The Beast of War

Rudyard Kipling knew what's what, and he proved it in his ode To The Young British Soldier:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
   An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
         So-oldier of the Queen!

I'm waxing lyrical about Kipling again (it's a minor character flaw; please don't think to badly of me for it) and so it's time to watch ... THE BEAST again.

During the war in Afghanistan a Soviet tank crew commanded by a tyrannical officer find themselves lost and in a struggle against a band of Mujahadeen guerrillas in the mountains. A unique look at the Soviet 'Vietnam' experience sympathetically told for both sides.

If you've never been at  war, and you think you could hold up 'pretty well' under it ...
this is your opportunity to rethink your stalwart character; which means little or nothing when "the women come out to cut out what remains ..."
.

Because until some calls you "SNAKE" instead of "Hey, YOU!", it is perhaps advisable to listen to the words of The Great One (not the USPSA GRANDMASTER, but the one who was born in India);
 when you have best convinced yourself that you are not afraid, think again of the nightmares of other, best prepared warriors:

25 But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame 

26 Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same,  

27 And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,  

28 The female of the species must be deadlier than the male. 

Post Script:  I know I've posted nearly the identical warnings before.
But the Beast is strong tonight ....

I hate spectator sports

Bryan Fumble Gumble doesn't think that Americans realize just how frail our Second Amendment Constitutional protections are under the current (and the expected "next") presidential Administration.

What he doesn't realize is, we don't care.  We know our rights.  We are willing and able to protect and defend ourselves, our country and our  Constitution;
,,, even if our elected "representatives" have lost track of their personal oaths of fealty.

Bryant Gumble, Streaming Video, and the Supreme Court:

 I still remember a trip to California early in 1994 , when the Clinton Gun Ban was being debated in congress. Each night on the local ABC station in Los Angeles, the anchor would update the progress of the bill that would limit magazine capacity to ten rounds.
And each night they aired B-Roll of some hapless IPSC shooter blazing away with his 21-round race-gun to illustrate how dangerous those big magazines were. Back then, there was no streaming, so that IPSC shooter had gotten into the file tape, likely during sports coverage of a local match.
But once in their system, ABC could do anything they wanted with the video.

Now, with bloggers posting i-phone video, and with the rush by Firearms manufacturers to post their video on YouTube, you need to know you’re offering the liberal media anything they want to take to make their anti-gun point. Before you prompt your techies to post that new video demo of your AR running smoothly, as it empties a 30 round mag, you need to ask if you’re going to be happy seeing that video in the next Bryant Gumble anti-gun special, or posted on the New York Times website. The Supremes have ruled the media can do anything they want with your copyrighted video. 

(emphasis added)

With all respect to Bryant Gumble and the Drunken Golf Junkie ... that's Bullshit!

IPSC IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST:
NOBODY competes in the shooting sports because they think it will make them popular, or that if people approve of what they do in their sport they will "grow the sport".   We're not here to popularize our sport, and we don't ask anyone to 'validate' our glee in enjoying the virtues of our Second Amendment rights.

We're just here to have fun.  Safely, under strict rules of safety and competition,  We're not celebrating the Second Amendment, we're just enjoying a small aspect of the consequences of the Inalienable Constitutional Right, and at the same time spending a lot of time and money to play a little "OneUpsman-ship with our friends and neighbors.   We like our "high-capacity magazines, although few of us use them any more.

And BTW B. some of them can hold up to 30 rounds of .38 super ammunition.  Pushing a 115 grain hollow-point bullet at up to 1400 feet per second, this load allows us to have the highest possible score on every target zone but the load still enables the shooter to get the rounds down-range in the quickest time.

Here's an example, which you may suppress at your leisure if you think it's going to undermind our Second Amendment Rights:

(In the past 30 years that I've been competing in IPSC/USPSA competition, nobody has ever died.  Bryant Gumble and Drunken Golf Junkie can't make the same claim about the VERY DANGEROUS sport of High-School Football!)

