Gun courses are not training.

[PeteG]

As part of the tactics course we delivered this past week-end, I discussed my views on taking a lot of firearms courses as a means of preparing to defend oneself or ones family. Many people are prone to post that they have "trained with x and y and z," or "have 960 hours of training." I have done so myself in the past. But it is a loose and misleading use of language I intend to avoid going forward.

I have (how many hours I forget) of instruction, and probably ten percent that much supervised firearms training. The difference is no more semantic than the difference between "qualification" and "training." So long as we want words to mean something, using the wrong words will confuse our thinking.

Training implies a deliberate process of repetitions. As in "training a dog" (although in the case of a dog we hope the deliberation is on the part of the trainer, not the dog).

If you ask a boxer, a weight lifter or a gymnast how often they train, the answer will not be "I took a course with this guy and then a course with that guy and last week I took a course with that other guy." The answer will be expressed in hours or days per week. (And, incidentally, if those hours or days per week are not extended over a number of years, the individual will invariably be regarded as a novice.)

So, if one took the five-and-one-half-day long 250 Pistol course at Gunsite in 1995, there was lots of instruction, and even a little bit of training, because there was time for some supervised application of the skills and repetitions. I have observed that current three-day Level I hand gun courses given by the best instructors set forth comprehensive instruction on the subject, but it is not training, and the good instructors do not pretend it is. If one took a two-day "basic pistol" course in 2012, there was (we presume) some instruction, but there was not enough time to either cover the subject from an instruction point of view or to do any training.

For example, being told how to effectively dry fire, what that process accomplishes and why it's important, is instruction. Spending 15 minutes five days a week doing it is training.

It just takes time and dedication. There is no substitute. Therefore, while the two-day course is more convenient, you may as well go buy another new rifle and continue to pretend you are capable of fighting with it effectively. While the three-day course from a good teacher is enormously useful, without follow-up you will quickly lose everything you gained by taking that course. Taking another three-day course from another guy in six months is not "follow up."

The more complex the skill, and the more important unconscious application of the skills is to a good outcome, the more important the training aspect of the larger learning process.

The evening of that discussion, my friend Tony later sent me a link to some material from a couple of guys who, over the years, have made quite a study of violent people and violent encounters. I don't mean "FBI statistics show" studies of violence (although there is a little of that). I mean talking to and working with and reviewing the histories violent people in violent circumstances. Here is a short excerpt of their discussion of martial arts training as it relates to education in the matter of self-defense:
. . . .

Three, martial arts is training, but people mistake training for education. There is a BIG difference.

Education is a generalized introduction to many issues. Whereas training -- by its very nature -- only addresses specific conditions and problems.

For example that SWAT officer's high risk entry training isn't going to help him control a drunk in a bar. Furthermore, the conditions he is operating under are not the same as your needs and concerns. So his training won't work for your self-defense needs. Nor will training that works for you, work for an officer.

Self defense is an issue requiring education AND training.

You will learn very specific things in the martial arts, however, that doesn't mean you are prepared to handle all those situations we described above.

That is where education becomes an issue. Starting with the fact you need to be educated about what self-defense is and isn't.

It's another take on the distinction between "education" (I say “instruction”) and training. The link can be found at http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/AreMASD.htm

These guys are controversial in some circles. (It seems anybody who says anything of substance pertaining to firearms or fighting is instantly put upon by those who cannot stand being irrelevant to the conversation.) But do not let ad homonym attacks distract you the central point. It's important we recognize the ratio of instruction to training, in ourselves and in those who profess (in any form of words, by implication, or in their own minds) to be "highly trained."

Peter

[Shodan]

So what you're saying is "we talkin' about practice?"

[DaveM55]

So if you don't provide training, are you then not an instructor?

I'm soooooo confused.

[Mtbkski]

So if you don't provide training, are you then not an instructor?

I'm soooooo confused.

Touche'. Good point.

[GunLawyer001]

Seems to make sense.

When I sit down with a group and spend 4 hours discussing the applicable laws on firearms usage, self-defense rules, and other "rules" applicable to gun ownership and use, it's not really "training". It's a necessary component of wise and responsible gun ownership, it's a good idea before anyone enters the arena and declares himself ready to use a gun to defend himself and others. But it's sure not some Karate dojo where we all repeatedly act out scenarios (I absolutely HATE role-playing).

Without practice, the education has less meaning. But without understanding of the rules and concepts, the value of drills and practice is extremely limited, unless you're willing to be turned into a robot who shoots any civilian when you hear the command "GUN!" Ordinary people have to know how to act independently, and understand the difference between a car break-in and a home break-in, between stopping a fight and stopping a murder, between preventing future harm and punishing what was already done.

You really need to understand what you're engaged in, and you need some actual familiarity with the gun's capabilities and your own capabilities. Knowing to shoot COM is a moot point if your shooting ability is limited to "generally in a westward direction". You need to know if you are able to pick off the head of the kidnapper who's holding your kid, without shooting your own kid instead.

I don't think that the average citizen needs to spend a week each year running Hogan's Alley, in order to be reasonably prepared to defend his self and family. But too many people buy a gun and shove it in a dresser drawer, and think "now we're safe". And too many people believe that the John Wayne rules of deadly force apply, and that "the son-of-a-bitch had it coming" is a valid legal defense.

Anyone who expects to out-draw a robber truly needs some practice in drawing and firing.

[Koli01]

So if you don't provide training, are you then not an instructor?

I'm soooooo confused.

If he does not provide training, he is not a trainor.
He does however, provide instruction, so he is an instructor.

[PeteG]

So what you're saying is "we talkin' about practice?"

Yoi!

I have NO idea what that guy was talking about.

I guess that's the point.

[PeteG]

Anyone who expects to out-draw a robber truly needs some practice in drawing and firing.

Anyone who expects to out-draw a robber fails to understand the process of robbery.

[Shodan]

Yoi!

I have NO idea what that guy was talking about.

I guess that's the point.

Well known and often made-fun-of clip of former NBA player complaining about having to go to practice.

To your point though, I took it to mean that one has to know the difference between being instructed how to do something, and practicing it enough (training) to be proficient.

[GunLawyer001]

Anyone who expects to out-draw a robber fails to understand the process of robbery.

In a world where almost all of what we know about gunfighting is from TV and movies, "practice" helps to winnow reality from what we "know". Practice shows you your real-world limitations.

That being said, there was a scene in a "Miami Vice" episode where they hired a serious gun expert (Jim Zubiena) to play a killer, and he drew and fired a 1911 so fast that I could believe he could get away with it.

Here, watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA-xIssgT-o