testtest

Instructors or classes that teach fear mongering

E

ECS686

Professional
Here is an interesting article on the state of firearms training. While some will get butt hurt it is a valid example and reflects what I have seen in some local folks trying to teach.

While i am a firm believer in the 5 A’s (acceptance, awareness avoidance action and aftermath)

As someone that taught for an Agency and been involved in real crime. And been on the hot seat for use of force. As such I notice the most of these instructors have zero personal experience on being witness or a victim of a crime or ever stepping inside a court room other than contesting a speeding ticket! Just fear mongering and not a real look on reality of crime.


gunculture2point0.wordpress.com

Firearms Classes Taught Me Very Different Lessons than Harel Shapira Learned in His Study

On my “Light Over Heat” YouTube channel this week, I discuss sociologist Harel Shapira’s opinion essay, “Firearms Taught Me, and America, a Very Dangerous Lesson,” pub…
gunculture2point0.wordpress.com gunculture2point0.wordpress.com
 
Faulkner said:
So, I spent the 7 or 8 minutes and read the article. The author of that article and I obviously live on different planets.
Click to expand...


The video by an acquaintance of the author is someone that put it in perspective like most would probably agree with.

To me and why I started this thread. I can relate as I have seen a LOT of classes (or instructors) teach all firearm or nothing. No avoidance no de escalation no less lethal option.

If one wants to teach simply how to run a gun then they shouldn’t market it as a self defense class. Running a gun is more in the Technical realm like a competitive shooting thing. Self defense should be taught in the Application side like assessing and making decisions

And the majority of firearms courses do not!
 
I read both articles, Shapira’s and Yamane’s. Yamane spends at least 300% more copy rebutting Shapira’s fluff piece for the NYT, which led me to think “He doth protest too much.” Shapira’s piece is exactly what you would expect for the NYT, based in a state that demonizes firearms, not to mention most policies south of the Mason-Dixon. Likewise, Yamane’s piece serves up a great big softball for his readership as well. Neither of these pieces was worth the time reading.

As for trainers/ training: is there a big dose of fear mongering? Absolutely. Having gone from raw rookie to hiring a private instructor on a regular basis for advanced handgun courses in a relatively short amount of time, I’ve seen this firsthand on a regular basis.

Have I ever had a trainer tell me to take the shot if I didn’t have to? Never. In fact, I had one trainer - an active SWAT commander - talk to me about why I should have thought longer before shooting in a live exercise with simunitions. Legally, it was a righteous shooting, but he provided me with some perspective that I didn’t have going in. It was an eye opener for me.
 
I must agree on one point, that there are instructors teaching firearms who are unqualified. In the many courses I taught to civilians, and unsworn security officers, I encountered quite a few students who had to be reprogrammed from prior bad or erroneous training. Cowboy trainers with an "I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" attitude have no business teaching defensive courses.

The first and foremost thing that must be taught, following firearm safety, is the law of firearms use and use of deadly force. Failure to provide a thorough foundation of the law sets the stage for bad outcomes. This is where avoiding the circumstances where use of deadly force may become necessary, if at all possible, must be emphasized. There is an ethical component as well. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Using deadly force will change your life, forever, no matter how justified you are. Most reasonable humans understand the gravity and are reluctant to employ lethal force. Read Dave Grossman's book "On Killing" to see how we are averse to killing on a gut level.

I was involved with a SWAT team for 13 years, 7 of which were as team commander. Our SWAT officers were trained extensively in team tactics and firearms. Team elements included intelligence, negotiations, assault teams, and precision rifle teams. Our team motto was "negotiate with confidence". In all those years there were many occasions where deadly force was justified, but officers exercised restraint and found another solution. I retired from the department as chief after 20 years, during which SWAT fired one round, and one non-SWAT officer fired his pistol. I pinned medals on officers who did not fire even though justified.

Speed, power, and accuracy determine the outcome of lethal combat. Although it may seem counterintuitive, I am absolutely convinced that extensive training and proficiency with firearms, coupled with legal and ethical training, greatly diminishes the likelihood of unjustified or unnecessary shootings. The individual who is confident in his ability to employ his firearm quickly and effectively is less likely to make bad decisions with it under stress.

The likelihood that we civilians will encounter a deadly force situation is remote. We use firearms for peace of mind, as a hedge against that eventuality. I am perfectly happy to avoid trouble, be proficient with the .45 I carry everywhere, and to have it and never have to use it. Firearm training courses should have that as their ultimate goal.
 
HayesGreener said:
I must agree on one point, that there are instructors teaching firearms who are unqualified. I
Click to expand...
I fully agree and it does not stop with firearms training.
Many people are in positions they have low or zero qualifications for.

