PDA

View Full Version : So you're an instructor, hm?



pax
04-04-2013, 06:26 PM
Let's talk Instructor Ethics 101. This came off my blog today, but I also decided to share it here. Maybe someone will find it useful.


***

When you step up to teach a self-defense class, you are literally asking students to bet their lives on the quality of the information you have and on your ability to teach it to them. This is no exaggeration, but just the simple truth. Students come to you looking for the knowledge and skill that can save their lives some dark night. If you fail to teach them well, if you teach them the wrong things, if you give them half an answer or a bad answer, they may pay for your failure with their heart’s blood. Understanding this – really understanding it – should scare you down to your toenails. It should force you to become better and better as a shooter, as a teacher, as a learner, as a student of self-defense. It should jar you out of complacency and drive you to do your best with every class you teach. People’s lives are in your hands.

Sometimes I fear that not all firearms instructors understand this. “I’m just teaching beginners,” I have heard some say – as if they have some private guarantee that none of their beginners will ever really need the things they teach. Or as if it doesn’t matter whether a beginner is started right. But even a beginner needs a solid foundation they can safely build upon, not some half-hearted construct cobbled together of cardboard and glue and hope.

I have even heard some handgun instructors deny that they are teaching self-defense. “It’s just a carry permit class,” they say — as if people carry guns for any other purpose. Or, “I’m just teaching them to use a handgun, that’s all.” But if your students think otherwise, if they come to you to learn skills they think they can use to protect themselves and their loved ones, you’re still on the hook. It’s so tempting to engage in these kinds of denials, and maybe that’s a more comfortable place for us to live as instructors, but it does our students no good.

There’s something related, scary, within the women’s side of the firearms world right now. Maybe it’s always been there, and I’m just becoming more attuned to it. But I keep running into this idea that we can give our students what they need without ever challenging them, without ever pushing their skills and without any risk of hurting their feelings. Everything must always be fun, fun, fun – sweetness and light and hallelujah! But … when we’re talking about self-defense, we’re actually talking about some very serious matters. We can and do have fun on the range, but it’s fun with a deadly serious purpose. And sometimes that purpose will drive us straight through the heart some very personal territory, which is the kind of journey you cannot take without risk.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m a strong believer in encouraging words and positive attitudes. At the same time, those encouraging words should be true, and they should be appropriate. There are times when the most encouraging, appropriate thing to say to your student is, “You can do better than that.” It is good and right to celebrate success, but even better to celebrate earned success.

For me, I have always had a struggle with wanting my students to like me, to think I’m a nice person and fun to be around. Most of the time, there’s nothing wrong with that. But my students don’t come to me to be my pals. They come to me to learn. If my desire to be super nice and super sweet actually gets them killed someday, then I haven’t been nice to them at all.

In order to fulfill my most important responsibility to my students, I have to risk pushing them beyond their comfort levels. And I have to do it in a way that will cause them to work harder rather than to shut down. If I’m not willing to take that risk for the sake of my students’ lives, I have no right to call myself a self-defense instructor.

pax,

Kathy

Jay Cunningham
04-04-2013, 06:46 PM
The corollary is that you can't teach someone how to fight with a gun in a two day class. And to attempt to sell it otherwise would be a hoax.

You can be straight with your students and tell them that you're working on their shooting fundamentals within the greater context of self-defense.

ToddG
04-04-2013, 07:26 PM
Concur with Jay. My teaching career started with basic CCW classes and very few of the students wanted a real self-defense oriented class. They wanted a certificate that allowed them to get a carry permit... a permit they never, ever, ever thought they'd really need. You can't change that mindset in four hours.

But I certainly understand where you're coming from, and the attitude you warn against is just as common -- if not moreso -- with classes from big name instructors who are teaching more advanced classes. Too often they see their role as providing "edutainment" or they feel that students want nothing more than bragging rights.


But I keep running into this idea that we can give our students what they need without ever challenging them, without ever pushing their skills and without any risk of hurting their feelings.

There's no one-size-fits-all solution to this. Some students respond well to being pushed, some fall apart, and some push back. Each one needs to be handled in a different way and at the end of the day, not every student wants to get the same thing from a class. So the challenge for an instructor is even more complicated because not only do you have to push your students, you need to know how to push individuals and you need to know when to back off for certain students.

jetfire
04-04-2013, 09:34 PM
I guess my question is where do guys like me fall in? I don't teach a CCW/Self-Defense ANYTHING class. I teach marksmanship classes geared towards specific shooting sports, and I even say "this is not a self-defense class, this is a shooting class."

I'd like to think that someone who takes a "precision pistol class" where we do nothing but shoot 4 inch circles for 8 hours isn't going to think that I'm teaching them some valuable self defense skill.

ST911
04-04-2013, 10:18 PM
We instructors need to make announcements and COIs clear and explicit as to goals and objectives, intended audience, and pre-reqs, even going so far as putting out "this course is/is not..." statements. It's all a progressive learning process. Take pains in the course to point out how yours complements existing student knowledge and skill, and/or why there is a need for more or other training.

pax
04-05-2013, 07:09 AM
Jay ~ Absolutely. Necessary corollary is a good way to put it. Explaining to students what they have just learned, and more important, what they have not yet learned, is a big part of meeting the obligation demanded by the trust they give you.

Todd ~ Good point. That's another important part of an instructor's skillset, is knowing how to read people well enough that you can give the right amount of pressure and the right kind of pressure. It does no good to push them into quitting; the goal is to push them to excel.

Caleb ~ If you honestly manage student expectations before class, that's on them and not on you. But you, & guys like you, aren't the target here. You're clear about what you teach and why before they get there. The ones to watch (and the thing we all need to guard against so we don't do it ourselves) are those who run bait & switch operations -- oftentimes, not even deliberately, but just because we're not clear on what we offer or why we're offering it. The guys doing entry-level "how to use a handgun" classes deal with a lot of people who 1) want to know how to use a gun to defend themselves, 2) don't know what they don't know, and 3) don't realize that self defense is a different beast from competition in a lot of very important ways. It's easy to get sloppy or lazy under those conditions -- "It doesn't matter, they're just beginners" -- without taking seriously the responsibilty to guide those beginners onto the track they're looking for.

Skintop ~ Agreed! One thing here (and hey, why not gore a sacred cow or two while I'm at it?) is that too many instructors get very territorial over their students. We can't all meet the needs of every student, and none of us can meet all of the needs of even one student. I think it takes a great deal of brave honesty to say to your students, "Okay, here's what I've taught you. Here's what I haven't taught you. Here are the classes I offer next and how they fit into your needs, and also, here are three instructors I recommend for the things I'm not able to teach you." That, too, goes back to IE101 -- once we realize just how big the obligation is they've put on our shoulders, we're a lot more likely to share that burden around with others who can help carry the weight of it. But if we never realize we have that obligation, or never really feel the full weight of it, we're more likely to look at students through the frame of what we need from them (more money! more sign ups!), rather than focusing on what they need from us (honest workmen doing honest work, including subcontracting the specialty jobs).

