In the meantime---more on the IDS course from a few weeks ago. (The Advanced Defensive Shooting course is next week, so that should be interesting. This time I plan to keep a record of what drills we do all day.)
In general, the drills really were pretty good, in terms of isolating and practicing a useful skill for defensive tactics. They started out fairly simple, and grew in complexity under the assumption that the previous skill had been learned, internalized, and could be built upon.
Drills included multiple targets, moving forward/moving backward, turns and pivots (somewhat), shooting strong-hand only and weak-hand only, included verbalization and some commentary on reloading, and barricade work. (Plus some others I don't recall without my notes.)
I liked the drills, I really did. In the "debrief" (which really wasn't, but they wanted to call it that), one of the feedback items I gave the instructors was that the drills were not only good, but showed a good logical progression of skills from simple to more complex, with each one reinforcing the previous. A good system, really.
Next up---the "cons" part of the Pro/Con discussion. Before I continue, I should say that I enjoyed the course. I didn't learn anything new in this course, but I did enjoy it. And the two people who went with me both enjoyed it, and learned some new things about themselves. (Ardi said that they didn't do anything in the class that I hadn't already shown her, but she still learned things about her shooting abilities. And they both liked the class.) So, the class was worth it.
That being said, from a teaching standpoint just one single change in the class format would have made an incredible difference to the amount of learning on the part of the students.
Here's how each drill worked. There were 6 or 7 of us on the shooting line. We gathered around the instructor, she discussed exactly what we were to do for the drill, sometimes she demonstrated it, and then we moved to the line. Once on the line, an instructor gave the "draw" command and we performed the drill. If it was a 2-shot drill, we might perform it 6-8 times, if a multi-shot drill we might perform it a bit less. Then, once everyone was holstered again, we'd move up to the targets, tape them as the instructors made comments, then we moved off the line so that the other line of students could perform the drill. After both lines were done, the instructor gathered us around for the next drill.
See the problem? (Do you? You might not, if you aren't a teacher.) If the drills were good, and we got feedback, shouldn't learning occur?
From a teaching aspect, the answer is no. Unless the student performs the drill perfectly (and this is self-defense---there is no "perfect") there should always be feedback for every student, and then each student should get several more chances to take advantage of the feedback to adjust what they were doing. In other words, after the feedback the student needs to try the drill again!
There were a number of drills where all the feedback I got was "good!" Okay, I know I can shoot decently, but I want to get better. Telling me that I was adequate doesn't help. If I did something wrong, telling me at the end doesn't help--because I don't have a chance to fix the problem. I have a good memory, and took notes, and yet I certainly do not remember all the drills we did that day. As such, any problems I had on the drills that I don't remember--I can't fix!
And believe me, a number of students had problems on the drills. Yet in almost every case, the only feedback/correction the student received was at the end of the drill set--whereupon the student walked off the line, and didn't get a chance to work on fixing the problem.
The drill sequence (and skill set) really was good--but leaving out the feedback/response part means that most of the students didn't really get much better as time went on. They did get better--just not nearly as much as they could have if they had received mid-drill feedback.
Yes, each drill would have been longer, so the class either couldn't have contained as many drills, or the class overall would have had to be much longer. But the difference in learning! I would much have rather run each drill 4 times, gone up, had feedback, pasted targets, and run the drill 3 more times (and done half or 2/3 as many drills for the course) than the way we did it.
As it was, most of the feedback I received on my shooting came from myself. For example, I fixed a problem I had been having with within-arm-reach hipshooting. Or at least I think I did, because I never got feedback on it, and once I figured out the solution we were already done with the drill so I didn't get a chance to try it live. (I have since then, though, and my solution works. Or rather, stopping doing the wrong thing is working.)
Most of the people shooting in the class simply didn't have enough shooting experience to analyze and fix their own shooting problems--so for most of them, this was an Introduction to Shooting In Different Ways, as opposed to skill-building for defensive shooting.
Don't get me wrong---some learning still occurred, and most of the students did get better as the day went on. But I really doubt they know why, and could apply that to other shooting situations.
Some drills had no feedback at all. In one drill, we moved laterally while firing one-handed at a series of targets. (Strong-hand only and weak-hand only depending on which way we were moving.) I'm a pretty good shot, and yet because of the way the drill was done, I have no precise idea where my shots hit. We didn't paste any targets for this entire drill (the whole class), we were moving sideways quickly, and the instructors never gave any feedback to any shooter about their accuracy, or how to increase it.
I'm not really sure of the point of that drill. As it was, most students simply learned that 1) they can shoot one-handed, and 2) they have no idea if they can hit anything shooting one-handed.
