I just wanted to give a quick update.
Please excuse the mess, even though we are fully operational I am still tweaking the site and building it out. You will find several areas that I am hoping to build out and reorganize. If you would like to contribute or have any ideas let me know!
1. I am working to simplify the downloads section. I also plan on adding an upload section.
2. If you had an account on the old site it was migrated here. You will need to do a password reset however.
3. A couple of the instructor discount files have been updated: the FreedomGroup (Rem, DPMS, Bushmaster, Barnes) has been changed to a zip since I now have the MSRP price lists. The Sig file has been changed to a zip and now includes the price list and order form
As always, thanks for reading!
Are we as instructors effectively shooting ourselves in the foot?
Are we alienating shooters and potential new shooters by forgetting the core values of respect and being polite?
I was recently involved in a conversation with a popular nationally known instructor. He said that it is his "job to chastise people" when they have made the wrong decision. The wrong thing in this case was choosing not to carry a striker-fired pistol without being able to justify it with a "valid" (to him) reason.
The shooter's reason for carrying something "antiquated"?
It was the platform that he had been carrying for decades and it was second nature to him.
The instructor then went on to chide him about how he had the luxury of carrying something that was less than optimal and that not everyone does.
I replied that choosing a firearm platform is a very personal decision and that each person needs to do their own research, shoot a variety, and then make a decision on their own. The instructor said that my comment was dangerous and implied that it could get someone killed (!) He then went on to say that he was going to make an "example" out of our exchange -- Good so was I.
This type of elitism reminds me of my first motorcycle course before I had even touched a bike. On the first day the instructor said that his goal was to get most of us new riders to FAIL. (That's a way to encourage new riders and instill confidence!)
He also said throughout the course that BMW made the only good bikes and was very vocal about putting other brands down. He was so successful as an instructor to fail people that he failed 9 (including me) out of the 10 of us!
I didn't ride another motorcycle for almost a decade when I finally decided to retake the class. I passed it without issue and commute on it daily (well, not today when it is close to freezing outside). My point is that first experience almost caused me never to ride a motorcycle again.
A week or so ago a young lady came to me to talk about her recent shooting class. She was afraid of firearms, but wanted to get over her fear. Unfortunately, it didn't fare much better than my first motorcycle class.
She explained to the instructor that she had never fired a firearm or even been around firearms being fired. She told him how afraid she was to even be on the range.
I don't know if it was an attempt to break her fear, or just a bizarre policy, after the training portion the class went to the range and the instructor without warning or explanation proceeded to load a 40 caliber pistol and fire off grounds rapidly. This did not even sit well with the nearby RSO who rushed over to get him to stop and tell him that it was in poor form. If you scare the RSO, then you are not doing it right.
Needless to say, this scared her to death and she found herself trembling for the rest of the class wanting to leave. The instructor was successful in making her never want to visit a public shooting range again.
She did not give up though and she asked for some 1-1 range time. I was able to take her to a private range and introduce her into different types of pistols and calibers so that she could find what she was comfortable with. We found that she is comfortable with 22 pistols and steel frame 38 special revolvers.
She was so excited about shooting that she even posted a video of herself on her Facebook page!
That in my opinion is the instructors job – teaching safety and making shooting enjoyable. Our goal is to preserve and continue the shooting sports not discourage it. I am glad that it did not take her a decade to retry.
I welcome your thoughts.
I was surprised to read this article:
Why I'm Proud That My Kids Shoot Guns For their sake–and everyone else's
which was published on marieclaire.com and stands out as a voice of reason in a world of media where they are afraid of firearms. It is a stark contrast from say Esquire.com which recently had an article where they are scared that people are going to hide Glock 43's in their PALM (see my post here http://fortreg.com/r3/index.php/item/557-a-glock-43-will-fit-in-the-palm-of-your-hand-really-esquire)
However, from the Marie Claire article:
"I've never understood the logic of avoidance when it comes to important issues that can impact a child for life. My philosophy is to meet those issues head-on. That's why educating my children about gun safety is so important to me.
