Do you think that the proposed instructor certification rules are going to go into effect as we've seen them at http://www.livejournal.com/users/joelro ... 40387.html ? Or will they be modified into something more or less reasonable?

I think 80/20.....good/bad. But, telling my students ...get your permits right away... just in case....Oct 1 not that far off. Then of course, we have the "thou shalt not " bunch.

TT

I told a buddy who just missed getting his permit before the last lawsuit to get it before the new regs go into effect. I don't think he's going to listen to me. All I know is that I'm safe until 2008!

Steelheart

Learning to employ lethal force is a perishable skill. There is no enough emphasis placed on that in most classes that I have heard people speak of!

I think the changes in the law are good and bad. Perhaps weeding the below fine examples of CCW instructors in the metro area!

Some of the people doing classes have no clue as to be teaching effective use of lethal force. Case in point, one fellow started spewing that several CCW permit holders were out hoisting a few adult beverages, and supposedly some would be robbers enter the establishment. He relates that some of SPPD finest were there, and about 8 people drew down on the robbers. Great lore and stuff, but why spread BS? Not impressive, nor is it when this same person said he is a CCW instructor and carries daily a SW 500? Now that is really impressive! NOT To me it is totally irrespobsible to consuming adult beverages while carrying!


Then this gets better. Out at one of the private clubs, fellow comes into pistol bay. He sets up his targets. Then proceeds to try and impress me with his shooter resume! First statement, " I am a Glock Armorer". Next, statement, " I am one of the CCW instructors at Indoor Range(south of MN River)", and the last statement " I have been to Thunder Ranch".
This must be his shock and awe approach to winning hearts and minds of fellow sportsmen. But, the absolute best part was while practicing his presentation and engagement skills from 30 feet, he was putting rounds any where but center of mass! This display of range prowess just melted me, I just about jumped up and said sign me up for your next class! NOT!

I think that there are people out to make a quick buck, ie the fellow that takes a student to eat at Pukins first. Then takes them to the range. This is reminiscent of Plus P Inc training, before the law as taught by Darrel. 7 hours of war stories concocted on the fly, and 50 rounds of range work! What a freaking joke!

Well, thanks for your comment. I knew things were going to heat up a little here, sooner or later.

Firstly, while Darrel was a friend of mine, and I knew enough to take his stories with a (large) grain of salt, looking both back -- and forward -- there wasn't a one of them that didn't have a good point, and at least several of them were independently verifiable, although usually exaggerated. He was like that.

Secondly, how much shooting training one needs perhaps ought to depend entirely on how much experience you've already had. Staying out of trouble when possible is something you can use every day; actually shooting somebody is, thankfully, very rare for permit holders.

Basic familiarity training? For those who are beginners, that's what beginner training is for, after all. NRA Basic Pistol, B2C, etc.

No question: shooting is a perishable skill. If you take a few months off, when you go back to the range, you'll see that. But that is target shooting, after all, even if you're using a Transtar II.

And while I'm big on practice, I'm with Darrell on this one: there's a lot of evidence that under stress, much of what one's been trained to do goes away, until the stress is over. And the folks who talk about things like "muscle memory" and "you will default to your training" often -- usually -- are expressing a hope, not something for which there's any evidence.

(Check out the LA shooting, some years ago -- we've got great video of the LA cops, all of whom were trained in the Weaver stance, none of whom were using the Weaver stance.)

As you probably know from reading my book, that's the sort of thing that's persuaded me that a carry gun must point well for the person carrying it, with an instinctive grip, in an instinctive, Modern Isosceles stance. (If you're one of the tiny number of people who can, under stress, take up a Weaver stance, bring the gun up to eye level and focus on the front sight for the "flash picture," you've got my congratulations and envy; I doubt I'm one of those.)

What the law requires -- and reasonably, I think -- is a simple demonstration of proficiency. By comparison, the state-mandated proficiency requirement in North Dakota was ten rounds at a B2 or similar target in five minutes (yes, minutes), with seven of the ten shots hitting the target. I don't know of any instructor in Minnesota who doesn't use rather stricter standards than that.

But it is what it is: it's a demonstration of proficiency, as required by the law. That's all. It's not a miniature Gunsite, or Thunder Ranch, or LFI, or Blackwater, or BUDS/SEAL school. I'm not knocking any of those -- and I'm hoping to put a couple of those (not BUDS; on the best day of my life, I couldn't have lasted an hour) on my schedule -- but that's not what is, or should, be required, in my opinion.

Moving on: "consuming adult beverages while carrying"... there's a reason why the law sets a limit -- a low limit -- for people carrying. I don't think there's anything wrong with completely avoiding alcohol while carrying, but -- speaking for myself -- if I'm out to dinner with my wife or some friends, and I feel like having a short beer or a glass of wine over dinner at a nice restaurant, I don't think that's irresponsible. (Getting involved in "drawing down" on robbers, if you've got another choice, is a bad idea whether or not you've had a beer.)

Do you disagree?

