What is your view?

[Don Rearic]

Originally posted by arnisador
Even today, an officer draws his or her firearm much less often than one might think and actually firing it remains a relatively rare occurrence.

What we were discussing is Officer Survival and how that works edged weapons vs. firearms in both a LEO and Civilian CCW context. Simple survival primary.

In that context, the Officer should have advanced training and what we were speaking about was primarily in that context.

It matters not what statistics are when you are the guy on the other end. The statistics then go to 100%. That is a problem with stats taken out of context.

Also, alot of those stats were drawn from "fatal shootings" or am I mistaken? That is different from merely firing as well.

The "social work" aspect as you put it is a big part of their work nowadays, for better or worse.

It was always there but the focus is more on that instead of advanced training in weapons handling. That was the active point being made. They have always been Peacemakers, but they had something to really back that up and that is being lost to a degree. Unless the Officer does it him/herself and that was the active point.

Drawing the weapon happens but firing it is rather uncommon.

That is still no excuse for not encouraging them to practice and in some cases, demanding it. You don't plan for the lowest common threat. You always plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Therefore, I must disagree with your statement that "it is the Officer that actually enjoys shooting that is going to be the most effective" unless you meant it in the essentially tautological sense of being most effective at shooting (which goes without saying). He or she won't necessarily be any more effective at the vast bulk of his or her job. Shooting things is not a large part of a police officer's job, unless their beat is on NBC.

As I said, we were speaking of individual survival and I don't see anyone that could criticize it. Further, don't think two studies cited makes up for the rest of the country. Stats be damned, there are Police every night in this country firing weapons. Guaranteed.

If I were a police officer I would want to be prepared for this despite the rarity.

You just underscored my point. You value your life and you would understand the danger. Many do not. Nor are they encouraged to do so in many cases. That, again, is an active point to be taken from my post.

But speaking for myself, I feel differently from you in that I do not lament the lack of gun owners amongst police officers (if this is indeed the case). It's only one tool of many; one might say the same about the lack of escrimadors, judoka, or psychologists. I would like to see more people going into police work because they want to serve the community, not because of their feelings for or against guns.

I never made a statement about anyone wanting to go into Police Work because they like firearms. I'll tell you something though, if I get pulled over at night because I have a turn signal or tail light out, I want the person stopping me in the dark to be supremely confident in not only their own safety, but their own skill. Part of that is precisely what I was speaking of. Close attention; an intimate knowledge of the weapons they carry.

No one is jumpy, every one is slow and careful. You know? I have my Son in the car almost every time I go out, I don't like the fact I have armed people around me either. I would like for them to be confident and the training breeds that, and above else, intimate familiarity with weapons brings that forth.

See the Driver's/Learner's Permit analogy.

We're now discussing politics rather than martial arts! Perhaps we will have to request a forum for that.

"We?" I'm discussing Tactical Firearms and other weapons use. I never injected that word at all. I think politics is a part of it, as it is a part of the world of Martial Arts...as a matter of fact.

If I should make a comment about the private ownership of firearms, relationships with Police, perhaps the NRA Membership, do not be so quick as to label it "political." It was never intended in that light.

Times do change, however, and that change is often brought about by Politicians, so I would not be offended if it is the gravel at the bottom of the stream we are speaking about.

[Politics has in the past and will in the future, make a mark on Martial Arts. Watch for it. Especially with Bladed Arts.]

The bottom line is...as I said in closing above. This is basically about Tactical Mindset. This Forum is about Knife Arts. I would think a tad drift as long as the base, root of knowledge is still being discussed would be acceptable. This went from, "What is your view?" As a feeling out process, running forward, some would say fast forward, through counterknife and weapon to weapon attributes and tactics and reasons why certain things have been ignored.

I would hate to see it suppressed since it is flowing so beautifully and it might go back and forth several times and come full circle if allowed to do so.

When we speak of "Knife Arts," we are speaking of Weapons Arts. Since people carry clubs, telescoping batons, edged weapons and firearms, I would think that in the Modern Application that we could get into "versus" discussions as this has been, with some drift. It really is the same as having a Kobudo Forum with a thread about Nunchaku Vs. Sai. We are just speaking of Modern Weapons and Tactical Applications of same.

