Training vs. Experience

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
621
Location
Where the Army puts me
This article was written by Greg Ellifritz
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/instructors

Link to the article: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/training-vs-experience


Many of my students are serious practitioners of the art of self-protection. They’ve graduated from numerous shooting schools and hold black belts in various martial arts systems. Although they generally enjoy the training process in general, their ultimate goal is to become better fighters. They are hoping that the skills they obtain through frequent training will promote a better skill level than the attackers they face.

Most people “know” that criminal attackers don’t take formal training classes and they assume that if an honest citizen has a couple of good training classes under his belt, he will beat the untrained, poorly skilled criminal in a fight. This may be true, but in some cases it’s not. Let’s look at some research….

The FBI put out a publication several years ago titled “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” In it, the researchers identified 40 cases of serious attacks on police officers and then interviewed both the officers and the attackers involved in each case. They talked to both about the training they received, weapons usage, practice habits, and attitudes towards violence. The results were remarkable.

The first thing that the researchers learned is that our assumptions about criminals not training are wrong. Nearly 40% of the criminal attackers in this study had received FORMAL firearms training (mostly in the military). More than 80% of the criminal attackers regularly practiced with their firearms, with an average number of 23 Practice Sessions Per Year! They conducted these practice sessions in trash dumps, wooded areas, back yards and “street corners in known drug trafficking areas”. What that means is that the practice sessions were taking place in realistic environments, under conditions similar to those the attackers were likely to face in combat.

Does that change your opinion about the abilities of your likely attacker? It should. Let’s compare the criminals’ training program with the programs of the cops they attacked…

The cops involved in these incidents all had some type of formal training at their departments, but on average, only fired their guns 2.5 times per year. All of that training was conducted on a static shooting range that had little relevance to the environmental conditions where the cops actually fought.

So, who do you think is better trained, the criminal or the cop? In this sample study, it was clearly the criminal. If you aren’t a cop and carry a concealed weapon to defend against criminal attack, how does your training stack up against the bad guys in this study? Most educated firearms trainers would barely consider at state concealed carry course as “formal training”. CCW classes are generally geared to novices and focus on safely handling a firearm rather than teaching anything that could be considered “tactical”. Yet many shooters stop their education there. It’s not enough

What about practice? How many of you shoot your weapons 23 times a year in a realistic environment? I don’t know many people other than hobbyist shooters who do that. The average CCW permit holder is clearly outmatched by any violent criminal similar to the type interviewed in this study.

There is another factor that is even more important than training…it’s EXPERIENCE. All training is merely an artificial attempt to simulate a gunfight experience. Clearly experience matters; we try hard doing everything short of seeking out real gunfights to gain as much experience as possible in our practice sessions. In the “Violent Encounters” study, how do you think the criminals’ experience levels compared to the cops?

More than 40% of the criminals identified in the study had at least one gunfight experience before attacking the officer. 25% of the attackers had been involved in more than five gunfights!

That experience changes one’s perceptions of fighting with a gun. One of the interviewed criminals summed it up perfectly when he stated:

“I made up my mind that nobody was going to shoot me again.”

Take a look at this guy. He was 29 years old when he was killed by a homeowner during a home invasion. He had previously been shot in 10 other incidents and survived! Do you think that he might have picked up a few insights about gunfighting during some of those shootings?

I train cops for a living. Its my job to talk to cops about what works and what doesn’t. I don’t currently know a single cop who has been involved in 10 on-the-job gunfights.

The officers in the Violent Encounters study had far less actual experience. Less than 25% of the officers had been involved in a shooting incident before their attacks. The largest number of shootings in which any of the officers had been involved was three. On average, each officer had been involved in four incidents in which they were legally justified in shooting a criminal, but they chose not to shoot.

Both groups had different attitudes as a result of their differing levels of training and experience. The officers went out of their way to avoid gunfights. The study noted “It appeared clear that none of the officers were willing to use deadly force against an opponent if other options were available.”

Contrast that with the attitude of their attackers. The report noted “Offenders typically displayed no moral or ethical restraints in using firearms…In fact, the street combat veterans survived by developing a shoot- first mentality.”

