# Good arts for getting to your gun



## skribs (Jan 26, 2018)

Bit of backstory on me.  When I was around 21-22 I started carrying a firearm for self defense.  However, I also read the 21-foot rule, the idea that if someone suddenly pulls a knife and charges you to stab you, if they're within 7 yards they will likely stab you before you can draw your gun and shoot.  I read anecdotes on gun forums talking about how someone had to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat before being able to draw their gun, and that led me to seek martial arts training.

This was about 5 years ago.  I did a search back then for martial arts that would fit what I was looking for: an art to quickly avoid or escape an attack to buy myself the couple of seconds needed to draw my firearm.  For example, to block a punch and create space, to avoid being stabbed and gain control of the situation, or to break free from a grab at least enough to draw.

Of course, my search for the "perfect" martial art pretty much failed, as in my area we basically had taekwondo and MMA, with a karate school or two sprinkled in.  So I found a school with a great master and started taking Taekwondo.

However, just for the sake of my own curiosity, I thought I'd come back to this idea.  If your goal is to defend against an attack long enough to draw a firearm, what art(s) would you recommend?

For example, I think the styles of BJJ and wrestling wouldn't be very good, as the goal of those is to be wrapped up, and they don't create much space.  Hapkido, which I am learning at my school (although I'm only an orange belt in HKD and I'm a 2nd degree in TKD) I think would be pretty good, because generally we try to stay standing as we take our attacker to the ground.

I think that any art which uses a combination of punches and grabs in stand-up would also be pretty good.  Traditional Taekwondo self defense skills combined with modern Taekwondo sparring tactics could be a good amalgam for quick defense and gaining space.  At the time I did my research, I read of a more obscure Chinese art called Baguazhang which was based primarily on footwork, and thought that would be a perfect fit, except there was nowhere anywhere near me that taught it.

I'm not going to try to suppose for arts I don't know as much about.  I imagine the styles of some arts would be incongruent with the goal of getting to a firearm, whereas others will work very well.  So what do you think?  What art would fit the style I was looking for back then?


----------



## wab25 (Jan 26, 2018)

Practice your draw from concealment. The faster you can draw from concealment, the less time you have to buy.

The 21 foot rule is for a police officer, meaning gun is on the hip, not concealed. It also requires the officer to stand his ground. If the officer backs up turning (L shape path) that buys him enough time to draw and fire.

If you do not have your gun on your hip, the distance should be a little further... depending on how much longer it takes you to draw. Simple movement, can buy you the time you need from that distance. Closer in is another story.

What you are looking to do, is get to your gun. Not defeat the other guy. Avoid, (parry, block, slip...) the first attack, then get behind him. If you are reasonable with your draw, you should then be able to draw as he is turning towards you. Most martial arts talk about avoiding that first attack, getting off the line of attack and getting behind the attacker. You just need to practice those bits, along with drawing your gun. Get an airsoft gun, and a buddy with a practice knife. (maybe some goggles for him too)


----------



## skribs (Jan 26, 2018)

wab25 said:


> What you are looking to do, is get to your gun. Not defeat the other guy. Avoid, (parry, block, slip...) the first attack, then get behind him. If you are reasonable with your draw, you should then be able to draw as he is turning towards you. Most martial arts talk about avoiding that first attack, getting off the line of attack and getting behind the attacker. You just need to practice those bits, along with drawing your gun. Get an airsoft gun, and a buddy with a practice knife. (maybe some goggles for him too)



Yes, this was the goal.  Get to the gun, hope that works as a deterrent and the attack stops, and if it doesn't stop, then use the gun until the attack stops.  I think some arts are about getting off the line of attack, and others are about taking the person down and pinning them down.  Some are clearly designed for unarmed 1-on-1 combat and others are more easily applicable to multiple enemies or using your own weapons.

I'd rather use a nerf gun than an airsoft gun for this purpose, but I do see the benefits of airsoft.  I actually prefer airsoft over .22s for working on shooting fundamentals, because I can practice those in my house.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 26, 2018)

skribs said:


> I think some arts are about getting off the line of attack, and others are about taking the person down and pinning them down.


If you can take the other guy down to pin him, that means you avoided his first attack, closed distance and took his balance. Thats enough. Instead of completing the take down and pin, shove him away and off balance while you draw. 

My point is that pretty much whatever art you are taking, you can insert your gun work into. You just need to adjust your mindset. In hand to hand, I take him down, knock him out, break his back... what ever. If I need to get to my gun, the same set ups, entrances and whatever you already study, work just fine. All you need to do, is take his balance and make him turn. That will buy you enough time to draw, if you practice the draw. You don't need to change arts. Bring your gun into the art you are studying. (ask the instructor first  )

You said you study TKD and HKD. Plenty of stuff in either one of those two arts will accomplish what you need, if you practice drawing.

As an aside, I got to practice that drill - one guy with a concealed gun, defending against a practice knife - with some SWAT team guys, using simunitons. Also got to practice gun disarms with simunitions. From my experience, the more it stings when you get shot, the more effective the training. Its fun too!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2018)

skribs said:


> Bit of backstory on me.  When I was around 21-22 I started carrying a firearm for self defense.  However, I also read the 21-foot rule, the idea that if someone suddenly pulls a knife and charges you to stab you, if they're within 7 yards they will likely stab you before you can draw your gun and shoot.  I read anecdotes on gun forums talking about how someone had to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat before being able to draw their gun, and that led me to seek martial arts training.
> 
> This was about 5 years ago.  I did a search back then for martial arts that would fit what I was looking for: an art to quickly avoid or escape an attack to buy myself the couple of seconds needed to draw my firearm.  For example, to block a punch and create space, to avoid being stabbed and gain control of the situation, or to break free from a grab at least enough to draw.
> 
> ...


The kinds of techniques generally used in Hapkido and Japanese Jujutsu (and related arts) have a lot of useful transitions for that kind of scenario. Many can be translated into one-handed control to create space and time to draw (assuming drawing is still a good option). Some of the projections lend themselves nicely, if you can get to them (they are generally less available than the takedowns and downward throws).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2018)

wab25 said:


> If you can take the other guy down to pin him, that means you avoided his first attack, closed distance and took his balance. Thats enough. Instead of completing the take down and pin, shove him away and off balance while you draw.
> 
> My point is that pretty much whatever art you are taking, you can insert your gun work into. You just need to adjust your mindset. In hand to hand, I take him down, knock him out, break his back... what ever. If I need to get to my gun, the same set ups, entrances and whatever you already study, work just fine. All you need to do, is take his balance and make him turn. That will buy you enough time to draw, if you practice the draw. You don't need to change arts. Bring your gun into the art you are studying. (ask the instructor first  )
> 
> ...


Just a note playing off this, to the OP.

Get a training gun (bluegun, etc.) replica of your primary carry weapon (and secondary, etc. if you like). Do some drills where you are attacked and need to get to that gun. Actually practice the sequence of creating space and time. It's a bit different from what you do with grappling moves normally, and actually practicing that difference is helpful.


----------



## skribs (Jan 26, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Just a note playing off this, to the OP.
> 
> Get a training gun (bluegun, etc.) replica of your primary carry weapon (and secondary, etc. if you like). Do some drills where you are attacked and need to get to that gun. Actually practice the sequence of creating space and time. It's a bit different from what you do with grappling moves normally, and actually practicing that difference is helpful.



I have a wooden gun, but it's basically a kid's toy and in no way represents a real gun.  We use those for gun defense (although those are taught at 3rd dan and pretty much nobody at my school has reached 3rd dan without immediately going off to college).  I also have an airsoft Walther, which is kinda similar to my carry guns.  I'll look into a blue gun version of what I have.

Of course, I don't carry anymore, as it's not allowed at either job I work at, so I've just gotten out of the habit of doing so.  This is more of an academic exercise than anything else.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2018)

You are looking at it backwards. The arts that concentrate on getting you wrapped up also concentrate on getting you clear.

Just like arts with takedowns have defences and arts with striking has blocks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You are looking at it backwards. The arts that concentrate on getting you wrapped up also concentrate on getting you clear.
> 
> Just like arts with takedowns have defences and arts with striking has blocks.


I'm not sure I agree entirely, for this situation, DB. Wrestling and BJJ don't - so far as I know - spend a lot of time on opening and maintaining distance. That distance - actually, the time it allows - is what creates the opportunity to draw. If you're already tied up, then those arts will let you gain control so you can get out of being tied up, but I don't think they are the best approach to getting an opportunity to draw. We could make a decent argument about getting control making the draw unnecessary in a lot of situations, but that wasn't the point of the OP.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2018)

skribs said:


> I have a wooden gun, but it's basically a kid's toy and in no way represents a real gun.  We use those for gun defense (although those are taught at 3rd dan and pretty much nobody at my school has reached 3rd dan without immediately going off to college).  I also have an airsoft Walther, which is kinda similar to my carry guns.  I'll look into a blue gun version of what I have.
> 
> Of course, I don't carry anymore, as it's not allowed at either job I work at, so I've just gotten out of the habit of doing so.  This is more of an academic exercise than anything else.


For an academic exercise, anything with a "real" feel and an actual carry holster will work well. Wooden guns are light and you'll fumble them differently than a real-ish gun. For all that, if you can find a serviceable holster (perhaps a generic fit from Uncle Mike's) for the wooden gun, it would be good enough to explore the idea with as a start.


----------



## Buka (Jan 26, 2018)

I believe this a very serious and difficult subject. I've never seen a Martial Art that properly taught firearm training. The problem is usually the Martial Art instructor that is teaching doesn't have the proper background/experience in combat shooting, retention and close quarter tactics concerning the firearm. Most firearm instruction I've seen or experienced in Martial Arts is dangerous bs. And I should know, I did some of that bs for years.

Being a decent target shooter, or even a really good one, prepares you for target shooting, and NOTHING else.

I suggest training from firearm instructors. Once past the safety lessons [very, very important] and target shooting, you should seek out a combat shooting instructor. Then spend a good deal of time in weapon retention, then moving on to close quarter disarm and drawing of weapons once engaged. THEN bring what you've learned into your art.

I've taken some nice courses over the years dealing with grappling with weapons. Guns and knives, accessing either, blocking either. I've found that bjj or any other close in art is far better when trying to learn to stop another person from accessing a weapon.

Again, a very serious subject.


----------



## skribs (Jan 26, 2018)

Buka said:


> I believe this a very serious and difficult subject. I've never seen a Martial Art that properly taught firearm training. The problem is usually the Martial Art instructor that is teaching doesn't have the proper background/experience in combat shooting, retention and close quarter tactics concerning the firearm. Most firearm instruction I've seen or experienced in Martial Arts is dangerous bs. And I should know, I did some of that bs for years.
> 
> Being a decent target shooter, or even a really good one, prepares you for target shooting, and NOTHING else.
> 
> ...



I did one IDPA competition, which I think out of most pistol competitions is the one best designed for mimicking self defense scenarios.  I wasn't making enough money to make it a hobby at the time, though.  In fact, since I've started martial arts, I've probably only been shooting 2-3 times, because I simply don't have the time anymore.

I'm pretty sure my Master is one of the few that _if _he wanted to incorporate firearm use into his curriculum, would be more than capable of doing so.



> I've taken some nice courses over the years dealing with grappling with weapons. Guns and knives, accessing either, blocking either. I've found that bjj or any other close in art is far better when trying to learn to stop another person from accessing a weapon.



I'm not going to argue against this.  However, in the scenario I'm looking at, the attacker _already _has a weapon (or doesn't have one and is just trying to sucker punch me.  Useful information to know, but not exactly relevant to this context IMO.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I agree entirely, for this situation, DB. Wrestling and BJJ don't - so far as I know - spend a lot of time on opening and maintaining distance. That distance - actually, the time it allows - is what creates the opportunity to draw. If you're already tied up, then those arts will let you gain control so you can get out of being tied up, but I don't think they are the best approach to getting an opportunity to draw. We could make a decent argument about getting control making the draw unnecessary in a lot of situations, but that wasn't the point of the OP.
















__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=531781973697303
			











just learning this would be worth doing wrestling.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 26, 2018)

Don't over complicate it.

Just learn to draw and fire while on the move along with learning some firearm retention methods and then combine that with your current MA training.  You don't need a special art that combines it all.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 26, 2018)

Firearms training with a firearms instructor or a system that has firearms instructor's in it is the way to go.  In IRT we have multiple firearms instructor's in it as well as myself and that makes a difference.  Systems that do better with this are typically weapon bearing systems such as FMA, Budo Taijutsu, etc.  However, like Buka above mentioned there have been many people who have taught firearm related material in martial arts and the vast majority of it has been just awful.  Train with firearms instructors as they are specialists in that field and typically have sound training.  However, also understand that there are some terrible firearms instructors out there.  You really need to do some research before to ensure that you are training with someone that knows their material!


----------



## jobo (Jan 26, 2018)

r[QUITE="skribs, post: 1883595, member: 31615"]Bit of backstory on me.  When I was around 21-22 I started carrying a firearm for self defense.  However, I also read the 21-foot rule, the idea that if someone suddenly pulls a knife and charges you to stab you, if they're within 7 yards they will likely stab you before you can draw your gun and shoot.  I read anecdotes on gun forums talking about how someone had to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat before being able to draw their gun, and that led me to seek martial arts training.

This was about 5 years ago.  I did a search back then for martial arts that would fit what I was looking for: an art to quickly avoid or escape an attack to buy myself the couple of seconds needed to draw my firearm.  For example, to block a punch and create space, to avoid being stabbed and gain control of the situation, or to break free from a grab at least enough to draw.

Of course, my search for the "perfect" martial art pretty much failed, as in my area we basically had taekwondo and MMA, with a karate school or two sprinkled in.  So I found a school with a great master and started taking Taekwondo.

However, just for the sake of my own curiosity, I thought I'd come back to this idea.  If your goal is to defend against an attack long enough to draw a firearm, what art(s) would you recommend?

For example, I think the styles of BJJ and wrestling wouldn't be very good, as the goal of those is to be wrapped up, and they don't create much space.  Hapkido, which I am learning at my school (although I'm only an orange belt in HKD and I'm a 2nd degree in TKD) I think would be pretty good, because generally we try to stay standing as we take our attacker to the ground.

I think that any art which uses a combination of punches and grabs in stand-up would also be pretty good.  Traditional Taekwondo self defense skills combined with modern Taekwondo sparring tactics could be a good amalgam for quick defense and gaining space.  At the time I did my research, I read of a more obscure Chinese art called Baguazhang which was based primarily on footwork, and thought that would be a perfect fit, except there was nowhere anywhere near me that taught it.

I'm not going to try to suppose for arts I don't know as much about.  I imagine the styles of some arts would be incongruent with the goal of getting to a firearm, whereas others will work very well.  So what do you think?  What art would fit the style I was looking for back then?[/QUOTE]

? Surely, if you can tie your attacker up you don't need to shoot him?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2018)

drop bear said:


> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=531781973697303
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't watch all of them, but here's my quick take:

The first one does show some good distance management if you're on the ground and they're standing. Actually enough space and control there to safely draw, though you'd have to extract your legs (not a problem with the video, just a problem to be solved in the situation) before you could safely deploy it. This creation of safe space for drawing is what I'm talking about. If you're on the ground, I doubt there's anything as good as BJJ for training that creation/maintenance of space, but I wouldn't expect it to be as effective (for that task) when standing and the other guy is coming in with a weapon. Pair it with striking (MMA) and raise the skill level sufficiently, and it probably works better for that purpose, but I think JJJ and even Judo may be easier to translate to that use.

The second didn't show any separation that would create a good (IMO) opportunity to draw, unless I missed it in my quick review. See my next comment for clarification.

The third one, I'm really not wild about where he showed the draw happening. There's a hand (that doesn't belong to him) right next to that draw. The gun is safer in the holster in that condition. I'd rather wrestle with someone who's trying to draw my gun from the holster (easier to retain when it's in the holster) than wrestle with someone who's trying to take it from my hand (and has control of that wrist). So, if their hand is that close, the gun stays in the holster, as a general rule. Others with more gun retention training may have a different view.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2018)

jobo said:


> ? Surely, if you can tie your attacker up you don't need to shoot him?


Depends on the situation. If it's only one, I definitely agree. If you can tie him up (BJJ, Judo, and wrestling seem good candidates for that), then the gun may not be necessary. I'd be inclined toward BJJ and Judo along those thought lines, because I know how they approach hand/arm control. There may be an analog in wrestling, but I know less about it, so can't speak to that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2018)

jobo said:


> r[QUITE="skribs, post: 1883595, member: 31615"]Bit of backstory on me.  When I was around 21-22 I started carrying a firearm for self defense.  However, I also read the 21-foot rule, the idea that if someone suddenly pulls a knife and charges you to stab you, if they're within 7 yards they will likely stab you before you can draw your gun and shoot.  I read anecdotes on gun forums talking about how someone had to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat before being able to draw their gun, and that led me to seek martial arts training.
> 
> This was about 5 years ago.  I did a search back then for martial arts that would fit what I was looking for: an art to quickly avoid or escape an attack to buy myself the couple of seconds needed to draw my firearm.  For example, to block a punch and create space, to avoid being stabbed and gain control of the situation, or to break free from a grab at least enough to draw.
> 
> ...



? Surely, if you can tie your attacker up you don't need to shoot him?[/QUOTE]

If you can control your attacker you can basically do whatever the hell you want.


----------



## jobo (Jan 27, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Depends on the situation. If it's only one, I definitely agree. If you can tie him up (BJJ, Judo, and wrestling seem good candidates for that), then the gun may not be necessary. I'd be inclined toward BJJ and Judo along those thought lines, because I know how they approach hand/arm control. There may be an analog in wrestling, but I know less about it, so can't speak to that.


don't disagree with any of that!

but the proposition in the op , is that 7 yards say 3 seconds isn't enough to draw your gun and fire , so you need ma to give you more time, there fore it follows that what ever ma you choose will need to gie you more than 3 seconds breathing space, ie , you knock them out for 5 seconds,  knock them over, break a leg of some,such or put them in a hold of some sort. Any of which if you achieve mean there is no longer a need to draw and fire, and if you don't achieve means you get stabbed,, so the whole thing about a gun, becomes a academic discussion


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 27, 2018)

jobo said:


> so the whole thing about a gun, becomes a academic discussion


Which, I think, is exactly what the OP intended.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2018)

jobo said:


> don't disagree with any of that!
> 
> but the proposition in the op , is that 7 yards say 3 seconds isn't enough to draw your gun and fire , so you need ma to give you more time, there fore it follows that what ever ma you choose will need to gie you more than 3 seconds breathing space, ie , you knock them out for 5 seconds,  knock them over, break a leg of some,such or put them in a hold of some sort. Any of which if you achieve mean there is no longer a need to draw and fire, and if you don't achieve means you get stabbed,, so the whole thing about a gun, becomes a academic discussion



Not really. You can pull out weapons mid scramble. It is the difference between fighting and drilling. When you drill you do a self defence move and it works. When you fight you do a self defence move and get an inch of advantage.

Take that inch of advantage and go for a weapon.

So the priority of the scramble may not be for a dominant hold. It may be you are going for a weapon or he is.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 27, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Not really. You can pull out weapons mid scramble. It is the difference between fighting and drilling. When you drill you do a self defence move and it works. When you fight you do a self defence move and get an inch of advantage.
> 
> Take that inch of advantage and go for a weapon.



IMHO, Drawing your weapon while engaged with an opponent should be the last ditch effort.  Instead I would rather try and disengage, create distance and draw my weapon.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> IMHO, Drawing your weapon while engaged with an opponent should be the last ditch effort.  Instead I would rather try and disengage, create distance and draw my weapon.



Exept his aim is going to be engage and stay engaged. Because as soon as you create that space he is boned. Again it is a fight. He isn't just going to let go of you.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 27, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Because as soon as you create that space he is boned.



What?



drop bear said:


> Again it is a fight. He isn't just going to let go of you.



I realize that and am prepared to fight my way out of it....but I'm not drawing my weapon until I know I can't get disengaged....thats when it becomes last ditch.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> What?
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that and am prepared to fight my way out of it....but I'm not drawing my weapon until I know I can't get disengaged....thats when it becomes last ditch.



OK. So he knows as soon as you get space he is going to get shot. So he is going to be on you like a fat kid on cake.

Now during that scramble you will be attacking something, escaping or going for a weapon.

Now the issue you tend to get in fighting is escapes don't work. But what they do is create just enough space to to try another another escape, attack, something or go for a weapon. Or they force him to stop what he is doing so if he is hitting you he can't hit you and defend an escape at the same time.

Except you are only going for one thing. Which is to get clear. So he only has to deal with your one strategy.

Unless of course you reach some point of desperation where you go screw it. You are now going for a weapon.

My counter suggestion is you go for all of it at once by blending escaping ,attacking and accessing a weapon.

Rather than fighting from what seems to be one mode to another.

Something as simple as if I get an undertook and hip escape. That becomes my hip. Now I could continue to escape. Then fight to stand up then fight to get clear then pull a weapon. Or I can pull the weapon from there and end the fight.


----------



## Buka (Jan 28, 2018)

Are we talking civilian scenarios or police work?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> OK. So he knows as soon as you get space he is going to get shot. So he is going to be on you like a fat kid on cake.
> 
> Now during that scramble you will be attacking something, escaping or going for a weapon.
> 
> ...


If the weapon is a gun, it's safer to have it in the holster, IMO, when it's not clear (well away from them). If you can't create the space/time to draw and deploy with reasonable expectation of getting it on target without interference, you are safer not drawing it. If he goes for it in the holster (assuming a decent holster), he becomes easier to deal with (he's focused on a single target) and retention is easier than if it's out of the holster.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

Buka said:


> Are we talking civilian scenarios or police work?


