The training world has not done a very good job selling the need for training to regular people. Partly, it’s because of the tremendous success some early trainers had in convincing a small segment of the population that training would make you a real man, a warrior, a ninja, a tactical god, a James Bond, a soldier of fortune, a real operator, a Dirty Harry …. whatever. The fantasy-warrior thing sold very well to a reliable segment of the potential market, and that factor still drives a big part of the training industry. All you need to do is look at popular YouTube videos to see that.

Reality is more mundane, and doesn’t sell as well to the fantasy warrior crowd. The truth is that even excellent, professional training does not turn you into a hero. It simply prepares you to safely defend yourself in a wider variety of circumstances. And no, I am not talking about circumstances where you might need to jump out of a helicopter with a knife between your teeth and a gun in either hand as the audience cheers. As exciting as that sounds, reality is a bit more boring. I am talking about simple skills that can help save the everyday lives of ordinary people.

Want some examples?

One of my regular readers has often said that she has no interest in taking classes where students “roll around in the mud,” because she already did that years ago in military training. I agree with her that there is no need for regular people to go through military–type training. However, one of the most valuable and reasonable classes I ever took taught me how to safely shoot if I got knocked to the ground by an attacker. Can you think of any circumstances where a woman might need to defend herself while lying on her back?

Another person laughs about “pointshooting.” Pointshooting has a poor reputation in some circles, so I tend to avoid the word. But it simply means using a reliable, well-practiced alternative technique to aim the gun when you cannot easily align the sights. Criminal attacks do happen in broad daylight… but they also happen in dim parking lots, around cars where you might be blinded by headlights, and in homes after the residents have gone to bed and turned off every light switch in the house. Can you think of any other circumstances where a woman might want to protect herself even though the lighting situation is not ideal?

Every time I teach people how to shoot while peering around a solid object, I notice that some of the students have not really connected the dots. They probably suspect me of showing them something they don’t really need to know, or that they would only need to know if they shot in competitions. But a huge number of home invasions involve homeowners who are awakened by the sound of an intruder trying to get in. It is not lawful, nor is it safe, to shoot through a locked door when the criminal is not yet able to reach you. But it is not smart, nor is it safe, to stand in the open and wait for the door to fly open. The smart thing to do is to set up “behind cover,” choosing to wait for events in a place where you can aim at your opening door while most of your body is hidden behind something solid. Can you think of a time when an ordinary woman might want  to do that?

This lack of connecting the dots is not limited to so-called “advanced” skills, either. It sometimes goes down to the very basics. Thumbing through a gun magazine the other day, I came across an advertisement for a gadget. A gizmo. A weird piece of useless crap. A thing. Whatever. This whatchamacallit was basically a huge, oversized wrist brace you could attach to your handgun. Huh? Reading the ad copy carefully, I suddenly realized why that oddity had been invented.  It was because somebody would rather spend $67 on a stupid piece of useless garbage, instead of investing that same amount in a few hours of decent training. The ad copy included a reminder: “sights can be adjusted …” In other words, the thingadobby could help a poor shooter with sloppy wrist feel like they were getting somewhere, but it wouldn’t do a thing about the horrid flinch a person develops when they don’t know how to hold a gun. They were advertising a badly-designed hardware solution to a software problem. And the software problem was not even a complicated one. We are not talking about some esoteric, advanced technique accessible only to high-speed, low-drag Ninjas. Nope! This is a fundamental, foundational shooting skill: being able to hold the gun and hit your target. Can you think of a circumstance where a woman might need to hit her target?

A surprising number of otherwise-experienced shooters do not know how to smoothly load their own firearms, or what to do if the gun hiccups. Many have been in the habit of waiting for someone else to tell them what to do when there’s a problem. That is not ideal. Can you think of a time when a woman might need to load a gun herself, safely and rapidly? Or of a time when a gun fails to fire and she needs to get it running again right away?

None of these are unlikely scenarios. People who own firearms do need to know how to use those firearms, and they need to know how to use them in a wider variety of circumstances than most ever practice. That is why I celebrate people who understand that safe, effective training is not just a game for fantasy warriors. Instead, it is a valuable resource for ordinary people living ordinary lives.

Edited with BlogPad Pro

Yesterday, I took a one day firearms class that I did not “need.” Don’t get me wrong – it was a good class and I enjoyed it. And I fully intend to take more such classes in the future, because I do, in fact, need them. Let me explain.

