Incorporating modern weapons into a curriculum

[Oni_Kadaki]

Last night my best friend, who is a black belt in Kempo, asked me at what level in a school I would start to incorporate firearms (their use, not just defense) into a curriculum. I replied that I would start introducing them after the first or second belt promotion. My reasoning was that I would want a student to have a few months of training under his/her belt in order to establish a basal level of physical fitness and unarmed skills, but I would still want to introduce the fundamentals of firearm usage pretty early so that we could work on actual tactical training as the student reached intermediate/advanced levels. What do you guys thing? Would you include firearms in a curriculum and, if so, when?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To me, it's a different "art" (skill) from what most martial arts teach, and I doubt many schools would be at all equipped to teach it reasonably. I've considered teaching some retention and draw concepts based on the core curriculum (how to leverage what we do to those ends), and maybe use that to get into the discussion of how firearms work meshes with unarmed and procured weapons (weapons of opportunity) work. But it would be very thin, and likely left for special classes/workshops, rather than part of the main curriculum. It's just not part of the integrated whole to me - most people don't own a gun, so training in them isn't super important. Because I live in the US, I do teach gun disarms, and when I teach those I take time to cover basic gun safety, because that's directly pertinent to the material. I start that somewhere after the second earned belt, which probably means somewhere about 18-24 months in, at minimum.

 

[Danny T]

We have impact, bladed, and projectile weapons training within our training from the beginning.
Weapon awareness and the mentality for such is very much a part of our adult classes.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Same here in IRT it starts from the beginning. Empty Hands, Edged Weapons, Impact and Firearms training.

 

[MI_martialist]

Day 1...everything is always weaponry, percussion, and grappling.

To the poster, I am curious why what I copied from your response below has anything to do with acquiring firearm skills:

My reasoning was that I would want a student to have a few months of training under his/her belt in order to establish a basal level of physical fitness and unarmed skills

 

[Tez3]

We don't teach firearms, not because we are in the UK but because all our adult students are firearms experts.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Most firearm usage skills, other than some aspects of weapon retention, are not dependent on (or even closely related to) most other martial arts skills. Therefore if you do consider firearms usage to be part of your curriculum there's no need to wait for the student to reach a certain skill level.

For myself, I would rather defer firearms instruction to a subject matter expert. My ability with a gun is no better than rudimentary*. I'm sure some of my students would have more to teach on the topic than I would.

*(At least I'm very consistent about gun safety. More so than a few enthusiasts I've encountered along the way.)

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

To the poster, I am curious why what I copied from your response below has anything to do with acquiring firearm skills:

My reasoning was that I would want a student to have a few months of training under his/her belt in order to establish a basal level of physical fitness and unarmed skills

Most firearm usage skills, other than some aspects of weapon retention, are not dependent on (or even closely related to) most other martial arts skills. Therefore if you do consider firearms usage to be part of your curriculum there's no need to wait for the student to reach a certain skill level.

I consider them related for a few reasons. First, a weapon is a huge responsibility, and when you carry it, you must be able to retain it. I would argue that competency in hand-to-hand correlates with ability to control your weapon when an opponent is trying to take it from you. Secondly, establishing physical fitness and hand-to-hand prior to introducing weapons techniques ensures an individual has options. I have known far too many people who rely solely on their firearm, as opposed to being fit enough to simply run, or to subdue an opponent without a weapon. I can say from experience that when a violent encounter actually happens, it's nice to have an intermediary between fleeing and lethal force.

Also, Tez3, did you serve in the RAF? The father of one of my best friends served in the RAF before their family moved to Arizona.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

A martial arts instructor would also need to be a qualified firearms instructor. Qualified as in certified by a reputable organization such as the NRA, State or recognized firearm specialty course. Those are widely available. And not only a viable certification but a LOT of experience to back it up.

A good part of my students are high liability professionals already so firearms training is included from day one. Those that aren't HL professionals but interested can take this training as well. And I also teach concealed weapon courses to private citizens as a stand alone class.

 

[Tez3]

Also, Tez3, did you serve in the RAF? The father of one of my best friends served in the RAF before their family moved to Arizona.

