Instructor meets idiot.

[Steve in Vermont]

Most, if not all of us that having been in the instructing game for any length of time have had the student like bigcholla had with a similar outcome which to me is what it is really all about. Very gratifying to me and I am sure to my colleagues as well.

It is with the challenging, and have never fired before student that makes me earn my keep as an instructor. Working with these folks will find and magnify any weakness we have as instructors. We can all enjoy working with the motivated and adept student. I have found that with the challenging comes great rewards as well.

Last year I had a couple that were in their mid 70's and neither of them had ever fired a handgun in their life. They bought a Ruger MKIII and a SW Sigma 9mm for the NRA Basic Pistol class and seemed scared to death but were determined. ( They had a home invasion attempt)

The lady, Char did well in the classroom but froze badly when it came to live fire. Having the ability to explain things in a number of ways until the light bulb came on in her brain took a great deal of patience. In Char's case like all other students, we would not let her progress to the next layer until she had mastered the skill we were working first.

Yet, when it was all done and over it was Char that said to her husband, " Now that was fun, we need to go shooting more often honey!"
What a dramatic turn around that had a high potential of going sour.

Isn't that a big reason we became instructors in the first place?

In the OP's case I would have seem this failure as MY failure as an Instructor, NOT the failure of the student.

Randy

This, and the previous post by Bigcholla, said it all. Image if drivers training instructors acted like this. Every student who did something stupid in their first classes would be banned from training and made to feel they should never get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. I would look at this student as a challenge to me as an instructor. Any instructor can teach the average student to shoot/drive/fly, whatever the skill. But what separates the average instructors from the best ones is their ability to take the very difficult students and, through patience and good training, turn them into graduates. This instructor saw the challenge and walked away from her.

 

[CajunBass]

The problem with your statement is that I don't set the bar...mine or anyone else's. I just completed LEOSA training for the sixth (6th!) time. That's after being a LEO for 30.5 years.

Yes, classroom instruction preceded and followed range time. The instructors made it clear that if anyone showed they were not capable of proper and safe handling of their gun they would be removed from the training. Yes, according to them, people have been removed for safety violations and failure to qualify.

There were firearms instructors undergoing the training/qualifications. They didn't complain, either.

I am of the belief that one can learn new things at any age. Frankly, I have learned more than I ever thought possible from this very Forum.

States such as Arizona would have allowed this person to be walking their streets with a loaded gun. I suggest that would have been disastrous given the person's utter and abject failure during her instruction.

Some people should not be allowed to own/carry firearms.

Be safe.

What do you meant you don't set a bar? The statement

"Some people should not be allowed to own/carry firearms."

sets a bar. Who are those people and who gets to determine who they are and why they shouldn't be allowed to carry one? What's the standard?

You say you don't set the bar? Ok, that's probably true. How are you going to feel when someone else comes along and sets the bar so high YOU can't reach it? And there are a lot of people out there who want to do just that.

I'll take my chances with more freedom, and not less.

And to stay on topic. The instructor failed. I'm sure glad I didn't get kicked out school the first time I made a mistake. I'm glad I didn't have to be born knowing how to do anything.

 

[johnsonl]

Indeed, achieving success with the most challenging studii is why we became instructors. Everybody assimilates information in different ways. Some people are visual learners, some require a "hands on" approach and some just need to have the information presented in a manner that they can comprehend. It is our job to figure out how to instruct that particular student. Firearms handling is a critical skill and must be done safely and correctly. Patience, perseverance and humility are a must, along with knowledge and ability. Well done, sir!

 

[handejector]

Your degree of arrogance is appalling.

If you want to pick a fight, count me "in."

Uh-oh.
Better count me in, too. (winner predetermined)

You gents need to tone it down a bit.
All members have the option to report a post with the red/white triangle at top right of every post.
All members have the ability to IGNORE other posters-
User CP
Settings & Options
Edit Ignore List

Opinions are fine, stated within reason.
Everyone gets to keep their own, even when they're wrong.

 

[LHS]

Uh-oh.
Better count me in, too. (winner predetermined)

Better listen Gents!

Look at his avitar!!





))

 

[The Big D]

Duly noted.

Uh-oh.
Better count me in, too. (winner predetermined)

You gents need to tone it down a bit.
All members have the option to report a post with the red/white triangle at top right of every post.
All members have the ability to IGNORE other posters-
User CP
Settings & Options
Edit Ignore List

Opinions are fine, stated within reason.
Everyone gets to keep their own, even when they're wrong.

 

[The Big D]

When I became a cop I was told what standards had to be met. I had the choice to meet those standards or find another occupation. I didn't complain that the standards were too high or that they shouldn't apply to me because I was somehow enabled or "special." People wash out of law enforcement because the bar is set high...as it should be.

Based on some folks' statements, it seems LEO's should NOT have to be trained or qualified in firearms. Now that's a really bad idea, IMHO.

