SAF throws their hat into the training ring
- Thread starter wtr100
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmm. How interesting. I have to assume this is done in cooperation (at some level?) with NRA, but that language quoted above is pretty harsh in regards to the NRA's "Personal Protection" series and other programs.
While I'd not be one to hold up the NRA's training as the pinnacle of what should be in all things, SAF seems to be buying a pretty big pair of britches for itself to fill, so to speak. They're promising something sort of huge, and if it hasn't been provided yet, one is tempted to ask "why not" and "what makes them think they can do it?"
(Or maybe this is just a diversion to distract folks from some of their "flubs" from the last couple of years...
)
I see Tom and Lynn are involved, so I'm instinctively supportive! But I'd like to know more...
While I'd not be one to hold up the NRA's training as the pinnacle of what should be in all things, SAF seems to be buying a pretty big pair of britches for itself to fill, so to speak. They're promising something sort of huge, and if it hasn't been provided yet, one is tempted to ask "why not" and "what makes them think they can do it?"
(Or maybe this is just a diversion to distract folks from some of their "flubs" from the last couple of years...
)I see Tom and Lynn are involved, so I'm instinctively supportive! But I'd like to know more...
Yeah... that's written with "bash the NRA" in mind.
The NRA has been developing national standards and training new/inexperienced shooters in rifle, pistol, and shotgun for ooooh what, 144 years, give or take?
Nearly a century and a half of "development of just such a training program."
Personally not the way I'd choose to market a new training program.. but hey, what do I know? I'm just a multi-discipline NRA instructor in rifle, pistol, and shotgun, chief range safety officer, official at high power *and* smallbore matches, teach concealed carry, on the executive board at an NRA affiliated shooting range, and soon (1 week from now) will be a certified national smallbore coach....
Hrumph.
The NRA has been developing national standards and training new/inexperienced shooters in rifle, pistol, and shotgun for ooooh what, 144 years, give or take?
Nearly a century and a half of "development of just such a training program."
Personally not the way I'd choose to market a new training program.. but hey, what do I know? I'm just a multi-discipline NRA instructor in rifle, pistol, and shotgun, chief range safety officer, official at high power *and* smallbore matches, teach concealed carry, on the executive board at an NRA affiliated shooting range, and soon (1 week from now) will be a certified national smallbore coach....
Hrumph.
Doc7
Member
I am all for more training but I really don't get this marketing method. NRA programs is what got me into shooting and are available nationwide at nearly every range that has a training curriculum.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I sent Tom Givens a PM asking him to shed any light he can on this.
We've got a pretty well-known commodity in the NRA's training programs. And on the face of it, many of them are aimed exactly at, "training the new and inexperienced shooter in the defensive use of the most common platforms of firearms."
So SAF's reasoning here seems like it would either have to be 1) the NRA's programs are so bad, ineffective, or poorly promoted that they fail to meet the need; or 2) we think the community of shooters can always use more choices/competition in the basic gun training area so we are acting simply as an alternative to the other logical choice -- but we're being a bit ham-fisted about how we promote ourselves; or 3) "Whoops! They already DO that??? Holy cow, why didn't someone tell us this already existed???" (I doubt option 3 is very likely.)
I know SAF and NRA have found themselves at odds in some details of gun rights strategy in the last few years, but I can't believe that would be an impetus to pull SAF out of the courtroom and make them think they should embark into the commercial shooting training instructional realm.
Sort of like your plumber deciding he should maybe start teaching cooking classes, too, seeing as they're all part of the same basic process!
(Ok, that was funny right there, I don't care who ya are!)
We've got a pretty well-known commodity in the NRA's training programs. And on the face of it, many of them are aimed exactly at, "training the new and inexperienced shooter in the defensive use of the most common platforms of firearms."
So SAF's reasoning here seems like it would either have to be 1) the NRA's programs are so bad, ineffective, or poorly promoted that they fail to meet the need; or 2) we think the community of shooters can always use more choices/competition in the basic gun training area so we are acting simply as an alternative to the other logical choice -- but we're being a bit ham-fisted about how we promote ourselves; or 3) "Whoops! They already DO that??? Holy cow, why didn't someone tell us this already existed???"
