Critical thinking when reading.
Monday, February 06, 2012 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training, General gun
stuff
Someone sent me this link to a story on Tactical-Life.com about the Center Axis Relock (C.A.R.) system of Paul Castle. At the outset it's important to note that I don't think much of this "system", largely because it asks the shooter to do a number of things that aren't congruent with how the body reacts to a threat stimulus. It may or may not have some use to military or police tactical teams when in a proactive mode, but since I'm neither of those I'm not qualified to judge its tactical usefulness in those areas.
I can, however, comment on the intellectual inadequacies of one specific part of the story. In the fifth paragraph of the article, the author defends the C.A.R. system's extreme bladed position with regard to body armor. One of the criticisms of this exaggerated stance is that it exposes the weakest part of an officer's (or soldier's) body armor to the threat. The author’s rejoinder is that the system places the bones and tissue of the upper arm in a position to protect that vulnerable spot.
Seriously, that's what it says.
There was a shooting instructor back in the 1950s or '60s (whose name I'm not recalling at the moment) who recommended that the pistol be shot one handed, with the weak hand reaching across the chest to the strong shoulder to put the bicep roughly over the heart to provide protection. Gosh, why aren't we still doing that? If the bones and muscles of the upper arm are sufficient for protection of vulnerable areas, why are we wearing body armor at all?
The whole idea of body armor came about because flesh and bone have proven to be quite inadequate at stopping bullets. In fact, that's exactly the kind of material that bullets are designed to defeat. While a muscled arm may slow the bullet down a bit, it's still going to go through and into more important organs. Body armor exists because bullets go through muscles, and we've expended many resources to give people ever-better armor with fewer and fewer vulnerable areas.
The sides and arm holes are a well known weakness of all armor, and the recommendation has always been to keep the front area of the armor pointed at the threat if at all possible. There are many stories of soldiers and cops killed because a bullet (or piece of shrapnel, in some cases) made its way into the body by way of the open space around the arm - the size of the bicep notwithstanding.
There are those who will read the article without questioning. Unless they think critically, examining both the author's assumptions and logic flow, they might be caught up by the recasting of a flaw as a feature.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Comments
The Double Tap.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
At SHOT I made a passing comment to Pharmacist Tommy that, in the context of defensive shooting, practicing double taps was a tacit admission that a person wasn't able to control their gun. He looked at me quizzically, as I'm sure you're doing right now.
(Let's get some terminology out of the way. Most people shooting double taps are firing two rounds in quick succession with one sight picture. Adherents to the so-called "Modern" Technique would scream that the term is used incorrectly, and that they are actually shooting 'hammers'. I'll concede the point, in the same way I concede that the Battle of Bunker Hill was in fact fought on Breed's Hill - you'll note it's made no difference in elementary school history lessons, however. I'll continue to use Bunker Hill and double tap to describe what the majority hold that they describe, because arguing the point wastes my time and doesn't change the outcome anyhow.)
Let's start with a question: why practice the double tap as a defensive tactic? When I watch surveillance and dashcam videos, regardless of the training level of the shooter, I don't see the stylized double tap. What I see instead, very consistently, is a string of fire without artificial pauses. After all, bullets are what stops bad guys -- and the faster those bullets get to him, the better.
If you need to shoot your attacker six times, and choose to do so with three double taps, that means the half-second pause between those strings gives him a full second to hurt you more. How many bullets can come out of his gun in one second? How many critical stab wounds can he inflict? How far can he move? Giving the bad guy any extra time is counter to your own self interest.
How about double-tapping, then assessing (as is still the recommendation in some training backwaters)? The answer is that there is no way to know ahead of time how many shots it's going to take to make your bad guy go away. That being the case, why on earth would you stop shooting at an arbitrary point if a threat is present? The time to asses is after the threat is no longer in front of your gun, whether that takes one, two, or five rounds. Practicing to always do that at two rounds means that if your fight goes longer and you stop to make your well-rehearsed assessment, you're exposing yourself needlessly to danger.
I could go on, but my point is that the double tap makes no sense in the context of surviving a lethal attack. The logical practice routine would be to always fire a random-length string of shots: two, three, four, and perhaps even occasionally five or six. Mix 'em up; don't get locked into any one pattern.
The double tap really doesn't have a use in defensive shooting, yet people all over the country continue to practice it. I believe the answer is simple, and I've observed it in action: if you ask any random shooter, regardless of his or her proficiency or training level, to shoot a string of three or four or five rounds at the same cadence (with the same "split time", or elapsed time between shots) as the double taps they're flinging downrange, the chances are almost certain that they won't be able to do so.
What usually happens is that the first two shots land in acceptable proximity to each other, but the third will climb significantly and the fourth is usually off the target. In order to land all their shots inside whatever reasonable target area is chosen, they need to slow down - sometimes significantly. In other words, they can't control their gun at that inflated rate.
Now, just about everyone will be faster at the double tap than at an extended string of fire. The point is that the longer strings of fire are what are most likely in the context of a defensive shooting, because the natural reaction is likely to be shooting until the threat goes away. If the gun can't be controlled in such a realistic or plausible shooting scenario, then that shooter needs a different gun (or much better technique) instead of gaming his or her practice to artificially inflate competence.
Shooting double taps instead of more realistic strings serves as proof that one cannot control the gun for the use to which it is likely to be put. It's up to the shooter to recognize, admit, and change.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Data sets, plausibility, and defensive shooting.
Monday, November 14, 2011 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training, Self defense
As I sat eating lunch last week I found myself perusing a gun forum with which I'm not all that familiar. On it I ran across a post from a fairly well known trainer, one that most shooters would not recognize but those familiar with the training world might. I've never met the guy, let alone trained with him, but his comments left me distinctly perturbed.
The statement was in reference to some particular techniques that he finds important to teach. In defending his approach, he wrote "I know, statistically, it is unlikely that you'll ever need these skills. Of course, statistically, it is unlikely you will ever need a gun at all."
I’m not at all sure that he understands the implications of what he said.
Let me start with some perspective. The American Cancer Society tells us that approximately 1.5 million cases of cancer will be diagnosed this year. With the U.S. population standing at a tad over 307 million as of the last census, that puts those patients at about .48% of the population. That’s right - less than one-half of one percent of the population of the U.S. can expect to be diagnosed with cancer, which one would have to say is a pretty small number. (As it happens, it's still quite a bit smaller than the percentage of people that Kleck and Gertz tell us will use a gun in self defense the same year, by roughly half. Keep that in mind.)
Those numbers make it statistically unlikely that any one person will develop cancer in any given year; the total number of cases is small compared to the whole population. Even though cancer of all types is not terribly common, we all know that not all cancers (nor diagnoses) are equally likely, let alone have the same outcome. Some cancers are far less prevalent than others; salivary gland cancer, for instance, occurs in perhaps 6,000 people per year - compared to nearly a quarter-million who develop who develop prostate cancer. That’s a huge difference despite the fact that neither is likely to occur.
What medical science doesn't do is to flail about and proclaim that since any cancer is "statistically unlikely" to begin with, they’ll throw the same treatment at all of them in hopes that something works. That's not how science is done, and it's not how lives are saved.
Within that small data set of cancer cases there is a huge range of probabilities and outcomes. It's that very fact that enables medical science to classify each case and use the best treatment approach based on where it falls in the data matrix. Since not all are alike, all do not get the same treatment.
This extends to the research realm as well. We don't spend as much time and money developing cures for salivary gland cancer as we do for prostate cancer. We put our research resources where they will do the most good, where they will save the most lives.
Am I saying that defensive shooting is the same as cancer? Of course not. What I am saying, though, is that just because an occurrence of an event is unlikely doesn't mean that all such occurrences are the same. A small data set does not imply homogeneity; even in small data sets there are differing circumstances and results. To imply otherwise is ignorant (or manipulative.)
Of course it's statistically unlikely that at any given time you'll need to use your gun. This is not news. Needing to use a gun to defend yourself is about twice as likely as you developing cancer this year, mind you, but it's still unlikely. Just because it's unlikely, however, does not mean that all skill sets related to a defensive shooting are of equal value!
Just as some cancers are more common than others, some defensive scenarios are more likely than others. For instance, how often in private sector self defense incidents are people called on to make 100-yard hostage rescue headshots with a handgun? It may have happened somewhere or at some time in history, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single case - let alone any sort of trend. Is that of equal probability to dealing with a simple assault in a parking lot after dark? Of course not.
Should we train equally in the skills necessary to deal with those two disparate events simply because neither is "statistically likely"? I don't think so.
When we look at defensive shooting threats and scenarios, there are some that are possible but have rarely (if ever) happened; there are some which happen occasionally but not often, making them at least plausible; and there are those which happen often enough that we can see some sort of likelihood, a certain probability of occurrence. Our problem as students is that none of us has the unlimited time or resources necessary to train for everything which is merely possible. We have to take into account the likelihood, the plausibility, of what can happen when we make training and technique decisions.
Using the "statistically unlikely you will ever need a gun at all" argument in relation to training is a smokescreen, a way to ignore the concept of plausibility. It's an attempt to deflect the student's attention, to get them to suspend their critical thinking so that they don't question the actual value of the technique. Yes, it is unlikely that you'll need to use your gun - but saying so doesn't magically transform "possible" into "likely", and doesn't elevate a rarely needed skill into something which is vital to learn.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, November 07, 2011 Filed in:
General gun
stuff, Gunsmithing, My
Life, Techniques &
Training, Revolvers
It's odd, really. This is the time of year that I pine for the long days of summer that are sure to come, and in the heat of that season I wish the early darkenings of winter would get here sooner. I guess I'm just never happy with the here and now!
---
The whole zombie schtick has long since jumped the shark, and my thoughts on the utility of a .410 shotgun revolver are well known. It shouldn't have come as a surprise that someone would combine the two, and likewise it won’t be a difficult task to figure out what I think of the thing. (Thanks to Tam for ruining my breakfast with this news.)
---
Trying to catch up with emails, snail mails, parts orders, and everything else around the shop isn't being helped lately. You may remember that my wife decided I needed someone to keep my company during work hours, so she brought in Shop Kat. Turns out that SK is a girl, which we learned when she finally grew up enough to go into heat. When that happened I decided to take her in for a little surgical modification, but as it happens that can't be done until she's out of heat. I thought that if I kept a close eye on her during her infrequent and short outings during that time things would be under control, as I'd seen no stray cats in the neighborhood. You can guess what happened next.
I now have a pile (seven, to be precise) balls of fur who are about six weeks old. They're constantly underfoot, seem to think everything exists for their own amusement, and are generally making the shop difficult to work in. I wear an apron while I work and they seem particularly amused by the parts of it that they can reach. Anyone want a free kitten (or two?)
