Rob Pincus on developing objective standards for defensive firearms instructors

[Fred Fuller]

I listened to Rob's presentation in Memphis, but have hesitated to post anything about it here from my notes. Now that I can point to someone else's comments on the subject, though, any cats escaping their bags can be blamed on ... someone else . And I managed to miss this when it first appeared over at Michael Bane's Downrange TV blog, my only excuse is that we were on the road headed back from Memphis by way of AL, and I'm just now catching up...

http://kitup.military.com/2012/03/a-firearms-instructor-code.html#more-15739
A Firearms Instructor Code
by David Reeder on March 9, 2012

...

The Professional Code of Defensive Shooting Instructors
1. I am committed to the safety of my students, and hold that the expected benefit of any training activity must significantly outweigh any known or perceived risk of that activity.
2. I believe that it is my responsibility to understand not just what I’m teaching, but WHY I’m teaching any technique or concept, or offering specific advice.
3. I recognize that defensive shooting skills, along with the drills and gear used, are inherently specialized and usually distinct from those of target shooting, competition and hunting endeavors.
4. I will encourage my students to ask questions about course material, and I will answer them with thorough and objective explanations.
5. I understand that Integrity and Professionalism are subjective traits and I strive to maintain high levels of both. I am capable of, and willing to, articulate the reasons for the way I conduct my courses and how I interact with students & peers.
6. I believe that it is valuable to engage my peers in constructive conversation about differences in technique and concept, with the goal of mutual education and evolution.
7. I believe that the best instructor is an avid student, and I will strive to continually upgrade my own skills and knowledge. As part of this belief, I understand that my own teachings need to be subject to critique and open to evolution. -- as posted at http://www.downrange.tv/blog/a-code-for-professional-defensive-shooting-instructors/13524/

 

[BullfrogKen]

Yeah, that lecture was extremely well-attended. It was a great way to kick off the weekend.

For the personal reasons bringing me to Tom Given's conference, I felt it ranked among the top three of the lectures I attended.

 

[2zulu1]

I have a great deal of respect for Rob Pincus and for the experiential knowledge he's willing to share with us. Above all, there's a standard that defensive firearms instructors need to buck up to and be accountable for IMNSHO.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Sam1911]

Glad to see this, finally!

 

[Loosedhorse]

It makes sense that any profession should have a code of ethics.

Many professional organizations have established a code of ethics or code of professional responsibility. Some are worded in the first person, like this one, and sound like an oath when read.

Codes typically deal with:

1. Shared goals of all members of the profession
2. The "right way" to deal with those coming to us with less knowledge (clients and professionals in training).
3. Conflicts of interest (making a recommendation because it helps the professional, not the client).

Wiki mentions that a code typically includes [sic]:

Honesty
Integrity
Transparency
Accountability
Confidentiality
Objective
Respectful
Within the law

On the downside: attempts of professional organizations to enforce codes by disciplining members have sometimes been met by anti-trust suits. The exception is of course state licensing boards (where they exist, and to the extent that they have codes). Besides criminal charges, attempts to establish "codes" are sometimes viewed as big fish trying to squeeze out the little fish, in order to increase their market share; or to establish "doctrinal purity."

Not surprisingly, the NRA currently has a minimal code for instructors, and doesn't even label it a code:

NRA Certified Instructors are expected to:

Conduct NRA Basic Courses in accordance with policies and procedures outlined by NRA
Uphold the quality and integrity of national firearm safety and training standards established by NRA
Promote firearm safety and the shooting sports
Report training data to NRA

However, for trainers*, the NRA has an extensive code, and perhaps a few are relevant to the list in the OP:

2. BOUNDARIES OF COMPETENCE
a. Trainers provide services only after first undertaking appropriate
study, training, supervision, and/or consultation from qualified members
of their respective credentialing association.
b. In those areas of the United States that require specified education or
certification for instructors or coaches, trainers take reasonable steps to
ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
3. MAINTAINING EXPERTISE
Trainers maintain a reasonable level of awareness of related educational
information and undertake ongoing efforts to maintain competence in the
skills they use.

*In NRA parlance, training counselors are the master instructors responsible for certifying instructors. I believe that is the sense of "trainers" here.

 

[Chindo18Z]

Sorry. I'll be the voice of dissent.