There is a bit of a difference. I assumed the OP was talking civilian.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

Using MMA strategies that have a finite ending and a win/ lose result is in my opinion the wrong thing to do.  Real life violent interactions are not a finite game it is an infinite one. BJJ tactics work really well when used at the appropriate time. Nothing wrong with BJJ skills.  There is a difference between strategy and tactics or skills and the when and how to apply them.
The number one goal for a civilian in a violent encounter is the get out of the danger zone. That is it period. Unless there are other people you are trying to protect and that is a different conversation really. 
I repeatedly see people trying to apply a finite game strategy  like MMA to the street.  If you account for all the variables and follow each of those to their respective conclusion it becomes obvious that using the "win the fight" mentality will fail more often than not.
For those interested, Google "game theory the prisoners dilemma "   and you will see how to logically calculate out the best strategy.
The longer you are in the danger zone and in contact with the assailant the greater your chances of being injured or killed.  For those that want to wrestle with a gun or knife wielding assailant be my guest, ,it won't be my first choice. And as Buka pointed out LEO have a completely different end goal then civilian you really cannot use one to validate the other.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Using MMA strategies that have a finite ending and a win/ lose result is in my opinion the wrong thing to do.  Real life violent interactions are not a finite game it is an infinite one. BJJ tactics work really well when used at the appropriate time. Nothing wrong with BJJ skills.  There is a difference between strategy and tactics or skills and the when and how to apply them.
> The number one goal for a civilian in a violent encounter is the get out of the danger zone. That is it period. Unless there are other people you are trying to protect and that is a different conversation really.
> I repeatedly see people trying to apply a finite game strategy  like MMA to the street.  If you account for all the variables and follow each of those to their respective conclusion it becomes obvious that using the "win the fight" mentality will fail more often than not.
> For those interested, Google "game theory the prisoners dilemma "   and you will see how to logically calculate out the best strategy.
> The longer you are in the danger zone and in contact with the assailant the greater your chances of being injured or killed.  For those that want to wrestle with a gun or knife wielding assailant be my guest, ,it won't be my first choice. And as Buka pointed out LEO have a completely different end goal then civilian you really cannot use one to validate the other.


Hoshin, I'm not sure I follow the main point of your post. The finite vs. infinite doesn't make much sense to me - probably just something I'm not getting. For the most part, it's not about whether we want to wrestle with a gun or knife wielding assailant, but whether there's a gun or knife present when the grappling occurs. As with anything in SD, if you can avoid getting into the grappling (or punching), then you do. When you can't, you don't get to determine what they brought. So, will I wrestle with a weapon-wielding assailant? Yep. I don't want to, but that might be where I end up.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Hoshin, I'm not sure I follow the main point of your post. The finite vs. infinite doesn't make much sense to me - probably just something I'm not getting. For the most part, it's not about whether we want to wrestle with a gun or knife wielding assailant, but whether there's a gun or knife present when the grappling occurs. As with anything in SD, if you can avoid getting into the grappling (or punching), then you do. When you can't, you don't get to determine what they brought. So, will I wrestle with a weapon-wielding assailant? Yep. I don't want to, but that might be where I end up.


so yes i agree with the concept of if your in the crap , you got to get out, if you have to grapple then that is what you got to do.  but that is the skills or tactics.  but the mistake is to use the normal strategy of BJJ like : taking the back, getting your underhooks, setting your heels in as hooks as an objective.  this is the MMA mentality and yes it works but it only works in a finite game.
so let me explain and define.
a finite game is defined as :known players, fixed rules and an agreed upon objective.  in an infinite game there are known and unknown players, the rules are changeable and the objective can be different for each player and change over time.
ok back to a violent encounter,  the clip that drop bear posted was beautiful.  yes beautiful for LEO.  that wouldnt work for most civilian circumstances. imagine instead of the second officer coming to to help the first, it was the second bad guy.  the objective of the officer is to detain and arrest. so yes he has to use that strategy and those tactics.  but a civillian would be dead.  in most cases when an officer is arresting someone like that you dont have others jumping in to save their buddy. it happens but not often.  it happens all the time with civilian encounters.  its well known most assailants work in pairs so we have to account for that.  we know most assailants use weapons we have to account for that.
 the OP was asking about creating distance.  this is in my mind the correct response , not close the distance.  closing the distance should only be done when there is no choice, the assailant closed the distance for you and you need to get out.  if you close the distance you are ignoring the outcome that the other player brings.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

we need to start with the violent encounter and maintain that frame work as we logically think things thru here.  what seems to happen is we start with the encounter and get side tracked with the typical MMA mind set of winning the fight as if we were in the octagon.
here is a question;  if the assailant has a gun why would he close the distance?  how about a knife?
its quite easy to look up real life video's of this stuff on YouTube.  how many cases do you see where the assailant closes the distance when he has a gun and if so why?
if you think you are going to close the distance between you and the assailant , how much distance are we talking about here?  can it be done without putting yourself in more danger?
my point is you have to logically think thru the variables until you reach their conclusion and that conclusion is not where most people think.  it doesnt stop at getting someone in an armbar.  did you injury the person? did you kill the person?  are you know having to lose your job and your house being in debt to pay lawyer fees because of court costs? 
it is an infinte game.

EDIT:   another thought..  what is the % ratio of potential injury to yourself if you close the distance and grapple  vs the %  ratio of injury where you gained distance and fired your weapon and the assailant went into the FIBS factor....(fudge im being shot at)  and his brain told him this just aint worth it, and ran off.


----------



## stonewall1350 (Jan 28, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Practice your draw from concealment. The faster you can draw from concealment, the less time you have to buy.
> 
> The 21 foot rule is for a police officer, meaning gun is on the hip, not concealed. It also requires the officer to stand his ground. If the officer backs up turning (L shape path) that buys him enough time to draw and fire.
> too)



This right here. I’m a carrier as well. Don’t practice a fast draw though. Practice a smooth draw. And if at any point your holster comes with your gun...you need to change holster or belt or both. Ideally you should do this drill every time you take your gun off (AFTER unloading of course). My Galco holster is solid plastic and holds its frame and has never come with the gun when I pulled it. It took me a bit to learn that. I also use a thick belt too. 

Anyway. I say this remembering the saying from Wyatt Earp (I think): “take your time in a hurry.” If you can’t get the gun out clean and smooth...it won’t be fast. The old West gun fighters weren’t completely useless for advice. They drew guns to kill.

As for “which art?” I would say practice “gun fu.” Any art that involves drawing from concealment and contending with attackers while using your weapon. A lot of gun stores will have references to trainers. Be careful with who is selected of course. Make sure they are not a Barney fife trying to teach you judo (if you get that reference). And anything that keeps in mind that your first weapon is your brain. I like the “gray man” philosophy. Which means trying to avoid being a Target first and being aware of WHO is around you. Watching under cars and blind corners and so on. Just generally having a presence of mind. But also doing so without meeting anyone’s eyes. 

Anyway. 

Personally? If I were to learn gun related self defense here? I would take it from a guy who was fired from the police department who was a former gang unit cop. He (from all known sources) was one scary SOB with guns, knives, and sticks. Regardless of being fired...he is the kinda guy you learn from. The guy who knows what he is doing and is experienced. 

[VIDEO] 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

_"The sequential assessment game (SAG) was the  first model to investigate the temporal
organization of contest behaviour (Enquist and Leimar, 1983, 1987; Enquist et al., 1990;
Leimar and Enquist, 1984). The SAG envisioned an aggressive contest as a means
through which rivals gradually assess relative  fighting abilities (i.e. the difference between
contestant A and contestant B with respect to physical prowess). The decision to continue
to  fight or flee is based on each rival’s assessment of its opponent’s  fighting ability relative
to its own. An individual will retreat when it assesses its own  fighting ability to be
considerably lower than its opponent’s. More specifcally, the SAG predicts that retreats
will occur when the costs of continuing outweigh the bene ts of obtaining the contested
resource"_


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

good post @stonewall1350
this statement however, as innocuous as it is caught my attention.


stonewall1350 said:


> Watching under cars



i believe it comes from the old (and ill thought out) advise for women to look under their cars because assailants will hide under the car and grab their ankles... and pull them under it and down into the burning fires of the seven layers of hell ..like all the monster movies.
i mean seriously there are no boogie men under the bed and rapists dont hide under cars.   anyone who has tried to work under their car to change the oil or something will tell you that there is only about room for a 5 yo under there.

the better advise is to look in the back seat before getting in.
unless of course your intended thought was to look for feet on the other side of the car. but then of course you would have to just about lay on the ground to see that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> so yes i agree with the concept of if your in the crap , you got to get out, if you have to grapple then that is what you got to do.  but that is the skills or tactics.  but the mistake is to use the normal strategy of BJJ like : taking the back, getting your underhooks, setting your heels in as hooks as an objective.  this is the MMA mentality and yes it works but it only works in a finite game.
> so let me explain and define.
> a finite game is defined as :known players, fixed rules and an agreed upon objective.  in an infinite game there are known and unknown players, the rules are changeable and the objective can be different for each player and change over time.
> ok back to a violent encounter,  the clip that drop bear posted was beautiful.  yes beautiful for LEO.  that wouldnt work for most civilian circumstances. imagine instead of the second officer coming to to help the first, it was the second bad guy.  the objective of the officer is to detain and arrest. so yes he has to use that strategy and those tactics.  but a civillian would be dead.  in most cases when an officer is arresting someone like that you dont have others jumping in to save their buddy. it happens but not often.  it happens all the time with civilian encounters.  its well known most assailants work in pairs so we have to account for that.  we know most assailants use weapons we have to account for that.
> the OP was asking about creating distance.  this is in my mind the correct response , not close the distance.  closing the distance should only be done when there is no choice, the assailant closed the distance for you and you need to get out.  if you close the distance you are ignoring the outcome that the other player brings.


Okay, that made more sense to me that way. Without quibbling on small points, I agree with the overall concept. There are reasons we might avoid some of the tactics used in competition, though they are quite useful in the right street encounter, too.


----------



## skribs (Jan 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Depends on the situation. If it's only one, I definitely agree. If you can tie him up (BJJ, Judo, and wrestling seem good candidates for that), then the gun may not be necessary. I'd be inclined toward BJJ and Judo along those thought lines, because I know how they approach hand/arm control. There may be an analog in wrestling, but I know less about it, so can't speak to that.



So let's say I use wrestling moves to pin an attacker down.  What then?  As soon as I let go, he's free to try and punch or stab me again.



CB Jones said:


> IMHO, Drawing your weapon while engaged with an opponent should be the last ditch effort.  Instead I would rather try and disengage, create distance and draw my weapon.



"Opponent" isn't the word I'd use here.  "Attacker" is.  The goal would be to get to my gun, and use it as a means of convincing him to stop the attack.  If that means he runs away and I can then call the police?  Good.  If that means he surrenders and I call the cops and then wait for the cops to show up, good.  If that means he continues to attack me and I have to actively use the gun to defend myself, then that's bad, but at least I am able to defend myself.

There's a quote I've read (and it's on the internet, so it must be true) that Chuck Norris was once asked if someone broke into his house, if he'd round-house kick them in the face.  He said "no, I'd grab my 10-gauge".  My opinion is that martial arts training is good, but if your goal is to survive a violent attack, a gun is often the best choice, if available.



drop bear said:


> Exept his aim is going to be engage and stay engaged. Because as soon as you create that space he is boned. Again it is a fight. He isn't just going to let go of you.



I think there's too many pronouns in here.  Who is trying to stay engaged?  Who is creating space and who is boned?  Who isn't letting go?



gpseymour said:


> There is a bit of a difference. I assumed the OP was talking civilian.



Civilian, yes.


----------



## stonewall1350 (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> good post @stonewall1350
> this statement however, as innocuous as it is caught my attention.
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. Looking to the other side of the car lol. Not checking under the car I’m going too. I could have worded it better lol. But you only have to do that if your close to them. SUVs would easily allow you to look past them. And big trucks. As your walking toward them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stonewall1350 (Jan 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> So let's say I use wrestling moves to pin an attacker down.  What then?  As soon as I let go, he's free to try and punch or stab me again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BJJ/judo is good if they are right on top of you. If you can win the situation without using your gun? Good. If you choke someone out...you don’t need to worry about the gun. Or Americana then and tear their shoulder so badly they can’t use it...let them swing away with one arm. Good luck. 

With “gun fu” you want to be able to win the fight before the gun even comes into play. You win by not getting involved FIRST, then secondly by being able to escape. Which should be your goal. Knocking them down let’s you use the nike defense (or ASICS or Reebok). But let me ask you...if you are able to pin the person...why would you let the go? Are they trying to bite you? Are you losing control of them? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> So let's say I use wrestling moves to pin an attacker down. What then? As soon as I let go, he's free to try and punch or stab me again.


That's an argument for possibility. If you take that view, you should kill or at least disable (permanently) everyone who attacks you, because there's always a chance they'll come after you later.

The reality is that it's situational. Sometimes you have enough control to let them up, or you just make the choice that it's probably safe to do so. Sometimes you don't think that's safe, and can hold them until someone helps you (cops, bouncer, etc.). Sometimes you might need to choke them out or break something to make it safe to disengage. Sometimes you don't get the opportunity to make a choice, and you just do the best you can to get out of the situation.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

For me I just don’t like the idea of drawing while physically engaged unless there is absolutely no other choice.  My first strategy would be to fight until I can disengage and then draw from outside the attackers arm reach.

1st..... you have to be able to justify lethal force because soon as it comes out you have to be shooting....because you are engaged wrestling with them and you can’t risk the assailant trying to wrestle the gun away from you.

2nd....drawing a concealed weapon under stress can be difficult by itself....doing so while actively  engaged wrestling with an attacker will make it exponentially harder and increases the risk of AD, losing the weapon, or a weak grip of the weapon making it harder to retain.

3rd....The drawing of the weapon puts the weapon in its hardest position it retain and creates the risk of losing retention or the muzzle being turned into you.  Also, malfunctions can be caused while wrestling for the gun rendering the gun useless to you.

And last...when you draw a gun while actively engaged wrestling with an attacker you lose all other options.  Your focus has to be solely on retention and use of the gun due to this all other actions, techniques, fighting strategies, etc...are over....you are now in a shooting situation.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> If the weapon is a gun, it's safer to have it in the holster, IMO, when it's not clear (well away from them). If you can't create the space/time to draw and deploy with reasonable expectation of getting it on target without interference, you are safer not drawing it. If he goes for it in the holster (assuming a decent holster), he becomes easier to deal with (he's focused on a single target) and retention is easier than if it's out of the holster.



If you could take him in a fist fight. You never needed the gun though.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

as i think about this topic i am under the impression we are all holding different scenarios in our heads.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> If you could take him in a fist fight. You never needed the gun though.


yeah see that is what i was saying ,, we all have a different scenario in our heads.
i am picturing an assailant walking into a store to rob it pulling a gun and his accomplice holding a bag forcing everyone to put their belongings in the bag and forcing some to lay down on the ground.

there is no fist  fight.   maybe i could take him in a fist fight but not with a gun pointed at my head.
if he doesnt have a gun or a knife or any other weapon , then he really doesnt pose a lethal threat and you have no reason to draw a firearm.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Using MMA strategies that have a finite ending and a win/ lose result is in my opinion the wrong thing to do.  Real life violent interactions are not a finite game it is an infinite one. BJJ tactics work really well when used at the appropriate time. Nothing wrong with BJJ skills.  There is a difference between strategy and tactics or skills and the when and how to apply them.
> The number one goal for a civilian in a violent encounter is the get out of the danger zone. That is it period. Unless there are other people you are trying to protect and that is a different conversation really.
> I repeatedly see people trying to apply a finite game strategy  like MMA to the street.  If you account for all the variables and follow each of those to their respective conclusion it becomes obvious that using the "win the fight" mentality will fail more often than not.
> For those interested, Google "game theory the prisoners dilemma "   and you will see how to logically calculate out the best strategy.
> The longer you are in the danger zone and in contact with the assailant the greater your chances of being injured or killed.  For those that want to wrestle with a gun or knife wielding assailant be my guest, ,it won't be my first choice. And as Buka pointed out LEO have a completely different end goal then civilian you really cannot use one to validate the other.



Can you show me your method working?

 BJJ actually has footage of police officers making their system work in real time.

Personally I probably wouldn't have said a rear naked wasn't the best way to go. But actually video says different.

Police footage is about the only real time footage of people fighting with guns. So if you are going to work on the theory that it is not really the same you have to replace it with something better.

Not with a bunch of empty theory.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> yeah see that is what i was saying ,, we all have a different scenario in our heads.
> i am picturing an assailant walking into a store to rob it pulling a gun and his accomplice holding a bag forcing everyone to put their belongings in the bag and forcing some to lay down on the ground.
> 
> there is no fist  fight.   maybe i could take him in a fist fight but not with a gun pointed at my head.
> if he doesnt have a gun or a knife or any other weapon , then he really doesnt pose a lethal threat and you have no reason to draw a firearm.



There is this one on a bus where this girl cop pulls a gun and he jumps her. They get in to a wrestle another cop runs in and shoots the guy.

So there may be circumstances where you have to fight your gun off someone. Or even use pieces of that idea so you are not exposing your gun in a fight.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> For me I just don’t like the idea of drawing while physically engaged unless there is absolutely no other choice.  My first strategy would be to fight until I can disengage and then draw from outside the attackers arm reach.
> 
> 1st..... you have to be able to justify lethal force because soon as it comes out you have to be shooting....because you are engaged wrestling with them and you can’t risk the assailant trying to wrestle the gun away from you.
> 
> ...



Yeah. But at what point do you come to the conclusion that it is time to pull the gun out while engaged?


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But at what point do you come to the conclusion that it is time to pull the gun out while engaged?



Once you realize you are over matched and you can not disengage.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> I think there's too many pronouns in here. Who is trying to stay engaged? Who is creating space and who is boned? Who isn't letting go?



OK. If I know you have a weapon and I have hold of you. I am not going to let you go.

You will not get clear to draw that gun. You can take an eye out, break limbs, whatever. Because as soon as you get clear. I am dead.

And I don't want to be dead.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Once you realize you are over matched and you can not disengage.



Is that too late?


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> OK. If I know you have a weapon and I have hold of you. I am not going to let you go.
> 
> You will not get clear to draw that gun. You can take an eye out, break limbs, whatever. Because as soon as you get clear. I am dead.
> 
> And I don't want to be dead.



I agree if the other person has a gun....you need to disarm him before you can disengage.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

And with all of these concepts you will absolutely need to take these ideas into the lab and see what you can get away with and what you can't.

There is no shortage of fake guns out there that you can't actually try it.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Can you show me your method working?
> 
> BJJ actually has footage of police officers making their system work in real time.
> 
> ...



your more stubborn than my wife..   

 footage of police is not what i thought we were talking about,  in fact the question was asked , if were were discussing LEO or civilian  as they are not the same and it does make a big difference.
police footage IS NOT THE ONLY FOOTAGE  out there of gun violence,, Youtube   "Active Self Protection" and you will find literally thousands of videos of gun violence.  
show you my method working???   again go to Active Self Protection  if you need to see the "run away principal" in action...i kinda thought it was universally understood since we were all like 7 years old.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Is that too late?



Who knows?  Nothing is guaranteed.

But I do know it is not easy to draw a concealed weapon while wrestling with someone else and a lot can go wrong..  Its why we train getting back to our feet and disengaging before drawing if possible


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> I agree if the other person has a gun....you need to disarm him before you can disengage.



I wouldn't think so. You just need to isolate his ability to shoot you and free your ability to shoot him.

A lot of this conversation is going to work in concepts and set ups. I think if you approached it in a concept way. You would wind up with a better method.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> I agree if the other person has a gun....you need to disarm him before you can disengage.



I wouldn't think so. You just need to isolate his ability to shoot you and free your ability to shoot him.

A lot of this conversation is going to work in concepts and set ups. I think if you approached it in a concept way. You would wind up with a better method.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> If I know you have a weapon and I have hold of you. I am not going to let you go.


  exactly how did you get a hold of him without already being shot?   were you two hugging when you felt a gun in his pocket and knew he wasnt just happy. to see you..????
in most cases he would have already had the gun out and using it for dominance, he would have kept his distance because he isnt stupid enough to just let you take it away.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Who knows?  Nothing is guaranteed.
> 
> But I do know it is not easy to draw a concealed weapon while wrestling with someone else and a lot can go wrong..  Its why we train getting back to our feet and disengaging before drawing if possible



I have pulled bats, radios and torches out on guys while wrestling. Wrestled handcuffs on guys. Why is a gun so difficult?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> exactly how did you get a hold of him without already being shot?   were you two hugging when you felt a gun in his pocket and knew he wasnt happy...????
> in most cases he would have already had the gun out and using it for dominance, he would have kept his distance because he isnt stupid enough to just let you take it away.



The point of the thread.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

@drop bear 
without a defined scenario this conversation is pointless.
can you  define one please.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> your more stubborn than my wife..
> 
> footage of police is not what i thought we were talking about,  in fact the question was asked , if were were discussing LEO or civilian  as they are not the same and it does make a big difference.
> police footage IS NOT THE ONLY FOOTAGE  out there of gun violence,, Youtube   "Active Self Protection" and you will find literally thousands of videos of gun violence.
> show you my method working???   again go to Active Self Protection  if you need to see the "run away principal" in action...i kinda thought it was universally understood since we were all like 7 years old.



so this is some sort of different mechanics bein used?


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I have pulled bats, radios and torches out on guys while wrestling. Wrestled handcuffs on guys. Why is a gun so difficult?



1)  Bats do not A.D. and blow your balls off as you try to draw them.

2)  The end of a bat can't be pushed into your gut while the trigger is pulled gut shooting you.

3)  If dropped it doesn't matter what end of the bat you end up grasping.

4)  You can't push the slide of a bat 3 mm back and take it out of battery

5)  You can't push a slide 3/4 back and double feed a bat rendering it inoperable

6)  If the bad guy takes your bat away and you run away....the bat is not gonna send a projectile through the air at 1300 feet per second and kill you

7)  Bats aren't typically worn underneath clothes with retention holsters


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> so this is some sort of different mechanics bein used?















 i have no idea what you are arguing against.  (which is not unusal)  and as usual you dont have an actual agument in words but instead post video clips so here i will return the argument


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

@drop bear

I'm posting a video I recently came across of why its not a good idea to be engaged physically with someone with a gun in your hand.  To much of a risk losing retention of it.  A gun is a distance weapon.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> @drop bear
> without a defined scenario this conversation is pointless.
> can you  define one please.



Really?

Ok For what ever reason you have go in to an issue with a guy. He has punched you in the head and then jumped on top of you.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> @drop bear
> 
> I'm posting a video I recently came across of why its not a good idea to be engaged physically with someone with a gun in your hand.  To much of a risk losing retention of it.  A gun is a distance weapon.


thats funny you both posted the same video to prove your point on why each of you are right.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Really?
> 
> Ok For what ever reason you have go in to an issue with a guy. He has punched you in the head and then jumped on top of you.


let me restate so i am sure we agree.
a guy walks up to me and punches me in the head, i fall down or get pulled down and he jumps on top of me....  yes???
my solution,  use my BJJ skills.   so what is your argument about ???
a fist fight most of the time does not justify drawing a firearm and killing the guy.
rule number one ...if you carry dont get in a fist fight.
rule number two.. if you choose to draw a firearm ( at least here in the US)   you better make sure your intention is to use it and that you are legally justified because you will be prosecuted.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> @drop bear
> 
> I'm posting a video I recently came across of why its not a good idea to be engaged physically with someone with a gun in your hand.  To much of a risk losing retention of it.  A gun is a distance weapon.