This study showed that the police officers were outmatched by their criminal opponents in every domain studied…training, experience, and mindset. If trained police officers are outmatched, where does that put the average citizen? It is actually quite astounding that citizens do as well as they do when they confront violent criminals!

Short of becoming a thug, what can you, a cop or armed citizen, do to better his training and experience?

The first thing that you could do is to increase the frequency of your practice sessions. Shorter, more frequent practice sessions are more effective than long sessions that are spaced months apart. Even if you don’t have regular access to a firing range, you can still practice drawing your gun and dry firing. There have been several research studies that have shown dry firing to be just as valuable as real shooting for maintaining marksmanship abilities.
Marksmanship and practice is easy. Gaining valuable experiences is more difficult. If you aren’t regularly engaging in gunfights or dealing with criminal violence it is tough to acquire.

One idea is to learn from the experiences of others. Even if it isn’t a direct experience, there are lots of lessons to learn by studying the success and failure of others. I make a point to interview as many gunfight participants (on both sides of the law) as possible. All of them have taught me valuable lessons that I’m glad I didn’t have to learn on the street. If you don’t know any gunfighters, read as much as you can on the subject. Many of the monthly firearms magazines have feature articles that provide a detailed analysis of a certain gunfight. Study those articles and read as many books as you can find on the topic.

The other method of acquiring experience is to do so in the context of force-on-force training. The best type of this training is conducted at professional shooting schools and uses tightly-scripted professional role players. It is costly, but worth the expense. You will learn more in one day of this type of training than you will learn in weeks of practicing by yourself.

If you don’t have access to such training, practicing scenarios with a few friends or family members using airsoft guns also works well. Before undertaking such activity, make sure there are no live weapons in the area, have a safety monitor to stop the scenario if a dangerous situation is created, and make sure all participants are wearing adequate protective gear.

The mindset, training, and experiences of your opponent are outside of your sphere of influence. You can’t control them. You can control those factors in your own life. Practice often, study, and do everything you can to make the odds in your favor!
 
Very good write up! That study was very interesting. I'm not military or a LEO, but I do have a CHP and carry everyday. As far as my own experience go's. I shoot about 50rds a week while moving, in down or disadvantaged potions or several different drills. Practice drawing at least once a week for 10min. Dry fire 10 times a day. Malfunction drills once a month. I try to take at least one defensive handgun class a year. Read as much as I can about actual armed encounters, tactics and SD law. I have airsoft pistols and try to do force on force training that is some what realistic. I have learned something's from people who have been in combat, all of them are/were in the military (live near a military base) so some of it does not transfer to civilian use of force. Thank you again for this write up.
 
Training is a form if experience.

It is the experience of others that has been codified for you to learn.

Your lessons are lessons others learned.. the hard way.

Deaf
 
good comments - and your primary message that we need to update to newer, better and more frequent types of training is well made.

have to say though - from looking out there at the real world - and by this I mean the global real world - that the top "bad guys" are currently getting stronger faster than the good guys. that would be my realistic assessment. so we shouldn't get too complacent, no matter what training we are doing.

CA R
 
Military firearms "training" from the perspective of the average soldier is rar and infrequent. It's not good - 90% aren't combat arms as their priority job, so training priorities are in their work skills biased to getting a promotion. At best they see a range once a year to familiarize shooting a firearm, and it's a highly administrative event focused on getting tiny holes on bullseyes.

Combat troops, on the other hand, move on to much more. They get tactics, reinforced with interactive lasers to understand how and when they might be hit. Like, moving into the assault but not keeping in mind where the machine gunner is behind them (ask me how I know.) You only get to experience that once, and the lesson may not be of any value if you die in real life.

Therefore, training is a valuable asset when conducted properly, where experience might be leading someone into making poor choices because the odds haven't caught up. Ref the perp who had been in ten gunfights - a shoot first mentality didn't succeed that day. Other things were being ignored, like assessing the actual threat. Failure to analyze the risk and back out is the #1 killer in a lot of street gang lifestyles. It's the old locker room measuring contest taken to the extreme of gunfire to see who's the Alpha. Most of us wouldn't even live within 20 miles of their turf.