Firearms instruction isn't a sport with a requirement for governing bodies (which is where I see this going). We already have NRA certifications and guidelines that suffice for business use and I despise invention of handy little creeds. It smacks of self-aggrandizement and empire building.

I have no need for self-selected nascent Union Bosses. The kind who intend to be the future arbiters of who is or is not an instructor. The kind who will inevitably attempt to control membership in a private guild.

This is America. If you have salable skills and a viable product, you will maintain both credibility and profit in a free market economy. You either know what you are doing...or you don't. If someone has to spell instructional tenets out for you on a card or a certificate, you should consider a different line of work.

 

[HeadJunter]

Being one of the Charter members of the Association and a personal friend of Rob's, I think I can comment on this.

First, "objective standards" is completely the opposite of Rob's point. He articulated this explicitly in his presentation. Context and subjectivity go hand in hand to him. Frankly, it's one of those things he and I agree to disagree on. He doesn't think objective standards are desirable and I think they're essential.

His view of the organization is not to define standards for instructors. Rather, the object is to mentor and elevate the knowledge and capabilities of the many instructors who have come into the industry in the past few years. I completely agree with that premise.

I personally took training with a new instructor last year that was extremely dangerous and ill structured, although quite salable, and a viable product in the sense that the range has him do it twice a month. He's not the only one who needs some help, I am sure. The idea of the Association is to give instructors like him a place to turn to learn how to structure training and teach it safely.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Chindo, as I sat through the session I did not get the impression he had that in mind. Again, this was an lecture on Professionalism overall. In the way one teaches. In the way he runs his school or program. And in his own personal development. This portion on a code of ethics was literally the final 10 minutes, and it was presented as a suggestion and an area for the industry to consider.


Chindo, I hate that we're in this spot but . . . yes, this is America. Yet today's America is much different than America from a generation or two ago. In many industries being a good company with a successful product or service simply isn't enough to set up shop. We license ethnic hair braiders for Pete's sake.


A big part of avoiding government regulation is self-regulation. Rob didn't comment on that; this is me speaking here. I don't view voluntarily adopting a commonly agreed-upon code of ethics as an onerous step. This industry has simply exploded over the last decade. And it won't be long before big brother looks at it, and all the money in it, and decides they want to regulate it.

Without some sort of framework of self-regulation in place, however loose it is or operates, I have a big concern for government stepping in and doing it for us.

 

[Loosedhorse]

First, "objective standards" is completely the opposite of Rob's point.

Well that's good and bad. As always.

First, I am always suspicious of "objective" standards. Meaning that someone (or a group of someones) decided subjectively what the standards should be. To the extent the standards are easily agreed on (range safety) or easily met (certification by the NRA as instructor) they will be seen as fair, but will only screen out the most objectionable teachers. Which may be success enough. Maybe that's what should be aimed for.

Second, it is hard to convince folks that someone is "objectively" deciding whether or not they meet standards (whatever those standards are): unless we're talking a multiple-choice test with an answer key, deciding "good enough" is very subjective.

An example: as you know, there are instructors out there that are training folks on "360-degree ranges", with students shooting at targets that have other students standing alongside the target, because "real gunfights don't happen on a firing line." Is that realistic, past-master-level, expert training--or completely unsafe, foolish...

And unethical? Can that question be decided by looking at the experience and training of the instructor? Seems to me if we can't decide a basic question like whether 360-degree ranges are the mark of an ethical teacher, well, not sure what this code would actually be useful for.

 

[Chindo18Z]

The idea of the Association is to give instructors like him a place to turn to learn how to structure training and teach it safely.

Point taken.

But to my mind, that indicates that a profitable niche exists for Advanced Train-the-Trainer Instruction that someone might want to take advantage of. Would-be Sword Masters will always seek out High Masters...no need for a union card. They can pay for the advanced skill set.

When I've hired name instructors for my unit, considerations of instructor ethical codes, membership in associations, or book/video marketing success never entered into the selection criteria. Either the instructor delivered tangible benefit...or he did not. If not, he was removed from a very short list of credible vendors. Word of mouth evaluation by well-qualified pipe hitters sufficed...and all potential venues were objectively re-evaluated when allocating each year's training budget. This Guy is Good To Go. That Guy is Not...and we won't waste time or money on him again.

With regard to Good vs. Bad Instructors...Caveat Emptor. There will always be charlatans and I'm against generating more fluff for under-qualified self-promoters to hang on their "Me-Walls".