---
I've got a couple of interesting articles by Ed Harris which I'm going to run on coming Fridays in place of the Friday Surprise. Ed's got some great stuff and addresses areas of the shooting world that aren't in my normal purview. I think you'll find them interesting.
---
In the next month I'll be working on my teaching schedule for 2012. If you'd like to book a class now's the time to start the process!
Of course I'll be teaching my flagship Revolver Doctrine course; if you liked my book, you'll love this class! I take you through the revolver, showing you how to shoot it, reload it, manipulate it with one hand, and more. It's a one-day class that can be held on nearly any range, and doesn't require drawing from a holster. It's a great introduction for anyone who is new to the revolver, regardless of their past shooting experience.
I'm also available to teach Combat Focus Shooting classes, both one- and two-day. CFS teaches you the most efficient ways to defeat a threat, ways that work with what your body does naturally. CFS classes are open to revolvers and autoloaders (much as I hate to admit it, I do know how to run an auto. Let's just keep that between the two of us, OK?)
A great combination is what I call the Defensive Revolver Weekend, which combines Revolver Doctrine on the first day and Combat Focus Shooting on the second. RD teaches you how to operate the revolver, while CFS teaches you how to use it to protect you or those you love. This is a great way to take these classes, as there is some overlap which is eliminated when they're back-to-back. The result is that we get in more material than we would if the classes were separated. (This combined version of Revolver Doctrine does require drawing from a holster.)
I’m available for classes all over the western U.S. How do you go about booking a class? It's easier than you might think, and you can train for free just by hosting at your local range! Email me for the details.
---
Looking even further ahead, I'm considering teaching a master class on Colt revolver gunsmithing. This wouldn't happen until at least 2013, but I'd like to throw out some feelers now to see if anyone might be interested. If so, drop me a note; if I have enough interest, I'll develop the course tailored to your interests.
---
Well, I think that's enough for one Monday. I'm going to return some emails then go do battle with some very intimidating kittens!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Defensive training. iPhone. What's the connection?
Wednesday, October 05, 2011 Filed in:
Technology, Techniques &
Training
Yesterday Apple announced a new iPhone, and with it an advanced software to add voice control to that phone. (“Siri”? Who names these things?)
Almost immediately the blogs and tech sites were abuzz with inevitable comparisons to the competition, complete with tables breaking down the products feature by feature.
I found it amusing that they all had one line that said 'voice control', with a simple "YES" or checkmark on each product. Some of the more adventurous would take pains to point out that the competition had 'voice control' for some time, and Apple was just catching up. What they failed to take into account was the relative sophistication and integration of the feature on all the products; love 'em or hate 'em, Apple's new voice assistant goes well beyond the simple "call Bill at work" kinds of control that phones have had for years. The software anticipates and evaluates natural language requests in a way that hasn't yet been done on a consumer device, and interacts with the phone's functions in a wider way than we're accustomed to.
(My best friend was the founder of a software company which did pioneering work in the field of computer control via voice recognition. Even he's impressed with how far Apple was able to push this technology, and he's about as jaded an expert in that field as you could ever find. He’s also one of the best shooting instructors I know, which gives me the perfect segue into this article’s actual topic!)
My point is not to sell phones - personally, I don't derive my self-worth from what I buy or what you don't buy - but rather to point out the folly of making bullet point comparisons. If you just looked at the bullet point of voice control and saw the checkmark, you wouldn't come away understanding the vastly different ways in which that feature has been implemented.
This goes well beyond phones, as lots of people do the same thing when they take defensive shooting classes. I call them "checklist students" - people who make decisions as to what school or class they'll attend by looking over a list of topics being covered. I've actually talked to people who have chosen one class over another because of the number of topics covered, without understanding the depth of the instruction or the unique approach of the instructor.
I've also seen students request refunds from instructors when the simple number of things they learned wasn't the same as in other classes they've attended, even though the student made no effort to understand or become competent in those things that were taught. The checklist is in control, not their desire to learn nor their appreciation of their own skill development.
There are instructors out there who will throw a million different topics into a class and give the students perhaps a couple of minutes with each, then dash on to the next item on the agenda. There are other instructors who cover a fraction of those topics but cover them thoroughly, giving students time and opportunity to really start to develop some proficiency. Unfortunately, the former tend to be the more successful - checklists, it would seem, sell classes as well as phones, cameras, cars, and just about everything else.
If you buy a phone via a checklist, the worst that happens is that you don't have the functionality of another phone. You can always get another. When it comes to your skill development, particularly the ability to successfully defend your own life, the stakes are a little higher. Make your training decisions based not on an ambitious list of topics, but on an understanding of what, how and why your instructor does what he/she does.
Leave the checklists to those who would rather brag than learn.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Context, perspective and gun testing.
Monday, September 26, 2011 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
Something I've noticed in the last year or so: as I've incorporated the concepts of reality-based training (RBT) in my teaching and practice, my point of view has changed. I'm not really aware of it until I'm around people who haven't had that exposure, and then the contrast becomes stark.
The realities of how attacks actually occur and our reactions (instinctive and intuitive) affect not only how and what we train, but what we train with. My upcoming article over at the Personal Defense Network examines this idea with regard to the seemingly banal process of holster choice, and this weekend it cropped up during an informal gun test in which I participated.
I was assisting with a rifle class and one of the other instructors brought in one of the new uber-compact 9mm pistols that are all the rage. We all got a chance to shoot the thing, and the results were telling.
Most people's approach to testing a new gun is to get set into a 'proper' range-based stance, carefully line up the sights, and make a slow, smooth shot; repeat until the magazine is empty, and declare it a wonderful gun. Everyone at this range did that, and I used to do that too, but lately I've been testing guns under the conditions I expect to use them, conditions that are congruent with the gun's purpose.
For a defensive gun that means shooting as if I'm being attacked.
I'd already played with the thing, so I was familiar with how it worked and how the trigger broke. In terms of the gun's operation there were no surprises. I chambered a round and, from the high compressed ready position, extended and pressed the trigger repeatedly and rapidly. I shot at a pace that was consistent with how I shoot an Airweight 'J' frame, which frequent and realistic practice has taught me would deliver the balance of speed and precision needed to put rounds on the target (the ring in an IDPA silhouette) at the distance I was standing (about 5 yards.)
The results were awful. This particular gun is so slim and flat that the grip panels do not appreciably contact the palm of the hand, and the only points of real contact - the front and backstraps - were polished and finished in a smooth gloss. The result was an alarming lack of control when shooting at a realistic pace. My first three shots landed in the target area, but the final three drifted far to the right as the gun rotated against the pressure of my hands.
I inserted a second magazine and consciously tried to counter the torque of the little monster. The results were a little better, but the extreme amount of physical force I applied to the gun brought my group down and to the left. As long as the gun was shot sedately, like on a nice friendly target range, it performed. Pushed into a more realistic shooting circumstance, it simply failed because of design flaws - the people who built it didn't understand the context in which the gun would likely be used. They built a miniature target pistol, but they’re selling it as a fighting tool.
Are there some people who might be able to make it work under realistic conditions? Perhaps, but no one else that day even tried; the closest anyone got was to do a sequence of double-taps/controlled pairs (a shooting method which illustrates that a gun can't actually be controlled for a realistic string of fire) and the results weren't a whole lot better. Would more practice - familiarity - with the gun improve my results? Experience suggests this is unlikely, as the first couple of magazines/cylinders out of a new-to-me gun are almost always my best.
I’ve covered this before, and it bears repeating: any shooting you do has to be in context. Are you practicing for an IDPA match, or are you practicing for the time when you're surprised and in true fear of your life?
What I see when I watch videos of actual shootings isn't the carefully measured BANG.....BANG.....BANG.....BANG.....BANG.....BANG of the target range, and It usually isn’t the contrived BANGBANG.....BANGBANG.....BANGBANG of the shooting match. What I see consistently, when people are surprised and in true fear for their life, is BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG. That's because the human in full reactive survival mode wants the threat gone as quickly as possible, and knows that the only thing which will do that is rounds on target.
Whether or not he/she can control the gun in those circumstances is the variable, which is why I insist on training in context so that I know I can do so.
When training isn't congruent with the realities of the fight, or if the equipment doesn't work well in that context, the needed hits won't be there. We call that 'inefficient' - using more of our own resources (time, energy, ammunition, space) than necessary to achieve the goal (making the bad guy go away.)
Ironically, in these very small guns a lesser cartridge, like the lowly and maligned .380ACP, may actually be the better choice if it allows the defender to shoot with a balance of speed and precision that achieves the necessary efficiency.
The only way one can know for sure is to practice and test realistically. On this day, I did and it greatly affected my opinion of the hardware. If it weren't for the understanding of context in training, today I'd be telling you what a great little gun it is.
Just like everyone else.
-=[ Grant ]=-
King of the road.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011 Filed
in: Techniques &
Training, Personal
opinions
Over a year ago I read a review of a training course on one of the gun forums. It's been long enough that I don't remember what the course was, or who the instructor may have been, so I don't think I have any dog in the fight. Besides, it's not the particulars that matter in this story; it's the student's attitude that I find most intriguing.
The person in question had taken a weekend course at some gun school and was very critical of the instruction received. As I recall, it wasn't the material itself about which he was complaining - it was the instructor's attitude. The writer was upset because the instructor had insisted that his students perform the drills as he taught them, rather than as they were used to doing. According to the reviewer, the instructor took a "my way or the highway" approach to the material being taught. This, apparently, was a Bad Thing.
My thought was (and still is) that this illustrated not a poor instructor, but a poor student.
Why does one take a course? To learn a new skill, I should think. If all a student wants is validation of what they've already been taught, then he or she should simply repeat the courses already attended. Taking a new course will naturally expose the student to new material, and doggedly resisting that exposure is counter productive for both the individual and the other students.
If one is going to learn a new skill one must first be exposed to it and then take the time to practice. If someone goes to a class and decides immediately that they don't want to do that, what's the reason for being there in the first place? If you take a class, you do it the teacher's way - that is, after all, the whole point of the event, is it not?
Ultimately the student - not the instructor - is responsible for his or her own competence. The instructor's job is to present material competently, logically, clearly, and factually, but it's up to the student to take advantage of what is being provided. An instructor who insists that, while in the class, the student practice only what has been taught isn't arrogant. (As long as the material has been clearly presented and the students have been given an opportunity to seek intellectual clarity and comfort with that material, of course.) An unyielding commitment to structure provides the proper environment for the student to become competent if he/she so chooses.
Whether or not one "likes" new material is irrelevant, as we've all had the experience of disliking someone or something until we got to know them/it better. Part of the process is habituation, which only occurs with repeated exposure. If the instructor doesn't insist on that exposure, letting the students do it their own way, how are they going to really know if it's for them? What other frame of reference can one use to make any sort of a judgement?
