Shooting Classes? What's To Learn?

Folks who have never sought training don't know what they don't know.
A comparison might be thinking that driving around a parking lot is preparation for surviving the interstate highways.

Much of what you know is wrong.

Training can mitigate the Dunning–Kruger effect, which is rampant among the shooting community.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

–Wikipedia​

Click to expand...

See: "What is the value of training?" - https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/what-is-the-value-of-training/

Probably more about how little you do know or thought you knew than what you need to learn.

how much benefit does wheelchair bound 70 year old granny jones get from spending 500 on a class thats only intended to teach things like 'tactical room clearing of restaurants" or "tactical reloads while ducking and running and engaging multiple targets"

Much of what you know is wrong.

Training can mitigate the Dunning–Kruger effect, which is rampant among the shooting community.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

–Wikipedia

Click to expand...

First off. I think the average gun owner who actively practices IS better than the average guy who doesn't have a gun. Criminals who have guns ussually aren't too bright and ussually have no where to practice. Which is why they think it's a cool idea to hold the gun sideways. Recently in my town (a bad area) some thug tried shooting some guy across the street. He emptied about a dozen rounds (probably the entire magazine) and only hit the guy who he was shooting at once in the leg. most of the bullets hit the ground and a couple hit some houses. Similar stories can be found elsewhere. For the most part, they (bad guys) don't know what they're doing. Of course I know you can't rely on their errors for your safety. So at least basic defense training is a good idea.


The thing is for me most tactical training classes like that wouldn't really apply to me. I already know how to shoot and reload fast.

Most combat situations for me would probably be for defensive in my own house. For me it's all about location. And each house, or area requires knowledge of the best places to be in the most concealed or covered areas. How to get their as fast and quietly as possible. I've gone over a few home invasion drills with my roommates. Where they should be to minimize the chances of crossfire hitting someone else in another room. And with nerf guns we practiced someone breaking in. For the most part we put tables, chairs, etc in front of doors and pathways so that if someone tried to break in and do it in a rush they would trip over things. Especially if it's in the middle of the night when the lights are off. It's a slight annoyance having to walk around stuff but worth it imo.

I do need to work on super fast drawing of my weapon when it comes to getting jumped out of nowhere when walking down the street. Although I never walk in this area alone. It's just to my car, get in, and to wherever the location that I'm going which is generally much safer than where I live. So from my house to car is pretty short. But still, someday someone could be waiting right outside my door so I plan on getting some training done to combat being attacked while trying to get my gun from my holster. I've had my friend pretend attack me and I try to get my airgun out. Yeah I admit... need quite a bit of work on that. So that's the main thing I'm worried about.

Competently carrying a gun for self defense involves more than just marksmanship:

Click to expand...

I agree I could use some more practice when it comes to fast, surprise, high stress situations as described in my post.

I'm not bashing on training classes, I was just saying from what I've seen, most of them look like police/SWAT type training. Although I agree it's good to know just for the knowledge. You never know, it could happen and better to be prepared than not. It's just realistically I don't think I'll ever encounter most of those scenarios they drill for.

Have you participated in USPSA or IDPA competition, and how'd you do?

Click to expand...

No but that is a good idea, I plan on going and trying that out when I can.

Criminals who have guns ussually aren't too bright and ussually have no where to practice...

...For the most part, they (bad guys) don't know what they're doing.

Click to expand...

I belive this is a dangerous presumptive mindset. I train with the expectation that any adversary(s) I may encounter is as good as or better than I am.

The thing is for me most tactical training classes like that wouldn't really apply to me. I already know how to shoot and reload fast.

Click to expand...

So, can you successfully accomplish the 5^5 drill as described in article I linked to in my first post?

From the same article:

Almost every firearms instructor has had numerous students who think they are “good” with a firearm but are not. Among these misinformed shooters are most police officers and, even many SWAT units. Typical longtime gunowners are too. When subjected to a standardized skills evaluation, most of these “good” shooters receive a rude awakening.​

Click to expand...

Shooting classes

There are many people who would really enjoy quality instruction & benefit from it & do well in the class if they would only go.

Sometimes they won't attend training because of the cost.

