It seems in today’s world the term “slow is smooth and smooth is fast” will get you labeled as someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about or my favorite, “putting out dated information”. I generally avoid the subject, not because I agree with those who are opposed to this idea. I avoid it because the conversation requires a higher understanding of the idea in the first place.

An Origin Story

A good place to start is where did this phrase come from, where did it originate? The credit gets tossed around a lot, but it originated from the special operations community. The wet side, a long time ago. Those who have an opposing view don’t know the origin or the history. What is troublesome when you don’t know the history is how it was originally intended and applied. This concepts has far reaching applications, not just shooting. In the shooting world, it is typically applied from a single plane. There is either a lack of ability or experience to see it from multiple planes. It is not just a mistake thinking it is strictly one dimensional, it’s counterproductive.

Seeing the Bigger Picture

When moving at full speed, the top of the food chain make their actions look fluid and automatic. Mind you, I’m not just talking about shooting. If we were to shift focus to assaults, a chaotic and complex operation you might develop a deeper understanding and appreciation. One will see this carefully orchestrated activity be executed with incredible results in some of the most dangerous situations imaginable. There has been an extensive train up to allow for the chaos in the most efficient manner possible. We did not arrive at this ability simply by ignoring decades of development in the training. There is a meticulously executed training plan to build up to the ability to not only run at full speed, but make critical decisions in compressed time periods under enormous stress. The bigger picture.

Outrunning Your Headlights

How does one accomplish this task? It is simple, but not easy. First, it doesn’t happen overnight. For these skills to be truly developed to an automated nature it takes time and making a lot of mistakes. When I was tasked to deliver this training I used simple ways to determine if the individual was outrunning their headlights. During their run, there were simple problems, almost too simple, where if the assaulter was moving beyond their capabilities would make a mistake. When debriefed and queried why they made the mistake most of the time it had to do with not “seeing” the problem. I cannot tell you how many times I would have to tell someone to slow down to avoid making the same mistakes again. To remind them making a mistake at this level is unacceptable, but more importantly avoidable. The mistakes were avoidable if, and this was a big if, they could see the correct series of actions and decisions before required to execute said actions or decisions. Those who made the most mistakes and repeated mistakes were easy to spot. They were moving way faster than they could prosecute the available information.

A Linear Progression Approach

The term, “crawl, walk then run” was often used in conjunction with “slow is smooth”. The assaulters needed to start off slow, like at a literal crawl pace in order to learn the techniques. When they could slow down and see their decisions being made in real time, learning was much easier. It was those who insisted on going faster their skill level that tripped over themselves, at times literally. So, how does this apply to the shooting world. Before you can be expected to execute any action or activity, it must first be flawlessly developed. The only way to accomplish this task is by slowing down so the end user can see the action required, to the level of precision needed to complete the task. Before you can expect to have a one second drawstroke, you must first understand and be able to apply the fundamentals of the drawstroke. You developed this skill by thinking your way through each step so you can apply the required level of precision to your movements.

Master the Fundamentals

I was asked a long time ago how to develop speed in shooting. My answer to this day remains the same. You minimize the amount of movement necessary, then perform said minimal movement precisely enough for the task at hand. You want to shoot faster, then master the fundamentals. The absolute minimal amount of movement necessary. When we look at shooters technique at the granular level it is often covered in dirt. It is not clean. All that dirt prevents you from moving as precisely as you can or as necessary as the shot requires. This to me epitomizes the notion of “slow is smooth and smooth is fast”. Because when trained properly, the thousands of work hours allows the observer a glimpse into the closest thing to perfection we can possibly attain.

The Forging Process

There will remain flaws in our techniques. These flaws exist because for some reason we prioritized something else in the required action and performed them less precise than what the situation dictated. I preach the slow is smooth mantra anytime we are teaching assaults or tactics. But I also preach it when we are teaching shooting. It comes out of my mouth about a 100 different ways in class. Most of the time in the form of a question. Why is this shot not where you were aiming? I’m looking to see what the student can recall. What did they feel, and see at the moment the shot was fired. Most of the time they cannot recall. They cannot recall because they were moving faster than their capabilities allowed. When the student can slow their movements down it allows them to perfect their technique. This smoothing out of their technique then allows them to incrementally accelerate simply by being more efficient. They accelerate to the point of failure. When they can recognize this failure point they truly have arrived as a competent gunman.

