Monday, July 27, 2009

Firearms Training by Michael Gaddy

My thanks to Armdcav for forwarding this piece by Michael Gaddy at I invite your comments.


Firearms Training
by Michael Gaddy

"You play the way you practice" was a favorite saying of my high school football coach back in the day. This statement is just as relevant to firearms training as it ever was to football. A large number of people, both those who are new to firearms self-defense and those who have been shooting for years, consider practicing at bull’s-eye targets adequate for self-defense. Such training will only be adequate in the unlikely event an individual is attacked by a target with rings and numbers. Mental and realistic training is paramount when it comes to defending your life.

The majority of what passes for firearms training today centers around approval for concealed carry (CCW) permits. I find it hard to believe that those who hate and fear the state are willing to submit themselves to the authority of the state when it comes to their right to defend themselves. CCWs exist as revenue producing programs for the state and those it sanctions as trainers. It also provides the state with a database of what they consider to be "domestic terrorists" and/or their greatest threat. To beg and pay the state for permission to do that which one already has the right to do is beyond the pale.

The very idea that only those sanctioned by the state have the right to defend themselves should be repugnant to all who claim to cherish freedom.

Firearms instructors teach from theoretical or practical experience. The vast majority of instructors have never been in a situation where they were forced to defend their lives or the lives of others with deadly force. They teach theory, that which they have read or studied. The advantage of being taught by an instructor with practical experience is obvious. Would you rather your pilot have actual flight experience or someone who has only read a manual on flying? Staying the night at Holiday Inn Express does not work in this situation either.

Firearms instructors who actively support politicians who do not support the Second Amendment are not worthy of your time or your money. Many of the "premiere" firearms trainers continue to politically support the "lesser of two evils," while proclaiming true 2A supporters such as Ron Paul to be unelectable. These people are simply shills for the state.

Firearms instructors who profess undying allegiance to the right to defend oneself from personal attack and tyrannical government who support a candidate such as Bush or Condoleezza Rice is analogous to a man professing his wife to be faithful because she is only sleeping with three other men!

Very few are the firearms instructors today who teach comprehensive self-defense, mental preparation, threat assessment, engaging multiple threats, situational awareness, firing while injured and instinctive shooting from actual experience.

One recent trainee, a beautiful lady from South Florida, told me her total rounds fired when qualifying for her CCW was seven; and they call that training. She readily admitted she was keeping her firearms under lock and key in a closet because she felt unprepared to use them, even though the state, with the issuance of a CCW, had judged her qualified to do so. The state and its vetted instructor had their money and could care less whether the lady was properly trained to defend herself in a life-threatening situation.

Preparing to defend yourself or your loved ones with a firearm should be given the most serious consideration. If you would not trust your money to Paul Krugman; your religious beliefs to Pat Robertson; your foreign policy to Dick Cheney; the future of this nation to Obama or the right to defend yourself to Charles Schumer, why would you trust your self-defense training to someone who teaches based on theory and supports the lesser of two evils when it comes to politicians?

July 27, 2009

Michael Gaddy , an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.


Doc Enigma said...

Great minds.....interesting to see this here. I had just forwarded the link to my own 'merry little band' not an hour previous.

I happen to agree with him whole heartedly.

CorbinKale said...

I concur with the author, completely. While I qualify for a CC permit, I refuse to apply for one. I will never beg another man for permission to exercise my Natural Rights.

When that becomes an issue to the State, and they send armed men to infringe upon those Rights, that is my line in the sand. Until they bring war to me, I will live in peace.

Once disarmed, or imprisoned, it is too late to decide to resist tyranny. I think it prudent to pick a side, draw your line and get busy with your mental, physical and logistical preparations. It looks like it's going to be a hard winter.

Ed Rasimus said...

I'm ambivalent. I just did my TX CHL this past weekend. There was a 50 round qualification course, timed fire and various silhouette target distances. Not tactical training but at least a bit better than what was mentioned.

The instructors were cops, SWAT, and police academy instructors. All experienced, some with street shooting experience as well.

The bureaucratic influence was immense with the redundant and confusing paperwork. That's government drones, not the trainers. Yet it was frustrating and designed to give excuses for denial. No doubt about it. I carried a Colorado CHL for ten years and this was considerably more red tape.

I went a couple of years considering simply being concealed and justifiable would be enough, precisely because of the database paranoia you mention. But, conversations with some experienced folks in law and law enforcement convinced me that even if you don't get a CHL, there is still enough data available for the pogrom and Krystalnicht when they decide they are ready to accept the losses.

