Are We Too Self-Absorbed to Keep Evolving?

This is a correspondence between myself and a someone else within the shooting industry.  I chose as the blog post for this week to share it with you.

To give you a little bit of background: I teach Israeli Combat Shooting.  It's unique, different, nontraditional to those who are unfamiliar with it.  A video came up that demonstrated the skill.  It was a short 5 minute video of a skill that takes days to master.  However, many within the shooting industry immediately put it down.  I was amazed that people were so negative without ever trying it or understanding it completely.  I must also praise those instructors who chose to comment by stating that they would like to try it to better understand it...that is the attitude that I would expect from most people, specifically from instructors.

Before I get into the discussion you must understand the following:

• Not all tactics and skills apply for everybody.  But anyone should be able to get something out from anything they learn.
• In the full class we spend a considerable amount of time discussing why we do what we do in the manner we do it.  A luxury not available in the video.
• The video only shows a small portion of what we covered in the class.

My main issue wasn't with the criticism, I am used to that.  I was however surprised that so many "reputable" personalities within the industry were so judgmental without ever trying it.  

One of the expected results though, at least for me, was that I took many of the comments to heart and did an internal review of how we teach the skills.  Can I explain things better?  Can I modify the skill so it is more applicable to the vast majority of US Shooters without losing its integrity and purpose?  At the end of the day, we must evolve and become better.  I figured I can be better than all of those instructors and use new information (comments) to better myself instead of just sweeping it under the carpet as invalid.

So here you go...

My Email:

I have been following the various comments that came up as a result of the video.  At first I got frustrated with the feedback from people who never tried it or criticized the Israeli style of shooting with little understanding of the principles behind it.  I spent hours debating with many people and trying to explain why we do what we do in the way we do it.  Ultimately I tried to explain that different missions and environments require different tactics.  Many others liked it and provided positive feedback and expressed the will to try and learn more about it.
I realized that people fear or put down what they are unfamiliar with.  Keeping a narrow sighted view instead of trying new things and taking from it what may be beneficial for them.  I personally try to always learn from others.
With that, I learned a few new things from those discussions.  I learned what parts of the skills they had most issues understanding or applying.  I used that understanding to go to the range and see if there is a different way I can teach the skill, or maybe even modify it to accomplish the same goals yet not seem as “out of the box” as the original technique calls for.  I always pride myself in ever evolving, from the self-defense/Defensive Tactics we teach, to firearms and small team tactics, if we don’t evolve we are doomed to lose.
As of recent I have had the opportunity to teach the class with the new “modifications”.  I explain things a little differently, and I use different tactile points of reference to accomplish the same goals.  It has been received with overwhelming positive reviews and feedback..and even shot placements on targets reflect a better understanding of the skill.

The response:
It seems that the anonymity of the internet really allows people to be the jerks they always wanted to be in person but were afraid someone would punch them in the face. The Israeli method is very different than how we train here although the fundamentals are essentially the same. You are right that anytime you expose people to something different they are always resistant at first. I think you have the right attitude which is to take the criticism, filter out the garbage, and use what is constructive to alter and improve your own methods.
This highlights what I see as a big problem in firearms training (which I don't think applies to you). Each instructor that has his own method gets attention by being controversial and inflammatory (usually on purpose). They bad mouth other instructors and other methods as being ineffective or out of date and surround themselves with converts to their system who basically become yes men and toadies and who think their master can do no wrong and every other instructor is an idiot.
These schools basically become closed systems unwilling to try or learn about other methods except so far as needed to criticize them.
I attend  and observe a lot of different methods and schools from beginner civilian to military and law enforcement. I certainly don't always agree with everything that is taught but I see the value in all of it. The only real issue I have is that since I take all these different classes and since each instructor has different methods I never build much muscle memory in any one system. In my own personal CCW and training I do force myself to pick one way of doing things that is most comfortable for me and makes the most sense and stick with it for the sake of consistency.

My question to you is: are instructors really so retarded that they just sham everything else without trying it first?

What were your experiences?

As always, stay safe and watch your six.
BK Blankchtein
Masada Tactical Protective Services

The Catch 22 of Effective Security

I wrote before about my belief that most security professionals unfortunately focus too much on the reactive nature of security, rather than the proactive aspect of it (Check that blog post here).  Aside from the fact that the reactive part is more tangible (more on this soon), it is also without a doubt the “sexier” aspect of security.  After all, it is much more exciting to go in guns blazing and engage a threat than it is to prevent the threat to begin with.  Example: how many people took dignitary protection courses where the emphasis was on the firearms training?  That is obviously the wrong approach as the whole goal of a protective detail is to avoid threats to begin with (via proper advance work, counter surveillance initiatives, proper intelligence gathering, and adequate security posture).  If handguns come out during a security detail then we must assume that some big mistakes occurred leading to it.  Another example would be Active Shooter Response: police and first responders train heavily on how to respond to an active shooter/threat situation.  However, by the time they respond they are already behind the 8-ball and are fighting a losing battle.  Even if the shooter managed to shoot only one round, he (the shooter) has already won.  A better approach would be to not allow the shooter in to begin with.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am as much of a proponent of making sure that if you are in a position where you must engage a threat than you have to make sure you do not lose.  That is one fight that you MUST win and decisively so.  Be it addressing an active shooter or an potential assassin on your dignitary.  If forced to react skills must be sharp and effective.  But…it should be secondary to effective deterrence and detection skills and tactics.

During my career as a security consultant I found out though that being good doesn’t always pay off.  If performing your duties effectively, a security professional should mitigate risks to such a level that nothing happens.  Unfortunately that is often times interpreted by the organization or individual who hired you as a reason to not need you any more.  After all, nothing happened for a while, so your services are obviously no longer needed.  Their narrow sighted view of the picture prevents them from seeing that it is because of your efforts that nothing has happened.  If you do your job right nothing happens, and if something happens you must suck at your job.  Either way you lose.

Back to being tangible, or measurable variables now.  One can quantify and qualify hits on targets, or operationally hits on bad guys.  What one cannot quantify is all the catastrophes that were potentially averted by implementation of proper security measures.  How does one measure something that didn't happen?

Reality is that it doesn’t have to be this way.  As threats are becoming more apparent, global, and capture more of the public attention, it is becoming easier for security professionals, from Chief Security Officers to dignitary protection specialists, and even police administrators, to justify their existence and their value by contrasting their work with the cost of liability and damages associated with a potential threat.  In other words, by showing what a realistic and probable threat would cost the organization/individual, the security professional can better articulate the cost of his efforts (from salaries to implementation of security initiatives).  Nowadays, security professionals who effectively do their job, can justify a seat around the table at the C-suite, and increase value by demonstrating how much money their efforts are saving the organization.

Ultimately though the decision is one: a security professional must do what is right.  And the right thing to do is prevent and mitigate threats and risks to the best of their ability.  Failure to do so is not only a blemish on their reputation (and by association, that of other security professionals), but it may also cost lives and money, none of which is acceptable.   All we can do is be professionals and improve the way we present our value to those who hire us.

As always, stay safe and watch your six. 

BK Blankchtein

Masada Tactical Protective Services