Note that I’m not considering the quality or applicability of the material in this argument. If the student deems the techniques or processes are silly or illogical or superfluous relative to his needs, he is always free jettison them after class has ended. During the class, though, they need to be done the way the instructor is teaching them - and he should insist on it.
(I am not addressing the very real instances where a physical issue prevents the student from doing something the way it’s been taught. That’s a separate issue, and the instructor should be willing and able to accommodate the student’s limitations.)
"My way or the highway", to me, is simply an instructor's insistence that a student pay attention and get in enough reps to at least start on becoming competent. I think a student should look for that attitude in a trainer, not complain about it!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Hyperbolic training.
Monday, September 12, 2011 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training, Self defense
Sadly, I’ve seen it before: tactical 'expert' pronounces that if you don't use his pet technique, "you're going to get hit". A variation: "well, if you don't want to take a bullet you'd better do this."
Whether or not I agree with the technique being presented, I hate that method of getting a point across because everyone knows (or should know) it's nonsense.
Take, for instance, moving off the vector of an attack (which some refer to as "get off the X") while at the same time shooting at the threat. This has been raised to a religion in some schools, and one such congregant recently defended the idea by saying "people who stand still get shot."
Really?
If that's true, then there should be a whole lot of people around (whether alive or deceased) who can be used as examples. Humans have been defending themselves with firearms for more than a century, and the huge overwhelming majority of those people had no formal training before doing so. Since they were likely not trained to move, how did they manage to survive not getting hit? The fact that they generally did leads us to question the logic behind the statement.
I'm sure that with enough digging you could find one or two, but this fellow's absolutist statement would require that there be a whole lot of those folks - and I think even a little searching will show that there aren't.
This is the case with so much defensive training: when there really isn't logic or fact behind what's being taught, instructors will sometimes fall back on hyperbole to prevent the student from asking the hard questions. There may in fact be a benefit to a certain technique, but the benefit is less than the cost; there may, in fact, be zero benefit. It's up to the student to recognize when hyperbole is being used to mask a deficiency, and respectfully ask for a logical explanation of what's being taught.
Do I believe there is a benefit to moving offline during an attack? Yes. Do I believe that it is always a good idea to continue that movement while I shoot back? No, and I think that I do a pretty good job of explaining “why” to my students without insulting their intelligence or trying to scare them into compliance. There is a cost/benefit ratio with any defensive move, and I think it’s a disservice not to communicate that to a student.
Reason. Fact. Ask for them by name. Politely, of course!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Silliness redux.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training, Self defense
On Monday I commented about a video from an outfit called American Defense Enterprises (ADE.) In it, a group of black-clad aspirants show us what they can do with guns. It was apparently so embarrassing that ADE actually pulled it from YouTube, but luckily someone managed to snag a copy and put it back up (and with a far more appropriate soundtrack!)
The whole video looks like a Hollywood caricature of firearms use; the word that kept popping into my head was 'choreography'. Hmmm....sure enough, ADE is headquartered on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles. That would go a long way to explaining why the video looks more like a video gamer's wet dream than realistic defensive shooting.
You really need to watch the video, as it illustrates some vital principles about how you should NOT train. How plausible are the scenarios they're setting up? Look at the safety aspect of some of their drills - is there a benefit that outweighs the not inconsiderable risks? My answers would be ‘not very’ and ‘no’.
I'll go out on a limb here: it's damn near impossible to produce an exciting video clip of quality defensive shooting instruction, because at its core it is boring. Learning to shoot efficiently doesn't lend itself to flashy room clearing footage, and how one deals with a real threat doesn't look anything like an exciting team assault. Defensive shooting is as much about concepts and processes as it is techniques, and when was the last time you saw a blood-pumping video of a concept?
If you want to see good defensive shooting videos, you can find them at the Personal Defense Network. If you want entertainment, watch the video under discussion.
Just don't confuse the two.
-=[ Grant ]=-
The dangers of unbridled emulation.
Monday, July 18, 2011 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training
There is a certain segment of the training community that makes quite a fuss about teaching techniques randomly collected from SWAT teams, Special Forces (ours or someone else's), or SEAL Team Six. (It's always Team Six, because they're apparently the coolest. And the only one which the average Mall Ninja recognizes. Good for marketing, you understand. I feel for the guys on Teams One through Five though, suffering with the knowledge that they're not nearly as cool.) These classes are usually sold to the public as being "full strength" or "not watered down for civilians" or some such twaddle.
I have two concerns with such courses. First is the applicability to prIvate sector self defense and the resulting drain on our training resources. Many of these techniques, such as shooting while running toward a threat, are offensive in nature and require either attaining initiative or being part a large enough group to be able establish and maintain sectors of fire. No matter how convoluted the logic (and I've heard some twisted justifications), this doesn't have much to do with the kinds of self defense incidents that you and I are likely to face. They are a lot of fun, I'll concede that point, but we need to keep in mind that we all have limited training resources (time and money.) If one spends precious training resources doing things that aren't at all applicable to the task at hand, it means that something which is really needed won't get trained.
The second issue I have is that of safety. For any drill or any technique, the benefit of the activity needs to greatly outweigh the perceived risk. Perception, I need to emphasize, is relative. What is risky to a real-deal SEAL is very different than what is to you or me! A SEAL puts himself in extreme risk on every active mission, and as a result his training is correspondingly riskier. That doesn't mean that they take foolhardy chances, but it does mean that the nature of their job requires them to practice things that are far more dangerous than what you or I need to practice. A drill that would seem boringly safe to them may in fact expose us to an unnecessary -- and correspondingly unacceptable -- level of risk. A downrange drill (one where students are downrange of other students shooting), for instance, has some value to those guys whose job it is to kill people and break stuff; in my never-to-be-humble assessment, it has near-zero value to those of us who face criminal threats here at home.
Getting hurt in a training drill that has no plausible application to the average citizen's life is a double fail. How to avoid it? Be discerning in your training. I realize the overwhelming desire to relate one's reality-show-like adventures to the guys in the office on Monday morning, but being practical will make you better prepared. It will also ensure that you leave the class sporting the same number of orifices with which you arrived.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Marketing. Someone's gotta do it.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 Filed in:
Revolvers, Techniques &
Training
I saw one again the other day: an after-action review of a "snubby" shooting class. I think I'm missing the boat.
A snubnose revolver is fundamentally no different in operation than a non-snubnose revolver. It will have increased recoil, a shorter sight radius, and generally be a little harder to efficiently reload than a larger wheelgun, but that isn't sufficient difference to drop them into their own special class. Apparently some disagree, because the snubby classes are a rapidly growing subset of the training business.
This tailoring of classes to fit a specific demographic is all the rage these days. Actually, that sentence is a little generous; it's more the tailoring of the title of the class to fit a specific demographic. My general rule of thumb is that a class whose enrollment focuses on a factor external to the skills being taught is probably more marketing than anything else.
That having been said, I might someday decide to compromise my beliefs and promote a snubnose class of my own. Should that happen, I promise to feel slightly guilty on my way to the bank.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A great training weekend!
Monday, June 06, 2011 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training
I spent this weekend up at the Firearms Academy of Seattle teaching Combat Focus Shooting with Rob Pincus. This was the last leg in Rob's cross-country spring training tour, and a chance for me to see how he's pushed the state-of-the art forward in the year since we last taught together.
I've said that all instructors should jump at the chance to teach with (or at least observe without the distraction of being a student) a better instructor than themselves. It's especially useful to pick an instructor whose style -- and even material, in some cases -- is very different from one's own. It gives a fresh perspective and reveals the blind spots that we all develop over time.
This weekend was no exception. I came away with a whole bunch of new ideas that I hope to incorporate in my own work.
We had a good group of students, including one who had just recently bought his first gun. I always get a thrill out of watching someone go from zero to doing pretty complex tasks in just a couple of days, and this fellow really gave it his all. Two of the students were experienced instructors themselves and found that their first exposure to the advanced CFS exercises was as challenging to them as it was to everyone else.
Because the students were at various stages of ability, some came with bad habits from prior training. They weren't bad in the sense of being unsafe or dangerous but rather in the sense of not being appropriate to the task of surviving the sudden, chaotic events on which CFS focuses. We were able to have a good conversation about this important idea of context: that skills need to be judged in relation to the goal (efficiently making the bad guy go away after he's surprised you), and not to some separate and arbitrary measurement.
Marty and Gila Hayes, who run the Academy, are great hosts who bring in programs like Combat Focus Shooting in order to give their students a well-rounded view of the defensive firearms world. Even though CFS doctrine doesn't always agree with theirs, they know that perspective is important in this field. There are very few -- if any -- schools who are confident enough in the quality of their own programs to expose their students to new ideas. That's why FAS has evolved and stayed fresh over the years where other schools have become insular and hidebound.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to treat a badly sunburned elbow; apparently I missed a spot when applying the sunscreen!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Appeals to authority work both ways. Badly.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training, Self defense
Stan Kenton was a standout iconoclast in a field of music that is, by definition, iconoclastic. Some of his albums were a difficult experience because they demanded so much of the listener. If one is not conversant with at least a little music theory, much of what goes on flies right over the head.
I remember reading, somewhere in the intertubes, a critical review of a Kenton album from just such a person. The writer opined that Kenton's music just couldn't be any good, because none of his personnel had successful solo careers.
Aside from the sheer ignorance of that comment, it struck me that this person suffered a common logic fault: looking for some sort of validation of worth or quality based on an external factor. This fellow wasn't capable of assessing the music as it stood, but instead looked to a unrelated metric to back up his opinion (a metric that was't even correct!)
This happens frequently in all fields, to include that of shooting (specifically defensive shooting.) Rather than consider the logic of a technique or concept, many will evaluate what's presented to them on the basis of who else has adopted that same point of view. I've seen the question asked in all kinds of courses with all kinds of instructors: "what police agency/military branch/well known school teaches that?" A declarative version of the question is "so-and-so teaches something else, and he was a Navy Seal/in Desert Storm/on a SWAT team."
If one doesn't understand the material being presented, either due to not putting forth the effort to do so or because the instructor isn't taking the time to explain things, then one is left to rely on an external 'authority' to make decisions. If the context in which the authority evaluates something is different from the student's, it may not be relevant. It may not even be workable.
If you don't understand what you're being taught, and why, the burden is on you to ask questions. Respectfully, of course, but you still need to ask and get intellectual clarity on the subject. If your instructor himself uses the appeal to authority, justifying what he's teaching by telling you about the large police agency or secret military organization or champion shooter that uses it, that's not the answer you need.
