Conventional vs. Non-Conventional Munitions: Shooting Simulation

Rob, you're a gun guy. You know, you spent a lot of time on the range. Fire a lot of rounds each year. And I think that if we've got the time, the money, the organizational will, the personal will to do that, that's great. Shooting for you is not only an important part of a defensive world for you but also, you enjoy shooting. That's great, but talk to me a little bit about the value of conventional rounds or the value of non-conventional munitions. Where do you see the balance between conventional and non-conventional? For me, I think that quite often too much is made of the thousands of rounds during the year type practice, right? I happen to think that for most people that are carrying guns for personal defense, or who own guns in their home for personal defense, they're not going to go spend 10,000, 20,000, 30 rounds a year being shooters, right? They're dentists, or they're doctors, or they're housewives, Or they're teachers, or they're plumbers. They're other things, not just shooters. They're not defined by shooting. And I think the shooting community puts a lot of pressure or judgment on that person for not going out and spending 10, 20, 30,000 rounds. One of the things I think that you and I agree on is that the skill level necessary for the overwhelming majority of defensive shootings is not a 20,000 round a year skill level. It might be a 200 round a year skill level after some initial skill development. So I feel very strongly that, initial skill development, practical defensive shooting skill development has to be done with a real gun. I don't think you can develop shooting skill without recoil, without getting used to manipulating your gun, feeling that recoil. But once you've done that, I think the non-conventional munition, right? Whether that's the airsoft, the marking cartridge, the laser gun, or the mind bullet that shot out of the rubber gun that you practice presenting, or that you have in the ready position, can be incredibly important for a good, low training resource investment sustainment protocol, and, most vitally, for the testing of the evaluation of your ability to apply the skills, apply those defensive firearm skills in a scenario training, like you run so often. Well, that's interesting, and this is one of our great opportunities where we can disagree a little bit because, while I agree with much of what you've said, almost all of what you've said, my perception is that it could be valuable to take the different approach of using non-conventional technologies early on. In fact, the, the very first trigger for us that my daughter ever had on a gun was with a BB gun, at a skydive thing. It was, she was watching some kid shoot with a BB gun and very intent on all this. And I asked her, "Would you like to try that, honey?" "No, guns are bad. Guns kill people. Me and mommy don't like guns." I said, "Oh, well, whatever, I'll get you eventually." But as the day went on, she continued to watch this kid with a BB gun and eventually said, "Well, maybe I'll try it once." I said, "It's got half and you're a little short." She goes, "No, no, the BB gun." I said, "All right, well, let's go ask." We borrowed the BB gun. And instead of putting her at the 25 yard line and teaching her about sight alignment, and trigger control, and breathing, and grip, and stance, and all of this, I laid her down, put the can about eight inches away from the muzzle, positioned the muzzle, and had her work the trigger, and the thing went "pop", the can fell down, and... Sure. Big grin, "You want to try it again?" "Uh-huh." And we shot again, and again, and again. And at the end of the day, "Would you like a BB gun?" "Uh-huh.", "Does mom gotta know?", "Uh-uh." And she still owns that BB gun today. And what I discovered is, because, we have these innate fears built into us, the loud noises, the sudden approach, if we take those away early and we take away the fear of the gun, so that we can build up the skill. A great story I heard one time of a Japanese or a Korean guy that came over to America for an Upset competition had never fired a real gun in his life, but had probably millions of rounds with airsoft, because airsoft is huge over there. Sure. He got a little bit of instruction with a conventional gun to learn, to manage, recoil, report. And then went and won an actual competition over here. Having never really had a lot of experience with the recoil and the report. One of the things that I've noticed is that training is the residue of experience. So the experiences that we have, we talked to a lot of people that have been in gunfights, things that they will constantly report is, "I never heard the recoil." Right. Or, "I never heard the report." "I never felt the recoil." But they were able to deliver accurate fire because their primary experiences were building up to that point. So that, because you're not going to hear the report, and you're not going to feel the recoil, I want that residue of experience to be successful completion. And if I can teach you with non-consequential technologies to get thousands of repetitions, of accurate fire on a body, with either marking cartridges, rubber guns, theater of the mind, airsoft, any of these technologies. And then once you're not scared of the gun, but you already know how to shoot, now, we go down to the range for a little bit of recoil management and report management so that you're not flinching so much, then I think that we can come at it from that approach also. So it's interesting that there's, I think, two ways to come at it, both of which need to end up with people simplifying and demystifying gun fighting, and a success-based approach. Absolutely. And I think, in both of those examples that you gave, I think the issue for me is training resources. If I have a lot of time and a lot of reps and there was millions of airsoft rounds, I have no doubt that we can develop some skill there. My concern is the person that wants to take the BB gun and fire 10 shots, and then say, "Okay, now you're ready for the real gun." and jump onto the real gun. And in my opinion, they're still just as nervous as they were. You haven't acclimated them. There's still an antagonism and anxiety for that gun to go bang. And I think that, "Let's make the gun go bang." Let's get the gun in your hand and have it go bang. I've got the picture I have with my daughter, she's 18 months old. And her mom is holding the safety glasses and she's got the ears on and repositioned the 12 gauge with support from my arm so that she's busting clays. Yes. And, you know, still the same thing, getting that success. And I think that's certainly to agree on. There has to be success facilitating that success one way or another, whether it's the non-consequential rounds, or the real rounds, when it comes to physical shooting skill development, I think there are two paths. Ultimately, non-consequential wins when it comes to evaluation. I would much rather see somebody with marking cartridges or airsoft in a safe, controlled environment, testing their ability to do something in context, in a scenario, than I would have them shoot a real gun on a piece of paper, and feel like they've mastered gunfights. But I also think that your point is well taken in that we need to have a reverence for the real rounds in that, if we spend all of the time with non-consequential technologies and get overconfident. Yes. Yeah. That real damage can be done because we don't understand that the realities of what bullets can do to bodies-- Bullets can do to bodies and what recoil can do to the pace of your shooting. Exactly. So a lot of the shooting and moving that gets proven with airsoft guns and things like that, well, you know, let's try that with the actual recoil. Excellent discussion, and again, very similar approaches. But I think that that crux of disagreement is maybe where we both can help people understand, that, there sometimes is more than just one way. And as long as your way has integrity and your way is working, and your way as guided by someone with some background in training, you don't have to pick, you know, one or the other, and say the other one's ridiculous. I think, in this case, we can both agree that both approaches are valid. Exactly. And how many "knock them down, drag them out." arguments have you heard about site alignment versus-- site alignment, trigger control versus unsighted fire. There are people that want to beat each other up over all of this. You know what? The gun doesn't care, what the gun cares about is whether or not you've done the work. If you're an isosceles shooter and you've done the work, you're going to hit your target. If you're a one handed shooter, a point shooter, and you've done the work, you're going to hit your target. If you hold the gun over your head and shoot, while looking in a mirror, if you've done the work, you're going to get the hits. But what people don't understand is that none of this is going to occur through osmosis. You've got to do the work. You're not going to get stronger by watching people lift weights.