Formal Training Is Now Bad?

[beatledog7]

An often overlooked factor in the formal training debate is the "why" factor. That is, did you get training so you could kill more effectively, or so you would be better able to avoid the need to kill? The two are not mutually exclusive, but it is important to recognize which one a person (trainer or trainee) emphasizes.

I suggest avoiding formal training that emphasizes "killing" effectiveness until after a person has mastered the following hierarchy:

Mindset, skillset, toolset.

In fact, I would discourage carrying at all until that has been mastered.

 

[Fred Fuller]

But can an individual be exclusively self taught? I'm not talking about knowledge of the legalities, I'm talking about hands-on defensive shooting. Can a motivated and reasonably competent individual study books and video materials authored by the experts, and train themselves at home and on the range?

Problem is, you don't know what you don't know.

I was one of those self-taught shooters who started out with instruction from family members and my own group of 'old men' (older family friends). I was retired (at 52) before I ever managed my first formal class, Awerbuck's basic shotgun class.

I learned more in three days than I ever thought possible. And I had read his books and seen his video, too. My AAR for that class is posted here ... http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=202292

And I went back for a refresher - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=676207

So, my basic answer to your question is, probably not. Some rare individuals might be able to, but most will not manage without formal training as well as they would with it. And certainly not as fast.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I was unable to attend any formal training until I went to a training session several months ago through my church. Prior to that I’d had BRM in the Army and had picked up some things here and on youtube and thought I was good enough. I also thought (As in this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=737194 ) that once the badguy saw my gun he was going to turn tail anyway.

I walked into that class with all my internet knowledge and was ready to show them what I knew….. and had my ass handed to me.

After I got over the ego bruising I started to listen. The training I am receiving covers what I’m sure most of you would consider very basic stuff but after just four short classes I can say that I can see a dramatic improvement in my skillset and I have to say the things I’ve learned are things that never would have occurred to me without having an experienced person show them to me.

 

[Ankeny]

But can an individual be exclusively self taught? I'm not talking about knowledge of the legalities, I'm talking about hands-on defensive shooting. Can a motivated and reasonably competent individual study books and video materials authored by the experts, and train themselves at home and on the range?

Square range competition, yes. I know self taught shooters that make it to A class in USPSA without a problem. A small group of truly motivated shooters who practice, critique, and coach each other can make it to Grandmaster without ever taking a formal training class. I know that for a fact.

I have been an educator all of my life and I believe in the notion of being a life long learner. I also believe I can learn something from just about anyone. But I totally reject the notion that a person must take a "formal" class in an "organized" setting to become "proficient" either on the square range or in the fundamental self defense drills we see so often posted on the web. Having said all of that, for the average person a good class will definitely put them on the fast track a whole lot quicker than blasting at brown until they are ankle deep in brass.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I know self taught shooters that make it to A class in USPSA without a problem. A small group of truly motivated shooters who practice, critique, and coach each other can make it to Grandmaster without ever taking a formal training class. I know that for a fact.

With all due respect what you are talking about here is training. It may not be “formal” training and you may not be paying for it but it is in fact training. It is not being "self taught"

 

[NewGuy1911]

"Heck of a lot cheaper to have a good coach/trainer/teacher observe and correct you over a weekend than spend years wasting ammo making the same sub-optimal movements."

So true and quicker results

 

[Tirod]

I read the same from Ayoob - I took it as being informative, nobody else was talking about after the incident, and to be aware of what will happen. If anything, I took it as friendly advice trying to knock the point off some heads. The shooting community will always have one too many testosterone challenged thinkers, and the marketing savants darn well know it.

This is, of course, a quick summation of what the OP was talking about, tho:

In fact, I would discourage carrying at all until that has been mastered.

What some would read into the quote is that no one should have firearms on them until they are anointed and declared One of the Brotherhood. It comes off extremely elitist, and that goes right into restricting the RKBA to only those authorized. Like was asked before, who decides who is an expert?

No, I don't want to have some neighbor with less skills muzzle me showing off their cute revolver, but, it's happened, right there in his shop. Have I done it? Don't know, perhaps someone with better skills simply was being polite and hoped to never be around me again.

We tend to stratify our list of friends and acquaintances by who handles guns with at least the same level of skill. If someone sees the need to constantly correct us, we don't hang around them much. Who needs the public embarrassment?

Goes to why so many don't want training. It's a seriously ego reducing exercise, and American Males don't look for that - it's about expanding our image and blowing it up beyond reality. Therefore, 3/4 ton dually diesel commuter trucks, constant wear of athletic attire, gynormous tablet phones, huge screen tv's, and arm candy wives.

