From time to time, I see the better trainers out there talking about how they are using the latest physical education and mental acumen techniques to make their classes even better. They quote Basham and Anderson and Salamon, and they go to great lengths to design curriculum so their students can reach ever-higher levels of performance.
But you know what I DON’T hear? I don’t hear firearms trainers talking about how they are coming up with new ways to get their students to carry everywhere they can. This absolutely fascinates me, because the challenge throughout my marketing career has been to get buy-in on a marketing campaign that’s not based on acquiring new customers, but rather one based around the retention and reactivation stages of the customer journey. In firearms training, though, especially at the advanced levels, the emphasis seems to be on preaching to the choir, and acquiring new customers seems somehow… demeaning.
Even when the topic of getting people to carry more often comes up, most trainers fall back on the seatbelt and fire extinguisher metaphors, which clearly aren’t working, and then leave it at that. They’re setting their students up for failure, and they’re limiting the amount of advanced students they’ll eventually be teaching to just one percent of gun owners.
Quick though exercise… what if the number of people who carried their guns on a basis doubled? What would that do to the demand for post-CCW firearms training?
It’s raining soup out there, people. Time to get a bigger bucket.
It’s true that carrying a gun is a personal decision and the trainer can’t make that decision for the student. While this is correct, it’s also true that a trainer can help make the decision easier, and so far, those methods are failing, and they’re failing badly. If we spent half as much time analyzing and improving upon the reasons why people don’t carry their guns as we do talking about myelination and motor skill attenuation, we’d change gun culture in America forever.
So what’s stopping you?