On the Subject of the Defensive Skillset

Kleanbore

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
17,478
We like to define the priorities for the use of defensive force as Mindset, Skillset, and Toolset, in that order. Perhaps that could be described as knowing what to do and when; being able to do it; and having the tools with which to do it.

The tools may include firearms, non-firearm weapons, less-lethal weapons, and lights--more than just firearms. But one thing is clear: just having the tool cannot make us safe, even if we have become proficient in its use. There is more to self preservation than the effective use of weapons. Our objective is not to win a fight, it is to not lose one.

We have had many discussions here about training. They all start with tthe subject of shooting, and for defensive firearm use, that is right and proper. But we should never stop there.. The defender, whether ciiviian or sworn officer, can be an excellent marksman, and can even be very skilled in accessing a firearm quickly and in putting several holes and heach of a couple of targets in a coplue of seconds--and that is still not enough.

He must recognize a potential threat in a fraction of the time in which we see that done in screen fiction, which is slowed for the benefit of the audience; decide what do before it is too late; if that involves binging a gun into play, that must be done without hitting a bystander, and without failing the shoot/no-shoot question on the test.

Devleoping that skillset is a tall order, and I do not think that one should expect to do it at the shooting range.

Really good force-on-force drills with Simunitions can be extremely helpful, if one can take advantage of them. Similar exercises with Airsoft guns can help. I've never tried them, but my neigheor can present a hard sell just by describing how defenders have been "killed" and have "killed" the wrong people in FoF training at Asymmetric Solutions outside Farmington, MO.

Neat stuff, for sure, but that may not be the best way to go.

Airline pilots do put in a lot of hours of real flight time with instructors, but real flying is not conducive to training for some kinds of very serious emergencies that emerge on llanding or takeoff or when coming near another airplane.. For that, they use high-fidelity simulators. And when I was still working, our customers trained the users of our products using new technology: Air combat pilots trained in large simulators and went though hundreds of scenarios, with the enemies using hundreds of different tactics. That is today's world.

Some years ago, Rob Pincus tried out a then-current-tech 300 degree simulation facility at a now-defunct Gander Mountain Academy facility. He was "killed" at least once, and he found it very stressful. That kind of training helps with developing th skills to recognize and deal with an attacker,and with shoot/no-shoot decisions. They are the current version of the set-up of plywood store fronts that was so highly touted in the movie The FBI Story.

We hear that police departments are starting to send officers to simulation training, particularly for active shooter tactics. Many of the scenarios are suited only to law enforcement--traffic stops, apprehending a suspect, hostage resue, et. But developing other scenarios is relatively simple these days.

I did a bit of searching, and I came across what looks like a good outfit in Springfield , MO. I noticed a $50 per hour price item. I'm sure there are others. Perhaps some of our members could help create at least a partial compendium for us.
 
We used the old FATS system at AT Systems, and it was eye opening. The newer systems are far better, but my outfit uses a very old walk and shoot dynamic setup. I tried to get Simunitions authorized, but the cost was far too great for approximately 7,000 staff.
 
Here's the link for the one near Springfield, MO:

https://ozarkshoot.com/

They claim to offer "hundreds" of scenarios for civilian training. However, they only have a single-screen system. That's a real limitation--kinda like range shooting in which the student's attention is directed in on direction. In the old Gander Mountain Academy set-up, the student stood or moved around in a simulated store, parking lot, etc,. and had to notice and react to threats and no-shoot situations from three directions.

The only one of those that I have been able to find is listed as law enforcement only.
 
There is a ton of good training available throughout the US for reasonable cost from some truly elite trainers. I've attended many of them and found them to be worth every penny. One of these days I'll compile a list along with reviews.

One mustn't stop at firearms though. It's far more likely to be in a physical confrontation without justification for weapons than it is to get in a gunfight. Train all spectrums.
 
Let me reframe the discussion. In terms of definitions, I think I rolled a gutter ball in describing what I had in mind as "skillset training".