I live in Maryland and pre-LEOSA it would have been unlikely that I would have been allowed to CCW post-retirement. I absolutely guarantee I wouldn't have moved just to carry a gun. But, as I can be re-trained and re-qualified annually, I avail myself of that opportunity. The great state of Maryland sets the LEOSA bar rather high. Again, I can meet their standards or forego my privilege to CCW. I don't complain and happily take advantage of what I am offered. (For me it involves an overnight hotel stay due to distance and considerable effort, time, and expense. It's their "bar"; and I will do whatever is required.)

Now, back to the OP. I still contend if a student cannot grasp the concept of keeping their trigger finger on the slide 'til it's time to pull the trigger they are ill-suited to carry a gun and should not be allowed to do so.

Be safe.

What do you meant you don't set a bar? The statement sets a bar. Who are those people and who gets to determine who they are and why they shouldn't be allowed to carry one? What's the standard?

You say you don't set the bar? Ok, that's probably true. How are you going to feel when someone else comes along and sets the bar so high YOU can't reach it? And there are a lot of people out there who want to do just that.

I'll take my chances with more freedom, and not less.

And to stay on topic. The instructor failed. I'm sure glad I didn't get kicked out school the first time I made a mistake. I'm glad I didn't have to be born knowing how to do anything.

 

[mastertech]

im saddened by this story and i am greatfull that gun owners and CHL persons are not tarnished by what could have been alot worse.

kind of reminds me of this girl.
Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question - YouTube
now my brain hurts.......

 

[27145]

When I became a cop I was told what standards had to be met. I had the choice to meet those standards or find another occupation. I didn't complain that the standards were too high or that they shouldn't apply to me because I was somehow enabled or "special." People wash out of law enforcement because the bar is set high...as it should be.

Based on some folks' statements, it seems LEO's should NOT have to be trained or qualified in firearms. Now that's a really bad idea, IMHO.

I live in Maryland and pre-LEOSA it would have been unlikely that I would have been allowed to CCW post-retirement. I absolutely guarantee I wouldn't have moved just to carry a gun. But, as I can be re-trained and re-qualified annually, I avail myself of that opportunity. The great state of Maryland sets the LEOSA bar rather high. Again, I can meet their standards or forego my privilege to CCW. I don't complain and happily take advantage of what I am offered. (For me it involves an overnight hotel stay due to distance and considerable effort, time, and expense. It's their "bar"; and I will do whatever is required.)

Now, back to the OP. I still contend if a student cannot grasp the concept of keeping their trigger finger on the slide 'til it's time to pull the trigger they are ill-suited to carry a gun and should not be allowed to do so.

Be safe.

 

[Kelly Green]

There are many good suggestions expressed here by fellow forum members. The next time I have the opportunity to speak with my instructor friend, I will have some questions that I would like her to address.

I guess I’m old school. I grew up in the country where guns were a way of life. Every rural family owned a rifle or two, a shotgun or two and maybe a handgun. We were aware of guns before we were aware of the A,B,C’s. I was fortunate enough to have a dad, a granddad and several uncles who were avid hunters and gun enthusiasts. Over the years they taught me, my brothers and my sister the skills they had learned. They taught us respect for our firearms and respect for the game that we hunted with them. Above all they taught us safety—our safety and the safety of those around us.

For many gun owners today this is not the case. But, that does not mean that these fine people aren’t capable of becoming excellent marksmen and/or hunters. Many of them do. I would wager that a lot of these folks could out-shoot or out-hunt me. Nether does it mean that they are unsafe or reckless with their guns. Most are not.

For some, the first time to hold a gun was when the sales clerk put one in their hand. Some have a natural talent and will do well. Some will acquire the talent and do well. Some will never fully comprehend what they hold in their hand, nor the damage it can do. This latter group is the one that worries me.

 

[Rule 303]

As Bee-mer, I'm a big advocate of the one round in the firearm until we learn the proper manner to shoot a firearm.

As with anything when your dealing with the public, 50% or more are of the lower half of intelligence and common sense.

Rule 303

 

[The Big D]

27145, not sure if you're mocking me or agreeing with me but that's funny. Thanks...regardless.

Be safe.

 

[MickeyMac]

Red Level:



I support 2A and the rest of the Constitution but cannot accept that any jurisdiction would allow an untrained person to carry a firearm in public without any indication whatsoever that he/she was capable of safe handling and responsible use of a gun.


Non sequitur.


Re OP. The girl at least sought and agreed to training. I think the instructor could have been more helpful and competent.

 

[The Big D]

Well, now, that's an interesting first post.

But we now know one thing; you weren't an English major.

Be safe.

Red Level:



I support 2A and the rest of the Constitution but cannot accept that any jurisdiction would allow an untrained person to carry a firearm in public without any indication whatsoever that he/she was capable of safe handling and responsible use of a gun.


Non sequitur. (Emphasis added.)