Attempting to institutionalize, standardize, and codify a for-profit endeavor is a slippery slope towards the very bureaucratization that creates stasis and mediocrity in all organizations (the military being a prime example). The craft of teaching people to survive life and death encounters is a job for expert artisans, not committees.

The fact that the instructional market has exploded in the last decade is a function of cultural memes, a currently deep pool of combat experienced instructor candidates, the internet, and application of mass marketing technique. But it's all been done before...in former eras that valued Trial By Combat and Code de Duello. The best instructors were the ones whose students mostly lived. The ones whose students were mostly killed...fell into obscurity. It was a results oriented world. It still is.

I realize that I've strayed from the original topic (Proposed Instructor Creed), but I see such a thing as an early indicator of an embryonic guild-in-waiting. And commercial guilds inevitably become closed societies whose raison d'etre is control of profit (and membership).

Wizard of Oz: They have one thing you haven't got: a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitartus Committiartum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of ThD.
Scarecrow: ThD?
Wizard of Oz: That's... Doctor of Thinkology.

Anyway...just my $.02

 

[Sam1911]

Doctor of Shoot-ology?

As a member of an organization that promotes itself as a guild, but which is obviously not so in any truly historic sense of the word, I see the possible benefits and gaping pitfalls as well.

The group of which I am a member is currently implementing a journeyman accreditation process -- unique for this field, here in the States anyway. It is interesting to see who sets these things up, who decides who makes the cut, who decides who decides who makes the cut, who NEEDS to make the cut, who is old-school enough to be above having to make the cut, and so on. Much self-selecting and some scrambling to get in at the (new) ground floor, so to speak.

The stated goals are always positive, of course. Money doesn't even really need to get involved for there to be conflicts, though ... but it sure helps!

All of a sudden, a long-time master craftsman can be asked by a Client, "But are you accedited by the Guild?" If he answers no, he either loses face or has to establish a contentious, "We don't need no steeeening bagdes...," adversarial relation to a group of his respected peers.

And then there is the question of innovation and development vis-a-vis safeguarding the principles of the trade, safety, best practices, and so forth.

Muddy waters.

 

[Fred Fuller]

There are always some who seek to take advantage of any situation, in order to turn it to their own profit. Right now in the world of defensive firearms instructors, most of that seems to me to be limited to the small handful of people who seek to build a cult of personality around themselves, their schools and their POIs. But we don't know what the future holds, none of us do. There are some indicators out there which give us some insights into possibilities however.

A couple of years ago one of the best known gun bloggers intimated pretty much what Ken said above - that if the defensive firearms training industry doesn't begin to regulate itself, it's very likely that some level of government will seek to supply that regulation. It's one thing for someone who has been around serious students of defensive firearms for years or decades to consider who's worth going to for training and who isn't so much so.

It's not people who know their way around the community of professional trainers who need what things like codes of professional ethics, and standards for professional defensive firearms instructors, can do for them. It's people who are brand new to the game. If there are no objective descriptions of classes/POIs, no formal resumes for instructors to compare, and no other ways to know who's who and what's what, then how is a person just setting out to get training going to know?

It might come as a shock, but even with the advent of Gun Culture 2.0, great big chunks of this nation are not as full of 'gun people' as they used to be. That's one of the priceless lessons I learned right here through THR, mostly from the seemingly endless stream of people asking, "Should I get Shotgun M or Shotgun R?" My usual answer was, "Find a family member, friend or co-worker who has whichever and see if they will take you out shooting - you buy ammo and lunch." The number of PMs I got, plaintively saying that no one in their family, none of their friends and none of their co-workers went hunting, shooting or owned firearms was surprising - and disappointing. We need to know what we're addressing here IMHO, and what we're looking at is not a Special Forces A detachment looking for HSLD training. What we have here is a fast-growing number of new gun owners, many of whom are seeking training from somewhere. And they need help knowing where to go to get good responsible training. Because we all know at this point that there are some folks out there hanging out gun school shingles who don't need to be doing so - right?

I listened very carefully to what Rob had to say in his presentation at Polite Society, and was fortunate enough to have a chance to talk to him for a while later. I can't speak for anyone else in the training industry, but I most certainly did not get the impression that what he's doing is empire building in any way whatsoever. I find nothing to argue with or complain about in the material I saw and heard, and personally I sincerely hope something good comes of this. And I expect that it will, eventually, given the kind of people who are already involved in this.

