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 him or he committed a crime
which justified your shooting him. 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.)
What is the overall class size and how many students shoot per relay? Many instructors
limit movement in order to keep students from bumping into each other or from crossing each
other with muzzles. That sort of adaptation may lead to unsound tactics, such as standing
on the same spot from which you have just fired while you scan for additional threats.
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 certainly 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.
Does your instructor need to have survived a gunfight?
There is at least one big-name school that has required instructor applicants to have been
involved in some sort of gunfight and a not a few other instructors who believe this is a
crucial criterion.
There is some merit in the implication that the wrong tactics and inadequate skills greatly
minimize the chance of surviving, much less prevaling in such an encounter. (After all, why
are you seeking training?)
For better or for worse, surviving a gunfight may have depended, to varying degrees,
on luck and is not a guarantee that the survivor use good tactics or great skill. Thus, the
crucial element is whether a gunfight survivor drew appropriate lessons from the experience.
Further, not all gunfights are the same:
A military engagement, in which several people on each side fire several rifle rounds at each
other, at the distance of a citty block or longer, may not teach much about using a handgun at
much closer distances.
A police officer who served on a special unit, in which he typically had advance notice that he
was likely to have to fire shots, allowing him to use the traditional marksmanship skills in
which he had trained, may not be aware of the need to train in arm's length quick-reaction
techniques.
On the other hand, someone who prevailed in a "yank-and-crank" incident at close range may not
appreciate the need to develop and maintain skill in sighted fire.
Not to minimize the value of personal experience, but not that many people have had the full range
of it. Most serious instructros will have made it a point also to learn from the experiences of
others, regardless of the range of their own.
So, how crucial is that element of personal experience of actually having a shot at another person?
I don't think that there is a black-and-white answer to this question. Again, I urge you to use the
ruler of common sense. If the instructor makes a point of having won a
gunfight, what did he learn from the experience? Did the experience make him a better teacher? If the
instructor has not had that experience, what qualifies him to prepare you for it?
In the long run, what will benefit you the most is what you learned, not from whom you
learned it.
Private versus group instruction
It's easier to generate income as an instructor if you teach a group of students at a time.
Most people who take professional firearms training do so in a group environment. If you are
physically fit and learn readily, this is fine. Having to keep up with the rest of the group
requires that you learn to function under some degree of pressure. Some people like the
"bragging rights" of having completed what is recognized as a tough course of instruction.
Some people may not be in good physical condition, may be challenged by physical
disabilities, may be slow learners or may not learn well under pressure from their peers.
Some of these people may do better with private instruction, where the curriculum and pace can
be adjusted to their particular attributes.
While one-on-one training can be very efficient, there are advantages to training alongside
other students. One's learning can often be enhanced by observing errors made by a fellow student
and how the instructor corrects them. It is particularly useful to train with a partner if the
training partner is also a partner in some aspect of daily living - that way, each student will
have some insight as to how that partner will respond in an emergency. In such cases, semi-private
training may be a great option, so long as one partner does not try to dominate the other during
the training.
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.