And I counter with why it is not a good idea to be on the back foot in a fight. Too much risk of you loosing before you have a chance to recover.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> so this is some sort of different mechanics bein used?



now if you want to change your scenario to this video clip,, again BJJ skills is the method to use once you are in close contact and fighting for a weapon. it could be argued remaining standing might work better but it is a grappling match standing or on the ground , possibly both.

again no argument on my part


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i have no idea what you are arguing against.  (which is not unusal)  and as usual you dont have an actual agument in words but instead post video clips so here i will return the argument



Um........

my solution, use my BJJ skills. so what is your argument about ???
a fist fight most of the time does not justify drawing a firearm and killing the guy.
rule number one ...if you carry dont get in a fist fight.

So your defensive shooting videos is your own definition of the wrong thing to do.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And I counter with why it is not a good idea to be on the back foot in a fight. Too much risk of you loosing before you have a chance to recover.



What does any of that have to do with drawing your gun while wrestling with someone?


Well lets just agree to disagree.  I will use the tactics we train at my agency, and you can use the tactics you train at yours.  I feel very confident with the tactics that we teach.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Um........
> So your defensive shooting videos is your own definition of the wrong thing to do.





drop bear said:


> Police footage is about the only real time footage of people fighting with guns.


----------



## Buka (Jan 28, 2018)

I hate guns.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 28, 2018)

Buka said:


> I hate guns.


i like guns,
its the little brass things that go inside that scare me.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

Buka said:


> I hate guns.



I actually love shooting and guns.  Even used to teach Trap and Skeet Shooting to 4-H students but they do have a tendency to complicate things


----------



## Buka (Jan 28, 2018)

I've been involved with guns for a long time. I carry a firearm as a mandatory piece of equipment when I'm working. I sometimes carry a firearm when I'm not. But, when there's trouble and danger, as a civilian, I can run away if I get the chance. Can't do that when I'm working, even when I want to. And when I'm working, the very last thing I ever want to do is draw my weapon. As a civilian, I don't really give a F. It frightens me that I feel that way. But save your advice, I know plenty of lawyers.

I hate guns. Loathe them. I hate the NRA even worse. I wish there were no guns anywhere in the country........except for, you know, mine.

Hey, I never said I was sane or rational.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And with all of these concepts you will absolutely need to take these ideas into the lab and see what you can get away with and what you can't.
> 
> There is no shortage of fake guns out there that you can't actually try it.


Agreed. That was part of my early posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I have pulled bats, radios and torches out on guys while wrestling. Wrestled handcuffs on guys. Why is a gun so difficult?


It's not particularly dangerous if your cuffs go off during a scuffle. Same for radios and torches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> so this is some sort of different mechanics bein used?


This is actually kinda the point I and others have been making. That's video of the guy with the gun losing it in a struggle. It wasn't loaded, so it wasn't dangerous to him (and also wasn't usable as a gun in the scuffle), so that eliminates some of the possible outcomes, but still...


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> What does any of that have to do with drawing your gun while wrestling with someone?
> 
> 
> Well lets just agree to disagree.  I will use the tactics we train at my agency, and you can use the tactics you train at yours.  I feel very confident with the tactics that we teach.



Oh you are doing industry training..

Yeah that explains it.

And why so many cops do BJJ.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And I counter with why it is not a good idea to be on the back foot in a fight. Too much risk of you loosing before you have a chance to recover.


If drawing a gun while wrestling wasn't highly dangerous, then I'd agree with your point. But why start out by making it more dangerous for everyone (yourself included), just in case it gets dangerous for you later?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> This is actually kinda the point I and others have been making. That's video of the guy with the gun losing it in a struggle. It wasn't loaded, so it wasn't dangerous to him (and also wasn't usable as a gun in the scuffle), so that eliminates some of the possible outcomes, but still...



There are going to be positions where it is safe to draw and positions where it is unsafe. And they would be pretty easily worked out and broken down.

Of course nobody has really bothered to work that out which is why we have the systems we have. Stand up get clear and then think about the gun you had on you the whole time.

Grappling is inherently about creating and denying access.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> There are going to be positions where it is safe to draw and positions where it is unsafe. And they would be pretty easily worked out and broken down.
> 
> Of course nobody has really bothered to work that out which is why we have the systems we have. Stand up get clear and then think about the gun you had on you the whole time.
> 
> Grappling is inherently about creating and denying access.


Early in this thread, discussion wasn't entirely about "stand up and get clear" - it was about building time and space to draw. I think that's exactly what you're talking about.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> 1)  Bats do not A.D. and blow your balls off as you try to draw them.
> 
> 2)  The end of a bat can't be pushed into your gut while the trigger is pulled gut shooting you.
> 
> ...



Oh. Street/sport.

Yep gun is so different only gun people would know how to wrestle with one.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Of course nobody has really bothered to work that out which is why we have the systems we have. Stand up get clear and then think about the gun you had on you the whole time.



I disagree.

Our firearms, officer survival, and defensive tactics instructors are full time. Their only jobs are working that stuff out and training.  They advocate BJJ and wrestling tactics to gain control of the person or to get back to your feet and separate giving you the distance needed to draw.  Drawing while still engaged and without space is a very risky idea.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Our firearms, officer survival, and defensive tactics instructors are full time. Their only jobs are working that stuff out and training.  They advocate BJJ and wrestling tactics to gain control of the person or to get back to your feet and separate giving you the distance needed to draw.  Drawing while still engaged and without space is a very risky idea.



Sorry I just don't have faith in industry training. Not for these sorts of subjects.

Industry training is about being compliant to be able to work. It is not for learning things.


----------



## Anarax (Jan 28, 2018)

skribs said:


> Bit of backstory on me.  When I was around 21-22 I started carrying a firearm for self defense.  However, I also read the 21-foot rule, the idea that if someone suddenly pulls a knife and charges you to stab you, if they're within 7 yards they will likely stab you before you can draw your gun and shoot.  I read anecdotes on gun forums talking about how someone had to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat before being able to draw their gun, and that led me to seek martial arts training.
> 
> This was about 5 years ago.  I did a search back then for martial arts that would fit what I was looking for: an art to quickly avoid or escape an attack to buy myself the couple of seconds needed to draw my firearm.  For example, to block a punch and create space, to avoid being stabbed and gain control of the situation, or to break free from a grab at least enough to draw.
> 
> ...



Filipino Martial arts(Kali, Escrima, Arnis) places heavy emphasis on weapon retention. We have multiple law enforcement officers that take our classes. Filipino martial arts is becoming more and more popular with law enforcement. The Filipino martial arts seminars I go to are mostly law enforcement or private security in attendance.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 28, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Sorry I just don't have faith in industry training. Not for these sorts of subjects.
> 
> Industry training is about being compliant to be able to work. It is not for learning things.



So whose training do you put faith in then?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> So whose training do you put faith in then?



The training people choose to do. From the trainers who are legitimately qualified to teach.

And with results based on evidence.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 29, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> So whose training do you put faith in then?



Sometimes, with some people, it just isn't worth asking.  



drop bear said:


> The training people choose to do. From the trainers who are legitimately qualified to teach.
> 
> And with results based on evidence.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jan 29, 2018)

This may have been shared already and it might not have.  Either way, it's a nice example of how an art can be modified in such a way that it allows for effective weapon retention and deployment.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> Bit of backstory on me.  When I was around 21-22 I started carrying a firearm for self defense.  However, I also read the 21-foot rule, the idea that if someone suddenly pulls a knife and charges you to stab you, if they're within 7 yards they will likely stab you before you can draw your gun and shoot.  I read anecdotes on gun forums talking about how someone had to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat before being able to draw their gun, and that led me to seek martial arts training.
> 
> This was about 5 years ago.  I did a search back then for martial arts that would fit what I was looking for: an art to quickly avoid or escape an attack to buy myself the couple of seconds needed to draw my firearm.  For example, to block a punch and create space, to avoid being stabbed and gain control of the situation, or to break free from a grab at least enough to draw.
> 
> ...



To get away from nit picking (which I do way too much of myself),  the best advice I have seen so far is to try to create distance, either by side-stepping, or backing up quickly while you draw a gun.  Even those tactics must be trained for.

But have you talked to your Hapkido instructor?  Hapkido has some good knife defenses.  I was taught them at the red belt level.  Later the Korean Hapkido Association moved them to between 1st and 2nd dan.  I don't know if it has been put back in the colored belt level or not. 

Preferably, if you are suddenly attacked by a knife wielder, and want to deploy a gun, you want it out before the attacker gets too close to you.  If you can't, those knife defenses may be your only hope.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jan 29, 2018)

Charlemagne said:


> This may have been shared already and it might not have.  Either way, it's a nice example of how an art can be modified in such a way that it allows for effective weapon retention and deployment.




Things can be blended as well, which can serve to a provide more in the way of options.  Most MA systems do weapons as an afterthought, but some deal with them as a large part of their daily training. This video does a nice job of showing how footwork can be used to get yourself offline and alter your range when someone attacks you with a weapon.


----------



## Balrog (Jan 29, 2018)

Late comer to the thread, but I'll add this.  Most, if not all, firearm instructors teach a two hand grip on the weapon.  However, a knife attacker closing with you will require you to use your non-dominant hand to guard, block, push, whatever.  One should practice single-hand drawing and firing at close range.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2018)

Balrog said:


> Late comer to the thread, but I'll add this.  Most, if not all, firearm instructors teach a two hand grip on the weapon.  However, a knife attacker closing with you will require you to use your non-dominant hand to guard, block, push, whatever.  One should practice single-hand drawing and firing at close range.



Does anybody really shoot like they are supposed to though? When you see a lot of defensive shootings the shooter is often pretty mobile.

You see a lot of guys dodging.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Sometimes, with some people, it just isn't worth asking.



Well it would be pretty simple. You get some plastic guns, some plastic knives and some sparring gear. You then create a situation to defend from and then keep working in that environment untill you have a method that works.

So it doesn't matter if the instructor is consultant to the king of mars. Can I hold him down and beat him to death before he can get free and shoot me. Can he do this to a quality grappler, a striker, a gun guy.

If they get out reliably and stand up make space and draw their gun. Then that is a viable method. If they create space draw their gun and manage to not shoot themselves in the foot. That is a viable method.

 If they train live dont get out and routinely eat punches or get shot or stabbed a lot. Their method sucks. It is a fight. Train it by fighting.

We remove the rubbish, the appeals to authority and the hypothetical. And train the problem in an honest manner.

Now where do we see this kind of training? Because that is the sort of answers we should be looking for.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 29, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Does anybody really shoot like they are supposed to though? When you see a lot of defensive shootings the shooter is often pretty mobile.
> 
> You see a lot of guys dodging.


This was one of the really cool parts about getting the opportunity to drill these situations with simunition guns. You get the feeling of shooting a real gun and seeing where you hit, with both sides moving. 

In the drill we did, the bad guy approached with a knife attack while your gun was concealed. We parried, blocked the knife attack, got off line, breaking their balance and then shoved them. After the shove, you had plenty of time to draw and step back. When they recovered their balance and started to turn back, it froze the bad guy momentarily. And it was predictable where he was going to be. 

I found that this exercise validated the way I practice shooting at the range.  I was easily able to to hit the bad guy where I wanted, one handed or two handed, depending on the distance I achieved during the first bit. (this was done point shooting, no one used or attempted to use the sights... most of the time, the gun was still kept close to the body, as you had to shoot fast)

I highly recommend that you try out these drills with simunition guns if you ever get the chance. We had two experienced SWAT team leaders teaching us and running the drills. This was the best gun disarming / situational shoot course I have taken. I learned a lot from it. If you can't get simunition guns, use airsoft guns. Its not quite the same... but closer than dummy pistols or water guns or nerf guns...


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2018)

wab25 said:


> This was one of the really cool parts about getting the opportunity to drill these situations with simunition guns. You get the feeling of shooting a real gun and seeing where you hit, with both sides moving.
> 
> In the drill we did, the bad guy approached with a knife attack while your gun was concealed. We parried, blocked the knife attack, got off line, breaking their balance and then shoved them. After the shove, you had plenty of time to draw and step back. When they recovered their balance and started to turn back, it froze the bad guy momentarily. And it was predictable where he was going to be.
> 
> ...



At the range you are playing at you could use rubber band guns.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 29, 2018)

skribs said:


> Bit of backstory on me.  When I was around 21-22 I started carrying a firearm for self defense.  However, I also read the 21-foot rule, the idea that if someone suddenly pulls a knife and charges you to stab you, if they're within 7 yards they will likely stab you before you can draw your gun and shoot.  I read anecdotes on gun forums talking about how someone had to defend themselves with hand-to-hand combat before being able to draw their gun, and that led me to seek martial arts training.
> 
> This was about 5 years ago.  I did a search back then for martial arts that would fit what I was looking for: an art to quickly avoid or escape an attack to buy myself the couple of seconds needed to draw my firearm.  For example, to block a punch and create space, to avoid being stabbed and gain control of the situation, or to break free from a grab at least enough to draw.
> 
> ...


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jan 29, 2018)

wab25 said:


> This was one of the really cool parts about getting the opportunity to drill these situations with simunition guns. You get the feeling of shooting a real gun and seeing where you hit, with both sides moving.
> 
> In the drill we did, the bad guy approached with a knife attack while your gun was concealed. We parried, blocked the knife attack, got off line, breaking their balance and then shoved them. After the shove, you had plenty of time to draw and step back. When they recovered their balance and started to turn back, it froze the bad guy momentarily. And it was predictable where he was going to be.
> 
> ...


You could also use paint ball guns. They can hurt like heck. Not as much as a sim round but still enough to get the adrenaline going. They are not accurate but at that close of a distance I wouldn't think it would matter much.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 29, 2018)

It has been several years since I was in law enforcement so I am familiar with the 21' rule. I also know it is applicable maybe 1/2 of the time. Seldom could you apply it in domestics or bar checks, at least at the start. That said, I do not think it is a sound strategy to think you will be able to draw your gun AFTER physical contact that you do not dictate. I have seen way too many unexpected scenarios to believe counter-response always works. Yes, I am talking about situational awareness. I strongly believe a debilitating first strike or bind/lock is much safer. I am a long time up fighter with wrestling experience from my high school and college days and will tell you unconditionally I am much more comfortable up fighting and/or at range. If they can touch you they CAN hurt you. I realize this does not answer you question but if you are aware enough to think you need to be in the 21' rule, you are aware enough to plan a strong first move. If you do then you have the option of the  2nd, 3rd, etc... move.


----------



## Mountie (Jan 29, 2018)

Interesting topic.  Even if you don't like the trainers your service has, definitely track one down and ask.  Whatever you think of the training provided (and I think we need a lot more) the instructors I've worked with have always been street-savvy and dedicated and will go through whatever scenarios or situations you've been thinking about.  If you ever have to defend a situation like this in court, the answer should be "I followed my training" not "I did what the guys on the internet told me to".

Now I'll completely undermine that by adding my 2 cents.  First, the people who have said 'situational awareness' have it right.  I've been fortunate in the few times I've had to defend from a knife in close quarters because I saw the reach and reacted before the knife came out.  Doing a good thing now is better than the perfect move later, and seeing the reach and using the space/environment to your advantage will trump any style of MA.

Second, be wary of saying "21' rule."  They've found that to be generous, as it does not take into account adrenaline reducing fine motor skills, such as drawing your firearm, and it also does not take into account the fact that putting a round into someone is not an 'off' switch.  They keep going, unless they receive a gross motor injury.  28' is closer, but even then it's not a rule just a starting point.  Too many lawyers are waiting to jump the fact that their client was 22' away and therefore no threat according to the officer.  Get a friend and drill it.  It's worth the investment in a training gun to practice stuff like this.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2018)

Mountie said:


> Interesting topic.  Even if you don't like the trainers your service has, definitely track one down and ask.  Whatever you think of the training provided (and I think we need a lot more) the instructors I've worked with have always been street-savvy and dedicated and will go through whatever scenarios or situations you've been thinking about.  If you ever have to defend a situation like this in court, the answer should be "I followed my training" not "I did what the guys on the internet told me to".
> 
> Now I'll completely undermine that by adding my 2 cents.  First, the people who have said 'situational awareness' have it right.  I've been fortunate in the few times I've had to defend from a knife in close quarters because I saw the reach and reacted before the knife came out.  Doing a good thing now is better than the perfect move later, and seeing the reach and using the space/environment to your advantage will trump any style of MA.
> 
> Second, be wary of saying "21' rule."  They've found that to be generous, as it does not take into account adrenaline reducing fine motor skills, such as drawing your firearm, and it also does not take into account the fact that putting a round into someone is not an 'off' switch.  They keep going, unless they receive a gross motor injury.  28' is closer, but even then it's not a rule just a starting point.  Too many lawyers are waiting to jump the fact that their client was 22' away and therefore no threat according to the officer.  Get a friend and drill it.  It's worth the investment in a training gun to practice stuff like this.



That is a fair point. Knowing your own distance that you can shoot a guy from. And knowing it instinctively would be handier than assuming you are a21 foot guy and then hoping you know what 21feet actually looks like.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 29, 2018)

Mountie said:


> They've found that to be generous, as it does not take into account adrenaline reducing fine motor skills,



Agree.

We do a lot of 1 on 1 gunfights and Close Quarter Gun Battles with simmunitions.  Its fun watching the difference between guys drawing on the firing line shooting targets and when they are put under stress with someone shooting back while also trying to move, reload, and clear malfunctions.



Mountie said:


> and it also does not take into account the fact that putting a round into someone is not an 'off' switch. They keep going, unless they receive a gross motor injury.



Yeah the first week of our Academy they make cadets watch the Trooper Coates shooting..pretty eye opening for a young cadet....but a good example that gunshots in reality don't have the same affect as they do in the movies. 

Note:  For those not familiar with the Trooper Coates shooting....Coates was a South Carolina State Trooper  who was involved in a lethal force confrontation.  He fired six .357 magnum rounds into the bad guys torso...as Coates turned to retreat back to his car the attacker fired one round from his .22 derringer...the bullet struck Coates in the armpit and traveled into his heart killing him.  The bad guy survived the 6 rounds to the torso.


----------



## Mountie (Jan 29, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Agree.
> 
> We do a lot of 1 on 1 gunfights and Close Quarter Gun Battles with simmunitions.  Its fun watching the difference between guys drawing on the firing line shooting targets and when they are put under stress with someone shooting back while also trying to move, reload, and clear malfunctions.



People don't practice this stuff enough.  Start of your shift, holster your unloaded weapon and draw 5-10 times.  End of your shift, unload your gun, holster your unloaded weapon and draw 5-10 times.  If it's not muscle memory, you're more likely to screw up under pressure.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 29, 2018)

Mountie said:


> People don't practice this stuff enough.  Start of your shift, holster your unloaded weapon and draw 5-10 times.  End of your shift, unload your gun, holster your unloaded weapon and draw 5-10 times.  If it's not muscle memory, you're more likely to screw up under pressure.



One of the the things our firearms instructors advocate is aerobic and anaerobic exercises to get the heart rate and blood pressure up then work on drawing and dry firing to try and mimic some of the effects.


----------



## GreatUniter (Jan 30, 2018)

Basically, every art that teachers real combat is good for you.


----------



## Balrog (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Does anybody really shoot like they are supposed to though? When you see a lot of defensive shootings the shooter is often pretty mobile.
> 
> You see a lot of guys dodging.


Under stress, everything changes.  All you can do is try to stick to your training as best as possible and get shots on target as quickly as possible.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Sorry I just don't have faith in industry training. Not for these sorts of subjects.
> 
> Industry training is about being compliant to be able to work. It is not for learning things.


That kind of blanket generalization is rarely entirely accurate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> The training people choose to do. From the trainers who are legitimately qualified to teach.
> 
> And with results based on evidence.


The first doesn’t legitimize anything. And there’s no reason the other two can’t exist in “industry training “.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Well it would be pretty simple. You get some plastic guns, some plastic knives and some sparring gear. You then create a situation to defend from and then keep working in that environment untill you have a method that works.
> 
> So it doesn't matter if the instructor is consultant to the king of mars. Can I hold him down and beat him to death before he can get free and shoot me. Can he do this to a quality grappler, a striker, a gun guy.
> 
> ...


Gee. Sounds a lot like situational training. I thought you didn’t like made up attacks.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 30, 2018)

A lot of what our instructors teach is based on analyzing actual  use of force and lethal force actions of our officers to determine what worked, what didn’t work, what problems the officer experienced and how to correct them. 

And then share their analysis with other agencies.  That is one thing most L.E. Agencies do well is share info on tactics and training with each other.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 30, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Practice your draw from concealment. The faster you can draw from concealment, the less time you have to buy.
> 
> The 21 foot rule is for a police officer, meaning gun is on the hip, not concealed. It also requires the officer to stand his ground. If the officer backs up turning (L shape path) that buys him enough time to draw and fire.
> 
> If you do not have your gun on your hip, the distance should be a little further... depending on how much longer it takes you to draw. Simple movement, can buy you the time you need from that distance. Closer in is another story.


The current consensus right now is that a very trained and very practiced expert can draw from concealment and put a shot on target in under 1 second, a person who practices regularly should be able to draw from concealment and put a shot on target in around 1.5 seconds to 2.5 seconds, and the average person with a little training and practice should be able to draw from concealment and put a shot on target in 3 seconds.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Can you show me your method working?
> 
> BJJ actually has footage of police officers making their system work in real time.
> 
> ...


Non-LEO self defense civilians have different goals from cops.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Non-LEO self defense civilians have different goals from cops.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



How does that change the mechanics?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Gee. Sounds a lot like situational training. I thought you didn’t like made up attacks.



I dont like dishonest attacks.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The first doesn’t legitimize anything. And there’s no reason the other two can’t exist in “industry training “.



Training that people attend because they have to tends to be different to training people do because they actually want to aquire a skill.

And yes industry training could be good. It just generally isn't. Became it doesn't have to be.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That kind of blanket generalization is rarely entirely accurate.



