level and experiences?


How does one toe the line between knowing and providing an answer, or at least having a valid response as agreed upon by multiple vetted instructors, and telling the student to sit down, shut up, and keep shooting pasters? Some of this stuff ain't rocket science. I do believe it's very subjective and dependent on the person providing the answer but do you guide them or tell them to wait until next August when Gunfight Shogun Master comes to town?

[LittleLebowski]

Agree. I would take a class from a pure shooter for marksmanship but if it's a class about fighting I want a teacher who has fought.

I'll take the guy that knows how to fight by the virtues of studying fighting (whether it be with a gun, knife, artillery, or BJJ) and trains religiously, over, say a National Guardsman with a CIB.

[JHC]

I'll take the guy that knows how to fight by the virtues of studying fighting (whether it be with a gun, knife, artillery, or BJJ) and trains religiously, over, say a National Guardsman with a CIB.

I quoted nyeti and the context was the LE pro that has dealt with many street situations whether they shot anyone or not. If the hypothetical martial artist had never been in an altercation outside the dojo, I'd be learning art and the application of art. And that's ok. It depends on whether it would be fighting or not. OTOH there are National Guardsman with multiple deployments and scalps. So that depends too, albeit those may not be fights much like American street crime situations.

[LittleLebowski]

I quoted nyeti and the context was the LE pro that has dealt with many street situations whether they shot anyone or not. If the hypothetical martial artist had never been in an altercation outside the dojo, I'd be learning art and the application of art. And that's ok. It depends on whether it would be fighting or not. OTOH there are National Guardsman with multiple deployments and scalps. So that depends too, albeit those may not be fights much like American street crime situations.

I agree that it all depends, period. My intent was not to slander en masse anyone nor any profession. However, when it comes to say an 0311 that used MCMAP (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DJUAHPQ/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00DJUAHPQ&linkCode=as2&tag=ratio07-20) in combat over a brown belt or higher BJJ practitioner, to me it is blindingly obvious which one I can learn more from.

[BehindBlueI's]

The idea that one must have been involved in violence in order to be able to properly teach how to deal with violence is not mutually exclusive of teaching ability. I don't know why people insist on being simplistic about this. Perhaps it is those who have never seen violence but believe that their own teaching ability makes up for it that are being defensive about their own choices.

I would say it's because you initially framed it simplistically.


(if you've never shot anyone, and you have a "defensive" course in your course list, IMO you're doing it wrong

That's quite a different statement than "starts teaching "gun fighting" without any exposure to gunfights, or knowledge of gunfights, or relevant experience outside of those classes and what they have read on the Internet."

And I agree with the revised statement.

[rob_s]

I think some of us feel the same way pertaining to your stance on the matter.

Some people can teach defensive tactics, some people can't.

When a well respected shooting instructor who used to be on this forum tried to delve into DT in one of his courses, specific to close quarters/hand-to-hand stuff, it was pretty apparent he didn't know what he was talking about. It was a huge turn off, especially when he tried to be snarky about it.

I get it.

But that doesn't mean others cannot teach good material based on reality, not fantasy. Will the quality of the course be commensurate to SouthNarc, Givens, ect? Probably not.....but that doesn't mean they can't teach solid foundation skills/mindset as it pertains to defensive scenarios.

If they haven't actually been there isn't it, by definition, fantasy?

and I'm not talking about "foundation skills". To me, that's things like draw the gun, align the sights, pull the trigger, reload the gun (questionable as a defensive skill, actually). These are the things that people with no exposure to violence should stick to, and they should refrain from referring to their blocks of instruction as anything other than basic shooting/marksmanship/gun-handling/"foundation skills".

[rob_s]

How does one toe the line between knowing and providing an answer, or at least having a valid response as agreed upon by multiple vetted instructors, and telling the student to sit down, shut up, and keep shooting pasters? Some of this stuff ain't rocket science. I do believe it's very subjective and dependent on the person providing the answer but do you guide them or tell them to wait until next August when Gunfight Shogun Master comes to town?

I am not interested in having an engineer or IT professional or radio host tell me what he heard at his last 25 autograph classes and has parsed as being valid "defensive" technique. Shooting? Perhaps. Self defense? no. not remotely.