The great drills that we see in Tom Givens' monthly newsletter are designed for the development of the kind of shooting skills that one would want for self defense. Claude Werner offers his from time to time. They involve hitting a target timely and consistently. Bill Wilson's Bill Drill is in the same category Rob Pincus' classes sometimes take it a step further, adding in how to respond to a threat that comes to us unexpectedly and from an unexpected direction. None of these drills involve realistic defensive scenarios. The are deigned to teach drawing, shooting, clearing malfunctions, etc.

Such training is invaluable for developing essential skills, but it is not what I had in mind when I started this. I was thinking of routines that would help a defender make the right decisions very quickly when fced with a real or potential violent encounter.

In the movie The FBI Story, the trainees are introduced to a new facility,, describes as very costly, and they walk along as windows and doors are opened along the way. They have split seconds to shoot bad guys and to not shoot good guys--the shoot/no-shoot drill. One can train for that in FoF training and with simulated scenarios.

The objective is to provide the trainees with a set of responses from which to choose, and to program them to not do things that they should not do.

The latter is important because human nature may cause the defender to do the wrong thing. When one is angered or frightened and full of adrenalin, one may not have what one has learned from Msssad Ayoob or Andrew Branca or an NRA instrructor foremost in mind when the attacker turns and runs. A smoke-shop manager who recently kept shooing as burglars fled is now facing extremely serious charges. We "know" to not do that, but will we act accordingly when we have just been threatened?

I suggest that some very realistic scenario-based training, winter well scripted FoF or simulated, with enough variations on the theme, could help a lot with this kind of thing--again, by "programming" the defender to not do the wrong thing.

Another thing that scenario-based training could do is to reinforce the importance of keeping an eye on that "shooter" who is really the perp's accomplice, watching for a innocent who may step into the line of fire, illustrating how quickly a part who is heading away can turned fire...just to suggest a few things.

This kind of training is probably not properly characterized as "skills development". Mindset, maybe?

Single-screen simulator can be heseful for some things, but they are limited. The multi-screen simulator the now-defunct Gander Mountain Academy that Rob Pincusdemonstated som years ago was a whole lot better, both for providing better senarios--an ambush coming in from the side, for example--and for creating a stress level that can challenge the trainee

Here is the law enforcement training resource that I mentioned.

https://www.virtra.com/simulator/law-enforcement-v-300/

Obviously, a multi-sreen setup will be more costly than the single screen, both in hardware and in software. However, new technology, new software developlment tools and mehods, AI, etc, are coming down the pike, and at our doorstep already. That is demonstrated by the rapidly increasing fidelity and prevalence of graphics in the entertainment industry.

The question is when the price will move us far enough on the supply and demand curve. With the percentage of people who own friaries and keep and carry them for defensive purposes where it is and increasing, there should be a market.

Let's keep our collective eye open and our ear to the rail.

Thought/
 
Personally, I'd start the list of 'sets' with "knowledge-set", meaning knowledge of the laws and how to apply that knowledge to real-world situations and conditions, with a secondary knowledge-set of learning to recognize such situations and conditions.

Then I'd go on down the list of other important sets with Mindset, Skillset, Toolset. Granted, gaining practical knowledge is helped by not only acquiring book knowledge, but reinforcing it with successful experiential knowledge, which is where working in a related field/profession can pay dividends. That can also make it harder for the 'weekend student warrior'.

The new era of Force-on-Force simulation training is useful to learn how well our knowledge, judgment and skills 'mesh' in unexpected situations, as well as assessing someone's judgment and whether good decisions can be made on-the-fly. Tactics don't necessarily help if their application is based upon an inability to make good decisions and exercise good judgment in moments of stress and duress. ;)

Then, being able to record everyone's actions, especially from multiple clear angles (think ceiling-mounted cameras within a few feet of each other, like mounted in all overhead light fixtures), so an after-action review and discussion of learning points can occur. It's not uncommon for folks in the thick of things not to see and realize most of what may be happening at the time. Folks can tend to develop tunnel vision, distorted time perception (tachypsychia) and auditory exclusion, even in simulation training (and especially if you fear you're about to get hit with the real sting of multiple dye-marking 'bullets').