(I doubt option 3 is very likely.)I know SAF and NRA have found themselves at odds in some details of gun rights strategy in the last few years, but I can't believe that would be an impetus to pull SAF out of the courtroom and make them think they should embark into the commercial shooting training instructional realm.
Sort of like your plumber deciding he should maybe start teaching cooking classes, too, seeing as they're all part of the same basic process!
(Ok, that was funny right there, I don't care who ya are!)
You don't get into Defensive stuff through the NRA program until you get to the PPITH and really PPOTH courses.
I think the SAF training is just a shorter way. SAF can do a lot of stuff the NRA can't or won't - silhouette targets in class anyone? Teach just modern pistols in basic class and slant towards defensive as opposed to sport use.
With NRA moving to the blended :banghead: basic pistol ...
Plus it'll like make the SAF a bit of $$$
I think the SAF training is just a shorter way. SAF can do a lot of stuff the NRA can't or won't - silhouette targets in class anyone? Teach just modern pistols in basic class and slant towards defensive as opposed to sport use.
With NRA moving to the blended :banghead: basic pistol ...
Plus it'll like make the SAF a bit of $$$
wtr100;
It is *VERY* possible that this is taking aim at the NRA's new "hybrid" education.
There's more than a little consternation in the instructor community about this hybrid online/classroom training the NRA says will become the new standard for all of their courses (starting with basic pistol, then proceeding on to PPITH, etc).
I'm personally NOT happy about the changes - I enjoy teaching and don't think a computer can replace me in that regards. Sure, it gets repetitive teaching the basic parts of a pistol, or how to align sights, over and over, and over again. But, in each class, *I* can personally watch for the 'deer in the headlights' look that accompanies people totally unfamiliar with firearms, to devote more attention to them during that process, or alter the pace and/or get more advanced if I have a room full of competitive shooters knocking out an approved prerequisite course for our state concealed carry certification (NRA basic pistol counts as 8 hours towards IL CCW's 16 required..).
From my understanding, based on what I've received so far, what the NRA is doing this year, is to move ALL of the conventional "book" learning to an online format, where there is no instructor involvement. Students will take that online training in advance, and then report to the instructor for the hands-on live fire parts to complete the class.
Basically, they're taking everything away from instructors except for the "hands on gun" part.
From their mouths, this "hybrid learning" thing will also encompass the more advanced courses (PPITH, PPOTH, etc) in the future.
Their argument is multitude and centers around such grand concepts as "uniform training experience nationwide", and "retaining the same quality and experience for every class", etc.
Anyway... I can SEE where the SAF is coming from, and WHY they would want to jump in right now - as there's a few (tens?) of thousand NRA instructors that are somewhat disgruntled and/or confused right now, not to mention state-sanctioned concealed carry classes at risk (NRA Basic pistol won't very likely be accepted as 8 hours of credit in IL after this, because our law specifically bans "online training" of any form).
So.. yeah.
This being said... I can see why the timing is "now", but bashing 140+ years of history in one swing... man, that's just .. well, not right.
It is *VERY* possible that this is taking aim at the NRA's new "hybrid" education.
There's more than a little consternation in the instructor community about this hybrid online/classroom training the NRA says will become the new standard for all of their courses (starting with basic pistol, then proceeding on to PPITH, etc).
I'm personally NOT happy about the changes - I enjoy teaching and don't think a computer can replace me in that regards. Sure, it gets repetitive teaching the basic parts of a pistol, or how to align sights, over and over, and over again. But, in each class, *I* can personally watch for the 'deer in the headlights' look that accompanies people totally unfamiliar with firearms, to devote more attention to them during that process, or alter the pace and/or get more advanced if I have a room full of competitive shooters knocking out an approved prerequisite course for our state concealed carry certification (NRA basic pistol counts as 8 hours towards IL CCW's 16 required..).
From my understanding, based on what I've received so far, what the NRA is doing this year, is to move ALL of the conventional "book" learning to an online format, where there is no instructor involvement. Students will take that online training in advance, and then report to the instructor for the hands-on live fire parts to complete the class.