When it comes to protecting your life, techniques and concepts need merit -- not endorsement.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Relevance and role models.
Monday, May 16, 2011 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training, Personal
opinions
A few weeks back I saw a picture of a defensive shooting instructor which bothered me. I couldn't put my finger on why, but something about it gnawed at my subconscious. I know the fellow only by what he's written (and by his association with a much better-known trainer), so it isn't anything that would stem from a personality conflict, and yet the feeling remained.
It finally hit me the other day. In the picture this fellow is wearing what is apparently his 'normal' complement of two autoloading pistols, both carried appendix style: one for the strong hand, one for the weak hand. Of course he had the requisite spare magazines and folding knife clipped in a pocket.
What's wrong with that? It's a free country and people should be allowed to carry whatever they want on their person. I agree wholeheartedly. The problem I have is role modeling, and it's one that I've become increasingly concerned with over the past few years.
Many instructors (and I'd say all of those with any reputation), to include yours truly, live the instructor lifestyle: we spend a lot of time around guns and shooting ranges. What we wear, what we can get away with wearing, is not what most of the people reading this blog can wear on a daily basis.
When you live on a shooting range you get to dress casually as a matter of course. Oh, there is the occasional donning of more 'dressy' apparel for an event, but such things are few and far between (and the 'gunny' is usually cut some slack for having a suit that is not of the highest quality nor properly fitted.)
Contrast this with what most people wear to their jobs everyday. I don't know many who can get away with wearing the untucked polo shirts that are all the rage amongst the appendix-carry crowd, let alone the IDPA vests and other accoutrement that a lot of folks in this industry wear on a constant basis.
In my own family there is a hospital administrator, a media anchor, and a speech pathologist -- none of whom can adopt the kind of weaponry and the style of carry that the majority of trainers espouse. My nephew could possibly get away with wearing an unbuttoned tropical shirt over a colorful t-shirt, but only because he works for a company famous for producing such tropical shirts. The rest of my family? Not a chance. My wife’s family? No. My huge extended family (over 30 first cousins on my mother’s side alone)? Less than a handful could. My neighbors? Not in their jobs. In fact, almost no one I know outside of the shooting industry could; their lifestyles, jobs, or environments just won’t permit it.
This is important because students tend to emulate their teachers, adopting not just their techniques but also their weapons and dress. The problem comes when they spend their weekends training with what I call 'guru gear' (I ought to trademark that) but switch to their actual daily carry equipment at the beginning of their week.
Training with ultra-fast appendix carry of a high-capacity autoloader on the weekend, but defaulting to a 'J'-frame in a pocket holster during the week, is not training in context: in the manner in which something will be used. Training courses are too often set up to reward the use of specific equipment, which gives the student a false sense of their abilities with the equipment they usually tote.
Walking around a range and showing students the kind of gear they can't carry, in a manner that they can't in their workday lives, isn't encouraging them to train in context. Doing so tends to influence them, through aspirational psychology, to train with gear that is different than what they'll actually be relying on come Monday morning.
I'm not sure that's terribly responsible, and it’s why the picture -- which could be of most instructors -- bothers me.
-=[ Grant ]=-
What happens when a competitor goes to a tactical conference?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Filed in:
Competition, Techniques &
Training
He discovers that maybe he didn't know as much as he thought he did. Great writeup of the NE Shooters' 2011 Summit over at The Tactical Wire.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Someone is talking about me. Oh, wait, it's me!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 Filed in:
My Life, Techniques &
Training
Over at the Personal Defense Network, they've put up a profile of yours truly. Based on an interview I did recently, it covers my views on teaching and the state of the training business. Hope you enjoy it!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Some more thoughts regarding 'force on force' training.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
The limitations of the equipment that we discussed in the previous installment aren't the only things that affect the utility of force-on-force training. The way that drills and scenarios are approached is important as well.
I'll use two terms to describe broad categories of FOF training. Drills are man-against-man tests of mechanical or physical skills: drawing the gun, moving off the vector of the attack, and so on. Scenarios, on the other hand, test decision making and information gathering skills. They may also include a physical/mechanical component, but their primary purpose is to test judgment.
At the top of the list, as it always should be, is safety. FOF training demands a sterile, segregated environment. Any course that doesn't enforce both should be avoided at any cost. The risk of accident is too high to trust anything other than a rigorous, and rigidly enforced, exclusion zone for live weapons. That means all weapons: firearms, knives, chemical and electrical weapons. The only weapons allowed inside the FOF training area should be simulated - and that goes for the instructors, too! If you encounter a FOF course where the students are required to disarm but the instructor(s) aren't, that's your cue to leave. Vociferously, I would add.
As I mentioned last time, a drill or scenario which continues past the first shot is suspect. As I’ve pointed out, the lack of ballistic effect on both ends of the muzzle means that multiple shots from a simulated handgun have little to no value. If the scenario or drill is set up so that the gun serves as a marker, a device to signal force has been used and how successfully placed that force might be, then there is no need for more than one shot. If, on the other hand, it is set up so that some predetermined number of shots have been fired or - worse yet - unlimited shots are allowed, then its value as a teaching tool must be questioned. Remember that any simulated munition has value only in that it provides first round accountability; after that, it's just recreation.
It’s common to see FOF drills that attempt to teach something which is affected by a student's foreknowledge. For instance, a student knows that he's in a FOF class, he's got a loaded sim gun in his holster, and he knows that the drill is testing his reaction time or ability to do a specific task. His anticipation of the need to shoot is sky high. If the technique works, all it shows is that the student could do it when he had advance warning of the event. Would it work if he wasn't already primed for action? The trouble is that this can't be tested in FOF, because there will always be that anticipation. FOF drills must be carefully selected so that the skill being developed or tested isn't negatively affected by that anticipation. They also can't be used to justify training that benefits from anticipation, a fault I see all too often.
I've seen FOF courses that employ students as both attackers/antagonists and defenders/protagonists. With the possible exception of what might be akin to a martial arts flow drill, where the same pattern is repeated multiple times to build familiarity, I don't see the point in letting students fight things out. The antagonist in a FOF drill or scenario is the agent by which the protagonist, the student, learns whatever lesson is being considered. I don't see where the learning occurs if both parties are ignorant of the lesson.
Allowing two students to go at each other, no matter how well coached, seems to invariably devolve to the the equivalent of a dodge ball game. This is exacerbated by the lack of ballistic effect which we discussed last time. Students as counterparts works; students as teachers, I'm not at all sure of.
Scenarios that test decision making are a natural use of FOF. Here, too, care must be taken to ensure that there is actual instruction. One flaw I see is that scenarios are designed with arbitrary outcomes, and the student spends his or her time not evaluating the environment for what it actually is but rather for what the instructor wants it to be. In other words, the scenario becomes a puzzle where the student is figuring out the instructor, not the situation. This is very common in 'tactical' shooting matches, and is part of the reason that even the best stage design isn't all that realistic. The scenario has to be designed so that the situation, the interactions, and the conclusion are all plausible.
That's easier said than done! It is very difficult for a scenario designer to avoid bringing his or her idiosyncratic biases into the design. Scenarios shouldn't be puzzles and shouldn't be difficult to figure out, but it seems that many people are intent on making them so. If the student is forced to examine vague and misleading clues in order to arrive at the 'correct' solution, how does that in any manner relate to a plausible real life interaction? It doesn't, and that's the point.
At the same time, the people playing the antagonists in scenarios have to be good actors. A thug on the street behaves in ways that we all recognize (or should recognize), and the person playing a thug needs to be able to replicate that behavior. If he/she can't, then the protagonist is back to figuring out the puzzle rather than reacting to a real stimulus. The actors must be well practiced and disciplined - again, another strike against students being used in such roles. (Heck, it may even be a big strike against many instructors. I know how a crackhead acts, but I also know I’m not a good enough actor to recreate one realistically enough to teach a student what such an interaction is like!)
This is true even in drills. The antagonist already knows what the student is going to do, or at least has a very good idea. That foreknowledge allows him to act and react in ways that a real attacker couldn't or wouldn't. This skews the results of the lesson, and requires that the instructor both take the role and be able to play it as 'straight' as possible.
It sounds like I'm not a fan of FOF. That's probably true on some level, because I don't think it has the wide application that so many think it does. I think that it has some use in very specific circumstances, but not as a general teaching tool. Its utility is probably in well thought out scenario training, and less so - perhaps much less - in simple mechanical drills. To be valuable it has to be carefully conceived and implemented, something that doesn't seem to happen all that often. It's not the ultimate test of defensive preparation, as some contend, but properly and sparingly used it can be valuable.
If, of course, it's done with care.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Some thoughts regarding 'force on force' training.
Monday, February 07, 2011 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
Force-on-force ('FOF') training has become all the rage in the last couple of years, with some instructors making it a hallmark of their courses. Everyone, it seems, is buying Airsoft pistols and touting their FOF credentials. Supporters of the concept have done a very good sales job, as I routinely am asked if my courses have a force-on-force component.
Such questions remind me so much of my college days working in a camera store. People would walk in, look at a lens, and proceed to ask how many elements it contained. That's a useless bit of information to anyone other than an optical engineer, but these folks had been told by someone, somewhere that it was an important question to ask. They didn't understand the question, and certainly didn't know how to interpret the answer, but by golly they were going to ask anyway!
I've played with FOF a bit (yes, I bought the requisite gas-powered Glock lookalikes.) Understand that I don't claim to be guru at FOF, nor am I a super-tactical-high-speed-low-drag-tier-one-operator kind of guy. I am, however, fairly intelligent, reasonably well informed, and possess an inexorably analytical mind. I can truthfully claim to be a good diagnostician - figuring out how things work and, more importantly, why they don't. I also don't believe everything I'm told, no matter how well sold it may be.
What I see too often with regard to FOF promotion is a certain lack of critical thinking about the concepts, and it starts with the equipment used. FOF naturally is limited to the ability of the equipment, so it's important to know what the gear does and does not do.
Whether AIrsoft or simulated munition, FOF guns all do one thing: to the extent that they mimic a gun you actually own, they give you first shot accountability. That's it. Read that again, because it's important to the discussion. This is all they do!
When you discharge an Airsoft in a drill or scenario, where the first round hits will probably be pretty close to where it would have hit had you used a real gun (within the range limitations of the pellet, of course.) In other words, if you used a simulated Glock 19 and you regularly carry a Glock 19, you can be reasonably sure that the first simulated round would be representative of a real round.
Understand that this is only true if the guns match. If you use the Glock Airsoft in FOF training, but actually carry a Beretta 92, the value of that first round has been diminished. You don't know for certain that you would have shot your Beretta just like you shot the Glock simulant.
