Be Careful Who you Recommend

As a firearms instructor, I will generally recommend that people take classes, and also to take classes from other instructors. It is in this practice - suggesting classes from others - where great care must be taken. There are two main ways to recommend a class from other instructors:

1. Broadly: "You should take classes with other instructors and schools." (not naming specific places)

2. Specifically: "You should take a class from Middle Tennessee Firearms Training." (naming a specific place)

For the record, I absolutely recommend Middle Tennessee Firearms Training. 

Making recommendations

Generally speaking, a broad recommendation is a good thing. And generally speaking, a specific recommendation should only be made with firsthand confidence in the instructor/school that is suggested. 

In this example, I have trained multiple times at MTFT, and consider Jeremy, the head instructor, a friend. In a similar vein, I would gladly recommend Thunder Ranch, although I have not trained with Clint Smith and his crew - but I do so confidently because folks whom I admire have trained at TR, and have given Thunder Ranch their seal of approval. 

How not to do it

I saw a recent situation where someone made a recommendation on an instructor with whom he had not trained, and also, nobody he knew could have trained as the instructor is relatively new in the civilian training world. At first, I reached out to that individual and warned against making the recommendation since he did not have firsthand knowledge of the instructor's ability. Of course, this person got defensive about it, as he considers himself a friend to that person. 

Since I teach classes on armed response to active killers, and also try to stay up to speed on information pertaining to this sort of threat, I decided to take that instructor's class. While there were a few worthwhile notes to be had, there were also several major fallacies in that class. Make no mistake, the course content was enjoyable and pertinent. It was time well spent. However, the fact remains that it is possible that several in attendance now have false impressions about some things. 

Why were there major fallacies in that class?

Could it be that the instructor was misinformed?
Possibly. However, the instructor had several valid points - all of which were backed up by citation. Interestingly, the fallacies were not backed up by citations. So, that instructor had the ability to research. But clearly, he had not researched the areas of fallacy.

Could it be that these were opinions passed off as facts?
This is likely. My personal belief is that this person wished to create a positive impression of a group of people and this was his way of doing so.

Could it be that the instructor was outright lying, or that this was simply propaganda?
Again, I think this was at least possible. Due to the fact that I firmly believe the instructor was trying to cast a positive light on a (maligned) group of people... for at least a bit of a personal gain (he is part of that group).

What were these bits of misinformation?
Let's start with the class.
Subject matter was civilian response to an active killer.
This information was posed from a point of view where the civilian was unarmed, or has chosen not to use deadly force against an active killer. As an aside, the instructor openly admitted deadly force was warranted and justified, and that this scenario was not as likely.

The fallacious information 1. 

A claim that police response time was 3 minutes on average once the 911 call has been made. This may have stemmed from a thoroughly debunked propaganda piece released by the FBI on their website - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://leb.fbi.gov/image-repository/police-response-time-to-active-shooter-attacks.jpg/view&ved=2ahUKEwjehpLv7KGIAxW93skDHb5DJNgQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw22ykQUTurtBy0F3Tw1sYAt

Ed Monk, who is certainly one of the foremost experts on mass shooters, has thoroughly researched this response time on active killers nationwide and states the response time is approximately 12-14 minutes. Monk points out that "First, it usually takes a 911 call. Then you have to wait for an officer to arrive and then hope the officer or officers won't delay in moving in, he said. And while SWATs are more equipped to handle the threat, it's likely to take at least 30 minutes for them to arrive and set up."

Monk even paints a picture using the "3 minute" concept in this presentation - which still puts the total time of the incident at 7+ minutes. Note that Monk points out that such a reaction time would yield an average of 42 killed in those 7 minutes. Every time Monk references "3 minutes" in this material, it is encapsulated by quotation marks, or punctuated with a question mark. He does not believe 3 minutes is valid. And he has studied it more than you. 

Moreover, since this instructor referenced Metro Nashville police several times, we can easily retrieve data on them, as well. From this link, Metro Nashville takes over an hour (74 minutes) on average to respond to burglary, rape, homicide and other serious calls - https://www.openthebooks.com/fox17-nashville-police-take-74-minutes-on-average-to-respond/

Not sure if the instructor wanted to paint police in a positive light, or instill (false) hope, or both. 

The Fallacious information 2. 

"The Covenant school shooting had 19 casualties."
Every source one can search lists the 6 killed. Casualties never include the killer, as well they should not. Injured are (correctly) counted in casualty reports. The only source this author could find on injured parties at this shooting was Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on the shooting mentions a child who suffered a "graze wound" (no citation attached to that claim) and a police officer injured by "cutting his hand on shattered glass" (this was cited). If we concede these two injuries claimed by Wikipedia, then the casualty toll rises to 8. Still a far cry from the claim of 19. 

Is it possible, that police have access to information we do not have? Entirely possible. However, this information should have been revealed in Crowder's "leak" or the released FOIA request earlier this year. No mention. It could be a cover up, and that certainly would not help the argument.

Is it possible that the instructor goofed up?
Sure.
This would have been an easy one to double check, though.

The fallacious information 3. 

This fallacy was the concept that police will arrive and assist by going after the gunman.
To be fair, this was not said outright. It was overtly implied at every turn.
And again, this just does not match what really happens. To quote Ed Monk again, in well over 1000 active shooter events, police have arrived and actively engaged the gunman in live fire only 5 times.

Nashville was the exception.
Uvalde is the rule.

This is why I believe this instructor was trying to place a positive spin for police responses.

Overall impressions
For the record, the majority of the information in the class was factual. Ironically, other than these three items, almost all of the other information had sources cited.

The instructor's suggestion for how to deal with an active killer went against the grain of "run-hide-fight" and this is a good thing as R-H-F is a terrible mindset and an even worse suggestion. The instructor used a different slogan, and the accompanying mindset was vastly superior. 

The hands-on curriculum was solid and pertinent. Gun disarms when unarmed were dealt with from a very real perspective. The instructor has years of real martial arts training, and this showed through to good effect. 

Conclusion: 

Can I recommend this instructor? Absolutely not. 

And, it was an error for the other person to have recommended this instructor. 

Since this instructor cannot be recommended, he will not be named.