Kathy

TCinVA
04-05-2013, 07:52 AM
There’s something related, scary, within the women’s side of the firearms world right now. Maybe it’s always been there, and I’m just becoming more attuned to it. But I keep running into this idea that we can give our students what they need without ever challenging them, without ever pushing their skills and without any risk of hurting their feelings. Everything must always be fun, fun, fun – sweetness and light and hallelujah! But … when we’re talking about self-defense, we’re actually talking about some very serious matters. We can and do have fun on the range, but it’s fun with a deadly serious purpose. And sometimes that purpose will drive us straight through the heart some very personal territory, which is the kind of journey you cannot take without risk.


I think it's better to think of things in terms of depth.

Some people only really want to stay in the shallow end of the pool...students and instructors. (Don't get me started on "instructors" who have no ongoing efforts to improve themselves or learn anything new) If I took the average person looking to get their state-mandated CCW training and threw them into an ECQC evo it would be an utter disaster. The last thing any sensible instructor wants to do is leave students discouraged and thinking they can't defend themselves. The truth is that people with minimal or no training use a firearm to ward off criminal assault all the time. Simply having the ability to pull a handgun from concealment tilts the odds dramatically in their favor. It's not a guarantee, but the statistics tell us that more often than not the people who can pull a gun end up going home relatively undamaged.

If I'm an instructor and I give a darn about more than cashing a check, then my core goal is imparting sufficient skill and wisdom to someone that they leave with the belief they can do this. I want them to regard the firearm in their hands as a problem solving tool. I want them to understand the responsibility involved in the use of that tool, but not to be so afraid of using it that they're more worried about the aftermath of shooting the guy that's trying to cut their head off than they are of the dude who is trying to kill them.

I try to keep things light and fun. I get people to a pretty high degree of skill just through the standards I have them shoot to. I don't spend lots of time having folks roll around in the dirt and blaze as fast as they can. Instead I tend to make them shoot at very small targets at increasingly longer ranges. Once I have them doing things like hitting a 1" square at 10 yards I bring it back to reality and compare the size of that square to the size of a human eye socket. I like to have new shooters shoot at cheaply bought apples and oranges because they are reactive and fun...and then I like to compare one of the pieces of fruit to the size of a human heart. I use every trick in the book to try and make the actual shooting fun, but I always impart the message that what they're doing on the sights and trigger to make an apple explode will work just as well should they need to drive a hollowpoint into a bad man's heart. Often they don't really perceive that what I'm having them do is well above the average because they don't know any better...so they're doing remarkable things pretty quickly and I have to actually point out to them why they shouldn't get depressed because they missed a 1" square at 10 yards by 1/2 an inch.

Starting off with high expectations and having useful, effective instructional tools that can actually bring someone who has no idea what they're doing up to your expectations tends to work out quite well, in my experience.

Now in terms of the use of a weapon for serious social purposes, I'm pretty clear with folks up front:

I'm not a lawyer, a judge, a prosecutor, a homicide investigator, a former member of a Tier 1 unit, a SWAT cop, an expert witness, or anything that would allow me to state definitively that I'm the definitive SME in the dynamics of the use of force or how such incidents are adjudicated after the fact. If you want somebody with "owner and expert!" on their business card, I'm not your guy.

I am, however, better trained than most folks. And I've spent a little bit of time trying to figure out what's true and what's nonsense. What I can offer is a shortcut to the stuff that matters. I can offer advice about the use of force that didn't come from gunstore rumor. I can actually point at specific cases in Virginia's accumulated jurisprudence on the use of force and quote relevant passages where self defense doctrine is applied by judges. I'll even give you the citations and you can go on the internet and see if I'm making it up. I'll talk about real cases of self defense that I've researched or even had the chance to discuss with the survivors.

None of this is because I'm awesome...it's just because I've done the work. I found people who knew more than me and I've been eagerly clawing every useful tidbit of information from them that I possibly can in my own quest to learn. Along the way I've figured some stuff out and it would probably be pretty useful to the average person looking at the prospect of self defense.

Locally there's some hammerhead running around spreading some seriously bad information. He actually told someone I've given some instruction to that shooting someone more than 21 feet away is a felony. He's an ignorant dolt who has no business running his pitiful suck, but to the person who doesn't know any better he's the expert. It says so right on his business card. I'm not the definitive SME in the use of force in Virginia, but I do know enough to be able to say that guy's full of sheep dip and to offer some useful guidelines on the use of force by sane people in sane situations. I won't hesitate in the least to relate what I've learned from research and listening to people who are smarter than me over the years. I won't claim expert status, but I probably have a better read on what I'm talking about than most other people they are likely to discuss these sorts of things with. If I demure because I'm not sitting alone atop the mountain with omniscience, I'm not doing the people looking to me for guidance any favors. I may not be able to answer everything, but I can at least point them in the right direction...and honestly that's all most people really want in the first place. I don't expect my GP to perform brain surgery...but I do expect him/her to help me find the best neurosurgeon available....

Some people learn by being thrown right into the deep end...but most would be better off if exposed to the crawl-walk-run methodology. The job of the instructor is to be able to determine where the person is and how to leave them better than the instructor found them. In a couple of days I might not be able to bring them to where I really think they should be, but I can make sure that they leave me better prepared in some way than I found them.

I'll pick on Tom Givens. I doubt Mr. Givens settled on his 2 day program because it encapsulates everything one needs to know to be competent in the use of a firearm for self defense in his opinion. I'm willing to wager that he has spent a very long time honing his program to try and get the necessities across to students within a limited time frame...and it seems to work. Exceptionally well. When I look at the best instructors I've had, none have ever been able to do all they really wanted to do to prepare students. Given logistical, financial, and time restraints they've been forced to bring some sort of concrete definition to "good enough" based on their training and experience and then train people to that standard.

That's all you can do, really.

jetfire
04-05-2013, 08:20 AM
That would have made a hell of a blog post.

TCinVA
04-05-2013, 08:31 AM
That would have made a hell of a blog post.

The amalgamation of ideas in there may yet make a post...or two...;)

Silvershadow
04-05-2013, 08:56 AM
Locally there's some hammerhead running around spreading some seriously bad information. He actually told someone I've given some instruction to that shooting someone more than 21 feet away is a felony. He's an ignorant dolt who has no business running his pitiful suck

More gems and personal favorites from the hammerhead mentioned.....

If you press an autoloader up against someone it will NEVER fire
Muzzle swiping the audience constantly through out training
Advocates whipping a concealed fire arm out and placing it on the table at a restaurant if you decide you want to drink alcohol.


There are many more examples, but those really get me.

TCinVA
04-05-2013, 09:10 AM
Advocates whipping a concealed fire arm out and placing it on the table at a restaurant if you decide you want to drink alcohol.


http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here.gif

ToddG
04-05-2013, 09:23 AM
JOne thing here (and hey, why not gore a sacred cow or two while I'm at it?) is that too many instructors get very territorial over their students.

