"You don't know what you don't know," and being the instructor doesn't change that.

[PeteG]

Based upon the following of your remarks, I see you are still around, ankle biting, your questions as a "student in the area" are disingenuous, and you are trolling:

"I assume you're discussions on what is legal and not legal are without error?"

"This example... Are the details 100% correct? Sounds like you're trying to disparage a fellow instructor and competitor in the area. Who?"

"How have you kept aware of developments in the shooting arts? Looking at your instructor bio shows me that you've had training from essentially a singular source, rooted to Gunsite, and haven't strayed where others have. Since I haven't been able to legally own a handgun and didn't have a financial means to participate prior my window into this world begins around 2008. Much has changed since then."

I will not report "who" have served as my examples, for two reasons. First, I am NOT about disparaging another instructor. (I do not have "competitiors," as I am not in the training business.) Second, you don't actually want to know.

Your professed "assumption" that my "discussions" on what is legal and not legal are without error is undoubtedly wrong, and I would never make such a claim. Everyone makes mistakes, a lot of finer legal points are debatable, and in the end it is what a jury decides in an individual case that matters. But I can confidently say that being possessed of specialized legal training, having 35 years of practice, and having made hundreds of court appearances in firearms related cases, my views, opinions and predictions are correct much more often than those who have no legal training, have never practiced in the area and have never had actual responsibility for defending someone facing the power of a zealous prosecution. (It's not clear to me why that's got your lower lip stuck out, but it seems like something I don't want to know.)

As for my personal shooting background, your information is obsolete and incorrect. More important, my personal shooting methods are completely immaterial to what I posted. No matter if one holds his arms locked or bent, extends his rear leg or not, prefers a "C" clamp grip or a "D" clamp grip, or prefers .45 to 9 mm., the law governing his conduct will be exactly the same.

[PeteG]

An example of "the fallacy of common sense," where you have holes in your knowledge, and think you can fill in the blanks by common sense. But "common sense" is just the extrapolation you make based on your personal experiences. Sometimes that works, but sometimes reality is not "logical." The law is an example of this.

Precisely.

We live in an age where argument often supplants fact and experience.

[PeteG]

There are a very small percentage of people out there that make a full time living as firearms instructors with a lot of people looking to get in. I've seen the huge stack of resumes on my bosses desks. As it is even some of the best are only hired as adjunct contractors. At least in this field at the high end of the scale where people might actually have a chance of making a living, if you DGAF, are incompetent, are a blowhard, have a big ego, can't teach a powerpoint or a simple skill or you don't have a basic level of abilities in what you teach, you are practically duct taped and thrown out the door. I've seen guys disappear so fast it's like a magic hand reaches down and sucks them up like a big Shop Vac.

That has been my experience as well, in larger organizations where organizational prestige and money are on the line. (And a lot of good instructors get the boot for political reasons as well.) But where to those guys who are ushered out go? When they can't perform in a setting where their performance is reviewed, a lot of them just hang out their own shingle. Now what?

[twency]

Based upon the following of your remarks, I see you are still around, ankle biting, your questions as a "student in the area" are disingenuous, and you are trolling:

"I assume you're discussions on what is legal and not legal are without error?"

"This example... Are the details 100% correct? Sounds like you're trying to disparage a fellow instructor and competitor in the area. Who?"

"How have you kept aware of developments in the shooting arts? Looking at your instructor bio shows me that you've had training from essentially a singular source, rooted to Gunsite, and haven't strayed where others have. Since I haven't been able to legally own a handgun and didn't have a financial means to participate prior my window into this world begins around 2008. Much has changed since then."

I will not report "who" have served as my examples, for two reasons. First, I am NOT about disparaging another instructor. (I do not have "competitiors," as I am not in the training business.) Second, you don't actually want to know.

Your professed "assumption" that my "discussions" on what is legal and not legal are without error is undoubtedly wrong, and I would never make such a claim. Everyone makes mistakes, a lot of finer legal points are debatable, and in the end it is what a jury decides in an individual case that matters. But I can confidently say that being possessed of specialized legal training, having 35 years of practice, and having made hundreds of court appearances in firearms related cases, my views, opinions and predictions are correct much more often than those who have no legal training, have never practiced in the area and have never had actual responsibility for defending someone facing the power of a zealous prosecution. (It's not clear to me why that's got your lower lip stuck out, but it seems like something I don't want to know.)

As for my personal shooting background, your information is obsolete and incorrect. More important, my personal shooting methods are completely immaterial to what I posted. No matter if one holds his arms locked or bent, extends his rear leg or not, prefers a "C" clamp grip or a "D" clamp grip, or prefers .45 to 9 mm., the law governing his conduct will be exactly the same.