Beyond the first round, the predictive value drops to near zero. This is because of a lack of ballistic effect, from the standpoint of both the shooter and the shootee. Simulated rounds don't have the recoil and muzzle rise of a real gun, so each additional shot can be made much faster, with greater precision, than can real rounds; the shooter's balance of speed and precision is skewed. If the technique you're learning in FOF only works when you can discharge 10 rounds in under a second, how valid will that be when you're using a real gun with which you can't?
Just because a person can land multiple, fast shots with an Airsoft does not mean that he'll be able to do so with a real gun. At the very least, he'll shoot a real gun slower and with greater deviation than a simulated gun. Any conclusions drawn from the second, third, fifth, or ninth shot with Airsoft or Code Eagle has virtually no predictive quality with regard to a real gun with real ammunition.
The first time I picked up an Airsoft and started doing drills this became clear. As I was going through the exercises I thought "I'm kicking butt!" I quite literally put down the Airsoft, picked up a real Glock, and tried the same thing on the same target. Surprise! I couldn't shoot nearly as fast, with nearly the deviation control, that I could with the Airsoft gun. What, then, was the value of those extra simulated shots from the standpoint of the physical shooting skill?
The lack of ballistic effect is important on the other end as well. The pellets - be they Airsoft or paint capsules - don't stop people. There is no effect on the target other than a small sting (if that), and there is no cumulative damage. This means that where a real bad guy might start slowing down with the first shot and might be on the ground with the third, the simulated opponent can continue full speed, full power charges through the tenth, twelfth, or fifteenth round. The rejoinder, of course, is that one never knows how many rounds it will take to stop an attacker (true), so one should keep shooting until the threat goes away.
This also is true, but we have to go back and reconsider the lessons from the preceding paragraphs: you can't shoot a real gun that way, and the target won't react that way, so where's the learning happening? It's a vicious circle: with simulated guns, the more rounds you fire in an attempt to be 'realistic' the less 'realistic' the exercise becomes.
This is the basis for my belief that, in most cases, force-on-force drills which continue beyond the first shot are probably not of great value. They may be fun, may be exciting, but one has to critically examine whether they're really teaching us anything that is relevant to an actual encounter.
Next time we'll look at the structure of FOF drills and scenarios, and some of the issues they raise.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
Winchester's top sellers: The Firearm Blog reports that Winchester recently released their top five (even though there are six listed!) pistol cartridges. The 9mm is not surprisingly in first place, and that favorite of law enforcement, the .40 S&W, is justifiably in the number two slot. Coming into third place is a bit of a dark horse - the venerable .38 Special.
What's most curious is the .380 ACP in fifth place. According to a Federal rep I talked with a few years back, the .380 wasn't a big seller. If I recall the conversation correctly, they only made a run of that caliber every other year, as they could easily warehouse enough for the intervening period. I suspect a combination of many new guns chambered for the round, and the big buying frenzy that resulted in widespread ammo shortages, conspired to create a pent-up demand. Once everyone has gotten their box (or two) of the 9mm Corto, then sales will drop back down to normal.
A little problem at Gunsite: According to AZcentral.com, a man was shot in the abdomen at Gunsite a few days ago. If you’ve seen pictures of their facility, you’ve seen the shoothouse with catwalks above which allows observation of the proceedings. Apparently a man was on the catwalk and silhouetted by overhead lights; the student saw his outline and shot it. Luckily the man survived the incident and is recovering.
Gunsite says that students are instructed not to shoot toward the catwalk, but the excitement of playing searchg-and-destroy games often leads to instructions being forgotten. If you have a facility in which you've hidden shoot targets, then challenged someone to find and engage those targets (especially under any artificial time constraints), such forgetfulness should not come as a total shock.
Yes, the guy who pulled the trigger is responsible for his rounds, and I am in no way excusing his behavior. However, it's the instructor's job to ensure that the benefit of any training outweighs the risks. I'm not sure what the benefit of having a live observer perched on a catwalk in view of the shooter is, but setting up a bank of monitors and some cameras with 2-way audio capability brings the risk to nearly zero. In this age of cheap, remote-controlled IP cameras, the practice of having people suspended above a line of fire is decidedly antiquated.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Your decisions need to be your own.
Monday, March 15, 2010 Filed in:
Techniques &
Training
After last's weeks column on school rivalries, I was reminded of an email I received some time back. The writer had asked my opinion on training with a specific instructor. He was concerned because, though he'd researched the instructor's program and thought it worthy of attending, something he read in a forum gave him second thoughts.
He sent me a link to the discussion, and it boiled down to something like "where's he been? What's he done? Nothing." There was no consideration of the program itself, or of the instructor's ability to communicate effectively with students. It boiled down to, once again, "my Dad can beat up your Dad."
The premise of the discussion was that having a certain number of years of military/police service was somehow essential to being able to teach defensive firearms use, and those who didn't possess such experience were unqualified to approach the subject. That struck me as illogical, and a quick search provided a proof: the "what's he done?" guy had once commented on a course given by an Israeli shooting instructor, calling it - in essence - nonsense.
If you've made "experience" a litmus test, intellectual honesty says that you can't cherry-pick the experience to include. In the case of the Israeli course, it was taught by someone with an operational background - that is, he's shot at people. Yet that experience wasn’t sufficient to earn the commenter’s approval.
Fast forward to the current discussion, and suddenly the instructor in question didn’t have “experience”, so he too was disqualified from consideration. So, you not only have to possess experience, but it has to be the right kind of experience - experience that doesn’t conflict with what the critic has already been taught.
Do I find the various incarnations of Israeli shooting instruction (of which I'm passingly familiar) useful? No. There is precious little there that has any direct application to private self-defense in this country. It serves the Israelis well, but for us it's a curiosity. The point I'm making is that their techniques, even though borne out of experience, are of no use in our context; their experiences are theirs, not ours. Their techniques have no validity relative to our needs, but if your only basis for comparison is “experience”, you’d have to give them due consideration.
How much better it would be to base an evaluation of any instructor or program based not on some arbitrary standard of where someone's been or what he's done, but rather on objective and rational analysis: does it make sense; do the techniques reflect reality; is the curriculum the product of hard data, or simply wishful thinking; is there more innuendo than fact in what’s being taught; most importantly, can the person actually teach?
Those are the questions I'd ask long before I'd concern myself with an idiosyncratic curriculum vitae. Remember the Israeli example: just because someone has "been there and done that" doesn't mean it's somewhere you'll be going, or something you'll be doing.
-=[ Grant ]=-
School spirit.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
Rivalries among neighboring schools are nothing new. They start in high school, and continue into college: here in my slice of heaven, it's the Oregon State University Beavers versus the University of Oregon Ducks. In Texas, it's the Aggies and the Longhorns. Alumni from the respective schools can get downright cantankerous when discussing the "other" team.
So too with shooting schools. Graduates of one school (or, more commonly, one instructor) hold their alma mater or guru to possess the "true way" and refuse to even acknowledge that others exist. In the worst cases, the arguments end up sounding an awful lot like "my Dad can beat up your Dad".
This came up the other day in a discussion I had with AFGWWWTRA. The term that sparked the conversation was "disciples", and I think that conveys the thought quite nicely. Once one has invested time, effort, and money into an area of interest it's hard to accept that there are other, competing, interests in the world which might just have validity as well. The guru becomes infallible, because if he/she isn't the disciple has wasted time, effort, and money - and who is ever going to admit to that?
I'm not immune; I went through a mild episode of school spirit some years back, but since then I've progressed a bit. I'm open to new ways of thinking and new methods of doing, and my attitude has gone from "so and so says this and it is immutable" to "show me why." The litmus test of any technique or opinion is not the logical fallacy of argument from authority, but rather that it makes sense given an open and agreed-upon criteria.
In an odd coincidence, I just started reading a book that explains this behavior, and as it turns out the concepts involved may have profound implications for self defense. They go well beyond the guru, school, stance, grip, or anything else, and deal with our behavior at a surprisingly base level. In other words, discipleship in and of itself, irrespective of doctrine or dogma, may affect how one performs in a violent encounter.
I'll have more to say when I finish the book.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday meanderings.
MY WEEKEND: It's not often I get to be a student these days, but it's important for any instructor to do so now and again. Last week I got an invitation from Jeff Varner, one of ICE Training's certified Combat Focus instructors, to sit in on his class in Vancouver. Unfortunately I had to cut out a bit early due to a prior commitment, but I enjoyed the class nonetheless. Thanks, Jeff, for the invite!
DRAW FAST, HOLSTER SLOW: Tam alerts us to a ND that happened at a Todd Green class. In his commendable reporting of the incident, Todd says "Never be in a rush to holster your pistol. We all know it, we say it, we teach it. Not all of us do it." So true.
As instructors it's easy for us to forget that reinforcement, and sometimes enforcement, are necessary parts of our job. Especially when we're dealing with "advanced" students, we tend to go easy on the reinforcement of fundamentals for fear that we'll be resented for belittling their ability or experience. We have to resist that tendency, and we need to do so consistently. When warranted, enforcement (up to and including ejection from class) has to happen.
The only instructor I've ever seen who is absolutely consistent in this regard is Georges Rahbani (TBRIYNHO.) Even in his advanced rifle classes, which are invitation only and have stringent prerequisites, you will hear "safety on" and "finger in register" (index, if you prefer) commands at the end of a string of fire. He never wastes an opportunity for reinforcement at any level of training or ability.
When Georges encounters failures to heed commands or instruction, he has a way of bringing the point home to the student: he/she has to publicly deposit a dollar bill into a pot. (The students have a friendly shoot-off at the end of class to win the pot.) This has a non-confrontational, yet still very chastening, effect on both the offending person and the rest of the students; I've seen it work on countless occasions. I don't know where the idea comes from, but I'm giving Georges the credit.
THE PROBLEM WITH ELECTRONIC SCALES: I recently sat down to work up a new .308 load. I turned on my RCBS electronic scale, waited a couple of minutes, and starting weighing charges. Much to my surprise, the weight of the charges thrown by my powder measure increased each time! I'd forgotten that electronic scales need protracted warmup periods before accuracy and repeatability can be expected. After a half-hour of warmup, it settled down and gave correct readings. Word to the wise: keep your mechanical scales around to double check the electronic ones, or buy a set of check weights.
HERE COMES DA JUDGE: From The Unforgiving Minute comes this gem:
"The inexplicable success of the Taurus Judge still depresses the hell out of me. Taurus keeps cranking out new versions, each more grotesque, hideous and nonsensical than the last, and people KEEP BUYING THE GODDAMN THINGS. Just another sign that our culture is doomed, I suppose."
(The opinions of the contributor do not necessarily reflect the views of the Management of this blog. Then again, they just might.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Thoughts on self defense training, Part 8: building blocks.
