If you agree with my ranking of priorities, most
people have their priorities backwards. They concentrate on the equipment, not the mind
set and skills of the operator. Let's face it, most Americans who purchase guns for
defense don't even carry them; they regard them as talismans which will ward off evil.
If you're trying to get together the money for that new gun you've just got to have,
it's difficult to commit to spending money on instruction. After all, you can read
about how to do it in books and magazines, so why spend the extra money for
instruction?
Like anything you buy, instruction has got to be of a minimum quality to give you your
money's worth. Quality instruction can give you some of the following:
A mind set which will help you avoid violent encounters and prevail in those you
can't avoid;
Documentation that you have been trained in that mind set, as opposed to your having
dreamed up some fantasies in front of your TV set;
Skills and tactics both to avoid and to win violent encounters;
A professional eye to determine if a technique is working for you, how to make it
work if it's not or an alternative technique which might better suit you;
Documentation that you were taught these techniques by someone with some kind of
credentials and that you demonstrated some degree of proficiency with them.
Why does documentation keep coming up? If you have to shoot someone, a crime will have
been committed: either you committed a crime shooting them or they committed a crime
which justified your shooting them. You will definitely be investigated; depending on
the outcome, you may be prosecuted; regardless, you may be sued. Is documentation
starting to make sense?
What to look for in an instructor
What you seek in an instructor may vary according to what training you already have.
From the perspective of using the firearm for self-defense, there will probably be four
basic "models" of training available to you:
The NRA Personal Protection Course or a similar state-mandated concealed carry course;
The law enforcement model;
The military model;
The competition model.
It certainly would behoove you to have some documented instruction in the judicious
use of deadly force. The NRA Personal Protection model or state-mandated course should give
you a start in this direction. Such courses are generally too brief to give you much
instruction in tactics and technique.
Instructors in the law enforcement model should provide some explicit or implicit training
in regard to the judicious use of force. In addition, they should provide instruction in
tactics and technique.
While law enforcement officers generally have a duty to seek out and engage criminals, the
armed citizen will generally be expected to seek disengagement. Nonetheless, when the
citizen cannot avoid engaging, the tactics of the peace officer will generally be the most
relevant ones, hence that type of training will be the most valuable. This is particularly
so if it includes training for off-duty encounters, where the officer is not immediately
discernible from any other citizen.
Military tactics are generally offensive rather than defensive in nature. While the role of
our military seems to be shifting increasingly to one of policing the rest of the world,
traditional military training has not been to the level of accountability demanded in
American courts.
Competition "tactics" are usually oriented toward beating the clock while shooting at
cardboard targets which can't shoot back. If an instructor's background is competition, you
may find yourself being instructed in techniques and tactics which could be hazardous if
used against targets which do shoot back.
On the shooting skills side, you may need someone to teach you the basics. In this case
it may be more useful if the instructor is not wedded to a particular "method" of
shooting and will adapt to your attributes, rather than expecting you to become his
clone. On the other hand, you may be looking for someone to round out your skills
with a specific method you have not yet mastered.
You may already be a skilled shooter. However, your skills may be sport based and
require some adjustment to be meaningful when someone is trying to cause you serious
injury. Two of my students come to mind:
An accomplished silhouette shooter who required constant reminders not to leave his
pistol at the top of its recoil arc for several seconds following each shot;
An accomplished IPSC shooter and shooting instructor, accustomed to shooting known
courses of fire, who required constant reminders to visually verify the threat before
turning 180 degrees to engage it.
How do the instructor and his staff conduct training? Do they behave like drill
sergeants? Some students do well under those systems, others do miserably? This one
is a totally subjective judgment.
What is the ratio of students to instructors? Watch this one closely if the school offers
courses with large numbers of students. Will the "name brand" instructor do most of the
teaching or will it be done by assistants? (Believe it or not, sometimes the assistants are
better instructors.)
How tightly are the course offerings structured? Will there be time to ask questions? Will
there be time for individual coaching for the student who may not learn quickly?
What kind of facilities does the instructor have available? Are they adequate for his
program of instruction? I once had a fellow student tell me that he would not pursue
further instruction with a particular school because their range was a sand pit. He
was planning to return to the school where we were because of its excellent physical
facilities. I opted not to return to the school where the conversation took place
because I felt that the program was sport based and encouraged bad tactics. Clearly,
I don't believe that facilities are primary, but they can limit what the instructor
can offer.
Will the instructor testify for you in court? Does the instructor have credentials
which will stand up in a court of law? Is the instructor certified or licensed to
teach? Is the instructor trained, certified or licensed to teach law enforcement
personnel? Is the training, certification or licensure recognized in your jurisdiction?
Evaluation of teaching style may be subjective but credentials are fairly objective.
Material is posted on this page for information and discussion only and
purports to be no more than the personal opinion of
Stephen P. Wenger.