Smart People = Hard To Teach

L

LordTio3

New member
I was recently at a family get-together. I was sitting with two of my uncles when the subject of guns and gun rights came up. One of the two actually carries his weapon with him everyday. I've never actually seen his weapon, so we both took out our carry weapons, dropped our magazines and emptied the chambers before trading (I got his SA xD .40 sub compact, He got my Glock 19 9mm). My other uncle watched both of us safety check our weapons, then trade, then safety check the new weapon in our hands and kind of smirked.

He then went to retrieve his new Christmas present; a 4" xDm in .40. He took it out of the box and swept me, my uncle, and all of the people in the living room with it before handing it to me. Uncle CCW said, "Be careful with that." Which prompted the three tooth-gritting words we all hate to hear, "It's not loaded."

Now this uncle is a smart, I mean REALLY smart guy. 2 masters degrees and he runs 2 businesses. But in my experience, if you take someone completely unfamiliar with guns, the higher their level of intelligence gets, the more resistant to gun safety protocol they become, and the more they seem offended that you insist on strict adherence to it.

We had a nice long conversation about it being "mental training" and muscled memory; and that the redundancies are there to save you if you do make an error.

The problem with that though, is that often times, I don't have 2 hours to talk to someone about gun safety. Sometimes I just want the person I'm with to stop what they are doing and adhere to the printed and renowned gun safety procedures. And it seems that a lot of intelligent people take your strictness with safety as a personal insult against their intelligence. So my question is this:

Has anyone found a way (tone of voice, turn of phrase, progression of points, idiomatic expressions) to concisely and efficiently convey the the tennants of gun safety to an apparently oblivious individual without offending them or drastically adding/increading tension to the situation? If there is a way without commiting a significant amount of time, I haven't found it.

~LT
 
M

MLeake

New member
Sorry, LT, but we see this in aviation, too. Doctors, lawyers, and successful entrepreneurs have a tendency to assume that intellect and capability in one (or more) field(s) automatically mean they should also be great in the cockpit.

This often translates into flying aircraft into weather that either they aren't up to (even if the plane is, EG JFK, Jr) or that professional pilots would not attempt (EG a business owner who took off, with his wife aboard, into an active tornado watch last month, near Memphis - wreckage found over a ten mile swath).

So, it is no surprise this happens in the gun world.

How to fix it? Professional training... Maybe.
 
T

twobit

New member
*********Has anyone found a way (tone of voice, turn of phrase, progression of points, idiomatic expressions) to concisely and efficiently convey the the tennants of gun safety to.......********

I did it quite unintentionally one day 38 years ago when I was about 12. My father and I were over at a friend's house. This man was a friend of my father who had a son my age and we often all went hunting together, to the gun club together, and would reload together. Both the man and his son were very pro gun safety and practiced gun safety. I was taught gun safety by my father at an early age.

The man wanted to show us a new .243 youth size gun he had bought for his son. He took it out of the glassed-front gun cabinet in his den (no gun safes back then) and handed it to me, with a comment something like "see how that fits your shoulder". I automatically opened the bolt to check that it was empty as I was taught. The man was in the middle of saying the words "it's empty" when I ejected a live round from the chamber. He turned white as a sheet. No words needed exchanging. Later on the way home my dad said to me "I'm proud of you, you were paying attention and learned gun safety".

Seeing others practice gun safety helps us stay sharp and safe, as in my example above. That friend of my dad's was always safe around guns, and it was very out of place for him to hand me that rifle without opening the bolt. I had seen him check guns many times. We did not consider him less safe after that. If anything, he became more safe with guns. I became more safe, by learning that even safe people can slip up and it was up to me to look for myself ALWAYS.

There is the other group that will never be safe no matter what. The only recourse I have with them is to never be around them with guns, and I will not hesitate to tell them why.
 
K

Kleinzeit

New member
I don't think it's about being "smart." The resistance to safety is a product of a lack of familiarity and a need to believe that one is already somehow competent. Ignorance and arrogance, to put it bluntly.

It's true that people with smarts can be arrogant about it. But not all people with advanced degrees are like that, and there are plently of people without them who are arrogant too. Men trying to prove their manliness is a bigger problem, in my experience.

Once a person has been "initiated" into safe gun handling (i.e., come to understand that it's just what you do), they feel a sort of fellowship with other gun users such that checking a gun before passing it to someone, and then watching them check it for themselves, become signs of mutual respect and of mutual belonging to that fellowship. (Almost like a sort of secret handshake.) But when a person doesn't have experience of guns, and is aware that they don't, and knows they aren't a member of that "group," they might want to act like they already belong. In this case, they might easily misinterpret a safety check as an insult: as a suggestion that they aren't cool enough to handle it for themselves.

A lot of people's egos are vulnerable like this. Talking about mental training and muscle memory, like you did, is a good way to overcome that. It's a way of "initiating" them, letting them understand that your strictness is part of the code of the fellowship - a way of including them, not excluding them.