Such training needs to not only be conducted by folks trained to do so, especially meaning safely, but the scenarios need to be devised with specific goals and learning objectives in mind. Not just to overwhelm someone. Otherwise, what's the point? That's counter productive. Anybody can be set up for failure in what may be argued to be No-Win scenarios, no matter their skills and experiences.
 
Personally, I'd start the list of 'sets' with "knowledge-set", meaning knowledge of the laws and how to apply that knowledge to real-world situations and conditions, with a secondary knowledge-set of learning to recognize such situations and conditions.

Then I'd go on down the list of other important sets with Mindset, Skillset, Toolset. Granted, gaining practical knowledge is helped by not only acquiring book knowledge, but reinforcing it with successful experiential knowledge, which is where working in a related field/profession can pay dividends. That can also make it harder for the 'weekend student warrior'.

The new era of Force-on-Force simulation training is useful to learn how well our knowledge, judgment and skills 'mesh' in unexpected situations, as well as assessing someone's judgment and whether good decisions can be made on-the-fly. Tactics don't necessarily help if their application is based upon an inability to make good decisions and exercise good judgment in moments of stress and duress. ;)

Then, being able to record everyone's actions, especially from multiple clear angles (think ceiling-mounted cameras within a few feet of each other, like mounted in all overhead light fixtures), so an after-action review and discussion of learning points can occur. It's not uncommon for folks in the thick of things not to see and realize most of what may be happening at the time. Folks can tend to develop tunnel vision, distorted time perception (tachypsychia) and auditory exclusion, even in simulation training (and especially if you fear you're about to get hit with the real sting of multiple dye-marking 'bullets').

Such training needs to not only be conducted by folks trained to do so, especially meaning safely, but the scenarios need to be devised with specific goals and learning objectives in mind. Not just to overwhelm someone. Otherwise, what's the point? That's counter productive. Anybody can be set up for failure in what may be argued to be No-Win scenarios, no matter their skills and experiences.
Well said.
 
Well said.

Thanks. Just leftover detritus regurgitated from when I was still training others. ;) Still glad I resisted the requests to come back and pick it up again. The renewed exposure to liability training cops (and some CCW licensees) isn't something that interests me at this time. Not in this current social experiment climate.:uhoh:

On forums like this it's just gabbing and chewing the fat, since I'm NOT anyone's trainer anymore. :)
 
We like to define the priorities for the use of defensive force as Mindset, Skillset, and Toolset, in that order. Perhaps that could be described as knowing what to do and when; being able to do it; and having the tools with which to do it.

The tools may include firearms, non-firearm weapons, less-lethal weapons, and lights--more than just firearms. But one thing is clear: just having the tool cannot make us safe, even if we have become proficient in its use. There is more to self preservation than the effective use of weapons. Our objective is not to win a fight, it is to not lose one.

We have had many discussions here about training. They all start with tthe subject of shooting, and for defensive firearm use, that is right and proper. But we should never stop there.. The defender, whether ciiviian or sworn officer, can be an excellent marksman, and can even be very skilled in accessing a firearm quickly and in putting several holes and heach of a couple of targets in a coplue of seconds--and that is still not enough.

He must recognize a potential threat in a fraction of the time in which we see that done in screen fiction, which is slowed for the benefit of the audience; decide what do before it is too late; if that involves binging a gun into play, that must be done without hitting a bystander, and without failing the shoot/no-shoot question on the test.

Devleoping that skillset is a tall order, and I do not think that one should expect to do it at the shooting range.

Really good force-on-force drills with Simunitions can be extremely helpful, if one can take advantage of them. Similar exercises with Airsoft guns can help. I've never tried them, but my neigheor can present a hard sell just by describing how defenders have been "killed" and have "killed" the wrong people in FoF training at Asymmetric Solutions outside Farmington, MO.

Neat stuff, for sure, but that may not be the best way to go.

Airline pilots do put in a lot of hours of real flight time with instructors, but real flying is not conducive to training for some kinds of very serious emergencies that emerge on llanding or takeoff or when coming near another airplane.. For that, they use high-fidelity simulators. And when I was still working, our customers trained the users of our products using new technology: Air combat pilots trained in large simulators and went though hundreds of scenarios, with the enemies using hundreds of different tactics. That is today's world.