Basically, they're taking everything away from instructors except for the "hands on gun" part.
From their mouths, this "hybrid learning" thing will also encompass the more advanced courses (PPITH, PPOTH, etc) in the future.
Their argument is multitude and centers around such grand concepts as "uniform training experience nationwide", and "retaining the same quality and experience for every class", etc.
Anyway... I can SEE where the SAF is coming from, and WHY they would want to jump in right now - as there's a few (tens?) of thousand NRA instructors that are somewhat disgruntled and/or confused right now, not to mention state-sanctioned concealed carry classes at risk (NRA Basic pistol won't very likely be accepted as 8 hours of credit in IL after this, because our law specifically bans "online training" of any form).
So.. yeah.
This being said... I can see why the timing is "now", but bashing 140+ years of history in one swing... man, that's just .. well, not right.
Trent I agree , the rollout isn't as friendly as it could be.
I agree 150% about blended training being a less than great idea. I hope they exempt FIRST STEPS as I use this for several hours of the IL FCCA class I run.
In the end I think it's a revenue center for SAF. The instructor training is quite extensive and expensive, but if the value is there ...
I agree 150% about blended training being a less than great idea. I hope they exempt FIRST STEPS as I use this for several hours of the IL FCCA class I run.
In the end I think it's a revenue center for SAF. The instructor training is quite extensive and expensive, but if the value is there ...
Tom Givens
Member
Since my name was brought up I'd like to clear up any misconceptions about the SAF-TD and the NRA.
First, I am a Life Member of the NRA, and I am an NRA law-enforcement firearms instructor for handgun, shotgun, and tactical shooting. Lynn is also an NRA pistol instructor.
Our role with the SAF-TD is course content development, not management.
I am pretty happy with the NRA's Law Enforcement training division, which is completely separate from and very different from the civilian side of the house.
I have a lot of problems with the NRA's civilian training programs as far as a self-defense context is concerned. Until the recent development of the PPITH and the PPOTH courses there were no courses available that even address the defensive use the gun. There is still no defensive oriented rifle or shotgun training available.
In my area I am personally aware of numerous NRA pistol instructors who should not be carrying a gun much less teaching anybody how to. Many of them got their instructor certification without having to shoot. I know NRA instructors and training counselors who do not follow the required curriculum and do not teach up to the NRA standard, largely because they don't know how.
In 2013 the FBI handled 21,093,273 background checks. That set a new record, and was almost 2 million more gun transfers than the previous record in 2012. According to research, a very large percentage of these tens of millions of gun sales the last two years have been first-time buyers. Several surveys have indicated that the majority of these first-time buyers were buying a gun for personal security, not any sporting application. There needs to be more availability of quality, vetted local instruction centered around self-defense for these people. They have no gun background and bought a gun for personal defense. They need access to proper training.
It will be a great deal harder to become an SAF-TD instructor. Instructor candidates will have to actually show some skill and aptitude, not just pay a fee. Regional representatives will check and audit local classes to make certain local instructors are following lesson plans, teaching all required hours and topics, and in general teaching up to the standard. This is something completely lacking in the NRA programs.
I do not see the SAF-TD as trying to replace the NRA. The NRA has a myriad of courses centered around their focus on the sporting application of firearms. The SAF-TD is focused completely on the self-defense aspects.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
First, I am a Life Member of the NRA, and I am an NRA law-enforcement firearms instructor for handgun, shotgun, and tactical shooting. Lynn is also an NRA pistol instructor.
Our role with the SAF-TD is course content development, not management.
I am pretty happy with the NRA's Law Enforcement training division, which is completely separate from and very different from the civilian side of the house.
I have a lot of problems with the NRA's civilian training programs as far as a self-defense context is concerned. Until the recent development of the PPITH and the PPOTH courses there were no courses available that even address the defensive use the gun. There is still no defensive oriented rifle or shotgun training available.