 

[Don Rearic]

As I suspected, there was more to the statistics than meets the eye. Context times three, always required.

Consider this statement:

From the "Portland" Article:
- Only 4.4 officers were involved annually in fatal shootings. In other words, and average officer could expect to be on the force 193 years without getting involved in a fatal shooting.

What exactly does this mean? This is deliberate hyperbole. No one lives 193 years so the theoretical model offered as an interesting statistic is simply...not interesting to someone like me. It's merely someone crunching numbers to have filler material for their article.

Let's get to some meat.

Orginally from the "Portland" Article:
Three policemen fired 16 shots to kill Bryan French, 21, as he held Nathan Thomas hostage on January 16 in Thomas' Laurelhurst home. French was hit 14 times; thomas was accidentally hit twice in the head and also died.

That was not "accidental." That was negeligent and it was a negligence brought about by:

1. Pack mentality. Numbers to make up for individual skill.
2. A lack of overall skill.

One or two of those Officers were skilled. One or two were not, the hostage being hit twice...in the head...resulting in his death. Could have been two officers who missed hitting him twice or one Officer missed twice. I don't know.

I see no clearer picture to precisely make my point.

What is more important? What if that was my Child someone took hostage or yours?

The possibility is always there. People never consider these things. They have that firearm for a reason. They should be skilled with it.

Also, if you look in that same article where are all of those misses going? Every bullet has a final resting place. All things to consider.

I'm not trying to be combative. I'm trying to show you something.

 

[IFAJKD]

I sense a gun control issue coming on. have em, like em , use em, support em, never all eggs in one basket, still prefer a knife.

 

[Don Rearic]

Originally posted by IFAJKD
I sense a gun control issue coming on. have em, like em , use em, support em, never all eggs in one basket, still prefer a knife.

Maybe, I hope you don't think so from me. I'm not headed that way at all. If from Arnisador, can I place a [shrug] here without drawing upon wrath?

I have no idea really. I don't support gun control at all. Anymore than I support stick or knife control. Both of which have already happened.

But, as the warning suggested, we should not go that way and keep this Tactical...

I think people have a right to own and carry what they wish. Guns on down. That's another thing.

The first thing to remember is...the need for the individual Officer to be skilled as we stated. If they are skilled, they are much more equipped to handle very dangerous situations.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Don Rearic
Also, alot of those stats were drawn from "fatal shootings" or am I mistaken? That is different from merely firing as well.

I think that that is correct--most of these are drawn from cases where there is a fatality. Still I think that adding in non-fatal shootings doesn't lead to a huge change--suppose it was a factor of two change? It's still the case that skill in firing a firearm is a rarely needed skill, however important it is when needed.

Another point I didn't mention is that disproportionately many instances of shootings by police are done by special teams (SWAT/Special Emergency Response Teams/etc.) so that the likelihood for an average police offcier is even lower than the statistics would indicate.

That is still no excuse for not encouraging them to practice and in some cases, demanding it. You don't plan for the lowest common threat. You always plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Agreed! They are of course required to qualify with the weapon periodically but I know you feel that that is often inadequate. But there is only so much time for training if they are to patrol and to file paperwork as well as train, and there are other weapons and non-weapons skills to train in. It's a trade-off that different agencies handle differently. And remember, it may not be just a job but it is a job and at some point they will want to put it behind them when the day is done and relax!

I never made a statement about anyone wanting to go into Police Work because they like firearms.

Sorry, that's what I had understood from your post, from comments such as "Sadly, today...most Police Officers are not Gun Owners" and that police departments are becoming "politicized and antigun". I inferred that you meant you'd like to see more police officers by (private) gun owners and I disagreed with this.

I very much agree with your comment that if I was pulled over I'd rather have it be by someone who is confident enough with their weapon to not be jumpy.

I would hate to see it suppressed since it is flowing so beautifully and it might go back and forth several times and come full circle if allowed to do so.

