I'll agree with most of this. When we use the term "end the threat" its important to note that this is exactly what is meant. We are not ending the "bad guy" but rather the threat which is a combination of bad guy, weapon, intent, and imminent ability to carry out the threat. If any one of those goes away the threat is ended.
"Going Shooting" vs Defensive Training
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
I'll agree with most of this. When we use the term "end the threat" its important to note that this is exactly what is meant. We are not ending the "bad guy" but rather the threat which is a combination of bad guy, weapon, intent, and imminent ability to carry out the threat. If any one of those goes away the threat is ended.
We moved past "shoot two and assess" decades ago. When the fight starts you respond with everything you have until the attacker is down or withdraws. Let's not get wrapped up in semantics over the word attack. The response would probably be more appropriately referred to as a counter attack. If you are attacked with enough force that you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm you need to respond violently to gain control of the situation as rapidly as possible. Are you essentially counter attacking? Yes, you can't try to measure your response the second you're attacker places you in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. That guarantees a high probability of death or great bodily harm. Ending the imminent threat is the goal.
I'm pretty sure that this is what shafter meant when he said:
Training to respond violently to an attack is every bit as important as training to recognize the threat and training to know when the threat has ended. Most people live very safe lives and haven't been in a fight since elementary school, if then. Normal people have a natural aversion to harming another person. You have to train to get past the sense of disbelief that the attack is actually happening and to respond violently enough to end the threat, it doesn't matter if the attacker is down and unable to continue the attack or decides he failed the victim selection test and withdraws. You have to overcome the natural reluctance to harm the other person. This reluctance is demonstrated by the people who say they never load the gun they keep in the house for defensive purposes because they could never hurt anyone.
I'm pretty sure that this is what shafter meant when he said:
Training to respond violently to an attack is every bit as important as training to recognize the threat and training to know when the threat has ended. Most people live very safe lives and haven't been in a fight since elementary school, if then. Normal people have a natural aversion to harming another person. You have to train to get past the sense of disbelief that the attack is actually happening and to respond violently enough to end the threat, it doesn't matter if the attacker is down and unable to continue the attack or decides he failed the victim selection test and withdraws. You have to overcome the natural reluctance to harm the other person. This reluctance is demonstrated by the people who say they never load the gun they keep in the house for defensive purposes because they could never hurt anyone.
Scenarios, scenarios, scenarios....
My opinion: Now that I am a silly old man, I go to the range to shoot for fun, hell, I need glasses just to see where the 50 yards target is. I consider myself in good cardiovascular fitness, meaning I run on the streets or the treadmill when it is cool while listening to my tunes. I let the fighting to the young and the bold. I was one of them a few decades ago, and I thought I was well trained for it, till one day while training for a showdown, and I overdid the training. I was in no shape to drive home, and, luckily, one of my mates gave me a lift. I got home, went to the shower, and did not wake up till 0600 next morning! What a fighter I am, I thought.
I used to carry a Colt .45 with several magazines. Now, it is a dreadful chore to take a small plastic gun in my pocket!
The scene plays out in my mind: Somebody will take my gun and will probably do me in with it. I was thinking one day to load it with blanks!
Now, for the serious reader: Yes, training is important, and no, no amount of training will be realistic enough to prepare you for a catastrophic event. Just do not go looking for trouble, and there will be none! The legal troubles will leave you broke if you beat the judge. If you wake up dead, well, then you are off the hook.
In the mean time, keep training, keep 'em in a small cluster, count your blessings, and strive to become an old man with grandkids to tell your stories to.
I told you I am an old man, I just tell stories!
My opinion: Now that I am a silly old man, I go to the range to shoot for fun, hell, I need glasses just to see where the 50 yards target is. I consider myself in good cardiovascular fitness, meaning I run on the streets or the treadmill when it is cool while listening to my tunes. I let the fighting to the young and the bold. I was one of them a few decades ago, and I thought I was well trained for it, till one day while training for a showdown, and I overdid the training. I was in no shape to drive home, and, luckily, one of my mates gave me a lift. I got home, went to the shower, and did not wake up till 0600 next morning! What a fighter I am, I thought.
I used to carry a Colt .45 with several magazines. Now, it is a dreadful chore to take a small plastic gun in my pocket!
The scene plays out in my mind: Somebody will take my gun and will probably do me in with it. I was thinking one day to load it with blanks!