Also a huge problem at the "national" level. I've had a couple of students who've essentially been ostracized from school-XYZ because they dared step outside the approved curriculum to take a class with someone else. What's worse, as you said, is that "school-XYZ" rarely cares about what techniques or tactics the students lean... it's just concerned about getting every training dollar the students have to spend.

It all boils down to the instructor, appropriately enough for this thread. Some instructors see students as bags full of money and the goal is to reach in and rip out as many hundred dollar bills as possible. Other instructors see students as a responsibility. It's not that hard to tell the difference if you put a modicum of thought into it.

TR675
04-05-2013, 10:08 AM
Also a huge problem at the "national" level. I've had a couple of students who've essentially been ostracized from school-XYZ because they dared step outside the approved curriculum to take a class with someone else.

This line of thinking on the part of both students and teachers never fails to amaze me. I've never had a class from anyone where I didn't learn something; conversely, I've never had a class where I didn't, at some point, think "this [statement/opinion/tactic/philosophy] doesn't make sense." Hero worship has an inverse relationship to critical thinking.

The biggest problem I see with the civilian training community, especially the CCW community, is that so many of its doctrines tend to come from one of two places: (1) lessons learned from dissimilar circumstances, whether military combat, uniformed LEO experience, or competition, or (2) someone sittin' round an' thinkin' real hard. Doctrines and experiences from these sources may be useful to the average CCW'er, but also have the potential to be less than useful or even harmful.

An example: advice such as "carry nothing smaller than a 9mm" or "dress around the gun," or "you can AIWB a full size service pistol, I do it all the time, it's easy" is great if your daily uniform allows untucked shirts, oversized clothes and limited interaction with professional colleagues and clients.* In an office environment that advice is less useful. Most instructors do not live and work in a professional environment, so their teachings are not geared towards practical solutions for people who do. In those cases, giving the above mentioned advice is not helpful and can be harmful if people, instead of coming up with a decent compromise solution, abandon the effort because what they have "isn't good enough." Headhunter's thoughts on these topics, coming from his background of living and working in a buttoned-up environment, are more helpful even if they result in the student carrying a nonoptimal piece of equipment.

*ETA: this is not directed at anyone. I hear this all the time from many different sources.

Jay Cunningham
04-05-2013, 10:10 AM
Hero worship has an inverse relationship to critical thinking.

This is huge.

David Armstrong
04-05-2013, 10:44 AM
The corollary is that you can't teach someone how to fight with a gun in a two day class. And to attempt to sell it otherwise would be a hoax.

You can be straight with your students and tell them that you're working on their shooting fundamentals within the greater context of self-defense.
Agreed. Within the time frames and the strictures of the NRA Basic Handgun class I can't teach anyone to really learn much about using a gun. I can teach them basic concepts and drill safety issues into them, bu that is about it. That is why when I teach the basic class I give them the short speech about "this class will not teach you to fight with a gun or shoot it very well. That is a different course."

David Armstrong
04-05-2013, 10:49 AM
from Triumph:
An example: advice such as "carry nothing smaller than a 9mm" or "dress around the gun," or "you can AIWB a full size service pistol, I do it all the time, it's easy" is great if your daily uniform allows untucked shirts, oversized clothes and limited interaction with professional colleagues and clients.* In an office environment that advice is less useful. Most instructors do not live and work in a professional environment, so their teachings are not geared towards practical solutions for people who do. In those cases, giving the above mentioned advice is not helpful and can be harmful if people, instead of coming up with a decent compromise solution, abandon the effort because what they have "isn't good enough." Headhunter's thoughts on these topics, coming from his background of living and working in a buttoned-up environment, are more helpful even if they result in the student carrying a nonoptimal piece of equipment.
Worth posting twice!

pax
04-05-2013, 11:02 AM
Also a huge problem at the "national" level. I've had a couple of students who've essentially been ostracized from school-XYZ because they dared step outside the approved curriculum to take a class with someone else. What's worse, as you said, is that "school-XYZ" rarely cares about what techniques or tactics the students lean... it's just concerned about getting every training dollar the students have to spend.

Yup. Honestly, until I started traveling more I hadn't realized how much of a problem that is, since I came up through FAS -- and one of the big hallmarks at FAS is having guest instructors through on a regular basis. Marty actively encourages his people to get outside training, learn as much as you can from as many places as you can. That's a valuable thing for a student and even more so for someone who may become an instructor later on. Some schools give you the idea that every technique they teach was invented there, springing full grown from the instructor's head.


It all boils down to the instructor, appropriately enough for this thread. Some instructors see students as bags full of money and the goal is to reach in and rip out as many hundred dollar bills as possible. Other instructors see students as a responsibility. It's not that hard to tell the difference if you put a modicum of thought into it.

Well, yes. I like to listen to what the instructor says about other people, and especially what he doesn't say. If he never has a good word for anyone outside his school/franchise/religion, that says something. If he never says a word about the people he learned from, that says something. If he brags about his students who have become instructors, but never names any by name or encourages others to train with them, that says something. The guy who thinks of himself as the source of all wisdom generally isn't.

Save me from becoming That Guy! Whether it flows from fear or from arrogance (or both), the result is just as ugly. The world is full of good people teaching good stuff. If we do our jobs right, we can be brave and encourage our students to explore, because we'll be secure in knowing they'll understand our value even after they look around. They'll still come back to us for more as long as we're doing the job right. It's only if we're not doing the work ourselves that we have to fear our students finding out about other instructors or other schools.

pax,

Kathy

pax
04-05-2013, 11:07 AM
An example: advice such as "carry nothing smaller than a 9mm" or "dress around the gun," or "you can AIWB a full size service pistol, I do it all the time, it's easy" is great if your daily uniform allows untucked shirts, oversized clothes and limited interaction with professional colleagues and clients.* In an office environment that advice is less useful. Most instructors do not live and work in a professional environment, so their teachings are not geared towards practical solutions for people who do. In those cases, giving the above mentioned advice is not helpful and can be harmful if people, instead of coming up with a decent compromise solution, abandon the effort because what they have "isn't good enough." Headhunter's thoughts on these topics, coming from his background of living and working in a buttoned-up environment, are more helpful even if they result in the student carrying a nonoptimal piece of equipment.

Amen and amen.

For me, helping women find ways to carry under women's clothing in ordinary environments has been a huge challenge and blessing. I've come to realize that a lot of what our community sees as "women are reluctant to" actually stems from a huge lack of information we're not giving these folks when they need it. They need to know it's possible, they need to see it modeled, and they need to not be belittled or dismissed with their very legitimate lifestyle needs.

