General Categories > Information Arsenal
Time to make some new friends...
JTH:
....because I'm so good at it. (cough, cough)
Awhile back, a fellow shooter posted an article in a local gun club's newsletter, talking about "What Makes a Professional Firearms Instructor," in which he said: "Generally speaking, I would venture to say some of the best instructors have Law Enforcement (LE) and/or Military backgrounds." Unsurprisingly, he is a current LEO and former military.
He also said: "Just so we are all on the same page, a few examples of different types of instructors I’m referring to are; Hunter Safety, Trap, Range Safety, NRA, Competition, Defensive Shooting, and Tactical (Law Enforcement / Military-life and death)."
I personally would have thought Defensive Shooting would have qualified as life and death, but maybe that's just ole civilian me talking.
Most of the rest of the article was about specifics of professionalism, with respect to firearms training, and didn't make any more commentary about what types of instructors were the "best".
But reading those two quotes, it really seemed to me to solidly encapsulate some of the major logical errors many people seem to have about shooting and teaching expertise. We see the statement that LEO/military folks make the best instructors--even though there is no actual reason to believe that being in those categories means any actual teaching ability. In a similar fashion, we see the direct statement that LEO/mil classes are life and death because they are tactical, but self-defense apparently isn't.
And lastly, many people seem to think that LEO/mil folks automatically have expertise with firearms.
I don't get it. I really don't.
This isn't a dig on LEO or military folks. I know (and shoot with) plenty of LEO and military guys (and girls) and just like the rest of the population, most aren't very good with pistols, some are decent, and a few are outstanding. In a similar fashion, just like the rest of the population, only a few here and there are actually any good at teaching.
That's perfectly normal.
And an amazing number of people seem to think that military tactics and/or police tactics match what citizens should learn for self-defense.
I don't get it.
When did being a 2nd Lt in the Army Reserve for a few years due to being commissioned after an ROTC program (in Political Science) translate into "extensive military experience"? Why does having 27 years of law enforcement experience automatically make you proficient enough as a teacher of firearms that you can teach advanced self-defense tactics?
(Both of those examples are chosen from real-life cases, the first of which is part of the bio of a national-level instructor, the second of which is part of the bio of the person who had people pointing guns at the back of other student's heads in the classroom.)
Sure, there ARE a number of LEO/military people who are excellent shooters, and excellent instructors. But why is it that there is this assumption that they are automatically expert shooters who know how to teach self-defense (noting that most police officers don't ever end up drawing their sidearm while on duty in their entire career, and many military folks don't even touch pistols hardly at all).
I don't get it. So, as normal, I wrote about it.
http://precisionresponse.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/leo-and-military-folks-know-guns/
HuskerXDM:
I figure the people who aren't coming to me for instruction because I don't have military or LEO background wouldn't have listened to me anyway. So I'm okay being a teacher by trade, and an instructor by choice. Pretty much agree with you.
DenmanShooter:
Totally agree. Although experience is important, in order to instruct the instructor needs to be able to convey information.
Just because someone is knowledgeable does not automatically ensure they are able to pass on that knowledge.
There are those who are "natural" instructors. Able to pick up almost any subject, research it and impart information to others in a meaningful way.
OnTheFly:
There is a similar mythology in aviation. Many people think that a military pilot is much better trained than a civilian pilot. I will grant you that the military's accelerated flight program where you take a zero hour pilot and in a very short time have them do a controlled crash of several tons onto a football field length landing strip beats anything offered in the civilian world. But beyond the initial training, they are just pilots.
I've flow with many military pilots and I've never seen them do anything magical with an airplane that I couldn't do.
Fly
Mudinyeri:
First and foremost, the author said "generally". Speaking in general terms, it is fairly rare for a civilian to have more experience with firearms than someone who has served in the military or in law enforcement. That's probably not the case amongst NFOA members, but it seems to hold water as a statement about the general population.
Second, virtually all military and LEO do have firearms experience. I'm unaware of any branch of the service - maybe the Coast Guard is an exception - where weapons qualification is not a part of the basic training. Active duty law enforcement are required to qualify on a regular, if not frequent, basis with their duty weapon. Does that make them experts? Not necessarily. On the other hand, it does give them more experience than most civilians. It is certainly rare for a civilian, who has never served in the military or law enforcement, to have experience on the "two way" range.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version