Marty Hayes at the Firearms Academy of Seattle taught the class. Marty, of course, is my dear friend and mentor. He was ably assisted by staff instructors Jennie VanTuyl and Brian Hallaq during this six–hour day that focused entirely on accurately shooting a handgun. In fact, that was the name of the class – “Special Interest Seminar: Handgun Accuracy.” It is an excellent class that I can highly recommend as a way to tune up your ability to hit the target at many different distances and with – surprise – good accuracy. If you cannot consistently shoot a one-hole group at 5 yards, or a ragged hole at 7 to 10 yards, you could benefit from this class. If you cannot consistently shoot a fist-sized group at 15 yards, or a hand-sized group at 25 yards, or keep your shots inside a large pie plate at 50 yards… same thing.

There were 11 students in the class, a typical size for classes at FAS. Four of us were women. Roughly half of us were very experienced shooters, and about half of us had already taken multiple classes from professional instructors. A few students were relatively new, and a few were really struggling with the basic skills of pressing the trigger when the day started. By the end of the day, every student in the class was able to hit a 12–inch gong at 50 yards. (That was fun!)

There are two reasons I say I did not need the class. No, three.

First, many people would say that there is no need for accuracy when your primary purpose for using the handgun is to defend yourself against violent crime. As Marty pointed out in his opening remarks, there are schools that completely ignore the skills it takes to hit a target predictably, consistently, and accurately. They do this in part because accuracy is a difficult subject to teach. Developing the ability to its full potential takes more than a single day, or even a weekend. Some instructors are simply not willing to do that work with students that they will only see for one day. The thought is either that students will get it elsewhere or that they don’t need it at all.

Although the thinking is that self defense shootings always happen close and fast, the reality is otherwise. Sometimes defending your family, or even defending yourself, might require you to shoot at a greater distance with more accuracy than the stereotype implies.

Here is one example that came from Tom Givens at Rangemaster. Tom tells the story of one of his students. This woman was upstairs in her home when she heard her husband’s car pull into the driveway. A few minutes later, she heard gunshots and screams from the front of her house. She looked out an upstairs window and saw that her husband had just been shot by two men who were attempting to mug him in the driveway. She had no time to run downstairs. She had no time to retrieve a longer gun. She had only a handgun. To save her husband’s life, she had to make a distant, high–stress shot with her hand gun – and she had to do it without hitting her husband who was only a few feet from the bad guy.

Is this a “typical” story of self defense? Yes and no. No, it does not represent the average gunfight. But yes, it is the type of engagement that can and does happen. Being prepared to cope with an encounter like that requires being able to confidently hit your target at greater distances then the Internet commandos would tell you is necessary. Still, if I listened to the Internet experts, I would never bother learning how to predictably hit my target at any distance greater than three steps. That is one reason I did not “need” this class.

Here is the second reason I did not need this class. To explain it properly, I will need to lapse into just a little bit of sarcasm, so please forgive me. I know it is not a language that is spoken by everyone. Still, here it is. I am channeling a woman that I talked to earlier this year. This is a re–creation of something she actually said. “I don’t need a class like that! I am already a firearms instructor, and that class is intended for people who aren’t firearms instructors. I already have my credential, so there’s no need for me to take a class like that.”

Let me break that idea down a little bit. When I come across an instructor who balks at taking “basic” classes simply because of her instructor status, I know two things about that instructor. The first thing I know is that she is probably quite proud of the work she has done to get where she is. She is (quite rightly) proud of her teaching credential. The second thing I know about her is that she may be afraid, or feel insecure. She might be worried that if others see her in the process of learning from someone else, they will think less of her. They will think that she has not earned her own place at the front of the class when she teaches. That is unfortunate, because the best instructors are always learning from others. But you have to have confidence in yourself and in your right to be where you are before you can go there. Insecurity leads to fear, and fear kills the desire to learn something new.

That brings us to the third reason I did not need this class. It’s because my own skills are already quite well-developed in the area of accuracy. Because of my job, I get a lot of trigger time, and because I have taken so many classes over the years, I already know how to make the best of my practice time. I already know how to coach myself for good performance. So strictly speaking, I did not need this class for skills development. Going into the class, I already shot accurately.

That last reason sounds arrogant, and it is. In fact, I do not know any shooters who cannot benefit from a little tune up here and there. I am no exception – I certainly did learn a few things, and I completed the day with a higher degree of skill then I had going in. Focusing on the fundamentals tends to bring out the best in shooters. This is true no matter what your existing skill level might be. But you have to reject the idea that you already know everything, if you are ever going to learn anything. That, too, goes back to fear and insecurity. If you want to learn, you cannot be afraid that others will see you learning.

