Archived Posts » 60,515,685
New year, new topic of discussion.
1/15/2012 12:30:28 AM
Hey all, I know I have been slacking in this in the last few months......believe me that sometimes coming up with a decent topic that has not already been beat into the ground or that will provoke a good discussion can be tough.
Over the Thanksgiving to Christmas time period I got into a pretty decent discussion with a guy I know (only over the Internet for now) who is a nationally known and well respected instructor/trainer. I have spoken with him on other topics like barrel length and rifle setup and I respect his opinion, even if we disagree on a few things he still has the background and experience that after looking at you can't help but respect the man.
So in this first of the new year topic of discussion I would like to bring up two topics.
1) Teaching Gun fighting
2) Women's only classes
I will start off with teaching "Gun fighting". By definition this would imply that the instructor has actually been involved in a "gun fight", but in reality basically means that the instructor has been trained to avoid the flat/square range mentality of training by shooting at paper targets only. This is a good thing, but with marketing what it is, in my opinion is a lot of hype.
I have been a peace officer for almost 19 years now, have been involved in approximately 1700 search warrants or forced entries into structures (all involved a firearm of some sort), worked on patrol and worked gang/crime prevention details for most of my career and can not count the number of things I have been involved in that involved the suspect having a weapon.....yet I have only fired one round in any of these situations. And I do not consider what I do, or what I teach to be "gun fighting". I would rather call it good tactics, and firmly believe that is the reason why I have not had to do more.
I have on occasion brought up terms like (fighting with a weapon) and (distance equals time in a gun fight) only to reinforce teaching points to students....both the public and law enforcement.
No normal human wishes to take the life of another under normal circumstances, if they do then they probably should not be carrying a weapon in the first place.
Yes, I wanted you to notice that line above. Now that I have that out of the way, I would like to continue. Another aspect of teaching "gun fighting" that I do not agree with is getting the cart before the horse.....meaning jumping into advanced level classes way to soon. I am a strong believer in learning the basics, and once they are comfortable moving on into more difficult things, a progression in learning that the advanced classes not only build on the basics but compliment them. This builds a solid foundation, making the shooter more comfortable in the worst situations.
Starting out to fast can lead to many things, most of which are negative and commonly referred to as "training scars", more seriously putting a basic student into an advanced class can cause some serious safety concerns.
As far as looking at this from an instructors prospective, getting students into an advanced class that they are not ready for will slow down the rest of the class....which is not fair to anyone else involved who also paid to be there. In addition to this fixing "training scars" is much harder than teaching the correct way of doing things from the beginning.
Next I would like to talk about women's only classes.
This started out from an article in SWAT magazine, and yes the person I spoke with was the author. This would be one place we do not agree, but qualifying this statement he does not teach a basic class for beginners to firearms. At CCA we do a women's only class but it is a beginners only pistol. We also offer a women's self defense class but that is a different discussion. Why do we do this.....because when one is a beginner and already not the most comfortable with a firearm we want them to learn the basics correctly, and will do whatever makes them more comfortable to do so.....if they decide to continue then they will be integrated into a co-ed class.
The conversation between myself and the person I mentioned earlier is that he does not teach any women's only classes because if someone is not comfortable actually training to face their attacker (usually a male) then they probably shouldn't be training at all. I somewhat do agree with this. But strongly think that basics are basics, and starting off at a pace that will make a more confident shooter/comfortable around firearms will stick around and continue to be a part of the shooting/gun owning/voting community.
R
Over the Thanksgiving to Christmas time period I got into a pretty decent discussion with a guy I know (only over the Internet for now) who is a nationally known and well respected instructor/trainer. I have spoken with him on other topics like barrel length and rifle setup and I respect his opinion, even if we disagree on a few things he still has the background and experience that after looking at you can't help but respect the man.
So in this first of the new year topic of discussion I would like to bring up two topics.
1) Teaching Gun fighting
2) Women's only classes
I will start off with teaching "Gun fighting". By definition this would imply that the instructor has actually been involved in a "gun fight", but in reality basically means that the instructor has been trained to avoid the flat/square range mentality of training by shooting at paper targets only. This is a good thing, but with marketing what it is, in my opinion is a lot of hype.