Then it can prove its worth based on it results.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I dont like dishonest attacks.


In the past, you've defined those as attacks the person wouldn't actually do. At other times, you've said people should only deliver attacks they have proven they're effective at. This particular scenario requires neither. And it's no more or less dishonest than working against a punch with mechanics different from those taught in class as a proper punch. In both cases, you're replicating an attack that actually happens, and doing that particular attack with the best intent you can  manage (appropriate to the drill). Just pointing out to you (as I have before) that you do actually understand the value of scenario training and such - so long as it's not related to arts like Aikido, apparently.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Training that people attend because they have to tends to be different to training people do because they actually want to aquire a skill.
> 
> And yes industry training could be good. It just generally isn't. Became it doesn't have to be.


Tends to (as you've said here) is probably a better way to state it.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> How does that change the mechanics?


Because this:
Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be optimal...


----------



## lklawson (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Training that people attend because they have to tends to be different to training people do because they actually want to aquire a skill.


Not in the firearms world it isn't. The difference is usually how interested and attentive the participants are. Those people who are being sent to it and are required to go usually are less attentive and often don't want to be there at all. Those people who pay out of their own pocket for it are usually very motivated. Firearms training is very expensive and when you're paying for it yourself you want to get your dollars worth.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> There are going to be positions where it is safe to draw and positions where it is unsafe. And they would be pretty easily worked out and broken down.
> 
> Of course nobody has really bothered to work that out which is why we have the systems we have. Stand up get clear and then think about the gun you had on you the whole time.
> 
> Grappling is inherently about creating and denying access.


Can you clarify? What exactly is your experience and training with firearms and firearms draw mechanics, and firearms retention? I want to know if you are coming at this from any sort of training or practical or if this is 100% speculation on your part.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Training that people attend because they have to tends to be different to training people do because they actually want to aquire a skill.
> 
> And yes industry training could be good. It just generally isn't. Became it doesn't have to be.



Disagree.  The training has to be good.  Lives are on the line.  You just can’t throw together half *** tactics when it comes to having to use lethal force.

Our instructors take it very seriously and continuously are analyzing our tactics and looking to improve on them.

And most LEO take their firearms, and officer survival training pretty serious since we tend to want to get to go home at the end of shift.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Because this:
> Why Military and Law Enforcement firearms force training may not be optimal...



Yeah it is a really limiting way to aproach the situation. And not one I would really subscribe to. But is really common.

In a fight you have a goal. and that goal can change from situation to situation. But within that fight there are lots of little goals that quite often will match up.

I have mentioned this idea when the conversation of cross training comes up. In that if you only have one system you can quite easily gloss over parts of that system.

When you change the goal you force yourself to focus on aspects that you may have been avoiding.

Wrestling has a goal. MMA has a different goal. But good wrestling means good MMA.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree.  The training has to be good.  Lives are on the line.  You just can’t throw together half *** tactics when it comes to having to use lethal force.
> 
> Our instructors take it very seriously and continuously are analyzing our tactics and looking to improve on them.
> 
> And most LEO take their firearms, and officer survival training pretty serious since we tend to want to get to go home at the end of shift.



Sorry why can't you throw half *** tactics when it comes to lethal force?

How long is a CCW course out of intrests sake?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Can you clarify? What exactly is your experience and training with firearms and firearms draw mechanics, and firearms retention? I want to know if you are coming at this from any sort of training or practical or if this is 100% speculation on your part.



Not much. I carried a gun as a security giuard. And fought guys with bats and handcuffs.

But I never shot anybody from a wrestle.

Is it more complicated than using a mobile phone from a wrestle?


Are you suggesting the better wrester wouldn't win here?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Not in the firearms world it isn't. The difference is usually how interested and attentive the participants are. Those people who are being sent to it and are required to go usually are less attentive and often don't want to be there at all. Those people who pay out of their own pocket for it are usually very motivated. Firearms training is very expensive and when you're paying for it yourself you want to get your dollars worth.



When you are choosing to undergo the training you will also hopefully seek out good training.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Tends to (as you've said here) is probably a better way to state it.



Yeah. Tends is better. I did a first aid course a while back. Every single person there was doing the course because they had to for work. You are there to get the certificate. If the instructor says something dumb. Who cares? It is not about imparting any sort of real skill.

My point here is industry training is not by its own existence any good. The training needs to stand on its own merits. Which to me seem pretty simple.

Can you get up from under a guy draw a gun and shoot them with it? And lets see that done consistently.

There are two different arguments at play.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Sorry why can't you throw half *** tactics when it comes to lethal force?
> 
> How long is a CCW course out of intrests sake?


CCW courses don't actually teach gun use. They teach the legalities of carrying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Tends is better. I did a first aid course a while back. Every single person there was doing the course because they had to for work. You are there to get the certificate. If the instructor says something dumb. Who cares? It is not about imparting any sort of real skill.
> 
> My point here is industry training is not by its own existence any good. The training needs to stand on its own merits. Which to me seem pretty simple.
> 
> ...


I have seen bad first aid training (and almost any other kind of training) at open courses (where the attendees chose to attend), as well. I've often seen someone teaching who just knows what's in the book (they were taught to teach a course). Whether it's mandatory or not doesn't seem to much change the nature of the instructor, but the nature of the attendees...and that latter, not so much, either. I get people attending public seminars on business topics who clearly decided before they walked in that this was just a chance to get out of work...and they paid (or talked someone else in to paying) $200 for that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> CCW courses don't actually teach gun use. They teach the legalities of carrying.



So would that be described as half *** tactics when it comes to lethal force?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I have seen bad first aid training (and almost any other kind of training) at open courses (where the attendees chose to attend), as well. I've often seen someone teaching who just knows what's in the book (they were taught to teach a course). Whether it's mandatory or not doesn't seem to much change the nature of the instructor, but the nature of the attendees...and that latter, not so much, either. I get people attending public seminars on business topics who clearly decided before they walked in that this was just a chance to get out of work...and they paid (or talked someone else in to paying) $200 for that.



Yeah. But if you are about to jump in to a fight people tend to take their training a bit seriously.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> How long is a CCW course out of intrests sake?



For a permit?

How would I know?

We don’t teach private citizens.

I work for a large law enforcement agency that operates a large training facility that also trains law enforcement officers from around the U.S. I’m an adjunct instructor there and at a large regional academy but is for LEO only as well.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> For a permit?
> 
> How would I know?
> 
> ...



Can we see what that training looks like?


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Can we see what that training looks like?



Only by getting hired by our agency  or having your agency send you to our training facility.  Lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> So would that be described as half *** tactics when it comes to lethal force?


It doesn't teach tactics. That's not the purpose of the standard CCW course. That's like complaining that a First Aid course doesn't teach how to block a punch.

I'm not saying they shouldn't teach that (I actually think they should), but that's not what they aim to teach, so it's not half *** tactics - it's not tactics, at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But if you are about to jump in to a fight people tend to take their training a bit seriously.


I would hope so. Though I've seen some folks come into MA training who weren't all that serious about it.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It doesn't teach tactics. That's not the purpose of the standard CCW course. That's like complaining that a First Aid course doesn't teach how to block a punch.
> 
> I'm not saying they shouldn't teach that (I actually think they should), but that's not what they aim to teach, so it's not half *** tactics - it's not tactics, at all.



So not even half *** tactics to use lethal force.

I mean can we suggest that just because we are preparing someone for lethal force does not guarantee we are doing a good job.

Our police by the way fire 30 rounds a year. to prepare them for lethal force.

Oh. and it is like saying a first aid course doesn't teach you first aid. Just the legalities of first aid. Which would be silly.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Or police by the way fire 30 rounds a year. to prepare them for lethal force.



incorrect


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Only by getting hired by our agency  or having your agency send you to our training facility.  Lol.




What sort of defensive training do the police do on their own time?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> incorrect



Our police. Sorry typo.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> What sort of defensive training do the police do on their own time?



Different things (Folk Style Wrestling, BJJ, Boxing, Kenpo, etc...) depending on what is available to them in their area.  Again, It is advocated that you train some type of grappling so that you can get back to your feet and disengage.  Just too many things can go wrong trying to draw while still engaged.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> So not even half *** tactics to use lethal force.
> 
> I mean can we suggest that just because we are preparing someone for lethal force does not guarantee we are doing a good job.
> 
> ...


CCW class isn't a class about how to use a weapon. It's a class on the legalities of it. They do a basic test to make sure the person can operate the gun, but there's no assessment of proficiency. The "class" part is all lecture. But then, they don't call it a firearms tactics course. People (at least those I've spoken with) don't go in expecting to be taught how to use their gun, nor how to deploy it in dangerous circumstances. It's a CYA course, at best. It does what it was purpose-built to do, and not much else.

It would be like if folks going to a "First Aid" course knew that all it was supposed to do was teach them what their legal responsibilities and liabilities were. It'd be a useful course, but not what you and I would think a First Aid course should be.

And yeah, so no requirement to even get taught half *** tactics before getting the right to carry. I don't see any real wisdom in that.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 30, 2018)

I just don't understand why you wouldn't try and separate from your attacker before trying to draw?  It doesn't make sense not to.  Why would you take the risk of drawing while wrestling with someone unless you just didn't have any other options.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> I just don't understand why you wouldn't try and separate from your attacker before trying to draw?  It doesn't make sense not to.  Why would you take the risk of drawing while wrestling with someone unless you just didn't have any other options.



Two reasons.

I would want to take the first opportunity to shift the odds of a fight in my favor as I would be concerned I might not get another one.

And if I can draw a gun and prevent you from stopping me. I am ultimately protecting that gun. To draw it out I have to keep it clear from you. So even if I don't draw the gun. Positioning so I can is pretty much always going to be in my favor.

This is still just grappling but with a change of priorities.


----------



## CB Jones (Jan 30, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I would want to take the first opportunity to shift the odds of a fight in my favor as I would be concerned I might not get another one.



Fair enough.  But are you justified at that point in using lethal force?  And is it worth the risk of introducing a lethal weapon into the fight?



drop bear said:


> And if I can draw a gun and prevent you from stopping me.



Thats a big if.  If you fail and I end up with it ....you are dead.



drop bear said:


> I am ultimately protecting that gun.


  Yet the most secure and easiest place to retain and protect it is inside the holster.



drop bear said:


> To draw it out I have to keep it clear from you.


  But that is a game with zero room for error.  You make a mistake....you die.



drop bear said:


> Positioning so I can is pretty much always going to be in my favor.
> 
> This is still just grappling but with a change of priorities.



Why not use those grappling skills to maintain control and work back up to your feet and draw the gun once you can be sure I can't get my hands on it.

Once you introduce a gun into the fight, your options become extremely limited and while engaged in grappling you run the risk of losing it no matter what your skill is.



Basic rule is you never want your gun inside the reach of the bad guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Two reasons.
> 
> I would want to take the first opportunity to shift the odds of a fight in my favor as I would be concerned I might not get another one.
> 
> ...


In that second paragraph, you're saying the same thing others are, DB. They didn't say they wouldn't protect it - just that they wouldn't draw if there's not a safe enough space to do so. I agree that working toward drawing is about 90% the same as just keeping them from the gun (the other 10% is you trying to get your arm free to get to the gun).

If I have a gun on my hip and am grappling, I'm certainly going to have a partial focus of retention (complete focus if they are actively going for it).


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> How long is a CCW course out of intrests sake?


It varies from state to state.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Not much. I carried a gun as a security giuard. And fought guys with bats and handcuffs.
> 
> But I never shot anybody from a wrestle.
> 
> ...


I don't remember suggesting anything one way or another in my reply to you.  To be blunt I am questioning your qualifications to be able to offer opinions on the martial application of firearms use.  I still haven't seen any real description of why your opinion on fighting with a firearm is based on anything other than speculation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> When you are choosing to undergo the training you will also hopefully seek out good training.


That's nice.  But you specifically wrote, "Training that people attend because they have to tends to be different to training people do because they actually want to aquire a skill."  But the fact is, in the firearms world once you get past the basics most of the classes tend to be the same.  Take a "combat carbine" class.  I've spoken with instructors who tell me that they get military and LEO guys who are forced to go and they have a different attitude than non-LEO civilians who pony up their own money.  The class is the same but the attitudes are often different.

Heck, most of the folks teaching those "combat carbine" classes are either former military or LEO (both active and retired).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Tends is better. I did a first aid course a while back. Every single person there was doing the course because they had to for work. You are there to get the certificate. If the instructor says something dumb. Who cares? It is not about imparting any sort of real skill.
> 
> My point here is industry training is not by its own existence any good.
> 
> ...


I'm still looking for any indication that you have any real knowledge of what "industry training" in the firearms world looks like.  I'm beginning to doubt that you do.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> CCW courses don't actually teach gun use. They teach the legalities of carrying.


Depends on the course.  Many of them do.  But there is, of course, a limit to how much can be taught in a class.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Oh. and it is like saying a first aid course doesn't teach you first aid. Just the legalities of first aid. Which would be silly.


No.  It's like saying that a First Aid class doesn't teach how to apply a chest seal for a sucking chest wound and doesn't have a lot of trauma care.  Well duh.  It's a First Aid class not an EMT training program.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> What sort of defensive training do the police do on their own time?


Depends on the individual and the Department standards (and how much money they have to spend).  I know cops that are highly skilled fighters and apply the same rigor to firearms as to unarmed fighting.  I know some cops who only shoot the requal when required and worry about passing.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> CCW class isn't a class about how to use a weapon. It's a class on the legalities of it. They do a basic test to make sure the person can operate the gun, but there's no assessment of proficiency. The "class" part is all lecture. But then, they don't call it a firearms tactics course. People (at least those I've spoken with) don't go in expecting to be taught how to use their gun, nor how to deploy it in dangerous circumstances. It's a CYA course, at best. It does what it was purpose-built to do, and not much else.
> 
> It would be like if folks going to a "First Aid" course knew that all it was supposed to do was teach them what their legal responsibilities and liabilities were. It'd be a useful course, but not what you and I would think a First Aid course should be.
> 
> And yeah, so no requirement to even get taught half *** tactics before getting the right to carry. I don't see any real wisdom in that.


Depends on the state.  On top of the required class/lecture time, Ohio has a 2 hour "on the range" training requirement with a proficiency test written into the law itself.  Texas has a proficiency test which requires minimum scores at 3 different distances.

Other states have differing requirements.

Lawriter - ORC -     2923.125     Application and licensing process.
http://www.stateoftexaschl.com/chl-shooting-test/

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> I just don't understand why you wouldn't try and separate from your attacker before trying to draw?  It doesn't make sense not to.  Why would you take the risk of drawing while wrestling with someone unless you just didn't have any other options.


Inexperience and lack of training allows people to form flawed opinions and believe they are both accurate and informed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> It varies from state to state.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Agreed. In my research, the state-mandated courses are often just a few hours.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Depends on the state.  On top of the required class/lecture time, Ohio has a 2 hour "on the range" training requirement with a proficiency test written into the law itself.  Texas has a proficiency test which requires minimum scores at 3 different distances.
> 
> Other states have differing requirements.
> 
> ...


SC has a similar approach to TX. To give some personal experience from it, I scored 100% on it with a gun I'd never fired before. I was probably a well-above-average shooter at the time, but I would've preferred a test that wasn't so easy. For liability reasons, the test wasn't from the draw - gun was at presentation, all strong-side, etc. It was essentially really easy target shooting. I do much more difficult shooting at a standard firing range.

2 hours on the range is basically nothing. I would assume the point of that was to make sure folks know how to handle their firearm (basic safety lecture). I know there are logistical and political reasons the tests and classes are what they are, but I think they are mere CYA for the state and the CWP holder.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> SC has a similar approach to TX. To give some personal experience from it, I scored 100% on it with a gun I'd never fired before. I was probably a well-above-average shooter at the time, but I would've preferred a test that wasn't so easy. For liability reasons, the test wasn't from the draw - gun was at presentation, all strong-side, etc. It was essentially really easy target shooting. I do much more difficult shooting at a standard firing range.
> 
> 2 hours on the range is basically nothing. I would assume the point of that was to make sure folks know how to handle their firearm (basic safety lecture).


Shows basic competency and helps, imo, prevent incompetent "spray and pray" shooters.



> I know there are logistical and political reasons the tests and classes are what they are, but I think they are mere CYA for the state and the CWP holder.


The DGU stats seem to imply that "little to no training" is an acceptable self defense standard.  It's uncomfortable to seriously contemplate for those of us who train, but facts are facts.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Two reasons.
> 
> I would want to take the first opportunity to shift the odds of a fight in my favor as I would be concerned I might not get another one.
> 
> ...



I think like a lot of your answers, this one is not well thought out.

How often do you wrestle with one hand tied behind your back?  What is your success rate when you do? 

Because when you draw a weapon, until you can get it in train and fire, you are wrestling with one hand.  That is sure to effect your ability to bring the weapon to bear and fire; your opponent isn't likely to stop his efforts when he sees you reach for a gun, but rather redouble his efforts to hurt/subdue you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Shows basic competency and helps, imo, prevent incompetent "spray and pray" shooters.


I'm not sure how much it does the latter. It's certainly better than not doing that bit, though.



> The DGU stats seem to imply that "little to no training" is an acceptable self defense standard.  It's uncomfortable to seriously contemplate for those of us who train, but facts are facts.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


I'm not familiar with those statistics, so I can't speak to them. The common issue with statistics, of course, is that someone has to categorize, and the choice of categories can change the statistics. That makes it hard to take much nuanced information from statistics about something so variable as self-defense.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> The DGU stats seem to imply that "little to no training" is an acceptable self defense standard.  It's uncomfortable to seriously contemplate for those of us who train, but facts are facts.


Re-reading this, I realize that I wasn't very clear about what I mean here.  What I mean is that DGU (Defensive Gun Uses) statistics for the U.S. a low estimate of a tad under 30,000 per year, to a high of over 1,000,000 with most of the dependable statistics hovering in the 30,000 to 70,000 range.  That means that every year somewhere around 30,000 to 70,000 people use a gun to defend themselves from criminals in the U.S.  The U..S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime and victimization survey averages just shy of 50,000 per year for the 5 year period of 2007-2011 and 83,000 per year for earlier periods. Most people correctly compare that to the number of murders with a firearm (somewhere around 9,000-11,000 per year) and draw a favorable conclusion for the use of firearms in defense.

But there's another statistic which is very important as part of this and in reference to this sub-topic of minimum training and competency requirements.  That is the "shots fired" statistic.  Statistic for how often one or more shots are fired by the DGU range from between less than 10% up to just shy of 25%.  That means that between 75% and 90%+ of the time the person defending themselves with a gun *never fires a shot*!  When a gun is displayed (or implied) the bad guy suddenly finds he has somewhere else he really needs to be.  So what level of training and minimum competency is required for a "didn't actually use it but still had a 75%-90%+ success rate?"  Read that again.  *Somewhere over 75% of the time, a person doesn't need any training or competency at all to successfully defend themselves with a gun!*

That's akin to people using <cough> "martial arts" for self defense with their effective training being "I took a Cat Stance and used my constipated face."  ...with 75%+ success rate.

*Literally* this means that the vast majority of the time no train is required for effective self defense use with a gun.

So why train at all?  Well, what happens if you're that unfortunate guy in the 10%?  Right.  Go train.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Re-reading this, I realize that I wasn't very clear about what I mean here.  What I mean is that DGU (Defensive Gun Uses) statistics for the U.S. a low estimate of a tad under 30,000 per year, to a high of over 1,000,000 with most of the dependable statistics hovering in the 30,000 to 70,000 range.  That means that every year somewhere around 30,000 to 70,000 people use a gun to defend themselves from criminals in the U.S.  The U..S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime and victimization survey averages just shy of 50,000 per year for the 5 year period of 2007-2011 and 83,000 per year for earlier periods. Most people correctly compare that to the number of murders with a firearm (somewhere around 9,000-11,000 per year) and draw a favorable conclusion for the use of firearms in defense.
> 
> But there's another statistic which is very important as part of this and in reference to this sub-topic of minimum training and competency requirements.  That is the "shots fired" statistic.  Statistic for how often one or more shots are fired by the DGU range from between less than 10% up to just shy of 25%.  That means that between 75% and 90%+ of the time the person defending themselves with a gun *never fires a shot*!  When a gun is displayed (or implied) the bad guy suddenly finds he has somewhere else he really needs to be.  So what level of training and minimum competency is required for a "didn't actually use it but still had a 75%-90%+ success rate?"  Read that again.  *Somewhere over 75% of the time, a person doesn't need any training or competency at all to successfully defend themselves with a gun!*
> 
> ...


Okay, I see your point there. We end up with the same question we have with MA: "Should we train for things that are unlikely to happen?" Those "things" being having to fire the gun (for CCW) and something like knife attacks (for MA).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Re-reading this, I realize that I wasn't very clear about what I mean here.  What I mean is that DGU (Defensive Gun Uses) statistics for the U.S. a low estimate of a tad under 30,000 per year, to a high of over 1,000,000 with most of the dependable statistics hovering in the 30,000 to 70,000 range.  That means that every year somewhere around 30,000 to 70,000 people use a gun to defend themselves from criminals in the U.S.  The U..S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime and victimization survey averages just shy of 50,000 per year for the 5 year period of 2007-2011 and 83,000 per year for earlier periods. Most people correctly compare that to the number of murders with a firearm (somewhere around 9,000-11,000 per year) and draw a favorable conclusion for the use of firearms in defense.
> 
> But there's another statistic which is very important as part of this and in reference to this sub-topic of minimum training and competency requirements.  That is the "shots fired" statistic.  Statistic for how often one or more shots are fired by the DGU range from between less than 10% up to just shy of 25%.  That means that between 75% and 90%+ of the time the person defending themselves with a gun *never fires a shot*!  When a gun is displayed (or implied) the bad guy suddenly finds he has somewhere else he really needs to be.  So what level of training and minimum competency is required for a "didn't actually use it but still had a 75%-90%+ success rate?"  Read that again.  *Somewhere over 75% of the time, a person doesn't need any training or competency at all to successfully defend themselves with a gun!*
> 
> ...


I would also assert that "no training" is really only required if the gun isn't loaded (chance of AD during handling and when presenting, for instance), but you covered that with your original "no or minimal" statement.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I see your point there. We end up with the same question we have with MA: "Should we train for things that are unlikely to happen?" Those "things" being having to fire the gun (for CCW) and something like knife attacks (for MA).