Often they won't attend training because they don't want to find out that they don't know as much as they thought they did or that they aren't as good as they think they are. (Same reasons many people won't try shooting in competition, either)

I've been a cop, a firearms instructor, and a competitive shooter for over 30 years. I've attended all sorts of training on my own time & at my own expense, both shooting & tactics classes and in general law enforcement topics. I can't speak for other professions, but very few cops will spend a dime to attend a class, buy a book, or even to buy practice ammunition for themselves a few times a year.

Some people like to learn, know how to learn, and spend their whole lives learning new stuff. Others, not so much.

And I am NOT suggesting one has to fly out to the Gunsite Academy for a week. In many/most places in the country there are instructors active at the local or regional level who provide quality training. Or sometimes a local gun club will host a class. It was an adventure to find such training in the early 1980s -- it's a lot easier to find good training now. There are more instructors active and with the internet it's easier to find them.

I go to a class or two a year. Usually a class of two or three days in length within about a three hour driving distance. (Obviously having to stay in a motel for more than a couple of nights significantly increases the total cost.)

One of the cops I work with attends a class with me (two or three days -- usually two) every other year. He finds that works out with his financial situation.

Most people could afford a two day class that was within reasonable cruising range every second or third year if they chose to, if they decided to do so and searched around on the internet a little bit to find such training that met their particular needs.

It's best if you find a class that fits your particular interests and situations. If you are an armed private citizen, then find a class instructed by somebody who specializes in training the armed private citizen. John Farnam, Massad Ayoob and Tom Givins would be excellent choices.

(I've taken a bunch of classes with Farnam & Ayoob and highly recommend them. I have not yet trained with Tom Givins although I have read his stuff for 30+ years. Yesterday I got his new book, Fighting Smarter 3rd edition and it looks really good, but I didn't get much of a chance to look at it before I had to leave to go to work)

Jeff sums it up very well. I took my first class at 50 years of age and was shocked at what 3 days of training showed me. Now I try to schedule one class per year, due to finances.

Oh, you are better than the cowardly criminal -

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/se...criminals-may-have-more-firearms-training-you

See the references.

Also, the emergency response literature is clear that stress inoculation occurs in quality training and improves real world actions.

GEM...
read an earlier iteration of that idea (study, I found at the Uni library actually), the fact that an 'average' gun toting criminal has MORE trigger time, both in shoot outs, and back alley 'target practice' shooting rats and cans, than an average patrol officer.

When I left the army, my unit went from the usual 2x a year qualification, to much more realistic 'run and gun' type iterations, such as getting from prone to firing on the move, around building corners, etc. And that was for the support troops

What can you learn, first, how much you don't know
how much you are not practicing
and what counts.

Had a PA, prior SF Medic, he said, SF isn't really that much better than regular army, they just do fewer, different things, and practice A LOT more. And they learn tricks, practice things that honestly are not addressed in RA, stuff like, magazine changes, the difference between what he showed us, in magazine changes, was how he'd learned his gear, blindfolded, not super fast, just very SURE and SMOOTH. Instead of a talk though, or just 'change magazine' it was , blind fold on, what move are you making, why, next move, why...

The point of training is in the outcome
to get you past the 'OH ****' moment, which is where many people freeze
Look up Heuristics and training, many people freeze because, much like a computer, unexpected input isn't being processed, there's no 'category' for 'getting sucker punched' or 'mugged' so they are stuck going 'uh uh uh'
Once they identify the 'situation' they can think of outcomes, but they don't KNOW, don't have a standard operating procedure for it. Punch a martial artist, and they'll comeback fighting, or block the blow if they see it coming.

On the mag changes, why blindfolded, because, it trained you NOT to look, to trust your hands and sense of feel to find the mag and put in the rifle.

To quote Fred.... Mindset, Skillset, Equipment, in that order.
Why pay the money for the classes, because the kinetic sense of how it "should be" isn't something you can get off the internet or a video, nor is the professional eye of a trainer, explaining what you ARE doing, and how you SHOULD be doing it.

Sorry for the long post.

I have encountered that study data before, I downloaded it for a detailed examination later, however, I doubt it represents the "average" criminal at all.

Some issues off the bat, small sample size, 43 offenders, selection bias (at least as applied to the "average" criminal)-the study is about criminals who have killed cops, hardly the average. Self-serving bias, it is based on interviews so criminals could very well be over-stating their training and practice amount.