Kathy

DocGKR
04-05-2013, 12:04 PM
"An example: advice such as "carry nothing smaller than a 9mm" or "dress around the gun," or "you can AIWB a full size service pistol, I do it all the time, it's easy" is great if your daily uniform allows untucked shirts, oversized clothes and limited interaction with professional colleagues and clients.* In an office environment that advice is less useful. Most instructors do not live and work in a professional environment, so their teachings are not geared towards practical solutions for people who do. In those cases, giving the above mentioned advice is not helpful and can be harmful if people, instead of coming up with a decent compromise solution, abandon the effort because what they have "isn't good enough." "

I work in a professional environment on a daily basis with significant interactions with numerous other people; I carry a 9 mm and with few exceptions cannot recommend any caliber below a .38 sp for defensive carry......

jlw
04-05-2013, 12:31 PM
I wrote this piece a while back:

On Trainers and Training (http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/73/)

---

This past Saturday, we had a lady in a citizens firearm safety class whose son had bought her a Taurus j frame equivalent .38 Special. The trigger was so bad on it (think 16lbs with stacking) that an experienced shooter would have had trouble getting hits with it. I let her shoot my 3" model 36-1, and it was still hard for her to shoot, and the recoil was too much for her. I then had her shoot a S&W 422 pistol that I had with me, and she did quite well the rest of the day.

The point of the above is that a .22lr that a person can actually shoot is much better that a .38 with a trigger they can't even pull.

I would think "most" of use would teach Isosceles; however, in the same class we had a lady who has arthritis in a shoulder, and Weaver was more comfortable for her; so, we worked with her using the Weaver.

Sometimes you have to adapt to what the student can do even when it isn't the "best" tactic.

Kimura
04-05-2013, 12:46 PM
The corollary is that you can't teach someone how to fight with a gun in a two day class. And to attempt to sell it otherwise would be a hoax.

You can be straight with your students and tell them that you're working on their shooting fundamentals within the greater context of self-defense.

I agree Learning to fight takes time and dedication.

And, while it would be nice if some "instructors" would stop teaching because they're not qualified to teach, it's also the responsibility of the student to do his or her homework on an instructor before enrolling in a class. It's not that hard. In fact, the internet makes it fairly easy to do. Larry Vickers; former member of Delta, considered by most to be an expert in firearms. Not hard to find him. Same goes for Kyle Defoor, Pat McNamara, Mike Pannone, Paul Howe, etc. Their resumes speak for themselves and there are plenty of AARs on their classes floating around on the internet. And it isn't just them. There are plenty of qualified shooting instructors on the national level and on the local level that run firearms programs for LEAs and Academies etc. If you're unsure about an instructor or class, do the research. If you're still unsure, don't take the class and find an instructor who has credentials, references and a class that works for you. In short, if you're the student, take the time and steps necessary to ensure you get the best training you possibly can for your money. That's your responsibility.

peterb
04-05-2013, 12:49 PM
For me, I have always had a struggle with wanting my students to like me, to think I’m a nice person and fun to be around. Most of the time, there’s nothing wrong with that. But my students don’t come to me to be my pals. They come to me to learn. If my desire to be super nice and super sweet actually gets them killed someday, then I haven’t been nice to them at all.

Wanting to be liked is a potential trap. I've taken good classes from instructors I didn't really "like" -- I wouldn't choose to hang out with them -- but I respected them and valued what they were teaching me. One of my best bosses was the same way -- we were never going to be buddies, but he was fair and honest and looked out for his people, and I thought highly of him.

I'm not paying for a class to find a buddy, or, on the flip side, to be insulted by someone trying to prove what a hardass they are. I want someone who's going to be honest and help me learn. Good training leaves you feeling good even if it's not immediately "fun".

Al T.
04-05-2013, 01:00 PM
Tagged. :)

orionz06
04-05-2013, 01:12 PM
I agree Learning to fight takes time and dedication.

And, while it would be nice if some "instructors" would stop teaching because they're not qualified to teach, it's also the responsibility of the student to do his or her homework on an instructor before enrolling in a class. It's not that hard. In fact, the internet makes it fairly easy to do. Larry Vickers; former member of Delta, considered by most to be an expert in firearms. Not hard to find him. Same goes for Kyle Defoor, Pat McNamara, Mike Pannone, Paul Howe, etc. Their resumes speak for themselves and there are plenty of AARs on their classes floating around on the internet. And it isn't just them. There are plenty of qualified shooting instructors on the national level and on the local level that run firearms programs for LEAs and Academies etc. If you're unsure about an instructor or class, do the research. If you're still unsure, don't take the class and find an instructor who has credentials, references and a class that works for you. In short, if you're the student, take the time and steps necessary to ensure you get the best training you possibly can for your money. That's your responsibility.

I'd argue that the AAR any more isn't worth anything unless you can vouch for the source and even then I have a hard time wanting to take a thread full of pics for more than just confirmation someone enjoyed their weekend playing "guns" with the guys. I'll still write them and read them but my money is spent based on other sources of information. A prime example of that is the instructor themselves. If they have time to cash my check they can answer any reasonable questions I have, short of giving away the class.

TCinVA
04-05-2013, 01:31 PM
I'd argue that the AAR any more isn't worth anything unless you can vouch for the source

Sadly that's true. The AAR was turned into a huge marketing tool. I've been offered seats in classes (including travel) just for the AAR. To an extent it's a legit marketing tactic just like any other form of advertising and it can still be useful if the person writing it is doing so honestly.

Then there's the type of AAR that was free stuff and is written with an eye to keeping the free stuff train rolling.

pax
04-05-2013, 01:37 PM
'Tis true. Come to think of it, I think the most complete AARs were usually written by people who haven't attended many other classes, and thus have no real standard of comparison anyway. By the time someone's taken a few classes, they are less likely to write an AAR at all -- unless they have some other axe to grind. Like the marketing thing.

Kathy

TR675
04-05-2013, 01:40 PM
I work in a professional environment on a daily basis with significant interactions with numerous other people; I carry a 9 mm...

Any carry regime requires compromises of a greater or lesser type. Body types and types of professional dress, cover garments etc. all play a role - I do not know the specifics of your situation. My own experience is that full-time on-body concealed carry of a "serious" handgun is not feasible. My job requires me to enter secured or prohibited areas on a fairly routine basis - no weapons allowed. Both when I am in those environments and when I am not, I have to present a certain appearance that, IMO, requires my clothing to be tailored and well-fitting - i.e., if my pants are loose enough to carry a gun IWB, they do not look right; if my shirt is blouse-y enough to conceal a service weapon, it looks sloppy. This is accentuated by modern fashions which tend toward the snug. At the office, walking around with a suit jacket on is also a no-go for both practical and social reasons - i.e., wearing a jacket draws negative attention in our office as it pegs you as a stiff. In social and networking situations I hug and will be hugged by my female colleagues and acquaintances, often around the waist.

