Concealed Carry and Martial Arts.

[elder999]

I don't drink in public, hang out at bars, nightclubs or the like. I don't do drugs or buy sex; these are the things that increase risk of being in close proximity to violent people..

This.

Unfortunately or otherwise, in terms of responsible concealed carry (and legally, in some places) it's unwise to carry in bars, nightclubs and the like. Ironic, then, that the place where one might be most likely to need a gun is a place where you can't have it. I do drink in public, hang out at bars, nightclubs and the like-though I save "getting drunk" for home, mostly-but I don't carry when I'm drinking-booze and guns just plain don't mix. I don't do drugs or buy sex, but I have a history of hanging out in pretty low places-don't much anymore...self defense begins with not being in places where your risk of having to defend yourself is increased......if you're going to such places, having an exit strategy is also part of self defense....

If you have the will, means and training, carrying a weapon is also part of it.....most of the martial artists I've known don't have anything against firearms or carrying concealed, though...

 

[Dirty Dog]

Do you have insurance, Bill?

I don't think the vast majority of us do not carry because we expect to need a gun. If I was going someplace where I anticipated the need for a gun, I wouldn't go. Or I'd go with a tactical assault team.
But then, I didn't expect to be assaulted by a knife wielding mugger either.
It's insurance. Hassle free if I don't need it. Vital, if I do.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

 

[elder999]

Sorry, I couldn't resist Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do you have insurance, Bill?

I don't think the vast majority of us do not carry because we expect to need a gun. If I was going someplace where I anticipated the need for a gun, I wouldn't go. Or I'd go with a tactical assault team.
But then, I didn't expect to be assaulted by a knife wielding mugger either.
It's insurance. Hassle free if I don't need it. Vital, if I do.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

Agreed. Again, I'm not against weapon carry. I think I see the upside as well as the downside involved in making that decision. What I am saying is that a) I am fortunate enough to live and work in an area that is relatively low in terms of violent assaults, and b) I take steps to minimize that risk. That doesn't mean I would not carry as well; just noting that self-defense is more than strapping on a piece.

And I would not say that carry is 'hassle free'. Most of us who have carried know that it's more than strapping on a watch every day in terms of hassle. Then there's the issue of concealed weapons holders being required, in many states, to keep it concealed, which can suck in the summertime. And of course, when one carries, it will be the one day when one is running late, in a hurry, and chooses not to pack that a weapon will suddenly be needed...Murphy's Law and such.

Choosing to carry is a responsibility, and not a simple one, in my mind. I'm glad there are law-abiding concealed weapons carriers out there. Unfortunately, when I point out some of the disadvantages of carrying a firearm, many people think I must hate guns or something. Apparently, a person who favors concealed carry must never speak of the downside, lest they be thought a wuss.

 

[elder999]

Agreed. Again, I'm not against weapon carry. I think I see the upside as well as the downside involved in making that decision. What I am saying is that a) I am fortunate enough to live and work in an area that is relatively low in terms of violent assaults, and b) I take steps to minimize that risk. That doesn't mean I would not carry as well; just noting that self-defense is more than strapping on a piece.

And I would not say that carry is 'hassle free'. Most of us who have carried know that it's more than strapping on a watch every day in terms of hassle. Then there's the issue of concealed weapons holders being required, in many states, to keep it concealed, which can suck in the summertime. And of course, when one carries, it will be the one day when one is running late, in a hurry, and chooses not to pack that a weapon will suddenly be needed...Murphy's Law and such.

Choosing to carry is a responsibility, and not a simple one, in my mind. I'm glad there are law-abiding concealed weapons carriers out there. Unfortunately, when I point out some of the disadvantages of carrying a firearm, many people think I must hate guns or something. Apparently, a person who favors concealed carry must never speak of the downside, lest they be thought a wuss.

It's (pun intended, so be prepared) a loaded situation....