If someone is all fired up to teach at the local level, why wouldn't they simply focus on the fundamentals? Why do they need to go to the "tactical" side of things at all? One thing that knowledgeable timmies and gamerfags all seem to agree on is that what most people need is solid instruction in the fundamentals, not barrel-roll training. If what the market needs is fundamentals training, it strikes me that all those non-doers would be more productive, and better serve the community, by providing that level of instruction, one which they are far more likely to be qualified to (attempt to) teach.

i would submit to you that it is two things. (1) the same kind of walter mitty SHTFantasy that led them to take those 25 autograph classes now leads them to think they can teach the material and (2) fundamentals classes don't sell, which in turn makes one wonder what the intent of said local instructor really is, see item #(1).

[orionz06]

With that said how many "self defense" classes are really out there? All I see is the same shooting class with a new title, new name, and new bearded instructor.


What makes a self defense class? What elements are there and of those elements what individual qualifications are needed for them? Does Joe Beat Cop have what it takes to teach someone boxing or wrestling?


Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

[RevolverRob]

I think we should write a primer on introducing people to "tactical" training. It should start with the following sentence:

Go to the nearest Oxford English Dictionary and look up the word "tactical".

After that we can make a flow-chart that allows you to identify training in the most appropriate fashion:

1) Can you run more than one mile without stopping? No -> Hire a personal trainer at a local gym of your choosing and engage in physical fitness training. Yes (proceed to step 2).

2) Do you work in a white collar job, where you spend most of your time in an office environment in business casual or business clothing? Yes -> Step 3. No -> Do you work in a blue collar job, frequently with your hands and/or do you spend most of your time working on or traveling to and from job sights? Yes -> Step 3A. No -> Are you LEO/Active Military? Yes -> Step 3B. Are you none of the above? If not, does your work environment require restrictive dresscodes and do you frequently interact with the public (for instance retail environment?) Yes -> Step 3 + 3A.

3) If you work in a business environment. Are you willing to custom tailor your dress and clothing to allow you to wear the largest handgun you can physically carry? Yes -> Step 4. No. Stop - Acquire the largest handgun you can reasonably conceal with your current dress mode -> Step 4.

3A) Are you able to conceal a firearm in a normal fashion (e.g. holster), or will you require a special carry mode that allows you freedom/flexibility to engage in physical work? Yes - Step 4. No (I will require special mode of concealment) - Stop. Determine concealment needs then step 4.

3B) Stop. Determine mission-critical needs and seek appropriate training through official channels if possible.

4) Seek additional physical and hand-to-hand training, physical and mental conditioning, and retain an attorney. After accomplishing this move to step 5.

5) Select a firearms instructor who emphasizes application of handgun shooting fundamentals at speed. Select a firearms instructor that emphasizes training with the type of firearm you are working with (e.g., do not train shooting your 1911, when you carry a LCP). Step 6.

6) Integrate knowledge base from steps 1-5 to train real-world scenarios that reflect your employment/life status. Step 7.

7) Repeat all steps as necessary. -> Step 8.

8) Do not skip straight to steps 5-7.

-Rob

[DocGKR]

I like the above comments by RevolverRob.

[PNWTO]

I think we should write a primer on introducing people to "tactical" training. It should start with the following sentence:

Go to the nearest Oxford English Dictionary and look up the word "tactical".

After that we can make a flow-chart that allows you to identify training in the most appropriate fashion:

1) Can you run more than one mile without stopping? No -> Hire a personal trainer at a local gym of your choosing and engage in physical fitness training. Yes (proceed to step 2).

2) Do you work in a white collar job, where you spend most of your time in an office environment in business casual or business clothing? Yes -> Step 3. No -> Do you work in a blue collar job, frequently with your hands and/or do you spend most of your time working on or traveling to and from job sights? Yes -> Step 3A. No -> Are you LEO/Active Military? Yes -> Step 3B. Are you none of the above? If not, does your work environment require restrictive dresscodes and do you frequently interact with the public (for instance retail environment?) Yes -> Step 3 + 3A.

3) If you work in a business environment. Are you willing to custom tailor your dress and clothing to allow you to wear the largest handgun you can physically carry? Yes -> Step 4. No. Stop - Acquire the largest handgun you can reasonably conceal with your current dress mode -> Step 4.

3A) Are you able to conceal a firearm in a normal fashion (e.g. holster), or will you require a special carry mode that allows you freedom/flexibility to engage in physical work? Yes - Step 4. No (I will require special mode of concealment) - Stop. Determine concealment needs then step 4.

3B) Stop. Determine mission-critical needs and seek appropriate training through official channels if possible.

4) Seek additional physical and hand-to-hand training, physical and mental conditioning, and retain an attorney. After accomplishing this move to step 5.