Of course, YMMV...

 

[DAP90]

Dangit Fred, I was just going to say that.

Let me give you a rookie’s perspective.

Fair or not I for one would like to see some standard for judging the suitability of instructors. Those of you who take your training very seriously have the experience necessary to pick a good instructor; I do not. I realize any system can be cheated (or leave people out in the cold) but I would like something to use as an evaluation tool beyond course descriptions and philosophies from a website.

Somewhere on THR there’s a thread about picking an instructor. It talks about looking at their experience, student reviews and certifications, amongst other things.

In my area there are many options available to me and I have been to every website I can find. Student reviews have been uniformly positive. How could they not be given the instructor controls what’s on their own website? Experience is a mixed bag. Former military or police experience – ok great – but so what? I’ve got some military training too. It doesn’t make me any kind of an expert.

Website philosophies have been somewhat useful in eliminating those instructors who are too “hard core” for me.

This is one of the reasons I’m leaning towards NRA courses to start with. I don’t doubt a really good instructor will offer a better course but at least with the NRA I have some assurance of a minimum standard.

I don’t have the time, money or inclination to waste on a bad instructor. I want some level of assurance that I’m getting a decent product.

 

[Chindo18Z]

The internet is an amazing thing. If I had never fired a weapon in my life I could still search for feedback and info on almost any instructor in the land...and without necessarily visiting their business website.

If the guy (or gal) is not a nationally recognized name, I could still get an accurate sense of reputation merely by querying local PD members, gun shop habitues, NRA POCs, fellow range shooters, and the BBB.

Word of Mouth. This porridge is too hot. This porridge is too cold. This porridge is just right.

Associations? Got it...it's a normal human tendency for like minded people to form bonds and trade knowledge. First as informal support organizations and later as codified bodies with formal requirements. It inevitably happens in all human endeavors...as naturally as water running down hill.

We have the USPA for parachutists.
We have PADI and NAUI for scuba divers.
We have the National Ski Patrol & PSIA for snow skiers.
We have the NRA for shooters and shooting instructors.

A loose subset Association of Defensive Shooting Instructors makes sense.

But I'm against "signing" codes and tenets and what I bluntly perceive as baby steps toward a long term strategy for cornering market share (or preeminence of position within a governing organization).

But, you might say: "It's critical that defensive firearms instructors are vetted, because defensive situations are a matter of life and death..."

I don't have to hire anyone in particular to learn how to drive a car...and my odds of dying in an auto have always been vastly larger than my odds of being shot dead in a gunfight. Despite this fact, I must merely demonstrate basic competence to the State in order to get a driver's license. Over 30,000 Americans die each year in auto fatalities...over 4.5 million are injured annually. But I see no public hue and cry to mandate very expensive customer-paid Driving Instruction (as is done in countries like Germany). It doesn't matter whether you learn to drive at a professional school or have your Uncle Ernie teach you. How you get to the point of passing a Driver's Exam is up to you.

I feel the same about shooting and learning defensive skills. I don't ever want to wake up one day and find that a Certificate on the Wall is more important than the actual skill residing in the Brain Housing Group of my chosen mentor.

And if I happen know that my Uncle Ernie is a verifiable gunfighter who can train blind house cats to march in formation, I want to be able to hire him...whether he has a diploma...a license...or benefit of professional memberships. I might want to employ him free of any similar restrictions. Just like hiring an artist. I'll be my own judge of talent.

Laissez-faire economics.

I would resent being proselytized to sign a petition or roster of agreement (to be presented to whom and utilized for what purpose?) supporting implementation of potentially binding codes, rules, or bylaws for the benefit of someone's future organizational vision or business agenda.

If an instructor feels dismayed by lack of a current trainer ethos, perhaps they need to simply focus on being the best instructor they can be, and less on altruistic concern for the alleged shortcomings of their competitors.

Just sayin'...

 

[Loosedhorse]

I don’t have the time, money or inclination to waste on a bad instructor.

Man, do I agree with that in spades!

But first, I'm not sure how an ethical code prevents that. Second, even if there was a standards-setting (non-governmental) association, I still think it would obviously and unavoidably allow some bad instructors.

