Crazy Thing in Louisiana!

[AustinBR]

Austin, I don't agree with your general line of thinking. Everyone and their circumstances are unique, so what someone thinks are best practices for them may not be the best for you. You say that "If all that someone can say to justify their position is that 'it works for them,' it probably isn't a best practice." How do you know that? Like you say, you don't know what you don't know. I think the best we can hope for is to expose ourselves to different opinions and procedures, consider their merits, and incorporate part or all or none of them into our own view or ways of doing things. Finally, we sometimes do things in a way we know is not the best, whatever that is; we do them our way because that's the way we enjoy doing them.

Oddly specific circumstances aside, a "best practice" is objectively better than other practices. Example: driving with a seatbelt on is a 'best practice.' We can nitpick and find situations where wearing a seatbelt will cause more harm than good (such as wearing a seatbelt in a vehicle that is actively sinking), but it doesn't detract from stating that objectively, wearing a seatbelt is a better option than the alternative.

The same is true for firearms, self-defense, and other related topics. Most people are oblivious to the 'best practice' because they were either never exposed to it or are unwilling to challenge their thoughts and beliefs because something "works for them."

Some people enjoy driving around without a seatbelt because it is more comfortable. That's on them. My entire point is that going around and telling people that not wearing a seatbelt is better than the alternative because it "works for them" is a no go. Why? People come to places like this forum seeking advice and/or knowledge and we can all do our parts to help only spread the "better," more accurate knowledge.

 

[Jlong1691]

Oddly specific circumstances aside, a "best practice" is objectively better than other practices. Example: driving with a seatbelt on is a 'best practice.' We can nitpick and find situations where wearing a seatbelt will cause more harm than good (such as wearing a seatbelt in a vehicle that is actively sinking), but it doesn't detract from stating that objectively, wearing a seatbelt is a better option than the alternative.

The same is true for firearms, self-defense, and other related topics. Most people are oblivious to the 'best practice' because they were either never exposed to it or are unwilling to challenge their thoughts and beliefs because something "works for them."

Some people enjoy driving around without a seatbelt because it is more comfortable. That's on them. My entire point is that going around and telling people that not wearing a seatbelt is better than the alternative because it "works for them" is a no go. Why? People come to places like this forum seeking advice and/or knowledge and we can all do our parts to help only spread the "better," more accurate knowledge.

You fail to specify, that best practice differs greatly from one company to another, and even in adjoining industries. From one operator to the other, who may have adapted in part a best practice, and modified it to fit his or her individual differences. Body Type, Handicaps etc. I have worked in many different industries, but am a carpenter by trade, so let me ask you, is it better to stick or box frame a house? There are schools of thought for both types of framing, is one really any better than the other? I have worked on crews who have done it both ways, and both ways are equally as efficient, and in the end garner the same results. Just take the Two handed Isosceles grip for example. Most shooters use a modified form of this grip to suit their particular situation, but few actually use it as it is written.

I think a lot of people have some old information, that relates to dated rules of thumb etc. Some don't know any better, or are even aware of why a thing was the way it was. Take shotguns for instance. People still for some reason seem to think that you need a 30" barrel on a shotgun for whatever reason. There was at one time an actual benefit to having the longer barrel, but with modern shells that benefit is not there. Most of the old wives tails we can call them were based on some matter of fact or truth at one time. Just because it isn't the way we do it now, doesn't make it wrong for someone who has done that their whole lives. Many times it is harder to learn for some a new way of doing things best practice or not.

I think we can inform those people, and others better by being more receptive, and less condescending towards one another. Especially those who are trained, and may have trained a different way, or different things. My observation is that many discussions have ended badly due to people arguing over semantics, where neither party is necessarily correct or incorrect.

 

[AustinBR]

You fail to specify, that best practice differs greatly from one company to another, and even in adjoining industries. From one operator to the other, who may have adapted in part a best practice, and modified it to fit his or her individual differences. Body Type, Handicaps etc. I have worked in many different industries, but am a carpenter by trade, so let me ask you, is it better to stick or box frame a house? There are schools of thought for both types of framing, is one really any better than the other? I have worked on crews who have done it both ways, and both ways are equally as efficient, and in the end garner the same results. Just take the Two handed Isosceles grip for example. Most shooters use a modified form of this grip to suit their particular situation, but few actually use it as it is written.

I think a lot of people have some old information, that relates to dated rules of thumb etc. Some don't know any better, or are even aware of why a thing was the way it was. Take shotguns for instance. People still for some reason seem to think that you need a 30" barrel on a shotgun for whatever reason. There was at one time an actual benefit to having the longer barrel, but with modern shells that benefit is not there. Most of the old wives tails we can call them were based on some matter of fact or truth at one time. Just because it isn't the way we do it now, doesn't make it wrong for someone who has done that their whole lives. Many times it is harder to learn for some a new way of doing things best practice or not.

I think we can inform those people, and others better by being more receptive, and less condescending towards one another. Especially those who are trained, and may have trained a different way, or different things. My observation is that many discussions have ended badly due to people arguing over semantics, where neither party is necessarily correct or incorrect.

I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing. Best practices tend to make their ways across corporate lines for aligned processes, but there many variables that play into these equations.

My corporate example was more of big picture about how there are things such as industry best practices. These may be required by regulation or they may come up through research and testing. It was just a way to frame the discussion and mindset before moving to the subject at hand: firearms/self-defense.

I'm not as concerned with people advocating for variations on good ideas (such as modified grips). The problems that constantly arise are people who advocate for things like using birdshot for self-defense. Or for shooting someone breaking into their shed. Or that a pink 357 magnum revolver is the best option for a 100lb wife who has never shot a pistol before. Or any of the old wives tales that were always wives tales. Or just flat out incorrect information.

The goal is to spread good information and slow the spread of bad information. Simply backing up an argument with "it just works for me, thus it should work for you" is what we want to prevent.

As for how to argue, I totally agree that some folks here have been a little abrasive when discussing topics with others and that is also something we aren't fond of.

 

[foz1359]

Well said tbone. I'm not an expert on anything either and I too have slept in a Holiday Inn .

I also wonder who decides who the experts really are?

Ah, an easy question with an easy answer. Supercomputers will decide who the experts are.

That is all.

 

[Magdump]

Some people enjoy driving around without a seatbelt because it is more comfortable. That's on them. My entire point is that going around and telling people that not wearing a seatbelt is better than the alternative because it "works for them" is a no go. Why? People come to places like this forum seeking advice and/or knowledge and we can all do our parts to help only spread the "better," more accurate knowledge.

You can’t discount life experience.
Most advice is opinion based on life experience.
The seatbelt thing is not a good analogy.
One person’s opinion of one thing may be just as right as anyone else’s when it comes to application.
Protecting one’s home/family/self against an attack with the use of a firearm has been discussed widely on this site and many opinions of best practice are handed out like candy, but the truth is it’s not a one size fits all subject and you’d be hard pressed to find more than a small handful of individuals here, outside of LEO’s, who have actually had to apply any sort of best practice in that category.
So when someone says something works for them, that person may indeed find it difficult to discredit that advice. Even when someone offers up the advice of a known authority on a subject there are those here that immediately seek to discredit that source or simply state that it’s bogus advice for whatever reason.
It seems to me like somebody has missed the true purpose of the site, which is to openly discuss opinions, options, ideas, theory, experience, etc, etc, and while it’s a good place to learn a few things, a forum is not exactly the go to place for all you need to know about anything. Neither was it intended to be.

All that being said, it’s best to practice

 

[AustinBR]

You can’t discount life experience.
Most advice is opinion based on life experience.
The seatbelt thing is not a good analogy.
One person’s opinion of one thing may be just as right as anyone else’s when it comes to application.
Protecting one’s home/family/self against an attack with the use of a firearm has been discussed widely on this site and many opinions of best practice are handed out like candy, but the truth is it’s not a one size fits all subject and you’d be hard pressed to find more than a small handful of individuals here, outside of LEO’s, who have actually had to apply any sort of best practice in that category.
So when someone says something works for them, that person may indeed find it difficult to discredit that advice. Even when someone offers up the advice of a known authority on a subject there are those here that immediately seek to discredit that source or simply state that it’s bogus advice for whatever reason.
It seems to me like somebody has missed the true purpose of the site, which is to openly discuss opinions, options, ideas, theory, experience, etc, etc, and while it’s a good place to learn a few things, a forum is not exactly the go to place for all you need to know about anything. Neither was it intended to be.

All that being said, it’s best to practice

Practicing bad technique or ideology only makes one better at that bad technique. A lot of people would argue that practicing shooting at 3 yards is all they need to do and it "works for them." Others will argue that birdshot "works for them" for home defense. That is perfectly fine and their perogative, but what they are doing is by no means optimal and there are truly better options and practices.

I can absolutely discredit life experience. Life experience is limited to one person's view point and experiences. It is also very biased.

The purpose of this site is to serve as a foundation to allow likeminded folks to discuss things, with a goal of bettering the Louisiana shooting community. We can all do our part by helping not spread the bogus wives tales or old, outdated ideas.

 

[Magdump]

Practicing bad technique or ideology only makes one better at that bad technique. A lot of people would argue that practicing shooting at 3 yards is all they need to do and it "works for them." Others will argue that birdshot "works for them" for home defense. That is perfectly fine and their perogative, but what they are doing is by no means optimal and there are truly better options and practices.

I can absolutely discredit life experience. Life experience is limited to one person's view point and experiences. It is also very biased.

The purpose of this site is to serve as a foundation to allow likeminded folks to discuss things, with a goal of bettering the Louisiana shooting community. We can all do our part by helping not spread the bogus wives tales or old, outdated ideas.

I see your points as they apply to you and the drastic examples you give definitely fit your narrative, but there are many right answers that get shot down as bad answers by people who are exclusively internet educated. Someone here might say (has said) the only buckshot you should use for home protection is federal flight control (pretty sure that’s the load stated) when the biggest pattern they can get from their shotgun at in-house distances is 5 inches. I say that any of the 8 or so buckshot loads I own will have nearly identical results when fired into a chest cavity across the length of my home.

Life experience is limited to just that. Real life experience. Sparing on the filler and opinion, just the results. Kinda difficult to discredit what has indeed worked for a person, especially if you wanna change that person’s mind about that experience.
And who decides what is bogus or outdated? Who decides what is optimal? I’d argue that even if the answers are here, you’d be fishing in an ocean of opinion to find them.

 

[Beau Etienne]

Well worded and a fine, insightful read.