5) Select a firearms instructor who emphasizes application of handgun shooting fundamentals at speed. Select a firearms instructor that emphasizes training with the type of firearm you are working with (e.g., do not train shooting your 1911, when you carry a LCP). Step 6.

6) Integrate knowledge base from steps 1-5 to train real-world scenarios that reflect your employment/life status. Step 7.

7) Repeat all steps as necessary. -> Step 8.

8) Do not skip straight to steps 5-7.

-Rob

Preach it dude. I need this engraved on a cartoon-sized wooden mallet so I can manually adjust some misconceptions.

Personally, I would add in a more demanding fitness level and something akin to YMCA Boxing 101.

[RevolverRob]

Preach it dude. I need this engraved on a cartoon-sized wooden mallet so I can manually adjust some misconceptions.

Personally, I would add in a more demanding fitness level and something akin to YMCA Boxing 101.

Indeed. To my mind Step 4 is where you add in additional fitness training. Cardio, weight lifting, strength training in general, boxing/striking, Brazilian jiu jitsu, nutrition, etc. I mean let's face it, more Americans die every year of heart failure than they do of gunfights. But stand in a gunshop and ask someone to drop and give you 50 without running short on breath and see what happens...I admit to not being the healthiest dude. For more years than I want to remember or admit my solution to every "defensive-oriented" problem was a gun or knife.

And then one day, I woke up, and I had a career that I love, a wife that I love, and a family that I love. Worse that same day, a student walked into my office, who was working with me on a research project that was going to define a not insignificant portion of their life. I realized that there were people out there, reliant at some level, on me. Not entirely dependent, but our relationships were sufficiently developed that my loss would be a sudden, and significant, negative on their lives. And when I realized that, I decided to stop getting fat and start getting fit. Upon realizing that, I began to realize how much of my mindset was an excuse for not putting in the work on my body. I didn't lift, because I work in an office. That's an excuse? I shot guns, because "I can handle it with a .357." - My .357 is locked up at home, in a safe, a mile from my office, because it is illegal to carry here. I was lying to myself. Did I think that gun was going to apparate into existence in my time of need? No. I realized, you know what I have most days? A knife and my body. So, I better learn some fundamentals so I can apply them to real-world problem solving, before I have a problem I can't solve and it costs me and those who care dearly. And that just ain't punching or stabbing people either. My grandfather had a heart attack at 55. Diabetes runs on my mom's side of the family. Cancer on both sides.

Who do I think I am kidding here?

I'm afraid to tell you guys right now, I can barely pass step one. I skipped to steps 5-7. And now as I get on near 30, I've had the presence of mind to pump the brakes and start over. I won't toss out my fundamentals of handgun shooting, but I can honestly say, it's not my priority right now.

-Rob

[GardoneVT]

If we rank order education according to likely threats to our lives, the first class we all need to be taking is a driving course. Period.
For all the violence of inner City America, it pales to the number of folks your local Highway Patrol have to scrape off the pavement due to an 80 MPH oops.

[Joe in PNG]

If we rank order education according to likely threats to our lives, the first class we all need to be taking is a driving course. Period.
For all the violence of inner City America, it pales to the number of folks your local Highway Patrol have to scrape off the pavement due to an 80 MPH oops.

And in all seriousness, get Clarkson, Hammond, and May to make a video curriculum on proper driving techniques.

[PNWTO]

Indeed. To my mind Step 4 is where you add in additional fitness training. Cardio, weight lifting, strength training in general, boxing/striking, Brazilian jiu jitsu, nutrition, etc. I mean let's face it, more Americans die every year of heart failure than they do of gunfights. But stand in a gunshop and ask someone to drop and give you 50 without running short on breath and see what happens...I admit to not being the healthiest dude. For more years than I want to remember or admit my solution to every "defensive-oriented" problem was a gun or knife.

And then one day, I woke up, and I had a career that I love, a wife that I love, and a family that I love. Worse that same day, a student walked into my office, who was working with me on a research project that was going to define a not insignificant portion of their life. I realized that there were people out there, reliant at some level, on me. Not entirely dependent, but our relationships were sufficiently developed that my loss would be a sudden, and significant, negative on their lives. And when I realized that, I decided to stop getting fat and start getting fit. Upon realizing that, I began to realize how much of my mindset was an excuse for not putting in the work on my body. I didn't lift, because I work in an office. That's an excuse? I shot guns, because "I can handle it with a .357." - My .357 is locked up at home, in a safe, a mile from my office, because it is illegal to carry here. I was lying to myself. Did I think that gun was going to apparate into existence in my time of need? No. I realized, you know what I have most days? A knife and my body. So, I better learn some fundamentals so I can apply them to real-world problem solving, before I have a problem I can't solve and it costs me and those who care dearly. And that just ain't punching or stabbing people either. My grandfather had a heart attack at 55. Diabetes runs on my mom's side of the family. Cancer on both sides.