That said, a criminal doesn't need any training and regular practice to be a major threat. All they need to be is determined. Now, luckily, skilled or not, the vast majority of criminals aren't that determined-your wallet/purse isn't worth their life so they'll disengage. However, there are some 1% sociopaths out there or, your force display could put them in a situation of fighting for their life against you if they don't feel they can escape, or they could just be jacked up on drugs.

As violent crime has to happen close up by its very nature, if you find yourself facing someone determined to injure you who won't stop until their body fails, you have a BIG problem whether they are trained or not. Best case, you put 2-3 rounds center-chest due to your super-skilled marksmanship...do you think they'll just fall Hollywood style? Unless you hit the heart or a major vessel, they may stay upright and mobile for minutes to hours. If you hit the heart, you'll still be fighting them for 7-30 seconds. Hope you know extreme close quarters shooting tactics and hand to hand (and how to integrate it.)

I think a realistic worse-case scenario isn't an uber-criminal, but one or more armed criminals experienced at violence who for whatever reason will not break off the attack at the first sign of resistance forcing you to injure them until they are no longer functional. The latter isn't as easy as it sounds, especially without formal training, and under life or death stress in a dynamic situation.

Years of police shooting data combined with qualification scores shows there is no link between static range marksmanship and marksmanship in a gunfight. You can score a perfect "300" (or whatever) on the qual range and miss every shot in a fight. Once you have basic marksmanship and hand/eye coordination of being able to mechanically hit a target, you need to concentrate on the "fight" part of gunfight in order to be able to actually use that marksmanship skill under life and death stress. This means high quality training and varied training beyond the square range to include force on force.

I am not against training. In fact I am looking to schedule my 2015 training in the next month or so as soon as the prospective classes firm up their dates. I am looking to do a 2 or 3 days class of intermediate handgun in order to build upon my current foundation. I think it has a lot of value and in the end is a productive endeavor but I really do not think it is the only way to become proficient with a firearms.

I generally like Kathy's stuff and her site is a good resource but honestly is it a shock to anyone that someone who makes their living training other people to shoot is an advocate for handgun training? Honestly sometimes circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. LOL Kathy believes in her conclusion and crafts an argument from analogy in order to prove her believe. Her premises flow from her conclusion. The conclusion is not necessitated by the premises.



As a result I think Kathy makes some assumptions in her article. First she assumes that all trainers or people who offer defensive handgun training are good at what they do. This is not the case. Kathy and the group she teaches with have a good reputation for quality training but that is not something that is available everywhere. So that IMHO is assumption #1. Not all training that is available in a given area is worth the price of admission. In my current location there is no local training worth the price of admission. I am going to have to drive 3 hours and the trainers I am looking at are not local but are coming from out of state.

Looking directly at her 3 categories from her driving analogy further illustrates some of the circular logic she is working under.

I would argue that most states laws regarding use of force are not complicated. It is not hard to learn the rules of the road when it comes to use of lethal force. IMHO it is easier to learn these rules then learning all the rules of the actual road. LOL They are certainly available to the public and if you can read you can understand them. I have taken state mandated concealed carry courses in multiple states and to be honest the use of force info provided is far from dynamic. It was in almost all cases static and I could have gotten as much or more info from the state code then the "trainer" in front of me. Their ability to articulately parse the code was almost non-existent or they were constrained by legal concerns. So again I am not convinced that a "trainer" is always better or that a "trainer" is necessary to master category #1. You can understand the use of force laws but even a trainer is not going to be able to articulate the nuisances which is what is required in their practical use. Every situation will be different and the judgement of the individuals involved will be paramount. Again Kathy is working under the assumption that those calling themselves "trainers" will understand the nuisances of the law better than the student.

Category # 2 physical skills required for shooting are not very hard to obtain for real world concealed carry defense. We are not talking about 50 yard head shots we are talking about self defense distances. Being able to hit a man size target while static or moving off the "X" at 3' to 15' is not a physical hurdle for most people. Learning to move to cover and shoot from cover are not abstract concepts that can only be taught in a class by an instructor. If you understand their principles it then takes practice to master them. Training with a quality instructor can speed up that process but it is not 100% necessary as Kathy seems to suggest. I personally think that people can develop the skills they need to defend themselves in 99% of the situations a concealed carry holder will encounter without the assistance of a trainer if they are willing to put in the time. The reality is that even if you choose to get training if you don't put in enough time practicing perfectly the training will not be effective.