It also means that those minimal CCW training classes that everyone likes to denigrate as "not actual training"... well, 75% to 90%+ of the time really *is sufficient*.

Which kinda leads me into my other current thread here: 
Question on Your Testing Standards

That thread is specific to my personal training.  I'm kinda looking at what skills people expect a new person going from zero knowledge would have after 2 months of training.  That's the minimum time training before someone can test for Yellow Belt in USJA.  That usually translates to 8-16 hours of actual class time (training and practice); figuring 1-2 sessions a week at 1-2 hours per session.  Ohio's CCW class is minimum 8 hours and the NRA Basic Pistol class assumes zero knowledge and experience and takes the person to shooting a minimum competency test; in about 12 hours.  In other words, the NRA Basic Pistol class sorta represents what a person starting at zero would know after 2-ish months of formal Dojo training.  So to draw a comparison, the NRA Basic Pistol class, and their requirements, is kinds-sorta roughly equivalent to a Yellow Belt.

Let that sink in.  There are lots of ramifications to that comparison.

For me, I really want to take that even further.  This is for my own personal development.  But if the NRA Basic Pistol is roughly the equivalent of Yellow Belt or around 2 months "dojo" time what would firearms trainers and experts expect a zero starting point person to have in terms of skills and knowledge after 5 months?  Just follow whatever your "time in grade" standards are for your martial art and apply that time to firearms.  See where I'm going with this?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> It also means that those minimal CCW training classes that everyone likes to denigrate as "not actual training"... well, 75% to 90%+ of the time really *is sufficient*.
> 
> Which kinda leads me into my other current thread here:
> Question on Your Testing Standards
> ...


I'm going to visit that thread, Kirk.

I do think a reasonable simple competency with a gun (not competency for stress deployment, but enough to not accidentally kill yourself, and probably not anyone else) is achievable in those few hours. Just like we could teach most anyone to deliver a reasonable punch in those same hours, if they aren't concerned with blocking, moving, etc. More important (especially given the stats you refer to), some knowledge of when to draw, what constitutes reasonable force, etc.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I'm still looking for any indication that you have any real knowledge of what "industry training" in the firearms world looks like.  I'm beginning to doubt that you do.



I don't know how voodo works either. But i don't have much faith in that either.

I wouldn't go to a gun guy to learn to wrestle though.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Depends on the individual and the Department standards (and how much money they have to spend).  I know cops that are highly skilled fighters and apply the same rigor to firearms as to unarmed fighting.  I know some cops who only shoot the requal when required and worry about passing.



So any extra training police have to do on their own time and money?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> No.  It's like saying that a First Aid class doesn't teach how to apply a chest seal for a sucking chest wound and doesn't have a lot of trauma care.  Well duh.  It's a First Aid class not an EMT training program.



It is a course designed to get a certificate. Nobody cares if it teaches any actual first aid skills at all.

If I do a first aid course screw up and kill someone I can't blame bad training.

This is because the purpose of this training is to gain the qualification. And why the only people who do these courses are the people who have to.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Fair enough.  But are you justified at that point in using lethal force?  And is it worth the risk of introducing a lethal weapon into the fight?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would you use the gun at all in that circumstance?


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I don't know how voodo works either. But i don't have much faith in that either.
> 
> I wouldn't go to a gun guy to learn to wrestle though.


 and I wouldn't go to a guy for opinions on how to keep a hold of my firearm who didn't have any training or experience in it.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 31, 2018)

drop bear said:


> So any extra training police have to do on their own time and money?


It depends upon the department. There are varying standards within States even, from Department to Department.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2018)

lklawson said:


> and I wouldn't go to a guy for opinions on how to keep a hold of my firearm who didn't have any training or experience in it.



Absolutely. I mentioned that myself. They would have to show me live that they can do what they claim before I put a lot of faith in them.

I advocate that in any self defence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I don't know how voodo works either. But i don't have much faith in that either.
> 
> I wouldn't go to a gun guy to learn to wrestle though.


And I wouldn't go to a wrestler to learn gun retention. There's some crossover if the wrestler has gun experience, and if the firearms instructor has grappling experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It is a course designed to get a certificate. Nobody cares if it teaches any actual first aid skills at all.
> 
> If I do a first aid course screw up and kill someone I can't blame bad training.
> 
> This is because the purpose of this training is to gain the qualification. And why the only people who do these courses are the people who have to.


Actually, a lot of people go to first aid courses specifically to learn first aid and don't really give a flip about whether there's a certificate or not. I go back every decade or so for that reason, and a lot of the folks I motorcycled with did the same (to have some hope of helping should someone wreck).


----------



## drop bear (Feb 1, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think like a lot of your answers, this one is not well thought out.
> 
> How often do you wrestle with one hand tied behind your back?  What is your success rate when you do?
> 
> Because when you draw a weapon, until you can get it in train and fire, you are wrestling with one hand.  That is sure to effect your ability to bring the weapon to bear and fire; your opponent isn't likely to stop his efforts when he sees you reach for a gun, but rather redouble his efforts to hurt/subdue you.



When I am using a bat a radio or a mobile phone. Which I have done. Apparently guns are different. 

This thread is about fighting to get a gun clear. Not just fighting. So i am working of a wrestle where the gun is the objective here. Either for him or you. 

It is no good getting out and clear if I have dropped 20 elbows in to your head before you do.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, a lot of people go to first aid courses specifically to learn first aid and don't really give a flip about whether there's a certificate or not. I go back every decade or so for that reason, and a lot of the folks I motorcycled with did the same (to have some hope of helping should someone wreck).



In my class there was nobody. The instructor made the point to ask. In his experience that is generally the way these things went.

In CB,s class defensive class we can ask how many people just turned up to learn skills. Maybe do a refresher on their own time?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> And I wouldn't go to a wrestler to learn gun retention. There's some crossover if the wrestler has gun experience, and if the firearms instructor has grappling experience.



You think that fight would come down to better gun knowledge?


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> When I am using a bat a radio or a mobile phone. Which I have done. Apparently guns are different.



They are.....and if you can't see the difference in guns compared to bats, radios, and phones ....this discussion is pointless.  I never heard of anyone being killed with their own phone.  I do know an officer that was shot in the face with his own gun though...and he can attest to the difference in them.



drop bear said:


> In CB,s class defensive class we can ask how many people just turned up to learn skills. Maybe do a refresher on their own time?



How many people just turned up?  None. 

Its a 20 week boot camp style Academy you go through when you are hired.  People don't just turn up to try something new.

And then they have routine training throughout the year for the rest of their career plus they can request to be sent for additional training and certification.



drop bear said:


> You think that fight would come down to better gun knowledge?



The fight could easily come down to the better fighter being killed due to his poor gun handling tactics and/or philosophies.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You think that fight would come down to better gun knowledge?


I think gun knowledge and experience is important in the complete answer. A wrestler without gun experience is less qualified for this than one with gun experience. Likewise, a firearms instructor with no grappling experience is less qualified than one with grappling experience.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 2, 2018)

drop bear said:


> When I am using a bat a radio or a mobile phone. Which I have done. Apparently guns are different.
> 
> This thread is about fighting to get a gun clear. Not just fighting. So i am working of a wrestle where the gun is the objective here. Either for him or you.
> 
> It is no good getting out and clear if I have dropped 20 elbows in to your head before you do.



You answer this too often.  Deep sounding responses that simply don't make sense or don't apply.

In the first response, that isn't an answer to the question.  The question by the OP was indeed how to get a gun out while fighting with an opponent.  Based on one of your responses, I asked how often you wrestle with one hand.  Your reply is anytime you have had something else in your hand.  You are apparently one awesome fighter.  You can wrestle without using any hands.  I am in fear.

Your second response is that since the thread is about fighting to get a gun clear, it isn't just about fighting.  So you get to go for your gun and your opponent must suddenly stop fighting while you do so?  Sorry, I didn't realize there would be that rule change.  I would agree that once one decides to go for a gun, the rules do suddenly change, but I wouldn't expect one's opponent to adhere to a rule requiring him  to stop fighting and see what you intend to do when you do get the gun out.

Your third response is that an opponent need not even try to get a gun out and to bear because you MAY have delivered 20 elbows to the opponent's head.  Really, is that the best answer you can come up with?

Imho, you do come up with good and useful answers sometimes, but too often answer as above.  And I understand you apparently have had some experience.  No doubt you can share experiences with us that would help us all.  But the answer I am quoting and commenting on doesn't sound helpful to me.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 2, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You think that fight would come down to better gun knowledge?



Perhaps you should go back and read his answer again.  In fact, please do and tell me how what he said implies the outcome would depend solely on which fighter would have the better chance based on better gun knowledge.

If he didn't say or even imply that, your question is nonsensical or at attempt at misdirection, or both.  Misdirection is another thing I believe you try and do a lot rather than admit you don't have a viable answer.  Help us out.


----------



## Buka (Feb 2, 2018)

Arguing for the sake of arguing, to me, is just meant to annoy. I not about to be drawn in on such a serious subject.

Leave the talk of firearms to those with firearm experience.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> They are.....and if you can't see the difference in guns compared to bats, radios, and phones ....this discussion is pointless.  I never heard of anyone being killed with their own phone.  I do know an officer that was shot in the face with his own gun though...and he can attest to the difference in them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK. But so far your gun handling comes solely down to getting up from underneath someone and getting clear.

Which to be honest I am pretty good at. Without being a gun expert.

Or maybe seeing as I can pretty reliably fight a guy to stand up. I am a gun expert?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Perhaps you should go back and read his answer again.  In fact, please do and tell me how what he said implies the outcome would depend solely on which fighter would have the better chance based on better gun knowledge.
> 
> If he didn't say or even imply that, your question is nonsensical or at attempt at misdirection, or both.  Misdirection is another thing I believe you try and do a lot rather than admit you don't have a viable answer.  Help us out.



Because gun knowledge is the essential ingredient. I mean I can wrestle so I can pull a bat or a knife or a banana out of pretty much any part of my body. There are some pretty obvious wrestling positions where that would become available. There are positions where you wouldn't.

But apparently that is not available. Even though it obviously is available. This is because they are somehow going to take the gun off you.  Which again is not done in some grappling mechanism. But in some sort of gun mechanism. 

And all of this the only explanation is that if I am not a gun guy I wouldn't understand. And to understand. I wouldn't just get a plastic gun and see.

I have to follow the dogma of the gun authorities who only exist because people are forced to undergo their training.

I mean all I am being here is sceptical. If anyone wanted to argue anything other than what is basically a lineage argument I am happy to listen.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think gun knowledge and experience is important in the complete answer. A wrestler without gun experience is less qualified for this than one with gun experience. Likewise, a firearms instructor with no grappling experience is less qualified than one with grappling experience.



What I would like to see is anyone training this live so they know exactly what they can do and what they can't.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 3, 2018)

drop bear said:


> OK. But so far your gun handling comes solely down to getting up from underneath someone and getting clear.



Incorrect.  My gun handling comes down to proper technique drawing fast and clean from a concealed carry position with a good strong grip allowing me to put multiple rounds on my target in vital areas (chest and head).

My philosophy is to create space that allows me to draw with good technique and be able to retain the possession of the firearm while minimizing malfunctions.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be underneath...who said we are only talking about being underneath?  Actually underneath you are rapidly approaching...no other choice point.  But I'm actually talking about all positions...a basic overall philosophy....not just a specific postion... standing and wrestling in a clinch, on your knees trying to defend from being put on your back etc... I'm fighting to disengage and create space to draw.

From my back, I'm probably trying one sweep and if it doesn't work it is now no other choice time and then you have to draw the weapon.....But the philosophy is to try and disengage because that allows a much safer draw.




drop bear said:


> Which to be honest I am pretty good at. Without being a gun expert



Again if you are good at getting up......why would you pull a gun and losing it to your attacker?



drop bear said:


> Or maybe seeing as I can pretty reliably fight a guy to stand up.



Ok again then why pull a gun while in position to possibly losing it to your attacker?



drop bear said:


> I am a gun expert?



No.  In high school, I was pretty good at football...that did not make me a hockey expert.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 3, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I can pull a bat or a knife or a banana out of pretty much any part of my body



Keistering???


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 3, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Because gun knowledge is the essential ingredient.



No its more about just minimizing the chance of a deadly mistake occurring.



drop bear said:


> I have to follow the dogma of the gun authorities



Not so much gun authorities....more like people that study and analyze actual real world fights involving guns and determining what tactics have a higher success rate and cases that were not successful what were the main problems that caused the failures.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> No its more about just minimizing the chance of a deadly mistake occurring.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much gun authorities....more like people that study and analyze actual real world fights involving guns and determining what tactics have a higher success rate and cases that were not successful what were the main problems that caused the failures.



So they have watched a lot of fights?

There is a pretty big spectrum of how to take that?

How did you go wrestling guns free from them or pinning them so they couldn't?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Keistering???



The hide out banana is the deadliest of weapons.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Incorrect.  My gun handling comes down to proper technique drawing fast and clean from a concealed carry position with a good strong grip allowing me to put multiple rounds on my target in vital areas (chest and head).
> 
> My philosophy is to create space that allows me to draw with good technique and be able to retain the possession of the firearm while minimizing malfunctions.
> 
> ...



If you beat a hockey expert?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Ok again then why pull a gun while in position to possibly losing it to your attacker?



OK. Here is a progression. I have escaped a rear naked choke and worked my way in to half guard. At this point I am knackered and really concerned the guy is trying to kill me.

I control his left arm and that leaves my whole right side free. I can't see his right side.

Do I keep fighting to stand up or do I shoot the guy from there?


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 3, 2018)

drop bear said:


> So they have watched a lot of fights?



Yes, every use of force action report and video (car and body cam) within the agency is forwarded to them.  They also can interview the officer afterwards.  Also, LEO instructors usually share their finding with other agencies...so you are getting the whole community of instructors opinions and analysis.  



drop bear said:


> There is a pretty big spectrum of how to take that?
> 
> How did you go wrestling guns free from them or pinning them so they couldn't?



What?



drop bear said:


> OK. Here is a progression. I have escaped a rear naked choke and worked my way in to half guard. At this point I am knackered and really concerned the guy is trying to kill me.
> 
> I control his left arm and that leaves my whole right side free. I can't see his right side.
> 
> Do I keep fighting to stand up or do I shoot the guy from there?



As long as you can keep progressing....you do so.  If you have gone as far as you believe you can then you are at the point of no other choice then its now time to take your chances.  Again...its about minimizing access to your gun.  The best place for retention is in the holster.  The best place to draw and fire is outside your attacker's reach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 3, 2018)

drop bear said:


> What I would like to see is anyone training this live so they know exactly what they can do and what they can't.


I've trained bits of it live. I know others who have, as well, and to a much greater extent. We used non-firing plastic replica weapons - would be better with simunitions or paintball guns. We had to work on the "laser gun" rule: if the barrel crossed your body when you weren't entirely in control of keeping the trigger from moving, you were probably shot.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Yes, every use of force action report and video (car and body cam) within the agency is forwarded to them.  They also can interview the officer afterwards.  Also, LEO instructors usually share their finding with other agencies...so you are getting the whole community of instructors opinions and analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So both of you standing he has less access to your gun than grappled up with a side pinned.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I've trained bits of it live. I know others who have, as well, and to a much greater extent. We used non-firing plastic replica weapons - would be better with simunitions or paintball guns. We had to work on the "laser gun" rule: if the barrel crossed your body when you weren't entirely in control of keeping the trigger from moving, you were probably shot.



Which would be a lot better than working off actual fighting statistics.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Yes, every use of force action report and video (car and body cam) within the agency is forwarded to them. They also can interview the officer afterwards. Also, LEO instructors usually share their finding with other agencies...so you are getting the whole community of instructors opinions and analysis.



You test this on your instructors though? I mean if we went solely off street fights we would get some pretty limited results.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> So both of you standing he has less access to your gun than grappled up with a side pinned.



Yes

Standing allows you to move and keep the spacing you need to put shots on him/her also it allows you to move and keep the gun away.  The spacing also gives you time and room to fix any grip issues that might have occurred during drawing or clear any malfunctions.

Also, most people are more hesitant to charge a gun pointed at them from a distance outside their reach.  Creating space and drawing often times causes the attacker to stop in and of itself.  Where as, when a gun is drawn from within reach, most times the attacker will instantly focus on it and try to take it away.

Drawing while grappling does not give much room for error....and when a gun is introduced into the fight, errors are deadly for you. 




drop bear said:


> You test this on your instructors though? I mean if we went solely off street fights we would get some pretty limited results.



That's part of what they do.  They analyze what has happened in fights combined with trends (with the rise of mma more people learning to grapple) then go to the mats and work on what tactics and philosophies that give best results.  Figure out best practices then provide training to the officers in those best practices.

Nothing is absolute....just trying to figure out what tactics and philosophy gives you the best chance of survival.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Which would be a lot better than working off actual fighting statistics.


I'm not sure I follow this comment, DB.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I follow this comment, DB.



Most people can't fight.

If I watch fifty people close their eyes and swing wildly at each other. The method I come up with may work. But you could probably do better if you study guys who can fight.

I mean again police are not adopting BJJ concepts because of street fights. They are not even adopting those methods because of how much police or gun knowledge your average BJJ instructor has.

It is principally because if you wrestle a Bjj Instructor he ties you in knots. Then after a while you are tying someone else in knots.

And all of this comes down to my theory of the importance of cracking heads. And where the focus of any training that is used for a practical purpose should be aimed.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Yes
> 
> Standing allows you to move and keep the spacing you need to put shots on him/her also it allows you to move and keep the gun away.  The spacing also gives you time and room to fix any grip issues that might have occurred during drawing or clear any malfunctions.
> 
> ...



But in the process of getting back up you do run the risk of being shot, stabbed punched kicked and taken back down to basically wind up in a neutral position. 

All of this is working on the theory that if you get up and run backwards you will outdistance him getting up and running forwards.

I am not advocating drawing a gun from a fifty/fifty.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> But in the process of getting back up you do run the risk of being shot, stabbed punched kicked and taken back down to basically wind up in a neutral position.



Same risks are there while trying to draw while wrestling.  Except while wrestling you also add the risks of losing your gun to the bad guy, an increased risk of AD wounding yourself, a caused malfunction, or the weapon getting entangled in your draw. 



drop bear said:


> All of this is working on the theory that if you get up and run backwards you will outdistance him getting up and running forwards.



Its not about outdistancing...its about giving yourself the space to draw properly and reducing the problems that can occur during the draw.  Also, if you experience a malfunction you maybe able to clear it.



drop bear said:


> I am not advocating drawing a gun from a fifty/fifty.



Ok but even from a dominant position you still are taking a risk in attempting to draw while engaged.  Trying to draw while wrestling makes it very easy for problems such as the gun getting entangled in clothing, wrong or weak  grip, AD while drawing, loosing retention of gun, caused malfunctions, and/or a loss of position that gives the other guy access to the gun.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Ok but even from a dominant position you still are taking a risk in attempting to draw while engaged. Trying to draw while wrestling makes it very easy for problems such as the gun getting entangled in clothing, wrong or weak grip, AD while drawing, loosing retention of gun, caused malfunctions, and/or a loss of position that gives the other guy access to the gun.



As opposed to all the luxury of time and space that you have while standing up running backwards away from someone who is up and coming for you at zero range?





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=865151043663956
			




If he can slip that arm to the other side of his head or pin it with his left. He is going to have an easy 10 seconds or so to do whatever he wants there.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2018)

Ok. This is pretty cool.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Most people can't fight.
> 
> If I watch fifty people close their eyes and swing wildly at each other. The method I come up with may work. But you could probably do better if you study guys who can fight.
> 
> ...


All that is true. But if a BJJ guy has little experience with firearms, I want a different BJJ guy for this topic. Some of your own posts here ignore some of the dangers of a firearm being out and available to be wrestled over. There's a lot I'd look at you as a good source for. Firearms retention and advice when to draw and when to leave it holstered are not among them.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 4, 2018)

drop bear said:


> As opposed to all the luxury of time and space that you have while standing up running backwards away from someone who is up and coming for you at zero range?



Yes.  On your feet with space you have time to use both hands to access your gun and mechanically its a easier draw from your feet.  You need roughly 1 second and about 2-3 feet separation to draw and get shots on target.  Also if you get a failure to fire you might have a chance to tap, rack, and fire



drop bear said:


> If he can slip that arm to the other side of his head or pin it with his left. He is going to have an easy 10 seconds or so to do whatever he wants there.



And if he loses control of the arm as he is drawing the guy can posture up and is now on top wrestling for you gun with more leverage on it....which is one of the worst positions to be in (on the bottom fighting for retention of a drawn weapon).  You now are at great risk of being gut shot.

Also, most people don't walk around in a police rig and side holster.  The police gun rig is made where it holds the gun out away from your body which makes it way easier to draw also.  Most people are going to be working with a IWB underneath their shirt making it much more harder to access draw while wrestling.

Like this:





Instead of drawing....if he can slip that arm to the other side of his head or pin it with his left. He is going to have an easy 10 seconds or so to do whatever he wants....The why not continue to progress until you have control or can break away???


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 5, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Because gun knowledge is the essential ingredient. I mean I can wrestle so I can pull a bat or a knife or a banana out of pretty much any part of my body. There are some pretty obvious wrestling positions where that would become available. There are positions where you wouldn't.
> 
> But apparently that is not available. Even though it obviously is available. This is because they are somehow going to take the gun off you.  Which again is not done in some grappling mechanism. But in some sort of gun mechanism.
> 
> ...



???


----------



## drop bear (Feb 5, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> .if he can slip that arm to the other side of his head or pin it with his left. He is going to have an easy 10 seconds or so to do whatever he wants....The why not continue to progress until you have control or can break away???



Because he can still reverse that position. It is a fight. I assume he is not just letting me up and letting me get clear. If I start getting hit from that position and I am in real trouble. If I get dragged back down I am in trouble. And what I get to when I stand up is a fifty/fifty.

We are both standing and still in grappling range. So I still have that risk he can take the gun off me.

An if i get clipped or get pushed back down that would also be a much more desperate position to try for a gun.

Where do you get these 2 feet of distance and both hands free from?


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

drop bear said:


> OK. But so far your gun handling comes solely down to getting up from underneath someone and getting clear.
> 
> Which to be honest I am pretty good at. Without being a gun expert.
> 
> Or maybe seeing as I can pretty reliably fight a guy to stand up. I am a gun expert?


Nope.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Because gun knowledge is the essential ingredient. I mean I can wrestle so I can pull a bat or a knife or a banana out of pretty much any part of my body. There are some pretty obvious wrestling positions where that would become available. There are positions where you wouldn't.
> 
> But apparently that is not available. Even though it obviously is available. This is because they are somehow going to take the gun off you.  Which again is not done in some grappling mechanism. But in some sort of gun mechanism.
> 
> ...


This is some of the most foolish stuff I've seen.



> I mean all I am being here is sceptical.


No.  You're being argumentative and, on top of that, arguing from a place of inexperience.  Look, there *is* a place for "gun grappling."  It is "a thing."  But it's not a thing that you should try to figure out on your own or expect that because you're an expert at general grappling that you automatically have expertise at "gun grappling" because... you don't.  You won't know when you are making newbie mistakes because it "seems obvious" to you or when you're doing things which will work out bad, put you at unnecessary risk, or otherwise screwing up.



> If anyone wanted to argue anything other than what is basically a lineage argument I am happy to listen.


Horsefeathers.  It's not about "lineage" it's about you talking out of your butt because you don't have any experience or training.  I would *never ever* send anyone to you to learn firearms retention, close range handgun deployment, or close range firearms application.  Why?  Because you don't have any experience in any of that, despite your implications that "it's all just grappling."  Mule muffins.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

drop bear said:


> What I would like to see is anyone training this live so they know exactly what they can do and what they can't.


Plenty of people do it.  One of the most "famous" is Mike Seeklander.

New Home Page | American Warrior Society


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Most people can't fight.
> 
> If I watch fifty people close their eyes and swing wildly at each other. The method I come up with may work. But you could probably do better if you study guys who can fight.
> 
> ...


No.  There are several reasons, none of which are "bjj instructor ties you in knots" and some are actually related to "street fights."  The goal of cops when "fighting" is different from the goal or non-LEO civilian self defense.  



> And all of this comes down to my theory of the importance of cracking heads. And where the focus of any training that is used for a practical purpose should be aimed.


Your theory doesn't comport with any of the stuff I've learned from my LEO friends.  Because you've written several things in this thread which shows your lack of basic understanding on the basic concepts and principles of modern "gun fighting," and because your "theory" directly disagrees with what my cop pals tell me, I reject your "theory" and encourage you to do so as well.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 6, 2018)

lklawson said:


> No. There are several reasons, none of which are "bjj instructor ties you in knots" and some are actually related to "street fights." The goal of cops when "fighting" is different from the goal or non-LEO



Yet police train bjj and bjj conepts. Even though they don't relate to police work?

What you are describing is a dogma principle.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 6, 2018)

lklawson said:


> No. There are several reasons, none of which are "bjj instructor ties you in knots" and some are actually related to "street fights." The goal of cops when "fighting" is different from the goal or non-LEO



Yet police train bjj and bjj conepts. Even though they don't relate to police work?

What you are describing is a dogma principle.



lklawson said:


> Your theory doesn't comport with any of the stuff I've learned from my LEO friends. Because you've written several things in this thread which shows your lack of basic understanding on the basic concepts and principles of modern "gun fighting," and because your "theory" directly disagrees with what my cop pals tell me, I reject your "theory" and encourage you to do so as well.



Well my cop friends agree with me. So we are even on that.

I mean come on seriously? Is that what you are adding to this discussion. 

There is a vested intrest in people who teach industry training to have the authority of expertise. If they are the experts then their method is the best acording to the experts who is of course them. Now give me more money.

They are not competing in any sort of free market and their results are not judged by effectiveness. 

Now this does not mean they are automatically bad. But it does not mean they are automatically good either. 

Some police can fight, some cant and there is a whole spectum of competency to complete idiocy depending on how many police you interact with.

Of course if you do BJJ for some reason you wind up interacting with a lot of police. (Don't know why it is completely different to police work and industry training is doing such a grand job)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Of course if you do BJJ for some reason you wind up interacting with a lot of police. (Don't know why it is completely different to police work and industry training is doing such a grand job)


My experience is that there are a lot of LEO in MA, overall. The more popular arts seem to draw more of them by proportion (meaning they are a higher % of the population). If a cop trains one and finds it useful, others tend to show up at that school over time. BJJ seems particularly well-suited to cuffing and providing a foundation for firearm retention. Judo has some good fit for LEO in an overlapping way. Any with good locking and arm control (including some of the non-sport standing grappling arts) also seem to serve well.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> My experience is that there are a lot of LEO in MA, overall. The more popular arts seem to draw more of them by proportion (meaning they are a higher % of the population). If a cop trains one and finds it useful, others tend to show up at that school over time. BJJ seems particularly well-suited to cuffing and providing a foundation for firearm retention. Judo has some good fit for LEO in an overlapping way. Any with good locking and arm control (including some of the non-sport standing grappling arts) also seem to serve well.



Correct. 

But none of those arts are training in police work. Which is why the distinction made as that general statement is kind of silly. BJJ, Judo and MMA all have different aims but you can't discount the advantages they bring as well.

Again I am not as keen an advocate of specific only training. and becoming less so the more i look into it.


By the way I do think if you are going to use a gun you should study guns. Just be aware of the baggage behind a lot of the instruction. 

Hell I remember back in the old days good karate guys were claiming they could stop take downs with solid front sances.

They just didn't know otherewise.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Correct.
> 
> But none of those arts are training in police work. Which is why the distinction made as that general statement is kind of silly. BJJ, Judo and MMA all have different aims but you can't discount the advantages they bring as well.
> 
> ...


Some are, actually - it depends upon the instructor. My first NGA instructor was a DT (defensive tactics - LEO hand-to-hand) instructor and former cop. When he had a cop in his class, he taught cuffing (those of us with interest got to learn some of it if we wanted to). And instructors can easily emphasize the points that make the necessary control more accessible. The difference when comparing to guns is simply that if someone isn't familiar with guns (how they are carried, the problems with drawing from different carry positions and cover garments), they tend to give over-simplified answers. I've seen instructors use a holster on top of their gi to demonstrate how easily they can draw from some positions, but I could see the problem they'd have if they were wearing a concealing garment (the issue for nearly all but uniformed cops). I also saw some making mistakes of letting the muzzle cross their body (a safety error, especially under those conditions). The instructor could work past these if they thought about it, but someone who's not familiar with guns and their carry/use is unlikely to think about them well. That's why a BJJ guy with some solid gun experience (better yet, with some good defensive gun training) is far better equipped for this than a BJJ guy without that experience. They'll use the same foundation of techniques, but will have a different understanding of the risk/reward measurements, etc.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 7, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yet police train bjj and bjj conepts. Even though they don't relate to police work?
> 
> What you are describing is a dogma principle.


No.  You are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote in order to "win" an argument.  It's juvenile and petty.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 7, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Of course if you do BJJ for some reason you wind up interacting with a lot of police. (Don't know why it is completely different to police work and industry training is doing such a grand job)


Well gee willikers Beav, I know a lot of LEO in Judo.  I've seen many in Karate, TKD, and Aikido too.  

Still doesn't mean you know jack about "gun grappling."


----------



## drop bear (Feb 7, 2018)

lklawson said:


> No.  You are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote in order to "win" an argument.  It's juvenile and petty.



You are going from no content argument to no content argument.(all generalisations and dogma) You havent made an argument anybody needs to "win" at the moment. You have just been incorrect. 

Which I have been pointing out.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 7, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Well gee willikers Beav, I know a lot of LEO in Judo.  I've seen many in Karate, TKD, and Aikido too.
> 
> Still doesn't mean you know jack about "gun grappling."



So is any of that police work?

Why are they doing those styles?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Some are, actually - it depends upon the instructor. My first NGA instructor was a DT (defensive tactics - LEO hand-to-hand) instructor and former cop. When he had a cop in his class, he taught cuffing (those of us with interest got to learn some of it if we wanted to). And instructors can easily emphasize the points that make the necessary control more accessible. The difference when comparing to guns is simply that if someone isn't familiar with guns (how they are carried, the problems with drawing from different carry positions and cover garments), they tend to give over-simplified answers. I've seen instructors use a holster on top of their gi to demonstrate how easily they can draw from some positions, but I could see the problem they'd have if they were wearing a concealing garment (the issue for nearly all but uniformed cops). I also saw some making mistakes of letting the muzzle cross their body (a safety error, especially under those conditions). The instructor could work past these if they thought about it, but someone who's not familiar with guns and their carry/use is unlikely to think about them well. That's why a BJJ guy with some solid gun experience (better yet, with some good defensive gun training) is far better equipped for this than a BJJ guy without that experience. They'll use the same foundation of techniques, but will have a different understanding of the risk/reward measurements, etc.



Correct. But isnt going to happen because of the entrenched positions of the gun authority.

You are never going to be able to mesh them together properly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 7, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Correct. But isnt going to happen because of the entrenched positions of the gun authority.
> 
> You are never going to be able to mesh them together properly.


I’ve seen people from both sides work at it. It can be done, and is more often than you think.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You are going from no content argument to no content argument.(all generalisations and dogma) You havent made an argument anybody needs to "win" at the moment. You have just been incorrect.
> 
> Which I have been pointing out.


Look, you've claimed that your experience and expertise in more generalized grappling gives you special insight and ability in gun-grappling areas such as when to draw, how to draw, how to maintain control of the firearm during a draw, retention, etc.  But it is not so.  You're wrong in the claim and either don't know you're wrong, even after being corrected, or you just refuse to admit it.

Your claims that the skill transfers are, at best, greatly exaggerated.  Some of them can transfer but it needs training and refinement specific to the task.  Apparently this is training and refinement specific to the task which you lack, or at least have not net admitted to actually acquiring.

That's the short and long of it.  Generalized grappling skill does not give automatic skill in firearms retention, draw, or removal.  It's as simple as that.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled blathering.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Correct. But isnt going to happen because of the entrenched positions of the gun authority.


Horsecrap.  The people in "entrenched positions of gun authority" *ARE* doing grappling and merging it with firearms.

This is how I know you are just arguing to try to "win" an argument.  If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know how common it is.  Heck, even if you just did a simple web search you'd get immediate hits.  

The two most common bases for "gun grappling" are BJJ and Judo but there's a smattering of other stuff such as Aikido or FMA.

Here's two super-quick hits that I ran across in the last week or two without even trying.

About the Personal Defense Network | Personal Defense Network
SLAUGHTERING SACRED COWS: ACTUALLY, ANKLE GUNS ARE AWFUL FOR GROUND FIGHTING

Turns out that people "entrenched positions of gun authority" have been merging grappling with gun-handling, professionally, since prior to WWII.  Fairbairn, considered one of the Fathers of modern "Combatives" (which includes pistol handling and hand-to-hand) was a Nidan in Judo by 1931 with certificates signed by Kano himself (who would have been 70 at the time).

Your claims are based on incorrect, uninformed, assumption, not fact, are false from the start and easily debunked with a basic google search.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 8, 2018)

lklawson said:


> SLAUGHTERING SACRED COWS: ACTUALLY, ANKLE GUNS ARE AWFUL FOR GROUND FIGHTING



Not a big fan of ankle holsters except for a backup weapon.  Even sitting down a IWB holster is gonna be easier to access and easier to conceal the draw.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 8, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Look, you've claimed that your experience and expertise in more generalized grappling gives you special insight and ability in gun-grappling areas such as when to draw, how to draw, how to maintain control of the firearm during a draw, retention, etc.  But it is not so.  You're wrong in the claim and either don't know you're wrong, even after being corrected, or you just refuse to admit it.
> 
> Your claims that the skill transfers are, at best, greatly exaggerated.  Some of them can transfer but it needs training and refinement specific to the task.  Apparently this is training and refinement specific to the task which you lack, or at least have not net admitted to actually acquiring.
> 
> ...



You claim was you know a cop.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 8, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Horsecrap.  The people in "entrenched positions of gun authority" *ARE* doing grappling and merging it with firearms.
> 
> This is how I know you are just arguing to try to "win" an argument.  If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know how common it is.  Heck, even if you just did a simple web search you'd get immediate hits.
> 
> ...



You mean this course?










I am your sabum.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 8, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I’ve seen people from both sides work at it. It can be done, and is more often than you think.



Not generally from industry trainers though. Sometimes but not often.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You claim was you know a cop.


I know many.  Still irrelevant to your claims.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You mean this course?


I doubt it.  He doesn't look anything like Fairbairn.



> I am your sabum.


I knew you were TKD.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Not generally from industry trainers though.


Based on?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 8, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Based on?



My experience with industry trainers. PPCT and that sort of sillyness. if they can't get unarmed right. I am not trusting them with guns.





Nobody exept the trainers like ppct.
PPCT - Scam in the Policing Community or Something Else? — Steemit



 You can see it with the issue with the seals new training and the politics from that.

Seals controversy.
Feature: Navy SEALs stir up controversy with MMA training

or even read a post from kong soo do.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 8, 2018)

And I know I am harping on PPCT. But this one was just too epic to let slide.






No that was not an enter the dojo parody. That is real.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 9, 2018)

drop bear said:


> My experience with industry trainers. PPCT and that sort of sillyness.


So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training.  Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?  

Not so much.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 9, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Why are they (police) doing those styles (BJJ)?



um maybe because they are people just like the rest of us and enjoy it.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 9, 2018)

lklawson said:


> So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training.  Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?
> 
> Not so much.



Which is what the PPCT guy said. When I said his stuff doesn't work.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 9, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Which is what the PPCT guy said. When I said his stuff doesn't work.


So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training. Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?

Not so much.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 9, 2018)

lklawson said:


> So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training. Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?
> 
> Not so much.



Yeah I hadn't done the two week course so I can't spot rubbish when I see it. I don't know how voodo works either but that is probably rubbish as well. 

Otherwise it is their job to prove they are legitimate not mine to prove they are not.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 9, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah I hadn't done the two week course so I can't spot rubbish when I see it. I don't know how voodo works either but that is probably rubbish as well.
> 
> Otherwise it is their job to prove they are legitimate not mine to prove they are not.


So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training. Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?

Not so much.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 9, 2018)

lklawson said:


> So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training. Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?
> 
> Not so much.



And only a priest can tell you if god is real huh?

Was the guy who you linked valid? You know the guy who was drawing a gun from a grappling position. Like I said from the outset.

How do we know?


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 9, 2018)

Late to the party.  To the OP I would say FMA.  Yes, FMA has empty hand but it's focus is also on weapons.  It's implicit in the training four things, 1. Weapons are better than empty hand 2. weapon retention and 3. if your weapon is still sheathed/holstered, creating the opportunity to deploy the tool 4? Empty hands is for when you do not have a weapon.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 10, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And only a priest can tell you if god is real huh?
> 
> Was the guy who you linked valid? You know the guy who was drawing a gun from a grappling position. Like I said from the outset.
> 
> How do we know?


Sorry pal but you are the equivalent of a Taekwondo guy complaining about the state of grappling in Combat Hapkido. You don't know what you don't know and are unwilling to find out. Instead, you seem to want to argue about your lack of experience and competence.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Sorry pal but you are the equivalent of a Taekwondo guy complaining about the state of grappling in Combat Hapkido. You don't know what you don't know and are unwilling to find out. Instead, you seem to want to argue about your lack of experience and competence.



A Taekwando guy doesn't have to understand grappling. What you are suggesting is not true. Same as I dont have to be a priest to work out if there is a god or not.

You test the system against some basic premises. 

Is there any requirement for combat hapkido to be any good?

Is there any evidence combat hapkido is good? (does it work in live training)

Does combat hapkido stand up against other grappling systems?

Is it applicable for my needs?

So without any experience in grappling at all you could look at this.





Then say compare it to this.




And note what should work with what people who can grapple are actually doing to what people from combat hapkido want to think they are doing.


If you get a whole bunch of shifty responses about how you have to understand combat hapkido or it just works on the street or it is used by the ninja cowboy astronauts of china.

You can pretty much see the red flags going up.

I have had the same argument with non evidence based styles. I give pretty much the same responses. Of course with industry training they have the added advantage of no free market.

So when the ninja cowboy astronauts don't get a choice in what they train. This adds less weight to the argument of authority rather than more.

Especially when they do get a choice and train something else.

It is all about protecting a brand and not about providing a service.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 10, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You test the system against some basic premises.


You don't have the applicable basis to design or even consider the tests. Never mind actually make them.

I've been trying to be nice about it but frankly, to be blunt, you are a poser.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2018)

lklawson said:


> You don't have the applicable basis to design or even consider the tests. Never mind actually make them.
> 
> I've been trying to be nice about it but frankly, to be blunt, you are a poser.





4 Danger Signs of Cult-Like Behavior, and 4 Antidotes


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 11, 2018)

Okay, for the obtuse, the point being that if you have no direct experience with something, commenting on it's efficacy is inappropriate.  One can say "my way works for me based on my anecdotal experience" but that doesn't allow you to say "ergo that will not work."

Also, in my experience, there is no such thing as a "non evidence based system." if you look at virtually any decent system, it takes elements from what you would call "evidence based systems".  They may prioritize different elements, or not include others.  The point of these systems is to try and impart basic skills that will work in a majority of encounters against your most common opponent, an aggressive subject who is NOT formally trained, in a compressed period of time.  Now yeah, they use a lot of marketing speak, some of which is hyperbolic "our stuff works their stuff doesn't".  That said, if the system teaches you using an elbow shield to protect your head from a round strike, while you blade to deploy your weapon, does the marketing speak suddenly make this effective strategy ineffective?

This isn't to say that SOME of these systems don't work, that the structure they put proven techniques in is simply not appropriate.  The thing is unless you actually try the system you have no experience to base a conclusion on.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Okay, for the obtuse, the point being that if you have no direct experience with something, commenting on it's efficacy is inappropriate.  One can say "my way works for me based on my anecdotal experience" but that doesn't allow you to say "ergo that will not work."
> 
> Also, in my experience, there is no such thing as a "non evidence based system." if you look at virtually any decent system, it takes elements from what you would call "evidence based systems".  They may prioritize different elements, or not include others.  The point of these systems is to try and impart basic skills that will work in a majority of encounters against your most common opponent, an aggressive subject who is NOT formally trained, in a compressed period of time.  Now yeah, they use a lot of marketing speak, some of which is hyperbolic "our stuff works their stuff doesn't".  That said, if the system teaches you using an elbow shield to protect your head from a round strike, while you blade to deploy your weapon, does the marketing speak suddenly make this effective strategy ineffective?
> 
> This isn't to say that SOME of these systems don't work, that the structure they put proven techniques in is simply not appropriate.  The thing is unless you actually try the system you have no experience to base a conclusion on.



Ok. Explain SCARS.





EDIT.

Sorry I just realized that SCARS is easily explained. We just take a page out of the LKLAWSON handbook and say nobody here is an expert in mentaltastic programming or whatever they use and obviously don't understand what they are looking at there.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 11, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Explain SCARS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well that's good that you said "never mind" essentially.  Because all I would have done is ask, at this point, "explain what?". That said, if you are asking for the initial reason SCARS was ended I can actually tell you why.  In 1998 the Navy Special Warfare center got permission to phase out some SCARS programs, not because of ineffectiveness, but because it took people out of the field for too long.  It was a 30 straight day program.  The SEALs you see complaining it didn't work NOW, never went through the program THEN.

So if the reason it was taken out of play, starting 2 decades ago had NOTHING to do with effectiveness but rather length of training taking people out of the field, and those complaining now never went through it, I would say, "STFU because your predecessors clearly thought it worked, otherwise they would have cancelled the program because it didn't work, not because of extended training time."

Most recently the principles of SCARs was noted in a thesis, by a Lt Commander at the Navy Post Graduate School (in 2012), are still being taught.  So the principles are good, they just thought the curriculum of the physical side took to long.  I can provide a link to the thesis btw if you want to download a PDF and read it.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 12, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Explain SCARS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you still blathering you poser?  Geez, give it up.  You lost the argument.  Mostly because you were arguing an unsupportable position from a position if inexperience and ignorance.

Stick to arguing over stuff you know about.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Well that's good that you said "never mind" essentially.  Because all I would have done is ask, at this point, "explain what?". That said, if you are asking for the initial reason SCARS was ended I can actually tell you why.  In 1998 the Navy Special Warfare center got permission to phase out some SCARS programs, not because of ineffectiveness, but because it took people out of the field for too long.  It was a 30 straight day program.  The SEALs you see complaining it didn't work NOW, never went through the program THEN.
> 
> So if the reason it was taken out of play, starting 2 decades ago had NOTHING to do with effectiveness but rather length of training taking people out of the field, and those complaining now never went through it, I would say, "STFU because your predecessors clearly thought it worked, otherwise they would have cancelled the program because it didn't work, not because of extended training time."
> 
> Most recently the principles of SCARs was noted in a thesis, by a Lt Commander at the Navy Post Graduate School (in 2012), are still being taught.  So the principles are good, they just thought the curriculum of the physical side took to long.  I can provide a link to the thesis btw if you want to download a PDF and read it.



And right there is the issue I am trying to explain. And why I don't have faith in industry training.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Are you still blathering you poser?  Geez, give it up.  You lost the argument.  Mostly because you were arguing an unsupportable position from a position if inexperience and ignorance.
> 
> Stick to arguing over stuff you know about.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 12, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And why I don't have faith in industry training.


Based on your recent admission that you don't have any direct experience with the firearms "training industry?"  That your sole experience with the firearms training industry is via some youtoob videos and a google search to try to support your position?


----------



## lklawson (Feb 12, 2018)

drop bear said:


>


Which one is you?  Who's the other?


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 12, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And right there is the issue I am trying to explain. And why I don't have faith in industry training.





How?  Your complaint was "industry training doesn't work." I pointed out that as far as the Navy was concerned SCARS did work BUT since the training took their best operators out of the field to become trainers for to long, it got phased out.

So SCARs, aka industry training, in this circumstance, did work. It was logistic concerns, not effectiveness, that got it phased out.  That wasn't the argument you were making.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Which one is you?  Who's the other?



Neither that is just some poser who doesn't understand guns.

Here is another one.

Contact Shooting With a Pistol - USConcealedCarry.com - Tactical Training


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 12, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Neither that is just some poser who doesn't understand guns.
> 
> Here is another one.
> 
> Contact Shooting With a Pistol - USConcealedCarry.com - Tactical Training



What does this have to do with your point.  The person even says the method will be controversial



> I know that this will be one of those controversial things, and that people all over the internet will be arguing about the wisdom of this concept, and perhaps about my very sanity. So please read through the article before passing judgment.



and they were simply giving a method to keep a semi-auto in battery in the event you are forced to discharge it while it is in contact with the target. It seems you don't know about guns or you would know that many/most, semiautos won't fire if in forceful contact with a target, as may happen in a grappling situation.  