I did yes, so did my husband he was in the RAF Regiment. One of his old squadrons QCS was in the US last month. The Great British Fly-In

It's a big year for us, the 100th anniversary of the RAF the first organised air force in the world. Home

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I did yes, so did my husband he was in the RAF Regiment. One of his old squadrons QCS was in the US last month. The Great British Fly-In

It's a big year for us, the 100th anniversary of the RAF the first organised air force in the world. Home

Were they all just disorganized before that - just planes lying about all helter-skelter?

 

[Tez3]

Were they all just disorganized before that - just planes lying about all helter-skelter?

Just about, the few planes there were came under the army's command as a corps so were disorganised as the army hated the planes and the pilots, they saw no use for them at all so yes they were scattered here and there, not used if the commanding officers didn't see a use for them. The Navy had a couple which they flew off ships Once it become the Royal Air Force smarter, more intelligent people took over, squadrons were formed, training ramped up and better aircraft built.

 

[wab25]

I do not teach fire arm use... fire arm use is not part of the Danzan Ryu system. Like others have mentioned, it would be better for people to go to a fully qualified fire arm instructor, for the type of shooting they want to do.

I do teach the gun disarms that are part of Danzan Ryu. (here I cheat, and start by teaching them how to unload and verify that a hand gun is unloaded.) But, I only teach this when the students get close to brown belt. During their white, blue, green belt... they learn all the techniques and movements that they will need for the disarms. (most of them are taught at white belt level) They just don't realize that yet which parts will also apply to a gun disarm. We can ramp up the intensity and speed of these techniques as well as working on maintaining control when uke doesn't comply. By the time we start talking about the disarm, they are fully capable of doing the techniques, at speed, with resistance and control. The only new element is the gun. Now they only need to work on the parts that are different... where is it pointed...

I actually disagree with many schools, who like to teach gun disarms on day one to new students or even to prospective students. I have seen this done quite a bit. I believe it is used as a marketing tool to "hook" the student by learning something "cool" right away. In my opinion, this sets up the student to fail, when their life is at stake... instead of taking the better option. (give them your wallet and run away) There is a big difference between practicing with toy guns, with the finger guard removed, on friends who want you to succeed ... and trying to take a real gun, from a real guy who does not want you to have it. My biggest fear is that a student will believe that they can do this, with a high probability of success, because it worked in class 7 out of 10 times against a water gun.

Many people don't realize that attempting a gun disarm is escalating the situation, not de-escalating. When the bad guy shows up with the gun, he has an expectation that you will comply. He has no reason to fear whether he goes home. As soon as you try for the gun, the bad guy is suddenly in a fight for his life. His fight or flight response may kick in... Where you could have tossed him the $40 in your wallet and run away... he now shoots you during the struggle or after the fact just because.

I just don't feel that marketing your school, by teaching a new person that you don't know, a cool thing, in a situation where he should mostly succeed... because you want him to sign up is the right thing to do... when that cool thing will get him killed. Before he learned that cool thing, he probably gives the money and runs... and survives. Teach them a kick or punch... have them break a board...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do not teach fire arm use... fire arm use is not part of the Danzan Ryu system. Like others have mentioned, it would be better for people to go to a fully qualified fire arm instructor, for the type of shooting they want to do.

I do teach the gun disarms that are part of Danzan Ryu. (here I cheat, and start by teaching them how to unload and verify that a hand gun is unloaded.) But, I only teach this when the students get close to brown belt. During their white, blue, green belt... they learn all the techniques and movements that they will need for the disarms. (most of them are taught at white belt level) They just don't realize that yet which parts will also apply to a gun disarm. We can ramp up the intensity and speed of these techniques as well as working on maintaining control when uke doesn't comply. By the time we start talking about the disarm, they are fully capable of doing the techniques, at speed, with resistance and control. The only new element is the gun. Now they only need to work on the parts that are different... where is it pointed...

I actually disagree with many schools, who like to teach gun disarms on day one to new students or even to prospective students. I have seen this done quite a bit. I believe it is used as a marketing tool to "hook" the student by learning something "cool" right away. In my opinion, this sets up the student to fail, when their life is at stake... instead of taking the better option. (give them your wallet and run away) There is a big difference between practicing with toy guns, with the finger guard removed, on friends who want you to succeed ... and trying to take a real gun, from a real guy who does not want you to have it. My biggest fear is that a student will believe that they can do this, with a high probability of success, because it worked in class 7 out of 10 times against a water gun.