Further, immediate access of my handgun in the office is highly unlikely. I travel from my garage to a staffed parking garage, and then directly to my office which is not accessible from the elevator bank. In these circumstances, OWB of a service pistol and/or off-body carry and a desk lockbox while I am in the office are reasonable compromises for me. On occasion I will IWB a Ruger LCP which requires no alterations to the wardrobe. Optimal, no, but better than not carrying at all, which is the other alternative.


and with few exceptions cannot recommend any caliber below a .38 sp for defensive carry......

Doc, I read and respect your posts on terminal effects to the extent that I try to base my carry decisions on them as much as possible. Having said that, I believe that while there is no universe of possibilities where a .380 is superior to a 9mm handgun, there is likewise no universe of possibilties where the .22 or .380 that I am able to carry is inferior to the 9mm I cannot. My understanding is that most DGU type situations are resolved without shots being fired, and of the remainder a lesser caliber will suffice for a significant subset. Thus, at the end of the day, while I agree that a lesser caliber is not to be recommended, it may be both all that is available and sufficient to stop the majority of likely threats. I understand that some people might not want to take those particular risks, but then again, I also ride motorcycles...

Jay Cunningham
04-05-2013, 01:44 PM
I instituted a policy of not writing any type of AAR on a class if I recieved full or partial compensation on it, for whatever reason.

That said, I've made the decision that in the future I'll be paying my own way, regardless of any generous offers from the instructor or host.

Comp'd classes in many cases have gone from a professional courtesy to a way to buy glowing AARs.

orionz06
04-05-2013, 01:49 PM
'Tis true. Come to think of it, I think the most complete AARs were usually written by people who haven't attended many other classes, and thus have no real standard of comparison anyway. By the time someone's taken a few classes, they are less likely to write an AAR at all -- unless they have some other axe to grind. Like the marketing thing.

Kathy

And if you do have a base of comparison and the class sucks or the instructor spent the weekend telling the world how awesome they are can you say it? It seems to be accepted that you don't write a bad review.

jlw
04-05-2013, 02:37 PM
We've all seen crap "training" praised by students who don't know any better and are easily wowed.

DocGKR
04-05-2013, 02:44 PM
Darn--How come now one pays me to take classes and write AAR's? Maybe because they know I will cheerfully write a negative one if the instructor is not up to par...

TR675--First rule of a gunfight takes priority over other considerations. However, I am frequently angered by the number of off-duty LE officers who slip a .22, .25, .32, or .380 in their pocket instead of carrying a more appropriate and effective firearm.

Wendell
04-05-2013, 03:03 PM
And if you do have a base of comparison and the class sucks or the instructor spent the weekend telling the world how awesome they are can you say it? It seems to be accepted that you don't write a bad review.

At least one trainer has told us that he requires all of his students to sign a waiver:
a.) affirming that they will not post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet, and;
b.) cautioning them that they may face a lawsuit in the event that they post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet.

That might skew the data just a teensy bit.:)

rsa-otc
04-05-2013, 03:11 PM
At least one trainer has told us that he requires all of his students to sign a waiver:
a.) affirming that they will not post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet, and;
b.) cautioning them that they may face a lawsuit in the event that they post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet.

That might skew the data just a teensy bit.:)

That trainer doesn't need my business.

TCinVA
04-05-2013, 03:15 PM
At least one trainer has told us that he requires all of his students to sign a waiver:
a.) affirming that they will not post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet, and;
b.) cautioning them that they may face a lawsuit in the event that they post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet.

That might skew the data just a teensy bit.:)

What a wuss.

orionz06
04-05-2013, 03:31 PM
I am aware of only 2 negative AAR's out of all the AAR's I have seen. Surely all classes can't just be that good.

98z28
04-05-2013, 03:33 PM
...

Simply having the ability to pull a handgun from concealment tilts the odds dramatically in their favor. It's not a guarantee, but the statistics tell us that more often than not the people who can pull a gun end up going home relatively undamaged.

...


I have no doubt this is true, but I've never seen hard data to support it. Is there a source you can share?

orionz06
04-05-2013, 03:37 PM
I have no doubt this is true, but I've never seen hard data to support it. Is there a source you can share?

I don't have the hard data to support the point but I believe it 100%. I will then ask this: When was the last time a USPSA GM or the guy with all the multicam sash and all the merit badges was involved in an encounter as described?

Jay Cunningham
04-05-2013, 03:45 PM
I am aware of only 2 negative AAR's out of all the AAR's I have seen. Surely all classes can't just be that good.

The overwhelming majority of AARs are glowing. A small percentage are dispassionate, objective, and include both pros and cons.

A tiny few are negative. Which then begs the question: is the negative AAR legit, or is it a hit piece? And how does one figure out the difference?

Pennzoil
04-05-2013, 04:01 PM
I'm usually extremely careful picking the classes I attend asking people I know that have been to a lot more classes then I. Earlier this year I attended my first class I wouldn't recommend that actually set my accuracy back enough to take @ 200 rds to dial it back in. I didn't ask around like I usually do letting my guard down.

During practice after attending the class I saw a decrease in performance and decided to write a detailed long AAR and sent it just to the instructor. I think the class had a few things going against it that didn't help the instructor out but in the end the class wasn't up to par with others I attended. The instructor thanked me and said he was going to work on improving the class. I wouldn't do a thing different unless the class was unsafe. If I don't like the class I don't post an AAR on the interwebs.

Default.mp3
04-05-2013, 04:02 PM
The overwhelming majority of AARs are glowing. A small percentage are dispassionate, objective, and include both pros and cons.

A tiny few are negative. Which then begs the question: is the negative AAR legit, or is it a hit piece? And how does one figure out the difference?

My question is, can one generally be able to figure out the weaknesses of a class even if the writer wrote very positively about the class? I don't think I can, due to the fact that there is so much I don't know I don't know, but for example, I know one of the glowing AARs of 21st Century Gunfighter on LF prompted a long discussion about the merits of one of the points that was made during the course. So, while the original tone of the review was very positive, the thread itself was rather negative (despite the fact that 21st CG had some positive, non-controversial AARs before). Is that something that we can expect for more experienced/well-versed shooters to be able to do, to be able to read between the lines and figure out what's wrong with a course, even if the writer of the AAR was besotted by the course? Or is there usually simply not enough information to make such a decision, even in an in-depth AAR (regardless of the amount of bias in it) and with BTDT SMEs reading it?

jetfire
04-05-2013, 04:03 PM
Darn--How come now one pays me to take classes and write AAR's?

Become a gunwriter, except then we don't call them "AARs" they're magazine articles. Oh, and the pay is actually terrible.

Kimura
04-05-2013, 05:28 PM
I'd argue that the AAR any more isn't worth anything unless you can vouch for the source and even then I have a hard time wanting to take a thread full of pics for more than just confirmation someone enjoyed their weekend playing "guns" with the guys. I'll still write them and read them but my money is spent based on other sources of information. A prime example of that is the instructor themselves. If they have time to cash my check they can answer any reasonable questions I have, short of giving away the class.