I went to one brand-name school (I withhold the name, because I've been back and think they have since cleaned up their act--I just caught them at a low point), only to find that they did not have enough assistant instructors to keep the line safe. Maybe they thought that was fine because this was an "advanced course" (for experts like yours truly ), but when doing one of the shooting from low cover drills, one of the partcipants stumble and (holding onto his weapon) crossed half the line in flapping-wing-type fashion, and had an ND.



No one hurt, but he was not removed from the line. I decided to "rest" for the remainder of the live-fire program, and re-joined when we switched to Simunitions.

I guarantee you that given the credentials of this instructor and the name of his school, he would have had whatever membership badge that can be offered. But he did not run a safe line.

On the other hand, I have worked with some great "basic" instructors (it's amazing how much I learn every time I cover the basics!) who were very solid and great to work with, "natural teachers" with attention to safety, who actually didn't have an impressive résumé (they were just conveniently close!); I got a real bargain.

For folks who are still asking "shotgun A or B" questions, well, their risk of gettig a bad teacher far from zero. But I worry about labeling a lot of good, inexpensive instructors as "not good enough", when in fact they would be great for such students...and maybe for significantly better students, too.

 

[DAP90]

But first, I'm not sure how an ethical code prevents that. Second, even if there was a standards-setting (non-governmental) association, I still think it would obviously and unavoidably allow some bad instructors.

It doesn’t, but if a standards rating unavoidably allows some bad instructors in it must conversely get rid of more. I guess a good question would be does it also get rid of good teachers?

I wouldn’t make my decision based entirely on a standards rating but I would use it as one more evaluation tool.

I assume the point of this discussion is the acknowledgement that there are bad instructors and that a relative newbie like myself can easily find themselves under their “tutelage”.

There’s a post above that talks about alternate sources of info instead of a rating system. All well and good but…

Local PD members – I don’t know any and I don’t see hanging around a police station asking cops on their coffee break who they like for training.
Gun shop habitués – employees maybe, but not the guy sitting on a stool jawing with the owner.
NRA POCs – I don’t know what this is.
Fellow range shooters – on average probably have even less training than I do.
BBB – which would only let me know if they have shady business practices; not what the quality of their training is like.

Is a standards-setting association the ultimate answer? I don’t know but I’m in the market for training currently and from my perspective it’s tough to tell who’s worth the money and who’s not.

 

[Chindo18Z]

There’s a post above that talks about alternate sources of info instead of a rating system. All well and good but…

Local PD members – I don’t know any and I don’t see hanging around a police station asking cops on their coffee break who they like for training.
Pick up the phone and call your department's office number. Ask to speak to the training officer. Get recommendations from him. He may even be a civilian instructor. Call another jurisdiction. When you hear the same instructor name a couple of times, that's a good clue.

Gun shop habitués – employees maybe, but not the guy sitting on a stool jawing with the owner. Then talk to the most knowledgable employee on the premises.

NRA POCs (Points of Contact) – I don’t know what this is.
Call or go on-line to the NRA website. They can steer you to someone in your area. Do you belong to the NRA?

Fellow range shooters – on average probably have even less training than I do. Somebody at your range is a better shooter than you. Sit back and watch...then introduce yourself and get to know them. That person might very well be the instructor you are looking for...or know him.

BBB – which would only let me know if they have shady business practices; not what the quality of their training is like. Shady business practice and a history of complaints seems to go hand in hand with poor instruction. Another clue.

Ask around. You know someone who shoots. Ask them who they know. See if there is a competive league or club at your local range; contact them and ask for recommendations.

If a yellowpage add with the words "Member of XYZ Association" would make you choose an instructor, you should already be looking for folks advertised as NRA certified.

Do searches on Tactical, Military, and Shooting Forums. Many of them discuss instructor credentials (or lack of same) in exhausting (or embarrassing) detail. By name. Lots of feedback from folks who have attended specific courses.

The process isn't that different from looking for a new car. Figure out what you think you want..then do the research and comparison shopping.

An actual rating system would never fly in a business environment. "Hi! I'm Joe Instructor. I have a C+ Rating. Save money and attend my tactical course!"

The only acceptable rating would be the same one found in many other professions. Basic Licensing. In other words...your proposed new health care provider either is...or is not an M.D.

Despite having the diploma...he might still be a terrible doctor.