Instructors Bias

Status
Not open for further replies.
Corpral_Agarn said:
Good on you. Great that you are encouraging critical thinking.

There are some instructors out there, however, that do it solely for the joy of teaching.
When I get that "ah ha!" moment with shooters, it is a really awesome feeling.

Here in CA, I try to keep my classes as low cost as the range will let me because I believe that the more shooters we have the better. and the more they know what they are doing the better.

So I teach part time.

I explain, in my CCW courses that I don't feel a mandatory course should exist. Especially since open carry is illegal.
I want more people in class training, of course! But I don't want to see them forced to do it.
Click to expand...

When I took my firearms safety class 25ish years ago for my CCL I had an excellent instructor (ex cop) that I felt did a good job of presenting information without shading it with a lot of personal opinion.

I completely understand your opposition to a mandatory class for concealed carry license. I have also taken co-workers out to help familiarize them with hand guns before they purchase one. I am not a trainer or firearms expert and don't pretend to be... after spending a day at the range one on one with these coworkers I have to confess I take some comfort in Oregon's mandatory firearms safety class to get a concealed carry license. The biggest thing I have noticed about people that are new to firearms is there reluctance to admit that they don't know much about guns. After you get them over the belief that some people are born with a genetic inherent understanding of firearms they seem to soak up safety, information and technique quite quickly.

If the government can require a class to get a CCL then why can't they require a yearly class to retain your CCL? Where does it stop? I am sure someone can throw up some startling stat about the number of gun injuries due to negligence <<here>>... but I would guess that would most likely not be someone that frequents this board.
 
MikeInOr said:
If the government can require a class to get a CCL then why can't they require a yearly class to retain your CCL? Where does it stop? I am sure someone can throw up some startling stat about the number of gun injuries due to negligence <<here>>... but I would guess that would most likely not be someone that frequents this board.
Click to expand...
Ideally, there should be "constitutional carry" along with strong encouragement to get training. But no mandatory requirements. That's something that has great potential for misuse and abuse.
 
Couple of points to the ongoing discussion. Instructors for concealed weapons licenses or permits serve a different purpose than 'shooting' instructors. Some times the same person(s) can do both, but the classes are for different goals.
"Shooting" instructors typically teach the current popular style of pistol competition rather than actual self defense. Actual self defense shooting does not allow a preparation time, does not blow a whistle and in man cases does not track time. Very seldom does actual self defense require even a single reload. Incorporating a track meet is rather misleading. Those who confuse competition shooting with reality tends to get me on my soap box. Which is not to say competitive shooting isn't useful in learning how to operate your sidearm, but being a 'winner' in competition is not a guarantee of surviving a gunfight.

To jump back to the original posting, I remember when all the 'serious' pistol carriers carried only revolvers and derided anyone who even thought of carrying a semi-automatic. Then, over a period of time, it changed. I remember at one time the FBI would allow certain 'others' to shoot on the FBI course, but restricted an automatic user to ONE and ONLY ONE magazine. Cooper later retaliated by mandating a minimum one reload (with second magazine) on every stage.

Then the Government Model took over and became the bee's knees. Then public opinion ran to a false sense of 'safety' and shying away from recoil, so the 'double action only' type actions - which arguably includes Glocks (although mechanically different) and nine millimeter pistols took over. Then the nine millimeter short...

Does one note most of these changes are fads? I do.

Decide which is more important to you. Defending yourself or winning a trophy and the adulation of your peers? Then follow that path.
 
If you don’t know about how, in an effort to essentially ban all guns, anti gun legislators attempt to bury the 2A under red tape, fees, and hoops to jump through, you need to wake up and take a look at what’s going on in places where they get their way.

Right now. Google everything you need to do to buy a handgun and keep it in your home in nyc.

I think people already have an incentive for training: defending their lives. That should be encouraged by the gun community. But we don’t need the government adding more control.

GE-Mini-Gun said:
I’ve read some dumb **** on here but this takes the cake. Explain to me like I’m a 5 year old how mandatory training for carry permits is a bad idea and how have instructor lobbied for it…same thing for FFL holders wanting a monopoly?
Click to expand...
 
Archie said:
Couple of points to the ongoing discussion. Instructors for concealed weapons licenses or permits serve a different purpose than 'shooting' instructors. Some times the same person(s) can do both, but the classes are for different goals.
"Shooting" instructors typically teach the current popular style of pistol competition rather than actual self defense. Actual self defense shooting does not allow a preparation time, does not blow a whistle and in man cases does not track time. Very seldom does actual self defense require even a single reload. Incorporating a track meet is rather misleading. Those who confuse competition shooting with reality tends to get me on my soap box. Which is not to say competitive shooting isn't useful in learning how to operate your sidearm, but being a 'winner' in competition is not a guarantee of surviving a gunfight.