Who do I think I am kidding here?

I'm afraid to tell you guys right now, I can barely pass step one. I skipped to steps 5-7. And now as I get on near 30, I've had the presence of mind to pump the brakes and start over. I won't toss out my fundamentals of handgun shooting, but I can honestly say, it's not my priority right now.

-Rob

Yep. Me too. Mon-Thurs, 10 hours a day, all "in the NPE" of higher education administration. I have a feeling my road is eerily symmetrical to yours.

[45dotACP]

Indeed. To my mind Step 4 is where you add in additional fitness training. Cardio, weight lifting, strength training in general, boxing/striking, Brazilian jiu jitsu, nutrition, etc. I mean let's face it, more Americans die every year of heart failure than they do of gunfights. But stand in a gunshop and ask someone to drop and give you 50 without running short on breath and see what happens...I admit to not being the healthiest dude. For more years than I want to remember or admit my solution to every "defensive-oriented" problem was a gun or knife.

And then one day, I woke up, and I had a career that I love, a wife that I love, and a family that I love. Worse that same day, a student walked into my office, who was working with me on a research project that was going to define a not insignificant portion of their life. I realized that there were people out there, reliant at some level, on me. Not entirely dependent, but our relationships were sufficiently developed that my loss would be a sudden, and significant, negative on their lives. And when I realized that, I decided to stop getting fat and start getting fit. Upon realizing that, I began to realize how much of my mindset was an excuse for not putting in the work on my body. I didn't lift, because I work in an office. That's an excuse? I shot guns, because "I can handle it with a .357." - My .357 is locked up at home, in a safe, a mile from my office, because it is illegal to carry here. I was lying to myself. Did I think that gun was going to apparate into existence in my time of need? No. I realized, you know what I have most days? A knife and my body. So, I better learn some fundamentals so I can apply them to real-world problem solving, before I have a problem I can't solve and it costs me and those who care dearly. And that just ain't punching or stabbing people either. My grandfather had a heart attack at 55. Diabetes runs on my mom's side of the family. Cancer on both sides.

Who do I think I am kidding here?

I'm afraid to tell you guys right now, I can barely pass step one. I skipped to steps 5-7. And now as I get on near 30, I've had the presence of mind to pump the brakes and start over. I won't toss out my fundamentals of handgun shooting, but I can honestly say, it's not my priority right now.

-Rob

As a Cardiac nurse who deals with people in advanced stage heart failure at progressively younger ages, I agree with this heartily Rob. I work at Christ Medical Center, just down in Oak Lawn and more specifically in the Cardiac floor with everything from your standard angiograms to full blown transplants and LVADs. We have three diagnoses I see in almost every patient: Uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled type II Diabetes, and uncontrolled cholesterol/lipids.

The most common mindset I see is "I never thought it could happen to me...I heard about those people who smoke 5 packs a day and live to be 100."

[emoji19]

Everybody thinks they're that person. I see the statistics play out enough to know better and therefore I am most often found in the gym first and range second.

(Insert obligatory reminder to get regular screenings, physicals and blood work done, eat healthy and exercise at least 30 min a day 4x weekly because I don't want to see any of you guys professionally...just on the range or the gym)

Spiel over...awesome thread!

[BehindBlueI's]

I think we should write a primer on introducing people to "tactical" training. It should start with the following sentence:

Go to the nearest Oxford English Dictionary and look up the word "tactical".

After that we can make a flow-chart that allows you to identify training in the most appropriate fashion:

1) Can you run more than one mile without stopping? No -> Hire a personal trainer at a local gym of your choosing and engage in physical fitness training. Yes (proceed to step 2).

2) Do you work in a white collar job, where you spend most of your time in an office environment in business casual or business clothing? Yes -> Step 3. No -> Do you work in a blue collar job, frequently with your hands and/or do you spend most of your time working on or traveling to and from job sights? Yes -> Step 3A. No -> Are you LEO/Active Military? Yes -> Step 3B. Are you none of the above? If not, does your work environment require restrictive dresscodes and do you frequently interact with the public (for instance retail environment?) Yes -> Step 3 + 3A.

