Old Dog said:
Taliv, I reread Spaulding's essay, and it seems to me that he's really preaching about the instructor attitudes, and the attitudes of those who now seek training, with regard to the perception of what an instructor is supposed to look like, how he (or she) is supposed to act on the range ..
It is inevitable with the number of people trying to make money teaching shooting, tactics and combatives that people with certain attitudes will enter the profession. And Mr Spaulding is overlooking an instructor or two from the "good old days" who had an "attitude".
Old Dog said:
as well as the general intolerance among certain instructors toward what other instructors teach,
This is a natural effect of a larger number of instructors chasing a limited amount of training dollars. We don't think anything of it when people selling different products disparage the competition.
Old Dog said:
and the fact that many of the training consumers accept some doctrine as dogma, and go out of their way to reject other doctrine, especially in public discourse and on the internet.
There are "fan boys" of just about every product and service offered. I don't know why anyone should be surprised that firearms training is no different. There are people who only drive Fords or Chevys, people who will look you in the eye and tell you that if you carry a gun with a caliber smaller then .45 then you are not serious about self defense. There are people out there who will espouse throwing knives as the weapon of choice. People are people and it's unrealistic to expect that everyone interested in self defense takes the same studious interest in the subject as you do.
As for the internet. Alcohol can only dream about lowering people's inhibitions the way the internet does. People get online, make up a screen name and they think they are anonymous and can say anything they want to and there won't be any repercussions. There is a lot of work done by the staff here to maintain the level of online discourse we have. And it grates on many people who feel like they have a right to be inflammatory, all you have to do is read some of the threads in Tech Support about how over moderated we are. The internet is what it is, and I don't think it's going to change and if you are a professional who has an online presence you need to have a very thick skin or limit your online activity to a closed forum of vetted members.
Old Dog said:
I'd agree that every citizen should be as proficient as possible on The American Rifle, but I also think it's silly that some facilities charge an a small fortune for weekend carbine classes and try to make their often overweight, out of shape civilians with no prior military or law enforcement experience believe that by Sunday evening, they're ready to go clear alleys, courtyards and buildings in Fallujah, make 600-yard kill shots on Taliban leaders in the Hindu Kush or be first in on a pre-dawn raid of a cartel drug house ...
It's what sells. I've taken a lot of carbine courses to stay current on what I teach. I've never been to one where the instructor tried to convince the student that they are ready for any of those things after 16 hours of training. But I know there are some out there who do. That's what they sell. I honestly believe that there are people who would spend big money for a true combat experience. There is almost no danger in our society, despite what you read. Most Americans live very safe, orderly lives with the most physical danger they face involves driving or riding in an automobile. Military service is not the universal experience it was prior to 1973. There is a huge segment of the population that doesn't have the desire to put on a uniform and actually do it, but would gladly pay good money for a taste of it. I always wonder how much fun they would think it was after the 5th or 6th consecutive day with 3 hours sleep, little food and no showers. Like I said in my earlier post, I don't see the harm in it.
Old Dog said:
Yeah, it's fun to do the Walter Mitty thing and play make believe; I'm a firm believer that a day of training beats working any day, but Spaulding also touched on training that teaches people what they need to know, not simply what is the fashion of the day.
I don't know how you would do this in the private sector. What one needs to know isn't nearly as sexy as kitting up with all of your high speed low drag gear and pretending you just fast roped out of the Chinook as you step onto the line. The instructors who teach this are simply responding to demand. Yes it would be great if the public was more interested actual training, but it's not. Look through the threads here in ST&T and see which ones get the most responses. And I like to think our membership here is a little more in tune with training then the shooting community at large.
He also pointed out the immense egos at play within the instructional community along with the various cliques.
There always has been. This is nothing new.
Old Dog said:
Who here hasn't taken a training class and heard an instructor disparage a technique taught in one of his competitor's classes?
I can say that I haven't in any training that I paid for out of my pocket, but then I'm pretty selective and know what I am looking for. I have heard it from instructors provided by the military or the department though.
Old Dog said:
I disagree. I think Spaulding is suggesting that it's a fundamental responsibility of those who take the job of training people in the serious business of firearms to divest themselves of ego, quit trying to portray an image, and just get down to the business of figuring out what their customer base really needs to know at each level.
One can take that attitude if one is working for a military unit or a law enforcement or private security company where you have a captive audience. When you are trying to put food on the table with the money you are making teaching shooting, you have to give the public what it wants. If you don't, you and your family will starve while the guy who teaches the "Become an Operator in 24 hours on the range lives in fat city.
For instance I've been thinking a lot about writing a manual on training methodology, planning, conducting and managing an effective training program. But I'm not past the planning stage because I'm pretty sure that few people are interested in the nuts and bolts of running a training program so it wouldn't be viable.
Old Dog said:
I personally think that there are now a number of facilities out there teaching civilian consumers just to make money with even a few places teaching citizens stuff that they can't possibly put into context even after a "long" 5-day course ...
It's always been about making money. No school, not even the "Tier 1" schools that date back to the 1970s operates at a loss. Instructors who work for military, LE or security companies and have a salary can take a holistic attitude. Everyone else has to eat.
