Anti-Grappling Techniques...

[drop bear]

Well Drop Bear the method may not change based on your training but your mindset better be in a different place. If I am carrying and someone disables me then they can take my firearm and use it not only against me but against other individuals including my family. So that does change the situation from simple bar fight where the fighters have more of a dominance monkey type mindset. Were they might be happy just being the dominant person rather than potentially killing you and or killing other people.

It might change the mindset about whether or not you should carry.

But i haven't met many people who have gone into a fight hoping to loose.

But ok specifically how does your training ajust from say just getting bashed to being killed?

 

[Charlemagne]

Exactly TonyU and even as a civilian if you are carrying ccw you can't afford to lose either! Fortunately in your profession you usually have help coming or already there!

Not always as fast as one might think, unfortunately. A good example of needing to know grappling (though I know you are already a believer).

 

[Charlemagne]

Grappling with a firearm.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It might change the mindset about whether or not you should carry.

But i haven't met many people who have gone into a fight hoping to loose.

But ok specifically how does your training ajust from say just getting bashed to being killed?

You are right in that no one wants to lose a fight. However, in a as Rory Miller likes to say a "monkey dance" or a fight for dominance and status someone in general will be beaten down and then put in their place. This in general doesn't necessarily include then killing them. The same cannot be said for some other forms of violence where the end goal can include intention of maiming or killing. If you are a law enforcement officer, military, civilian carrying a ccw, etc. you actually when involved in an altercation have the potential for it to become a lethal confrontation right from the get go because of the tools you are carrying. If an LEO loses a physical confrontation his firearm is available to the resisting criminal and his life is in danger and potentially other people's lives are also now in danger. Hence why TonyU said he can't afford to lose. That is simply not an option if you are carrying a firearm.

So let's talk about training and how tactics have to change. Let's just take for instance the idea that you carry a firearm on your strong side. In my case that would be my right side as I am right handed. My grappling has to account for this. I have to blade or keep that side back to keep my handgun to the back and away from my opponent. I have to have retention skills for this firearm in case the individual tries to grab it. If I engage and we are on the ground I cannot or should not pass to my right side because it brings the firearm right to my opponents field of vision and right where his hands are. Everything I do will be to maximize my protection of that firearm as well as create the necessary space to utilize it if necessary all while dominating the grappling encounter without using it unless needed. These are things in my grappling that are optimized whether it is for using a non-lethal or lethal tool. So the mindset will be different because I am bringing a potentially lethal tool into the environment when carrying a firearm or a knife.

The above should also make it even more of a reason why an individual with a firearm should avoid conflict unless their job requires them to handle conflict such as an LEO, soldier, etc. If you carry for work or as a civilian you should have really good awareness, avoidance and de-escalation skills so that you can avoid violence where possible.

 

[JP3]

Well Drop Bear the method may not change based on your training but your mindset better be in a different place. If I am carrying and someone disables me then they can take my firearm and use it not only against me but against other individuals including my family. So that does change the situation from simple bar fight where the fighters have more of a dominance monkey type mindset. Were they might be happy just being the dominant person rather than potentially killing you and or killing other people.

I get that, but wouldn't that also be an argument to Not carry?

Sorry, distinct thread re-route possible here, feel free to ignore this sub-topic if you want.

If the mere act of carrying a personal protection handgun in concealed-carry means that you are actually, and in a weird sort of schizoid split between intentionally/unintentionally actually driving the level of contestation/aggression upwards, then is that not a bad idea?

Note, I'm not saying do not go concealed-carry, that's not it. I personally don't carry, but that's because of the same thing I've got about spending time training with weapons -- with my kind of luck, the one time ever that I'd need it, it'll be at the other end of the couch or some such and then I'd have screwed myself since I put myself in an unarmed situation but mis-spent my training.

What I'm trying to convey, probably ineffectually, is the mindset of thinking that "I have to up the ante just because I'm carrying and maybe my weapon could be under the control of someone I don't want it to be when with friends or family, and therefore sort of forcing myself to engage at a higher level instead of the appropriate level, might be a bit... improperly perceived?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Certainly that is a viable reason why someone would not carry. JP3 that is a choice every individual has to make based on their mental preparation for conflict. It is a big responsibility to carry a firearm. As a firearms instructor I personally imply this when I teach. It is very unfortunate that most people pass a ccw course and never train and do not understand just how big this responsibility is.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I would add that if you carry concealed you should have really good awareness, avoidance and de-escalation skills so that you hopefully never have to engage in violence. The Friday night fight for fun simply shouldn't happen. Violence shouldn't be taken lightly and you should avoid it whenever possible unless of course your profession requires you to engage.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I get that, but wouldn't that also be an argument to Not carry?

Sorry, distinct thread re-route possible here, feel free to ignore this sub-topic if you want.

If the mere act of carrying a personal protection handgun in concealed-carry means that you are actually, and in a weird sort of schizoid split between intentionally/unintentionally actually driving the level of contestation/aggression upwards, then is that not a bad idea?

Note, I'm not saying do not go concealed-carry, that's not it. I personally don't carry, but that's because of the same thing I've got about spending time training with weapons -- with my kind of luck, the one time ever that I'd need it, it'll be at the other end of the couch or some such and then I'd have screwed myself since I put myself in an unarmed situation but mis-spent my training.