3) If you work in a business environment. Are you willing to custom tailor your dress and clothing to allow you to wear the largest handgun you can physically carry? Yes -> Step 4. No. Stop - Acquire the largest handgun you can reasonably conceal with your current dress mode -> Step 4.

3A) Are you able to conceal a firearm in a normal fashion (e.g. holster), or will you require a special carry mode that allows you freedom/flexibility to engage in physical work? Yes - Step 4. No (I will require special mode of concealment) - Stop. Determine concealment needs then step 4.

3B) Stop. Determine mission-critical needs and seek appropriate training through official channels if possible.

4) Seek additional physical and hand-to-hand training, physical and mental conditioning, and retain an attorney. After accomplishing this move to step 5.

5) Select a firearms instructor who emphasizes application of handgun shooting fundamentals at speed. Select a firearms instructor that emphasizes training with the type of firearm you are working with (e.g., do not train shooting your 1911, when you carry a LCP). Step 6.

6) Integrate knowledge base from steps 1-5 to train real-world scenarios that reflect your employment/life status. Step 7.

7) Repeat all steps as necessary. -> Step 8.

8) Do not skip straight to steps 5-7.

-Rob

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wGd2NtdnflY/UQ5C3j9bXOI/AAAAAAAAI9U/ErAkjFd5KBY/s1600/citizen-kane-clapping.jpg

[RJ]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wGd2NtdnflY/UQ5C3j9bXOI/AAAAAAAAI9U/ErAkjFd5KBY/s1600/citizen-kane-clapping.jpg

+1. Damn that was a good post, RevolverRob.

[EM_]

Similarly, I've had training from this guy:

http://spottinglies.com/default.aspx?menuitemid=159&menugroup=Public

That's great training for street survival. It involves zero handgun work, or weapons work of any kind. It's all about observation and reaction, seeing an attack forming and getting ahead of the curve in formulating your counteroffensive. I don't know or care how good of a shot Dr. Rhodes is (although I do know he's a rodeo clown as a hobby...) but I believe he knows his stuff in this realm. The fact he's not a Grand Master SWAT Scuba K9 Operator 7 Gun Champion is irrelevant. He's got something to teach me.

Seconded. I've been through quite a few of these types of courses and I got a lot from Dr. Rhodes.

Excellent thread. This is the type of discussion I enjoy so much here at P-F.

[TCinVA]

Indeed. To my mind Step 4 is where you add in additional fitness training. Cardio, weight lifting, strength training in general, boxing/striking, Brazilian jiu jitsu, nutrition, etc. I mean let's face it, more Americans die every year of heart failure than they do of gunfights. But stand in a gunshop and ask someone to drop and give you 50 without running short on breath and see what happens...I admit to not being the healthiest dude. For more years than I want to remember or admit my solution to every "defensive-oriented" problem was a gun or knife.

And then one day, I woke up, and I had a career that I love, a wife that I love, and a family that I love. Worse that same day, a student walked into my office, who was working with me on a research project that was going to define a not insignificant portion of their life. I realized that there were people out there, reliant at some level, on me. Not entirely dependent, but our relationships were sufficiently developed that my loss would be a sudden, and significant, negative on their lives. And when I realized that, I decided to stop getting fat and start getting fit. Upon realizing that, I began to realize how much of my mindset was an excuse for not putting in the work on my body. I didn't lift, because I work in an office. That's an excuse? I shot guns, because "I can handle it with a .357." - My .357 is locked up at home, in a safe, a mile from my office, because it is illegal to carry here. I was lying to myself. Did I think that gun was going to apparate into existence in my time of need? No. I realized, you know what I have most days? A knife and my body. So, I better learn some fundamentals so I can apply them to real-world problem solving, before I have a problem I can't solve and it costs me and those who care dearly. And that just ain't punching or stabbing people either. My grandfather had a heart attack at 55. Diabetes runs on my mom's side of the family. Cancer on both sides.

Who do I think I am kidding here?

I'm afraid to tell you guys right now, I can barely pass step one. I skipped to steps 5-7. And now as I get on near 30, I've had the presence of mind to pump the brakes and start over. I won't toss out my fundamentals of handgun shooting, but I can honestly say, it's not my priority right now.

-Rob

Physical fitness is great...and yes, lots of people could do more of it.

There are a lot of people, though, who are buying a gun or seeking training because of a much more specific threat level. Lynn Givens, for example, sought out training because somebody was actively hunting her.

Experiencing criminal violence is not a rare occurrence in the United States, and your time running a mile isn't anywhere near as good a predictor of successful defense against criminal violence as having a decent gun handy and knowing how to use it.