I could argue that there are some good AARs written by qualified people and that confirming your source to the best of your ability is part of doing research. But in truth, AARs are only part of the research involved when looking for an instructor or looking at a class. The student needs to figure out what skill he's looking to train, then go about looking at the resumes of people that teach whatever skill it is. Talking to the instructors and or references are also part of doing research. Being thorough pays dividends. And the use of common sense is highly recommended. How many blade, stick or empty hand fighting schools out there are run by guys who have never been in fight? A lot is the answer. Can they teach skills that are useful? Of course. Can they tell me what it's like to fight with blood streaming into my eyes or with a broken bone? No, because they've never done it. As long as they don't misrepresent themselves, that isn't good or bad; it's simply the truth and, as a student, it tells me where their limitations are. I get to decide from there whether or not to proceed forward with the training. And I come back to if you're unsure, move along to next instructor.


At least one trainer has told us that he requires all of his students to sign a waiver:
a.) affirming that they will not post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet, and;
b.) cautioning them that they may face a lawsuit in the event that they post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet.

That might skew the data just a teensy bit.:)

That to me is a clue that I don't want to take the class.

pax
04-05-2013, 06:10 PM
Become a gunwriter, except then we don't ca them "AARs" they're magazine articles. Oh, a pay is actually terrible.

Well, the pay might suck, but at least the respect is nonexistent.

Kathy

Jay Cunningham
04-05-2013, 06:20 PM
I advise caution with "the résumé speaks for itself" line of reasoning.

The resume shouldn't be doing the speaking - the instructor should be, along with the demos. If the instructor feels a need to continually refer to "the résumé" it's a red flag for me.

An impressive résumé is great and can give you clarity as to where an instructor is coming from, but I'm personally much more concerned with what an instructor can do for me *right now*.

Odin Bravo One
04-05-2013, 06:26 PM
Become a gunwriter, except then we don't call them "AARs" they're magazine articles. Oh, and the pay is actually terrible.

Based on the magazine articles I have read covering the topic, I'd say the pay is par with the performance.

Kyle Reese
04-05-2013, 06:42 PM
Based on the magazine articles I have read covering the topic, I'd say the pay is par with the performance.

Wah wah wah.....:D

Only so many ways for these writers to say that the 1911 is thw best handgun ever.....every month.....

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

jetfire
04-05-2013, 06:56 PM
Well, the pay might suck, but at least the respect is nonexistent.

Kathy

And the benefits are awesome!*

*This might be a lie.

Tamara
04-05-2013, 08:36 PM
Well, the pay might suck, but at least the respect is nonexistent.

Kathy

People who write for gun rags don't know $#!+ about $#!+. And the idiot behind the gun store counter is even more ignorant. But the biggest, most clueless morons in the entire firearms world are to be found on internet gun forums; I wouldn't believe a thing those drooling cretins type.

:|

pax
04-05-2013, 08:41 PM
I see what you did there.

pax

David S.
04-08-2013, 05:17 PM
I find most course outlines provided by the instructors/schools are terribly inadequate.

This course description from Magpul Dynamics DH1 could describe every other basic handgun class on the planet.

This course is entry-level and is designed to give the beginner or novice shooter the proper handgun fundamentals. Starting with combat mindset, the class covers:

Proper gear selection and placement
Shooting stance
The draw
Proper grip
Axis and mechanics of recoil
Grip, sight alignment, sight picture
Trigger control
Speed reloads
Tactical reloads
The four (4) primary malfunctions
Strong and weak hand shooting
Shooting on the move
Situation specific shooting positions


Yup, that's what they teach. . . But I'm guessing the soul of DH1 is different from Givens CH1 or Tactical Response Fighting Pistol or JerryBob's Basic Pistol 1. AAR's generally describe the soul of the class/instructor far better than the school's description.

Cheers,
D

FotoTomas
04-09-2013, 10:15 AM
One point not mentioned yet... student animosity.

I am an inhouse firearms instructor for a police agency. Over the years I have had many opportunities to impart wisdom and sage advice to those I have been entrusted to train. Unfortunatly many of those individuals are quite displeased that they have to spend THEIR time off learning about STUPID tactics and wasting valuable sleep/beer drinking time with punching holes in cardboard AND then having to CLEAN the pistol. By god they will show up and simply bang the rounds down range to get it over with as fast as possible.

Sad but true.

Another point, the approved lesson plan (LP). My job REQUIRES me to teach to the standards based on approved agency LPs. Even when such LPs have some flaws. Flaws that can be corrected BUT must first go through a multi level approval process. Until it is changed the standard LP must still be taught. Did I mention that our big wig training gurus often rewrite the LPs so that we have to make sure what we teach is the most current info. As well as check it for flaws that might have slipped through.

Last but not least is the liability issue. My employers have a terrible fear of liability and have based all such training standards and LPs on minimizing such exposure. I for example, when running officers through the "official" qualification course, can NOT count any hits on target past the minimum. We fire 50 rounds "at" the target but I have to stop counting when I find 40 hits (80%). They then get a "P" (pass) and I am off to the next target to score. It does not matter if we have a rathole in the middle of the target or a pattern that covers the entire sillohouette. We teach to a level of mediocracy and actively avoid trying to get people to a higher standard to keep the in house lawyers happy.

Many officers try to get as much out of the training as possible. Looking for opportunities to improve so they might be better prepared for what might happen. They make showing up for class a blessing and keep me enthusiastic about my collateral duty. On the other hand we have some that truly do ONLY the minimum required and complain about that as well.

I hope those instructors that teach for profit appreciate the fact that people paying for training will most likely want to be there which is a great way to start to a class.

ToddG
04-09-2013, 10:31 AM
I hope those instructors that teach for profit appreciate the fact that people paying for training will most likely want to be there which is a great way to start to a class.

I've had a number of small agencies inquire about having me do classes for the whole department. Usually this happens after an FI or two from the department have been through AFHF. My question to them is always pretty straightforward: how many of your patrol guys will actually benefit from two intense days of shooting 1,000-1,500 rounds versus how many will complain to the Chief about being forced to spend two long days on the range shooting until their hands bleed?

Every year I see quite a few agency FIs come through class in addition to doing dedicated LE/agency classes. I don't think I've met an FI yet who hasn't lamented the general level of disinterest among his officers, deputies, agents, whatever when it comes to firearms training.

jlw
04-09-2013, 11:12 AM
One point not mentioned yet... student animosity.

I am an inhouse firearms instructor for a police agency. Over the years I have had many opportunities to impart wisdom and sage advice to those I have been entrusted to train. Unfortunatly many of those individuals are quite displeased that they have to spend THEIR time off learning about STUPID tactics and wasting valuable sleep/beer drinking time with punching holes in cardboard AND then having to CLEAN the pistol. By god they will show up and simply bang the rounds down range to get it over with as fast as possible.

Sad but true.

