Beyond the One Percent: How do we get more people to attend training beyond the state minimum?

[twomillenium]

I could do a full podcast on this topic. Unfortunately, the only people that would listen are those who are already on our side of the training issue.

Here are some facts I've learned over decades of being an instructor.

• 1. Most LTC students are not serious shooters, thus they don't shoot matches or attend training classes;
  2. Most female LTC students attend class only because of one of the following:
  • a. The man in their life convinced them to come (father, husband, boyfriend, brother);
    b. Something happened to them or someone close that wakes them up to everyday dangers;
    c. They personally survived a violent crime;
  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)
  4. The biggest market/need is truly basic training and:
  • a. Women are the most likely to attend;
    b. (See No. 2 above)
  5. Many non-LTC firearms instruction advertising intimidates potential students;
  6. Many non-LTC classes are perceived to be overpriced;
  7. "Other guy syndrome" infects most people (only the other guy/gal will be a crime victim);
  8. Most people who train to a moderate or high level of proficiency do so because:
  • a. Their job requires it; or
    b. They enjoy guns and shooting

I have offered free training for select people in our church, yet few accept the offer. Some will attend one or two sessions, but life always gets in the way. The feeling is, once again, it won't happen to me and I really want to go shopping Saturday morning. I have more paid students than people attending classes or coaching sessions for free.

I have some ideas guys/gals, but truly reaching the untapped population will require instructors to donate time and most are not in a position to do so. I was putting togehter a consortium to promot firearms education and training in the minority community. There is a huge need in that population. At a point, the "what's in it for me" element raised it's head and the project went no further.

I don't fault any businessman for wanting to make a profit. Although I do a good bit of free training, I charge for most of my classes. However, reaching a larger segment of the gun-owning, gun-carrying population requires an altruistic approach as opposed to a commercial market-expanding approach. But even if every firearms instructor in Texas committed to teaching X students for free, perhaps even providing guns and ammo, the student needs to be willing to spend the money to practice on a regular basis. Without that commitment from the student, all the free training in the world will not make a long-term impact.

Now here's a fact that instructors and those of us who train and shoot a lot aren't going to like. Most people don't need any training beyond truly basic training. I know that statement will draw the ire of many, but look at the number of homeowners, often elderly women, are forced to shoot an attacker in their home. These women likely don't have any training beyond someone showing them how to load and fire their pistols, yet they prevail in a deadly assault. Sure, this same person would not fare as well with multiple armed attackers, or a run-and-gun street battle, or fighting from inside their car, but that's not how the majority of self-defense shooting happen.

At the end of the day, those of us who join gun clubs, participate here on the Forum, go to gun shows, shoot matches, and train extensively love what we are doing. Guns and shooting are a hobby so we don't mind investing time and money. Contrary to what anti-gun liars will claim, we pray we never have to put our skills to use in a combat setting, but if the need arises, we have the required skills to survive a deadly assault. It's not that we trained for that day, it's simply a side benefit of our hobby.

BTW, I'm not talking about sheepdog personalities as described by Col. Grossman. That's a different mindset and motivation entirely.

Chas.

I agree with Charles assessment. One of the things I hear a lot is: "I don't plan on carrying a pistol, but I want the license to protect myself if I ever need it." I respond by letting them know that they do not need a license to protect themselves, the license is to legally carry in public with the restrictions that are taught in the class. If you ever do need to use a pistol to protect yourself, you will only be as prepared as you practice to be prepared. That is sad, but it is true for most. I have read that only 5% of those who can have a LTC actually have them. I don't know what percentage of LTC holder carry on a regular basis but I bet it is under 20% and would not be surprised if it would be around 10%. That would be 5-10 people per 1,000 that actually carry on a regular basis.

[Interblog]

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.

[Interblog]

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.

[Mike S]

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.

[Soccerdad1995]

As mentioned upthread, it is difficult to get people to focus on what they perceive to be unlikely threats. How many people have a formal fire reaction plan for their family, other than "get out of the house"? Of those, how many have ensured that all family members understand the plan? Of those, how many have actually practiced it? It's the same issue. We all understand that these threats are out there but there are a lot of things competing for our time (and money in the case of training).

The key is to help people understand that this is a real safety need, and then to make training available and heavily publicized.

[mojo84]

What percentage of people take intermediate or advanced driving courses beyond the minimum required get their licence? I'm not talking about the defensive driving class to get out of ticket or get an insurance discount. I'm talking about actual training that involved classroom and actual driving.

Not everyone that carries a gun or drives makes those endeavors into hobbies or regular training activities. People are more likely to need additional driving training than additional gun training.

[bblhd672]

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.

I've found there's plenty of available training opportunities in Texas and in the DFW area that are open to civilians. From basic shooting skills to advanced shooting, tactical and long range shooting.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As mentioned upthread, it is difficult to get people to focus on what they perceive to be unlikely threats. How many people have a formal fire reaction plan for their family, other than "get out of the house"? Of those, how many have ensured that all family members understand the plan? Of those, how many have actually practiced it? It's the same issue. We all understand that these threats are out there but there are a lot of things competing for our time (and money in the case of training).

The key is to help people understand that this is a real safety need, and then to make training available and heavily publicized.

That's an excellent analogy.

Chas.

[Paladin]

Some awesome discussion here!

I wish more colleges would offer safety and marksmanship training.

I agree that instructors donating their time is a good way to get more people more training.

Karl didn't mention organizations like Appleseed. Appleseed volunteers have provided over 120,000 people nationwide high quality safety and marksmanship training at extremely low prices. Appleseed's focus is on teaching riflery and history, but the safety and marksmanship skills taught do carry over to pistols.

I would think that other programs modeled after Appleseed could be created to offer American's high quality/low cost training covering a larger variety of subjects.

Perhaps not widely known today, but the Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military. It is now called the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP).

In 1903 the acting ASSISTANT ADJUTANT-GENERAL wrote:

...Rifle ranges also are needed, not only for the National Guard,
but also for the citizen population. To shoot well is a large part
of the education of the soldier; and if the Government can arouse
such an interest in shooting, in not only the organized but also
the unorganized militia, that our male population shall be familiar
with the accurate use of the rifle, we shall have gone far towards
evening up the advantage the foreigner gains by his universal
conscription. Much can be accomplished in this direction, if the
United States will offer free the use of the military rifle on ranges
to be established near our large towns. Such ranges would also
be available for the instruction of the National Guard. Their cost
would be little in comparison with the benefits to be obtained.
The cost of sufficient target ranges and camp sites for the whole
country will hardly exceed that of one or two new battleships.

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL JAMES PARKER, U.S.A., ACTING ASSISTANT
ADJUTANT-GENERAL

Perhaps in this age of terrorism, national defense should include training motivated civilians how to stop terrorists? It would be more effective than teaching them only how to "run" or "hide" and would certainly make America a harder target.

[Paladin]

This chart shows 75% of the time a firearm is used in a defensive incident it will be a handgun. Extrapolating the numbers to fill in for the "unknowns", I am estimating the actual number is more like 85%. That's a pretty safe indicator that most defensive training should focus on handguns.

I'm gonna grab my rifle if it's handy, because rifles and shotguns are a lot more powerful and I train with everything. Unfortunately long guns are not as easy to have with you at the moment of truth.

[Interblog]

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.