Instructors' Quantity vs. Quality

Part 1: Quantity versus Quality

The next several blogs are going to be a series dispelling some myths about self-defense.  First, we have to recognize that there are two applicable definitions for self-defense.  One is an industry that teaches shooting, fighting, stabbing, tactics, etc.  The other is the more important definition of self-defense, which is the legal finding of a justified use of force.  I will try to make a distinction in the following between the self-defense industry (hereafter referred to as the Industry) and the legal concepts of self-defense being a legal determination.  To that end, let me dispel some Industry mythology.  Self-defense (the legal outcome) does not require a lifetime of training to accomplish.

I teach shooting, so I will focus on that.  But, I have studied martial arts off and on, in a number of different styles, including two that taught knife fighting; which I have said in the past makes me not an expert so much as a knowledgeable observer.  It does not take a Navy SEAL or a Green Beret to shoot somebody and win in a self-defense situation.  In fact, I would argue, the vast majority of people that use guns for legal self-defense do so specifically because they are not otherwise physically capable of fighting off a criminal aggressor.  The vast majority of the forces fighting the Global War on Terrorism are not special operations forces, yet they shoot and kill their way out of ambushes all the time.  When I was in, it was not an everyday occurrence; rather it was an every hour occurrence somewhere in Iraq.  Very few of those ambushes were against special operations forces, most were in fact against support troops or logisticians moving materiel or supplies around the battlefield.  But, every one of those support troops was a graduate of some sort of Basic Training that taught them how to shoot an M16 well enough to get out of the kill zone.

The same is true in armed self-defense.  All you have to do is get to your pistol and put two or three rounds into a rib cage from typically a very short range.  You don’t have to be an Operator to do that.  Nor do you have to be a Ninja to fight to your gun…which is an ironic perception in America of Ninjas, who almost never fought unarmed and certainly never fought fair.  You don’t have to be a martial arts master to get to your gun, all you have to know is some critical soft targets that allow you to fight to the gun, and fight for the gun in order to fight with the gun.  If you are right handed and somebody tries to perpetrate a violent crime against you, put your left thumb in their eye while you draw your gun with your right hand and empty the magazine/cylinder into them.

I can teach you to do that very effectively in four hours, not four weeks.  Why do I bring this up?  I have said before that there is a difference between good and good enough.  So, this is where I will make the argument for quantity versus quality.  I want every law abiding adult in America to carry a gun and be good enough to use it in a situation where they can save the lives of themselves or their loved ones.  That is good enough to survive.  That is not making them hunter-killers or combat arms soldiers, or even remotely special operators.  But the vast majority of people who are found to have used violence in a justifiable instance of self-defense are none of those things either.  So, as instructors, why are we spending so much effort training Johnny Six Pack how to be a sniper or how to enter and clear like a SWAT team?

Now, I know how to blow door knobs off, dynamically breach walls, enter and clear a room, use Bangalore Torpedoes as improvised breaching charges, and a lot of other cool stuff that made me a good combat engineer.  This does not make me a special operator by any means, but my unit kicked-, rammed-, shot-, and blew-down many doors and killed and captured quite a few bad guys in Iraq.  But, none of those skills are valuable to an armed citizen faced with a mugging, an armed robbery, a rape or other violent crime.  So, why is the Industry so focused on teaching thousand yard shooting, sub-machinegun bursting, AR-15 pie-ing corners (by the way, if you are using an AR-15 inside your own home, buy a $150 shotgun), or throwing flash bangs into a room before clearing it?  What kind of lifestyles are your students living where they would need these skills?

Don’t get me wrong, if money is no object to a student and they have the leisure time to invest in learning these things, they can be a lot of fun.  I am not morally or legally opposed to teaching people how to do tactics.  I am simply saying, I think we would make America safer by spending that same amount of time putting a dozen people through a basic training with a pistol, rather than one person through an advanced tactical scenario course.  I used to teach a lot more advanced pistol tactics in my classes, but then I realized that what I should be spending time on is getting more people comfortably proficient with guns.  I also realized that there is a huge disparity of learning in people who take the same class on the range, and it is better to train slow enough so the weakest shooter in the class gets good enough rather than maximizing the capability of the strongest shooter.  If the strongest shooter has to practice the same drill five more times so that the weakest shooter can get it right, then that is not a bad thing.  That only makes the strongest shooter that much better at that drill.  Practicing a drill that one has already mastered five more times does not hinder learning, even if it is not as "cool" as everything else the instructor knows.

This is not to say that the quality of the training should be cookie-cutter, fast-food, stamping out of concealed carry permits.  I think my classes are significantly better than most, because I spend much more time on the range than most basic pistol instructors.  I teach people how to confidently carry and use a pistol for self-defense, not just how to take one to the range and operate it safely in a completely controlled environment.  But, I do not try to teach them how to rescue hostages.  I don’t even try to teach them a fire-team wedge, because that has nothing to do with Self-Defense—the legal term.

It is better for the country to get a dozen people comfortable, confident and competent carrying a dozen .38 pistols than one person who is a master at rescuing hostages.  That is quantity over quality.  That is increasing our national security by increasing our homeland security, making us a harder target.  One bullet puts that really good master out of commission.  But it takes twelve bullets to put my squad of basic pistoleers out of action.  In facing violent crime, not skyjackings, I think the more bang for the buck are that dozen.  So, I teach people to be good enough to survive and thrive in violent criminal encounters.  I don’t need to teach them how to take out Bin Laden.  We have men to do that job already trained by our government.  I would rather train a lot of people to take out the armed robber who comes into the convenience store in the middle of the night while you’re out getting ice cream for a pregnant spouse.  That is making us a harder target.  This is our first problem as an Industry, trying to teach civilians a bunch of military Tactics, Techniques and Procedures that they do not need to know to defend themselves, but make us "shooters" feel so impressive and cool.  One of the best martial arts instructors I ever had made that distinction clearly; a good instructor teaches to the student's level not his/her own level.

Next: Self-Defense is not "Fighting"