Two examples of such BS trainers.
They were English teachers in Cuba and I met a English teacher in Argentina.
Both times I wanted to see how well their English was and both of them flat out refused to talk to me in English.
Ask you self WHY❓
Maybe, just maybe, they have just a very little experiences in what they were teaching to those with zero or almost zero experience, so you would not know, would you❓

Unfortunately, there are many trainers of all types who do not have the so called experience they claim they have❗
For true qualified firearm trainers, maybe do some research and find a proven firearms instructor❓
 
HayesGreener said:
I must agree on one point, that there are instructors teaching firearms who are unqualified. In the many courses I taught to civilians, and unsworn security officers, I encountered quite a few students who had to be reprogrammed from prior bad or erroneous training. Cowboy trainers with an "I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" attitude have no business teaching defensive courses.

The first and foremost thing that must be taught, following firearm safety, is the law of firearms use and use of deadly force. Failure to provide a thorough foundation of the law sets the stage for bad outcomes. This is where avoiding the circumstances where use of deadly force may become necessary, if at all possible, must be emphasized. There is an ethical component as well. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Using deadly force will change your life, forever, no matter how justified you are. Most reasonable humans understand the gravity and are reluctant to employ lethal force. Read Dave Grossman's book "On Killing" to see how we are averse to killing on a gut level.

I was involved with a SWAT team for 13 years, 7 of which were as team commander. Our SWAT officers were trained extensively in team tactics and firearms. Team elements included intelligence, negotiations, assault teams, and precision rifle teams. Our team motto was "negotiate with confidence". In all those years there were many occasions where deadly force was justified, but officers exercised restraint and found another solution. I retired from the department as chief after 20 years, during which SWAT fired one round, and one non-SWAT officer fired his pistol. I pinned medals on officers who did not fire even though justified.

Speed, power, and accuracy determine the outcome of lethal combat. Although it may seem counterintuitive, I am absolutely convinced that extensive training and proficiency with firearms, coupled with legal and ethical training, greatly diminishes the likelihood of unjustified or unnecessary shootings. The individual who is confident in his ability to employ his firearm quickly and effectively is less likely to make bad decisions with it under stress.

The likelihood that we civilians will encounter a deadly force situation is remote. We use firearms for peace of mind, as a hedge against that eventuality. I am perfectly happy to avoid trouble, be proficient with the .45 I carry everywhere, and to have it and never have to use it. Firearm training courses should have that as their ultimate goal.
Click to expand...

Great post Hayes! Should be covered in every firearms training. In addition to safety, tactical training, and weekly practice, I attend a US Law Shield seminar on the law every year and always learn something new. This year, I learned that the county I live in passed an ordinance requiring the reporting of a lost or stolen firearm to local law enforcement within 48 hours of discovery. Something our state statutes do not require and none of those in attendance, including me, knew of this new ordinance. Even though we have Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground protection, if you can retreat with complete safety, you must do so in accordance with state law. For me, training in the law is just as important as safety, tactical, and practice.
 
Last edited:
HayesGreener said:
I must agree on one point, that there are instructors teaching firearms who are unqualified. In the many courses I taught to civilians, and unsworn security officers, I encountered quite a few students who had to be reprogrammed from prior bad or erroneous training. Cowboy trainers with an "I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" attitude have no business teaching defensive courses.

The first and foremost thing that must be taught, following firearm safety, is the law of firearms use and use of deadly force. Failure to provide a thorough foundation of the law sets the stage for bad outcomes. This is where avoiding the circumstances where use of deadly force may become necessary, if at all possible, must be emphasized. There is an ethical component as well. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Using deadly force will change your life, forever, no matter how justified you are. Most reasonable humans understand the gravity and are reluctant to employ lethal force. Read Dave Grossman's book "On Killing" to see how we are averse to killing on a gut level.

I was involved with a SWAT team for 13 years, 7 of which were as team commander. Our SWAT officers were trained extensively in team tactics and firearms. Team elements included intelligence, negotiations, assault teams, and precision rifle teams. Our team motto was "negotiate with confidence". In all those years there were many occasions where deadly force was justified, but officers exercised restraint and found another solution. I retired from the department as chief after 20 years, during which SWAT fired one round, and one non-SWAT officer fired his pistol. I pinned medals on officers who did not fire even though justified.

Speed, power, and accuracy determine the outcome of lethal combat. Although it may seem counterintuitive, I am absolutely convinced that extensive training and proficiency with firearms, coupled with legal and ethical training, greatly diminishes the likelihood of unjustified or unnecessary shootings. The individual who is confident in his ability to employ his firearm quickly and effectively is less likely to make bad decisions with it under stress.

The likelihood that we civilians will encounter a deadly force situation is remote. We use firearms for peace of mind, as a hedge against that eventuality. I am perfectly happy to avoid trouble, be proficient with the .45 I carry everywhere, and to have it and never have to use it. Firearm training courses should have that as their ultimate goal.
Click to expand...

