Good arts for getting to your gun

[lklawson]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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"?!?!?!?!

BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

Poser.

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

Laughfy laugh laugh.

 

[drop bear]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

This is what you've got left?

Sad.

 

[lklawson]

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

Laughfy laugh laugh.

Me? Here's your post:

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]

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]

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."

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[drop bear]

And more shooting from the grapple.