Now, for the serious reader: Yes, training is important, and no, no amount of training will be realistic enough to prepare you for a catastrophic event. Just do not go looking for trouble, and there will be none! The legal troubles will leave you broke if you beat the judge. If you wake up dead, well, then you are off the hook.
In the mean time, keep training, keep 'em in a small cluster, count your blessings, and strive to become an old man with grandkids to tell your stories to.
I told you I am an old man, I just tell stories!
Absolutely!
My point was not to pick apart semantics. It appears that shafter and I are actually pretty much on the same page.
My point is that running from one place to another, reloading, and trying to maximize the number of hits on the targets as the clock runs, while it can help develop gun handling and rapid shooting skills, is not defensive training per se. In lawful self defense, we detect the threat, move to concealment or cover, if we can, draw quickly, and without delay, shoot an attacker until he drops.
However, I think that competition may well be better preparation than just practicing at the square range, squeezing off one shot at the time and worrying about group size..
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,346
It appears to me, based upon years of reading about and viewing videos of civilian fights - as opposed to LEO and military fights - that even the most "realistic" live fire training is not very realistic. In fact, I suspect that it may not be possible to conduct truly realistic live-fire training without severely endangering everyone involved.
I believe the "typical" civilian encounter will be
A) a near-total surprise
B) over in a few seconds
C) at extremely close range.
This, for example:
So the live-fire training we are doing - whether for groups or speed, whether on a square range or a combat course, recreational, competition, whatever - is all actually kind of useless except in that it familiarizes us with our guns.
Which is why I don't argue much about what kind of training people are doing. As long as it gets them used to handling their weapons - in a hurry, preferably - then they are doing what they should be doing.
For my money, far more important than a particular course of fire is mindset: being prepared for the idea that a deadly confrontation may truly be just a moment away, and so one must be mentally ready for it and constantly on the lookout for it. In other words, put away your phone and look around. If you can be ahead of that curve, then who the hell cares about IPSC vs. IDPA?
Beyond that, anyone who can participate in FoF really ought to. Because these fights almost always start at hand-to-hand range, it's a mistake to count on weapons which we may or may not be able to access right away. If you really spend time going through accounts of civilian fights, you'll note how often people try to block weapons, or fight over weapons, or just end up in a tangled mess on the ground. Having some experience with that - and I don't mean becoming a master of ancient Japanese arts, but rather practicing realistic scenarios, against human opponents, under the guidance of an experienced trainer - is invaluable.
I believe the "typical" civilian encounter will be
A) a near-total surprise
B) over in a few seconds
C) at extremely close range.
This, for example:
So the live-fire training we are doing - whether for groups or speed, whether on a square range or a combat course, recreational, competition, whatever - is all actually kind of useless except in that it familiarizes us with our guns.
Which is why I don't argue much about what kind of training people are doing. As long as it gets them used to handling their weapons - in a hurry, preferably - then they are doing what they should be doing.
For my money, far more important than a particular course of fire is mindset: being prepared for the idea that a deadly confrontation may truly be just a moment away, and so one must be mentally ready for it and constantly on the lookout for it. In other words, put away your phone and look around. If you can be ahead of that curve, then who the hell cares about IPSC vs. IDPA?
Beyond that, anyone who can participate in FoF really ought to. Because these fights almost always start at hand-to-hand range, it's a mistake to count on weapons which we may or may not be able to access right away. If you really spend time going through accounts of civilian fights, you'll note how often people try to block weapons, or fight over weapons, or just end up in a tangled mess on the ground. Having some experience with that - and I don't mean becoming a master of ancient Japanese arts, but rather practicing realistic scenarios, against human opponents, under the guidance of an experienced trainer - is invaluable.
I agree.
Depends on what is included. Drawing while mofvng off line is a useful skill, as is taking advantage of cover and concealment.
That is a big part of it.
Absolutely!
Good post!
Let's pull on that one some more.
Buying a gun will never suffice for self-preservation, and learning to shoot it still falls short.
Staying safe requires much more than shooting skills alone.
There used to be an excellent TV series called The Best Defense. Staged incidents were based on real events. Someone was attacked or walked into an ambush and was victimized. They then showed how the victim could have been better prepared--through haviing been more alert and attentive, the defender was able to draw and shoot and save himself, or to disarm the knife-wielding attacker by hand. A third try showed the best defense--how the defender might have foreseen the danger and changed his behavior to avoid it altogether.
