TexasCHLforum.com

Mike S wrote:Could you please expound on what you mean by a 'closed institution'? If it's something like PoliceOne.com, where some content is public and some requires vetting for access, I can understand why some of it is kept close hold (specific LEO protocols for responding to XYZ incidents). However, I'd think most civilian based instruction would welcome a diversity of students.

Organizations that state "we are not accepting new members at this time" (I don't mean commercial sites where you have to pay to access most of their web content). The general sequence is -- (1) identify a short training course of potential interest based on its advertised description, (2) note which organization is hosting it, (3) follow through in drilling down to discover that organization's participation requirements, and (4) encounter the "not accepting" message which means that the non-member is not eligible to sign up for that short course.

I'm continuing to research this issue a little bit at a time, typically in the time allotted to my morning tea.

One of the phenomena I am encountering is closed institutions. In other words, even if the 99% of untrained newbies wanted to get into certain places and increase their training, they cannot, because there is no route to access.

And I understand why certain groups may publicly classify themselves as "closed". Given the controversy surrounding gun ownership and hobby practice, I imagine that many people probably come to be associated with certain groups through a process of vetted individual selection (i.e., are hand-picked or otherwise vouched-for).

At the same time, it's easy for me to imagine people who are looking for training running into this kind of brick wall and giving up. So any plan to increase participation would be wise to address this factor as well.

Thanks for the replies to this thread - this is great information that I intend to put to use.

Since my LTC was re-issued a few weeks back (I'd let it lapse years ago), I've carried on two occasions, both times taking what I call my "idiot gun" with me - a S&W titanium 38 revolver (I call it "idiot gun" because it would be very hard but not impossible to screw up and fire it accidentally). I don't yet feel sufficiently trained to trust myself in public with my M&P 9 Shield.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:....

3. Only a fraction of LTC students will take even intermediate classes, much less advanced classes;

a. Most think additional training isn't necessary (See No. 7 below);
b. Many are turned off by high pressure sales pitches during LTC classes;
c. Many simply don't have the money for additional training (class fee, ammo)[/list]
....

You are the man who would know best, but this is contrary to my experience. Are there actual data to support the assertion in 3a? The people known to me who are LTC are generally all too aware of their own lack of training and they feel guilty about it because they feel like they have a great deal of responsibility and not much skill to back it up. But like me, they don't feel confident in their ability to find workable training options for themselves.

Also, what is the definition of an "intermediate" class? How would I know a worthwhile class if I saw one? How long should it be, time-wise? What should it cover? What should it leave me with in terms of take-aways that I can then put to use in my own practice sessions?

I agree that the money simply must be a deterrent to many people. The prices I've seen are around $35 - $40 per hour for group training, not for individual instruction. Can anyone recommend any specific content on YouTube, for instance, that would at least instill some practice exercises consistent with "intermediate" training? I wouldn't mind reserving my cash outlays for the training parts that matter most.

We live in an information-overload society. In order to get more people to shoot, something has to make information about good classes rise to the top of peoples' awareness piles. That doesn't seem to be stressed in the referenced author's slide show, but as someone for whom shooting is not the primary hobby, that's what I see as the single biggest barrier. I'd love to take more shooting classes, but I don't know where they are, and it seems like a crap shoot (pun intended) to just pick one or more of them randomly from general advertisements and hope for the best. Especially given that even the short classes represent significant investments of disposable income.

In terms of a secondary barrier, I think that range environments can also be discouraging, in part through no fault of their own, with the laws of supply and demand being what they are. The local range closest to my house is difficult to get into on weekends when people have free time - the lane wait times can exceed the time I actually want to spend actively shooting. Plus the range fees almost triple compared to their weekday "happy hour" rates. People come away from that kind of experience wondering if it's worth trying to take classes when it's tough to even get in to practice.

Any measures that increase desired behavior have to incorporate some means of facilitating that desired behavior. It's a two-way street. The shooter has to actually get off the couch and get out there to engage with training resources, but the path to those training resources also has to be well-defined and as free of obstacles as possible.