Good arts for getting to your gun

[Brian R. VanCise]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

This thread.....

 

[lklawson]

I am not sure I can support my posts.

Why start now?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Just got this video posted to my feed today

 

[lklawson]

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]

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

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.