Some other things:
- In one drill, they had us turning 90 degrees either right or left, and engaging the target. (We also pivoted from facing the opposite direction, whereupon one of my classmates drew and swept the entire room as he turned. That was fun.) I simply pivoted my feet and turned my hips, drew, and put two into the A-zone. One instructor chided me for not stepping into the new position, saying that "without a good stance, you won't hit the target." I looked at my two A-zone hits (about 2 inches apart), thought about the fact that in a defensive situation I won't necessarily get to pick where my feet are, thought about the fact that a quick pivot is much faster than a step-and-turn, carefully didn't say that I was perfectly comfortable in my sideways stance---and just said "Ok."
- One of the things that they wanted us to verbalize was the following sequence. "Please stop. Don't make me shoot you" ...and something else I don't remember. (Get the idea I wasn't impressed?) When the instructor first said it, right off the bat I didn't like it. Don't say "Please" when giving a command. Your voice is going to be in bad enough shape under stress, don't make it sound like you are pleading. Second, "don't make me shoot you" gives the attacker the impression that you really don't have it in you to effectively defend yourself with lethal force--again, not the impression you want to create. But lastly, the types of drills we were doing didn't lend themselves to verbalizing those things! Those are things you say when the situation gives you time to do so---the situation is such that you draw your weapon, and are moving to safety, but do not actively have to be engaging the criminal. Our drills for the class---were all about shooting. Verbalizing wasn't taught very effectively, particularly with regard to when verbalization is important.
- The instructor also made a point of having the students note that forcefully saying "Please stop" somewhat sounds like "Police Stop," and that might deter criminals. She also made a point of saying that you should not actually say "Police! Stop!" because that is impersonating a police officer, and is illegal.
As far as I know, that isn't true. In a self-defense sitaution, I can say whatever I like in defense of myself. Saying I'm a police officer is certainly a less-than-lethal response, and if it works, why not use it? Lying for self-defense purposes is not illegal. Now, outside of a self-defense situation, it certainly IS illegal--but that is something else entirely. As a Federal Air Marshall said once to a class I was in, "You can say anything you need to save your life." - Lastly---when reloading, they wanted to make sure people didn't just stand there. This of course makes sense, because if you have to reload in the middle of a self-defense situation, you don't want to stand still and be a good target. However, to "fix" this problem, the instructors had everyone step back-and-forth (you know all the humorous parodies of white men dancing? that kind of stepping) while reloading. According to them, this made you a harder target to hit.
I kept my mouth shut. But what immediately jumped into my mind was 1) if you aren't going to have them move to cover, why aren't you having them at least move their center of mass instead of just moving their feet, and 2) why aren't we moving to cover? Perhaps the advanced course will involve moving to cover. I hope so, because this class didn't talk about movement away from the attacker, moving off-line, or taking cover hardly at all. From everything I know about defensive shooting, if you are shooting then you should be moving---preferably to complete safety, at worst to concealment but preferably cover.
We did do a tiny bit of shooting on the move---one drill with straight backward and straight forward movement. But that was it. This "dancing while reloading" bit was nonsense. Perhaps they thought it at least got people away from thinking about just standing there? If so, why didn't they have a drill that started to practice useful movement?
There was more, both good, and annoying. But I don't have my notes with me, and you already get the idea.
It really seemed to me that the class was taught by some people who shoot, shoot well, think that people should be able to defend themselves with firearms, and have taken classes in firearms defense. This, however, is different from a class taught by people who have studied self-defense and defensive tactics, and understand the use of tools such as firearms in defensive tactics. I may be wrong, because I don't know what the intructor's full knowledge base is--but it certainly felt that way. Plus, some of the things they were teaching (here and there) matched tactics I've read about that were state-of-the-art 8-10 years ago. (Which matches when they were taking classes, I believe.) Some things have changed since then, in my opinion. (In tool usage for self-defense, at least.)
The instructors for this course have fairly effectively (for the most part) created a sequence of drills that can help shooters interested in starting to learn the concepts of self-defense with a handgun.
That being said---it isn't how I'm going to run my defensive tactics classes.
Overall, would I recommend this class to people? Yes and no. For shooters who already know how to shoot, and know the basics of firearms self-defense, it is a pretty good time. You get to practice some skills, the sequence of drills is useful, and you can start spotting holes in your skills set. For new shooters---probably not what I would suggest. Not enough feedback for shooters who can't effectively self-monitor.
The Advanced Defensive Tactics class is next weekend. I'll post a commentary on that one after it happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment