What kind of training do you want?

[easy rider]

I guess I haven't been to the public range where the average gun owner was reckless and dangerous as Roach has. I have found it very rare there were mishaps to where I thought someone was reckless and dangerous at a public range.

 

[DwnRange]

I know who he is. He conducts training classes. Why? Because he understands you can't learn everything from a video. You need feedback. I'm sure you can imagine, if you could learn everything from a video, you wouldn't see videos.

Ya certainly don't need to train with him personally to purchase/use his targets and practice with them until you can meet CSAT shooting standards, the specific course of fire for meeting these standards was in the link to his web-site or did ya miss that part.......

No offense intended but I've read the entire thread here and you are beginning to sound like a broken record.

 

[Charlie]

Tagged!

 

[Vaquero]

What kind of training do I want?
None.
I'm not a gunfighter.
I don't live in crime ridden areas.

I hunt a little. For sport and a few meals.
I shoot a lot. For enjoyment.
I push myself enough. Don't need to pay someone else to push me.

I do it for fun.
I haven't forgotten how to have fun.

 

[Jon Payne]

If you want to train you should. If you don't want to train you shouldn't. I've been teaching for 17 years. Some feel a need and some don't. Some are entertained and some try and relive their youth. If you carry a gun as a profession you should train and "practice" to maintain competency. I teach LE courses, SWAT courses, LTC classes, and almost every class Suarez International offers. The cost of training is subjective. If you feel like you spent your funds well after a course you probably did. Cheap training is rarely good and good training rarely cheap.

 

[easy rider]

There goes my image of Vaquero as a gunfighter.

 

[toddnjoyce]

i completely disagree with you. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself, it doesn't add to the conversation at this point.

TL; DR: formal training isn’t the only way to learn. In fact, it’s <20% of the equation.


Yesterday, I left my last post with the thought that you were doing a really good job trying to understand a segment/target/positioning market research problem.

This morning I read through the rest and found it derailed into a crusade in trying to convince others your belief is the only correct belief.

Before I moved into my current role, I had about 18 years of successful adult learning experience, specifically in transferring complex knowledge, skills, and abilities to a wide variety of learners in the military.

The most current understanding of the learning environment supports my experience that, at best, 15-20% of learning occurs in a formal education environment, which is what your definition of training is.

My experience (supported by research) is that there is a steep drop in the curve of effectiveness beyond fundamental knowledge, skills, and abilities. The key to learning beyond that is individual learner motivation.

Best practices today support that learning occurs in four areas and three contexts. The areas are education (formal setting), environment (tools and resources) exposure (relationships), and experience (practical application). The contexts are point of need: immediate (right now), intermediate (how I get better with that I know), and transitional (how do I prepare for the next level).

>80% of learning (measure for the transfer of training effectiveness) occurs outside of formal education. Think about that: all the courses in the world only provide 20% of what you need to successfully transfer what you were taught to everyday, practical habit patterns that help you retain all that material.

And therein lies my problem with sinking money into formal training. What is taught has to be relevant and sustainable, otherwise it’s bar trivia.

What I’ve heard a lot of people say is that the most widely known courses aren’t relevant to the individual needs and aren’t sustainable.

 

[Roach011]

TL; DR: formal training isn’t the only way to learn. In fact, it’s <20% of the equation.


Yesterday, I left my last post with the thought that you were doing a really good job trying to understand a segment/target/positioning market research problem.

This morning I read through the rest and found it derailed into a crusade in trying to convince others your belief is the only correct belief.

Before I moved into my current role, I had about 18 years of successful adult learning experience, specifically in transferring complex knowledge, skills, and abilities to a wide variety of learners in the military.

The most current understanding of the learning environment supports my experience that, at best, 15-20% of learning occurs in a formal education environment, which is what your definition of training is.

My experience (supported by research) is that there is a steep drop in the curve of effectiveness beyond fundamental knowledge, skills, and abilities. The key to learning beyond that is individual learner motivation.

Best practices today support that learning occurs in four areas and three contexts. The areas are education (formal setting), environment (tools and resources) exposure (relationships), and experience (practical application). The contexts are point of need: immediate (right now), intermediate (how I get better with that I know), and transitional (how do I prepare for the next level).

>80% of learning (measure for the transfer of training effectiveness) occurs outside of formal education. Think about that: all the courses in the world only provide 20% of what you need to successfully transfer what you were taught to everyday, practical habit patterns that help you retain all that material.

And therein lies my problem with sinking money into formal training. What is taught has to be relevant and sustainable, otherwise it’s bar trivia.

What I’ve heard a lot of people say is that the most widely known courses aren’t relevant to the individual needs and aren’t sustainable.

This is very interesting and i appreciate the reply. I agree to an extent about how this thread devolved. you'll note that on multiple occasions i tried to refocus the discussion into something more relevant.

While I don't want this discussion to devolve into semantics and vocabulary discussion but I do believe that the labeling of classes keeps people away. For example, fundamental level classes being avoided because people think they are better than a fundamental level. Consistency is one of the issues with vocabulary in the industry. Another example: training vs practice. this is a good explanation of my view on the semantics.

I do completely agree that 80% of learning happens outside of the formal environment. That's great! However, i argue that you cannot just pass on the 20% formal education and be successful. People do not see value in that 20%, the question is why.