Monday, November 30, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
In a previous episode, I talked about doctrine, dogma, and cliché. One particular subject is very often the source of instructional dogmatism, and sometimes spills over into cliché: the shooting stance.
Since we're talking about self defense, let's start with the conclusion: as I study surveillance films of actual shootings, and as I play with the concepts of force-on-force training, I'm struck by the fact that violent encounters rarely involve an identifiable stance. The players, especially the defender, are shooting from whatever position in which they happen to find themselves.
If that's the end result, do we even need to worry about stances? Why do we bother spending the time working on the isoceles, Chapman, or Weaver stances when we're probably not going to be using them when reality comes barging into our lives?
Over Thanksgiving I was discussing this with Georges Rahbani ("The Best Rifle Instructor You've Never Heard Of".) For many years his 'Fighting Rifle' triad has started with basic stances ('platforms', in rifle-speak) and ended up with shooters using whatever stance they happened upon in the course of the encounter. He explained that a basic stance allows the student to do two very important things: first, to eliminate a variable that keeps them from focusing on the necessary stuff like trigger control and sight picture. Second, it helps to develop the level of confidence necessary to be able to control the shot no matter what. Once those have been achieved, the notion of a stance can be jettisoned on the way to a better understanding of a violent encounter.
Some may immediately think of the term 'training wheels', but I prefer to call the stance a 'scaffold': a temporary device that allows us to build something. In the case of a defensive shooter, we're building a skill set. Without the support of the scaffold - the solid, repeatable stance - it's difficult, if not impossible, to build those skills. With it, the student can focus on the truly important things, secure in the knowledge that they are operating from a stable base.
The problem comes when the instructor doesn't understand the true nature of the shooting stance. In those cases, the stance becomes an end unto itself: it drives the instruction, rather than serving as an instructional tool.
A few years back I had an encounter with an instructor who didn't understand this. He went to great lengths explaining why his preferred Weaver stance was the "only stance anyone should ever need." When queried about physical makeup, gun/hand fit, and other variables that affect the success or failure of any given stance with any given student, all he could do was sputter that the Weaver was "proven" to be superior. His dogma was well on the road to cliché.
I've met many shooters who were victims of such shortsighted teachers. More than once have I observed graduates of multiple shooting classes displaying the necessity of getting into just the "perfect" stance in order to shoot. Forced out of that comfort zone, they literally cannot hit the target. Their teachers were so focused on stance that they forgot about the rest of the act of shooting. The stance had become a destination, rather than the journey which it should be.
Roger Phillips, one of the new breed of fight-focused instructors, puts it very well: "Situations dictate strategies, strategies dictate tactics, and tactics dictate techniques……techniques should not dictate anything." Yes, you need to learn a stance that is comfortable and repeatable for you. Understand, though, that when shooting for your life your favorite stance is more than likely going to be abandoned for whatever position the situation allows. Wouldn't it be a good idea to train for that eventuality?
Use a preferred stance to build your trigger control and sighting skills; once that's done, learn to shoot from a 'non-stance'. Get used to being able to deliver combat accurate hits from any angle, any position, while still or moving. If you've used the basic stance properly, you'll find that you no longer need it (at least, for this kind of shooting.)
Ironic, isn't it?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Thoughts on self defense training, Part 7: teaching styles.
Monday, November 09, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
In my experience, those who teach the martial art of the gun exhibit several styles of instruction: doctrine, dogma, and cliché.
'Doctrine' is that core body of concepts/techniques which are (or should be) taught as a cohesive whole. They are the things for which an instructor or school becomes known. At their best, those concepts and techniques reflect reality; they fit together and support each other. They make sense when thought of as a unit. They reflect an overriding philosophy of instruction, and should not be in conflict with that philosophy or each other. Doctrine should be verifiable, and it should stand scrutiny. It should be open to question, and be able to answer for itself. Doctrine evolves, it progresses, as the world around it does.
When doctrine becomes stagnant, or a teacher becomes enamored with his/her own perceived infallibility, doctrine is replaced with dogma. Pronouncements are made, not based on reason or experience or research, but on the strength of the teacher's personality or reputation. Questions are answered dismissively, in a manner that reinforces the inferior status of the student. "Best practices" are replaced by "one true way"; dogma does not evolve, because it is self-reinforcing. Learning, in the sense of adoption of the dogma, may happen - but understanding rarely does.
The worst form of instruction occurs when the teacher has neither doctrine nor dogma. Instead, he relies on cliché: pithy sayings and one-liners that replace dialogue and reason. The cliché is delivered in such a manner as to take on a life of its own, as it has no context. It allows neither questioning nor independent thought, but rather aims to eliminate both. Its relationship to the world at large is tenuous at best; it is the perfect embodiment of the famous quote from Mythbuster's Adam Savage:
Cliché travels far and wide, because it's easy to remember. People may not understand it, but they sure can repeat it!
It's rare that an instructor spends all of his time in one style. He may switch patterns or incorporate elements of another style, depending on his goal and talent. The doctrinal instructor, for instance, may use cliché as a memory aid or mnemonic tool to help his students retain information, while the dogmatic instructor may use it instead to quash dissent or inquiry that threatens his authority. Every instructor will have a primary style, though, reflecting his abilities and grasp of the subject matter.
It's not unusual to find what started as doctrine is presented as dogma in less capable hands. For instance, an instructor may be a devotee of a certain school of arms. That school may have the best doctrinal approach to teaching, but when the student instructor brings the information back to his students, something is lost in translation. The instructor may not have understood what he was being taught, or simply lacks the talent to transmit that information to others. In either case, he may translate the doctrine into dogma and present that to his students. Like the grade-school game of 'telephone', the original intent is garbled.
That is, unless great care is taken to make sure that the student instructor truly understands the material, and is held to the same high standards as the school itself. That's rare in the firearms field.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Thoughts on self defense training, Part 6: response "systems".
Monday, October 26, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
Last week I mentioned that I'm not a fan of the Cooper Color Codes of Awareness. In fact, I think they're downright silly. Why? Because they serve no purpose, which makes them a distraction from learning something that might actually be useful.
The Cooper Color Code system was popularized by Jeff Cooper, the founder of Gunsite. The four Codes are, as Cooper explained them, "a means of setting one’s mind into the proper condition when exercising lethal violence." They describe "a mental state which enables you to take a difficult psychological step."
Let's start with his explanation: "into the proper condition." Who is to say what the proper mental condition is when facing a threat to one's life? Having talked to a few survivors, and having read the accounts of many more, one's mental state can vary tremendously: some are angry, some scared, some confused. To arrogantly proclaim that there is one mental condition with which to confront an attacker is quite presumptuous, particularly when all of those I've mentioned (and probably more I've not encountered) were sufficient to handle each incident.
I submit to you that the "difficult psychological step", which is the decision/willingness to use lethal force, is made before the attack occurs. In fact, it's one of the first decisions one makes when starting into the armed lifestyle. The sequence for most people looks something like this:
1) You first acknowledge that your life has value to you, and such value is greater than that of the person attacking you.
2) Because of that, you decide that you are willing to use lethal force to protect your own life, and the life of your loved ones.
3) You learn to recognize a threat (stimulus) in such a way that you have time to defend (respond.)
4) You train to perform the proper defense (response) to the threat (stimulus.)
Cooper says that the Codes are "a means of setting one’s mind." This says that they're intended as a guide or a system to achieve a specific result. This requires that one judge any input (the stimulus or threat) against the system (the colored 'conditions'), then adopt the indicated response. Who is really going to do that? "Ooops, I can't go into Condition Red yet, because the situational parameters aren't all in accordance!" Silly, no? Silly, yes!
It also assumes that one is in complete control of one's physiological state. The problem with this line of thinking is that the response activity isn't digital or discrete. It is a continuous spectrum, with many things (including adrenal response and activation of the sympathetic nervous system) completely out of the individual's control. What happens when one component is in one condition, and another is at a different one? Nothing, of course, but a system requires that they must be reconciled - otherwise, of what use is the system?
The Codes are completely arbitrary combinations and ignore the fact that fights are idiosyncratic things, as are the responses of the defenders. The state of mind of the person holding the initiative (say, as a soldier or a law enforcement officer) is quite different than that of the person forced into a reactive response to an attack. Particularly for the latter, the states are quite irrelevant; the only thing that matters is the appropriate response to a specific stimulus at a particular time.
The Codes do nothing in the way of guiding those responses. Cooper himself said that they were not intended to do so, but again: if they are not a guide, of what use are they? If what he says is true, why are there specific response recommendations for each condition - down to whether or not your gun is in its holster? The system, at least according to the originator's own description, is self contradicting.
When faced with a threat a human being performs both instinctive and intuitive actions, the specific combination of which will vary depending on the situation. To try to constrain a person's responses to an arbitrary combination (whether one admits to doing so or not) is the equivalent of forcing everyone to wear size 14 boots regardless of their foot size.
It seems to me that instead of memorizing a bunch of colors, then obsessing about what color you are "in", it is better to spend your mental currency on training appropriate stimulus/response combinations. The Codes sound tacticool as all get-out, but that's about all they do. They serve no real or actual purpose, and in my opinion only obfuscate the situation.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Thoughts on self defense training, Part 5: you can't get there from here.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
Most people go to Gun Skool because they believe it will teach them "how to be safe." As I opined last time, learning to shoot does not necessarily make one safe; learning how to identify and avoid conflict does. These folks are simply asking more of the institutions than they're able to provide.
As I noted in one of the first installments, the market for firearm training is quite small relative to the number of gun owners. If a firearm trainer wants to stay in business, he/she must provide what the market demands, and the market demands SHOOTING!
In class after class I've seen student evaluations come back with a consistent complaint: "not enough!" They want more shooting, more "super ninja warrior secrets", and more talk about 9mm vs. .45ACP. Gun Skools respond by upping round counts and shoehorning in more techniques ("we'll show you 53 different ways to perform a tactical reload!") to satisfy the preoccupation with hardware. This leaves precious little time for teaching any of the 'soft' skills that would actually keep the students safe.
Consider this: the typical class is 2 days long, usually over a weekend. I once roughed out a syllabus for a very basic class in observational skills, one designed to improve the student's ability to gather and analyze the information that abounds in the world around him/her. That's a pretty narrow focus, but even given that - and a reduced number of skill building activities - it still wouldn't fit in an 8-hour day. (I'm very big on actually building skills in class, not just introducing a topic and then dashing off to another topic.)
Now imagine a Gun Skool offering a self-defense class where the students spent more than half their weekend working on things that don't go "bang", are never going to go "bang", and in fact are all about NOT going "bang". I can confidently guarantee that the students would complain to high heaven: "I came to shoot, not sit in a classroom!" A few sessions like that, and the Gun Skool would be out of business.
