-=> Quoting John Perz to All on 14 Jul 96  10:33 <=-
 Re: Competent trainers 
 JP> The following is an excerpt from the July 96 edition of Jeff Cooper's
 JP> Commentaries  which was posted in the Firearms & Politics Mailing
 JP> List. 
 JP> ************************************************************ 
 JP> It appears that everybody wants to get into the firearms training act.
 JP> Various groups large and small are springing up hither and yon,
 JP> offering weapons training to all and sundry, with or without
 JP> qualification.  It takes more to be a professor of arms than most of
 JP> these people are prepared to offer.  Back in the days when I ran Orange
 JP> Gunsite, the qualifications for an instructor, just as coach not a
 JP> range master, were as follows:
 JP> a.      He must be better than just good with his own weapon.
 JP> He need not be an international champion, but he does need to be able
 JP> to do anything he asks of a student, easily and on demand, and more
 JP> besides.
 JP> b.      He must be possessed of a powerful desire to impart.
 JP> He must want his students to be, if anything, better than he is.  It
 JP> is not enough for an instructor to be a good shot, he must be able to
 JP> produce good shots.
 JP> c.      He must display an adequate command presence, since he
 JP> has no military or  administrative authority over his students.  This
 JP> means that his bearing, posture, voice,  general appearance, and
 JP> patience must be such that he can command without rank.  This is  not
 JP> a common attribute.
 JP> d.      He must have "seen the elephant" either in a military
 JP> or a law enforcement capacity.  He must have been shot at and shot
 JP> back, so that he can tell his students that he knows exactly how it
 JP> feels.
 JP> e.      He should be reasonably fluent in one language other
 JP> than his own, since this business is international in scope.
 JP> - From the foregoing it is obvious you cannot just whistle up a
 JP> firearms instructor, nor can you create a firearms academy with
 JP> personnel from the employment agency.  Too many people are trying to do
 JP> this and it is not only dishonest, but definitely dangerous.  We have
 JP> many examples. 
 JP> ************************************************************* 
 JP> My Comment:  I'm not sure I agree with "d".  Assuming your instructor
 JP> himself received a thourough grounding in correct technique and
 JP> tactics, then "a" & "b" is all you really need in an instructor.
 JP> The fact that he either did or did not shoot somebody once upon a time
 JP> strikes me as fairly irrelevant.
My problem with "d" seems to be different than yours. I half-agree, but 
only half. I'd like someone who is instructing relative to defense or 
"combat" to have experience. There is a certain amount to be said for 
having been through it. Mostly attitude things, like assurance and 
understanding. OTOH, if the trainees are civilians, what they'll have to 
deal with is something completely different from, say, Vietnam (and 
definitely nothing like Panama, Somalia or the Gulf War). The rules of 
engagement are different, as are the consequences
Yes, I think someone who hasn't been there could be a decent instructor, 
but he wouldn't be sure of it himself (if he's honest). I'd make an 
exception for someone with sufficient indirect experience. Also, perhaps 
he is demanding more of his coaches than necessary, but that's a separate 
detail.
Steve
... and basic tactics involve running as fast as possible
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------