Hmm... I'm not sure what your point is, actually; that seems to be a scattershot posting. But let me pick up on just a couple of things:

* Absolutely, people have "fallen back" on bad training, and good. No question. But the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "data." It's a long way to go from a few anecdotes -- of people doing what they'd been trained to do and of people not doing what they'd been trained to do -- to get to "you will fall back on your training." At best, it's "you might or might not fall back on your training."

* If you don't want to give up on the notion that practice guarantees success, that's your call. I think that we live in a stochastic world, myself, and that not everything we do or are is subject to our own control.

* I took Darrell's class, repeatedly, and I never heard him say you were legally required, in Minnesota, to retreat in your home; I heard him say -- and I agree -- that if it's feasible, it's a better thing than engaging in a shootout in your home.

* I wouldn't want to be in court at all, charged with any crime, but, as a matter of fact, I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion that I can have a beer, and if I'm unlucky enough to have to get involved in a confrontation, any tests will show that my BAC doesn't begin to approach any legal or other limits. It's just not a big deal. Do you know of anybody who was convicted because he or she had a BAC of, say, .01? (.08 is the legal limit for driving; .04 is the legal limit for carrying in public.) It's a nonissue, in my opinion.

Drinking heavily while carrying? Different story.

* As to what the AACFI qualifications are, or should be, as I may have mentioned a whole bunch of times, I don't speak for AACFI. I don't speak for NRA, either.

I had a blonde moment or two!

[Or more than a couple. For those who missed out on the excitement, "Ardent Observer" has been banned from the Forum for repeated boorish behavior, despite several warnings, and the rest of his post has been deleted. --The Management]

That's my point -- there isn't hard data about the benefits of training. There's a lot of strong belief, approaching a religious conviction, that training will be applied in real life, and when people who were putatively well-trained fail to act on that training in real life, the excuse is always, "well, they weren't trained enough."

There's also plenty of data about the limitations of training, and that's not new. Read SLA Marshall, just for a start.

You know, I suppose, that the miss rate for cops on the street is huge -- 88% or better, 21 feet or less. Find me a department that does train them -- or an instructor group, that does the same -- to hit at better than 75%, on the street, and then gets that kind of result for, say, ten years.

I'll wait.

Mea Culpa....or not. I'm one of those rank amateurs with just a pc of paper who continues to offer what the market demands.

I don't even attempt to teach any one who takes my CARRY class to shoot. That's not what they want and not what i give them. ALL of the folks who come to me are informed upfront that this is NOT a class for someone with no firearms experience.

The state requirements for the old MPPA were posted and my students get exactly that and nothing more. Anyone who requires/requests actual shooting classes are offered same.

Depending on what the new regs mandate i will continue to present a class that reflects what the customer wants.

I realize that more than a few experts will get their undies in bundle over their preception of how i SHOULD teach my classes. Well, i'll get over it....

oops, i'm over it....

his point is if you don't go to a DE class you're not trained at all......of course he probably is a DE Instructor....

The idea of standards is so that there is a minimum skill level to which all permit carriers are trained. I have no problem with this as long as they are reasonable. Training in self defense law is reasonable. Requiring that they can hit COM at typical gunfight distances is reasonable. Having the skills of a Delta Force operator is not. The big problem is where do you draw the line? Self defense situations run the gamut from avoidence to a full blown firefight with multiple assaliants. I believe that each person that carries a gun needs to understand that by carrying a gun you are betting your life that your skills are good enough to win in any situation you get yourself into. It is a personal resposibility to evaluate the possibilities and train to a standard your comfortable with. A couple of things to remember. It takes a lot of repetetions to ingrain a technique and all techniques can be made to work with sufficent practice. The more instinctive a technique is the more resilent it is to lack of practice. It is far better to pratice the basics until they are ingrained then to dabble in a lot of advanced tactics.
Mike

That your self defense plan and training really don't mean a thing once the first round is fired... Unless of course the BG is following the script you laid out.

Watch the videos from the cars of officers involved in shootings; there is no classical weaver stance, no elegant two hand hold, no front sight focus, you don't even see a 'combat stance'; nothing they were taught on the range came into play!

A sniper from 100 yards is another story...

I took the +P course, and I was more than happy with the training I received. I have been around firearms my entire life (50+ years now), and while target shooting skills will atrophy with disuse, placing 3 rounds inside a 1" diameter circle at 200 yards is not what I need to do to protect my life in a close encounter.

I have found that the point shooting method I learned from +P is very effective, and so natural that it is very well retained with little practice. At least, that is my experience, and will provide at least one data point to build on!

Besides, since when have 'adult' learners who choose to pursue a subject become a special education project? Motivated adults are far easier to teach than indifferent children! At least I found that to be true when I taught computer classes.

very good post...

Spoke with Campion's office today. Now the standards are at the Guv's office....revisions etc. Asked when ..didn't really get an answer. Asked how, because the public process has been so secretive, ....told that standards would be published on BCA website or Sheriff Assoc. website (still under construction, which they were not aware of.)

Your guess is as good as mine.