The "best"? Determined by what?
The number of notches on their pistol, the number of gunfights participated in, total shots fired in anger?
I've talked to a couple of "trainers" and after only a couple of minutes, it was crystal clear that they had far less experience than I. Teaching tuck and roll or dance step shooting doesn't mean anything other that those "schools/classes/training" know how to extract $$ from suckers. All that choreographed gun range stuff is just that "stuff" in my book.
For a totally inexperienced shooter more basic instruction is needed just to prevent them from shooting themselves accidentally. A real novice isn't gong to learn enough in a couple of days of blasting to face a determined aggressor.
Got to disagree with much that T O'Heir stated. (It's a trend)
-LE and military training is often different than civilian training, but there is significant overlap. LE and civilian cues for impending trouble are similar, because it is about dealing with people. The basic skill sets of identifying threats, safely shooting, diagnosing malfunctions, moving, and communicating are all quite similar. Sure some skills are not likely to be used in a civilian context (multi-team building clearing, etc), but many fundamentals of both shooting and dealing with dangerous situations are common among civilian CCW, LE, and military.
Good training courses teach sound fundamentals, whether they be marksmanship, threat identification, grappling, medical skills, etc. Where they help advance their students is by providing a logical structure for thinking and learning and an outside perspective to fix mistakes and set proper training goals. One instructor (I think Paul Howe) said something to the effect of "There is no such thing as advanced shooting, only applying the fundamentals at an advanced level.". If a course helps that, then it's probably worth looking at.
...I'm a military member whose primary assigned firearm is a pistol. So, T, please stop making definitive assertions on topics you have only partial knowledge of.
Live training with immediate feedback is better than a book IMHO.
Gunsite in Arizona or Thunder Ranch
I don't think anyone here or on most other "gun" forums would argue that training is a bad thing. Were I have reservations about your position is that we are talking about a fundamental, Constitutionally guaranteed right. There is nothing in the Second Amendment about the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed IF YOU HAVE THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF TRAINING THAT ___ THINKS IS GOOD ENOUGH.PhotonGuy said:So, I think that if people are going to carry and use guns for self defense they need training from the very best. We need to stop having mediocre gun users if we want to fight for our cause of guns in the hands of good people being effective in stopping bad people. There has been some debate over this in this other thread I started about the New Zealand shooting. Aside from the gun control crowd, I think one of the biggest enemies of us gun rights advocates is ourselves when we fail to get the best training we can get.