As for the photo, that shows no context.  A single snap shot in time with no context says nothing.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 13, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Neither that is just some poser who doesn't understand guns.


Then 1) it is illrelevant to your claims about "industry training." 2) Lacks context for the intended outcome. 



> Here is another one.
> 
> Contact Shooting With a Pistol - USConcealedCarry.com - Tactical Training


Gabe Suarez?  You're claiming that Gabe Suarez is "just some poser who doesn't understand guns"?!?!?!?!

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You didn't bother even skimming, never mind reading, the article, didja?

Poser.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 13, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> What does this have to do with your point.  The person even says the method will be controversial


It doesn't have anything to do with his point, which was originally an uninformed and ignorant claim about "industry trainers/training" and has now seemed to morph into something about...  well, he's not really sure what anymore.  He's just arguing.

He's just using the dirty sweat-sock method; throw it against the wall and see what sticks.

My favorite part is him claiming that Suarez is "just some poser who doesn't understand guns."  I'm not exactly a fan of Suarez.  But claiming that Suarez is a poser who doesn't understand guns?  I'm still chuckling.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with his point, which was originally an uninformed and ignorant claim about "industry trainers/training" and has now seemed to morph into something about...  well, he's not really sure what anymore.  He's just arguing.
> 
> He's just using the dirty sweat-sock method; throw it against the wall and see what sticks.
> 
> ...



I feel the same about Suarez.  I think he is a questionable human being.  He once doxed a dissatisfied customer because the customer didn't like a service and so did a charge back on their CC and left threatening voicemails to the same customer.  

He also pled guilty of some financial crimes that resulted in him leaving LE and entering the private world.  He also a braggart, a hyperbolic one at that.  I don't agree with all of his ideas but such disagreements and being a questionable human being doesn't mean he doesn't know his guns.  If being a questionable human being means you don't know what you are talking about then that would mean Mike Tyson doesn't know anything about boxing.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with his point, which was originally an uninformed and ignorant claim about "industry trainers/training" and has now seemed to morph into something about...  well, he's not really sure what anymore.  He's just arguing.
> 
> He's just using the dirty sweat-sock method; throw it against the wall and see what sticks.
> 
> ...



Yeah. Because so far you haven't made an argument all you have done is played the man. And thrown temper tanties.

As I said just a bunch of no content.

You are wrong because you are a poo poo head kind of stuff.

So. If you looked back at the actual content of this thread. You will see that I can't see why you couldn't draw exactly as Suarez is doing there when space is provided.

The answer was guns change the rules of grappling in some way I don't understand because I don't understand guns well enough.

The explanation for that was that a particular set of gun experts say this is not possible or too high risk. These are experts because they train the police.

Now just because someone trains the police doesn't make them an expert. It doesn't validate their method and the culture of industry training (and I have found this to be across every industry I have had experience in) where the trainers are defined as experts because of their status of industry trainers. Is everything that is wrong with training. Which I will explain to juany at some point.

So you were calling Suarez a poser based on the same criteria you were calling me one. And the criteria has no legs.

Like using poser poopy head and then claiming you win the argument. It is no content.

Which you do a lot.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Then 1) it is illrelevant to your claims about "industry training." 2) Lacks context for the intended outcome.
> 
> Gabe Suarez?  You're claiming that Gabe Suarez is "just some poser who doesn't understand guns"?!?!?!?!
> 
> ...



No you are claiming Gabe Suarez is a poser who doesn't understand guns.

Laughfy laugh laugh.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> How?  Your complaint was "industry training doesn't work." I pointed out that as far as the Navy was concerned SCARS did work BUT since the training took their best operators out of the field to become trainers for to long, it got phased out.
> 
> So SCARs, aka industry training, in this circumstance, did work. It was logistic concerns, not effectiveness, that got it phased out.  That wasn't the argument you were making.



OK. Unfortunately you are a victim of the mindset that I am trying to describe here.

So let's say I wanted to release a medicine to the public.

There would have to be all sorts of legitimate clinical trials before I would be allowed to do this. A person with no knowledge of chemistry should be able to look at these trials and see if that medicine is doing what it is claiming to do and if there are harmful side effects.

Instead imagine we released a medicine based on the sort of evidence that you keep relying on. So it was invented by a really cool guy. It was used by some dudes in a war. Barry down the street used it and it works

It wouldn't be safe to release.

Now looking at that video of scars we went two different ways. I saw a lot of unworkable techniques. A lot of inappropriate techniques and a lot of poorly executed techniques. And came to the conclusion that whoever set that system up had no real clue as to what he was doing and sold it to a guy who had no real clue as to what he was doing. But because of the institutional nature of the training they just did it anyway.

This in no way validates the system.

Where as you saw the video did not go off what you saw with your own eyes and came to the conclusion that if the SEALS trained it then the system then it must have merit.

Which is a dogmatic mindset. The Emperors new clothes.

The problem is without proper cause and effect evidence you get a whole bunch of mental baggage that you have to wade through to get to what is.

Now this is compounded by arguments made by people like LKLAWSON. Who sound like they are making argument but never actually are.

So when I look at that medicine and see that it is giving people cancer. The non content argument is that if I am not a biochemist I am not in a position to judge. 

Industry training relies a lot more heavily on your road to conclusion than mine. And is why I don't have much faith in it.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 13, 2018)

drop bear said:


> OK. Unfortunately you are a victim of the mindset that I am trying to describe here.
> 
> So let's say I wanted to release a medicine to the public.
> 
> ...



So what you are saying is that after over a decade of use in the field that the Navy hadn't proved, or disproved, the efficacy of the SCARs system and so when they said they were phasing it out due to logistics issues they we're clueless.  They we're even more clueless because they kept the principles of the system in the SEAL training program.  Your position is nonsensical.  If it didn't work, after over a decade they would have said so.

I can't believe I'm going to be giving a one-on-one lesson on Military procurement and how it relates to this situation in a martial arts thread.

There are two ways training gets done.  You have your own in house instructors or you use private contractors.  In house is often preferred but there are times where it can have a negative effect.  You use those people you think are "the best". In the case of SCARs this meant the best operators had to be taken out of the field for 30 days.  When you are in special operations, that can be deployed at a moment's notice, this means your best aren't available.  So the Navy chose to phase out the physical training of the instructors.

Next you have private contractors BUT that has it's own issues.  Among them the accusations of corruption your own article notes is currently a concern.  

So in the final equation we have one of two options, when it comes to SCARs at least.  We can believe the US Navy and their announcement in 1998 that it was logistical issues that led to the phase out, not a lack of effectiveness and the fact it keeps showing up in dissertations at the highest level of the Navy.  We can also take the word of the US Special Operations Command because they still hire Peterson as a Contractor for combatives training, as does Federal Law Enforcement.

OR we can believe that all of these agencies are clueless and that people today, who never went through the program, when they say something they never experienced doesn't work. The later is simply non-sensical.

I get it you train MMA, you can also see it on TV so there is evidence a 5 year old can see to say it works.  News flash.  You know what YOU know.  The degree of arrogance required to say that Professionals don't know what will keep them alive, because you haven't seen it on a dang YouTube video, is astounding in the extreme.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> So what you are saying is that after over a decade of use in the field that the Navy hadn't proved, or disproved, the efficacy of the SCARs system and so when they said they were phasing it out due to logistics issues they we're clueless.  They we're even more clueless because they kept the principles of the system in the SEAL training program.  Your position is nonsensical.  If it didn't work, after over a decade they would have said so.
> 
> I can't believe I'm going to be giving a one-on-one lesson on Military procurement and how it relates to this situation in a martial arts thread.
> 
> ...



And as I said that mindset you show is the major factor that will mess up a martial art.

And professionals when given a choice do something else.

Otherwise MMA as a system is not the discussion. The MMA system of cause and effect analysis is pretty much the best system you can employ.

And I have done a few different ones.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And as I said that mindset you show is the major factor that will mess up a martial art.
> 
> And professionals when given a choice do something else.
> 
> ...



You appear to have moved your goal posts.  First you were saying that industry training isn't evidence based, and you specifically noted SCARs.  However SCARs was created based on evidence, and barring the logistical training issue, served those who learned it well, according to the Navy at least.  

What I think you are doing is confabulating two things.  Are some industry trainers fos?  I am sure some are but here is the thing, they don't last long to actually be part of a problem.  Basically it works this way...

1. Industry systems take evidence based techniques.  As an example a fair bit of SCARs is based in BJJ.
2. They then put it together in a particular training format and each tends to have it's own lingo/priority/principles they focus on.
3. It then gets used like any other product.
4. It either works, thus showing that not only did they incorporate evidence based techniques, but that as the system worked in the field in is now evidence based.
5. It doesn't work, the business goes out of business.

If you were talking about some of those people that only sell personal defense videos and stuff I could kinda see your point.  Some of them are basically what Master Ken parodies on his YouTube channel.  The guy who got secret Ninja training and would have to kill you if he confirmed or denied he worked for the CIA kinda people.

We aren't talking about them.  We are talking about people who have real operational experience and extensive training.  Based on their experience they have made a determination as to what worked for them, tweeked it.  That is using a cause and effect analysis.  

It was then put into use by Military and LE etc and it worked for these organizations.  Again a cause and effect analysis.  Simply because these organizations don't post to YouTube the "effect" doesn't mean the effect doesn't exist.  The simple fact is that since they are still using it, and spending money on continuing training is evidence of the effect. 

Training is ultimately no different than tools.  If the tools don't work they either don't get last the trial phase or get replaced in short order (like the infamous Chauchat machine gun of WWI), much the same goes for Combative systems.  A good example of this tbh are Krav Maga and KAPAP.  When trained correctly they both very well and we're created, over time, in much the same way as the functional "industry" systems.  The only difference is that they were created by a "Public" Institution and not an "Industry."


----------



## lklawson (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Because so far you haven't made an argument all you have done is played the man. And thrown temper tanties.
> 
> As I said just a bunch of no content.
> 
> ...


This is what you've got left?

Sad.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> No you are claiming Gabe Suarez is a poser who doesn't understand guns.
> 
> Laughfy laugh laugh.


Me?  Here's your post:


drop bear said:


> Neither that is just some poser who doesn't understand guns.
> 
> Here is another one.
> 
> Contact Shooting With a Pistol - USConcealedCarry.com - Tactical Training


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

lklawson said:


> This is what you've got left?
> 
> Sad.



You mean mentioning you argue non content posts which of course you argue with.........

You probably need a level of emotional maturity to do this properly.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> You appear to have moved your goal posts.  First you were saying that industry training isn't evidence based, and you specifically noted SCARs.  However SCARs was created based on evidence, and barring the logistical training issue, served those who learned it well, according to the Navy at least.
> 
> What I think you are doing is confabulating two things.  Are some industry trainers fos?  I am sure some are but here is the thing, they don't last long to actually be part of a problem.  Basically it works this way...
> 
> ...



And this weight of evidence given to what is effectively linage, is everything that is wrong with martial arts. This is also this massive debate with the wing chun transition from classical mess to something that may work.

(Which due to having to join a face group chun forum is pretty prevalent)

I mean horoscopes must work or we wouldn't still be using them right?

And we have a choice if the martial art I do doesn't work. I can get up and do a different martial art. If it is an industry requirement I have to train that method regardless whether it works or not. The aim is not to become competent in a useable skill.

The aim is to pass.

And this is why you are running around believing any old thing.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And this weight of evidence given to what is effectively linage, is everything that is wrong with martial arts. This is also this massive debate with the wing chun transition from classical mess to something that may work.
> 
> (Which due to having to join a face group chun forum is pretty prevalent)
> 
> ...


No it is not effectively lineage. Why?  It's like MMA but even More dynamic.  Why does MMA change? Because people want to win so they're constantly analyzing things.  In the same way all of these agencies are constantly looking at their training looking at their equipment looking if something needs to be improved or could be improved.   The best industry systems do the same via the active operators that they have trained as trainers and they evolve their own systems.  Those that don't go out of business.

If they don't people get hurt or even die. The stakes are even higher but the general motivation is the same.  You clearly just don't get it.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> No it is not effectively lineage. Why?  It's like MMA but even More dynamic.  Why does MMA change? Because people want to win so they're constantly analyzing things.  In the same way all of these agencies are constantly looking at their training looking at their equipment looking if something needs to be improved or could be improved.  If they don't people get hurt or even die.  The stakes are even higher and you clearly just don't get it.



But like yourself they are looking at the wrong things. And looking at it in the wrong way.

In MMA you achieve evidence by being able to do a thing on a guy who doesn't want you to do that thing.

Regardless of linage or perceived badassery. Without a whole bunch of excuses as to why your system would have worked if only.......

It is this method that has created the weight of evidence that is making people turn to BJJ. (And they market that aspect really well) It is a completely different mindset to what you are used to. 

And it is the mindset of evidence gathering that makes the difference. Cause and effect so ingrained in the training that it does not leave much room for fanciful notions. 

This is why you can see cops or soldiers effectively using these systems and you never see people effectively using SCARS or Krav Maga.

Because SCARS wouldn't survive a day in that sort of evidence gathering environment. It relies on the institutional environment where being wrong doesn't really matter.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> But like yourself they are looking at the wrong things. And looking at it in the wrong way.
> 
> In MMA you achieve evidence by being able to do a thing on a guy who doesn't want you to do that thing.
> 
> ...




Umm so you think the guy the cop arrests, the high value target the Spec Ops guy needs to capture, and not kill, "let it" happen?  You are being quite obtuse.  The training isn't that much different either.  Tapping out etc.  Note I am talking systems that teach Paramilitary and Military organizations.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

OK an example of the concept. If you have ever been out wrestled or out fought by a footballer. 

To a certain degree it is because the skills they have learned are more appropriate to functional fighting than the skills you have learned. 

Even though they seem to be learning unrelated skills and you are doing specific skills.

And this is because the weight of cause and effect based training is so much of a factor. That it can surpass technical training.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Umm so you think the guy the cop arrests, the high value target the Spec Ops guy needs to capture, and not kill, "let it" happen?  You are being quite obtuse.  The training isn't that much different either.  Tapping out etc.  Note I am talking systems that teach Paramilitary and Military organizations.



I am not the only one saying it though.

I mean Ok. He is BJJ guy. But if it is even half true it is a pretty telling concept.






And this meshes with my experience bouncing. The same sorts of guys would be the go to guys for fights.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And this weight of evidence given to what is effectively linage, is everything that is wrong with martial arts. This is also this massive debate with the wing chun transition from classical mess to something that may work.
> 
> (Which due to having to join a face group chun forum is pretty prevalent)
> 
> ...


So, you argue there should be evidence-based training. And when someone states the training is evidence-based, that's all lineage?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

And more shooting from the grapple.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> So, you argue there should be evidence-based training. And when someone states the training is evidence-based, that's all lineage?




The evidence is linage.

If ip man does it it is the evidence we need that it works.

If the navy SEALS do it it is the evidence we need that it works.

This is not really cause and effect.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

Two things and I am done.

On the "shooting from grappling" issue.  Those things are taught as an "oh sheot" issue.  You never WANT to do it but circumstances may dictate.  

As for evidence based vs lineage I don't think you understand what the quality industry systems are based on.  It's the person (or persons) with extensive prior training and experience.  BJJ, MMA, Boxing, Judo, plus (at least for the ones I trust) operational experience.  They then sit down and figure out what was used most in their line of work.  They then sit down and put it into a teachable system.

So these people aren't really inventing anything.  Ultimately they are just paring down and codifying a curriculum on something that is evidence based. Tbh they are very similar to MMA but add things specifically regarding retaining or drawing weapons from evidence based arts like FMA because that is an additional factor operators need to address.

By paring down I mean the following.  They may have few if any kicks because with all the gear an operator carries kicks above the knee aren't a good idea.  They may focus on ground defense, but not attack because again with all the gear your goal may be to get up ASAP and stay there.  In short they are, typically, designed for specific purposes/occupations BUT that design is done by people who can honestly say "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." They then "sell" their system.  If it fails in the field they go out of business.

Now this isn't to say they are "perfect" bit it doesn't have to be "perfect" to work.  So as to keep things separate I will continue in the next post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And more shooting from the grapple.


Nobody ever said that was impossible.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

First by "perfect" I meant best/better.  I got moved to a new squad recently.  On it I have a BJJ guy, a Nationally ranked wrestler (from College) and an Krav Maga instructor guy.  We were talking shop, we were doing baton recert anyway, and they asked why I decided on my school.  I told them the big reason was the Kali and I mentioned knife defense.  Both the BJJ guy and the KM guy said "we have that".  So we decided to do some light sparring with closed batons as the knife.  Both had decent knife defense but I still hit them more and they barely touched me.  Why?  Not because BJJ or KM have bad knife defense, they we're both pretty good, it's just that as Kali is aa weapon based art I simply know how to attack and defend better BUT they work too.

Now on the flip side, in straight up ground fight, since it's been way too long since my Aikido days the BJJ or wrestler would take me but there is grappling in both my Kali and WC so they would know they were in a fight when we are done, even if they won.

The same dynamic applies to the proven industry systems.  In the end they all "work" for the intended purpose, even if they aren't the ""perfect" option and the purpose of these systems is to train people who will then practice but not attend formal classes on a daily/weekly basis.

I will say that is the one weakness of the "industry" systems.  If you don't practice you will lose the skills.  A formal school/gym where you pay a monthly fee basically forces you to practice.  Industry training puts the responsibility of practice entirely on the student after they are done.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Nobody ever said that was impossible.



What made that even more odd is that SOCP is an "Industry Program" that was designed for the US Army, particularly the Rangers.  So I am confused.  He is using an industry program to show industry programs don't work?  Is he trying to say SOCP sucks too?  So again the US Armed forces are clueless?  Very confused since when he does this there is no context, almost intentionally so he can go any way he wants... Which=poser as someone else previously stated.

That said the system is highly functional for military application, and this thread actually.  It's primarily about creating the amount of space needed to deploy a "tool".  M-4, pistol, knife, whatever (of course gun > melee.)


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Nobody ever said that was impossible.



What was said.

"Your theory doesn't comport with any of the stuff I've learned from my LEO friends. Because you've written several things in this thread which shows your lack of basic understanding on the basic concepts and principles of modern "gun fighting," and because your "theory" directly disagrees with what my cop pals tell me, I reject your "theory" and encourage you to do so as well."

Not far off impossible.
Let's suggest not accepted method.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> What made that even more odd is that SOCP is an "Industry Program" that was designed for the US Army, particularly the Rangers.  So I am confused.  He is using an industry program to show industry programs don't work?  Is he trying to say SOCP sucks too?  So again the US Armed forces are clueless?  Very confused since when he does this there is no context, almost intentionally so he can go any way he wants... Which=poser as someone else previously stated.
> 
> That said the system is highly functional for military application, and this thread actually.  It's primarily about creating the amount of space needed to deploy a "tool".  M-4, pistol, knife, whatever (of course gun > melee.)



Just pointing out that people are training that method. When apparently people do not train that method.

Otherwise like evey other system it would have to stand on its own merits.

It wasn't a commentary on whether the system is legitimate or not.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> What was said.
> 
> "Your theory doesn't comport with any of the stuff I've learned from my LEO friends. Because you've written several things in this thread which shows your lack of basic understanding on the basic concepts and principles of modern "gun fighting," and because your "theory" directly disagrees with what my cop pals tell me, I reject your "theory" and encourage you to do so as well."
> 
> Not far off impossible.


That wasn't what was said at all.  What was said was...

Organizations wouldn't teach crap if it didn't work because their training is based on the the info from "the best".  So if from the 1980s to 1998 the SEAL operators said "SCARS sucks and is getting us hurt and killed" the Navy would have cancelled it saying g "it doesn't work." instead the Navy phased it out saying "it takes people out of the field for too long to learn it."

I get it, you can't acknowledge you are wrong, that either means stubborn as hell or poser as Kirk said.  Don't know, don't care at this point.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Just pointing out that people are training that method. When apparently people do not train that method.
> 
> Otherwise like evey other system it would have to stand on its own merits.
> 
> It wasn't a commentary on whether the system is legitimate or not.




That is a convenient dodge.  Kirk was right, saddly.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Two things and I am done.
> 
> On the "shooting from grappling" issue.  Those things are taught as an "oh sheot" issue.  You never WANT to do it but circumstances may dictate.
> 
> ...



So what happened to it is good because the seals do it?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> That is a convenient dodge.  Kirk was right, saddly.



Obviously not.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Obviously not.



Lol. You really have gotten desperate haven't you. It's not "at some time, at some point, some group trained it".  It's that said group USED it for over a decade and only stopped doing so when the hirer ups got pissy that manpower got diverted from deployment because of an extended training cycle.  That that group  (SEALS) still teach the pricniples and other groups still teach it all.

I really think it's time to stop this debate.  I know you think debates need to end with a winner, but once you realize they don't, it will be happier for everyone.  Especially since you contradicted yourself by basically saying "industry training sucks" but then more than once tried to defend that by showing videos of industry training that you apparently thought worked.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Lol. You really have gotten desperate haven't you. It's not "at some time, at some point, some group trained it".  It's that said group USED it for over a decade and only stopped doing so when the hirer ups got pissy that manpower got diverted from deployment because of an extended training cycle.  That that group  (SEALS) still teach the pricniples and other groups still teach it all.
> 
> I really think it's time to stop this debate.  I know you think debates need to end with a winner, but once you realize they don't, it will be happier for everyone.  Especially since you contradicted yourself by basically saying "industry training sucks" but then more than once tried to defend that by showing videos of industry training that you apparently thought worked.



Not really.  Industry training of itself I have no faith in. 

That is one specific argument.

Trying to pull out a gun mid grapple won't work because there is son sort of mystery only industry people know is another.

So I can argue both points separately without that contradiction. 

And the argue the merits of my idea based purely on technique. Which if I wasn't talking to people who weigh evidence by the strangest standards would be where this conversation would have gone.

Otherwise having one poster start screaming at me like a six year old and the other simply not able to tell bad training when he sees it. It is a conversation that that has become increasingly difficult.

Now if that is an indication of the process in which people in the industry evaluate industry training I can see why it is in the mess it is.