Where Does the Smooth Come From

The standing order I give all students is only shoot as fast as they can guarantee the required hits. Those that have been exposed to the slow is smooth mantra have a higher success rate than those who have not. Starting slower gets you to your goal faster. You ingrain the proper neural pathways and therefore it helps to accelerate the learning process. When you slow down you can start to internalize the tacit knowledge. This knowledge is difficult to express or verbalize. It is more like intuition that is developed with experience and this is where the smooth comes from.

It’s About Making Fewer Mistakes

At some point we do want to be going fast, but fast without the proper building blocks is a sham. Anyone who tries to tell you anything different is suspect at best. When you begin to perform at the top levels and are producing excellent results, it is because you have followed a simple formula. You developed your technique or the mechanics to almost a flawless level. It took you slowing down to accomplish this task. Then you applied your technique over and over building competency through consistency. It is as this point you become efficient or smooth. Then you start to see your movement speed performed with fewer and fewer errors or overall time. The byproduct is you are faster. Not because you are moving faster, of course that is a byproduct. You are faster because you are making fewer mistakes at the granular level and producing results.

When I ask people if their goal is to perform whatever their skill to the subconscious competent level they invariably answer of course. When I ask them how they intend on getting there I get a response that reminds me of banging your head into the wall. The fastest way to see progress is by understanding there is a process; technique (slow), consistency (smooth) and then intensity (fast). When you come to this understanding, you improvements mean more and you start to understand what it means to festina lente.

The post The Irony of Slow is Smooth appeared first on Trident Concepts.

I love it…

Recently I saw some message traffic about competition and general opinions. What is my opinion of competition….I love it! I know that may sound weird coming from someone who has not discussed it before in the past, but I’m a firm believer in competition. I value the effort, discipline and commitment folks put into competing. Listen I have raced against a fellow frogman to see who could empty a box of packed ammunition the fastest with the loser having to get wet. No shit… You put a group of us in a room and I guarantee they are all jockeying to see who is the fastest at this, strongest at that, most repetitions for this or most accurate at that. It is a forgone conclusion.

If you are not getting stronger

It transcends everything, there is competition between myself and my swim buddy, my squad versus another squad, my platoon versus another platoon, my team versus another team, my coast versus another coast. Are you starting to get the picture. I love it because it pushes me, it drives me to be the very best I can be. More importantly and this is the critical point, I do not want to let my teammates down. Knowing I’m a link in the mission success chain I need to do my part to the very best of my ability when called upon. There is no excuses, you take full ownership of your skills and mindset to ensure you are ready and hold nothing back.

Support

How does that relate to todays shooting competition. First off, I love it. It is great to see so many people coming together. I cannot help but assume these people don’t just enjoy the sport, but they support their constitutional rights and are exercising in a manner than ensures their survival. It is great to introduce people to a wide array of activities and further develop our community. We do not want to alienate anyone who may be interested in shooting, instead we want to encourage them to participate. To find something they enjoy, there is value in pursuing something you enjoy and encouraging it is a win for our team.

The face for the win

How do I feel about it’s relationship to combat. I will answer it in a manner most will be in conflict with. If it does not have a face I don’t eat it or in this case, if it does not have a face I won’t shoot it. If your performance goals entail moving fast, lifting heavy and otherwise improving you need animal protein. The kind that had a face, without it you will fall short time and time again as far as reaching your potential and goals. In the competitive world, you will get out of it what you put into it, but without a face, without some sort of connotation to a human you are killing it has less value than most want to acknowledge.

Taking life

Let’s face it, shooting is a physical act, but combat is a mental game. The most overlooked aspect to competition is the requirement to perform split second decisions around shoot versus no shoot targets. No, a different color piece of paper has little to no value regarding target discrimination. Target discrimination is so much more and I see the failure as an industry in our CQB classes where students must make split second “life or death” decisions. Decisions where you will be taking another human’s life or a human’s life may be loss because you failed to do right. Without the target discrimination and I’m talking something better than different colors, I’m talking something with legal connotations you may be surprised by the results when you are placed in a chaotic situation where how fast you shoot has less to do with how quickly you can process the information.

The biggest mistake we make in this industry is teaching people to shoot faster than they can process the available information. In a competition it is no big deal, you will go home.

The post To the Victor go the Spoils appeared first on Trident Concepts.