EVERYBODY competes in the shooting sports for one or more of the following reasons:

1. They like to shoot, and shooting in competition provides them with an opportunity to shoot.
2. They like people who like to shoot, because they share a common interest AND because they share a common philosophy.   See #1.
3. An armed society is a polite society; you meet the nicest people there.
4. Shooting sports are loud and raucous, and at the same time extremely controlled and controlling.  Many shooters are (and this will come as a surprise to non-shooters) almost excessively disciplined; if they're not, they rapidly tire of the sport and go somewhere else on their Saturdays.   The rest of us get to make a lot of noise and spend a lot of money in the company of people whose common interest is to break out of our controlling shells.
5. We are the kind of people who want to see how we compare to other competitors.  Most of us win rarely.  Fortunately, the people who hold matches give awards (usually dirt-cheep pins or ribbons) to almost everyone, and those who go home with no cheap awards come back next month determined to spend $50 or more in the hopes of winning a fifty-cent ribbon.
6. Mostly, we don't care about what other people think of us.  If we did, we wouldn't be competing in a sport which openly involves "shooting at human shaped targets" and "teaching people to kill people".  (These are actual quotes from critics who know nothing about the sport.)
7. This sport is so not-politically-correct that several years ago the International Practical Shooting Confederation applied to the International Olympic Committee to make IPSC competition a "demonstration sport" for the Olympics.  Not trying to actually compete, you understand .. they just wanted to get into The Big Show.  The IOC turned IPSC/USPSA down flat.  Their justification was that they didn't want to "show people killing people" in the Olympics.  I wonder how they justified the Javelin competition, which was doing the same thing???  (Not that anyone was terribly disappointed .. leadership cadre keep trying to justify themselves in any sport, but the Hoi Polloi in this sport just want to be left alone.  Except for the professionals, of course.)
8. Perhaps the final reason for the wide interest in IPSC/USPSA competition is precisely because this sport is almost universally disapproved-of by the Makers&Shakers.  As Groucho Marx once said: "I wouldn't want to join any club which would have me as a member".  Shooting Ports members (except for various shotgun variations) aren't looking for "acceptance".  We just want to spend a day with our goofy friends and shoot a lot of ammunition at carboard and steel targets.  Is that too much to ask?

GROWING:

Over the past six years, I've taught hundreds of people who want to compete in this "outlaw" sport.

(I use the term "OUTLAW" thanks to the IOC .. bless their little narrow-visioned hearts!)

Of the people who care enough about joining the sport to take the course of instruction, there have been so few of the 'students' who were not able to learn safe gun-handling practices that I can count them on the fingers of both hands and feet.  

And as for the worries that America will frown upon Practical Pistol competitions (with the '30 round magazines' and all) .. what could be more reassuring than for the American public to see that there are legitimate competition venues where a "high capacity magazine" actually has a "Sporting Purpose"??

We don't need approval. We don't need approbation.  All WE want is to spend an enjoyable Saturday with our friends who share common interests.   

And there are many of them.

COMING TO AMERICA:

We have friends from Canada, who can't legally possess "high-round count magazines".  They come to American and acquire the equipment which qualifies them to compete in "OPEN DIVISION", and they leave the equipment (guns and magazines; often even ammunition) with their friends in Free America.  Then they sneak across the border to compete in matches with those physical items which are legal in America, but verboten in Canada.

Their friends could steal their expensive equipment without fear of reprisal from legal authorities, but they don't.  Because "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society", and friends who face the possibility of federal bans ... are the best friends in the world.

Next week our Canadian Friends might be holding our guns and magazines and ammunition for US. 

In our current political situation, where we can't trust our Government (and certainly not our PRESIDENT!) to guard and protect our Constitutional Rights, we form relationships with other people (who are willing to obey 'constitutional laws', but not 'arbitrary laws') so that we may enjoy our natural liberties.

But we still don't care what other people think about us.  We are certainly not Politically Correct, but we are safe, and sane, and Rule Number One is always:  "NOBODY BLEEDS!"

(Rule Number Two is: "Everybody Goes Home And Has Pizza And Beer!")

Now, that's MY idea of The Perfect Sport.

Kalifornia's "Good Cause" ruling odious

On June 9, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange denounced the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for ruling against carrying guns concealed outside the home.

Imagine that ... Alabama standing up to California on Gun Rights.

Actually, the Ninth Circuit Court covers the West Coast plus "others". *

In a way, I wish the Nutty Ninth was populated by some justices who recognize the Supreme Court rulings of Macdonald (overturn municipal gun bands, 2nd Amendment applies to individuals)   and Heller  (right to have guns in home, in immediately usable status) by the Supreme court.

These decisions have been subsequently interpreted to imply that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to BEAR arms .. which means to carry them in public.

It's one thing to defend "State's Rights" in the context of Federal laws; but it's another thing to defend State's Rights when they conflict with a Constitutional Right (eg: The Second Amendment).

I think it's time that the Second Amendment be applied to all states equally, with the most 'liberal' interpretation be applied to all states; full acceptance of CHL licenses in every state, and carry laws standardized to at least CHL owners to carry in every state without fear of persecution.

The Second Amendment is shaping to be the 21st Century's version of the anti-segregation policies of President Eisenhower in the 50's and 60's, and the Abortion policies of more recent years.

Obviously, these are issues which were not considered 'issues' in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and the "newer" importance of these re-interpretation of Constitutional Rights has led to some confusion about States Right vs the Constitutional Rights.

The clarifying factor may be that the Constitutional Rights have been applied to protect the rights of the individual citizen; States Rights were being (at the time of those controversies) to allow some 'activities' to some Americans, while denying the same rights to other Americans:

"Separate, but Equal"

In the Eisenhower era, the Supreme Court ruled that rights to education, marriage, etc. could not be regulated by State fiats based on race.

"Abortion Rights"

In more recent years (ca 1992), the Supreme Court ruled (see Roe vs Wade, et al) that a woman's right to have an abortion must apply equally to every state, regardless of the state in which state the woman applied for the medical procedure.

Neither of these Supreme Court decisions were universally popular, but they did have the effect of standardizing the Rights of the individual across state lines.  Abortion is a good example; it should not be necessary for a woman to cross state lines to access the same rights which are illegal in her home state, but legal in another state.

"Gun Control"

The Issue De Jure is Gun Control, and we have seen far too many examples of a person travelling between states with a firearm which may be legally carried in one state, but falling afoul of the laws of another state.

Jump The Shark?

Will Trump Supporters Defend Themselves?:

Should gun fire erupt on one side, it is also likely the other would return fire thereby causing a battleground even the police wouldn't be able to stop. This is why it is important for Trump supporters to maintain their composure and do not do anything drastic.

Again, Independent voters will see the rioters for what they are: anti-American thugs and criminals. By realizing this, they will likely vote for the Republican candidate. 

 Let's hope nobody pulls the trigger during this presidential campaign, particularly at the party conventions. Keep the Faith!

Tim Bryce at newstalkflorida.com counselled patience, forbearance,  and a "turn the other cheek" attitude for CHL armed Trump supporters if/when they are attacked and beaten at a Trump rally.

Are people 'allowed' to carry at a Trump rally?  If not, why not?  I thought Trump was a great supporter of the Second Amendment!
But either way, it's certainly possible that someone will come up with the dubious idea of volunteering to show up at a rally and 'protect' attendees from the maniacal rage of anti-Trump demonstrators.

Timmy's advice is hard to swallow, for a number of reasons.

First, because everyone KNOWS that the police are unlikely to do ANYTHING to protect unarmed, peaceful Conservative attendees, because they're afraid of "bad press".  (The San Jose police excuses of "we don't want to start a riot" wears thin considering that they have decided to stand by and WATCH a riot without doing a thing to stop it.)

And Liberal websites are only encouraging the rioters, stating (huffpost) "... violence a 'logical' response to trump".!!!

Timmy has a good point; nobody who is responsible enough to carry a defensive weapon wants to do anything to aggravate an already explosive "social" situation.    But it still rankles sober honest citizens who expects to be called upon to defend self, family, home.

Who anticipated that a crowd of outraged Americans who disagree on mere political positions would become "The Enemy"??   Because, that is what these "honest, caring, Law-Abiding Liberal Americans" are becoming.

This is the most divisive, odious presidential campaign in the history of this country.  One weeps to see what pawns Americans have allowed themselves to become.

BUT .... Timmy is right.
If armed Americans use their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves and their fellows against assault from other Americans ... aw, shit.

Connecticut 2014: "Will Not Comply!" (Where Are They Now?)

Thousands in Connecticut refuse to register guns under new law - YouTube:

 *Originally Published on Feb 15, 2014*

The state of Connecticut passed restrictive new gun laws last year in the wake of Newtown's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left more than two dozen - mostly children - dead. One of those laws, which recently went into effect, requires residents to register all "military-style weapons" with the state.

But tens of thousands of Connecticut residents refuse to register their guns, and they could soon be considered felons by the state if they continue to ignore the requirement. RT's Perianne Boring sits down with Bryan Crosswhite, founder of 2AO (2amendment.org), about the constitutionality of the registration requirement and other gun control measures.

("Soon"?)

With a demure attitude, one spokesman went on to the air to confirm that Connecticut gun owners "will not comply" with an illegal law.




(Soon?)

Also in "The Kelly File" in February of 2014, we have this evidence that Connecticut folks "Will Not Comply".



   ,,,,,,   That was then.

THIS IS NOW: THE FOLLOW-UP

I did a search today for FIREARMS CONFISCATION CONNECTICUT

In THE :BLAZE  (May 3, 2016) I did find an ONE article about firearms confiscation in Connecticut:

Connecticut lawmakers have passed legislation to permit law enforcement to confiscate guns and ammunition from anyone accused of domestic abuse. The bill is headed to the desk of Gov. Dannel Malloy and he’s expected to sign it.

So, the rhetoric has changed?   Did someone blink?

I'm still wondering: Did they really have a "Confiscation", and nobody came?

Or did I just sleep through it ... ?

Brits in Birmingham Bemoan Bad Boys

A police chief has warned gun crime remains a major problem in Birmingham, despite dozens of arrests.West Midlands Chief Constable David Thompson told the Police and Crime Board in January that shootings were happening in the city with “concerning regularity”.He used the same forum today to say that despite arrests, convictions and 84 firearm warrants in just five months the battle against guns had “not gone away”. 

Despite having some of the most restrictive firearms-ownership laws in the "Other Advanced Countries", the British Bobbies can't seem to keep their citizens from shooting the crap out of each other.

I wonder if Hillary will use the "Reasonable" restrictions on citizens in England as a campaign talking point, she did with  the similar (almost identical) "The Australian Solution" which she described recently as "worth looking at ".

See below
Unfortunately for Hillary, Americans ARE thinking about both the Australian and the English approaches to eliminating firearms violence, and the conclusion seems to be that it Just Doesn't Work.

As much as the Left denigrates the catch-phrases of legal, responsible American firearms owners, it appears that at least one of them is very much to the point:

Who Will Bell The Cat?

What Black Americans Say About ‘Black-on-Black’ Gun Violence | The Nation:

For example, community residents recommended limiting access to guns by the small group of people at high risk of engaging in violence—sometimes no more than 0.25 to 1 percent of a city’s population. Rather than looking to greater penalties for handgun possession that could increase mass incarceration, community members emphasized universal background checks, mandatory reporting for lost and stolen firearms, and increased oversight of licensed firearm dealers. Each proposal was supported by over 86 percent of African Americans and Latinos in the survey research. These restrictions are seen as reducing rather than fueling mass incarceration. About three-quarters of both African Americans and Latinos agreed that “if we keep guns out of the wrong hands, we can also help decrease the number of people who are in prison.”

[emphasis added]

"That looks good on the video", as the saying goes but the question remains:  what are 'community residents" doing to help limit access to guns?

Historically, members of  'at risk' communities are quick to decry the violence in their neighborhoods, but are not willing to step up and act as witnesses.    Quotes from investigating officers typically sound like this:

"Everybody knows who has a gun. Everybody knows who did it.   

But nobody will talk to us."

Seven Shooters You Know

Seven Shooters You Know

This is a great video, depicting stereotypical GunGame shooters with issues.   Thanks to ENDO for presenting a humorous video with a serious message.
 (Go to the link, above, to view the video; I don't steal videos from primary sources.)

I've run into most of the characters depicted, over the past years.   Mister Clueless is the most common version, but in all candor I have to admit that I expect many of my class participants to be unaware of a lot of  the range rules of competition shooting.

That's why they sign up for the course of instruction, and they are all intrinsically motivated.  They WANT to learn, because pistol competition is a quagmire of rules, regulations, and a long history of Range Etiquette.

The one character in the video that I cannot forgive is the one who won't share the work.  I think we're suppose to hiss when he shows up.

 Since it's a "Class-room environment" (actually on the range, but you know ..) there's no excuse for not doing your part.  One of the primary lessons in the class, second only to safe gunhandling, is that IPSC/USPSA is a Volunteer Sport.

Everybody works.
Everybody is "special".

Well, everybody is packing.  
An armed society is a polite society.

Zulu! vs A Battlefield minute. And "The Punch Line"

One of the most influential movies I've ever seen was Zulu.

Some minor background information is needed:
I had got out of the army in 1970, was at loose ends, feeling sorry for myself and we were living off the meager earnings of my wife, Julie, who was a bank teller in Eugene, Oregon.

Pretty much into myself, I spent my days playing solitaire on the living room floor of our 300 square foot rental in Eugene, Oregon, and watch television.

One day, when I was about to put a red queen on a red king (yes, I cheat at Solitaire .. I was that low), I realized there was a movie playing which was .. interesting.  We couldn't afford a color television, so I sat entranced and watched ZULU in glorious Black-And-White.

Later I realized that I hadn't missed much, because the story was very much all about black-and-white.

Since then, I've watched ZULU an at least an annual basis; and I also bought (and watch annually), the precursor movie: "Zulu Dawn".

Zulu Dawn depicts the battle of  Isandlwana, where a large contingent of British troops were massacred by Zulu Impis (Battallions, or Regiments ... the manning was voluntary with Zulus).

The Brits were wiped out, almost to the man.

Subsequent to that battle, the Zulus went on to attack a small British contingent stationed in and around the missionary at Rorke's Drift.   That is the action which was depicted by the movie "ZULU".



That British force had some advantages that the Brits at  Isandlwana had not.

• They were a minor detachment, so they were not attacked by all the Impi's .. merely two or three of them. (?)
• They were in a defensible position ... they were assigned to a mission with stone walls, and they had a number of wagons (which they could tip over to provide cover and concealement) and those wagons had a full shipment of 'grain', in bags, which mad very effective 'sandbags' from which they could build a wall about their position
• They had Martini-Henry Rifles, which were single-shot but were lever-action "single shot' rifles which could be reloaded in a matter of seconds. *(the same rifles used by British troops in Islawanda)
• Their supply system was MUCh more aware of the danger of the attack than were the supply groups in Islandawanda, so resupply of ammunition was efficiently performed in this much smaller force
• The leadership at Rorke's Drift ("ZULU") was much more aware of the danger, and were so junior that they had not yet developed the arrogant attitude which is endemic in senior officers through-out the world and through-out time.  At Rorke's Drift, they knew they would all die.  At Islandwanda ("Zulu Dawn"), it was inconceivable (Princess Bride Moment) that British Troops would lose a battle with 'primitives', so they were dismissive of the need to prepare defenses in an open field.
• 
  

Unlike the British troops at Islandwanda, the forces at Rorke's Drift did not panic under attack, for five reasons:

1. Leadership
2. Discipline
3. Defensive position
4. Tactics
5. Superior Fire-power

The State Of Firearms Training (STOLEN FROM ENDO)

The State Of Firearms Training:

I saw this fascinating article/interview with Firearms Trainer Dave Spaulding, and I thought it was about the most down-to-earth discussion about training I've ever seen.

No BS, no ego, and (spoiler alert) no training tips.  Just one man with experience telling his unscripted and unsolicited (?) opinion on the state of his 'industry' today.

The industry?  Taking people with varying degrees of firearm experience and training them to be safe, accurate, and effective.

Favorite quote;   

"People ask me, 'what kind of shoes do you wear?'   WHO CARES!   The kind that fit my feet!"

Go watch it.  I won't give the link to the video because ENDO deserves the blog-hits.

-------------

Oh I almost forgot!

I get the most interesting stuff from places like gunbloggers.com and The Gun Feed, and there's always The Firearms Blog, and .. well, you get the picture.  There are many 'mainstream' and more 'niche' gunbloggers that I regularly visit as well.  most of those websites will show up frequently on those sites, but some of them only post when they actually have something to say.

Want more? See an extensive list of gun blogs here.

The Left's View of Rights

Hillary Speaks:

I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment, until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities, and states, and the federal government had a right–as we do with every amendment–to impose reasonable regulations.

Governments have "rights"?  I thought Government in America had "duties" to the citizens which it serves on every level; municipal, county, state and national.

It may be a matter of semantics.

But when the "rights" of Government conflict with the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the citizens,  then the citizens serve the government.


UPDATE:

From NATURAL NEWS:

(NaturalNews) At the heart of a free and prosperous society is the principle of private property ownership. Without private property, the centralization and corrupting influence of power grows, as the freedom of the individual dissipates. Democratic socialism is a great example of the dissolution of private property, under which, the demands of the majority override those of the individual. The majority claims they have a "right" to the goods and services (property) of individuals and businesses. They then use the government as a vehicle of  force to conscript property and take it.

This  concept of the "rights" of a government is the tyranny of the majority. It has no place in a Republic.

Hillary and The (non-existing) Right To Bear Arms

Video: Hillary Clinton still can’t say that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right � Hot Air:

I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and that there was no argument until then that localities and state and federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations.

Translation:

HOORAY!  SCALIA IS DEAD, NOW I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT TO DO!

.. which means that the Second Amendment is as dead as a Liberal with An Agenda can make it.

Any voter with a single-issue priority knows what to do now.

And since the Second Amendment neck is on the chopping block (and nobody important stands in her way), "The Beast" has free reign to undermine any other Constitutional Rights which she finds inconvenient, distasteful, or at least challenging to her ultimate authority.

Welcome to 1984, Boys and Girls!



(I had NO idea back in 1969 that I was fighting for this.)

Obama Suggests No-Fly List For Guns

Our President is disgruntled by that "Embarrassing Second Amendment":

Obama Suggests No-Fly List For Guns:

June 3, 2016 3:10 pm
We’ve got people who we know have been on ISIL websites living here in the United States, U.S. citizens,” Obama said during a PBS NewsHour appearance, using an acronym for the Islamic State terror group. “And we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association I cannot prohibit them from buying a gun.”

I don't think we should conflate the "No-Fly List" with a list of people who are Americans, but whom we are dubious about.   If we think that citizens are a threat to the country ... we should prove it.
And we should charge them with violating the law.
 And then we should arrest them based on actions which they have taken. 

Lacking 'proof of ill-intent', we should leave them alone.

New Shooter Smile...

View From The Porch: That New Shooter Smile...:

It's often noted that people seem to have a lot more fun at a gun range than they do at the anti-gun range. Of course they do. "Free Beer!" is an easier sell than Temperance and always has been.

I have no idea what an "anti-gun range" may look like.  Tam has a point to make, so I'm going to imply my own interpretation.

For the past six years it has been my privilege, and my honor, to introduce New Shooters to IPSC competition.

Most of them smiled.  A LOT!

A few of them frowned; they didn't typically follow through by showing up at a match.

But the overwhelming majority of the (several hundred) people whom I have guided through the "Introduction to USPSA" course at my home range  have been all smiles.

Why?
Because shooting pistols at cardboard and steel targets .. especially when you're in the process of learning how well  you compare with more experienced pistoleros .. is FUN!

The most wonderful thing about introducing New Shooters to a competitive shooting venue is that the proficiency curve is so steep.

It's easy to analyze the things that untrained shooters are doing, and it's even easier to make them 'better shooters' in a single afternoon.

Why?

Because they are intrinsically motivated; they WANT to improve their shooting skills, their gun-handling skills.   Their accuracy.  Their speed in slinging a lot of bullets downrange to hit the target in a high-scoring zone on the target.  Most of the people who seek training recognize that they do not know what they should be doing; they know that their level of proficiency is not what they envision for themselves, and they want to learn the skills, hone their practices, and improve their scores.

Usually, it's as simple as saying:
"You're shooting low; you are either jerking the trigger or you are breaking  your wrist at the shot".

All they need is someone to help them correct their deficiencies; they know they HAVE deficiencies, they just don't know what they are.

Funny thing is, these people who are determined to shoot a pistol accurately and consistently are not as 'ego-driven' as one might expect.

It's easy to develop the intrinsic skills in a single afternoon, if you (as the instructor) are willing to take the time and able to use your experience to help them.

It's even easier for them, the 'students', to accept the 'criticism' as  a Learning Experience,and benefit from the tutorials ... as long as the Instructor is presented as a 'helpful friend' rather than a 'critical analyst'.

Shooting is fun.  Shooting well .. accurately, quickly, competitively .. is even more fun.

A lot of the instructional venues which are commercially available are geared toward making the student proficient in self-defense scenarios.  Not everyone wants that>   A lot of people are attracted to Competitive Shooting (such as IPSC/USPSA and IDPA), and their needs are few:
(1) they need to learn basic safe gun handling skills
(2) they need to learn the rules of the game.

Somewhere in there, if they are lucky, they learn that its fun to shoot!  More, the find themselves in a group of people who not only encourage a 'new shooter' ... but they are so stupid that they don't realize that "SHOOTING" a firearm needs to be restricted because: "BAD!"

It's not "bad".  It's FUN!

And we need to keep that lesson in mind when we introduce New Shooters to the art, the practice, and the enjoyment of flinging lead down-range.