There were numerous different scenarios.
Thinking back, that series was as valuable to me as any live-fire training.
Of course, foreseeing the potential risk will not always work either, and that's why being able to draw, move, and shoot rapidly and effectively is important.
scaatylobo
Member
I beg to differ,but I have had enough of your being argumentative .
I stand by my comments !.
in my NOT so humble opinion,the OP could take ANY training of FoF and do as little or as much as possible.
To do none is just wrong.
Now that's humorous. You come in telling someone that they don't know what their own limitations are, and that their decision is "just wrong"--but then if someone points that might be a bit of an overstep, THEY are being argumentative.
And yet you still haven't asked about his handicaps as you said I should have asked about yours rather than assume.
You obviously feel it's fine for you to assume about others, even though you object when someone else assumes about you--EVEN if the assumption about you is a positive one (that you correctly assessed your limitations) and your assumption about others is negative (that they didn't correctly assess theirs).
Also, for the record, if you were in one of my classes and faked a major medical emergency in the middle of a training exercise (i.e. "...feign a heart attack and drop..."), your time in the class would end instantly and you would not be welcome to return.
In my experience force on force training is training that involves a scenario or drill with role players and Simmunitions/Airsoft. This allows people to train realistic situations that can't be done on a flat range with live ammo and targets that don't react.
The intensity of this type of training is highly customizable. You can run drills that involve full on grappling and striking or you can model specific scenarios that would be applicable to someone with a serious medical handicap. Basically if you can shoot a real firearm you can participate in FoF training with a training gun. A good instructor can make sure that the drill follows the right parameters for the individuals needs.
Anyone who can shoot can participate in FoF training. Everyone who carries a gun should participate and learn exactly what they can and can't do.
The intensity of this type of training is highly customizable. You can run drills that involve full on grappling and striking or you can model specific scenarios that would be applicable to someone with a serious medical handicap. Basically if you can shoot a real firearm you can participate in FoF training with a training gun. A good instructor can make sure that the drill follows the right parameters for the individuals needs.
Anyone who can shoot can participate in FoF training. Everyone who carries a gun should participate and learn exactly what they can and can't do.
That is not an informed opinion.
Yes.
Moment of targets, targets that think, targets that hide, targets that shoot, shoot/no-shoot scenarios realistic venues....
Many FoF programs require the completion of advanced defensive shooting courses first. Those who have not done that can uses some Airsoft guns. Getting good instructors may be a challenge.
A lot of ranges don't allow for this type of training. The range I used back in WA was one of the few in the area that even allowed rapid-fire. There was no room to do movement drills or anything like that. You're stuck doing 1-second delays between shots because if you don't, the RO will kick you out.
Faking a heart attack - unless that was in the rules of allowed behavior and folks knew that, it's ridiculous. If you did that - have you ever watched real world chest compression on a guy dying? Not pleasant, we would grab you and do them - you wouldn't like it.
Getting a good instructor - check out folks who have been through courses like this: https://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Classes/AirsoftFOF.html
Kind of an industry standard. You don't want to get into a class that becomes shoot'em up paintball. You can get hurt a bit and it can get very emotional for some. Not a trivial exercise. Some folks have had to be talked down from a bad emotional turn.
Note: Don't get butt hurt if you go down in flames in a scenario. Been there - it's a learning experience. I've seen supposedly trained operators flip out and be big sulking babies after being wiped out. One rule of the top end - NO WHINING!
As far as ability - I'm not diving out of a car anymore onto gravel in a vehicle FOF. Did that, spectacular rainbow bruises on my forearms, amazing those at work. Close in airsoft fully auto ambush that penetrated the skin and left my tee shirt bloody. Now, how could I tell the class not to do that? So, I'm accepting that having done this - at my age, no more. More sedate FOF, perhaps. Good FOF is not just shooting but negotiating encounters and perhaps avoiding the gun fight, dealing with the arriving law, etc. Getting a sims hit on your leg and putting on your TQ.
Back to competition - it does give you a touch of stress of shooting under time pressure. FOF gives more of that.
Getting a good instructor - check out folks who have been through courses like this: https://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Classes/AirsoftFOF.html
Kind of an industry standard. You don't want to get into a class that becomes shoot'em up paintball. You can get hurt a bit and it can get very emotional for some. Not a trivial exercise. Some folks have had to be talked down from a bad emotional turn.