Because of the hardware-centric curricula, whatever proactive/preventive elements that could be covered usually get reduced to a short and ambiguous lecture about 'awareness' (remember what I said last time?) and a presentation of the Cooper Color Codes (which I abhor - but that's another article for another day.) Again, they are providing what the market demands.
There are also limitations on what they are capable of providing. Sadly, in my experience, most Gun Skool instructors just aren't conversant enough with the concept of proaction/prevention to do it any justice, even if their students would allow them to try.
In order to properly address the issues, an instructor needs to have familiarity with a wide range of fields related to how the brain acquires and uses information: neuroscience, psychiatry, cognitive development, neuropsychology, and emerging fields such as neural hermeneutics. It requires him/her to know about things like thin-slicing, pattern matching, mirror neurons, and conscious and unconscious functions of the brain. That's just for starters.
How many 'gunnies' do you know with that breadth of knowledge, and how many of THOSE are capable of transferring that knowledge in usable form to a student? Not many - if any - I'll wager.
It's the chicken and the egg: without a good institution to teach those topics, there is no place for other instructors to learn them to teach the next generation of trainers. Instead, they focus on what they already know: hardware. The result? More classes that teach people 53 different ways to reload their pistol.
That 'other stuff' is intellectually challenging to study, difficult to present, and on top of that isn't terribly sexy. That's a tough sell.
More to come...stay tuned.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Thoughts on self defense training, Part 4: fundamental misconceptions.
Monday, October 19, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
In the last installment we looked at the idea that most people - due to a lack of training and resulting options - tend to use the gun as a first line of defense. To those owners the gun is a talisman, imbued with the ability to keep its bearer safe and sound simply by its presence. The problem with this line of thinking is that the gun, being a reactive tool, cannot keep you safe. It can only help you deal with that which has made you unsafe.
Let's look at the word 'safe'. It means "not exposed to danger or risk; not likely to be harmed." The implication is clear: to actually be safe, one must avoid violent incidents in the first place. That's not what the gun does.
The gun's function is to extract the user from an incident once it has begun. Massad Ayoob often says that the gun is best thought of as a "rescue tool", in the same functional league as a fire extinguisher or first aid kit. Neither of those items prevents anything, but they do make it possible to survive something. The gun needs to be approached with the same attitude.
Safety in the personal sense requires layers of protection that are operational before the gun is ever needed, (hopefully) precluding the need to even draw the thing. These layers consist of both early warning (to let you know that something is a potential threat) and deterrence (prompting the threat to migrate to another, easier, target.)
It's important that you not think of layers in broad terms; they are individual things that together are stronger than they are alone. One layer might be a thorough understanding of criminal behavior, another could be the manner in which you walk, still another could be a flashlight to illuminate dark corners or a motion sensing alarm system. Think "micro", not "macro".
You can't, for instance, say that one of your protective layers is "awareness." Awareness isn't a thing that you can acquire in an of itself; it's a state that exists as the sum total of a number of observational or data-gathering skills, some of which are instinctive and some of which are intuitive.
Once the proactive/prevention layers have been breached by the criminal, then - and only then - is it time for the reactive or rescue layers to be brought into action. By now you should guess where this is going: most of us spend our training time on the reactive/rescue skills, because it's a lot more fun than the other stuff. The result is that the 'soft' skills are often woefully underdeveloped. The prevention part of the equation is weak, leaving nothing but the reaction part to pick up the slack.
The result is that no matter how nice and tight the groups are, no matter how fast the draw, an increase in shooting skill probably makes one no safer than the person who didn't get that level of training. The quantity of shooting classes and the number of certifications and master ratings is really quite irrelevant, if the gun is being used for relatively low level tasks. Without security layers interposed between the gun carrier and the assailant, that's what happens.
(Be very clear: this doesn't address the personal gratification that one might get from achieving those things, which may be considerable. We're focusing solely on the safety aspects of increased shooting skills.)
That's because you generally can't learn the proactive/prevention stuff at Gun Skool, and next time I'll explain why.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Thoughts on self defense training, Part 3: how much is enough?
Saturday, October 17, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
How much training is enough? That depends, of course, on the nature of the training - but it also depends, perhaps to a greater degree, on how it's used.
As I hinted last time, an onion gives us a good framework to both build and evaluate a defensive posture. The onion, as you know, is composed of many layers; to get to the center requires that one remove layer after layer. It requires a certain amount of dedication to do so, because you can't go through Layer #3 without first getting through Layers 1 & 2.
Ideally, our self defense posture should be similarly layered. To breach each successive layer should require more skill and determination from the attacker than the last. The assailant has to be capable of getting through the layers, and must really want to do so. The thinnest layers stop the less able criminals, while the more robust layers serve to thwart those whose skill level is higher.
As it happens, there are more of the former than the latter. For instance, there are lots of people who play baseball as a recreational activity. Go to just about any park and you'll see lots of local league games. Most of the players are better than the average guy off the street, but usually not by a lot. A subset of those might have been good enough to play ball in high school; fewer still on a college team; maybe, occasionally, you'll encounter one who managed to make it to a semi-pro club. The chances of finding a player who ever took the field in the majors is slim to none - there aren't a lot of those people around. The lower the skill requirements, the more people participate.
Criminals are like that, too - there are more petty shoplifters than jewel thieves, because the skill necessary to rip off a DVD from Target is considerably less than stealing a million-dollar necklace from Donald Trump's home.
The outer layers of our defensive onion are those things that serve to discourage the least skilled, and the largest number, of the criminal fraternity. One of those outer layers might consist of a well honed ability to unconsciously make visual observation of what goes on around you, and to predict from scant data an impending assault. This doesn't seem to come naturally; it is learned. Because there is virtually no place where it can be learned (short of a self-directed study regimen), I think most people end up with observational skills that leave something to be desired.
For them, the gun tends to serve as a replacement. It defaults to being one of their outer defensive layers because there is no other outer layer. When it does get pointed at an assailant, it is probably against the least skilled and least motivated of attackers, simply because they are the most numerous. (I am not suggesting that the gun is necessarily used inappropriately, only that it may end up being used in situations that developed outside of the defender's base of knowledge.)
This, I think, partly explains why so many people are able to defend themselves with a gun, even without specialized training. If the situation is relatively simple, with an adversary who is not all that motivated, you just don't need to be a Navy Seal to prevail. As attackers ascend the ladder of skill, motivation, or numbers, so too must the ability of the defender.
Ironically it's the person with the well developed outer defensive layers, the one who is least likely to find him or herself in trouble, who needs firearm training the most. This is because the gun will be one of their inner layers and only exposed to attackers with a superior skill set, the inferior having been put off by the lesser layers.
In other words, the less likely it is that you'll need to use your gun, the more training you'll need in how to use it - because your assailants will be more dangerous.
Unfortunately, most people do it backwards. I'll save that can of worms for next time!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Thoughts on self defense training, Part 2: where is the value?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
Does firearm training have any real value?
(In this discussion understand that I'm not referring to basic handling and safety instruction, such as the NRA famously provides. By training, I mean the defensive or 'tactical' courses provided at various private facilities: Gunsite, Front Sight, Thunder Ranch, and all of the smaller and lesser known schools across the country.)
Getting back to the reason for this missive, I'm intrigued by the notion that if one possesses a gun, then one must have (with the emphasis on must) a certain kind of training in order to stand a chance of successfully using it in a self defense role. History would suggest otherwise.
The wide availability of training in the martial art of the firearm is of relatively recent vintage. Despite practical firearms for personal carry being available for more than 150 years, it's really only been in the last 30 that firearms schools oriented toward self defense have become commonplace. For well over a century, people apparently got along just fine, thank you, with no tactical training at all. Perhaps their father or uncle showed them how to load and unload the gun, and perhaps they got a few pointers on shooting, but that was it.
Even in this day, with quality instruction more available than ever, the number of people who take serious firearm training is still a very small fraction of total gun owners; a niche, if you will. A huge percentage of the gun owning public apparently doesn't feel a pressing need to go to Gun Skul, yet they seem to prevail far more often than not in encounters with criminals.
Why? Because the highest probability of personal attack comes in the form of what can be termed the low-level crime. There are more simple attacks, perpetrated by the simplest of attackers, than complex attacks carried out by skilled criminals. It stands to reason that a low-level attack can be defeated by the simplest of tactics - that of presenting a gun. This explains why so many confrontations are thwarted without firing a shot, and while people without training seem to win with great regularity.
The problem is that not all attacks fit that mold. As we get further out on the scale of attack magnitude, training becomes more important. This opens up a serious can of worms, however: what kind of attacks justify more training? How much training, and of what kind, is enough? Is enough ever enough?
The answer is more complex than you might think, but can be explained just by looking at an onion. Seriously.
Next time.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Thoughts on self defense training, Part 1: it starts with attitude.
Monday, October 12, 2009 Filed in:
Self defense, Techniques &
Training
Last Wednesday I asked you
to consider the concept of self-defense training, specifically as
it relates to the use of firearms. This was inspired by the
comments over at Breda's, some of which I think show
an incomplete understanding of the concepts involved.
Specifically, I'm interested in the assertion that one needs to learn some amorphous concept called 'mindset' in order to prevail in a defensive encounter. In discussions of this nature, one often sees simplistic equations like "gun + mindset = success", along with the assertion that this 'mindset' can only be learned at Gun Skool. Without 'mindset', the proponents claim, the gun is next to useless. (Some stop just short of saying that the gun moves from being an asset to being a liability without it, a belief which comes uncomfortably close to one of the gun-grabber's favorite arguments.)
I've taken - and helped to teach - a few 'advanced' gun classes, and I've sat through many a lecture on 'mindset'. Perhaps it's my own insistence on precise terminology, but I must confess that even my 158 IQ cannot attach a consistent meaning to the term! Trying to derive one from the myriad of explanations extant makes me feel like I'm in the famous Monty Python sketch regarding the Spanish Inquisition:
Let's start at the beginning. When we look at the data brought to us by people such as Gary Kleck, one thing stands out: in the vast majority of self defense cases involving a gun, a shot is never fired. The mere presence of the gun, lawfully presented, is enough to convince the assailant that it would be prudent to select another (softer) target.
The gun, though, is just the medium through which the staunch resistance of the defender is the clearly communicated. Without that desire for and dedication to self preservation, the gun would most certainly be rendered ineffectual. Massad Ayoob has said it best: "Understand that criminals do not fear guns. They are, after all, an armed subculture themselves. What they fear is the resolutely armed man or woman who points that gun at them."
"AHA!", some of you are thinking. "That's the mindset that you can only get with training!" I contend that it is not.