In my area I am personally aware of numerous NRA pistol instructors who should not be carrying a gun much less teaching anybody how to. Many of them got their instructor certification without having to shoot. I know NRA instructors and training counselors who do not follow the required curriculum and do not teach up to the NRA standard, largely because they don't know how.
In 2013 the FBI handled 21,093,273 background checks. That set a new record, and was almost 2 million more gun transfers than the previous record in 2012. According to research, a very large percentage of these tens of millions of gun sales the last two years have been first-time buyers. Several surveys have indicated that the majority of these first-time buyers were buying a gun for personal security, not any sporting application. There needs to be more availability of quality, vetted local instruction centered around self-defense for these people. They have no gun background and bought a gun for personal defense. They need access to proper training.
It will be a great deal harder to become an SAF-TD instructor. Instructor candidates will have to actually show some skill and aptitude, not just pay a fee. Regional representatives will check and audit local classes to make certain local instructors are following lesson plans, teaching all required hours and topics, and in general teaching up to the standard. This is something completely lacking in the NRA programs.
I do not see the SAF-TD as trying to replace the NRA. The NRA has a myriad of courses centered around their focus on the sporting application of firearms. The SAF-TD is focused completely on the self-defense aspects.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Thank you Tom! I do appreciate the in-depth explanation. We'll keep a hopeful eye open watching as this develops. Good luck!
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
The NRA has a myriad of courses centered around their focus on the sporting application of firearms. The SAF-TD is focused completely on the self-defense aspects.
This was my understanding as well - thanks for your expansion, Tom.
This was my understanding as well - thanks for your expansion, Tom.
Excellent post, Tom!
Thank you for the clarification of the differences in the two programs.
I agree that there is a disconnect between NRA training goals and "real world application" for defensive purposes. There are a lot of small things which tie our hands in NRA classes both in prepared lesson plan material and actual implementation of how to teach (e.g. prohibition of the word weapon, not being allowed to use silhouette targets, and so on.)
There is a place for NRA courses, for peaceful sporting and hunting applications.
But - my personal experience - when I took NRA instructor courses for pistol, there were 40 other instructor candidates in the room. One was actually disqualified and sent home as they didn't even understand which type of 9mm ammunition to buy for their handgun... and they caused a major safety hazard during live fire... several others in that class showed only rudimentary skills on handguns. And, the vast majority of those instructor candidates were only there, to get the NRA instructor rating, to be qualified by the IL state police to be able to teach IL concealed carry classes.
I was one of only a few instructors present who already had rifle and shotgun qualifications. Everyone else was there just to check a box off of prerequisites for the state of IL.
(This is actually similar with Rifle, and Shotgun, but from a different angle; in my rifle & shotgun classes there were two LEO's who were getting certified to teach carbine to their respective agencies, and then a room full of boy scout trainers who needed the rating to be able to teach boy scouts. In my experience, there were very few civilian trainers who receive multi-discipline instructor ratings to teach civilians about those. This can be verified easily by looking for basic rifle / basic shotgun courses on the NRA instructor site - they are very few and far between!)
Now, the NRA courses for all three disciplines are *excellent* for teaching sporting applications of firearms in all three disciplines. But the self-defense aspects are entirely absent (with the exception of pistol).
This all being said, there is a whole different aspect of firearms which is decidedly NOT a peaceful application that needs to be addressed. Use of shotguns and carbines for home defense is sharply on the rise, as your statistics indicate clearly, and that is certainly not addressed by current NRA curriculum.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification, and I think you are right on target with what is being offered!
Thank you for the clarification of the differences in the two programs.
I agree that there is a disconnect between NRA training goals and "real world application" for defensive purposes. There are a lot of small things which tie our hands in NRA classes both in prepared lesson plan material and actual implementation of how to teach (e.g. prohibition of the word weapon, not being allowed to use silhouette targets, and so on.)
There is a place for NRA courses, for peaceful sporting and hunting applications.
But - my personal experience - when I took NRA instructor courses for pistol, there were 40 other instructor candidates in the room. One was actually disqualified and sent home as they didn't even understand which type of 9mm ammunition to buy for their handgun... and they caused a major safety hazard during live fire... several others in that class showed only rudimentary skills on handguns. And, the vast majority of those instructor candidates were only there, to get the NRA instructor rating, to be qualified by the IL state police to be able to teach IL concealed carry classes.