But if you haven't got time for all that, I reckon you can just do the short version: as you check the weapon, you say something like, "Okay, so we'll just do the thing you have to do." If they look at you questioningly, yoy can say something like, "Code of the fellowship," and give them a wink. If they understand your gestures as respectful and inclusive, they generally follow suit, in my experience.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
Kleinzeit said:
Once a person has been "initiated" into safe gun handling (i.e., come to understand that it's just what you do), they feel a sort of fellowship with other gun users such that checking a gun before passing it to someone, and then watching them check it for themselves, become signs of mutual respect and of mutual belonging to that fellowship. (Almost like a sort of secret handshake.) But when a person doesn't have experience of guns, and is aware that they don't, and knows they aren't a member of that "group," they might want to act like they already belong. In this case, they might easily misinterpret a safety check as an insult: as a suggestion that they aren't cool enough to handle it for themselves.
Click to expand...


This is truth. We can use this desire to be part of the "cool" crowd to our advantage. Getting the message across effectively, per the OP, can be tricky though.

The same concept works with all sorts of things too. It can make people drink alcohol, or not drink alcohol, use profanity (or not), drive safe (or not).... all kinds of things. There's a "feeling" that The Group can create that tends to automatically lend itself to compliance/capitulation from others. It doesn't always work though, in a good OR bad sense.
 
K

Kleinzeit

New member
We need to think about the flip-side to this, too.

I have met many gun users who actually like to preserve the exclusivity of The Group, and are reluctant to initiate others. I've seen people give short, curt, abrasive, and intolerant instructions to others in classes at the range. I've seen people who seem to delight in watching others make mistakes with guns.

And there is a particular resentment among part of the gun-owning community against people who have gone out and gotten themselves an education. I was talking to a guy at a rodeo a couple of months ago, and as soon as he found out I'm a teacher, he needed to tell me all about how teachers think they are better than everyone else. But he was the only one there that day who was putting anyone down.

I remember when I first took an NRA handgun class. The instructor asked us, "Which can you shoot faster: a revolver or a semi-auto? Which do you think?" Well, he'd asked what we thought, so I took a shot, and said the semi. Boy, did he get mad. This was obviously a pet peeve of his, and he glared at me and picked on me the whole rest of the day. Told me I'd never be able to shoot well because I wear glasses, etc. etc. It didn't matter that I aced the test, or that I handled the guns safely, or that I shot better than any of the other newbies. He just had it in for me because he figured I thought I was smart.

The anti-intellectualism in the country is a sad thing to see. I know there are some arrogant educated types, but you'll find arrogance in all walks of life.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
There are bad teachers

ANd contrary to the old saying, there are bad students.

I do agree, that there are "smart people" who are hard to teach. Not because they are smart, but because they are arrogant. And it isn't necessarily an arrogant attitude on the outside, but one on the inside that matters.

I've seen it in the military, and in industry, and I'm sure it happens in all walks of life. Managers and engineers who wouldn't listen to a worker with decades of experience, because he didn't have a degree.

Officers who refeused to listen to a senior NCO, because, after all, if he knew what he was doing, he would have been an officer!

A degree of competence (real or imagined) in one area does not automatically mean competence in a different area. Truly smart people recognize this. Unfortunately, there are way too many people who are just "book smart".

Some of them are teachable, others are not, or are not until something blows up in their face. And some of them remain unteachable, even after something does blow up in their face!'

I had to explain to a senior engineer once, why his plan wouldn't work, Took nearly a half hour to show this individual with multiple degrees, a simple fact that he had overlooked, so that he understood that a) it wasn't a personal attack on his intelligence or professional competence, and b) that he had overlooked a vital fact, one that rendrered his work plan unworkable. Once the lightbulb finally came on over his head, he was in complete agreement. And afterwards he respected my opinions, because he recongized I knew what I was talking about. That individual was teachable. Sadly, many others are not. With them, the best thing you can do is explain what is wrong, and then get the hell away from the area. Come back later, and see if they learned anything.

However, with firearms safety, just explaining and letting them make the mistake is seldom the right thing to do, because their mistake might hurt innocents. In those cases, you have to be persistant, and firmly insistant. Even though they may deserve to have it happen, you have to do what is right, and stop it, for everyone's good. You can't always protect them from themselves, but we all have a responsibility to protect others whenever we can.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
44 AMP said:
I've seen it in the military, and in industry, and I'm sure it happens in all walks of life. Managers and engineers who wouldn't listen to a worker with decades of experience, because he didn't have a degree.
Click to expand...

Ain't it the truth! My father built fire trucks for 30 years... he did all the plumbing.

