Instructors or classes that teach fear mongering
- Thread starter ECS686
- Start date
Hammer67
Professional
I think one of the biggest failures I see from poor instruction is the failure to take context into account, and the differences between being an armed civilian and being a professional.
There are too many instructors from some sort of SOF background (real or claimed) along with others who have spent a career in some sort of professional capacity, and then turn around and become instructors, and think that everyone needs to be trained the same way that they were. They fail to translate their knowledge and skills to a very different customer.
Beyond that, they also often fail to take into account context in the bigger picture level. We all lead different lives, and often in very different contexts. The person who lives in a small rural town probably doesn't have the same threat level to contend with on a daily basis as the person who is a night manager of a liquor in a big city. Why is there such an emphasis on "assessing threats" in the moment, but not in terms of the bigger-picture of what one's day to day existence looks like?
And so, the lazy instructor offers a "one size fits all" scenario for their students, in which everyone needs to be professionally outfitted, with a high capacity semi-auto, and at least one if not two reloads, every minute of their lives, whether at home or going to the grocery store, and anything less than that is considered a compromise, if not a failure. This is terrible instruction, imo, and people should get their money back if they paid and spent a day having this one-dimensional perspective shoved down their throats.
I could go on about this, and about how poorly the training community serves the average citizen, but that's enough for now.
There are too many instructors from some sort of SOF background (real or claimed) along with others who have spent a career in some sort of professional capacity, and then turn around and become instructors, and think that everyone needs to be trained the same way that they were. They fail to translate their knowledge and skills to a very different customer.
Beyond that, they also often fail to take into account context in the bigger picture level. We all lead different lives, and often in very different contexts. The person who lives in a small rural town probably doesn't have the same threat level to contend with on a daily basis as the person who is a night manager of a liquor in a big city. Why is there such an emphasis on "assessing threats" in the moment, but not in terms of the bigger-picture of what one's day to day existence looks like?
And so, the lazy instructor offers a "one size fits all" scenario for their students, in which everyone needs to be professionally outfitted, with a high capacity semi-auto, and at least one if not two reloads, every minute of their lives, whether at home or going to the grocery store, and anything less than that is considered a compromise, if not a failure. This is terrible instruction, imo, and people should get their money back if they paid and spent a day having this one-dimensional perspective shoved down their throats.
I could go on about this, and about how poorly the training community serves the average citizen, but that's enough for now.
Last edited:
SimonRL
Hellcat
I think the problem with a lot of trainers, and particulary ex-military/SOF is that their baseline is Is on a completely different plane and for them to dial it down goes counter to their training. It’s like when people come to me and ask me what car to buy because I’m a car guy. I drive a Porsche, I’m not going to recommend you buy a Camry or a Tacoma or an EV because I wouldn’t be caught dead in one and I can’t lower my level of expectation. When you try and explain that to people they look at you like an a-hole.I think one of the biggest failures I see from poor instruction is the failure to take context into account, and the differences between being an armed civilian and being a professional.
There are too many instructors from some sort of SOF background (real or claimed) along with others who have spent a career in some sort of professional capacity, and then turn around and become instructors, and think that everyone needs to be trained the same way that they were. They fail to translate their knowledge and skills to a very different customer.
Beyond that, they also often fail to take into account context in the bigger picture level. We all lead different lives, and often in very different contexts. The person who lives in a small rural town probably doesn't have the same threat level to contend with on a daily basis as the person who is a night manager of a liquor in a big city. Why is there such an emphasis on "assessing threats" in the moment, but not in terms of the bigger-picture of what one's day to day existence looks like?
And so, the lazy instructor offers a "one size fits all" scenario for their students, in which everyone needs to be professionally outfitted, with a high capacity semi-auto, and at least one if not two reloads, every minute of their lives, whether at home or going to the grocery store, and anything less than that is considered a compromise, if not a failure. This is terrible instruction, imo, and people should get their money back if they paid and spent a day having this one-dimensional perspective shoved down their throats.
I could go on about this, and about how poorly the training community serves the average citizen, but that's enough for now.
I have found that the training guys I like most are active SWAT guys because they have that extreme level of training, but they deal with the public as a victim on a daily basis and they see and understand the impact that it has on the normal person. The SWAT guys I train with are the only trainers who have given me an alternate view on why I SHOULDN’T have taken the shot during a house invasion training session even though the shot was righteous. I really appreciated that because it taught me that there is always time to think even when your brain is dialed up to 11. Btw, they had tailored the drill based on a conversation I had with them about how I would respond if someone broke in to my house.
Hammer67
Professional
Yeah, I think my point is that those instructors aren't military anymore, and they've willingly chosen a new line of work that is very different - teaching. But in some cases they aren't doing the work to actually be a good instructor. I've known people who were amazingly talented rock climbers - it didn't mean they were good rock climbing instructors. In fact in some cases they were spectacular failures as teachers, even though they were very good at it personally. Technical skills are only one part of good instruction. I've been on both sides of that fence quite a bit in my life.
Deciding to become a teacher, if you want to be a good one, means more than just regurgitating what was drilled into you in a former career and dogmatically offering a "one size fits all" approach - it means translating it to your specific audience in ways that are useful and practical for them. And that means doing actual work to get out of your comfort zone as a teacher who safely sticks to a menu, no matter how good you may have been at doing what you did in a previous career. This is why I refer to it as "lazy."
Of course, education is also a two-way street. It's up to the active student to also glean and apply what is useful for their situation, and disregard what isn't. I've trained with people who spent half the day running us through fantasy horseshit scenarios of which the probability of ever using that in my regular life is just about zero. But I still took things away from the experience to apply to my own toolkit.
Well yeah, kinda.
