Sometimes I grin and bear it. Sometimes I bite my tongue. I do like to stay positive and not dwell on negatives, but you can certainly learn valuable lessons when things are done the wrong way. So, in this column, I'd like to share a few examples of how instructors can fail in their responsibilities to their students. This certainly isn't all inclusive, just a few cases to get you thinking. How well are we serving those who depend on us to teach them skills that may someday save their life, or that of someone they are sworn to protect? I'm not going to name any names, but if you are an instructor, I sincerely hope that you are not anything like the people I am talking about. So, here we go.
It Must Be The Student
In this first example, a female student attended a firearms class with an instructor who is well known for his belief that the Weaver stance is the best way to shoot. Period! The female student tried the grip and stance as taught, but was having problems with persistent malfunctions of her pistol. Each time a different member of the instructional staff tried the gun it worked fine. No problem with the equipment; so it must be the student. Finally, the student tried shooting using a strong Isosceles stance. All the malfunctions ceased and her shooting improved dramatically. What was the problem here? Sometimes it is called "limp wristing," but it can also be called "loose elbow syndrome." Some people just don't get, or can't do, the isometric tension required for an effective Weaver stance. Some shooters, especially females, and anyone who has arthritis, joint, muscle or tendon problems in their arms can unwittingly induce these "limp" malfunctions simply because their arms aren't providing solid enough resistance to the reciprocal operation of their pistol slide.
The solution, of course, is to have the student work with a different stance, such as the Isosceles or a modified Weaver (Chapman) stance. Usually, the problem is resolved and the student is back with the program. Insisting that the student use a technique that doesn't work for them (after they've given it a fair trial, of course), just alienates the student, tarnishes the instructor's reputation and leaves the student inadequately prepared. Find what works for the student and don't get locked into "my way, or else!"
Safety Has To Be A GOOD Habit
The first time I heard about this one, I would not have believed it. The report came from a good friend, who is a superb firearms instructor and already retired from a career in a large metropolitan police department. He was attending a regional law enforcement academy on his own, so he could get his law enforcement certification in the state where he now resides. This was about three years ago, but another friend of mine, also a competent gun handler and competitive pistol shooter, went to a different regional academy (in the same state) and discovered that they were doing the same thing. The required method for clearing a pistol when the students are through shooting is to lock the slide back and remove the magazine. Then, check the chamber to be sure it is empty. Finally, look down the muzzle of the gun to make sure there isn't a barrel obstruction. Now, I don't know about you, but pointing a gun at my head, even one that is supposed to be unloaded, clearly violates the safety rule that says: "Never point a gun at anything you cannot afford to see destroyed." Ever since 1969, after the Newhall tragedy, we have recognized that what we do during training we will revert to under extreme stress. The idea that someone, somewhere, someday will get the unloading sequence wrong and end up pointing a gun that they THINK is unloaded, at their head gives me chills up my spine.
When this was questioned by the students, they were told that their responsibility was to follow the policies set by the governing board. The instructor, though apparently somewhat sympathetic, said that there wasn't anything he could do about it. I wonder what obstructions are so important to look for. The only thing I can think of is that the last fired round might be a squib load. So could any of the others they fired during that range session, but they aren't required to look down the barrel after each shot. If it's all that important, and we're talking Glock pistols here, just field strip the gun and THEN check the barrel. The cadets could probably benefit from the practice of disassembly and reassembly anyway. By the way, they are required to do the same thing when clearing rifles and shotguns.
Sorry, That Doesn't Count
I think we all have figured out by now that accuracy is the single most important factor when using a firearm to stop a violent attack. You know, shot placement. Well, apparently not in one law enforcement training program. A young man I know, who is an excellent shooter, had completed the standard state qualification for academy cadets. When it came time to score his target, the instructor could not find all of the individual bullet holes, as the cadet had a good-sized ragged hole in the center of the target. So, the instructor only counted the bullet holes he could actually find. This left the total round count short. His response to the student? Well, he wouldn't give him credit for anything he couldn't verify. Never mind that the accepted method of scoring competitive targets is to give the shooter credit for rounds going through a large ragged group hole. And, never mind that anyone accurate enough to accomplish such a feat isn't very likely to suddenly start wildly missing the life-size silhouette target altogether.
No, common sense did not prevail in this case, and the cadet lost his standing as top gun for that qualification. At least he didn't lose his temper or his dignity. The instructor did have one suggestion, however: "Next time, spread your shots out more." Excuse me? Be LESS accurate? For the convenience of the scorer? Apparently the irony of the situation escaped the instructor. He didn't want to give the shooter credit for his ability to put multiple shots through the same hole, but he did give him credit for being able to "spread out his shots" at will, to make the instructor's scoring job easier.
It Can't Be The Equipment
A while back I heard from a reader who was concerned about a problem with a particular pistol. This person was an officer in two different agencies and was issued the same make and model pistol by each. One gun functioned normally, the other pistol had repeated malfunctions. The officer demonstrated proficiency with the one gun, but what about the other? According to the issuing agency, there wasn't anything wrong with the gun. It had to be the officer. In my email response, I suggested a couple of self-diagnostics, just to be sure. After that, I recommended that the gun be examined by a certified armorer. Lo and behold, the gun was defective! It was subsequently replaced and this story ends happily. But the agency was willing to send their officer out onto the "mean streets" armed with an unreliable firearm. The officer may have needed to use that gun for self defense or the defense of others. Excuse me but, what were they thinking? A simple check of the gun would have revealed the problem, but they just couldn't be bothered. The really sobering aspect of this one is that it isn't the only time I've heard about an agency being unwilling to admit their equipment wasn't up to the task at hand. How can anyone think so little of their officers' lives? Yeah, I know.
Let me leave you with the words of one of the finest law enforcement trainers who has ever graced our profession, Colonel Robert Lindsey. For those who might not know him, he is universally known in this business simply as, "Coach." Coach is retired from Jefferson Parish in Louisiana, but he still is very active in police training organizations and still teaches classes. I have been fortunate enough to have been trained by him, trained with him, and he's even been at some of my courses. Anytime Coach talks I listen. He puts our responsibility as instructors this way: "We are not God's gift to the students. The students are God's gift to us." May we ALL treat that gift with the respect it deserves.