New Mexico is an open carry state-in fact, we didn't have concealed carry permits until 12 years ago (I know that because I've had to renew twice, and will again next year)....having open-carried, I have to say that it made people nervous, even in the forest, where it's kind of prudent-while I can carry into a convenience store, even one that sells liquor, it can be, understandably, a bit unsettling for the people who work there...carrying concealed doesn't make anyone nervous, until they know you're carrying....

 

[Dirty Dog]

Bill, it's no more a hassle than putting my keys or wallet in my pocket.
It really is that simple.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, it's no more a hassle than putting my keys or wallet in my pocket.
It really is that simple.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

Simple? Yes.

Putting on my watch is simple. Sometimes I still can't be arsed to do it.

Daily carry requires discipline that some do not have. I know many with ccw permits who carry when they think they might need it. I submit that Murphy will use his Law to Roger them with a corn cob.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I agree, which is why putting my gun in the holster is as automatic as putting my wallet in my pocket.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree, which is why putting my gun in the holster is as automatic as putting my wallet in my pocket.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.

And again, you're not the norm, to the best of my personal experience. I have no doubt you pack 100% of the time. Others I know don't, because they've told me as much. The gun you don't have with you isn't much use. Thus, the imperative; if you carry, you have to carry all the time or what's the point. You clearly get that; but let's not pretend all lawful carriers do, because I happen to know differently.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Bill is making a point that is probably true. A lot of ccw holders take a ccw course and never train or do anything else. Which is not a lot different then how many LEO's get little to no training after the police academy. They do not seek it out or their department does not require them to get regular training. You DD, Elder999, myself and many of the people on the board are more of the exception. We carry all the time, know the laws and actually train.

 

[elder999]

Which is not a lot different then how many LEO's get little to no training after the police academy. They do not seek it out or their department does not require them to get regular training.

I am always a little amazed at the lack of shooting ability displayed by so many LEOs at the range.....at least they're there, shooting, but they don't seem to improve......they just requalify...I recognize that their sidearms aren't supposed to be their primary tool, but it would be better if they all shot at a higher standard. It's the same for CCW-the requirements and standards in NM aren't, frankly, that high-nor do they really need to be-getting the permit should be like first getting a driver's license, but most people don't practice nearly enough, or obtain more advanced training. For example, in NM you have to fire 25 rounds total. 15 rounds at 3 yards, 10 rounds at 7 yards. Each shot is worth 4 points. You need a 72%, or 18 shots, to pass, with a 12" x 18" target.You qualify based on type of gun used, semi-auto or wheel. The largest caliber shot qualifies you for all smaller calibers. So with my .50 qualification I'm covered for just about every conceivable semi-auto caliber there is down to the smallest.I also qualified with a revolver that would be ludicrous for concealed carry, and it qualified me for just about everything.

I did not have to draw from concealment-something that's essential, and requires training. There is also no training required for handgun retention, or any other essential close-quarters skills.

In some states it's even easier.

Requalifying is essentially the same as the basic qualifications above, and, while some people seek out additional training like I have, most don't.

 

[Tgace]

The fact of the matter is time and money.

It is a large organizational and financial effort to get officers ongoing training past simple qualifications.

And firearms training is just one skill amongst many that LEO's are expected to be proficient in.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

And while "additional training" (as in Gunsite, Front Sight, etc.) is great, the real place skill is gained is ongoing practice.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

If we look at departments though Tgace some place an emphasis on having their officers trained well and others well just do not. Take an example of where I used to live in Michigan. The city I lived in pretty much did not offer any training of consequence for their officers. Maybe once a year and a requalification at the range. The city just next to it which was headed by a friend of mine had requalification every three months and additional force on force and empty hand training every three months as well. They paid for officers to become instructors so that they always had in house training experts to conduct training. Unfortunately that is no standard across the country for ongoing training in regards to law enforcement. Of course going back to concealed weapons permit holders there is even less initial training and well ongoing training is just recertification which as Elder999 showed very basic and disappointing.

