"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...ce=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 (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. 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

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.