Molon Labe.

Anonymous said...

I did one tour in the Marines. Since that happened during what was then called "peacetime" (i.e. the mid 1980s), I never had any actual combat experience, unlike many sandbox deployed Marines and soldiers do today.
I learned more in one week-end at a top notch tactical shooting school taught by a retired cop / combat soldier than the Marines taught me in several years of punching paper on a KD range. If you're not shooting, moving, and communicating while using live rounds with live pop-up reactive training targets, you're in for a very rude shock. I was bracketed, flanked, and "killed" repeatedly, as were my raw newbie classmates. Get thee to a quality training school, and be quick about it. If you haven't seen the elephant, you're clueless.

JBB said...

I have been troubled by the lack of actual training required here in SW Florida that is required to qualify for a concealed weapon license. The total number of rounds fired by each person in my CCW class is 1. After sitting through a 1 1/2 hour class that consisted mostly of how to file the forms and where to get fingerprinted, we all marched to the indoor range and fired one round of 38 special at a target at about 3 yards. Our "instructor" then signed off on our training certificates and we were qualified to carry concealed in the state of Florida.

tom said...

Just don't go kicking people out as useful trainers that train government/military as well as civilians, ok.

They have their trade as accomplished instructors and they work for who pays them, including a sizable number of military personnel and LEOs that very well are on OUR side. Remember it was a Montana Sheriff that told DC to stuff it over NICS.

I could give examples of such facilities but there's no need.
Just remember, just because they maybe taught FBI SNIPERS and SEAL operators both basic and specialized firearms and survival/operating skills doesn't make them the enemy if they're equally willing to teach said skills to civilians who pony up the dough for the courses.

I only boycott/kick out the ones that do Military/LEO ONLY courses.

Be careful how broad the tar brush you wield gets, that is all I'm saying here.

As to the:
Very few are the firearms instructors today who teach comprehensive self-defense, mental preparation, threat assessment, engaging multiple threats, situational awareness, firing while injured and instinctive shooting from actual experience.

statement...The reason for that has as much to do with a lot of people blogging about needing training but they don't pony up the dough and actually go do it. The market is small outside of CHL/CCW and LEO/Military training.

I could give you a list of names of a load of people who teach such courses who have seen the elephant if you can come up with the time, money, and round count and show up with an appropriate attitude in physical condition to actually practice and learn.

Hate to say it but there's a lot of fat militant out of shape bloggers that couldn't get through the ladies version of USAF boot camp for Medical personnel (lower requirements than the lowered requirements for women in the USAF, if you weren't aware). Maybe if they got in shape and started spending money more people who have seen the elephant would run more classes.

Something PRACTICAL to think about raher than complaining about people's possible politics.

Dutchman6 said...

Thank you, Tom, I was wondering if anyone would see the flaw.

Anonymous said...

I highly recommend finding a local USPSA/IPSC or IDPA shoot in your area. They happen all the time through out the US and many other countries.

These are competitive shooting matches that are timed.

The range officer/volunteers will help you to be safe and have fun even if you have very little experience.

It is hands down a great way to become comfortable shooting while making shooting under stress second nature.

You will become a better practical shooter very quickly and meet a lot of like minded people from all walks of life.

WARNING : It is highly addictive!


Anonymous said...

This article has good points but unfortunately has a mixed message which seem to be: (1) There should be no requirement for a CCW. (2) Most licensing instructors are teaching 'minimum requirements' for state licensing, not 'real gunfighting' techniques. As to both, I agree. However, I fail to see a problem. For those who choose to submit to the licensing in order to carry legally, why should the state mandate anything more than the minimum requirements? To do so would exclude people from the process. If there must be a permitting process, let it be as minimal as possible so that it may be as accessible as possible. 'More Guns, Less Crime' remember? Any education requires a foundation. Knowing the statutes involving the use of force, safe handling and storage are only a base. It SHOULD be incumbent upon the student to build on that base, and not the licensing office. Which philosophy of fighting should the State advocate: Jordan, Ayoob, Smith, McKee, Cooper, Suarez, Askins? It's ridiculous to consider. As for me, I trust the individual citizens to take responsibility for the choice to 'go heeled' and consider what training is proper for each of them.

Anonymous said...

Which philosophy of fighting should the State advocate: Jordan, Ayoob, Smith, McKee, Cooper, Suarez, Askins?

I would choose one of the above who has had actual experience.

Which leaves at least Ayoob out. He is right up there with Geraldo when it comes to actual experience.