reasoning approaches

I was reading a discussion on a firearms centric forum that I go to regarding a transition method vs. a slightly different transition method. While the thread was interesting for those that carry both long gun and hand gun, even more interesting to me was Sonnys observation on reasoning approaches when it comes to training methodologies.

His post below while commenting on a specific firearms training/technique discussion I think is also appropriate for other discussions and I will be rereading it often as I test and retest my own training methodologies and observe how I view my own training beliefs. I am posting it here so that I have a reminder and easy access to the motivation.

Talking further over the phone with Sonny besides further insight he gave me permission to repost his post here in this blog, thanks brother for both the permission and taking the time to share your thoughts.

IMO, the argument of a limited time available for training various approaches is not really an argument. Find (make) time. Or stick with the decision (partially based on lack of training time- or effort) of what works best for you. Violence is too unpredictable and liquid kind of an environment to rely on any one approach.

The reasons for doing things certain way can be found coming from 4 distinct reasoning approaches (often blended in varied dosages):

1. Justification. One does things the way he does. Upon questioning, which will happen if people start trying the approach, one has to come up with the explanations. Not always, but very often this approach is used to justify dogmatic method/technique and it's credibility. Often it's a method/technique that has no real in-depth concept for it's existence. Other times it is a result of a good problem solving approach by a person or a group, that often results in good, solid and efficient solution/technique, but stops at that- sometimes due to the fact that while it can be improved, such improved version will require more work/training, sometimes it stops due to not accepting the need to further improve the technique, justifying that it does resolve most of the issues at hand. Stating that it is good enough.

2. Preconceived notions. If the person has certain beliefs, that are beyond questioning in his mind, the solutions to specific problems will reflect the dogmas. Such solutions usually will be very basic (nothing wrong with that by itself) and the spectrum of possibilities and variations accepted will be relatively narrow. Often justification will be given as to the need for a solution/technique to be simple in order to be robust in combat. In addition numerous attributes can and will be brought up, with variations depending on the context of discussion. Speed, explosiveness, retention, etc. All legit arguments in their own right. They should be discussed and tested in different context, which would lead to the technique evolving past its dogmatic nature. Which is a good thing.

3. Commerce. Speaks for itself... Someone does something. It becomes a product. It makes money. Mix in some ego. Claims of originating and ownership... Enough said.

4. Seeing the issue/studying the problem/engineering the solution. These are rarity. Because to see the true scope of even the small problem, much training and research has to be done. Many questions have to be asked. Own ego has to be put aside and one has to accept the fact, that there are experiences beyond what you may have had, that need to be examined. These solutions are usually concepts, rather than techniques, they lend themselves well to customization (simplifying or making it more complex- depending on context of the situation). They also require more effort and time to own, which some present it as a negative factor.

Looking at the question presented in this thread- examine for yourself every possibility that may become reality. Your problem is: rifle went click. The fight is still in active stage. Due to numerous factors the malfunction clearing/magazine change is not an option. You need functioning firearm in the fight NOW. Now look at the variables: cover, distance, direction, number of opponents, open field/inside the confined space, etc., etc....

I submit that the question will be not which approach is better... The question you will have to answer for yourself will be- are these 2 approaches (which are similar in many ways) address all the situations one can encounter... I submit not even close.
So then- are we trying to package these 2 slightly different approaches as another two dogmatic techniques, or are we looking at the problem and seeing that there is more to be addressed?

His original post is located here for further reading


There are no comments to display.

Blog entry information

Brian King
Last update

More entries in Main category

More entries from Brian King