Re OP. The girl at least sought and agreed to training. I think the instructor could have been more helpful and competent.

 

[Engineer1911]

Posted by Redlevel: "Here in backwards, dumb, rural Georgia, we pretty much give people the benefit of the doubt. "

And they need every bit of it. I was a guest at a private members only range with another old guy buddy (member), a 35 year old deputy sheriff (he made sure we knew he was a LEO), and the deputy's 7 year old son with a Chipmonk 22 rifle.

The shooting is all done, I ask the deputy if it's ok to go change my 100 yard target. Yes it's ok, we are done shooting. I go down range alone, change target, coming back to firing line and am at the 50 yard line. BANG! The deputy yells an apology to me as I continue back to the firing line.

The deputy's young son fired his rifle at something. I didn't hear the bullet pass by me. I get to the firing line, and the deputy is still yelling at the son.

I interupted his lecture to his son and looked the deputy right in the eyes and said, "It wasn't your son's fault. He is a little boy at the rifle range. He wants to shoot. You were not watching him. You are the responsible adult, trained in the safe handling and use of a fire arm, and a law officer. You failed as a father, its not your son's fault because you were not watching him or in control of his ammo. And I don't need another apology from you or him."

It's ok to resume shooting? And we resumed shooting. I don't think I have ever been so angry at an "adult" before at a shooting range. "Firearm accidents" only take a second to happen.

Yup, tact and diplomacy are not my strong suits at times like this. And now I'm a member of this elite firearm outdoor organization.

 

[MickeyMac]

That was Latin.......not English. It was used appropriately. Just don't rely on the colloquial definition in Wikipedia.

The larger point being that the Founders' intent was to clearly identify rights which are declared and self evident; not permissions granted by government. 2A is but one of the Bill of Rights. They are rights first and whether you or I think someone should own a firearm, speak in public, worship in a particular church, be shaken down and searched by the police because they look suspicious all have zero bearing on the existence of those rights. None of those are reserved only for those with your extensive level of training. Reasonable limitations that do not serve to disarm the populace are one thing. Surrender of rights due to criminal behavior is understandable. However, capricious restrictions urged by government trained and employed experts which place the bar just a little below their own competence should be regarded with suspicion and resisted.

I have not your level of training but am not a novice and would have appreciated the opportunity to defend myself when accosted by three young men with knives one night on the streets of your state's largest city. Alas, that is a state that only recognizes the right to self defense for LEOs, jewelers, athletes and stridently anti 2A senators.

Since you made a personal attack, I'm forced to respond: you guessed wrong.

Sorry if this thread seems to be hijacked. It seems the thread evolved from the original story to a discussion of who should be armed. I would agree some people should not arm themselves. But their RIGHT to be armed should not be limited by some bureaucracy.

 

[Waldo]

The larger point being that the Founders' intent was to clearly identify rights which are declared and self evident; not permissions granted by government. 2A is but one of the Bill of Rights. They are rights first and whether you or I think someone should own a firearm, speak in public, worship in a particular church, be shaken down and searched by the police because they look suspicious all have zero bearing on the existence of those rights. None of those are reserved only for those with your extensive level of training. Reasonable limitations that do not serve to disarm the populace are one thing. Surrender of rights due to criminal behavior is understandable. However, capricious restrictions urged by government trained and employed experts which place the bar just a little below their own competence should be regarded with suspicion and resisted.

This statement from Mickey Mac is very true. I am in complete agreement.

 

[TACC1]

First, I'm not in Law Enforcement, nor any kind of instructor.
That said, here's my take on training;
I would rather see every man, woman, and child owning a firearm,
than to have government put up ANY hurdles. This bit about making
decisions on how much training an individual has had, is just
another way to control other people. People like to be in power, and
believe they know what's best for "the people". It's just that type
of Big Brother-ism that is ruining this country. You've all seen it.
"Now" is not too soon to put the pressure on individuals to not shoot
their neighbors' windows out. Leave "people" alone. TACC1

 

[rpbcab]

I copied the following quote from the original story, " The girl managed to hit paper and became so excited that she turned around, gun in hand, finger on trigger and muzzle pointed at my chest." This part of the story leads me to believe that the student may have enjoyed the experience. Miss student might have done well if the instructor had said lets go to the break room and start again, as it ended the student may now be the one vote in an election that will make it harder for us gun owners to enjoy our sport. It is easy to sit here in my recliner and say "I would have done xxx, then done yyyy and all would have been happy". The story indicated that the instructor was indeed very experienced and well qualified. However, some of the comments that were supposedly made by her, led me to believe that she did not think very much of the student to begin with. From just one side of the story it looks to me like the whole thing might have been handled better by all of the parties involved. Just my $.02 cents worth....

 

[Jim Kuykendall]

Does anyone have his(her) first shooting lesson on paper anymore? It took me weeks after my lesson to get taken to the range. Safety and the proper respect for what your doing is NOT a speedreading course.