Slap it baby

Some of these false positives are not too bad. A good example would be when you seat your magazine and the slide moves forward. It was unintentional, but the positive result misleads people into believing it was a valid technique. There are several other examples in the tactical world, but one happened to be discussed at our last class. I resisted the urge to talk about it for only so long because it will create a bunch of drama so try to stay focused on the point. We had a retired officer from a large department who during our discussion on multiple threats and the use of cover commented about an incident he was in while on the job.

I give up said the bad guy

The incident happened around his patrol vehicle, where initially the officer was being fired upon by a large caliber rifle. As his vehicle is taking rounds he dismounts and seeks cover behind the wheel well as commonly taught. There was no active engagement or returning of fire and the incident was resolved when the suspect either ran out of ammunition or the rifle malfunction. Either case the “lull” afforded other officers to approach and confront the suspect who by this time had dropped the rifle and was taken into custody unharmed. The officer who had taken temporary cover believed his action were a positive reinforcement of his tactics. He did not account for the fact the suspect surrendered due to the stoppage and fearing for his life.

The key is mindset

The problem I have is the vehicle did not save his life despite what he thinks and despite what many want to think. The use of a vehicle as cover is temporary at best and while the subject has been the source of numerous discussion the main problem I have is the difference in mindset. There are so many “what if’s” it is hard to draw any accurate conclusions and I like that, it’s important you acknowledge the limitless number of variables present. Honestly it has been the main reason I have stayed clear, because no two scenarios will be the same, that outside of a true scientific laboratory it is difficult to replicate results.

Feeder vs. receiver

Here is the problem with cover, it will become your coffin if your opponent is willing and able to maneuver. The moment the threat is no longer static, the moment he is willing to move in an effort to kill you all bets are off. The real question is what tactics you choose to use, tactics versus a stationary target or tactics versus someone who will maneuver on you aggressively. People want to think it is some form of higher learning to be able to maneuver. It’s not, it’s simply a mindset issue and the best way I can describe it is the difference between a feeder and receiver. These terms were shared with me years ago and I have yet to discover something better to describe the two mentalities.

Intention behind action

Had the suspect from the vehicle incident choose to move the outcome could have been dramatically different. When I asked the officer had he maintained visual contact with the suspect he replied he had not, so he had no way of reacting to the suspects actions and was left to receive whatever outcome the suspect was willing to feed. It took some time for that to soak in, to absorb how the vehicle did not save his life how is actions were receiver like despite him taking action to get out of the vehicle. That’s my point, just because you perform some action does not guarantee it will have a positive outcome. While taking action, any action can be better than taking no action it is the intention behind the action I am pointing out.

Here is a summation of the two mindsets; a feeder sees cover in these terms. His first form of cover are his bullets, then body armor, then buddy and lastly ballistic protection. A receiver sees cover in these terms; ballistic protection, buddy, body armor and lastly bullets.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon Bonaparte, French Military and Political Leader

The post False Positives appeared first on Trident Concepts.

Ugly training

We see so many bad habits as a result of ugly training. I reference ugly training as something you have a hard time looking at, it is just plain ugly. There are two main problems with this subject, the first has to do with marksmanship and the second has to do with tactics. During our marksmanship classes we teach the shooter to place their finger on the trigger once they have aligned their sights. The first reason for this is logical sequence. It does no good to place the finger on the trigger prior to the sights being aligned and being able to confirm the sights are aligned requires the student to see their sights. When the student rushes to put their finger on the trigger before developing an appropriate sight picture they end up rushing their shot. Therefore, the finger should stay on the trigger index until this micro-task has been achieved. Too many will comment how this will slow you down and is unnecessary. If you hear this justification you are probably about to partake in ugly training.

The unnecessary conversation

A big problem with this industry is a desire to put the cart before the horse. To try and fast track the shooting sequence in an effort to be a faster shooter. Again, THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS. There is correct training and then there is ugly training, correct training would isolate these micro-tasks and place them in the correct chronological sequence. The perceived gains in speed are not worth the risk you take on or the extra liability by placing your finger on the trigger prematurely. I also believe it produces a poor attitude towards correct training. One where we preach one thing, but yet do another. For instance, we talk about “safety” and how important it is, but placing the finger on the trigger inappropriately is no big deal.

