My reason for asking this is we keep hearing this uttered, so it must matter...but does training reflect it?
When you look at it, good training seems to follow this idea:
1) Identify and define the problem
2) Identify the solution to the problem
3) Identify any obstructions to the problem
4) Teach the student how to solve the problem while avoiding, overcoming or adapting to the obstructions as efficiently as possible.
So...if a lawyer attached to every bullet means that the use of a firearm in self defense will be analyzed and possibly litigated, so why aren't people "teaching to the test?"
I mean, we do it all the time, right?
People look at "how gunfights happen" and develop tactics and techniques and gear to optimize themselves for "the gunfight".
Yes, sometimes it may become very specialized, like with XS Sights - you give up some long range for a very visible front sight optimized for low light, close in shooting - but it is still a reflection of identifying the problem, identifying the solution to the problem, identifying the obstructions, and giving someone a tool to solve that problem.
When I hear "lawyer attached to every bullet" I usually hear in my mind a cop-out by an instructor who can't adequately explain the context of what he's teaching, when it should be used, or how what he's teaching will be reconciled with the aftermath, and is not fair to the students.