I don't think there is any need to suppress it as long as the discussion is tactical as you say, with the occasional drift. I am the one who began the drift by only responding to the part of your post that had to do with police work in general; the "politics" comment was directed at my post that moved us in that direction.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Don Rearic

Maybe, I hope you don't think so from me. I'm not headed that way at all. If from Arnisador, can I place a [shrug] here without drawing upon wrath?

I'm not looking for wrath--can I not disagree with you on this issue? If indeed we do disagree; it appears that what I took from your post was not what you had meant. This will continue to happen in a written medium.

I have no idea really. I don't support gun control at all.

Nor do I. It's unconstitutional and un-American. People must be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms if they desire to do so.

Personally, I've been saying for years that I'd like to have a firearm around the house for emergencies (despite the fact that we have kids) but have never done it, in part because I fear I lack the time to get proper training. I do not have much experience with a pistol and am philosophically opposed (like most of us here) to wielding a weapon I do not know how to use.

By emergencies, I imagine civil emergencies--I can't see locating and unlocking and loading the weapon during a burglary. I'm thinking lengthy massive power outages and resulting unrest.

 

[Don Rearic]

Originally posted by arnisador
I'm not looking for wrath--can I not disagree with you on this issue? If indeed we do disagree; it appears that what I took from your post was not what you had meant. This will continue to happen in a written medium.

Good! I'm sticking my toes in the water of the pool to test the temperature. You have no idea where you are going until you get there sometimes!

I just did not want to see it shut down.

Nor do I. It's unconstitutional and un-American. People must be allowed to exercise their right to bear arms if they desire to do so.

Agreed.

Personally, I've been saying for years that I'd like to have a firearm around the house for emergencies (despite the fact that we have kids) but have never done it, in part because I fear I lack the time to get proper training. I do not have much experience with a pistol and am philosophically opposed (like most of us here) to wielding a weapon I do not know how to use.

That's very logical and incredibly mature and responsible and you are right on the money. You never want to have something in the house to avert a tragedy just to have it cause one. Agreed. Very mature outlook.

By emergencies, I imagine civil emergencies--I can't see locating and unlocking and loading the weapon during a burglary. I'm thinking lengthy massive power outages and resulting unrest.

It has to be a pattern of behavior coupled with teaching the children as well. It has to do with whatever media your kids watch, it has to do with so many things. Having any firearm around children is an awesome responsibility to be sure.

 

[Bob]

Just for general knowledge, Massad Ayoob has some good tapes on guns and home defense. Basically, he outlines strategies that place safety of neighbors and family memebers as primary importance.....
Bob

 

[DWright]

Originally posted by Don Rearic



(It has to be a pattern of behavior coupled with teaching the children as well. It has to do with whatever media your kids watch, it has to do with so many things. Having any firearm around children is an awesome responsibility to be sure. )

My husband and I are both gun collectors, and weapons enthusiasts. My children are taught gun safety not only when the guns are out, but just in daily life. What they see on TV sparks conversations, as does any stick or knife practice.

A stick or a knife is just as deadly in the right hands as a firearm.

As for police self defense: when I went to the police academy, (many years back) we were given 16 hours of hand to hand combat, and 40 hours of handgun safety classes, followed by 30 hours on the rang. Drawing a firearm is rare in most departments, but self defense is used regularly.

If anyone is familiar with Loren Christensen he has written on the topic many times. He is also a Portland Police Officer, and an accomplished martial artist.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by DWright
A stick or a knife is just as deadly in the right hands as a firearm.

Yes, though I think a firearm is also deadly in the wrong (i.e. untrained) hands, which is less so of a knife and even less so of a stick. All can be deadly even in untrained hands but a firearm has range and power and ease of use the others can't match. There's also the psychological difference between having to stab someone who's up close and shooting someone who is 30 feet away.

I am reminded of a line from the sitcom All in the Family:

Gloria: Daddy, 300 people in this city were killed last year by hanguns!

Archie: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?

(This is quoted from memory.)

 

[DWright]

The "All in the Family" quote is exactly my point. No matter the means the outcome is the same.

Your right about the psychological aspect of fighting with a knife. You have to be pretty close. However, in the many homicides I have had to investigate, I had to swab the victim for gun powder residue. Most untrained gun users do not obey the proper distance rules either.