I was one of only a few instructors present who already had rifle and shotgun qualifications. Everyone else was there just to check a box off of prerequisites for the state of IL.
(This is actually similar with Rifle, and Shotgun, but from a different angle; in my rifle & shotgun classes there were two LEO's who were getting certified to teach carbine to their respective agencies, and then a room full of boy scout trainers who needed the rating to be able to teach boy scouts. In my experience, there were very few civilian trainers who receive multi-discipline instructor ratings to teach civilians about those. This can be verified easily by looking for basic rifle / basic shotgun courses on the NRA instructor site - they are very few and far between!)
Now, the NRA courses for all three disciplines are *excellent* for teaching sporting applications of firearms in all three disciplines. But the self-defense aspects are entirely absent (with the exception of pistol).
This all being said, there is a whole different aspect of firearms which is decidedly NOT a peaceful application that needs to be addressed. Use of shotguns and carbines for home defense is sharply on the rise, as your statistics indicate clearly, and that is certainly not addressed by current NRA curriculum.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification, and I think you are right on target with what is being offered!
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Ran across their PR news release ... some more organizational details there.
==========================================
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...hes-firearms-training-division-300015973.html
Second Amendment Foundation Launches Firearms Training Division
PR Newswire
BELLEVUE, Wash., Jan. 5, 2015
==========================================
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...hes-firearms-training-division-300015973.html
Second Amendment Foundation Launches Firearms Training Division
PR Newswire
BELLEVUE, Wash., Jan. 5, 2015
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
The biggest issue I see in defensive firearms training is the glossing over of when you can use your gun and when you can't. I'd wager at least three quarters of the firearms instructors I've used genuinely did not know under what circumstances a firearm could be used if someone is breaking into your car in the middle of the night. This type of knowledge requires a lawyer to actually go through the statutes and case law for each state and publish where the lines are- to the extent they exist. The SAF is well equiped to take on a project like this, and I would be happy to support any type of organized efforts in regards to this.
Tom,
That's an outstanding approach to ensure the quality and consistency of the programs delivered and to help improve the programs as audits reveal consistent problems and opportunities for improvement.
I also agree that the focus on defensive handgun, shotgun, and carbine training is a natural thing for SAF-TD to do in the absence of the NRA supporting it and has been a long time coming.
This is, in part, why the NRA requires specific credentials to teach the legal portions of PPITH / PPOTH.
The training industry is chock-full of people who shouldn't be teaching though.
We just had a local 'gentleman' arrested in Illinois and indicted on multiple counts for falsifying concealed carry certificates for concealed carry licenses.
He set up the training courses, subcontracted the actual instruction of the class out to someone else while he 'supervised', etc.
But he didn't have an Illinois state police certified instructor #.
He didn't have ANY instructor certification.
He didn't even have an IL FOID card (which is required for owning firearms.)
Why?
He was a prohibited person, by Federal standards, for domestic abuse convictions.
Several hundred students purportedly went through that class to get certified for IL concealed carry and now have to go through the 16 hours of training all over again from *real* instructors.
Like lemmings off a cliff, the average Joe doesn't do very much homework when picking firearms trainers. The net result is we have an industry packed full of people who - by all rights - really shouldn't be teaching.
I'm all for higher standards for instructors.
It won't stem the flow of bad instructors out to make a quick buck; but it could stand to make some credentials just a little more 'worthier' than others....
But there are plenty of us small fry offering slow speed , high drag basic courses.
SAF instructor seems to be a quite expensive ticket to punch, quick bit of math makes it $1,000 or so. I doubt I'd ever be able to make up my costs at the quantity of training I'm willing to run.
That said I'll probably take their student classes and possibly the Range Officer class.
SAF instructor seems to be a quite expensive ticket to punch, quick bit of math makes it $1,000 or so. I doubt I'd ever be able to make up my costs at the quantity of training I'm willing to run.