Live BIG or don't get off the porch. "We don't need no stinkin training courses!"

With that attitude, showing up to be professionally and publicly humiliated in front of gun dweebs and women isn't on the agenda. You got that, pilgrim?

 

[Officers'Wife]

Square range competition, yes. I know self taught shooters that make it to A class in USPSA without a problem. A small group of truly motivated shooters who practice, critique, and coach each other can make it to Grandmaster without ever taking a formal training class. I know that for a fact.

I have been an educator all of my life and I believe in the notion of being a life long learner. I also believe I can learn something from just about anyone. But I totally reject the notion that a person must take a "formal" class in an "organized" setting to become "proficient" either on the square range or in the fundamental self defense drills we see so often posted on the web. Having said all of that, for the average person a good class will definitely put them on the fast track a whole lot quicker than blasting at brown until they are ankle deep in brass.

It depends on the instructor- whether paid or not. I'll take advice from the quiet man that I know has been there and doesn't talk about it as far more useful as the one that brags about the fights he's been in or his multi-specialty military career.

One gentleman in particular holds a class north of here that is a "professional." His claim to it is that he is a guard for the minimum security honor "prison." Having seen him use a rifle at various contests I get nervous with the idea of him carrying a butter knife much less a handgun.

Still another claims in service he was an "overglorified office boy" but on the range he is quick to suggest safer ways of handling and can gently point out mistakes without claim to authority or condescension.

Like computers- garbage in garbage out.

 

[Trent]

I'm sorry, I was thinking one thing and posted another. I changed the punctuation...it isn't grammatically correct, but it was easier

What I meant was taking more than a second after they got the gun extended...regardless of the draw speed. So, draw > raise gun > extend > then, wait...wait....wait...wait...bang

I was about to say something about this and then went "oh, Ok."

I would have a very hard time breaking 1 second from a concealed carry draw from IWB at 4 o'clock, with a shirt or coat obstruction over my gun. OWB at 3 O'clock in a USPSA match, sure, every time... but not from a legitimate CCW draw. I lose a half second just getting clothes moved. MUCH worse, if I'm wearing a heavy winter coat.

Formal training, or no, one thing that I've noticed is you have to PRACTICE what you learn or it's not even worth getting the training.

Even instructors aren't immune to complacency. We have had three relatively mild winters here in a row, and it had been at least 4 years since I last practiced drawing with a heavy winter coat. I went out this Thursday, 20 degrees out and windy, had my "winter layers" on, to practice handguns.

Very unpleasant business, that.

What I found at the range left my ego feeling all of about 6" tall, though. I was utterly incompetent at drawing from under a heavy winter coat. It took 40 repetitions before I was even remotely comfortable doing it. A man with a knife from 80 feet away could have done me in before I had a round on target on the first 20 attempts.

So.. formal training is one thing. But if you don't PRACTICE what you learn, what good does it do you? And if you don't practice in unusual (even uncomfortable) situations, how will you fare if you actually DO need to defend yourself?

Training takes the question marks away. Practice keeps them away.

 

[9mmepiphany]

What some would read into the quote is that no one should have firearms on them until they are anointed and declared One of the Brotherhood. It comes off extremely elitist

I've never understood why a request for competency should be considered elitist.

I could understand with you had to own a certain esoteric gun (Colt Python, H&K P7) or own a esoteric holster (elephant skinned, handmade and tailor fitted) being somewhat elitist. But I consider competency with a handgun to be an extension of accepting personal responsibility.

I consider myself a competent defensive shooter and a middling competitive shooter. I seldom claim to be good and would never call myself an expert, what I do consider myself is a never ending student in the use of a handgun...and firearms in general. The mantra I learned is, "If you aren't Improving, you're Regressing"

That people would pay me to teach them the skill really only speaks to my ability as a teacher...not an instructor

 

[mbt2001]

Linking training to ownership is where I get worried. That is where I am sure the "backlash", to the degree that there is one, comes into play.

 

[Trent]

My eldest son can do middling-advanced physics. But he couldn't help my eldest daughter with freshman level High School geometry last night. He could solve the problems but couldn't teach the steps to do it.

You don't have to be a USPSA grand master to teach self-defense with a firearm. And if you are, it doesn't mean you'd be a good instructor.

Doing is one thing. Being able to teach it is an entirely different skill-set.

I've been in classes where I was undoubtedly faster and more accurate than the instructor, but I learned valuable things from them, nonetheless. I've also been mopped up by USPSA guys, who - when asked for any tips - just kind of stammered and couldn't really explain how or why they are so damn good.

