How Relevant is LE and Military Experience to Private Citizens?

[Suvorov]

For me the biggest advantage to former Military or LE instructors is that their prior service is somewhat of a guarantee of their abilities. If a guy has served with a particular unit, then it tells me that he has mastered these skills. Now can he teach? That is another matter all together. I will also say as someone who learned my "serious shooting" in a military setting from instructors from such units, I actually prefer the training atmosphere and I feel comfortable in it. For others, it may be a turn off.

With civilian background shooters, there is a little more ambiguity to there credentials. RobS may very well be as good of a shooter SeanM is and may actually be a better teacher, but there is no way for the average wana learn to shoot Joe to know this, so they will go with the man with certifiable Ninja skills over the one without.

I think once a shooter has evolved out of the basics into their own path of ballistic enlightenment, then they are usually smart enough to know that each instructor out there has certain skill sets to offer and they can choose the instructors that best offer them what they want. The corollary is that for the shooter who hasn't evolved to this point yet, then they are probably well served by quality instructors regardless of background.

Of course all of this also negates the "entertainment and recreational" aspects of going to classes.

[fixer]

I haven't read the entire thread...so apologies if I'm being repetitive.

I write as a regular joe citizen looking for instruction on better pistol handling & marksmanship as well as what I'd refer to as defensive tactics geared towards "software."

To this end, I find LE and military backgrounds very useful as long as it is relevant and geared toward instruction.

[BLR]

I think the better question would be LE or military experience.

When I was collecting certificates, I went to comp shooters (mostly) for shooting technique, LE for tactics, and military for grins and giggles (not that I didn't learn, and the classes were well worth it, but the goals were different).

So it depends: if I'm looking to learn how to shoot, it's immaterial to me. If I'm looking to learn why/what/when, in my current gig I'll go to LE every time.

[ST911]

The value of a background depends on where it was received, specific assignments and details, training, and the field experience. This will vary widely in the mil circles where being "military" can mean anything from plumber/crew chief/MWR equipment manager to a JSOC asset. LE will vary as well but more narrowly. Even Joe Uniform from Podunk PD will have at least some base of experience in threat recognition, conflict management, verbal skills, physical skills, working in different light conditions, and other basic street skills. What he (or she) will bring to the table will depend on what they took away from that experience and if they can redeliver it.

For ~8 hours a day, LE and mil do the things they do. ~16hrs remain in the day though where they are not on the job and have to go to Walmart, the movies, walk down the street, and live like the rest of the population. Don't presume that the concerns of Joe Public who CCWs are lost on professional gun toters.

[Mr_White]

While I would go to a class being taught by a GM shooter to improve my skills, I do tend to notice that a lot of such folks walk off the range with all of their guns in a bag.

That's a problem for me.

That peeves the hell outta me too, but it's because I am projecting my own priorities with pistols onto them, and they have their own priorities.

The two things that vex me the most about USPSA are all the skilled people leaving the match unarmed or armed with a vastly compromised gun, and having to deal with the cold range. I think it's enormously to my benefit to deal with it though. I would be a worse pistol shooter if I let those issues stop me from participating.

Why? Does it make them less of a shooter? Is there some magical "because tactical" that somehow diminishes their skill with a pistol?

No. And it doesn't stop me from training or competing with them. It's just a demonstration of very different perceptions or priorities than I have, and that is ok too.

I look at it this way: If I could play the harmonica just masterfully, I would carry one around with me all the time. Because why not? It could fit in my pocket. It's not like it's a bass fiddle or a tuba and I can't carry it around or I would look like a dick if I did. But why on earth would a great harmonica player not have a harmonica? It's the same with pistols. I see these people who are masterful with their pistols. They obviously enjoy shooting them. But then they don't leave wearing them (not everyone, but many.) If you can have a pistol and you are great with it, then why don't you have one (that you are great with)? It speaks to a different perception of need or different priorities. And that's their business. It does make me scratch my head though.

[Mr_White]

Don't presume that the concerns of Joe Public who CCWs are lost on professional gun toters.

I don't. That's why I titled the thread 'How Relevant' rather than 'Is It Relevant'. I acknowledged its (LE and military experience) relevancy. Just trying to spark a discussion of which aspects are relevant and how relevant they are.

For ~8 hours a day, LE and mil do the things they do. ~16hrs remain in the day though where they are not on the job and have to go to Walmart, the movies, walk down the street, and live like the rest of the population.

What percentage of LE and military folks do you think carry concealed when not on the job? Not that I have an answer and I don't know if you do. I would guess that it's more than the general population (especially for LE?) but a lot less than 100%.

[GJM]

That peeves the hell outta me too, but it's because I am projecting my own priorities with pistols onto them, and they have their own priorities.

Really bugs me, too. I have read a bunch lately, so this is from memory, and may be off -- but as I recall, in the book by the guy on the mission that got OBL, he said that now that he is back in the US, his days of ever carrying a gun are over.

[Kevin B.]

I don't. That's why I titled the thread 'How Relevant' rather than 'Is It Relevant'. I acknowledged its (LE and military experience) relevancy. Just trying to spark a discussion of which aspects are relevant and how relevant they are.

That is going to depend on each individual's LE/military experience. Certainly the experience of resolving problems through the controlled application of violence has some overlap. Not all military or LE personnel have the same (or any) level of experience.

[Chris Rhines]

That peeves the hell outta me too, but it's because I am projecting my own priorities with pistols onto them, and they have their own priorities.

The two things that vex me the most about USPSA are all the skilled people leaving the match unarmed or armed with a vastly compromised gun, and having to deal with the cold range. I think it's enormously to my benefit to deal with it though. I would be a worse pistol shooter if I let those issues stop me from participating.

For some of us, it's because we live in a state where concealed weapons permits are basically unavailable, and a first offence concealed weapon charge is a felony. Just sayin'.

[Mr_White]

For some of us, it's because we live in a state where concealed weapons permits are basically unavailable, and a first offence concealed weapon charge is a felony. Just sayin'.

Totally. I have no criticism for a person in that situation. I am referring to here where almost everyone could carry if they wanted. But it's still their business anyway.