Many people don't realize that attempting a gun disarm is escalating the situation, not de-escalating. When the bad guy shows up with the gun, he has an expectation that you will comply. He has no reason to fear whether he goes home. As soon as you try for the gun, the bad guy is suddenly in a fight for his life. His fight or flight response may kick in... Where you could have tossed him the $40 in your wallet and run away... he now shoots you during the struggle or after the fact just because.

I just don't feel that marketing your school, by teaching a new person that you don't know, a cool thing, in a situation where he should mostly succeed... because you want him to sign up is the right thing to do... when that cool thing will get him killed. Before he learned that cool thing, he probably gives the money and runs... and survives. Teach them a kick or punch... have them break a board...

Well said.

 

[MI_martialist]

I do not understand why one would "teach" "gun disarms" without ensuring the student has a functional knowledge of firearms, firearm safety, etc. That is why we see so much junk and so many dangerous "defenses" being taught as something that is appropriate.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I do not understand why one would "teach" "gun disarms" without ensuring the student has a functional knowledge of firearms, firearm safety, etc. That is why we see so much junk and so many dangerous "defenses" being taught as something that is appropriate.

Agreed.

At a minimum, a person should know the proper way of making a firearm safe. Additionally, some disarms only show the part where you take the firearm away from the bad guy. Great...now what? If it's a semi-auto that you've taken away from the BG, rack the slide (in case the gun malfunctioned or is out of battery which can happen during a struggle or disarm) and create distance. But you've got to know how to do these things.

Some show a disarm and then tossing the gun away. Well, maybe not the best option. First, it would be available for 'someone' to grab/find/use. Secondly, what if it is a gun such as a Sig P320 that hasn't had the trigger upgrade yet? Would kind of suck to successfully disarm the BG only to toss it and have it discharge.

Point is that if a martial art is attempting to teach disarms then it is a MARTIAL ART. It isn't a Martial SPORT. A martial sport has no business teaching something that isn't sport related and trying to disarm a violent individual that is armed is not a sport. So if the 'art' is teaching something that is this 'next level' serious it needs to go well beyond a lot of the crappy ways shown in some of the arts out there. And if that type of training is going to be taught it needs to also teach about firearms in and of themselves, how they operate, how to make them safe and how to handle them whether you're a gun person or not. That is the safe, sane and rational way to deal with this type of martial training.

An instructor that isn't familiar with firearms that is trying to teach firearm related material is doing a grave disservice to their students.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

Agreed.

At a minimum, a person should know the proper way of making a firearm safe. Additionally, some disarms only show the part where you take the firearm away from the bad guy. Great...now what? If it's a semi-auto that you've taken away from the BG, rack the slide (in case the gun malfunctioned or is out of battery which can happen during a struggle or disarm) and create distance. But you've got to know how to do these things.

Some show a disarm and then tossing the gun away. Well, maybe not the best option. First, it would be available for 'someone' to grab/find/use. Secondly, what if it is a gun such as a Sig P320 that hasn't had the trigger upgrade yet? Would kind of suck to successfully disarm the BG only to toss it and have it discharge.

Point is that if a martial art is attempting to teach disarms then it is a MARTIAL ART. It isn't a Martial SPORT. A martial sport has no business teaching something that isn't sport related and trying to disarm a violent individual that is armed is not a sport. So if the 'art' is teaching something that is this 'next level' serious it needs to go well beyond a lot of the crappy ways shown in some of the arts out there. And if that type of training is going to be taught it needs to also teach about firearms in and of themselves, how they operate, how to make them safe and how to handle them whether you're a gun person or not. That is the safe, sane and rational way to deal with this type of martial training.

An instructor that isn't familiar with firearms that is trying to teach firearm related material is doing a grave disservice to their students.

Kong Soo Do, I think I love you. In a platonic way, of course.

 

[wab25]

I do not understand why one would "teach" "gun disarms" without ensuring the student has a functional knowledge of firearms, firearm safety, etc. That is why we see so much junk and so many dangerous "defenses" being taught as something that is appropriate.

