Good arts for getting to your gun

[CB Jones]

Or police by the way fire 30 rounds a year. to prepare them for lethal force.

incorrect

 

[drop bear]

Only by getting hired by our agency or having your agency send you to our training facility. Lol.

What sort of defensive training do the police do on their own time?

 

[drop bear]

incorrect

Our police. Sorry typo.

 

[CB Jones]

What sort of defensive training do the police do on their own time?

Different things (Folk Style Wrestling, BJJ, Boxing, Kenpo, etc...) depending on what is available to them in their area. Again, It is advocated that you train some type of grappling so that you can get back to your feet and disengage. Just too many things can go wrong trying to draw while still engaged.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So not even half *** tactics to use lethal force.

I mean can we suggest that just because we are preparing someone for lethal force does not guarantee we are doing a good job.

Our police by the way fire 30 rounds a year. to prepare them for lethal force.

Oh. and it is like saying a first aid course doesn't teach you first aid. Just the legalities of first aid. Which would be silly.

CCW class isn't a class about how to use a weapon. It's a class on the legalities of it. They do a basic test to make sure the person can operate the gun, but there's no assessment of proficiency. The "class" part is all lecture. But then, they don't call it a firearms tactics course. People (at least those I've spoken with) don't go in expecting to be taught how to use their gun, nor how to deploy it in dangerous circumstances. It's a CYA course, at best. It does what it was purpose-built to do, and not much else.

It would be like if folks going to a "First Aid" course knew that all it was supposed to do was teach them what their legal responsibilities and liabilities were. It'd be a useful course, but not what you and I would think a First Aid course should be.

And yeah, so no requirement to even get taught half *** tactics before getting the right to carry. I don't see any real wisdom in that.

 

[CB Jones]

I just don't understand why you wouldn't try and separate from your attacker before trying to draw? It doesn't make sense not to. Why would you take the risk of drawing while wrestling with someone unless you just didn't have any other options.

 

[drop bear]

I just don't understand why you wouldn't try and separate from your attacker before trying to draw? It doesn't make sense not to. Why would you take the risk of drawing while wrestling with someone unless you just didn't have any other options.

Two reasons.

I would want to take the first opportunity to shift the odds of a fight in my favor as I would be concerned I might not get another one.

And if I can draw a gun and prevent you from stopping me. I am ultimately protecting that gun. To draw it out I have to keep it clear from you. So even if I don't draw the gun. Positioning so I can is pretty much always going to be in my favor.

This is still just grappling but with a change of priorities.

 

[CB Jones]

I would want to take the first opportunity to shift the odds of a fight in my favor as I would be concerned I might not get another one.

Fair enough. But are you justified at that point in using lethal force? And is it worth the risk of introducing a lethal weapon into the fight?

And if I can draw a gun and prevent you from stopping me.

Thats a big if. If you fail and I end up with it ....you are dead.

I am ultimately protecting that gun.

Yet the most secure and easiest place to retain and protect it is inside the holster.

To draw it out I have to keep it clear from you.

But that is a game with zero room for error. You make a mistake....you die.

Positioning so I can is pretty much always going to be in my favor.

This is still just grappling but with a change of priorities.

Why not use those grappling skills to maintain control and work back up to your feet and draw the gun once you can be sure I can't get my hands on it.

Once you introduce a gun into the fight, your options become extremely limited and while engaged in grappling you run the risk of losing it no matter what your skill is.



Basic rule is you never want your gun inside the reach of the bad guy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Two reasons.

I would want to take the first opportunity to shift the odds of a fight in my favor as I would be concerned I might not get another one.

And if I can draw a gun and prevent you from stopping me. I am ultimately protecting that gun. To draw it out I have to keep it clear from you. So even if I don't draw the gun. Positioning so I can is pretty much always going to be in my favor.

This is still just grappling but with a change of priorities.

In that second paragraph, you're saying the same thing others are, DB. They didn't say they wouldn't protect it - just that they wouldn't draw if there's not a safe enough space to do so. I agree that working toward drawing is about 90% the same as just keeping them from the gun (the other 10% is you trying to get your arm free to get to the gun).

If I have a gun on my hip and am grappling, I'm certainly going to have a partial focus of retention (complete focus if they are actively going for it).

 

[lklawson]

How long is a CCW course out of intrests sake?

It varies from state to state.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Not much. I carried a gun as a security giuard. And fought guys with bats and handcuffs.

But I never shot anybody from a wrestle.

Is it more complicated than using a mobile phone from a wrestle?


Are you suggesting the better wrester wouldn't win here?