Practice firearm disarms too!

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by DWright
Your right about the psychological aspect of fighting with a knife. You have to be pretty close. However, in the many homicides I have had to investigate, I had to swab the victim for gun powder residue. Most untrained gun users do not obey the proper distance rules either.

Practice firearm disarms too!

Yes, it's surprising how often people will miss even from close distances (not that one would want to bet on it of course). An untrained person may get very close for any number of reasons. Still, it's emotionally easier I think to pull the trigger than to stab someone.

 

[DWright]

Arnisador,

I think your right about it being emotionally easier to pull the trigger. No matter how close to an opponent it only takes "about" 7 pounds of pressure to fire a handgun. It takes substantially more effort to fatally wound someone with a knife. (Making an assumption that the untrained person is going to stab at random, and not go for vital targets.)

 

[Don Rearic]

Originally posted by DWright

Originally posted by Don Rearic
My husband and I are both gun collectors, and weapons enthusiasts. My children are taught gun safety not only when the guns are out, but just in daily life. What they see on TV sparks conversations, as does any stick or knife practice.

I think that is the way to go, honestly. Not only is it Traditional, it is American. It is safer that way. I think Gun Control Advocates, in their blind hatred of firearms, do the kids a great disservice when they recommend that the children of gun owners never be "around" the guns. You make the guns a symbolic item of curiousity then. Curiousity does not only kill cats.

What they are trying to do is raise up a generation of kids who have not been exposed to firearms and will not like them nearly so much. They consider this, "attacking the culture of violence in America." It is social engineering, another area entirely.

But it is great that you do that and proper.

A stick or a knife is just as deadly in the right hands as a firearm.

Agreed, all depends on who shows up for the dance, or, if they have raw power or they are EDPs.

As for police self defense: when I went to the police academy, (many years back) we were given 16 hours of hand to hand combat, and 40 hours of handgun safety classes, followed by 30 hours on the rang. Drawing a firearm is rare in most departments, but self defense is used regularly.

That's very true. It costs roughly about $50,000.00 to put a new Officer on the street, this varies from area to area. [Source was the Congressional Debate over the 1994 Crime Bill which became the Omnibus Crime Act/1994] And I would like to see the firearms time increased to 80 hours [2 standard 40 hour work week equivalents, don't we owe recruits and the people they serve THAT for what they might be called upon to do?] and at least an equal amount of time in all facets of Hand to Hand. And have In-Service Training be more than "lip service."

I think it would be great if there was a requirement, with a Program to handle it, that would allow, possibly demand, an Officer to simply go to the range once per month. Even if it is just for 30 minutes, to expend 1, 2 or possibly 3 magazines of ammunition out of their weapon.

It would be great if there was an on-going Program for Unarmed Combatives as well. But I would not hold my breath waiting for that.

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by Don Rearic


I think that is the way to go, honestly. Not only is it Traditional, it is American. It is safer that way. I think Gun Control Advocates, in their blind hatred of firearms, do the kids a great disservice when they recommend that the children of gun owners never be "around" the guns. You make the guns a symbolic item of curiousity then. Curiousity does not only kill cats.

A friend of mine who is the Chief of a department told me that when his first son was old enough to show an interest in guns, he never denied showing his son and educating him about firearms. He told me that after a while his son was no longer fasinated with his gun. So overall I think that as parents, uncles and aunts we should nurture the curiosity constructively and safely pretty soon they will not be so fasinated with the fantasy and hype they see on TV, and become more in touch with the reality. I did the same thing with my oldest nephew and knives. I showed him a variety of knives and how to handle them safely. I especially emphasized the dangers of butterfly knifes because from experience it has shown to be the one knife that kids tend to be so fasinated with.......

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Don Rearic
I think Gun Control Advocates, in their blind hatred of firearms

That's certainly demonizing the opposition, don't you think? I don't believe in gun control either but I see people who see the large number of deaths caused by guns and want to do something about it. I suspect any hatred of firearms is secondary to a hatred of needless (in many cases) deaths. I don't think they have the right approach for dealing with it when all things are considered but ascribing to them such simplistic motivations is, amongst other things, underestimating the opponent.