I have been a peace officer for almost 19 years now, have been involved in approximately 1700 search warrants or forced entries into structures (all involved a firearm of some sort), worked on patrol and worked gang/crime prevention details for most of my career and can not count the number of things I have been involved in that involved the suspect having a weapon.....yet I have only fired one round in any of these situations. And I do not consider what I do, or what I teach to be "gun fighting". I would rather call it good tactics, and firmly believe that is the reason why I have not had to do more.
I have on occasion brought up terms like (fighting with a weapon) and (distance equals time in a gun fight) only to reinforce teaching points to students....both the public and law enforcement.
No normal human wishes to take the life of another under normal circumstances, if they do then they probably should not be carrying a weapon in the first place.
Yes, I wanted you to notice that line above. Now that I have that out of the way, I would like to continue. Another aspect of teaching "gun fighting" that I do not agree with is getting the cart before the horse.....meaning jumping into advanced level classes way to soon. I am a strong believer in learning the basics, and once they are comfortable moving on into more difficult things, a progression in learning that the advanced classes not only build on the basics but compliment them. This builds a solid foundation, making the shooter more comfortable in the worst situations.
Starting out to fast can lead to many things, most of which are negative and commonly referred to as "training scars", more seriously putting a basic student into an advanced class can cause some serious safety concerns.
As far as looking at this from an instructors prospective, getting students into an advanced class that they are not ready for will slow down the rest of the class....which is not fair to anyone else involved who also paid to be there. In addition to this fixing "training scars" is much harder than teaching the correct way of doing things from the beginning.
Next I would like to talk about women's only classes.
This started out from an article in SWAT magazine, and yes the person I spoke with was the author. This would be one place we do not agree, but qualifying this statement he does not teach a basic class for beginners to firearms. At CCA we do a women's only class but it is a beginners only pistol. We also offer a women's self defense class but that is a different discussion. Why do we do this.....because when one is a beginner and already not the most comfortable with a firearm we want them to learn the basics correctly, and will do whatever makes them more comfortable to do so.....if they decide to continue then they will be integrated into a co-ed class.
The conversation between myself and the person I mentioned earlier is that he does not teach any women's only classes because if someone is not comfortable actually training to face their attacker (usually a male) then they probably shouldn't be training at all. I somewhat do agree with this. But strongly think that basics are basics, and starting off at a pace that will make a more confident shooter/comfortable around firearms will stick around and continue to be a part of the shooting/gun owning/voting community.
R
1/15/2012 1:08:36 AM
Originally Posted By Romper:
2) Women's only classes
R
2) Women's only classes
R
That's as far as I got...
Who do I give my application to for Instructors Assistant, for these classes?
1/15/2012 10:53:47 AM
Originally Posted By Romper:
Next I would like to talk about women's only classes.
This started out from an article in SWAT magazine, and yes the person I spoke with was the author. This would be one place we do not agree, but qualifying this statement he does not teach a basic class for beginners to firearms. At CCA we do a women's only class but it is a beginners only pistol. We also offer a women's self defense class but that is a different discussion. Why do we do this.....because when one is a beginner and already not the most comfortable with a firearm we want them to learn the basics correctly, and will do whatever makes them more comfortable to do so.....if they decide to continue then they will be integrated into a co-ed class.
The conversation between myself and the person I mentioned earlier is that he does not teach any women's only classes because if someone is not comfortable actually training to face their attacker (usually a male) then they probably shouldn't be training at all. I somewhat do agree with this. But strongly think that basics are basics, and starting off at a pace that will make a more confident shooter/comfortable around firearms will stick around and continue to be a part of the shooting/gun owning/voting community.
R
Next I would like to talk about women's only classes.
This started out from an article in SWAT magazine, and yes the person I spoke with was the author. This would be one place we do not agree, but qualifying this statement he does not teach a basic class for beginners to firearms. At CCA we do a women's only class but it is a beginners only pistol. We also offer a women's self defense class but that is a different discussion. Why do we do this.....because when one is a beginner and already not the most comfortable with a firearm we want them to learn the basics correctly, and will do whatever makes them more comfortable to do so.....if they decide to continue then they will be integrated into a co-ed class.