Who and what is this diatribe directed at?

[PeteG]

Who and what is this diatribe directed at?

Post No. 12 - a Troll who always takes gratuitous shots.

[Gunsnwater]

I can translate HK pretty good but this! OMG! Don't know what you don't know. HSBM MOTO.

[orionz06]

Based upon the following of your remarks, I see you are still around, ankle biting, your questions as a "student in the area" are disingenuous, and you are trolling:

"I assume you're discussions on what is legal and not legal are without error?"

"This example... Are the details 100% correct? Sounds like you're trying to disparage a fellow instructor and competitor in the area. Who?"

"How have you kept aware of developments in the shooting arts? Looking at your instructor bio shows me that you've had training from essentially a singular source, rooted to Gunsite, and haven't strayed where others have. Since I haven't been able to legally own a handgun and didn't have a financial means to participate prior my window into this world begins around 2008. Much has changed since then."

I will not report "who" have served as my examples, for two reasons. First, I am NOT about disparaging another instructor. (I do not have "competitiors," as I am not in the training business.) Second, you don't actually want to know.

Your professed "assumption" that my "discussions" on what is legal and not legal are without error is undoubtedly wrong, and I would never make such a claim. Everyone makes mistakes, a lot of finer legal points are debatable, and in the end it is what a jury decides in an individual case that matters. But I can confidently say that being possessed of specialized legal training, having 35 years of practice, and having made hundreds of court appearances in firearms related cases, my views, opinions and predictions are correct much more often than those who have no legal training, have never practiced in the area and have never had actual responsibility for defending someone facing the power of a zealous prosecution. (It's not clear to me why that's got your lower lip stuck out, but it seems like something I don't want to know.)

As for my personal shooting background, your information is obsolete and incorrect. More important, my personal shooting methods are completely immaterial to what I posted. No matter if one holds his arms locked or bent, extends his rear leg or not, prefers a "C" clamp grip or a "D" clamp grip, or prefers .45 to 9 mm., the law governing his conduct will be exactly the same.

Disingenuous? BS and you know it. Tell me here, PM, or email. You should still have my email as I have paid you money as a student. Perhaps the company in question is one we both know of to do some questionable things. Given the seriousness of this stuff it's always good to be able to have a trusted source of instruction to send people to.


My comment on "without error" may have been too much of a dart, setting a tone that made you grumpy, but you did cover it so I thank you for that. I have seen a few people read a few articles in an NRA mag and speak like they attended law school.


As for my outdated information it can be found here on your training companies website: http://www.fireinstitute.org/pete_training_resume.htm

[PeteG]

As for my outdated information it can be found here on your training companies website: http://www.fireinstitute.org/pete_training_resume.htm

Look at the dates. That hasn't been updated since 2008.

And I am not going to let a chronic detractor sucker me into bad-mouthing another specific school or instructor, so you can revert to accusing me of trying to deprecate "a competitor."

If you don't believe instructors are putting out incorrect legal theories or misstating the law, then don't worry about it.
Other people may wish to consider whether the legal information they are getting from non-lawyers may not be correct, and they can ask pertinent questions about the instructors qualifications as a source of legal advice.

[orionz06]

Look at the dates. That hasn't been updated since 2008.

That is correct. Wasn't sure if you had taken time off.

And I am not going to let a chronic detractor sucker me into bad-mouthing another specific school or instructor, so you can revert to accusing me of trying to deprecate "a competitor."

Critical thinker. I am critical of everything, some people can't handle it or think they are above being questioned. Those are the types who probably need questioned the most. In this world we absolutely have to be critical. I am critical of every trainer I pay money to. I am critical of their image and how it could appear in court if I wind up there. If someone is out there teaching some BS and I might be a potential customer of theirs I don't want this to come bite me in the ass. I am sure you're aware of a bunch around our area offering training at our range, or trying to, and having their "leader" make the national news.

I am confused by the quotes on competitor...

If you don't believe instructors are putting out incorrect legal theories or misstating the law, then don't worry about it.
Other people may wish to consider whether the legal information they are getting from non-lawyers may not be correct, and they can ask pertinent questions about the instructors qualifications as a source of legal advice.

I absolutely believe they are. I believe I've even paid money to hear it.

[markshere2]

Quote Originally Posted by RockIsland View Post
I've come to the conclusion that at least 50% of all people in every field are either completely incompetent, or just don't GAF, or both.

Wow... if that applies to a field like rocket science (physics/aerospace engineering) then astronauts are fucked... and MDs then we're all in trouble.

Naw. Astronauts have a high wash out rate prior to selection. they're in the top 5% before astronaut training.

Doctors on the other hand......... ewwwww.

Absolutely 50% of the population is stupider than average.