Note: Don't get butt hurt if you go down in flames in a scenario. Been there - it's a learning experience. I've seen supposedly trained operators flip out and be big sulking babies after being wiped out. One rule of the top end - NO WHINING!
As far as ability - I'm not diving out of a car anymore onto gravel in a vehicle FOF. Did that, spectacular rainbow bruises on my forearms, amazing those at work. Close in airsoft fully auto ambush that penetrated the skin and left my tee shirt bloody. Now, how could I tell the class not to do that? So, I'm accepting that having done this - at my age, no more. More sedate FOF, perhaps. Good FOF is not just shooting but negotiating encounters and perhaps avoiding the gun fight, dealing with the arriving law, etc. Getting a sims hit on your leg and putting on your TQ.
Back to competition - it does give you a touch of stress of shooting under time pressure. FOF gives more of that.
Good instructors can be hard to find but they're out there. Any instructor worth the title will make sure proper safety protocols are followed such as headgear, groin and throat protection, as well as a strong recommendation to wear several layers of clothing so you don't get shot bloody. That's unacceptable. The same goes for bailing out of a car on gravel. The instructor should check the training area for hazards before beginning.
I am lucky that at my local range/club, the range master allows draw from the holster, and lateral movement only, but not during the weekend when most of the people would come up.
TomJ
Contributing Member
Kleanbore, I understand your point. When I first got back into shooting after a 20 year hiatus due to family, work, etc, the only place I could shoot was an indoor range. Standing in a booth and shooting at a target with a mandatory 1-2 seconds between shots was great at first, but bears little reality to what happens in a self defense situation. I joined an outdoor range where rapid fire was allowed, as long as it was done responsibly as was shooting while moving. I now belong to a private range owned by a fellow church member and train one to two times a month with local LEO's and with about a dozen of us who volunteer as armed security for our church. We practice shooting while moving, shooting from behind cover, from the draw, etc. If someone's never done these types of drills, it may come as a surprise how difficult it is to shoot accurately while doing so. As others have mentioned I strongly recommend finding a good trainer.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
In a brick wall, the brick in the top row are supported by the bricks laid beneath them.
Most gun owners are not shooters, and are not sufficiently trained to attain nor practiced to retain any reasonable level of proficiency. As a firearms instructor for most of my adult life, I've witnessed firsthand over and over again, gun owners coming to a class which do not have, or barely retain functional proficiency in the operation of their firearms, even firearms they've owned for years, and in many cases, firearms they've relied upon either for home or personal defense. In serving the general public, with such poor gun handling and marksmanship skills, there are simply too many liabilities for most organizations, training groups, and ranges to even consider allowing "dynamic techniques" like drawing from holsters, let alone drawing from concealment, or rapid fire, and multiple target engagements. When the typical customer stepping foot on a range doesn't even know how to operate their firearm, and the majority of customers make full use of the ENTIRE page of their targets, it's quite obvious the level of training those customers should receive - and it's not described with words like "advanced," "dynamic," "realistic stressor," or "force on force."
If a marksman has laid the first row of bricks, then certainly, they should be pursuing advanced and progressive training, and practicing those skills. Finding opportunities where practicing dynamic techniques isn't always easy, for example, only a few years ago, there was not a single range in the largest metro area in my state which allowed drawing from a holster outside of specific, closed range, competitive events - such there was no means to practice for those events, other than competing in them... But indeed, marksmen which have achieved proficiency in the most basic skills can and should advance.
But remind yourself to not talk too poorly about those unwashed masses which only shoot a couple times per year and print poster sized groups at 7yrds. Those folks, plus the gun owners which don't even shoot so much as them, make up the vastly overwhelming majority of gun owners in the United States, and share sufficient common interest and beliefs that they vote and spend money in ways which support our ability to keep and bear arms. Without them, we wouldn't.
Most gun owners are not shooters, and are not sufficiently trained to attain nor practiced to retain any reasonable level of proficiency. As a firearms instructor for most of my adult life, I've witnessed firsthand over and over again, gun owners coming to a class which do not have, or barely retain functional proficiency in the operation of their firearms, even firearms they've owned for years, and in many cases, firearms they've relied upon either for home or personal defense. In serving the general public, with such poor gun handling and marksmanship skills, there are simply too many liabilities for most organizations, training groups, and ranges to even consider allowing "dynamic techniques" like drawing from holsters, let alone drawing from concealment, or rapid fire, and multiple target engagements. When the typical customer stepping foot on a range doesn't even know how to operate their firearm, and the majority of customers make full use of the ENTIRE page of their targets, it's quite obvious the level of training those customers should receive - and it's not described with words like "advanced," "dynamic," "realistic stressor," or "force on force."