The conversation between myself and the person I mentioned earlier is that he does not teach any women's only classes because if someone is not comfortable actually training to face their attacker (usually a male) then they probably shouldn't be training at all. I somewhat do agree with this. But strongly think that basics are basics, and starting off at a pace that will make a more confident shooter/comfortable around firearms will stick around and continue to be a part of the shooting/gun owning/voting community.
R
To me it's not segregating them out as male/female, its more based on skill level and grouping like skilled people into the appropriate groups so that everyone can succeed. Once you've identified the courses that are in demand, figure out what the needs/wants of your students are and how you can accommodate those needs to better serve everyone. Your goal as an instructor/range owner/host/store owner is to cater to the needs/desires of your clientele in a reasonable manner and if that happens to be women's only beginner's courses and you have enough demand to offer the courses I don't see why not. You're trying to introduce new people to a male dominated sport and by removing a potential barrier to the participant asking questions that they think may make them seem like the "noob" and allow them to gain skills quicker without worrying what other people are thinking. Once you get past the beginners level courses they should be able to hold their own in the appropriate skill level co-ed courses, they may be apprehensive at first but I've been in lots of intermediate classes and served as an instructor in some when a woman who thought she was going to be in over her head quickly realized that she could hang with the guys without any problems.
I just have a hard time seeing how women's only beginning/intro classes on rifle/pistol/shotgun etc are a bad thing. A good instructor should be able to positively influence new shooters into giving the sport a more positive light, can hopefully convince some members to sign up for repeat classes and maybe even pass some of the BRD on to unsuspecting people. Ok maybe that is one potential downside.....our better halfs may start eating into our guns/ammo budget but that just means you need more money for that budget since its now a hobby for both of you!
1/15/2012 12:24:29 PM
Originally Posted By loganbent:
To me it's not segregating them out as male/female, its more based on skill level and grouping like skilled people into the appropriate groups so that everyone can succeed. Once you've identified the courses that are in demand, figure out what the needs/wants of your students are and how you can accommodate those needs to better serve everyone. Your goal as an instructor/range owner/host/store owner is to cater to the needs/desires of your clientele in a reasonable manner and If that often happens to be women's only beginner's courses and you have enough demand to offer the courses I don't see why not. You're trying to introduce new people to a male dominated sport and by removing a potential barrier to the participant asking questions that they think may make them seem like the "noob" and allow them to gain skills quicker without worrying what other people are thinking. Once you get past the beginners level courses they should be able to hold their own in the appropriate skill level co-ed courses, they may be apprehensive at first but I've been in lots of intermediate classes and served as an instructor in some when a woman who thought she was going to be in over her head quickly realized that she could hang with the guys without any problems.
I just have a hard time seeing how women's only beginning/intro classes on rifle/pistol/shotgun etc are a bad thing. A good instructor should be able to positively influence new shooters into giving the sport a more positive light, can hopefully convince some members to sign up for repeat classes and maybe even pass some of the BRD on to unsuspecting people. Ok maybe that is one potential downside.....our better halfs may start eating into our guns/ammo budget but that just means you need more money for that budget since its not a hobby for both of you!
Originally Posted By Romper:
Next I would like to talk about women's only classes.
This started out from an article in SWAT magazine, and yes the person I spoke with was the author. This would be one place we do not agree, but qualifying this statement he does not teach a basic class for beginners to firearms. At CCA we do a women's only class but it is a beginners only pistol. We also offer a women's self defense class but that is a different discussion. Why do we do this.....because when one is a beginner and already not the most comfortable with a firearm we want them to learn the basics correctly, and will do whatever makes them more comfortable to do so.....if they decide to continue then they will be integrated into a co-ed class.
The conversation between myself and the person I mentioned earlier is that he does not teach any women's only classes because if someone is not comfortable actually training to face their attacker (usually a male) then they probably shouldn't be training at all. I somewhat do agree with this. But strongly think that basics are basics, and starting off at a pace that will make a more confident shooter/comfortable around firearms will stick around and continue to be a part of the shooting/gun owning/voting community.