When most people post here about accuracy and shooting issues if you dig deep it boils down to trigger time. Perfect practice makes perfect. I believe firmly that instructors like Kathy do and can help speed up the learning curve but the idea that they are "necessary" to become proficient is an overstatement . Maybe I am reading it wrong but is seems like Kathy is suggesting that everyone will hit a road block in their development and that only way to over come it is to get training. Again I believe this is a result of Kathy's circular reasoning.

The 3rd category is where the rubber meets the road. Again I think that quality training can help with this synthesis. Having someone put the pieces together for you and correct the miss-steps in an efficient manner is definitely helpful but it is the only way to achieve the goal? I don't think so but clearly Kathy does. I can understand that point of view but I am not willing to concede that it cannot be done without a trainer. I have shot with enough people over the years to to be able to see both sides of the coin. The amount of training one has does not always win the day. Granted I am not talking about actual gun fights but simulated shooting where time adds stress, there is movement and shooting from cover is required.

Finally I think the entire car analogy fails because most drivers on the road in this country have almost no real driving skill that was obtained through instruction by a trainer. Most US drivers have never taken a true defensive driving class. They have never gone to a driving school where they learn to properly maneuver a car at high speeds, 80 MPH+. They do not know how to execute a controlled skid, emergency braking, corner etc... At best they took a driving course in high school as a teenager to get their lic and then they learned to drive by driving without the use of an instructor. They learned the skills needed to drive everyday on their own and 99% annually are not involved in an accident. They managed to learn the necessary skills on their own. So IMHO the analogy fails because it proves the opposite of the conclusion if you don't employ circular reasoning. Most people learned to drive by simply practicing on their own. They did not require specialized training to master the 3 categories, as they apply to daily driving, Kathy describes.

Please do not take this as a statement against training. It is not. It is a assessment of the article linked to in the OP. If you are going to try to convince someone who does not already believe that they need training to become proficient with a firearm the argument that was presented by Kathy is not going to get the job done. It will get a lot of agreement from those who agree with Kathy's conclusion before she presented the argument. It is preaching to the choir. If already believe that training is a good thing it will reinforce that belief because Kathy is respected here and within shooting community at large but it is not going to change someones mindset.

I must have missed that.

Click to expand...

Clearly you did because the entire article assumes the positive results that training will yield. Maybe read it without the use of circular reasoning.

I do not agree with that. Far too many people read the statutes as enacted by legislatures, interpret them in isolation using dictionary definitions, and think that they understand them. And far too many are wrong.

Click to expand...

You are now making the assumption that a "trainer" will be better at interpreting the law. Are they lawyers? Is it some requirement that "trainers" understand what legislatures intended? Are they by default better at it than the avg citizen? Again you are working under some major assumptions.

I'm not sure that hitting a "man size target" is a good objective. And don't forget the little matter of speed.

Click to expand...

Speed can only be achieved with the help of a trainer? Is speed always the objective? "Fast is fine, but accurate is final. The trick is learning to take your time when you're in a hurry." -Wyatt Earp

I have seen enough trainees, including experienced shooters, who have started out doing the wrong things with no realization whatsoever that they were doing so, and who were taught the right things by instuctors, to give me reason to disagree with that.

Click to expand...

Are trainers the only people who can correct shooting errors? I am not doubting that most shooters even experienced ones can use some fine tuning. I guess I am questioning does one have to pay an instructor for that correction?

I don't know another way.

I had been shooting handguns for about half a century before I ever took a defensive pistol shooting course, and I had read books and watched videos. It's not the same thing. After my first course around five years ago, my hit rate and time to put hits on target improved by about 30%--each. And that was true for just about everyone in the course.

Click to expand...

Shooting with other experienced shooters can yield very positive results. Your experience was positive and that is great but does that make it universal? I do not doubt that people's hit rates and times improved during the course but IMHO the true measure of the effectiveness of the course would be a testing those same students a year or two years down the road. Yours may continue to improve but I would be interested in seeing actual data and proof that the improvement was sustained.

Again we can do back and forth all day. I am playing a bit of a devils advocate here but nothing in Kathys article or the comments on her site or in this thread is going to convince someone who does not think that they need training to go get some. It is simply not effective in that manner and IMHO it seems like that was Kathy's intent and Fred Fuller's reason for posting it.