The fallacy of the flat range

From a tactical point of view, the trigger finger should only move to the trigger once positive target identification has been made. This process is often overlooked in flat range training and has created a precedence where we “feel” it is no big deal to have our finger on the trigger. We are doing a disservice to the student by not forcing trigger finger discipline along with safety manipulation. It is well known it will take far more time to positively identify a threat than move your finger to the trigger and select fire. So why then do we still see training emphasizing unsafe and reckless practices that needlessly expose you to more liability?

And now the courts are involved

The answer however unpleasant is true, we continue to see this type of training because instructors either are ignorant to the fact or complacent in ugly training. Some instructors may not recognize the dangers, the truly are ignorant and with time may come to recognize the importance. There are those who may recognize the dangers yet don’t believe the effort is worth it in the end. The problem is compounded with the courts now recognizing how an officer may no longer be granted qualified immunity during an accidental shooting. I believe these incidents can be avoidable with correct training, training that is not any more difficult to put on or organize.

I do not care what your profession or whether you wear a uniform or not, there is correct training and ugly training. Don’t settle, avoid ugly training and strive to excel.

"The will to win, the desire to succeed, the urge to reach your full potential... these are the keys that will unlock the door to personal excellence." Confucius, Chinese teacher and philosopher

The post Ugly Training, Poor Results appeared first on Trident Concepts.

The subtle difference

The other day I had a casual conversation with a good friend, a solid operator. We were discussing what one usually discusses when bored; which is what new toy to buy and by toy I mean gun. Eventually our conversations turned serious and we were discussing the responsibility of current instructors to instill the ability for their students to think on their feet. While typically not a part of flat range training the moment you move into a shoothouse it becomes imperative the students can read a situation then make correct split second decisions. You will notice I added “correct” to the sentence in an effort to bring attention to the fact many times these decisions being made are not correct.

Higher order vs. lower order

For those of us who have been around shoothouses long enough you realize the most important trait an individual can have is critical thinking. Yes, there is the knowledge and application of their tactics, but that is the lower order level of learning. The higher order level has to do with their ability to analyze a situation, decide what to do then evaluate the effectiveness of their actions. The mistake I see in the assault world is teaching people choreographed movements through a known floor plan. Congratulations, you have memorized your movements. The moment you throw a wrench into the plans effectiveness as a cohesive unit falls apart or worse.

Back to the basics

Decentralized command and control is critical to the timely accomplishment of your mission. You cannot wait for instructions on how to solve a problem when the problem is starring you right in the face. I see hugely expensive shoothouses popping up all over the place and believe me I’m stoked to see this, but they are part of the problem. I am not saying you should avoid these facilities, quite to the contrary. The instruction on tactics, techniques and procedures is what makes or break these facilities. Despite all the grandeur it is fundamentals executed decisively that make up close quarter battle. They are principle based and therefore transcend a multitude of situations and scenarios.

To put your hands up or get on the floor

A perfect example is the decision to go deliberate or dynamic. It’s a trick question for the simple reason you will jump from one technique to the other on a single target and this is the problem. You therefore cannot say we always do this or always do that. The situation will dictate and the ability for the assault team members to recognize the situation and then adjust accordingly is sourly missing in many team structures. You may start out deliberate and have to jump to dynamic because the situation is changing, rarely do plans survive first contact with the enemy. To make matters worse, this transition may be conducted multiple times, can each member of your team examine the situation then develop a new plan in a compressed time frame.

The heart of your battle plan

Before you can expect to perform at this higher order of thinking you have to master the fundamentals. It doesn’t matter what kind of uniform you wear there are constants you will face and need to master. Some of these constants are breach point procedures, hallway/stairwell management, room entry/management and consolidation. Each of these principles are unique and must be thoroughly practiced and rehearsed with their appropriate contingencies. Any structure take down will have these constants preformed and often times performed multiple times. I consider this to be the lower order, the higher order comes when you change something and the team has to recognize the change, evaluate it and then implement their change to tactics and this is how you get to correct split second decision making.

I have always said it and my mentors said it to me long before me, CQB is a thinking mans game. It is not for the dull or dimwitted, but the cleaver and creative.

The post Critical Thinking appeared first on Trident Concepts.