Another point, the approved lesson plan (LP). My job REQUIRES me to teach to the standards based on approved agency LPs. Even when such LPs have some flaws. Flaws that can be corrected BUT must first go through a multi level approval process. Until it is changed the standard LP must still be taught. Did I mention that our big wig training gurus often rewrite the LPs so that we have to make sure what we teach is the most current info. As well as check it for flaws that might have slipped through.

Last but not least is the liability issue. My employers have a terrible fear of liability and have based all such training standards and LPs on minimizing such exposure. I for example, when running officers through the "official" qualification course, can NOT count any hits on target past the minimum. We fire 50 rounds "at" the target but I have to stop counting when I find 40 hits (80%). They then get a "P" (pass) and I am off to the next target to score. It does not matter if we have a rathole in the middle of the target or a pattern that covers the entire sillohouette. We teach to a level of mediocracy and actively avoid trying to get people to a higher standard to keep the in house lawyers happy.

Many officers try to get as much out of the training as possible. Looking for opportunities to improve so they might be better prepared for what might happen. They make showing up for class a blessing and keep me enthusiastic about my collateral duty. On the other hand we have some that truly do ONLY the minimum required and complain about that as well.

I hope those instructors that teach for profit appreciate the fact that people paying for training will most likely want to be there which is a great way to start to a class.



I've had a number of small agencies inquire about having me do classes for the whole department. Usually this happens after an FI or two from the department have been through AFHF. My question to them is always pretty straightforward: how many of your patrol guys will actually benefit from two intense days of shooting 1,000-1,500 rounds versus how many will complain to the Chief about being forced to spend two long days on the range shooting until their hands bleed?

Every year I see quite a few agency FIs come through class in addition to doing dedicated LE/agency classes. I don't think I've met an FI yet who hasn't lamented the general level of disinterest among his officers, deputies, agents, whatever when it comes to firearms training.


I changed our policy so that there is no remedial training. We scheduled more than a dozen training sessions. I see no need to remediate anyone when there are ample training opportunities.

Beginning next year, the minimum agency standard will be higher than the state's minimum standard. The way I see it, we aren't a "minimum agency"; so, we aren't going to perform minimally.

KeeFus
04-09-2013, 11:49 AM
I changed our policy so that there is no remedial training. We scheduled more than a dozen training sessions. I see no need to remediate anyone when there are ample training opportunities.

Beginning next year, the minimum agency standard will be higher than the state's minimum standard. The way I see it, we aren't a "minimum agency"; so, we aren't going to perform minimally.

Hey...I know a town (in NC) where there's a Chiefs opening...just sayin'...:cool:

I wish our admin saw it that way.

David Armstrong
04-09-2013, 12:17 PM
One point not mentioned yet... student animosity.

I am an inhouse firearms instructor for a police agency. Over the years I have had many opportunities to impart wisdom and sage advice to those I have been entrusted to train. Unfortunatly many of those individuals are quite displeased that they have to spend THEIR time off learning about STUPID tactics and wasting valuable sleep/beer drinking time with punching holes in cardboard AND then having to CLEAN the pistol. By god they will show up and simply bang the rounds down range to get it over with as fast as possible.
Perhaps that is part of the problem...and I'd question whether it is even allowed under labor laws. If you mandate the training I don't think you can mandate it be done on their own time. Perhaps a scheduled paid day at the range might change some attitudes? What other type of training do you expect the officers to do on their time off and not get paid for it?

Last but not least is the liability issue. My employers have a terrible fear of liability and have based all such training standards and LPs on minimizing such exposure. I for example, when running officers through the "official" qualification course, can NOT count any hits on target past the minimum. We fire 50 rounds "at" the target but I have to stop counting when I find 40 hits (80%). They then get a "P" (pass) and I am off to the next target to score. It does not matter if we have a rathole in the middle of the target or a pattern that covers the entire sillohouette.
That is not that uncommon. I disagree with the concept but lots of places use it.

jlw
04-09-2013, 12:22 PM
Perhaps that is part of the problem...and I'd question whether it is even allowed under labor laws. If you mandate the training I don't think you can mandate it be done on their own time. Perhaps a scheduled paid day at the range might change some attitudes? What other type of training do you expect the officers to do on their time off and not get paid for it?




Fair Labor Standards Act

jlw
04-09-2013, 12:23 PM
Hey...I know a town (in NC) where there's a Chiefs opening...just sayin'...:cool:

I wish our admin saw it that way.


You could come to GA... just sayin'...:cool:

Did I mention all the ammo that you will actually shoot and that we have been known to send folks to shoot matches?

KeeFus
04-09-2013, 12:35 PM
You could come to GA... just sayin'...:cool:

Did I mention all the ammo that you will actually shoot and that we have been known to send folks to shoot matches?

With less than 8 to go i will ride this train til it wrecks. But GA sounds like a nice place to look at a second retirement!!!

FotoTomas
04-09-2013, 12:37 PM
I changed our policy so that there is no remedial training. We scheduled more than a dozen training sessions. I see no need to remediate anyone when there are ample training opportunities.

Beginning next year, the minimum agency standard will be higher than the state's minimum standard. The way I see it, we aren't a "minimum agency"; so, we aren't going to perform minimally.

I wish my agency felt that way. Instead we are the red headed step children sucking valuable time and money from more important pursuits.

On the other hand there is a local Sheriff's Office that has a weekly optional training period open to in house deputies and area LE for free. Outside agencies or officers provide their own ammo. Show up, shoot, socialize. Great option for networking, fundamentals or some advanced tactics with the cost of some time. Out of the current 40 plus members in my station I alone have made the trip more than twice. For me it was a weekly pilgrimmage until I was transferred south. Heading back upstate in the summer and looking forward to renewing my practice time. I so wish more of us would strive to do the same.

On another point as asked in the original post I too carry at home. I mentioned it in an earlier post. I am one of, if not the best shooters in my station and I feel comfortable with my options and choices. I also like to shoot in local matches. I am a very small fish in the local gun club matches. So many (with very few in LE) totally outshoot me there. Many of them do the gun thing for fun and do not carry at all be it at home or on the street. It amazes me that the best shots often do not carry and those disinterested cops I train often do and I am sincerely scared that I am in more potential danger from them. :(

David Armstrong
04-09-2013, 12:49 PM
Fair Labor Standards Act
That's what I would assume, FLSA guidelines on the issue seem pretty clear.

KeeFus
04-09-2013, 12:53 PM
Perhaps that is part of the problem...and I'd question whether it is even allowed under labor laws. If you mandate the training I don't think you can mandate it be done on their own time. Perhaps a scheduled paid day at the range might change some attitudes? What other type of training do you expect the officers to do on their time off and not get paid for it?



Our training is State mandated and AT MY AGENCY we are compensated with comp time...but that's not always the case here in NC. I know of several agencies that do not compensate their officers for the States mandated training. Their philosophy is that they're hosting the training...it's on you to get it if you want to keep your certification.