If the article was intended to convince people they need training there has to be more substance to the argument or you are just preaching to the choir. Also this is in no way an attack on Kathy. As I stated before she has a great website and offers a lot of good info I just think that this article is a little weak and could be improved.

Im a good shooter compared to your average gun owner. Compared to people in local competitions im a low "intermediate" level shooter. I just took a "Basic Pistol 2" class and learned much more than I thought I would. I'm also shooting less ammo at the range but being more productive by running drills.

I appreciate the Devil's advocate approach as it leads to good discussion. Though, to be fair, bringing up that there are poor quality trainers and training (so perhaps you should do it yourself) isn't any more valid than bringing up to someone in need of home repair that there are poor quality contractors so they fix it themselves (maybe they can, that isn't the point, and lives aren't on the line either).

I have done both the personal training and practice (from books/videos) as well as had professional training in 3 separate areas. Firearms, hand to hand combat, and personal fitness.

Generally speaking, if you get high quality materials and go over it multiple times (I'd say 3 minimum all the way through, then frequent quick reference), then have the discipline to break it into chunks and actually train/practice the skills and can self-evaluate. I have found that you can be up to about 90% as good as if you went to live training.

The caveat is you can only know this by eventually going to live training and seeing your skill vs. all the novices and your improvements and level of mis-conceptions/amount of correction needed vs. everyone else's.

The other caveat is useful, high quality self-practice takes a level of discipline the vast majority of people are not willing to do. I almost said "a level of discipline they do not have," but everyone has the ability, just lack the motivation. Show me a person who buys a firearms training video, watches it once, and does a little mediocre practice with it once (the majority of people, if they even practice at all after watching it once), and I bet that person has a hobby or interest they have developed a high level of skill in, could be bicycling, football stats, sewing, anything.

Getting good at something only takes a combination of 3 things and you can substitute an abundance in one category for a lack in another. Assuming one is dedicated to learn: it takes Time, Money, and Knowledge.

Have almost no money and no knowledge but lots of time? Well, you are in for a whole lot of internet research, borrowing materials, ebay/Craigslist purchases and the library. As you gain the knowledge, now it takes lots of time to practice and self-evaluate (video critique, knowledgeable friends or critique from skilled folks on a forum like this).

Have lots of money but no time? Easy, pay to go to a high end training course for a few days, then practice once in a while. Way less time than all the self research and practice from ground zero. Money can buy the world-class knowledge (via the best trainers) and save you a lot of time.

If/once you have the knowledge, you can leverage that to save time and money. Save time by training more efficiently, save money by self-practice and creative use of resources.

I don't really like working out, but need to for the military and want to for self-defense and health reasons. I leverage my personal trainer level knowledge into workouts that are typically only 20-30 minutes, 3 times per week. In terms of real-world functional fitness, they are more effective than 99% of anything I see in the gym and take half to 1/3d the time. What I do takes more self-discipline than going to the Gym and hopping on a treadmill or making a round of the machines, or going to a class. Not saying there is a right or wrong way, just a non-firearm illustration of trading time and money for knowledge.

There is also flaw in saying a trainer like Kathy thinks training is needed because that is what she does. She became an instructor only after spending countless hours and thousands of dollars of her own money on her training. This showed her the value of it, and she wanted to help and train others. I have never met her, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is "in the red" as a firearms instructor, meaning add up all her personal training costs (including travel, ammo, all of it) vs. her lifetime take home pay as an instructor. It is a tough business to make money in full-time, nevermind as part-time trainer.

I appreciate the Devil's advocate approach as it leads to good discussion. Though, to be fair, bringing up that there are poor quality trainers and training (so perhaps you should do it yourself) isn't any more valid than bringing up to someone in need of home repair that there are poor quality contractors so they fix it themselves (maybe they can, that isn't the point, and lives aren't on the line either).

Click to expand...

The reason I brought it up is not everyone has access to quality trainers like Kathy. Again there is major assumption in the blog post that everyone has access to a good trainer. I was also pointing out that not all training is equal.

There are also a lot of people who carry that cannot afford to pay $425+ gas + ammo + other expenses to attend a 2 day class like the ones Kathy offers. Telling people that their going to the range and learning to "yank the trigger" is like driving a car with no skill is a bit condescending IMHO. It does not take into account peoples real-world economic issues.