So if the 'art' is teaching something that is this 'next level' serious it needs to go well beyond a lot of the crappy ways shown in some of the arts out there. And if that type of training is going to be taught it needs to also teach about firearms in and of themselves, how they operate, how to make them safe and how to handle them whether you're a gun person or not.

I guess we need to discuss the definitions of "functional knowledge" and "handling a gun." I mentioned that I teach students how to unload a gun and verify it is unloaded. Much of that goes into how to handle a gun and how the gun functions. In the process of teaching the disarm uke has to know how to properly hold the gun. Tori needs to know what to do when he has taken the gun... don't throw it away, tap and rack... whether you should even try and shoot an unknown gun...

However, being "trained" to do both sides of the gun disarm, in the most correct way you can imagine, would not qualify anyone for CCW. This training is different from weapon retention, CQC shooting, clearing a house, tactical handgun use... (insert any of the different types of gun training you want in this list) What is needed to teach effective gun disarms, including what to do after you have disarmed the other guy is a very small subset of "handling a gun." I certainly encourage students to go out and get this type of training. (I have taken many of these types of classes, but have not certified to teach any.)

Just because you have not trained in every form of handling a gun, does not disqualify you from learning gun disarms. You do need to be honest about what you do and do not know, as well as what exactly you are training. This is the reason I do not teach this stuff to people who have just walked in the door.

If you think about it, any training at all in gun disarms breaks many fundamental rules for handling guns.

1. There is no such thing as an unloaded gun
2. Never point a gun at something you don't want a hole in

Further, any person well trained in the usage of guns, would not give up the biggest advantage the gun gives him, and put himself into a position where a gun disarm could work. The biggest advantage a gun gives you is distance. The only way a gun disarm works, is if that distance has been given up.

I agree with you guys, there is a lot of crap disarms being taught out there, and a lot of gaps in the training... making the use of this stuff very dangerous. Its even more dangerous when the people being taught do not know they are missing large and important pieces.

 

[Buka]

I waited until I knew the students well, real well. Hence, I only taught my advanced guys. Whether they already shot or not, they were still going to go through what we taught.

When I say firearms, I mean actual firearms, not just plastic training weapons used in dojo disarms, which we also use. Used to bring a Boston P.D. range master into the dojo for a two night course on firearm safety. Next day we'd go to an outdoor range where another safety class was conducted, then on to shooting. There would be a wide variety of weapons and everyone would fire all of them. Which, in itself, is a very long process. Not just firing multiple weapons, but range safety, stance, sighting, dominant eye, drawing, loading, unloading, making a weapon safe, using various holsters - can't really teach firearms without going over a lot of holster options, in my opinion that is.

And nobody, and I mean nobody, is comfortable, or will remember half of what they experienced after going to a range just once. You have to go multiple times. I mean, think about it, first few times you can only target shoot. You really can't have them moving like you would in a combat course.

Then it would be back to the dojo and learn how to break them down, clean them and safely store them.

Then on to disarms and retention, at some point anyway, not necessarily the same week. And the disarms and retention were based on how each weapon was carried and deployed. Then we would go over the gun laws of our state.

All of that was an absolute royal pain in the butt, very time consuming, dangerous and filled with liability. Which is why I really had to know my students well beforehand. It would be repeated every three or four years, depending on the student body.

I'd never do any of this again. I don't have the same resources at my disposal, nor the desire to do so.

And, man, I freakin' hate guns. Hell, I even hate writing about the f'kin things.

 

[Kemposhot]

I tend to agree with many of the above posters, referring students to an outside authority is a good thing if you yourself aren’t trained in Firearm usage.

As far as working it into the curriculum, it becomes a bit more of a debated area. We live in a modern world, and as recent events show, no matter where you live, the possibility of guns exists. I’ve read recently there are martial courses on surviving active shooter situations, perhaps this is an important first step?

Teaching gun disarms without firearm safety is a disservice in my opinion. To echo above, “ok you have the gun, now what?” Firearm safety as opposed to training in combat firearms is something that can be done by someone with a base level firearm experience.

Finally to answer the original poster, I agree to wait til a base level in fighting is established. Obviously exceptions could be made for students who work In the military or Law Enforcement. Training in firearms gives you more options even if you don’t carry. As any situation could involve a firearm and knowing what to do after a disarm is important.