No, I didn't write this one.
Of the people in the article, I have
extremely high opinions of 5 of them as knowledgeable, national-level trainers, and
very high opinions of 5 others as people who are both good trainers and extremely knowledgeable about the specific topics they are addressing. (Other people might move people around within those two categories. No matter what, those 10 people are known to be highly knowledgeable critical thinkers who have spend time looking at not only what the research says about their topics, but also how people in classes react to that knowledge.) Some really good stuff here.
And I'm not impressed with the other guy, but everyone knows that.
"Not long ago, much of what passed for self-defense training was based on guesswork and anecdotal evidence. But despite the wealth of knowledge we’ve now accrued, certain flawed practices and beliefs are still widely accepted within the firearms culture. They just refuse to die.
I recently spoke with 11 respected experts and instructors in the defensive firearms community to get their take on which of these ideas and myths they believe are the most damaging. Here’s what they had to say."http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/self-defense-myths-just-wont-die-11-experts-weigh/Some really good stuff, other than Pincus as usual seems to miss the point.
Someone elsewhere has already said #3 is wrong---but having read quite a bit from Claude Werner, I know full well he isn't saying that skill isn't important. Tamara Keel already phrased it well: "You can be the fastest and most accurate shooter on the planet, and if you're not paying attention to what's going on (or, conversely, you're a the two legged equivalent of a "fear biter" dog), I don't think that skill is going to help much." He isn't saying that skill isn't important. He is saying that critical thinking is MORE important.
As for those who think that Pincus is saying something similar, I disagree. He doesn't use timed drills at all (even though he himself says they measure skill performance) and yet claims his training is "the best" at making people better. I fully agree that having people make choices as part of drills is very important, and variable-choice drills are great ones to use. But...somewhere in there you also need to get your performance up to par. And without timed drills, it is difficult to do so, because if nothing else you have no idea where you are. It sounds as if Pincus is merely saying "choice-type drills are more important" but given the way he teaches training, I'm thinking he means it more strongly than that, and I strongly disagree with him. (And there's a reason why both he and his students don't ever actually put their skills on the clock, in my opinion.)
I am amused to see that two different people (Tom Givens and John Hearne) both not only advocate for aimed shooting, but provide specifics backing their opinion. I'm not amused because I disagree--quite the contrary, I
strongly agree. I'm just amused at a number of trainers I've had arguments with lately who will STILL insist that under stress you can't use your sights, all evidence to the contrary.
Except for #10, good food for thought. And if you take #10 as "variable-choice drills are really important along with timed drills," that's a good one too, IMO.
The thing that makes me most happy about this is that here are some things I've been saying to the people who have taken my classes:
--Talisman thinking will not work. "Having a gun" is not the answer, and carrying it will not automatically protect you.
--No, the gun that "feels best in your hand" is not necessarily the best choice of self-defense gun for you.
--Firearms skills are important. But learning about violence, awareness, setting boundaries, and legal defense actions are in many ways more important if the reason you have a firearm is self-defense.
--Automatic responses generally mean you aren't thinking. That's not good.
--Take a class from multiple people in the area. You might find that one person teaches you best, or you disagree with others. But if you haven't actually looked at what anyone else has to offer, you don't really know that what you are learning is really best for you. (Quit saying "Trainer X is the best in the area!" if you have never taken a class with anyone else.)
--If you are good at fast, accurately aimed fire under stress, then you can point-shoot as necessary with little problem. If you can only point-shoot, then you won't be able to do any better under stress. And you
CAN use your sights under stress.
People who have taken my classes have all heard variations on those (plus I won't shut up about some of that on Facebook or here, either)---and it is nice to see national-level folks weighing in with similar opinions based on their significantly-more-extensive training, knowledge, and experience.