Deciding to become a teacher, if you want to be a good one, means more than just regurgitating what was drilled into you in a former career and dogmatically offering a "one size fits all" approach - it means translating it to your specific audience in ways that are useful and practical for them. And that means doing actual work to get out of your comfort zone as a teacher who safely sticks to a menu, no matter how good you may have been at doing what you did in a previous career. This is why I refer to it as "lazy."
Of course, education is also a two-way street. It's up to the active student to also glean and apply what is useful for their situation, and disregard what isn't. I've trained with people who spent half the day running us through fantasy horseshit scenarios of which the probability of ever using that in my regular life is just about zero. But I still took things away from the experience to apply to my own toolkit.
Well yeah, kinda.
Last edited:
Bassbob
Emissary
That's an excellent point. Having trained with both I agree. I see value in both types of training as well. The guy who's classes I have taken the most of is a retired combat marine and Marine Corps marksmanship instructor who after that did 20 years in law enforcement, including SWAT and training the "Jump out boys", retiring last year as a captain.
I occasionally train with some guys I know who are current and ex-military and we spend exactly zero time talking about or training for legal ramifications associated with armed citizens. Mind you these guys aren't instructors strictly speaking. I mean I'm not paying to take classes with them, they are just some pyschopathic combat vets I happen to know and in some cases work with who invite me to come and have fun with them. They have way neater toys than I do.
BassCliff
Professional
Hi,
I'm continuing to read links in Mr. Yamane's online article.
From: https://www.thebookseller.com/right...tle-contemporary-gun-violence-shapira-1301000
A UK editor for a publisher in the UK reviews Mr. Shapira's book thusly:
"Martinovic said: “Before I read Basic Pistol, I felt like I knew a lot about gun culture in the US — or more accurately, I had mentally filed the situation away as being hopelessly tied up with the second amendment, and that much of it was linked to NRA lobbying and political stubbornness. I was wrong – as Harel demonstrates, the truth is much more insidious and disturbing than that. The book completely reframes gun culture in the terms of a privileged white establishment’s encouragement of the notion that its people are entitled to kill perceived ’threats’, which is a notion that has played out with grim relevancy in the recent Kyle Rittenhouse trial." (Emphasis mine.)
Although Mr. Martinovic seems to agree with Mr. Shapira, I say this bit of insight from Mr. Marinovic supports my view that Mr. Shapira is being disingenuous by spinning his "research" to support an anti-gun agenda.
There are a few more links to studies and commentaries in Mr. Yamane's article that I have yet to get through:
gunculture2point0.wordpress.com
gunculture2point0.wordpress.com
uncpress.org
Just to name a few, but a pattern is starting to emerge. Feel free to tell me I'm full of soup. I won't be offended.
From a link within a link, I like this idea of a "law abiding army of one": https://gunculture2point0.wordpress...iding-one-man-armies-seattle-washington-1972/
To be sure, it's all interesting reading and it's pretty clear to tell where the lines are being drawn. If I have any more profound glimpses into the obvious as I go through the other articles, maybe I'll share them here if anyone cares.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
I'm continuing to read links in Mr. Yamane's online article.
From: https://www.thebookseller.com/right...tle-contemporary-gun-violence-shapira-1301000
A UK editor for a publisher in the UK reviews Mr. Shapira's book thusly:
"Martinovic said: “Before I read Basic Pistol, I felt like I knew a lot about gun culture in the US — or more accurately, I had mentally filed the situation away as being hopelessly tied up with the second amendment, and that much of it was linked to NRA lobbying and political stubbornness. I was wrong – as Harel demonstrates, the truth is much more insidious and disturbing than that. The book completely reframes gun culture in the terms of a privileged white establishment’s encouragement of the notion that its people are entitled to kill perceived ’threats’, which is a notion that has played out with grim relevancy in the recent Kyle Rittenhouse trial." (Emphasis mine.)
Although Mr. Martinovic seems to agree with Mr. Shapira, I say this bit of insight from Mr. Marinovic supports my view that Mr. Shapira is being disingenuous by spinning his "research" to support an anti-gun agenda.
There are a few more links to studies and commentaries in Mr. Yamane's article that I have yet to get through:
Publication Alert: “The First Rule of Gunfighting is Have a Gun: Technologies of Concealed Carry in Gun Culture 2.0”
Link to PDF of the book chapter I have said it before, on this blog and in scholarly publications (also here), but I will say it again: It is no exaggeration to say that sociologists are only inter…
gunculture2point0.wordpress.com
Commentary on Jennifer Carlson’s book Citizen-Protectors
Last year I was invited to serve as one of the “critics” in an “author-meets-critics” session at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Montreal. The…
gunculture2point0.wordpress.com
Good Guys with Guns | Angela Stroud | University of North Carolina Press
Although the rate of gun ownership in U.S. households has declined from an estimated 50 percent in 1970 to approximately 32 percent today, Americans' propens...
uncpress.org
Just to name a few, but a pattern is starting to emerge. Feel free to tell me I'm full of soup. I won't be offended.
From a link within a link, I like this idea of a "law abiding army of one": https://gunculture2point0.wordpress...iding-one-man-armies-seattle-washington-1972/
To be sure, it's all interesting reading and it's pretty clear to tell where the lines are being drawn. If I have any more profound glimpses into the obvious as I go through the other articles, maybe I'll share them here if anyone cares.
Thank you for your indulgence,
BassCliff
Last edited:
Sounds like you started in LE about I retired. I worked LAPD from 1971 untilI retired from a shooting in 1994. In the 70s, perps were a bit more trigger happy and the rules about use of force a bit more lenient. We had the Weather Underground, SLA, Black Panthers, Black Muslims, Brown Berets, and a few others. A much more freewheeling society back then.