Grand theft auto

I was shown a video not too long ago of some live fire drills from a vehicle. Taken out of context it might look questionable as far as realism goes, but before you jump on that bandwagon you might want to first consider your circumstances. For instance, are you rolling heavy in an up-armored vehicle part of multi-vehicle mobility operation. Cricket, cricket… No, what about are you in a low profile role conducting reconnaissance on future targets? Cricket, cricket… Yep, didn’t think so. What about a uniform officer in a a marked unit at a stoplight. We finally start to enter the realm of possibility. From there, we can talk about the most likely scenario where you would have to employ lethal force because the likelihood of you actually doing it represent a damn small percentage. While we are the topic of percentages and since this industry is so enamored with statistics does anyone even know know what those statistics might look like?

Means, intent and opportunity

Now that we have that out the way, let’s talk about realistically dealing with a lethal force scenario from within your vehicle. Let’s put some context into the picture by saying you are in civilian clothes driving a personally owned vehicle. So, what is the most likely scenario where lethal force would be justified? If you were to think about it the most likely scenario is a close quarters event such as aggravated robbery. Remember for you to justify lethal force you have to be in fear for your life for one, but the suspect has to have the means, intent an opportunity to cause injury or death. Let’s focus on the means, could a suspect open fire on you from your driver side at a distance of a 10 meters or more? I’m sure someone could create a scenario where that would pass the sniff test. However, I’m having a hard time justifying that scenario and therefore all the tactics that have been developed recently as a result.

Bad breathe distance around vehicles

I feel it is far more likely the suspect will be within 1 meter of your driver side door if not closer. Remember they not only have to have the means, but the opportunity. Opportunity is often defined by distance. In our current environment I see it far more likely a suspect will be right up on top of you in an effort to rob you personally or steal your vehicle. So, the real question is how do you respond to this situation and how do you prevent it from happening. We can make the default statements of maintaining situational awareness, proper standoff from the vehicle/obstacles in front of you as well as being mindful of drive-able terrain. As we start to see the situation deteriorate where a suspect is approaching our vehicle while we are at a stop you need to consider your options. The fact he has approached your vehicle is clearly not justification to use lethal force. They would have to do something that gives you reason to fear for your life. Is gaining access to your vehicle reason enough, hopefully you are smart enough to have your doors locked and windows rolled up so potentially you have thwarted their gaining access to you physically and can hopefully get off the X.

Unconventional wisdom

That leaves us with them gaining access or threatening you with deadly force, i.e. brandishing a weapon. OK, so I’m going to really fry your noodle now, if either of these actions occur will you be faster getting your firearm or…would it be better to deploy a blade? It’s kind of hard to stage firearms for quick access in your vehicle. There are limited locations, but fixed blades can be located in multiple locations for quick access. It is hard to dispute the effectiveness of a blade in close quarters coupled with the ease of staging them makes them a viable option. Complying with commands in an effort to deploy your blade, then as my good friend Tony Blauer say’s “clear, control and counter” with the blade. So, if they have gained access and are within arms reach, do you go for your pistol or do you go for your blade?

There is more to countering vehicle ambushes, but if you haven’t thought it all the way through what are you really training for then?

"You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength." Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor & Soldier

The post Vehicle Defense appeared first on Trident Concepts.

An honest mistake

In my case it was an honest mistake, the front door didn’t get closed well enough and I didn’t check it before I drove off. However, there was doubt and if there is any doubt, then there is no doubt. If you find yourself in a similar situation you generally have three choices; do nothing, call the police or enter your home. If you choose to enter your home it is better to assume there is someone inside rather than go with the honest mistake excuse and discover you were wrong. This simple mindset sets the stage for an adult version of “hide & seek”, one with serious consequences. The first thing to address is are you alone? If not, instruct your party to move to a safe area and wait for you to come and get them. Under no circumstances are they to enter the home. Also instruct them if they should hear gunfire to seek hard cover and call the police. The details from this point are better suited for another article so we will proceed with what is going on inside the house.

Things out of place

You want to clear as much of the house from outside the front door as possible. Use the windows if you can and slowly work the doorway to look for any visible signs of occupancy. Look for furniture moved, disrupted or the house a mess from being ransacked. If you see any of these, the decision to enter must be carefully considered and if the police haven’t been called by then it would probably be a good time to do so. If you see no visible sign of occupancy through the front door then moving through would be the next step. Since you know the layout of your home, think before you enter. Penetrate only deep enough to buy a foot hold and wait. If you have not drawn your firearm you might want to at this point. Take a deep breathe and listen, don’t move, just listen. Again, you are listening for any signs of occupancy. I would say to listen for several minutes. It may seem like an eternity, but the longer you listen the more likely you are to get valuable feedback. If you have a multi-story or large home, you may need to repeat this step several times in strategic locations; again another topic.