Still, why would an already-accurate shooter take a class in shooting accurately? In addition to realizing that there is always room for improvement, I took it because I am a teacher. As a teacher, I have consistently learned the most from other instructors when I take their basic and intermediate classes. When I want to learn more about teaching, I take a class from a teacher I respect. And the class I most prefer to take is a basic to intermediate level program at high-end schools. At those levels, instructors consistently explain their reasons for teaching the techniques they teach. Furthermore, at those levels you see instructors working much more directly with students. You hear them answer questions that just do not come up in the upper level classes. If you want to find good teaching techniques, you can capture them “in the wild” here.

Yesterday, I learned a different way to teach someone where to focus while they are shooting. I was reminded of several accuracy drills that I had long forgotten. I heard several different ways to explain simple techniques, including some articulations I have not heard before that will undoubtedly prove helpful to my future students. I observed how a master instructor organizes his class, and I watched what the assistant instructors prioritized when they needed to make corrections with a student. I listened to a master teacher explain why he teaches the grip and stance he teaches, and I listened to him deal with several specific challenges students had with those techniques. Even if I did not teach those techniques myself (I do teach them), there is still a tremendous value in learning how and why a master chooses the techniques he chooses. There is even more value in learning ways to interact with students who struggle with, or feel skeptical about, the techniques you teach. All those things, I learned by watching.

Here is the bottom line: It is easy to make excuses to avoid learning. Fear, pride, and lack of confidence may whisper that you do not need to learn, or tell you that you are above all that. But those negative emotions have no place when you want to become the best shooter or the best teacher you can be.

Edited with BlogPad Pro

Yesterday, I blogged about some ways firearms instructors show they feel responsibility to their students. Today, I’d like to point out that the best teachers know what to do when they hit their own limitations.

First, don’t be afraid to say, “I don’t know.” Good teachers take students’ questions seriously enough that they consciously avoid giving flippant or incomplete answers. Instead of throwing out a half-baked response, try saying, “I’m not sure. Let me do some research and get back to you.” Of course, you then follow up by doing the research and getting back to them, because you don’t want your students to have unanswered questions about such an important topic.

Second, it will sometimes happen that even after you’ve done that homework, the best answer you can honestly give is, “I cannot answer that question very well myself.” That’s not ideal, but it happens. Be honest enough to admit it. Then add,  “Let me suggest some other resources for you to try.” You do not have to be — and you should not try to be! — the source of all learning for your students. When you realize that you’re not the best source of information for something your students need to know, you don’t have to fake knowledge you don’t have. You can simply guide them to a better source of information and drive on.

The strongest teachers boldly admit their weaknesses.

Here’s the basis of being an ethical firearms instructor: a strong sense of responsibility toward your students. If you don’t feel that strong sense of responsibility, you shouldn’t be teaching. (Or, at least, you should be teaching something that doesn’t matter, like parochial underwater basket-weaving or the history of surfing.)

Excellent teachers show that they feel that responsibility in several ways.

1.) They get extra training, far above what they “need,” because they want to be sure they can give students good instruction. I put “need” in scare quotes for a reason: as a child, I lived (briefly!) in a third-world country. One of the hallmarks of the horrible education system in that impoverished country was its low standards for teachers. Even as a child, I was shocked to learn that a first grade teacher simply had to have graduated from second grade — nothing more. There are firearms instructors today who regard that third-world, third-rate standard more than adequate for teaching people how to defend their very lives; they feel that it’s enough for them to be barely ahead of their students. I celebrate those who believe and act otherwise!

2.) They work overtime to be sure what they teach is accurate and holds up. These instructors study different techniques and measure those techniques not just against common sense, but against actual performance. They study how crime happens and they study ways people effectively defend themselves from violence. They work to understand important ideas such as how human brains work, how bodies behave under stress, and how to coach someone in a physical skill. They find good reasons to support the techniques they teach, and they never teach a technique simply because someone else told them it was a good idea. They do their homework.

3.) They make efforts to tailor what they teach to the students they have in front of them. These instructors strive to avoid one-size-fits-all solutions to problems. They work to understand their student’s specific struggle before suggesting a solution. This is more work than simply throwing “the technique” out there for your students, but it’s also more likely to become an integrated part of your students’ survival plan.

There are other ways good instructors show they feel that sense of responsibility. What’s your favorite?