R
Next I would like to talk about women's only classes.
This started out from an article in SWAT magazine, and yes the person I spoke with was the author. This would be one place we do not agree, but qualifying this statement he does not teach a basic class for beginners to firearms. At CCA we do a women's only class but it is a beginners only pistol. We also offer a women's self defense class but that is a different discussion. Why do we do this.....because when one is a beginner and already not the most comfortable with a firearm we want them to learn the basics correctly, and will do whatever makes them more comfortable to do so.....if they decide to continue then they will be integrated into a co-ed class.
The conversation between myself and the person I mentioned earlier is that he does not teach any women's only classes because if someone is not comfortable actually training to face their attacker (usually a male) then they probably shouldn't be training at all. I somewhat do agree with this. But strongly think that basics are basics, and starting off at a pace that will make a more confident shooter/comfortable around firearms will stick around and continue to be a part of the shooting/gun owning/voting community.
R
To me it's not segregating them out as male/female, its more based on skill level and grouping like skilled people into the appropriate groups so that everyone can succeed. Once you've identified the courses that are in demand, figure out what the needs/wants of your students are and how you can accommodate those needs to better serve everyone. Your goal as an instructor/range owner/host/store owner is to cater to the needs/desires of your clientele in a reasonable manner and If that often happens to be women's only beginner's courses and you have enough demand to offer the courses I don't see why not. You're trying to introduce new people to a male dominated sport and by removing a potential barrier to the participant asking questions that they think may make them seem like the "noob" and allow them to gain skills quicker without worrying what other people are thinking. Once you get past the beginners level courses they should be able to hold their own in the appropriate skill level co-ed courses, they may be apprehensive at first but I've been in lots of intermediate classes and served as an instructor in some when a woman who thought she was going to be in over her head quickly realized that she could hang with the guys without any problems.
I just have a hard time seeing how women's only beginning/intro classes on rifle/pistol/shotgun etc are a bad thing. A good instructor should be able to positively influence new shooters into giving the sport a more positive light, can hopefully convince some members to sign up for repeat classes and maybe even pass some of the BRD on to unsuspecting people. Ok maybe that is one potential downside.....our better halfs may start eating into our guns/ammo budget but that just means you need more money for that budget since its not a hobby for both of you!
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
1/15/2012 2:42:40 PM
to make a point on the 'women's only' or 'youth' scenarios, etc. they are made up of similar sects of the market or community primarily to encourage the participation. that participation rarely happens if there isn't some small level of comfort to begin with. comfort is derived from and by those around us being like us... thus, youth shoots, women's shoots, etc.
1/17/2012 9:07:51 PM
Believe me, I am all in favor of women's classes. Anything we as a shooting community can do to make more people comfortable so they get involved, has always been important to me. And like I said earlier, when someone new joins us and learns to appreciate the responsibilities that come with gun ownership then our cause is that much stronger.
Another thought on teaching gun fighting, is that most instructors put something along the lines of what was taught in the class on the training certificate.....and looking at the big picture your instructor may get called into court to help defend you if the worst happens. Do you really want someone who teaches "gun fighting" speaking on your behalf? Or would you rather have people who have done research into use of force incidents, learned how the human body reacts to stress stimulus both physically, and psychologically and understands how the court system and the law works.
After all, sometimes looking at the big picture and checking out what/who is out there just like any other purchase usually pays off in the end.
Without wanting to sound like a broken record, check into who you want to lean from, and what are they teaching.
R
Another thought on teaching gun fighting, is that most instructors put something along the lines of what was taught in the class on the training certificate.....and looking at the big picture your instructor may get called into court to help defend you if the worst happens. Do you really want someone who teaches "gun fighting" speaking on your behalf? Or would you rather have people who have done research into use of force incidents, learned how the human body reacts to stress stimulus both physically, and psychologically and understands how the court system and the law works.
After all, sometimes looking at the big picture and checking out what/who is out there just like any other purchase usually pays off in the end.
Without wanting to sound like a broken record, check into who you want to lean from, and what are they teaching.
R