I understand the premise of the study is to show the average unlawful gun carrier is more competent than we previously understood, but he's also limited by a lack of training, too. Experience is a great teacher, they say, but when the lessons are life and death, it takes training to pass them along. Death interrupts the learning process to often.
 
Good read,and SPOT ON.

Sadly many here will either 'get it' or start an argument as to why "they" don't see your point as it does not pertain to them.

I was LEO,and defensive tactics & firearms instructor.

I can attest to the fact that too many LEO's take it for granted that they will 1= win 2= not have their gun taken 3= are supermen w/ a badge.

I see the main reason for all the problems are based on the idea that we [ lawmen & citizens ] are raised [ 99% ] with a Judeo/Christian value system.

that means you are taught "thou shalt not kill" and if you add to that fact ,training enforces the point that if you yell "halt Police" the perp will stop.

Add all the life training and ethics and you have a perfect storm for the citizen/LEO to NOT shoot and try to stop an attacker with their voice.

After all,it works on TV & the movies.
 
Does that change your opinion about the abilities of your likely attacker?

No. I've always had the mindset that any potential attacker would be at least as proficient, as skilled, as experienced and as capable as I am. In short, any likely attacker would be a peer combatant or better.
 
The average CCW permit holder is clearly outmatched by any violent criminal similar to the type interviewed in this study.

i'm not going to debate the author's point which is obviously valid: train! (and the more realistically, the better)

but let's be honest about the 'study'. first, it's by a group that is trying to justify another couple billion rounds of training ammo. no bias there, right? second, it consists of 40 hand picked cases with a phenomenal amount of selection bias:

- only included cases where a guy attacked a cop with a gun (pretty unusual and not a huge surprise that as a group they have a different mindset than your average meth head

- only included cases where both parties survived the fight! (presumably since they were interviewed after the fact :)



so more pertinent questions might be, what % overall of violent criminals practice regularly with their weapon of choice? and is there any correlation in their results
 
if i thought the average violent criminal was a peer, that would definitely motivate me to train even more.
 
95% of winning a gunfight is predetermination to kill anyone whose presence becomes a hazzard. it's a mindset you have to have in order to survive in some occupations.
 
The article discusses a study by the Force Science Institute that was incorporated into one chapter of a larger report on violent encounters involving police officers. The principal investigators started with a sample of 800 or so incidents and conducted in depth study of a much smaller subset.

Based in a cursory evaluation of the other reports that have been published by the Force Science Institute and on reading the qualifications of the authors, one can reasonably conclude that (1) the selection of the incidents studied in detail was most likely conducted according to the scientific method, and (2) that the conclusions are probably reasonably valid for perps who were involved in shootings with police officers in the period leading up to 2006.

Whether the ruffians who are likely to attack a citizen at an ATM or in a parking lot are on the street differ materially from those who were studied is anyone's guess. Whether or not it is true on average, however, would not enter into my decision process or risk assessment.

I do think it likely that persons among the criminal population today may well be more capable than those of an earlier period, for two reasons:
  • There are more veterans among the population today than before, because there have been more years of military conflict; that may not mean that there are materially more persons with handgun training than before, but there are likely more people with combat training and experience. At least some of those can be expected to have joined the population of violent criminals.
  • The number of electronic games in use today has multiplied severalfold, giving the general population another source of somehat applicable training and practice.

The title of the thread is "Training vs Experience". It should not be a surprise that some persons among the violent criminal element--the repeat offenders--have more actual experience in violence than do most officers, and therefore, than most armed citizens.

I personally doubt that a person's having been involved in one, two, or three shootings really adds anything in the way of skill. Perhaps it would reduce the stress or "stage fright" level somewhat, but it would seem to me that extensive training, including FoF training , would be of far, far greater value than one or two incidents of "experience" per se.
 
A chilling article and a good read. The article tends to reinforce what I already believed. Any criminal who attacks me will do so only because he believes that he has the overwhelming advantage of being stronger, faster, better armed, more willing, and with the advantage of surprise. Even if he knew that I sometimes shot at targets, he might not count that as much of a deterrent.
 
" In short, any likely attacker would be a peer combatant or better"


And who holds all the cards regarding the element of surprise and of picking the time and place that most favors him. The bottom line, at the end of the day, is that the truly determined attacker is always going to win, because he's simply going to shoot you in the back of the head before you even know a fight has started.