And we did get to hear from two SEALS who have a different opinion as to why SEALs training has evolved.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> I will say that is the one weakness of the "industry" systems. If you don't practice you will lose the skills. A formal school/gym where you pay a monthly fee basically forces you to practice. Industry training puts the responsibility of practice entirely on the student after they are done.


From most of the LEO I've trained with, this was the reason they took classes. They liked the training they got, but it was necessarily limited in scope, and they didn't have ongoing practice. The same would hold true for a BJJ training session that lasted 40 hours and didn't repeat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> What was said.
> 
> "Your theory doesn't comport with any of the stuff I've learned from my LEO friends. Because you've written several things in this thread which shows your lack of basic understanding on the basic concepts and principles of modern "gun fighting," and because your "theory" directly disagrees with what my cop pals tell me, I reject your "theory" and encourage you to do so as well."
> 
> ...


Nothing in that suggests "impossible". "Inadvisable", sure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Lol. You really have gotten desperate haven't you. It's not "at some time, at some point, some group trained it".  It's that said group USED it for over a decade and only stopped doing so when the hirer ups got pissy that manpower got diverted from deployment because of an extended training cycle.  That that group  (SEALS) still teach the pricniples and other groups still teach it all.
> 
> I really think it's time to stop this debate.  I know you think debates need to end with a winner, but once you realize they don't, it will be happier for everyone.  Especially since you contradicted yourself by basically saying "industry training sucks" but then more than once tried to defend that by showing videos of industry training that you apparently thought worked.


He's dragging you back and forth between his two different arguments. He does that when the logic piles up against one - he oscillates to keep you from focusing on one. A good way to fight, a bad way to discuss and debate if you intend to learn.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Trying to pull out a gun mid grapple won't work because there is son sort of mystery only industry people know is another.


Here again, you're not actually responding to an argument made. Nobody said it was impossible or wouldn't work. They said it was more dangerous than leaving the firearm holstered, unless there's not a viable alternative.

You like things to be absolute (like industry training is all crap). Most things are not. There are times when drawing while grappling is the best available option. There certainly have been crap training in industry settings. But that doesn't make your absolutist arguments correct, so showing individual instances of either (and I'm not sure you've even done that) doesn't really support your point effectively.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> You mean mentioning you argue non content posts which of course you argue with.........


No.  I mean you've given up actually trying to support your points and are flat out into trolling.



> You probably need a level of emotional maturity to do this properly.


Psychological projection - Wikipedia


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 15, 2018)

Hi


gpseymour said:


> Here again, you're not actually responding to an argument made. Nobody said it was impossible or wouldn't work. They said it was more dangerous than leaving the firearm holstered, unless there's not a viable alternative.
> 
> You like things to be absolute (like industry training is all crap). Most things are not. There are times when drawing while grappling is the best available option. There certainly have been crap training in industry settings. But that doesn't make your absolutist arguments correct, so showing individual instances of either (and I'm not sure you've even done that) doesn't really support your point effectively.


The last part is the main issue.  Does some industry training suck?  Absolutely!!!  The thing is industry training is a business. It can survive for far too long in the civilian self-defense world because there is, luckily, seldom an opportunity to put it to a true test.  That isn't the same for the Military/security forces (read LE) world though.  There the systems and testing get tested.  If they don't work they go the way of the dodo, not unlike equipment that fails to perform in the field. 

To use a completely non-violent analogy, if Gore Tex didn't work everyone would dump it for eVent of Sympatex because people know when they are wet.  Similarly an operator knows when his training failed.  The civilian won't know however because they usually, again lucky for them, don't get the opportunity to test that training.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I am not the only one saying it though.
> 
> I mean Ok. He is BJJ guy. But if it is even half true it is a pretty telling concept.
> 
> ...



*Pressure testing is what they are talking about here and pressure testing is essential*.  It is not the end all be all that some people make it out to be but you must have some pressure testing in what you do to ensure effectiveness.  I would hope that anyone teaching how to draw their handgun, etc. would pressure test their method against a resisting opponent to ensure it is effective.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 15, 2018)

Just an fyi one reason I say it is not the "end all be all" is that people have made their skill sets work without pressure testing.  Having said that though if you can safely pressure test some thing you should!


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Trying to pull out a gun mid grapple won't work because there is son sort of mystery only industry people know is another.



Just to clarify, I never said it wouldn’t work.

Said it is better not to because it creates more risk.  Drawing while still grappling should be the last option.

Instead you should try to:

1. gain control
2. Break free (disengage)
3. Draw while engaged


But you have the right to think what you want and take whatever added risks you want.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2018)

lklawson said:


> No.  I mean you've given up actually trying to support your points and are flat out into trolling.
> 
> Psychological projection - Wikipedia



If you continue to post no content. I am not sure I can support my posts.

I mean OK I am a troll a poser and a poopy head. So what? None of that effects whether I am right or wrong.

To effect whether I am right or wrong you would need to stop acting out. Throwing insults and dislike bombs. Stop treating this like some sort of personal attack and address the actual issue.

I mean if you are the example of an advocate of industry training. It supports why the training sucks.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Just to clarify, I never said it wouldn’t work.
> 
> Said it is better not to because it creates more risk.  Drawing while still grappling should be the last option.
> 
> ...



And the counter argument is it is going to be a lot easier to break free if the other guy has been shot a couple of times.

It is not added risks. It is different risks. 

So I pull the gun mid grapple he takes it off me and shoots me.

Vs.

I don't pull the gun out he elbows me in the head takes my gun and shoots me.

And you would have to asses that risk on personal experimentation. 

It is about training honestly without baggage. 

When you presented industry training as evidence. All you did was add baggage.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2018)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Pressure testing is what they are talking about here and pressure testing is essential*.  It is not the end all be all that some people make it out to be but you must have some pressure testing in what you do to ensure effectiveness.  I would hope that anyone teaching how to draw their handgun, etc. would pressure test their method against a resisting opponent to ensure it is effective.



Did you see the SCARS video though?

Pressure testing has to be done without a bunch of people controlling the outcome. Especially if they have a vested interest in validating their methods.

I did knife defence as part of industry training after a mate of mine got stabbed.

As part of that course we did the t shirt texta  drill. 

Now if you do that drill and then look at all the texta  marks on the T shirts I concluded knife defence doesn't work very well at all.

But if we add a bunch of baggage. For some reason the methods the trainer was using does work.

And I had to pass the course. So even in the face of obvious evidence the outcome wasn't the outcome.

This is where a skills focused course and a compliancy focused course differ.

This is also why people BJJ. 

I am an advocate of a lazer focus on cause and effect. Even where I may not agree with the method. If it works I am forced to accept it.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Here again, you're not actually responding to an argument made. Nobody said it was impossible or wouldn't work. They said it was more dangerous than leaving the firearm holstered, unless there's not a viable alternative.
> 
> You like things to be absolute (like industry training is all crap). Most things are not. There are times when drawing while grappling is the best available option. There certainly have been crap training in industry settings. But that doesn't make your absolutist arguments correct, so showing individual instances of either (and I'm not sure you've even done that) doesn't really support your point effectively.



Except my point was industry training has to be based on its own merits.

Well we know what was actually said. Would you agree with that stance?


"Your theory doesn't comport with any of the stuff I've learned from my LEO friends. Because you've written several things in this thread which shows your lack of basic understanding on the basic concepts and principles of modern "gun fighting," and because your "theory" directly disagrees with what my cop pals tell me, I reject your "theory" and encourage you to do so as well."


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 15, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It is about training honestly without baggage.
> 
> When you presented industry training as evidence. All you did was add baggage.



Our “industry training” is a law enforcement agency training its officers and agents along with providing training to other agencies......not to make money but to try and reduce the number of officers and agents that are killed.  It’s cops training cops and we take it very serious.  It’s pressure tested in a controlled environment and the real world.

 My instructor group teaches Undercover Officers and Plain clothes cops undercover tactics, concepts, and survival tactics and it’s all based on actual experience and real world knowledge.  I don’t get paid extra to do it....I do it because I want to help young UCs be safe and reduce dead agents.  And I’m still out there working UC using the same tactics and concepts we teach. 

I actually just returned from Mardi Gras working Undercover for a week with two other UC instructors and two former students of ours.

So the “baggage” that our "industry training" brings with it is real world experience and application, not theoretical b.s.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 15, 2018)

This thread.....


----------



## lklawson (Feb 16, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I am not sure I can support my posts.


Why start now?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Did you see the SCARS video though?
> 
> Pressure testing has to be done without a bunch of people controlling the outcome. Especially if they have a vested interest in validating their methods.
> 
> ...


Your point on knife defense brings up a concept here. Good knife defense does work. It's just not as effective as good empty-hand defense, because a knife is a more effective (and harder to defend against) weapon than an empty hand. So, if I do some testing with my knife defense and get cut a lot, that doesn't show that knife defense doesn't work - it's missing a control. Compare my results side-by-side with someone who isn't trained to defend the knife (either untrained, or similar training without the specific knife defense) and I tend to do better.

In some areas of MA/training, there can be an over-reliance on "expertise" and too little on proving methods out - both in tests and in actual contextual application. But you've used a broad brush to paint all "industry training" with that error. Folks here are pointing out some industry training that seems to not have that problem.


----------



## Coup De Grâce (Feb 16, 2018)

First post, Guys!   

Wow!  There's a lot to digest in this thread.  I am an experienced CQB gun and/or knife fighter; and, although I've only rarely said it, I've never really agreed with Dennis Tueller's 21 foot rule; but, in large part, my objection has been that a trained CQB fighter (not just a gunfighter) should be talented and experienced enough with his feet to strike a knee BEFORE an opponent can reach his body with a blade.

When I was young my uncles, who were all combat-proven United States Marines, taught me that the secret to successful knife defense is to:  (1) concentrate on and attack the opponent's weapon hand and arm — First.  (2) Then, force your opponent to reach for you; but do not, yourself, reach for him UNLESS you realize that he has lost either his balance, or firm footing.  (3) Always try to move in such a way that you force an opponent to have to reach across his own body in order to strike at you.  'Why?'  Because being forced to strike across his own body will, quite naturally, slow a knifefighter down, and make it more difficult for him to reach you with his blade.

Michael Echanis used to be a master at slipping past the edges and corners of an opponent's body.  (It was that circular motion, Korean Hwa Rang Do thing!)  The moment Echanis was able to deflect an opponent's outreached arm, voilà, he'd quickly slip past his attacker's shoulder and get behind him.

The first thing a successful defender against a knife attack needs is room to move.  (Hallways, and crowded rooms create a distinct handicap.)  The second very necessary thing is to always leave yourself room to take one or two steps backwards, and/or to one side or the other.  (Don't backup flush to the wall, and don't stand in corners.)  Anytime — anytime — you can get an opponent to slash high with his knife there will be a golden opportunity to get underneath his weapon hand, and THAT is an ideal time for you to move.

We used to have three rules that I always tried to scrupulously follow:  (1) Never 'go high' in a knife fight.  (This means that you do not want an opponent to ever be fighting from a lower position than where your body is presently standing; and neither do you want his weapon hand to be underneath your own.)  (2) Whenever possible, wait to reply to your opponent's opening move(s).  Other things equal:  It's better if another knifefighter reaches for you rather than if you reach for him.  (3) Do NOT lead with your blade (or pistol) and always, always, always remember to protect your weapon hand.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Your point on knife defense brings up a concept here. Good knife defense does work. It's just not as effective as good empty-hand defense, because a knife is a more effective (and harder to defend against) weapon than an empty hand. So, if I do some testing with my knife defense and get cut a lot, that doesn't show that knife defense doesn't work - it's missing a control. Compare my results side-by-side with someone who isn't trained to defend the knife (either untrained, or similar training without the specific knife defense) and I tend to do better.
> 
> In some areas of MA/training, there can be an over-reliance on "expertise" and too little on proving methods out - both in tests and in actual contextual application. But you've used a broad brush to paint all "industry training" with that error. Folks here are pointing out some industry training that seems to not have that problem.



I got cut less than the guy I had to cut. Who I casually eviscerated until the instructor called a stop to it.

So I could also knife fight/defend better than a lot of the guys there.

But my t shirt was still pretty black by the end of it.

If we look at Juannys arguments defending the veracity of SCARS and CB,s arguments defending his system. We get a certain similar theme. Except looking at SCARS we should be able to see they have issues.

Industry training that does not have that problem needs to prove the veracity of their systems the same way other martial arts have to prove the veracity of their systems.

And visibly works live is kind of central to that. If you remember I am works first, applicable second. 

Otherwise they are by definition tarred with the same brush.

I am not saying all industry training is crap. I am saying there is no requirement for industry training to be any good.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I am not saying all industry training is crap. I am saying there is no requirement for industry training to be any good.


That's a very different statement than I read in your earlier posts. I agree that there's no built-in requirement in general - good people using good sense and feedback while monitoring, developing, and revising lead to good training. Good people making assumptions in any of those areas can lead to crappy training. But (at least from what I see in the US), there's an environment of monitoring the output that helps protect against that. Organizations that handle hard situations well (better outcomes) are asked to share what they do differently, and usually do. And other organizations tend to use that to improve their outcomes.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 17, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Did you see the SCARS video though?
> 
> Pressure testing has to be done without a bunch of people controlling the outcome. Especially if they have a vested interest in validating their methods.
> 
> ...



*I actually agree with you that the outcome of pressure testing cannot be controlled by people with a vested interest*.  However, this is seen all the time in many pressure testing forms.  Take BJJ for instance.  BJJ has a certain set of rules that are typically followed.  Thus narrowing the effectiveness of the pressure testing.  Now, that does not mean that it is not a good form of pressure testing but that it is limited when trying to compare it to a life and death struggle in violent situation where no rules are enforced.  Like you though I would take the BJJ guy almost all the time but I base that on the individual  knowing solid fundamental skill sets that can give an advantage.  However, if the other individual has attributes that outweigh the skill set I might go with the individual with the better attributes.  So we have to understand that in training there are always limitations placed upon us by whatever rule sets we adapt.  Yet that doesn't mean that pressure testing isn't needed or effective.  Pressure testing can help us achieve functional skill sets and it can also help us develop our attributes over time as well.  Just understand in the end it is just training and all training has it's limitations.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2018)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I actually agree with you that the outcome of pressure testing cannot be controlled by people with a vested interest*.  However, this is seen all the time in many pressure testing forms.  Take BJJ for instance.  BJJ has a certain set of rules that are typically followed.  Thus narrowing the effectiveness of the pressure testing.  Now, that does not mean that it is not a good form of pressure testing but that it is limited when trying to compare it to a life and death struggle in violent situation where no rules are enforced.  Like you though I would take the BJJ guy almost all the time but I base that on the individual  knowing solid fundamental skill sets that can give an advantage.  However, if the other individual has attributes that outweigh the skill set I might go with the individual with the better attributes.  So we have to understand that in training there are always limitations placed upon us by whatever rule sets we adapt.  Yet that doesn't mean that pressure testing isn't needed or effective.  Pressure testing can help us achieve functional skill sets and it can also help us develop our attributes over time as well.  Just understand in the end it is just training and all training has it's limitations.



I agree. And for a lot of these sort of reality systems. (And MMA for a lot of the same reasons) There are probably better and more applicable pathways than BJJ.

But the method of assessing that shouldn't change.

That way you don't just do what your instructor may or may not be able to do. But what you can do.

I mean just the concept of "This worked for Barry in the street so therefore this is the method we have adopted" is more flawed than BJJ quirkiness.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That's a very different statement than I read in your earlier posts. I agree that there's no built-in requirement in general - good people using good sense and feedback while monitoring, developing, and revising lead to good training. Good people making assumptions in any of those areas can lead to crappy training. But (at least from what I see in the US), there's an environment of monitoring the output that helps protect against that. Organizations that handle hard situations well (better outcomes) are asked to share what they do differently, and usually do. And other organizations tend to use that to improve their outcomes.



I said it once because someone accused me of it. And I was like whatever, it is a close enough definition for this conversion. Which involved the argument equivalent of hitting each other with ball peen hammers.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2018)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I actually agree with you that the outcome of pressure testing cannot be controlled by people with a vested interest*.  However, this is seen all the time in many pressure testing forms.  Take BJJ for instance.  BJJ has a certain set of rules that are typically followed.  Thus narrowing the effectiveness of the pressure testing.  Now, that does not mean that it is not a good form of pressure testing but that it is limited when trying to compare it to a life and death struggle in violent situation where no rules are enforced.  Like you though I would take the BJJ guy almost all the time but I base that on the individual  knowing solid fundamental skill sets that can give an advantage.  However, if the other individual has attributes that outweigh the skill set I might go with the individual with the better attributes.  So we have to understand that in training there are always limitations placed upon us by whatever rule sets we adapt.  Yet that doesn't mean that pressure testing isn't needed or effective.  Pressure testing can help us achieve functional skill sets and it can also help us develop our attributes over time as well.  Just understand in the end it is just training and all training has it's limitations.




And yeah. The way I generally explain the point you are making is with guard passing. Which is an integral concept in BJJ.

So in BJJ you have this issue dealing with a closed guard.And so they have developed hundreds of methods to solve this problem.





And so you do BJJ learning these becomes a survival skill.

MMA not so much due to different factors.






Now what is the akward part of this whole scenario is that this method may not actually be right for MMA. A mate of mine recently fought, got cought in guard and did all the correct for MMA things. But the other guy was just really good at jits.






It is a factor that is important but often dicounted.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 21, 2018)

Just got this video posted to my feed today


----------



## lklawson (Feb 22, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> Just got this video posted to my feed today


Entertaining.  Thanks for posting it!

The data is right but the video natator and most of the commenters draw an inaccurate conclusion based on incomplete information or personal/confirmation bias.

Here's what's true.  Yes, it's true that most people who carry a gun don't really know how to "fight" with one, particularly at the compressed hands-on range being depicted.

Here's what's false. That this inability to "fight" with the gun, particularly at the range depicted is any sort of major impediment or disadvantage for the vast majority of people carrying a gun.

Look at the statistics.  Depending on which study you choose, of the 70,000-ish successful DGU's per year (CVS), somewhere between 2/3rds and 9/10ths do not discharge the weapon.  That means that at least 2/3rds of the time when the gun is deployed, or even "displayed," the threat goes away.  There was no "fight," at any range, over possession of the gun.  If that's not enough evidence start looking for instances of "the gun was taken away from me and used against me" stories.  I've been tracking them for about 15 or 20 years and they're as hard to find as hen's teeth.  There are a few more these years than there used to be.  I manage to find about 1-2 stories a year, mostly revolving around Open Carriers who were ambushed.  With more than 15 Million concealed carry licenses in the U.S., an untold number of people Open Carrying, and an untold number of people carrying in Constitutional Carry states, a number of 2 or even 4, or even 40 a year is statistically Zero.  Statistically speaking, whatever "training, skills, and knowledge" that they already have is enough.

So, yes, it's likely true that the vast majority of people who carry guns for self defense do not know how to "fight" with them as the video presenter defines fighting.  And they don't need to in order to have effective self defense with a gun.

That's not to say that I do not recommend those people seek more training.  But that's because I believe 1) more training is always better 2) more training improves the who group sort of like "herd immunity" 3) it would really suck to be one of those statistical outliers where you do actually need to know how to "fight" using the gun.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 22, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Entertaining.  Thanks for posting it!
> 
> The data is right but the video natator and most of the commenters draw an inaccurate conclusion based on incomplete information or personal/confirmation bias.
> 
> ...



The narrator definitely has some confirmation bias believe me.  That said it was more his central point that I agree with.  If you are going to carry a weapon don't assume that the weapon alone is a "magic wand." 

As for people having their guns taken from them, while there is no statistic for officers who are "simply" disarmed, a number of studies have been performed that show of Officers who died from gunshot wounds, ~10% were shot with their own gun.


----------



## Mountie (Feb 22, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> The narrator definitely has some confirmation bias believe me.  That said it was more his central point that I agree with.  If you are going to carry a weapon don't assume that the weapon alone is a "magic wand."
> 
> As for people having their guns taken from them, while there is no statistic for officers who are "simply" disarmed, a number of studies have been performed that show of Officers who died from gunshot wounds, ~10% were shot with their own gun.



It's one of the basics of being a police officer; every call is a gun call, because you carry one into it.  

It's also one of the reasons we can't afford to lose a fight.  It hasn't happened often, but I have had idiots go for my gun.  And I practice protecting it.


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 22, 2018)

Mountie said:


> It's one of the basics of being a police officer; every call is a gun call, because you carry one into it.
> 
> It's also one of the reasons we can't afford to lose a fight.  It hasn't happened often, but I have had idiots go for my gun.  And I practice protecting it.



To true on all counts. And the more tools they give us the more you have to worry about... "Protect my gun... Oh great now he's going for my Taser." .fun times.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> The narrator definitely has some confirmation bias believe me.  That said it was more his central point that I agree with.  If you are going to carry a weapon don't assume that the weapon alone is a "magic wand."


I probably agree.  While it's not a good luck charm or talisman that repels evil, it sure looks like just showing one makes the bad guy go away at least 2/3 of the time.  While not a magic wand, it sure seems as close as I'm likely to see.  



> As for people having their guns taken from them, while there is no statistic for officers who are "simply" disarmed, a number of studies have been performed that show of Officers who died from gunshot wounds, ~10% were shot with their own gun.


Sure.  No argument there.  My only caveat is that the vast majority of people who carry for self defense aren't LEO.  Two very very different goals.  On the one hand, self defense minded non-LEO civilians have basically one goal: to make the bad guy stop doing whatever it is he was doing that made you need to deploy the gun.  That's it.  LEO, on the other hand, have a much more comprehensive, and demanding, requirement.  Capture, restrain, and arrest puts LEO in a very different position, both "tactically" and philosophically, from someone carrying for self defense.  Cops have a much greater need to be able to "fight" at that (or any) range than someone carrying for self defense.

The two groups have different goals and so it follows that what is effective for each will be somewhat different.  To be honest, I have a bit of a problem with CCW people taking classes intended for LEO, or worse, military application, and believing that the material is 100% applicable to their needs.

CCW holders aren't cops, shouldn't try to be, and should be reminded of such.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Feb 23, 2018)

Mountie said:


> It's one of the basics of being a police officer; every call is a gun call, because you carry one into it.
> 
> It's also one of the reasons we can't afford to lose a fight.


Further, non-LEO civvies-for-self-defense can, and often *SHOULD*, just let the bad guy "get away."  As a general rule, I'd really prefer that cops didn't.  This is a fundamental difference and requires different tactics and a somewhat different mind set.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