Being a multi-disciplinary bad ass with decent skill levels in hand to hand, edged weapons, firearms, etc is fucking awesome and I'll happily cheer on anyone who wants to achieve in all those areas.

...but I'll note that if you look at, say, the Rangemaster numbers you don't see a whole lot of need for hand to hand fighting skills coming into play. It's normal people going about their day when some asshole sticks a gun in their face. An immediate violent counter assault with a capably wielded firearm has solved that problem pretty definitively over and over again. Most of the time without a shot being fired.

From there would it logically make sense to think that if you're willing to kill another human being to preserve your life functions that maybe you should be willing to order a salad and take the stairs? Sure.

There is no single optimum path to the top of the mountain, gents. Let's not get too deep in the weeds on this. You don't have to be Bruce Wayne to find yourself needing to defeat some street thugs, nor do you need his skill levels or resources to do so successfully.

[TCinVA]

With that said how many "self defense" classes are really out there? All I see is the same shooting class with a new title, new name, and new bearded instructor.


What makes a self defense class? What elements are there and of those elements what individual qualifications are needed for them? Does Joe Beat Cop have what it takes to teach someone boxing or wrestling?


This gets to the heart of the matter.

There are a bunch of shooting classes out there. I've done them. Some have been excellent. Some have been OK. Some have sucked out loud. A good many of them have dealt very little with other useful aspects of self defense. The legal considerations of the use of lethal force is a pretty damn big deal when it comes to self defense, and yet how many classes actually delve into that?

"Self Defense" is a concept that can be broken down like a pie chart. Shooting is a slice of the pie. Deselection and deescalation is a slice of the pie. Managing unknown contacts is a slice of the pie. Understanding criminal motivations and behavior is a slice of the pie. Knowing pre-assault cues is a slice of the pie. Empty hand combatives is a slice of the pie. Edged weapons on offense and defense is a slice of the pie....and I could go on.

No single instructor I'm aware of teaches all of that. Givens is an example of someone who puts a big enough piece of each of those slices on somebody's plate to make them successful at defending against most criminal assaults. And he even has an instructional development program which takes people who don't have his track record of personal experience with violence or study of it and teaches them enough to make them effective at teaching the stuff he's found to work over the years.

I would happily send my family to an accountant with a Rangemaster certification that has never killed anyone.


Why that is a nice thought, it doesn't mean that they can convey what allowed them to win. They may not have won based on skill, but because they sucked less than their opponent.

I'd rather train with someone with a proven track record of teaching others to win fights.

This.

[LittleLebowski]

Indeed. To my mind Step 4 is where you add in additional fitness training. Cardio, weight lifting, strength training in general, boxing/striking, Brazilian jiu jitsu, nutrition, etc. I mean let's face it, more Americans die every year of heart failure than they do of gunfights. But stand in a gunshop and ask someone to drop and give you 50 without running short on breath and see what happens...I admit to not being the healthiest dude. For more years than I want to remember or admit my solution to every "defensive-oriented" problem was a gun or knife.

And then one day, I woke up, and I had a career that I love, a wife that I love, and a family that I love. Worse that same day, a student walked into my office, who was working with me on a research project that was going to define a not insignificant portion of their life. I realized that there were people out there, reliant at some level, on me. Not entirely dependent, but our relationships were sufficiently developed that my loss would be a sudden, and significant, negative on their lives. And when I realized that, I decided to stop getting fat and start getting fit. Upon realizing that, I began to realize how much of my mindset was an excuse for not putting in the work on my body. I didn't lift, because I work in an office. That's an excuse? I shot guns, because "I can handle it with a .357." - My .357 is locked up at home, in a safe, a mile from my office, because it is illegal to carry here. I was lying to myself. Did I think that gun was going to apparate into existence in my time of need? No. I realized, you know what I have most days? A knife and my body. So, I better learn some fundamentals so I can apply them to real-world problem solving, before I have a problem I can't solve and it costs me and those who care dearly. And that just ain't punching or stabbing people either. My grandfather had a heart attack at 55. Diabetes runs on my mom's side of the family. Cancer on both sides.

Who do I think I am kidding here?

I'm afraid to tell you guys right now, I can barely pass step one. I skipped to steps 5-7. And now as I get on near 30, I've had the presence of mind to pump the brakes and start over. I won't toss out my fundamentals of handgun shooting, but I can honestly say, it's not my priority right now.

-Rob

My first use of the Like button! Well said, me lad.