What I'm trying to convey, probably ineffectually, is the mindset of thinking that "I have to up the ante just because I'm carrying and maybe my weapon could be under the control of someone I don't want it to be when with friends or family, and therefore sort of forcing myself to engage at a higher level instead of the appropriate level, might be a bit... improperly perceived?

This is part of why I don't carry. It's not necessarily an argument against carrying in general. For some people their profession or their life circumstances are such that the potential advantages of having a lethal weapon at hand outweigh the potential downsides. For myself, in almost 53 years of life I have been in a few violent confrontations, but I have never been in a situation where I needed a lethal weapon. I have been in a few situations where having a lethal weapon on my person might have made things worse. The potential for escalating the stakes that you mention is one of those factors which might have led to bad outcomes.

At this point in my life, I don't see my circumstances becoming more dangerous to the point where carrying a lethal weapon carries more benefits than risks. If they ever do, I'm open to revisiting my options.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You have one. I have one too. Can we have peace?

 

[drop bear]

I get that, but wouldn't that also be an argument to Not carry?

Sorry, distinct thread re-route possible here, feel free to ignore this sub-topic if you want.

If the mere act of carrying a personal protection handgun in concealed-carry means that you are actually, and in a weird sort of schizoid split between intentionally/unintentionally actually driving the level of contestation/aggression upwards, then is that not a bad idea?

Note, I'm not saying do not go concealed-carry, that's not it. I personally don't carry, but that's because of the same thing I've got about spending time training with weapons -- with my kind of luck, the one time ever that I'd need it, it'll be at the other end of the couch or some such and then I'd have screwed myself since I put myself in an unarmed situation but mis-spent my training.

What I'm trying to convey, probably ineffectually, is the mindset of thinking that "I have to up the ante just because I'm carrying and maybe my weapon could be under the control of someone I don't want it to be when with friends or family, and therefore sort of forcing myself to engage at a higher level instead of the appropriate level, might be a bit... improperly perceived?

There were a few times I had to put the mag light away going in to a fight for that reason. If I had it I would pretty much have to bash dudes with it.

It is not a good grappling tool.

 

[drop bear]

You are right in that no one wants to lose a fight. However, in a as Rory Miller likes to say a "monkey dance" or a fight for dominance and status someone in general will be beaten down and then put in their place. This in general doesn't necessarily include then killing them. The same cannot be said for some other forms of violence where the end goal can include intention of maiming or killing. If you are a law enforcement officer, military, civilian carrying a ccw, etc. you actually when involved in an altercation have the potential for it to become a lethal confrontation right from the get go because of the tools you are carrying. If an LEO loses a physical confrontation his firearm is available to the resisting criminal and his life is in danger and potentially other people's lives are also now in danger. Hence why TonyU said he can't afford to lose. That is simply not an option if you are carrying a firearm.

So let's talk about training and how tactics have to change. Let's just take for instance the idea that you carry a firearm on your strong side. In my case that would be my right side as I am right handed. My grappling has to account for this. I have to blade or keep that side back to keep my handgun to the back and away from my opponent. I have to have retention skills for this firearm in case the individual tries to grab it. If I engage and we are on the ground I cannot or should not pass to my right side because it brings the firearm right to my opponents field of vision and right where his hands are. Everything I do will be to maximize my protection of that firearm as well as create the necessary space to utilize it if necessary all while dominating the grappling encounter without using it unless needed. These are things in my grappling that are optimized whether it is for using a non-lethal or lethal tool. So the mindset will be different because I am bringing a potentially lethal tool into the environment when carrying a firearm or a knife.

The above should also make it even more of a reason why an individual with a firearm should avoid conflict unless their job requires them to handle conflict such as an LEO, soldier, etc. If you carry for work or as a civilian you should have really good awareness, avoidance and de-escalation skills so that you can avoid violence where possible.

Tactics that specifically protect tools make sense. I am having a mental run down of grappling techniques. And sloppyness would expose your gun. Can't think of much else.

Actually side control on their left hand side might give an opening. But I tend to scarf or Kesa gatame on the streets because it is easier on the knees.

Mount would have to be pretty lazy to get a gun.

Any escapes you should be underhooking the near arm to death.

Anyhow. So the mental difference seems to be avoidance rather than a tactical difference. Which was what confused me. I mean I would love to not afford to lose but generaly the situation has the final say in that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What kind of self-protection do you have when you ride bike in the middle of nowhere?

 

[drop bear]

What kind of self-protection do you have when you ride bike in the middle of nowhere?

Jump on a survival forum one day for a laugh.

"What gun should I take swimming?"

not joking here.
Question of the Day: How Do You Pool Carry? - The Truth About Guns

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

"What gun should I take swimming?"

This is why some weapon are designed to be used under water. You put your finger through the loop so you can still swim with your hand and you won't lose your weapon under water.

 

[drop bear]

This is why some weapon are designed to be used under water. You put your finger through the loop so you can still swim with your hand and you won't lose your weapon under water.

The best weapon to carry While swimming is being Australian.

No Cookies | The Courier Mail