To jump back to the original posting, I remember when all the 'serious' pistol carriers carried only revolvers and derided anyone who even thought of carrying a semi-automatic. Then, over a period of time, it changed. I remember at one time the FBI would allow certain 'others' to shoot on the FBI course, but restricted an automatic user to ONE and ONLY ONE magazine. Cooper later retaliated by mandating a minimum one reload (with second magazine) on every stage.

Then the Government Model took over and became the bee's knees. Then public opinion ran to a false sense of 'safety' and shying away from recoil, so the 'double action only' type actions - which arguably includes Glocks (although mechanically different) and nine millimeter pistols took over. Then the nine millimeter short...

Does one note most of these changes are fads? I do.

Decide which is more important to you. Defending yourself or winning a trophy and the adulation of your peers? Then follow that path.
Click to expand...
I haven't met an instructor who thinks competition is the same at real life or self defense.

I encourage my students to get out and compete because it will get them to a higher level of competence with their firearm. It's some of the best practice.

In a ccw or defense class, I would prefer to teach a competitive shooter tactics than a super "tactical" guy how to shoot.

They are different skills. To get both to a level of desired proficiency requires study (tactics) and practice (shooting).

We use timers to establish base lines and improve skills.

How long does it take you to draw to firearm consistently?
Knowing that info will change how you address threats at different distances, no?
 
Boxing isn't actual street fighting. In a real street fight, there is no referee and no bell and no rules on punching below the belt. But someone who has spent a lot of time boxing is probably going to do better than the average man if a street fight occurs.
 
Archie said:
Which is not to say competitive shooting isn't useful in learning how to operate your sidearm, but being a 'winner' in competition is not a guarantee of surviving a gunfight.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

No, and neither is anything else. There are no guarantees in any gunfight, which is part of why it is so important to try to stay out of them in the first place. But Jim Cirillo noted in his books that, when selecting men for the 1970's NYPD Stakeout Squads (who basically were trying to get into gunfights with armed robbery crews by setting up ambushes in frequently-targeted retail stores), one of the things they looked for out of the population of NYPD officers were those who were competitive shooters. They found that people with competitive shooting backgrounds tended to be both competent and more likely to perform under pressure. They also noted that those who enjoyed hunting, and those who were married/had families, tended to do better, too. But they found that competitive shooting was correlated, to at least some degree, with surviving and prevailing in real gunfights, despite all the differences between the two.

Similarly, it is not for nothing that the US Army maintains the US Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU) that has top-level competitive shooters for each of the major shooting disciplines... including the action/practical pistol games. The AMU members do a lot of competing, and then they also do a lot of instructing of infantrymen and other combat trigger-pullers... precisely because the Army believes that things learned in competition can be highly relevant to combat. Because competition isolates variables, it's easier to test which particular techniques work better than other techniques.
 
I, too, am interested in these "studies," since I have never even seen a single demonstrated case of someone losing even one gunfight because of a safety on the gun... meanwhile, Masad Ayoob has recorded a small number of concrete incidents in which a grabbed gun with a safety frustrated the assailant when they couldn't figure out how to make the unfamiliar firearm go bang.
 
ATLDave said:
(emphasis added)

Similarly, it is not for nothing that the US Army maintains the US Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU) that has top-level competitive shooters for each of the major shooting disciplines... including the action/practical pistol games. The AMU members do a lot of competing, and then they also do a lot of instructing of infantrymen and other combat trigger-pullers... precisely because the Army believes that things learned in competition can be highly relevant to combat. Because competition isolates variables, it's easier to test which particular techniques work better than other techniques.
Click to expand...

The AMU and USMC shooters are great guys to shoot with, and outstanding shots.

hi4HdlC.jpg

WS0Eumq.jpg

And unlike the characters who were shooting for deferments during Vietnam, the recent AMU shooters I talked to had multiple deployments.
 
94045 said:
I just thought "Carry what you shoot best," followed by " but not that" was funny. Just like I thought the prejudice against the 9mm was funny in it's time.
Click to expand...
To deny that there are some instructors
(some pretty high-profile guys, too) ​
out there that do put out a pronounced bias with regard to what platform they favor is wishful thinking. I can come up with a couple names of trainers who make no secret of their belief that the Glock is the best tool for everyone from SEAL Team 6 to Mrs. Soccer Mom. I have no issue with those who tell the truth to their new students about the guns they may show up for class with ("Mr Jones, that Taurus PT-25 is simply not appropriate for what we're doing here") but it is true that there are folks out there whose courses can get spendy who do tend to make their biases known.