Fear is often born out of ignorance, and frankly, the general public's lack of gun safety knowledge scares the mess out of me. I've seen that education and parental influence is key in preparing kids for the real world. Whether it's their changing bodies, handling a bully, sexual curiosity, or gun safety, I will talk to them about it directly."
I wish that there are more in the media open to her viewpoint, or at least willing to learn.
I suspect the author of this article:
has never actually seen or held a Glock model 43.
It unfortunately become pretty common for media to talk about firearms with little knowledge and then be outraged at their own untrue statements.
For fun I just snapped a couple pics of my Glock 43 (the exact model discussed) in my hand -- sshhh about the 42 because that would expose quite a few mistakes in the article and cause even more feigned outrage.
You tell me if you think that the 43 can be easily hid in the palm of someone's hand. More like a #facepalm to the face.
Sorry for the poor pic quality, I literally just snapped them with my iPhone.
I am very close to switching over the site to this new one. If you had a user account at firearms.fortreg.com
it should have been migrated here.
The password schemes from Wordpress, however, do not translate over so the password will be: instructor
You can also reset it, I have also changed from PHPmail to authenticated SMTP mail.
I want to thank Lou for helping test a number of functions on the new site!
I hope you guys like it.
*** If you are reading this you are on the NEW site (currently in testing)! ***
The site was hacked again, I was notified by my ISP (at least they gave me a chance to remove them before shutting the site down this time).
Sorry that we down briefly today - I also found some questionable files and had to clean them up - reverting to backup. I will be accelerating the site's move to Joomla.
Thanks for your patience.
Original article: Gun ownership does not make women safer from the Boston Globe
This is an example of showing that a study will prove exactly what you set out to prove.
First they attack the statement that a woman with a firearm can defend herself. In fact, they even go as far as to say that they have discredited its possibility by citing a particular study.
However, the study doesn't have anything to do with women owning a firearm!
Instead the study actually says that women, who are around more people with firearms are more likely to get harmed by a firearm. hmm...no mention of the rates of firearm ownership by women though.
Is that like the study that concluded that if you own a firearm, that you are more likely to get shot with your own firearm?
"The presence of a gun is the biggest risk factor for domestic violence deaths among women.”
Really? The "biggest" risk factor? So, if a woman knows someone with multiple firearms (gasp!) is she exponentially more in danger? Right. It's the gun(s), not the person - got it.
The article also strikes me as sexist in its implications that a woman cannot handle a firearm. In me experience, that is simply not true.
Anti-gun groups are quick to say that pro-gun people are unreasonable and unwilling to compromise.
But apparently, they are quick to attack any pro-gun control supporter who might be willing to make a compromise. Hypocritical much?
Their complaints are very weak. Each side got something, and to use the anti-gunners' mantra:
"If it saves just one life!"
They wanted people with protective orders against them to not be able to give/sell their firearms away, but rather be required to give them to law enforcement. Why?
And the universal background checks requirement for gun shows is voluntary with a stationed police officer at gun shows didn't go far enough. But "if it saves just one life"? Right?
It essentially restores status quo of CCW reciprocity that existed before the AG's "re-examination" and to quote the article: "...in exchange for tighter restrictions on gun ownership by domestic abusers and voluntary background checks at gun shows."
Sounds good, right? Apparently not! I guess unless it is completely draconian or has the word "ban" in it, it is no good.
Let's also not forget the fact that there were a couple of bills introduced that would have reversed the CCW reciprocity AG ruling anyway. One attempted to make VA a CCW license-less state which would honor any state's CCW license!
In the end (and being from the Commonwealth myself) I like Gov. McAuliffe's response:
McAuliffe dismissed the criticism during an appearance in Northern Virginia, saying “everybody supports [the gun deal] except one gun-safety group out of New York City.”
This is a refreshing ruling from the 4th Circuit Appellate Court. The 3 judge panel ruled that the "because they are scary" justification to ban assault weapons is too vague and that it could effectively used to ban anything, sending the case back to district court.
This is actually a fairly decent article on the topic:
What is frightening is what the dissenting judge said. He said that people would die because of this ruling. Wow, what rhetoric. I find that judge to be too scary to be a sitting judge.