Stepping off the wall

Close the front door, don’t lock it, just shut the door. This will do two things, keep ambient external noise down and warn you of someone entering or more importantly leaving. Remember your party or family are outside, if you spook whoever might be in the house they could stumble across your party/family and bad things could develop. How you proceed is best answered by the understanding the layout of the house. If you have large living areas through the front door then stay close to the external wall you came through and use distance to scan and look for anything out of place. You will only get so much from this movement and eventually you will need to penetrate off this wall into your home and that is where things will get real.

Close contact

At some point you will come to a danger area, a corner where you have some tight quarters and a dead space you cannot see. Ideally you will want to come into a fighting position that is optimized for this situation, close contact. By bringing the pistol into a tuck position and elevating your weak arm to protect your head you have the best chance of dealing with an immediate threat outside of your view. The tuck position gives you the ability to fire your weapon at close contact or contact ranges. If you don’t know this position seek qualified instruction and practice. It can be a bit disheartening the first time you go live so don’t make the time you need it the most the first. Your weak hand is up with your hands just below your sight line ideally with the elbow angle outside of 90 degrees. My good friend Tony Blauer has decades of science behind this so trust me on the technique. It will protect your head and give you standoff to protect you and fire your weapon if necessary.

This is but a morsel of the proverbial iceberg. Solo clearances are extremely dangerous no matter the skill level. However, circumstances may call you to execute and then it is all about reducing your risk.

"We must expect reverses, even defeats. They are sent to teach us wisdom and prudence, to call forth greater energies, and to prevent our falling into greater disasters." Robert E. Lee American Civil War General

The post Solo Clearance appeared first on Trident Concepts.

The positive from ignorance

Ignorance is not a bad thing, it simply means a lack of knowledge or understanding. Skill development is the tool we use to remove ignorance and replace it with competence. But before you can fill the void, you have to acknowledge you are ignorant at some level. As instructors we must sustain the strengths a student has, but really our job is to improve the weaknesses. The student has to trust the process, they have to put their ego aside and realize this is a skill or better a trade craft that must be perfected over time.

Head banging as an instructor

All this comes up after a long conversation with a fellow instructor. Yes, we do talk about you behind your backs and word does get around if you are a douche bag so bare that in mind. This conversation was more general and really frustration over folks who don’t get it, who don’t understand the process. For many people, training on a firing line is the apex of their journey and for others it is just the beginning. What you have to realize is training on a firing line is designed to replicate certain components to the big picture. You have to isolate those components that lead to success in a gunfight and then reverse engineer them on the firing line.

Needs vs. wants

I turn down a fair amount of work because of this, because there is a disconnect between what you need, versus what you want. I get contacted by teams and units that want to jump right into advanced tactics without having the basics down. Here is a news flash, jocking up with some cool armor in multicam does not make an operator of you. The need to have the basics supersedes your want to look cool. I see the precursor to this attitude on the firing line, failing to perform basic tasks correctly or omitting them entirely. Then you place folks in an advance simulator like a team environment conducting assaults and its no wonder there are failures.

Crawl, walk then run

You cannot run, before you can walk and you cannot walk before you can crawl. Jumping ahead does nobody any good, it puts team members and the public at risk. A good example is teaching people to shoot faster than they can process the available information. The whole industry is guilty of this to varying degrees. Yes, speed is a critical component to the equation, but not at the sacrifice of failing to do your job. If you are moving so fast you fail to positively identify a “shoot” threat or worse you shoot a “no shoot” threat the magnitude of the failure is hard to quantify. Couple this with combat marksmanship under adverse conditions such as low light or reduced visibility while adding the stress of injury or death it is easy to see the failures.

Effective training

I am a lot harder on the professional gunfighter, the individual or team who carries a firearm in the performance of their duties.  There is so little margin of error and many of the issues are known issues such as the one described above. Yet, there are still those who forgo the big picture for the immediate gain sacrificing the mission in the end. Training is a generic term, effective training is what you should seek. Training that is mission specific and identifies your weaknesses so they can be improved, so that ignorance can be replaced with competence.

Amateurs practice until they get it right, professionals work until they cannot do it wrong.

The post The Rise From Ignorance appeared first on Trident Concepts.