I don't remember suggesting anything one way or another in my reply to you. To be blunt I am questioning your qualifications to be able to offer opinions on the martial application of firearms use. I still haven't seen any real description of why your opinion on fighting with a firearm is based on anything other than speculation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

When you are choosing to undergo the training you will also hopefully seek out good training.

That's nice. But you specifically wrote, "Training that people attend because they have to tends to be different to training people do because they actually want to aquire a skill." But the fact is, in the firearms world once you get past the basics most of the classes tend to be the same. Take a "combat carbine" class. I've spoken with instructors who tell me that they get military and LEO guys who are forced to go and they have a different attitude than non-LEO civilians who pony up their own money. The class is the same but the attitudes are often different.

Heck, most of the folks teaching those "combat carbine" classes are either former military or LEO (both active and retired).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Yeah. Tends is better. I did a first aid course a while back. Every single person there was doing the course because they had to for work. You are there to get the certificate. If the instructor says something dumb. Who cares? It is not about imparting any sort of real skill.

My point here is industry training is not by its own existence any good.

The training needs to stand on its own merits. Which to me seem pretty simple.

Can you get up from under a guy draw a gun and shoot them with it? And lets see that done consistently.

There are two different arguments at play.

I'm still looking for any indication that you have any real knowledge of what "industry training" in the firearms world looks like. I'm beginning to doubt that you do.

 

[lklawson]

CCW courses don't actually teach gun use. They teach the legalities of carrying.

Depends on the course. Many of them do. But there is, of course, a limit to how much can be taught in a class.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Oh. and it is like saying a first aid course doesn't teach you first aid. Just the legalities of first aid. Which would be silly.

No. It's like saying that a First Aid class doesn't teach how to apply a chest seal for a sucking chest wound and doesn't have a lot of trauma care. Well duh. It's a First Aid class not an EMT training program.

 

[lklawson]

What sort of defensive training do the police do on their own time?

Depends on the individual and the Department standards (and how much money they have to spend). I know cops that are highly skilled fighters and apply the same rigor to firearms as to unarmed fighting. I know some cops who only shoot the requal when required and worry about passing.

 

[lklawson]

CCW class isn't a class about how to use a weapon. It's a class on the legalities of it. They do a basic test to make sure the person can operate the gun, but there's no assessment of proficiency. The "class" part is all lecture. But then, they don't call it a firearms tactics course. People (at least those I've spoken with) don't go in expecting to be taught how to use their gun, nor how to deploy it in dangerous circumstances. It's a CYA course, at best. It does what it was purpose-built to do, and not much else.

It would be like if folks going to a "First Aid" course knew that all it was supposed to do was teach them what their legal responsibilities and liabilities were. It'd be a useful course, but not what you and I would think a First Aid course should be.

And yeah, so no requirement to even get taught half *** tactics before getting the right to carry. I don't see any real wisdom in that.

Depends on the state. On top of the required class/lecture time, Ohio has a 2 hour "on the range" training requirement with a proficiency test written into the law itself. Texas has a proficiency test which requires minimum scores at 3 different distances.

Other states have differing requirements.

Lawriter - ORC - 2923.125 Application and licensing process.
http://www.stateoftexaschl.com/chl-shooting-test/

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I just don't understand why you wouldn't try and separate from your attacker before trying to draw? It doesn't make sense not to. Why would you take the risk of drawing while wrestling with someone unless you just didn't have any other options.

Inexperience and lack of training allows people to form flawed opinions and believe they are both accurate and informed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It varies from state to state.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Agreed. In my research, the state-mandated courses are often just a few hours.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends on the state. On top of the required class/lecture time, Ohio has a 2 hour "on the range" training requirement with a proficiency test written into the law itself. Texas has a proficiency test which requires minimum scores at 3 different distances.

Other states have differing requirements.

Lawriter - ORC - 2923.125 Application and licensing process.
http://www.stateoftexaschl.com/chl-shooting-test/

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

SC has a similar approach to TX. To give some personal experience from it, I scored 100% on it with a gun I'd never fired before. I was probably a well-above-average shooter at the time, but I would've preferred a test that wasn't so easy. For liability reasons, the test wasn't from the draw - gun was at presentation, all strong-side, etc. It was essentially really easy target shooting. I do much more difficult shooting at a standard firing range.

2 hours on the range is basically nothing. I would assume the point of that was to make sure folks know how to handle their firearm (basic safety lecture). I know there are logistical and political reasons the tests and classes are what they are, but I think they are mere CYA for the state and the CWP holder.