If the courses you find are't relevant to you, this creates two additional questions: 1) What classes are you looking for? 2) Why can you not find classes that are relevant (because they undoubtedly exist)?

additionally, i argue, if you carry a gun for self defense you have a responsibility and personal obligation to be objectively competent with that firearm. For all the constitution thumping people: not a governmental responsibility, a personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is a fundamental aspect of sustaining freedom.

 

[Roach011]

If you want to train you should. If you don't want to train you shouldn't. I've been teaching for 17 years. Some feel a need and some don't. Some are entertained and some try and relive their youth. If you carry a gun as a profession you should train and "practice" to maintain competency. I teach LE courses, SWAT courses, LTC classes, and almost every class Suarez International offers. The cost of training is subjective. If you feel like you spent your funds well after a course you probably did. Cheap training is rarely good and good training rarely cheap.

see i disagree, if you've made a decision to carry a firearm for self defense, you have a personal responsibility to be objectively competent.

 

[Roach011]

What kind of training do I want?
None.
I'm not a gunfighter.
I don't live in crime ridden areas.

I hunt a little. For sport and a few meals.
I shoot a lot. For enjoyment.
I push myself enough. Don't need to pay someone else to push me.

I do it for fun.
I haven't forgotten how to have fun.

Do you carry a firearm for self defense daily?

 

[Vaquero]

Do you carry a firearm for self defense daily?

There's a couple in the truck.
Not on my person.

 

[Roach011]

Ya certainly don't need to train with him personally to purchase/use his targets and practice with them until you can meet CSAT shooting standards, the specific course of fire for meeting these standards was in the link to his web-site or did ya miss that part.......

No offense intended but I've read the entire thread here and you are beginning to sound like a broken record.

Are you suggesting that shooting a drill to proficiency mean you are going to be able to expand that proficiency to a real world, 360 degree environment? Shooting a drill well is not training, it isolates a set of skills which you practice to proficiency. I bet he says that in his classes, most competent instructors do. A drill is one set of circumstances in one set of conditions.

 

[Roach011]

There's a couple in the truck.
Not on my person.

Outstanding. You're comfortable with that i suspect?

 

[Roach011]

I guess I haven't been to the public range where the average gun owner was reckless and dangerous as Roach has. I have found it very rare there were mishaps to where I thought someone was reckless and dangerous at a public range.

You've never looked at the walls or floor or ceiling of a gun range and seen holes? You've never been flagged by Joe w/ his cocked and unlocked kimber as he tried to figure out why it wont shoot? I've seen it, i've had it happen to me. I have training partners who work at a gun range. Its common.

 

[Roach011]

Do you have any examples of the average carrier wounding innocent bystanders in a self defense situation?

Do you believe there is statistical evidence that carriers who take several training classes fair better in a self defense situation than the average carrier?

Do you believe training for extremely unlikely situations is cost effective given the likelihood of a SD encounter being at a distance of <3 yards?

There are numerous example of the average police officers wounding or killing innocent people in a shooting. NYPD comes to mind. I think we could all agree police officers have more training that the average concealed carrier, yet it still happens!

 

[Charlie]

Exactly why do you continuously ask questions about members training and habits and then admonish them if you don't like the answer? What is your end goal for asking all these questions to people you don't know? Do you teach any kind of self-defense classes? If so, does that make you more proficient than someone on this forum? What is your educational background in this area?

 

[Wildcat Diva]

But, considering a four rules of gun safety approach, that is something I definitely could be self motivated to learn and develop a habit of without the feedback loop of a professional.

In an earlier comment of yours, Roach, I think there was conflation of the 20 ish percent of learning in a formal setting happening taken to meant that without professional training that a person can only be considered 80 percent “all good”, and thus less than optimal in proficiency. That’s how I took the way you turned the conversation. Am I maybe misinterpreting?

Post 108 you said:

“However, i argue that you cannot just pass on the 20% formal education and be successful.”

I don’t think that it’s quite that literal to assume in truth that 20 percent of available knowledge/ skill will be sitting there unaccessed unless taught by a professional trainer.

 

[Roach011]

Exactly why do you continuously ask questions about members training and habits and then admonish them if you don't like the answer? What is your end goal for asking all these questions to people you don't know? Do you teach any kind of self-defense classes? If so, does that make you more proficient than someone on this forum? What is your educational background in this area?

I've already answered all those questions.

 

[Roach011]

But, considering a four rules of gun safety approach, that is something I definitely could be self motivated to learn and develop a habit of without the feedback loop of a professional.

In an earlier comment of yours, Roach, I think there was conflation of the 20 ish percent of learning in a formal setting happening taken to meant that without professional training that a person can only be considered 80 percent “all good”, and thus less than optimal in proficiency. That’s how I took the way you turned the conversation. Am I maybe misinterpreting?

Post 108 you said:

“However, i argue that you cannot just pass on the 20% formal education and be successful.”

I don’t think that it’s quite that literal to assume that 20 percent of available knowledge/ skill will be sitting there unaccessed.

I'm simply arguing that the classroom aspect is important. You can read a book and understand all of modern medicine but you cannot become a doctor without direct instruction. Why would this be any different. We are using a deadly instrument, it deserves the commitment to objective proficiency. Why is not not correct?

 

[Wildcat Diva]

I’m arguing that while often it’s true that classroom/ range learning under trainers can be important , it’s not as black and white as assuming that 20 percent of knowledge/ skill (to get to ‘objective proficiency) available is left on the table if I skip it.