In order to be resolute, as Ayoob describes, one must first possess the innate belief that one's life has value. One must value one's own existence above that of the criminal, otherwise one is unlikely to muster the unwavering commitment to self preservation that so unnerves the attacker.
Domestic violence provides us with the most visible lesson. Part and parcel of the abuser's behavior is to nurture within the victim - slowly and methodically - the idea that her life has no value. Once conditioned, the abuser has no fear that the victim can ever mount an effective defense against his cruelty, because she assigns greater value to her tormenter's existence than to her own.
(Please note that the genders are simply for your author's convenience. I am aware that domestic violence is sometimes woman-on-man, and in gay and lesbian couples there is obviously no gender difference. The dynamic of the abuse/abuser relationship, though, remains pretty constant.)
The unthinking spout "if only the woman would have a gun and proper training, she would never be a victim of her partner!" Here's the reality: it doesn't matter how many rounds she fires, how many mindset lectures she attends, or even if she openly carries her gun. If she doesn't believe, deep down and completely honestly, that her very life has value, she may never be able to defend herself against an attacker - whether or not that attacker is known to her.
Again, this isn't just a female thing. There are plenty of males who lack that basic belief in their own right to self preservation, such attitudes having been systematically denigrated over the last couple of generations. Man or woman, if the belief in one's own value as a human being is missing, it needs to be restored before self defense can become a reality.
This requires some extended time with a mental health professional who understands the issue and can guide the patient to a new understanding of his/her place in the universe. It can't be done in a weekend course with a shooting instructor who barks orders and carries a custom blaster on his hip - no matter how many times he works the word 'mindset' into his collection of cliches.
Am I saying that training has no value? Of course not, but that's the subject of Wednesday's treatise. Stay tuned.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Specifically, I'm interested in the assertion that one needs to learn some amorphous concept called 'mindset' in order to prevail in a defensive encounter. In discussions of this nature, one often sees simplistic equations like "gun + mindset = success", along with the assertion that this 'mindset' can only be learned at Gun Skool. Without 'mindset', the proponents claim, the gun is next to useless. (Some stop just short of saying that the gun moves from being an asset to being a liability without it, a belief which comes uncomfortably close to one of the gun-grabber's favorite arguments.)
I've taken - and helped to teach - a few 'advanced' gun classes, and I've sat through many a lecture on 'mindset'. Perhaps it's my own insistence on precise terminology, but I must confess that even my 158 IQ cannot attach a consistent meaning to the term! Trying to derive one from the myriad of explanations extant makes me feel like I'm in the famous Monty Python sketch regarding the Spanish Inquisition:
Let's start at the beginning. When we look at the data brought to us by people such as Gary Kleck, one thing stands out: in the vast majority of self defense cases involving a gun, a shot is never fired. The mere presence of the gun, lawfully presented, is enough to convince the assailant that it would be prudent to select another (softer) target.
The gun, though, is just the medium through which the staunch resistance of the defender is the clearly communicated. Without that desire for and dedication to self preservation, the gun would most certainly be rendered ineffectual. Massad Ayoob has said it best: "Understand that criminals do not fear guns. They are, after all, an armed subculture themselves. What they fear is the resolutely armed man or woman who points that gun at them."
"AHA!", some of you are thinking. "That's the mindset that you can only get with training!" I contend that it is not.
In order to be resolute, as Ayoob describes, one must first possess the innate belief that one's life has value. One must value one's own existence above that of the criminal, otherwise one is unlikely to muster the unwavering commitment to self preservation that so unnerves the attacker.
Domestic violence provides us with the most visible lesson. Part and parcel of the abuser's behavior is to nurture within the victim - slowly and methodically - the idea that her life has no value. Once conditioned, the abuser has no fear that the victim can ever mount an effective defense against his cruelty, because she assigns greater value to her tormenter's existence than to her own.
(Please note that the genders are simply for your author's convenience. I am aware that domestic violence is sometimes woman-on-man, and in gay and lesbian couples there is obviously no gender difference. The dynamic of the abuse/abuser relationship, though, remains pretty constant.)
The unthinking spout "if only the woman would have a gun and proper training, she would never be a victim of her partner!" Here's the reality: it doesn't matter how many rounds she fires, how many mindset lectures she attends, or even if she openly carries her gun. If she doesn't believe, deep down and completely honestly, that her very life has value, she may never be able to defend herself against an attacker - whether or not that attacker is known to her.
Again, this isn't just a female thing. There are plenty of males who lack that basic belief in their own right to self preservation, such attitudes having been systematically denigrated over the last couple of generations. Man or woman, if the belief in one's own value as a human being is missing, it needs to be restored before self defense can become a reality.
This requires some extended time with a mental health professional who understands the issue and can guide the patient to a new understanding of his/her place in the universe. It can't be done in a weekend course with a shooting instructor who barks orders and carries a custom blaster on his hip - no matter how many times he works the word 'mindset' into his collection of cliches.
Am I saying that training has no value? Of course not, but that's the subject of Wednesday's treatise. Stay tuned.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Reality - what a concept.
Yesterday, Tam asked "I laugh at the sight of the pimped tactical N-frame, too, but why?" Allow me to explain with some fuzzy dice.
Yes. You read that correctly - fuzzy dice.
If you go to a car show featuring hotrods from the '50s and '60s, a common sight will be a pair fuzzy dice hanging from the rearview mirror. They're always carefully chosen to complement the paint color, and I've even seen fastidious owners arranging the dice "just so" to get the proper look. Fuzzy dice are an accepted, and expected, part of the decor.
Take those same fuzzy dice, run over to the Tour de France, and hang them from Lance Armstrong's bicycle. No matter what color dice you pick - to go with his jersey or the bike's paint - they'll just look silly. Fuzzy dice on a racing bike? Preposterous!
Yet, objectively, the function of the dice has not changed. That is, they really have no function. They don't do anything, they serve no architectural or mechanical purpose, they simply have mass and occupy space. They derive whatever value they possess from the context in which they occur, but that value is not intrinsic; it exists only because the context allows it to exist. Think of it as Second Life with mag wheels.
Once taken out of the expected setting, stripped of the value of that context, the reality of the fuzzy dice becomes apparent. Understand this: whether on a '57 BelAir or Lance's Trek Madone SL, fuzzy dice are silly. In the former case, we don't see them as silly because we've been conditioned to accept them in that environment. In the latter, if every Tour de France competitor were to carry them for a few years - perhaps a decade or more - they would become part of that context too. They'd still be silly.
The same is true for the tacticool accessories Tam questions. (A bit of a correction: the device hanging at the muzzle isn't strictly a white light - it's a combination light and laser.) We're accustomed to seeing lights, lasers, and milspec red dot scopes attached to autopistols. In the gun rags, in the movies, and especially in video games, we're told that "serious" guns carry these things. Tough guys, warriors and operators, have these on their guns. Thus the context is constructed, such that we no longer objectively analyze the value of those things.
Putting them on a revolver takes them out of context. (After all, "operators" don't carry revolvers!) Once out of context their true worth becomes easier to evaluate, and laughter is the result.
This whole idea of context is particularly important to those of us interested in the concept of self defense. There are a lot of instructors out there who teach what can only be termed range tricks. In class, the instructor's reputation and manner of delivery combine to create a reality distortion field that even Steve Jobs would envy; in that context even the silliest ideas sound valuable. They may be useless and even counter productive, but if the student can't evaluate them outside of their context that reality will be hidden.
The same thing happens with people who get their firearms training from Hollywood - what I've heard called the "Mel Gibson School of Firearms". In the movies, the good guy always orders the bad guy to drop his weapon. The good guy gives the bad guy a chance to redeem himself, to straighten out his horrible life and repent for his sins. Naturally the bad guy doesn't take that opportunity, wheels around to shoot the good guy, at which point our hero drops him neatly with a single shot. Roll credits.
Inside the context of the movie script, this seems perfectly plausible. Through repetition the scene is burned into our subconscious, to the point that we start to accept it as normal. Unless we learn to force ourselves to evaluate the behavior outside of the theater we may find ourselves repeating it.
This apparently happened to a certified good guy up in Washington a few years ago, who faced a gunman in a mall. From all reports, it seems the good guy drew his legally carried gun, then challenged the bad guy to drop his. Life isn't like a movie, and the rampaging gunman simply shot him - five times, paralyzing him permanently.
It's important to develop both the ability to look at things objectively and critically, and the judgement to recognize when it's necessary to do so. I'd say that anything dealing with defensive firearms needs such evaluation.
As for fuzzy dice...
-=[ Grant ]=-
You're reading...
The Revolver Liberation Alliance!
The blog about revolvers, training, self-defense, and shooting in general (along with an occasional surprise!)
Follow me!
My new book is available on Amazon!
Accessories
Ammunition
Blog stuff
Competition
Completely irrelevant
Current Events
Friday Surprise!
General gun stuff
Gunsmithing
History
Humor
Hunting
Legal Issues
My Life
Personal opinions
Political Action
Recent work
Reloading
Revolvers
Rifles
Second Amendment
Self defense
Shooting industry
Shotguns
Techniques & Training
Technology
Things I like
What's New!
Ammunition
Blog stuff
Competition
Completely irrelevant
Current Events
Friday Surprise!
General gun stuff
Gunsmithing
History
Humor
Hunting
Legal Issues
My Life
Personal opinions
Political Action
Recent work
Reloading
Revolvers
Rifles
Second Amendment
Self defense
Shooting industry
Shotguns
Techniques & Training
Technology
Things I like
What's New!
- .38
- .357
- abandoned
- accuracy
- afgwwwtra
- apps
- ar15
- armed.citizens.network
- attacks
- autoloaders
- awareness
- bloggers
- book.of.the.revolver
- books
- ccw
- classes
- colt
- combat.focus
- computers
- dammit
- design
- dogma
- ed.harris
- failures
- flashlights
- futility
- georges.rahbani
- good.pr
- gp100
- grips
- gun.skool
- gunstore.goons
- holsters
- i.told.you.so
- incredible
- jazz
- kaboom
- knives
- legal.stuff
- lever.actions
- lubrication
- magic.bullets
- maintenance
- massad.ayoob
- me.want
- msm
- music
- my.bad
- mythbusting
- nasa
- nra
- old.technology
- optics
- oregon
- personal.defense.network
- photography
- podcasts
- practice
- preppers
- proarms
- prohibitionists
- reliability
- rhino.revolver
- rimfire
- rob.pincus
- root.beer
- ruger
- s&w
- safety
- science
- shot.show
- sights
- snake.oil
- snubby
- sources
- speedloaders
- stopping.power
- stupid.people
- tacticool
- tactics
- thats.odd
- ugly
- uscca
- vintage
- waiting.list
- women
- workmanship
- wtf ?