I prefer to think that we agree on the problem but not on the solution.

I think it would be great if there was a requirement, with a Program to handle it, that would allow, possibly demand, an Officer to simply go to the range once per month. Even if it is just for 30 minutes, to expend 1, 2 or possibly 3 magazines of ammunition out of their weapon.

It would be great if there was an on-going Program for Unarmed Combatives as well. But I would not hold my breath waiting for that.

I agree. But unlike many (not all) military units that are allowed to do nothing but train, we need police on the streets. If you assume a 40-hour work week and make a 1/2 hour per four weeks requirement then you either have to say "it's on your own time--deal with it" or accept that every cop is spending 1/2 hour less on the streets out of every 160 hours (maybe more if you include preparation time/time reaching the facility). For a large city with hundreds or thousands of officers and a goal of so many officers on the street at any given time, that's a measurable cost in extra officers that must be hired; for a small one it still has an effect.

For example, I think NYC still has more officers than the Coast Guard has uniformed personnel; think of the cost in covering those beats, ammunition, etc. I'm not disagreeing with you that this would be nice if resources were plentiful but all these mandates have costs. Similarly for CQC training which I expect woul dbe more useful for the officer, though the officer's marksmanship skills are perhaps more important for the citizenry (which might be affected by errant bullets).

 

[knifeman.dk]

Can anyone help me find Dan Inosantos video "surviving edged weapons" in PAL format.
Great discussions, i learn a lot!:asian:

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by knifeman.dk
Can anyone help me find Dan Inosantos video "surviving edged weapons" in PAL format.
Great discussions, i learn a lot!:asian:

I am sorry, but what is "PAL" format????

 

[Bob Hubbard]

A European video format. In the US, our vids are in NTSC (I believe) while in Europe, they are in PAL. Has something to do with the signal rate of the video (50htz vs 60htz) I think.

Perhaps someone else can give a little more info?

 

[Don Rearic]

Originally posted by arnisador
That's certainly demonizing the opposition, don't you think?

Indeed, it is to a degree. To what degree is acceptable to anyone is intensely personal.

Let me try to explain this without making it destructively political, which is a road we don't want to go down...

I have to feel personally insulted, to a degree, by some of the vitriolic rhetoric spoken by some in that [Antigun] Community.

Because I am a Gun Owner, and even worse, an NRA Member, I am the "source" and the root "cause" of much of the "gun violence" in this country...so say some. Demonizing has a place. Who is correct?

Would it be more correct to say that a majority of Antigun people have a "blind hatred of firearms" or that I, and others like me, are responsible and accountable for the carnage on the streets?

Please understand something...everything has its place. Yin and Yang, light and dark.

Since I am in no way responsible for the carnage on the streets, I do feel insulted by that when I hear that. The NRA, as a side issue, is not a faceless, monolithic monstrosity, it is made up of good people, so, when they demonize that, they demonize good people and they do it so often and above and beyond what I have said, I don't think I have even have to defend it or speak up to it even more.

More from your next quote which will clarify this further.

I don't believe in gun control either but I see people who see the large number of deaths caused by guns and want to do something about it. I suspect any hatred of firearms is secondary to a hatred of needless (in many cases) deaths.

I would divide them into camps, actually.

1. Some do have a blind hatred of firearms because they blame inanimate objects for the acts of human beings.

2. Some, as you suggest, hate them but hate the carnage, the hatred of the gun is secondary. But it is still lacking in logic and is purely emotional in nature.

3. Some Gun Control Advocates do not hate guns, they hate guns they do not control.

Like I said, without typing up a couple thousand words [which I could do and have done before but I don't like to do it here as it is clearly not welcome here] I have to leave it at that.

I think the "opposition" you speak of, meaning Gun Control Advocates, have done more than their fair share of demonizing people like me. In other words, what I wrote is in fact true in many cases, but not nearly so hostile as some of the words that come from said "Opposition."

One example and only one.

Rosie O'Donnell. She clearly stated that people who own guns should be in prison. She clearly stated she does not care if they have a "right" to them. That's fairly "hate filled." That's blind hatred, to a fault.