In addition to this much of lethal force doctrine is mental, and legal, and neither can really be effectively learned by putting rounds down range. Engaging targets is 100% different than knowing when it is appropriate, and what the ramifications are, from engaging them.

When I first started getting my instructor credentials, 9/10ths of my class in the rifle course were SWAT, law enforcement, and many had military backgrounds. I actually started out feeling strongly that I was in the wrong place, until later in the course, when I realized many of these guys were seriously struggling with the instruction part, because they had the wrong mindset for civilian training.

Law Enforcement and Military backgrounds don't guarantee a good instructor, any more than being a USPSA grand master would. The mindset for both Law Enforcement and (especially) Military is VASTLY different from the mindset required for civilian lethal force instruction. The rules of engagement, strategies, and tactics for both are different than you have as a civilian. Law Enforcement has the power of arrest and backup on their side, you do not. Military is authorized by our Government to engage hostiles in situations that we would never be able to (generally, from a distance, and generally, by complete surprise; neither of which are applicable for us civvies).

While a good curriculum vitae can be formed with either or both LEO and Military experience, neither are specific requirements for good instructors, and many of the reasons that would make someone a good cop or soldier just simply don't apply to civilian training.

I know I'm off the original thread topic a little here, so I'll bring it back in line.

Good instruction for lethal force and self-defense gives you expert witnesses to call on if you find yourself in front of a jury - your instructors. They can testify that various key points of ethics, morality, and law were covered in their classes, and that you passed your examination(s).

The alternative? "Well, I umm.. I read about how to shoot people legally on the internet".

One of these is a better option than the other one.

 

[9mmepiphany]

one of these is a better option than the other one.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

It depends on the instructor- whether paid or not. I'll take advice from the quiet man that I know has been there and doesn't talk about it as far more useful as the one that brags about the fights he's been in or his multi-specialty military career.

You’ll run into posers where ever you go. I’ve run into more ex Special Forces, Navy Seals, Rhodesian Mercenaries, Retired Astronauts and general Ninja since I became security guard than I ever ran into in the military.

Then you have the folks that never spent day one in the military but try to tell you about the rigors of combat or the 3 week CNAs that claim to be RNs.

I was interested in taking an NRA Personal Protection in the Home class a few years back and the guy I connected with got me on the phone and would not let me off the line for 45 minutes while he regaled me with tales of his time as a “contractor” in Iraq. I finally had to hang up on him.

I would think that most reputable instructors would let a prospective client audit a class before laying out the cash for one or you could check with your local police force and see who they would or do go to for training

 

[Torian]

Linking training to ownership is where I get worried. That is where I am sure the "backlash", to the degree that there is one, comes into play.

My concern as well. It can too easily becomes a barrier to gun ownership or CCW. My opinion is training should be highly encouraged, but not required.

I don't think we need need training sessions before we can exercise the right of free speech or religion either.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

My concern as well. It can too easily becomes a barrier to gun ownership or CCW. My opinion is training should be highly encouraged, but not required

.

The concept of mandatory training wasn't mentioned one time in the article

 

[Torian]

Understood, however the author stated there was "no excuse" for getting such training. For arguments sake, I came up with an excuse. One wonders whether the author would be in favor of such a requirement? I know what I would put my money on

 

[Trent]

One very valid excuse for not getting training is expense. Some people simply can't afford it. We're fighting that in Illinois right now with *16 hours* of training required to get a concealed carry license (in addition to the $150 license fee and the $55 digital fingerprints). Downstate, 16 hours of training costs 125-175.. upstate, I've seen instructors charging 250 or 300. That's a month of groceries for kids.

Some people simply can't afford it, and it DIRECTLY affects their right to carry.

 

[Ankeny]

With all due respect what you are talking about here is training. It may not be “formal” training and you may not be paying for it but it is in fact training. It is not being "self taught"

Yup, yup. What I am getting at is a real serious student of the sport (my post relates to competition) can go quite a long way being self taught. From there, serious shooters can push, pull, and prod each other along.

I have nothing against training "schools" or "formal" classes. I would love to attend Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, etc. All I am saying is for those who can't make it to a school, there are alternative venues. It just depends on who you hang with. Unfortunately, I often see some clueless shooters being coached by equally clueless shooters.

Doing is one thing. Being able to teach it is an entirely different skill-set.

I so absolutely agree with that statement. Alas, we just went through a couple of threads where some posters seemed to feel the instructor should be able to perform flawlessly.

 

[Trent]

All I am saying is for those who can't make it to a school, there are alternative venues. It just depends on who you hang with. Unfortunately, I often see some clueless shooters being coached by equally clueless shooters.