Great post! It’s exactly the point that I was attempting to get at by posting. I just didn’t word it as well.

And while the article I posted wasn’t perfect I believe it was truthful on several fronts. While there can be plenty of times one is “justified” sometimes another route is a better option.

Just like if ever LEO used deadly force every time they were legal the shootings would number 5X what they are.

And while there is a correlation between LEOs and civilians as Dr John Lotts studies that firearms stop criminals without being fired around 2 million times as a community it seems there’s not a large push other than some national trainers that push less lethal or avoidance. It’s just shoot ‘em as I too have had to take time out of classes to readjust sines thinking they could or should gun-smoke someone for stealing something out of a detached pole barn or car.

Even some of the well known self defense protective companies (I really don’t want to say insurance) don’t show less lethal or other non firearm options either

As a community we should press those to do a better job to not come across the wrong way!
 
Interesting articles, ECS686. Thanks for the link.

I have heard the “judge by 12 rather than carried by 6” statement, but in my opinion it is just people who like to add hot air to the environment, adding to the global warming. I have never had an instructor encourage shooting when better options are available. I consider the Shapiro “study” to be little more than propaganda. He found what he wanted to find.
 
Last edited:
I have never taken a class by anyone who didn't teach shooting as a last resort. At the same time though you have to be extremely decisive. You have a fraction of a second to decide what you are going to do and once you decide you better get to it.
 
Coming up on 32 years of Law Enforcement Service and could and would have been justified many many times in using deadly force and I can say that in every encounter the suspect either surrendered or I managed to verbally convince them to do the right thing or alternate methods were used to take the person into custody. As a Firearms Instructor whether I'm teaching Officers or civilians it is stressed that deadly force should be the last option used... Just my two cents...
 
wolfpack076 said:
Coming up on 32 years of Law Enforcement Service and could and would have been justified many many times in using deadly force and I can say that in every encounter the suspect either surrendered or I managed to verbally convince them to do the right thing or alternate methods were used to take the person into custody. As a Firearms Instructor whether I'm teaching Officers or civilians it is stressed that deadly force should be the last option used... Just my two cents...
Click to expand...
I don't care if I have justification or not, my number one desire is to simply get away from the threat. This is not always an option for LE. 🤷‍♂️ My only experience in LE was the Coast Guard, and the closest I ever got to an altercation, was easily solved by racking a round into the Remington 870 I was carrying while on a boarding. The drunk fisherman rather quickly complied after he heard that, oh so familiar sound👍
 
Hi,

I know I'm late to the conversation but I did have a chance to read both authors' articles, the original from Mr. Shapira (before the "gift" access expired) and the "rebuttal" from Mr. Yamane.

It seemed that Mr. Shapira took training classes not to actually learn how to defend himself and his loved ones but to gather talking points to support his anti-gun agenda. To me it was clearly a case of filtering reality through a lens of bias. Like others have mentioned, I have never been in a class that did not stress the use of a firearm as a last resort, to stop an immanent threat. (I've had to run countless drills where I did not have to shoot because the threat did not present itself.) Perhaps I've been fortunate that I've had good instructors. Or perhaps others only hear and learn what they want to, according to their feelings and reality be damned.

Sure, not all instructors are created equal. However, a bad instructor should not invalidate the Second Amendment.

That is my profound glimpse into the obvious for today.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
 
BassCliff said:
Hi,

I know I'm late to the conversation but I did have a chance to read both authors' articles, the original from Mr. Shapira (before the "gift" access expired) and the "rebuttal" from Mr. Yamane.

It seemed that Mr. Shapira took training classes not to actually learn how to defend himself and his loved ones but to gather talking points to support his anti-gun agenda. To me it was clearly a case of filtering reality through a lens of bias. Like others have mentioned, I have never been in a class that did not stress the use of a firearm as a last resort, to stop an immanent threat. (I've had to run countless drills where I did not have to shoot because the threat did not present itself.) Perhaps I've been fortunate that I've had good instructors. Or perhaps others only hear and learn what they want to, according to their feelings and reality be damned.

Sure, not all instructors are created equal. However, a bad instructor should not invalidate the Second Amendment.

That is my profound glimpse into the obvious for today.


Thank you for your indulgence,

BassCliff
Click to expand...
No legit instructors are teaching the use of unjustified force.
 
It’s the instant car jacking, robbery on the street, home invasion I train for. Not the we just got into a massive brawl with fellow men. I’m running away from that quicker than Roadrunner.
I enjoy the shooting sports . I train for fun. The upside is proficient use of a firearm.
 
This isn't just an article, this is a series of articles and links and footnotes and supporting documentation that is going to take a long time to read through.

The only part of what I've read so far that I feel like I can honestly comment on with any authority is to agree that yes there are people out there teaching self-defense and Firearms classes who are not qualified.

I'll probably comment again after I've read everything in that article
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top