If a marksman has laid the first row of bricks, then certainly, they should be pursuing advanced and progressive training, and practicing those skills. Finding opportunities where practicing dynamic techniques isn't always easy, for example, only a few years ago, there was not a single range in the largest metro area in my state which allowed drawing from a holster outside of specific, closed range, competitive events - such there was no means to practice for those events, other than competing in them... But indeed, marksmen which have achieved proficiency in the most basic skills can and should advance.
But remind yourself to not talk too poorly about those unwashed masses which only shoot a couple times per year and print poster sized groups at 7yrds. Those folks, plus the gun owners which don't even shoot so much as them, make up the vastly overwhelming majority of gun owners in the United States, and share sufficient common interest and beliefs that they vote and spend money in ways which support our ability to keep and bear arms. Without them, we wouldn't.
There is always a way to train. If a range won't let you practice with live fire then do the next best thing and get an Airsoft pistol and practice at home.
Save up, attend a course, there are tons of good ones offered throughout the country, and bring home the lessons and practice in your house.
Save up, attend a course, there are tons of good ones offered throughout the country, and bring home the lessons and practice in your house.
Old Dog
Member
You know, I came back to this thread, and reread this post. I haven't always agreed with @Varminterror, but I sure do here. We tend to presume -- since many of us here possess the interest, have the time and the financial ability to go above and beyond what the average American gun-owner is capable of, or willing to do -- that everyone shares our dedication. We'd be wrong most of the time.
Let's back off a bit, and remember our roots.
Last edited:
scaatylobo
Member
Very well penned sir.
But having been an FI for my agency and attending the FBI school for my credit.
My play is that the majority of shooters [ ESPECIALLY police ] do not shoot or compete due to ego.
They will never become " all that they can be " until ,if ever they train as if their lives depend on it.
I can come up with a million reasons to not train,and yes the lazy me has done so.
Not fooling myself was the first part of the painful lesson.
Airsoft at home,FoF at a well run course,Laser simulator in your basement,the list is very long IF you see the real need to train & learn.
I agree that we all need to pull together [ those who do not see a "good" reason for black rifles ] and all who grasp why we have a 2nd Amendment and how we attained this nations freedom [ GUNS ].
I have seen [ on here ] and heard too many who make excuses as to why they do not train,or even shoot .
Having met a few that actually carry a gun THEY NEVER FIRED,its too obvious we can do better.
The " we " is all of us not making excuses.
My not so humble opinion [ I own it,its MY opinion } .
Old Dog
Member
Eh, I don't know if it's ego. Perhaps in some cases, sure.
My take is that most gun-owners, gun-carriers, shooters simply do not truly believe that "their lives will depend on" their shooting skills.
Remember that phrase we used to have posted in our team rooms and on our challenge coins?: "Would you train harder today if you knew you were going to be in the fight of your life tomorrow?" Most folks, including a lot of "gun folks" never adopt that mindset. We can preach the need for training 'til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, few avail themselves of training.
Many are content just having the firearm, some know that a huge percentage of defensive gun uses each year in this nation are successfully achieved by many with absolutely zero training, maybe some who were forced to take a class to obtain a carry license.
For me, my ticket was discovering that I loved training (fortunately, fairly early in my military career I had some fun fairly high-speed courses) and that I loved seeing my skill level improve as well as the competition aspect.
So I think a big key is, starting new shooters off, first making the actual shooting fun, then introducing the concepts of defensive shooting. I sent my wife and daughters to a well-known firearms academy and they loved it (the school actually has classes for women, taught be women). Unless one is in the military, law enforcement or otherwise works or lives daily in an environment where hey carry firearms as a tool of their job and are forced to train -- not just "go shooting," most people will never feel the compulsion to obtain training. But, if they're introduced to quality training early, have a good experience and see that it can be productive and fun, they'll spread the gospel.
Of course, the sad reality is that quality training requires substantial blocks of time and can be prohibitively expensive. But, we all have priorities.
Vacation in Cancun at an all-inclusive resort or a week at Gunsite or Thunder Ranch?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