Generally speaking, if you get high quality materials and go over it multiple times (I'd say 3 minimum all the way through, then frequent quick reference), then have the discipline to break it into chunks and actually train/practice the skills and can self-evaluate. I have found that you can be up to about 90% as good as if you went to live training.

The other caveat is useful, high quality self-practice takes a level of discipline the vast majority of people are not willing to do. I almost said "a level of discipline they do not have," but everyone has the ability, just lack the motivation. Show me a person who buys a firearms training video, watches it once, and does a little mediocre practice with it once (the majority of people, if they even practice at all after watching it once), and I bet that person has a hobby or interest they have developed a high level of skill in, could be bicycling, football stats, sewing, anything.

Getting good at something only takes a combination of 3 things and you can substitute an abundance in one category for a lack in another. Assuming one is dedicated to learn: it takes Time, Money, and Knowledge.

Have almost no money and no knowledge but lots of time? Well, you are in for a whole lot of internet research, borrowing materials, ebay/Craigslist purchases and the library. As you gain the knowledge, now it takes lots of time to practice and self-evaluate (video critique, knowledgeable friends or critique from skilled folks on a forum like this).

Have lots of money but no time? Easy, pay to go to a high end training course for a few days, then practice once in a while. Way less time than all the self research and practice from ground zero. Money can buy the world-class knowledge (via the best trainers) and save you a lot of time.

If/once you have the knowledge, you can leverage that to save time and money. Save time by training more efficiently, save money by self-practice and creative use of resources.

Click to expand...

I guess this is what I am getting at. If you put in some time and some research you get get yourself very close to the level that a live training environment creates. I tend to agree that live training is more efficient but it does not mean it cannot be done other ways. There are a lot of variable costs and lots of time variables that go into this type of equation. Each person has to make that calculation for themselves.

There is also flaw in saying a trainer like Kathy thinks training is needed because that is what she does. She became an instructor only after spending countless hours and thousands of dollars of her own money on her training. This showed her the value of it, and she wanted to help and train others. I have never met her, but I wouldn't be surprised if she is "in the red" as a firearms instructor, meaning add up all her personal training costs (including travel, ammo, all of it) vs. her lifetime take home pay as an instructor. It is a tough business to make money in full-time, nevermind as part-time trainer.

Click to expand...

I do not see that as a flaw but I can understand that you do. It is not a flaw because she is deeply committed to training. You are not going to convince her otherwise. Everything she writes and does in rooted in that mindset. That has to be taken into consideration when you consider her position on the necessity of training. She spent a lot of her own money and time getting trained before becoming a trainer and that shows in her website and her writing but it also creates a blind spot in her logic. When you know you are 100% right there is not need to truly consider alternatives or have plan B.

When one is 100% committed to a mindset and a methodology sometimes we cannot see the circular reasoning we too often use to justify our thoughts and actions. It happens more often then most of us care to admit. We find success from a particular path and we believe that others should and will benefit following the same one. This is not always the case. It does not make ones personal choice right or wrong it is just that one should be able to recognize their own blind spots.

I guess also I just find the driving analogy a poor one. Someone who is looking at it objectively has to see it fails because 99% of the drivers on US roads are "yanking the trigger" with no formal training. 99% of them got very basic safety training and then learned in an inform setting mainly through trail and error. Most were taught to drive by a relatively untrained parent, guardian or family member. Again most of these were not driving professionals. The driving school I went to at age 16 did nothing to really prepare me to drive. It was nothing more than a check box on an application. The analogy breaks down because it does not work. In fact the more you think about it most people learn to and then drive effectively in the exact manner that Kathy is saying is ineffective for shooting.

How many people have spent $425 to learn to drive properly beyond informal training. I would guess not many and I will also be willing to guess that most of those people lacking formal driving training will never kill anyone or have a serious accident. So I guess what I am saying is look at the blog post not as someone who already is committed to training but as someone who is skeptical and see if it holds up. IMHO it doesn't and clearly YMMV.

PS this does not mean I do not believe in training what I do believe is that if you are going to engage someone in an attempt to persuade them the change their mindset or take on a new one it should be done and critiqued in a respectful and logical manner. Which I believe I have done.