That said I'll probably take their student classes and possibly the Range Officer class.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
Trent,
I think shoot/no shoot training is really beyond the individual instructor. Cops (and those trained by them) know when a cop can shoot or approach with a weapon, these same rules do not apply to civilians. Even if an instructor is a veteran of FBI HRT/Seal Team 6/Delta Force they probably don't know how the law applies to civilians in their backyard.
Unfortunately, I don't know if anyone really knows how the law applies to civilians in their backyards. This isn't a slight against instructors, I figure it would take me at least a hundred hours of study to be completely versed in the self defense law of my state (Florida) as it applies to civilians. Even if I were to set aside a long weekend to do it (and even write a manual/paper) on it, it would be out of date in a couple of months as soon as new cases come down.
This type of effort really needs some RTKBA entity to put together a guide and take responsibility for updating it, so that instructors can use it.
I think shoot/no shoot training is really beyond the individual instructor. Cops (and those trained by them) know when a cop can shoot or approach with a weapon, these same rules do not apply to civilians. Even if an instructor is a veteran of FBI HRT/Seal Team 6/Delta Force they probably don't know how the law applies to civilians in their backyard.
Unfortunately, I don't know if anyone really knows how the law applies to civilians in their backyards. This isn't a slight against instructors, I figure it would take me at least a hundred hours of study to be completely versed in the self defense law of my state (Florida) as it applies to civilians. Even if I were to set aside a long weekend to do it (and even write a manual/paper) on it, it would be out of date in a couple of months as soon as new cases come down.
This type of effort really needs some RTKBA entity to put together a guide and take responsibility for updating it, so that instructors can use it.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sebastian, I can't discount what you're saying about the esoteric details which might exist in some specific states. (For example, one of our resident lawyer's explanation of when you can shoot to defend property in TX took up several screens...)
However, I DO think the principles which are generally universal absolutely CAN be taught and SHOULD be taught, to anyone who's thinking about armed self defense.
And its is those general rules which I find most lacking in average Joe shooter's understandings. For example, that the gun only comes out if there is an immediate threat to life, that that you CAN'T shoot to protect property or stop lesser crimes, how an affirmative defense case works and that you aren't "innocent until proven guilty," and just how limited "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" laws are in states where they exist. That sort of thing.
No, a defensive instructor can't teach someone how to defend a a case in court, and all the technical details of the law in each state, but I don't think that's the right path here anyway. There are general principles which the laws in almost all the states follow.
This is the sort of thing that Mas Ayoob teaches in MAG-40:
Other instructors do similar things.
And in the end, cases are decided by juries. As a lawful defender, you want to be as far "inside the lines" as you can be in order to be most likely to be found sympathetic to that jury -- and hopefully never even have to appear in front of them.
However, I DO think the principles which are generally universal absolutely CAN be taught and SHOULD be taught, to anyone who's thinking about armed self defense.
And its is those general rules which I find most lacking in average Joe shooter's understandings. For example, that the gun only comes out if there is an immediate threat to life, that that you CAN'T shoot to protect property or stop lesser crimes, how an affirmative defense case works and that you aren't "innocent until proven guilty," and just how limited "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" laws are in states where they exist. That sort of thing.
No, a defensive instructor can't teach someone how to defend a a case in court, and all the technical details of the law in each state, but I don't think that's the right path here anyway. There are general principles which the laws in almost all the states follow.
This is the sort of thing that Mas Ayoob teaches in MAG-40:
Other instructors do similar things.
And in the end, cases are decided by juries. As a lawful defender, you want to be as far "inside the lines" as you can be in order to be most likely to be found sympathetic to that jury -- and hopefully never even have to appear in front of them.
Sam echoes how I teach. I am not a lawyer and do not, WILL not, give legal advice in class. However, I work with the students so they have a fair understanding of the laws, as they are written, and emphasize REPEATEDLY that the best outcome for them, as a self-defense situation unfolds, is to be as strongly on the "right" side of the law as possible.
There's so many tricky areas to cover, you can't do it in one weekend; and in my classes, I only get a few hours to cover *everything* legal. Even with IL's lengthy 16 hour curriculum there are so many other required things I must teach for concealed carry, the actual amount of time spent on legal issues is relatively small (3-4 hours, max).
