I believe we are talking past one another.
I initially addressed your claim that:
"As a racetrack vetenarian I’m used to using multiple different instruments on expensive thrashing 1,000lb animals requiring way more fine motor skills then a handgun." If you didn't mean that to be an argument against sticking with a single manual of arms, then I misunderstood and I concur that we are talking past each other.
Then you responded to my comment with a claim that:
"...once the ppl are used to the STRESS of the situation I can take a minimally trained 15$/hr person and they can handle a wide range of different instruments in different ways- While training is important no disputing that- I honestly believe experience in dealing with situations that are dangerous and unpredictable is way more important- I mean most Asst can get up to speed in about 60 days..." If you didn't mean that as an argument against sticking with a single manual of arms then I misunderstood and I agree we are talking past each other.
In this last response you made the comment that:
"I’m not saying that it’s an advantage to have different manual of arms just that in a lot of cases I don’t think it’s as big a detriment as the majority thinks it is." Again, if that wasn't arguing against going with a single manual of arms, then I haven't understood your claims and we are indeed talking past each other.
However, you seem to be quite adept at communicating via the written word and I don't see much in the way of ambiguity or inconsistency in your comments. You seem to be clearly and consistently arguing against the idea of sticking with a single manual of arms.
In addition, you seem to be doing so based on your ability as a professional who practices daily and on the fact that you can, in 60 days of one-on-one training instill this same ability into an assistant.
You keep bringing up stress inoculation and for what it's worth, I agree with you that stress inoculation is beneficial--but you might notice that I have not argued against this idea--other than to point out that instilling stress inoculation in any way other than real world events could reasonably be called training although you seem to be claiming they are two different things. Anyway, there are lots of things that are beneficial and that is one of them.
I do agree that someone with years of professional training in firearms use and who practices with firearms at a professional level on a daily basis, or someone who has the benefit of months of one-on-one firearms training from a professional is far more likely than the average gun owner to be able to learn multiple manuals of arms to the point that switching between them is easy. What I don't agree with is that your argument is remotely relevant to the average gun owner--or even to serious gun enthusiasts whose professional training is measured (at most) in hours, not months and who practice informally and relatively infrequently.
Jim Cirillo, for example, was a highly trained officer, nevertheless, he kept a second sidearm in case the first jammed or ran out of bullets. I have no doubt that as a skilled firearms competitor that he could clear malfunctions, reload in a very timely manner, etc. However, the easiest and quickest solution to him was to carry a second firearm. Mas Ayoob called it the New York reload I believe. Many other people have figured out some way to execute similar "life hacks" that work for them.
Lance Thomas is, as far as I know, the most successful non-military, non-LE gunfighter in modern times. He was in multiple gun fights, faced multiple attackers more than once and prevailed each and every time.
His approach to firearm self-defense was to place guns around the shop where he could readily access them. He made sure all the guns were similar in operation and his
modus operandus was to grab the nearest gun, shoot it until it stopped shooting, drop it, grab the next gun and repeat until the gunfight was over. Certainly, as a skilled watchmaker, he was more than capable of learning multiple manuals of arms and his ability to deal with stress was clearly not in question. Yet he still tried to simplify things as much as possible. I think it's a pretty good lesson.