The only downside to being self taught is bad habits can be REALLY tough to break, once they form.

But, generally, I agree with you, shooting is something you can get pretty good at by yourself. I mean, taking a class doesn't make you an expert. I see that often on the internet. "I've trained with BLAHBLAHBLAH {thump chest} I'm a bon-a-fide EXPERT now."

Aaaand...?

Training teaches you things you can practice and work on, on your own. No more, no less.

If you don't take the time or put forth the energy to practice and work on those things, you are exactly NO better or worse off than you were without the training. (for physical things, like shooting.)

Period.

Now.. for strategies, tactics, and legal issues... there really IS no substitute for good training. Those are mental games, not physical.

Alas, we just went through a couple of threads where some posters seemed to feel the instructor should be able to perform flawlessly.

Last I checked, people are human, not robots.

Heck, I proved this today when I put a round right through the front of my chronograph. :banghead:

 

[rdhood]

I am not going to call it "training". I am going to call it "coaching". And, as with most any sport, most everyone could use more high quality coaching. Football? Baseball? Darts? Bowling? Tennis? Ping Pong? Kayaking? Putting (golf)?

Why not shooting? See, when you call it "coaching" and put it in the context of other eye/hand coordination/reaction activities, it makes perfect sense that someone would want more coaching for any of those things.

I think to many people, "training" implies a mindset or culture. While it may be partially true, more people could relate to "coaching", which implies a perfection of ability. One has a more negative connotation than the other. In the world of guns, semantics is everything.

 

[twofifty]

psychology

training vs. coaching. Good idea.

That semantic distinction might draw people to professional instruction.
It could minimize potential cognitive dissonance among some who 'know' they are 'good shots' and therefore 'don't need training'.

Coaching, heck even NFL quarterbacks have coaches...and they still have their man cards.

 

[Ankeny]

Now.. for strategies, tactics, and legal issues... there really IS no substitute for good training. Those are mental games, not physical.

I agree, and that is kind of the boat I have been in for several years. I would love to take a class on tactics, strategies, etc., but I have no desire to spend money on a class that has us on a line running a gun doing simple fundamentals.

As a side light, I was engaged in the typical BS session with some of my friends at the LGS yesterday. One is a B class USPSA shooter and he also teaches hunter safety. He is almost 60 and has never attended a shooting school or formal shooting class (other than handgun safety as part of the hunter safety instructor class). Another is also a B USPSA shooter, and he shoots a lot of Glock shoots (has even won a few guns). He has never been to any kind of training school. One of the other guys has had some basic instruction in handgun safety (no range time) and he has been heavily involved in the gun culture, most notably in working with kids through 4-H and yearly at the Whittington Center. Let's see, he is highly repsected enough to teach at the Whittington Center, but he has no training in a "formal organized group setting" himself. The last guy is a 60 year old rancher that has shot thousands upon thousands of rounds though countless handguns over decades of shooting. He shot a couple of our USPSA matches and it's obvious he can run a gun. It just baffles my mind that there are folks in the shooting community who could possibly feel they are not competent to carry a gun due to a lack of "training".

That brings me full circle to what I have always maintained. We need more education in the aspects of fighting with a gun, but so many schools spend too much time on basic fundamentals because they are geared up for beginners.

 

[Torian]

One very valid excuse for not getting training is expense. Some people simply can't afford it. We're fighting that in Illinois right now with *16 hours* of training required to get a concealed carry license (in addition to the $150 license fee and the $55 digital fingerprints). Downstate, 16 hours of training costs 125-175.. upstate, I've seen instructors charging 250 or 300. That's a month of groceries for kids.

Some people simply can't afford it, and it DIRECTLY affects their right to carry.

Good point. I'd really love to see some kind of CCW model that allows the money generated from permits to help subsidize the cost of training.

If you address the cost issue, it makes the idea of training/coaching much more palatable.

Rather than an elitest attitude as has been mentioned, I think some of these "professional trainers/shooters" are in favor of requiring training because it's cash cow for those teaching. 1-2 days of training and you are banking thousands of dollars.

 

[benEzra]

The concept of mandatory training wasn't mentioned one time in the article

Again, I think this part right here is what prompts the backlash:

without training on the weapon you carry…you are MORE dangerous to yourself and loved ones than you were when you didn’t have one

In other words, if you haven't attended formal training, you shouldn't have a weapon at all. That is overstated.

Without that sentence, I think the article as a whole would be more on point. Formal training *is* good and should be a priority, but it is not and should not be a mandatory prerequisite for self-defense.