As far as a paid day at the range...out of 43 officers I dare say that 1/4 would even show up. That number would dwindle down to single digits within a month or two.

When it comes to scoring at qualification...just last week we qualified (yearly) and we have now gone from the P or F to a % grade, which I like. However, we only use a 30 round qualification course instead of 50. That said, some of the scores I saw needed to just be P or F's. One of the SWAT guys had to re-qualify 3 times before he met the "teams" minimum standard of 80%. And NO, I'm not joking. Kicker, they shoot at least every quarter. SMH.

Foto, you are not in the minority. I have tried for years to get guys to go to matches. It's like talking to a pole.

FotoTomas
04-09-2013, 01:01 PM
Perhaps that is part of the problem...and I'd question whether it is even allowed under labor laws. If you mandate the training I don't think you can mandate it be done on their own time. Perhaps a scheduled paid day at the range might change some attitudes? What other type of training do you expect the officers to do on their time off and not get paid for it?

That is not that uncommon. I disagree with the concept but lots of places use it.

The training is required and days off are shifted so that everyone is on paid status. Problem is some do not like being forced to train even on paid time and especially if it forces them to change their schedule. Can't please everyone. Then again I have had to work a night shift and work OT to teach the classes. It can be a pain. Even so it needs to be embraced not scorned.

jlw
04-09-2013, 01:06 PM
I wish my agency felt that way. Instead we are the red headed step children sucking valuable time and money from more important pursuits.

On the other hand there is a local Sheriff's Office that has a weekly optional training period open to in house deputies and area LE for free. Outside agencies or officers provide their own ammo. Show up, shoot, socialize. Great option for networking, fundamentals or some advanced tactics with the cost of some time. Out of the current 40 plus members in my station I alone have made the trip more than twice. For me it was a weekly pilgrimmage until I was transferred south. Heading back upstate in the summer and looking forward to renewing my practice time. I so wish more of us would strive to do the same.

On another point as asked in the original post I too carry at home. I mentioned it in an earlier post. I am one of, if not the best shooters in my station and I feel comfortable with my options and choices. I also like to shoot in local matches. I am a very small fish in the local gun club matches. So many (with very few in LE) totally outshoot me there. Many of them do the gun thing for fun and do not carry at all be it at home or on the street. It amazes me that the best shots often do not carry and those disinterested cops I train often do and I am sincerely scared that I am in more potential danger from them. :(


Unless something is agency specific, we open our training to any peace officers who want to attend. We also very much enjoy doing annual qualifications for retired officers.

FotoTomas
04-09-2013, 01:07 PM
You could come to GA... just sayin'...:cool:

Did I mention all the ammo that you will actually shoot and that we have been known to send folks to shoot matches?

WHERE???... I still have my GA POST valid but inactive...when can I move? Close to Dublin maybe??? I still have 5 acres there! :)

TCinVA
04-09-2013, 02:41 PM
I changed our policy so that there is no remedial training. We scheduled more than a dozen training sessions. I see no need to remediate anyone when there are ample training opportunities.

Beginning next year, the minimum agency standard will be higher than the state's minimum standard. The way I see it, we aren't a "minimum agency"; so, we aren't going to perform minimally.

Congratulations on making the choice to battle mediocrity. May Odin smile upon your efforts...for I'm sure most others will not.

jlw
04-09-2013, 03:36 PM
WHERE???... I still have my GA POST valid but inactive...when can I move? Close to Dublin maybe??? I still have 5 acres there! :)


Two hours from Dublin. LOL

jlw
04-09-2013, 03:37 PM
Congratulations on making the choice to battle mediocrity. May Odin smile upon your efforts...for I'm sure most others will not.

There are some rather upset over it.

Attendance at the training sessions has risen dramatically though.

FotoTomas
04-09-2013, 04:07 PM
Two hours from Dublin. LOL

Dang...thats more than half of the state. What a commute bill. :(

ST911
04-09-2013, 07:53 PM
Beginning next year, the minimum agency standard will be higher than the state's minimum standard. The way I see it, we aren't a "minimum agency"; so, we aren't going to perform minimally.

Revolutionary. Good for you.

David Armstrong
04-10-2013, 10:38 AM
from foto:
The training is required and days off are shifted so that everyone is on paid status.
OK, that is a very different picture than the original..."Unfortunatly many of those individuals are quite displeased that they have to spend THEIR time off learning about STUPID tactics and wasting valuable sleep/beer drinking time with punching holes in cardboard AND then having to CLEAN the pistol."

FotoTomas
04-10-2013, 06:46 PM
OK, that is a very different picture than the original..."Unfortunatly many of those individuals are quite displeased that they have to spend THEIR time off learning about STUPID tactics and wasting valuable sleep/beer drinking time with punching holes in cardboard AND then having to CLEAN the pistol."

Poor selection and choice of words on my part. Sorry. They get most upset when their day off gets swapped for a training day. They still get the day off either earlier or later in the pay period.

David Armstrong
04-10-2013, 07:01 PM
Poor selection and choice of words on my part. Sorry. They get most upset when their day off gets swapped for a training day. They still get the day off either earlier or later in the pay period.
That clears it up a bit. Heck, I LIKE to shoot and I might get a little bent if I had to take my off-time for quals.

Noleshooter
04-10-2013, 07:40 PM
A lot of the discussion about training in this thread is related to local agencies, but how is it with federal agencies? For example, how many training opportunities are available to an FBI Special Agent or a similar position?

FotoTomas
04-12-2013, 12:19 PM
A lot of the discussion about training in this thread is related to local agencies, but how is it with federal agencies? For example, how many training opportunities are available to an FBI Special Agent or a similar position?

There are more than 100 unique federal LE agencies that have unique training programs for their specific circumstance. Off the top of my head...Mint Police, Postal Police, Postal Inspectors, Treasury Police, Supreme Court Police, Capitol Police, Smithsonian Police, National Cathedral Police, Veterans Affairs Police, FBI Police, Secret Service, Uniformed Secret Service, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshalls, Interior LE Rangers, Agriculture/Forest Service LE Rangers, US Park Police, IRS police, IRS Special Agents, Treasury Agents, BATFE special agents under Homeland Security which now has the old GSA Federal Protective Service Police, FEMA Police, Tennessee Valley Authority Police, BIA Indian Police, Various Tribal Police agencies, Office of Inspector General special agents for each Branch and agency, and on and on and on...

Sorry...that did not help much. :(

Wendell
12-31-2020, 01:13 AM
At least one trainer has told us that he requires all of his students to sign a waiver:
a.) affirming that they will not post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet, and;
b.) cautioning them that they may face a lawsuit in the event that they post anything disparaging (about him, or the class, or his school) on the internet.

That might skew the data just a teensy bit.:)


...That to me is a clue that I don't want to take the class.

I agree. However...

Re-reading this thread, six years later, I cannot recall who it was that I was talking about. I've not a clue.

Mental note: when posting, be sure to include enough information so that you (at least) will know what you meant.