The best that most instructors can do, given the broad material they must cover, is to make sure there is an understanding of the plain text of the law, and go through a few basic scenarios. Even then, shoot/don't shoot can change rapidly with just a minor shift in conditions. You could try to cover every possible scenario and it would take the rest of your life. They are truly endless, and every shoot is different.
Covering things such as what you (or family who witness the event) say to the police who respond (which is nothing, until you have a lawyer), are cornerstones to an effective defense.
In my class we cover a few cases in a little detail; Harold Fish is one I often use, because it illustrates the complexities and potential risks involved in self-defense where there are no witnesses, as well as self-defense where there is an unarmed or lightly armed attacker (e.g. they have a screwdriver as a lethal weapon.)
Basic concepts like "reasonable man", "disparity of force" (physical size and/or multiple attackers, age and gender differences, etc), and so on are covered.
But, again, there's only so much TIME, and once that time is up, the legal lessons end and the live fire exercises must begin....
The crucial point I try to drive home, is "be as far on the right side of the law as you can POSSIBLY be, but don't get killed because of indecision."
Not an easy thing to teach.
And *definitely* not an easy thing to codify in writing because it does evolve over time. People like Mas who have taken the time to put together a linear, rational lesson in book form are a valuable asset, but even then, the classroom lecture is dynamic if the instructor gets the class involved to any degree, and it's important to "reign in" side discussions and tangents that pop up to be able to cover all of the basic material.
I often joke with my students towards the end of the lesson (as questions REALLY get flowing, it shows people are THINKING) - and say "I could spend the next two weeks talking about this, but we only have so much time!"
The key issue I think Sam was illustrating is that we have 50 states; and while I'm supposed to teach IL's laws, I have to also work the lesson in to 'universal principals' that apply everywhere, because my students are likely to travel, and their new permit will be recognized far from IL...
There's so many tricky areas to cover, you can't do it in one weekend; and in my classes, I only get a few hours to cover *everything* legal. Even with IL's lengthy 16 hour curriculum there are so many other required things I must teach for concealed carry, the actual amount of time spent on legal issues is relatively small (3-4 hours, max).
The best that most instructors can do, given the broad material they must cover, is to make sure there is an understanding of the plain text of the law, and go through a few basic scenarios. Even then, shoot/don't shoot can change rapidly with just a minor shift in conditions. You could try to cover every possible scenario and it would take the rest of your life. They are truly endless, and every shoot is different.
Covering things such as what you (or family who witness the event) say to the police who respond (which is nothing, until you have a lawyer), are cornerstones to an effective defense.
In my class we cover a few cases in a little detail; Harold Fish is one I often use, because it illustrates the complexities and potential risks involved in self-defense where there are no witnesses, as well as self-defense where there is an unarmed or lightly armed attacker (e.g. they have a screwdriver as a lethal weapon.)
Basic concepts like "reasonable man", "disparity of force" (physical size and/or multiple attackers, age and gender differences, etc), and so on are covered.
But, again, there's only so much TIME, and once that time is up, the legal lessons end and the live fire exercises must begin....
The crucial point I try to drive home, is "be as far on the right side of the law as you can POSSIBLY be, but don't get killed because of indecision."
Not an easy thing to teach.
And *definitely* not an easy thing to codify in writing because it does evolve over time. People like Mas who have taken the time to put together a linear, rational lesson in book form are a valuable asset, but even then, the classroom lecture is dynamic if the instructor gets the class involved to any degree, and it's important to "reign in" side discussions and tangents that pop up to be able to cover all of the basic material.
I often joke with my students towards the end of the lesson (as questions REALLY get flowing, it shows people are THINKING) - and say "I could spend the next two weeks talking about this, but we only have so much time!"
The key issue I think Sam was illustrating is that we have 50 states; and while I'm supposed to teach IL's laws, I have to also work the lesson in to 'universal principals' that apply everywhere, because my students are likely to travel, and their new permit will be recognized far from IL...
- Status