One of the things that I have do often with our newer instructors is to stop them from touting their favorite guns ("Not that, it's garbage -- buy one of these!") and open their minds a bit. I had one guy who kept trashing our issue pistol (which was entirely worthy, still is one of the top LE guns) until he finally got a lot more experienced with the gun and instructing.

As Corpral_Agarn above notes, many instructors are not in it for the money. For most, especially on the local level, it's a labor of love and for sure, showing a commitment to the Second Amendment. Even a lot of the high-profile national guys don't make all that much money from the classes themselves. It costs a lot to maintain a good facility and run classes. Doubt that the shooting community that trains is making the instructors millionaires (maybe someone can PM Tom Givens and ask his opinion).

As regards manual safety devices on pistols
TxRoadDog said:
There are some studies out there now that show that a carry gun with a safety is actually more dangerous, but I feel it's all in how you train.
Click to expand...
all I can respond with is "hogwash."
 
A lot of good experience has been accumulated in the past almost two decades from overseas. Of course it isn't all relevent to law enforcment or private citizens here in the US, but alot of it is. I've seen a lot of friction between returning vets and long time law enforcement instructors who cling hard to old ways of doing things. Law enforcment instructors as well as other instructors should be making the attempt to filter all that information for what's relevent here.
 
More has been forgotten about the 1911 than has been learned. There is so much BS floating about the 1911/A1 pistol its mind boggling. Not all 1911 pattern pistols are created equal. JMB designed the gun and when modern engineers and bean counters try messing with the original recipe things happen.
When people try their hand at "gunsmithing" by trying to make the gun "better" things happen, then the 1911 gets blamed as a fussy gun or experts gun. A gun originally issued to GIs between 1911-1985 as Standard A, how did they cope??? Most people have never handled or fired an unmolested USGI 1911/a1. They are plenty accurate, most shoot around 3" with GI ball at 25 yards, and they do not need specially fitted parts.

I have heard BS like "the trigger is a crutch", it recoils too much, its inaccurate, it needs a gunsmith, its an experts gun, it has too many parts, it has a manual safety. These types make me giggle.
 
psyopspec said:
I did. No luck finding any of those studies. Articles =! studies, unless they quote/source a study, and I didn't have any luck with those either. Can you help point me in the right direction?
Click to expand...
Like I said, look it up. It's not hard to find. The studies showed that people under stress if not adequately trained forgot to deactivate the safety upon drawing their weapon. These studies were just a few of the reasons why PD's now mostly use striker fired pistols without external safeties.
Old Dog said:
ces on pistols

all I can respond with is "hogwash."
Click to expand...
Quite the high road you took their wasn't it?
 
TxRoadDog said:
Like I said, look it up. It's not hard to find. The studies showed that people under stress if not adequately trained forgot to deactivate the safety upon drawing their weapon. These studies were just a few of the reasons why PD's now mostly use striker fired pistols without external safeties.
Click to expand...
Apparently it is that hard to find. Just post an article. I'm told it's not hard to find ;)

The reason PD's are issuing striker fired pistols probably has a lot more to do with platform cost than it does a manual safety.

The army seems to feel a safety on the M17 is a good idea. Surely the PD can handle that.
 
Who did these "studies"??? If an officer doesn't know how to operate a service pistol, how do they operate a radar gun, the light system, PA ,in car Comms, KDT/PDT(computer),FLIR, portable radio.

I have seen the "new breed" of trainer push the no safety thing, how many of them have ever been in a REAL fight, how many have had an attempted disarm???? There is a reason things like the Rogers/Safariland 070 SSIII holster exists. There is a reason you use belt keepers or velcro belt system. Also in a tussle, a manual safety can be activated, plenty of officers around because the bad person didn't know how to run the gun, even the HK P7 is known for this with its unique squeeze cocker.

The New Style of policing shy's away from "hands on" approach. I just laugh at "trainers" who tell me they can calm subjects down and they do not have to resort to "habeas grabeas", they just told anyone IN THE KNOW that they never did an ounce of real street work.;);)
 
Last edited:
TxRoadDog said:
Like I said, look it up. It's not hard to find.
Click to expand...
When one cites a "study", providing a link to that study is required by Federal law. o_O

The studies showed that people under stress if not adequately trained forgot to deactivate the safety upon drawing their weapon. These studies were just a few of the reasons why PD's now mostly use striker fired pistols without external safeties.
Click to expand...
I'll bet you a dollar that Gaston Glock never read any of your studies.
PD's use striker fired pistols mainly due to cost.
 
upload_2019-6-18_22-3-36.jpeg


I would like to shoot that one, looks like the optic is a “rider”. What does it feel like?
 
jmorris said:
View attachment 846813


I would like to shoot that one, looks like the optic is a “rider”. What does it feel like?
Click to expand...