 

[Tgace]

Many States have DCJS/POST standards for required training hours, unfortunately most of those standards are for paper purposes vs substantial training.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

The fact of the matter is time and money.

It is a large organizational and financial effort to get officers ongoing training past simple qualifications.

And firearms training is just one skill amongst many that LEO's are expected to be proficient in.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

And I wasn't really singling out LEO's with my post-it's just an observation I've made over decades. I'm more appalled by civilians who get their CCW permit whose training ends with qualifying to carry, which appears to be the majority of them....(though quite a few of them were competent marksmen with pistols beforehand)...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I did not have to draw from concealment-something that's essential, and requires training. There is also no training required for handgun retention, or any other essential close-quarters skills.

Since you said, that, I'll share that when transitioning from Marine MP to civilian law enforcement, I heard many sneers about how 'unqualified' MPs were compared to their civilian counterparts. Yet we put more rounds downrange PER MONTH than they did per year in my experience. We trained, as you said, drawing from concealed carry. Shooting from concealed or covered positions. Shooting with the weak hand. Shooting with the weapon upside-down and using the pinky finger to pull the trigger. Firing with the weapon soaked in oil (simulating blood). Clearing multiple types of weapons malfunctions safely. Shooting with the weak eye. It went on and on. We did not just cup-and-saucer our pistols, bang out 25 shots at a silhouette target at 25 feet, and go get some beer.

 

[Tgace]

Since you said, that, I'll share that when transitioning from Marine MP to civilian law enforcement, I heard many sneers about how 'unqualified' MPs were compared to their civilian counterparts. Yet we put more rounds downrange PER MONTH than they did per year in my experience. We trained, as you said, drawing from concealed carry. Shooting from concealed or covered positions. Shooting with the weak hand. Shooting with the weapon upside-down and using the pinky finger to pull the trigger. Firing with the weapon soaked in oil (simulating blood). Clearing multiple types of weapons malfunctions safely. Shooting with the weak eye. It went on and on. We did not just cup-and-saucer our pistols, bang out 25 shots at a silhouette target at 25 feet, and go get some beer.

Funny. I was just about to say that the military is not much better when it comes to individual "expertise" in firearms handling (on the average). While some units get good training, many get "check the box" range time. Much like civillian LEO organizations, much depends on the individual unit (company, battalion, etc.) and the leaderships commitment to weapons training. All that is "required" is qualification when it comes down to it.

Certainly there is a lot more weapon handling (exercises, "wargames", battle drills, etc) in the military. But routine, ongoing, live fire individual proficiency training isn't as common as many people may think.

The thing I think many people don't realize is that there's a difference between training and proficiency. You can go to all sorts of high-speed "training", but unless you practice it you will not become proficient at it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Funny. I was just about to say that the military is not much better when it comes to individual "expertise" in firearms handling (on the average). While some units get good training, many get "check the box" range time. Much like civillian LEO organizations, much depends on the individual unit (company, battalion, etc.) and the leaderships commitment to weapons training. All that is "required" is qualification when it comes down to it.

Certainly there is a lot more weapon handling (exercises, "wargames", battle drills, etc) in the military. But routine, ongoing, live fire individual proficiency training isn't as common as many people may think.

The thing I think many people don't realize is that there's a difference between training and proficiency. You can go to all sorts of high-speed "training", but unless you practice it you will not become proficient at it.

Agreed in general. But Marine MPs have to train more often than your typical yearly rifle and pistol qual. I don't know about other services or MOSs.

 

[elder999]

The thing I think many people don't realize is that there's a difference between training and proficiency. You can go to all sorts of high-speed "training", but unless you practice it you will not become proficient at it.

Well, yeaha, but practice makes permanent......and if all people have to practice (and become proficient at) is the same "requalification," then that becomes all they're competent at....and, in many cases, it's not enough...not even close.

(There's a few things Jim Grover and I disagree with ,philosophically, but this is the kind of thing I'm talking about)