He regularly argued with engineers who had been alive less time that he had been building trucks. It was always "Look, I'm the engineer, build it." then he'd get crap from the boss when it wasn't right. Finally, he told the boss the engineers would either change it when he said it wouldn't work or he was done. They decided my father should be an engineer, for the same $18ish an hour he was making rather than the $60k the engineers got.... he said no thanks.... but they DID make the engineers listen after that! :D
 
B

Bud Helms

Senior Member
I have worked with some engineers and I know what that is. It's Engineer Talk for, "I love you and I can't live without you."

Whom are you addressing?

:D
 
S

scottl

New member
Now this uncle is a smart, I mean REALLY smart guy. 2 masters degrees and he runs 2 businesses.
Click to expand...

A person can have all the education money can buy,but it's not worth a wooden nickel without some common sense.
 
B

BlueTrain

New member
Did you ever wonder what sort of education Browning had? Or for that matter, any of the lesser known firearms designers? I don't mean Glock orKalashnikov or Stoner but Nickl and the like. I hope I'm spelling their names right (but I'm sure I'll hear about it).

The things that set those people apart, other than the fact that they were generally doing something new, is that they all had an experimental nature or had a fresh approach. Sometimes their fresh approach was due to their experience in a totally different industry, like Stoner. But they did not go to school to become firearms designers.

Sometimes schooling does not produce desired results, not because schooling or education is bad but because it resulted in an attitude that distances the individual from the work they're trying to do. A dentist couldn't possibly have that attitude but an industrial engineer of some sort might try to do everything setting behind a computer screen. They're out of touch. And they never ask the ordinary people who actually make things, much less the consumer. That's why things go wrong. Besides, the consumer now demands the lowest price.

Funny you should mention airplanes. My wife's father had a disassembled airplane in his basement when we met, a Culver Cadet. Later he bought a Mooney. Someone called them "doctor killers." I mentioned that to my boss, who said his wife's first husband was killed flying a Mooney. Small world.
 
V

vito

New member
I think this problem is more common among men than women. Many men seem to believe that as men they inherently know how to handle a weapon. I used to be an MSF motorcycle instructor. Many men, including some who had never touched or sat on a motorcycle before the class, acted like they knew what to do and how to do it (of course they did not) since they were men! Women on the other hand, were almost universally open to be educated on how to ride. They followed instructions and trusted in my guidance. They did not seem to have the need to act as if they instinctively knew what to do. I have seen jerks at the range who clearly did not know much about gun safety or did not care, and invariably these jerks were men. I have personally never encountered a woman who was similarly dangerously careless and incompetent. Am I alone in this viewpoint?
 
T

thesheepdog

New member
It can really go both ways. Sometimes I think very smart people, are very teachable. When I teach people to shoot, the most receptive are those who have never handled a gun before. The pig heads are those who have been behind guns a while and are habitual with their old techniques-"this is how I learned to shoot, so this is how I am going to do it".

I've found that if you have some sort of reward of accomplishment for those pig heads, they're usually much softer in the head and more receptive to what you're teaching.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
Kleinzeit said:
What people call "common sense" is usually the product of some form of education.
Click to expand...


Common sense seems to be the application of knowledge to a subject or situation to which the knowledge was not originally related.

A lot of people have VAST amounts of education but can't seem to apply the knowledge to anything except the particular subject that was the basis for the education.

In other words, common sense would be the ability to realize that "gun" falls under the general category of "dangerous item", much like a chain saw, or sulfuric acid, or high-powered capacitors. Common sense would then cause the realization that there is special care required when using/handling these dangerous items. You don't need to be "gun educated" to know they're dangerous and need special handling.

Also, common sense seems to require an ability to foresee possible outcomes of actions without needing to actual SEE those outcomes.

For example, your brain should do a very rapid sequence like "gun", "danger", "muzzle", "careful". Nearly instantaneous, of course, and basically subconscious.

It seems that more and more people simply lack the foresight and the ability to apply past knowledge or experience to new situations, which is supposed to be a basic distinguishing characteristic of being "human".
 
N

ncpatriot

New member
How right you are! I have seen this principal constantly over the years. I think the basic problem is that the higher a person's IQ, the less he thinks that anyone could know more than he about anything.

I remember managing mall arcades in the 80's. Certain pinball machines had flipper mechanisms mounted with 6-32 screws. New machine out of the box and the mech would break loose the 1st day. I upgraded to 8-32, 10-32 if enough metal around it. Little knockdown targets on the playfield would get a ball stuck, as it had too much gap in the opening. I made barely over minimum wage & was fixing things highly paid engineers were designing.

I worked 11 years in an insurance co. with upper managers that were constantly coming up with new procedures & methods, whether they were needed or not. Some of us would present weaknesses of their plans & they had no clue what we were talking about. They had never worked the front lines & weren't about to do it, so their knowledge had huge gaps. They sometiems created huge messes for others to clean up. We often brought up real problems to them that really needed fixes, but they generally ignored these, as they weren't up to a true challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top