I only took pictures. I did not ask to play with the AMU pistols

A gun originally issued to GIs between 1911-1985 as Standard A, how did they cope??? Most people have never handled or fired an unmolested USGI 1911/a1. They are plenty accurate, most shoot around 3" with GI ball at 25 yards, and they do not need specially fitted parts.
Click to expand...

One of my Bullseye Pistol buds was on the All Guard, Army Reserve Team, and some other military team which I forgot. I think it was the one I don't remember he had this story to tell. This team was lead by a former USMC Shooter, maybe ex armorer. And the Bullseye pistols they were issued were rack grade, GI issue 1911's. The team did not have the equipment to accurize the things. But, the USMC lead told them to grease up their 1911's and fire 1000 rounds through the 1911's and "don't clean the pistol" I assume they could brush the barrel, but, maybe not! Anyway after 1000 rounds the crud stiffened the rack grade pistols to the level that they would hold the black. And if the pistol would hold the black, and you can hold the black, you will shoot a surprising number of tens and X's. Bud claimed he shot some very scores with those 1911's.

Bullseye shooters are very meticulous about keeping their pistols clean and well oiled. So they find the warning to "don't clean the pistol" funny.
 
TxRoadDog said:
Like I said, look it up. It's not hard to find. The studies showed that people under stress if not adequately trained forgot to deactivate the safety upon drawing their weapon. These studies were just a few of the reasons why PD's now mostly use striker fired pistols without external safeties.

Quite the high road you took their wasn't it?
Click to expand...
Now you've changed up the slant on your first post regarding safeties since being challenged. As well as displayed your lack of knowledge regarding law enforcement firearms purchasing. Still waiting on the "studies." You said: "There are some studies out there now that show that a carry gun with a safety is actually more dangerous" So dude, that's what you stated and then re-stated, but added the caveat about "training". You've provided no links, cites or even close to any sort of documentation to support your statement, in spite of having been prodded (begged, almost) by numerous other members. You said, "more dangerous." I opined, "hogwash." Quite the "high road" I took? Yep; I could've been disrespectful and actually made a big deal about the fact that you came around, made a wholly preposterous statement and then couldn't back it up … oops, I see what I did there, sorry.

At any rate, son, I've been in the business of carrying, shooting and teaching guns for almost forty years and I've not seen anyone attempting to sell the notion that handguns with manual safeties are inherently "more dangerous" than those without. Nor are handguns with safeties more difficult to train on. And gosh, what about the long guns? They all have safeties …
 
OMG the safety is not...safe...not safe as a non safety argument:confused: againe and againe!!

DID ANYONE FIRE OFF ANYTHING BUT THEIR KEYBOARD IN THE LAST 24 HRS??
 
AlexanderA said:
Instructors' main "bias" is in favor of instruction itself -- recruiting students, and thereby increasing their own income. That's why they will always lobby in favor of mandatory training requirements for carry permits, for example. In this respect, the interests of firearms instructors may run contrary to the interests of the RKBA community generally..
Click to expand...

I agree with you and think about this a good bit.

First off, to get this out of the way... Yes instructor training is a good thing if you choose to do so.

However, the idea that training should be mandatory directly contradicts the RTKBA. Anyone that lobbies for it is quite short sited in thinking that said GOVERNMENT MANDATED training is going to be anything close to the knowledgeable and enjoyable training they are paying for currently. The idea of giving the government more power to bog down gun owners with what amounts to more red tape to trudge through simply to exercise their God given right is something that shouldn't be coming from anyone claiming to be a 2nd Amendment advocate.

Also, though I own, shoot and enjoy striker fired pistols it is not lost on me how much easier it would make a instructor's job if every student came to class with the same manual of arms. So when they herd people to a platform or certain make/model of gun, I keep that in mind.
 
GE-Mini-Gun said:
I’ve read some dumb **** on here but this takes the cake. Explain to me like I’m a 5 year old how mandatory training for carry permits is a bad idea and how have instructor lobbied for it…same thing for FFL holders wanting a monopoly?
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any restrictions, conditions or qualifications put on RKBA. This includes making it mandatory to take a class to exercise this right. No one should be obligated to pass a training class.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rockrivr1
  • Locked
Boston PD Joins The Sig "Revolution"
Replies
19
Views
1K
Nashmack
N
P
  • Locked
Military Pistol/Cartridge
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
ATBackPackin
A
R
  • Locked
.45 ACP Caliber Bear Ammo
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
redneckdan
R
M
  • Locked
Ammo is back!
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
medalguy
M
Charlie Martinez
  • Locked
Question for anyone that CC's a 45 ACP.
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
5K
luzyfuerza
luzyfuerza
Back
Top