Interestingly enough, she got aced in the media as a hypocrite some time after the smoke cleared when she ambushed Tom Selleck on her Show. He was merely there to plug his Flick, she assaulted him for being an NRA Member.

The interesting part was, her Bodyguard applied for a Concealed Carry Permit in Connecticut, where she lived at the time.

Citing the safety of her child[ren] going back and forth to school, etc., she WAS justified in wanting armed protection.

The only problem is, she does not think YOU or I should have that same right.

Futhermore, that would have been breaking the Law for her Bodyguard to be on school property, even an "Official" parking area of the school with a firearm. That is reserved only for Police Officers and other Law Enforcement Personnel. In other words, she fully intended on breaking a Law she supported to protect her child[ren].

And we know her Bodyguard was not a Police Officer because if he had been, he would have never had to apply for the Permit, he could have carried with the Badge and Work I.D. after being cleared for Off-Duty Employment in Executive Protection.

So, in the final analysis, what I said is mild and tame compared to the audacity and hatred of some. In fact, I did not even state it with malice as they so often do.

Similarly for CQC training which I expect woul dbe more useful for the officer, though the officer's marksmanship skills are perhaps more important for the citizenry (which might be affected by errant bullets).

Your points are duly noted and I agree with them. The question becomes, how can we do better?

Let me put some mandatory knife content in here that coincides with the "blind hatred of guns" comments. That way, this all means something and does not just become, "another gun control rant."

We see the same exact fear, loathing and...hatred, for knives.

If we examine knives, we see that most of the legislation that has been passed with regard to them is based on fear, ignorance and hatred. People tend to hate what they fear.

Balisongs are illegal to carry in almost every State. Oregon is Balisong and Switchblade friendly, but they cannot be carried concealed. Open carry of both is perfectly fine. [I have a source if you do not believe this, Oregon liberalized their Switchblade Laws a few years ago. The State Law against them was struck down as being vague, Benchmade has made Switchblades in Oregon for quite some time because of this.]

Why is the Balisong [Butterfly Knife] illegal in most places? Some places you cannot even collect them, simple possession in the home is illegal.

Because of fear, the fear breeding a hatred for this inanimate object. Why? Because it can be flashy, because it has some audio cues [click-clack] that people find to be menacing along with the flash of metallic handles and steel blade...

Same-same with a Switchblade, since 1958, they have been tightly controlled. They were unable to ban them outright, so they put it through the Commerce Laws and controlled Interstate Commerce of them.

Why? Audio cue with flashing steel. Same thing with firearms really, some gangs embraced them because they were flashy and fancy, so instead of addressing the problem, they addressed an inanimate object.

It is Symbolism over Substance which by its very nature is emotional and illogical, agreed? They really did nothing to the gangs that embraced the Switchblade [Auto] Knife other than make it even more desirable to have one! It was then the Forbidden Fruit.

We see this dynamic constantly. People...without a thought, every day, pick up a knife which kills more people in a year or two in this country than Switchblades and Balisongs ever have. That every day knife being a simple kitchen knife.

Ask Police Officers what people are killed with in the vast majority of cases. Kitchen Knives, screwdrivers and all sorts of razor knives...there are many different types of those knives.

In fact, we spoke of Calibre Press' "Surviving Edged Weapons" material before. They cited back in 1988 or 1989 when that was produced that the screwdriver is basically accepted as the #2 Weapon in the "Edged Weapons Category" in The United States when it comes to E.W. Attacks...

Yet, all of this legislation over the years centers around things people fear and/or hate. It is counterproductive, as a Society, to address cosmetics and not the reality of the situation and that is the point I wish to make with my comments.

In the words of David B. Kopel, who has forgotten more about the wiley ways of Gun Control Advocates than we are likely to ever know...

"Substituting gun homicides with knife homicides is not my idea of progress..."

There is ample reason to believe that the knife will overtake the firearm in the hands of criminals if guns are ever banned. In fact, in every year except one, between 1976 and 1994 [I have to look at the numbers again and I can post them] anything you can place in the edged weapons category were used more often than long guns...rifles and shotguns. In every year except one. Those are fatalities, not merely assaults.

Interesting conversation.