Anything less is at his choosing, not yours. If he moderates his method from the default "he will always win" above, it's because he's chosen to moderate it. If you have an opportunity to respond, it's because he's chosen a method of attack that permits your defense. You cannot control that side of the equation.


Willie

.
 
Training is good. Experience is better.

You can have all sorts of training in simulated, laser, and live fire situations. But that can all go out the window when you get on a two way firing range. I have seen it happen. I trained with the same unit for 4 years before I saw my first combat. That is when you truly see how well someone takes to their training. You can have the hotshot guy who did well in training, lose his mind when rounds start bouncing off his truck. And, conversely, you can have the guy who never really took training seriously, thought he was bulletproof be almost freakishly calm and efficient under fire.
 
Experience...

Ever wonder why it took five victories for a fighter pilot to be declared "an ace?"
 
if i thought the average violent criminal was a peer, that would definitely motivate me to train even more.
I dunno if the 'average violent criminal' is skilled or not.

But the prisons are full of them so they must not be all that skilled.

If any of you have ever watched Youtube and such where they show videos of surveillance cameras and attacks you will see most of them can't fight worth a hoot. Most punches are haymakers and most 'combat' shooting is of the stick-the-gun-out one handed and spray. Their knife technique is one of slash-n-stab.

Yea they may (or may not) be fit. And yea they may have the willingness to kill, but the videos shows alot of inept skill sets as well as confusion.

I really don't think the 'average violent criminal' is a JW Harden.

They are crude, dumb, and violent people who don't see the consequences of their actions.

Deaf
 
I really don't think the 'average violent criminal' is a JW Harden.

They are crude, dumb, and violent people who don't see the consequences of their actions.
So, to prepare for meeting which? I don't think it's terribly effective to train to outshoot, outfight, and ADEE just the crude and dumb ones.
 
It might just be me, but I'd much prefer to have training without experience than experience without training. Experience without training in this context could result in death or serious injury. When the SHTF, you default to your level of training. Mindset and capability are both essential to put the odds in your favor.
 
I made the mistake, once, when I was younger of speaking out of turn in a martial art's class. I was 16, cocky, just got my black belt, and said something along the lines of "your average guy is unskilled, bad guys don't have the dedication to train like we do."

My instructor set me straight. Bad guys can and will train just as hard as good guys. My instructor said they have more reason to do so. More motivation than your average person has. Because they are far more likely to need those skills than your average person who just gets through life with blinders on.

You always assume your opponent is more skilled than you. And you keep honing the razor's edge on your skills, with that in mind.

Never assume otherwise, or someday you'll find yourself face down in a pool of blood.

We don't practice to thump our chests, or beat someone in a competition, or to feel more manly about ourselves.

We practice because the other guys are out there practicing, too. And we have to keep ourselves in peak form.
 
It is important to caution against basing any risk mitigation decision on an "average" value. Even if you happen to be addressing a perfect normal distribution, preparing to address the median simply means that you can expect to succeed only half the time.

Nor would I base any conclusions on what is shown on YouTube security camera videos. After all, the craftier among the violent criminal element are more likely to notice and avoid the cameras than the more inept might be.
 
Deaf Smith said:
Took 10 for the Germans. And even then they were not considered experten. They didn't even have a term for 'ace'.

Actually they did it was called Kanon or something close to that
 
To me the take away here is not to underestimate your opponent. Depending on who the criminal is he’s very like had more guns pointed at him than you have and very likely won’t be intimidated when he sees yours.

Even in this thread I see people totally discounting the concept that the criminal might just be more prepared than they are. That’s not a mindset I’d want to get stuck in and then find out different the hard way.

This is by no means common and it probably isn’t just happening here but since the war started we’ve had incidents here in Co Springs in which combat vets come back from deployment and start using the training and experience they received in combat to commit crimes.

We’ve had home invasions where the home owner found himself facing a fire team who had been trained and served in combat together. We’ve had incidents where soldiers were ambushing people and car jacking them or committing other crimes in which they were using the training and experience gained in combat.

I always assume the other guy is a better fighter than I am.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top