Some years ago, Rob Pincus tried out a then-current-tech 300 degree simulation facility at a now-defunct Gander Mountain Academy facility. He was "killed" at least once, and he found it very stressful. That kind of training helps with developing th skills to recognize and deal with an attacker,and with shoot/no-shoot decisions. They are the current version of the set-up of plywood store fronts that was so highly touted in the movie The FBI Story.

We hear that police departments are starting to send officers to simulation training, particularly for active shooter tactics. Many of the scenarios are suited only to law enforcement--traffic stops, apprehending a suspect, hostage resue, et. But developing other scenarios is relatively simple these days.

I did a bit of searching, and I came across what looks like a good outfit in Springfield , MO. I noticed a $50 per hour price item. I'm sure there are others. Perhaps some of our members could help create at least a partial compendium for us.

Great missive and really eye opening too.

As a retired LEO and firearms instructor as well as a defensive tactics Instr too.

My take as a now retired LEO and " just a civilian" is that I want to train to what the actual threats could be,and see if I can get better results after training.

For instance,your in a mall and a 'active shooter' opens fire,what is you best response.

And if your in a circumstance that requires you to shoot.

Can you make that shot [ malls are many yards long ] and will you be able to avoid getting lit up by responding officers OR other armed citizens.

That is a hard scenario to portray and yet a real world one.

Same goes for a movie theater or a gas station.

All are real world situations and one we all need to prepare for.

In my last training class I actually did use a ruse I had planned on if confronted = it worked and could have saved my life.

I hope we all train to fail,then learn from that.

My choice would be FoF if available
 
VR headsets can replace outdated single and multi screen systems and allow for more frequent training and flexibility than in the past.

Since the VR tech exists the key is reality based software. First Person Shooter games give us a hint at what is possible, but cannot be mistaken for training and certainly not reality based training material.
 
VR headsets can replace outdated single and multi screen systems and allow for more frequent training and flexibility than in the past.
Is there a way to simulate hits and misses?
 
Is there a way to simulate hits and misses?
Hits/misses made by you or hits/misses on you?

Short answer to either is ... yes.

Headset and vest combos will let you know if you have been hit with feedback vibration and/or light. https://www.woojer.com/

If you hit or miss an attacker it is up to the reality based software to show this or not.

VR games have incorporated this for a few years. VR based CBT is now common in industry and incorporates accident feedback.
 
"on the subject of the defensive skillet."
Ok, is that likely to spawn Allclad versus Lodge flamewars? Caliphon v. Allclad v. Cuisinart v. Stoneclad? :D

Flippancy aside, this is an important topic. Training is what can inform mindset. Which informs skillset. It's as important to know when to not shoot, when it's better to disengage. To steal a bit from Sun Tsu, one must be a student "of the ground." As that informs one as to whether it out to be held or quit.
 
I'd like to see something that walked people through actual scenarios. Like if you are in a mall and hear gunfire, you're with two others in your group. Do you hide in the back of a store or a bathroom, and set up to defend that space, or do you stay out in the open longer and find an actual exit? How do you collect the people you are with, or don't you? It gives me pause to think of it, even if a person walks right in front of me and I see they have a rifle, it could just be a teenager playing a bad/sick joke. I'd have to wait for them to open fire, but by that point - even if it is just a few seconds, my preference would be to create as much distance as quickly as possible.
 
I'd like to see something that walked people through actual scenarios. Like if you are in a mall and hear gunfire, you're with two others in your group. Do you hide in the back of a store or a bathroom, and set up to defend that space, or do you stay out in the open longer and find an actual exit? How do you collect the people you are with, or don't you? It gives me pause to think of it, even if a person walks right in front of me and I see they have a rifle, it could just be a teenager playing a bad/sick joke. I'd have to wait for them to open fire, but by that point - even if it is just a few seconds, my preference would be to create as much distance as quickly as possible.
That's the kind of joke that gets you killed.

Is this a kid walking into Cabelas with a gun he wants to sell with no clue about proper etiquette or is there intent to do harm? Those decisions are measured in microseconds.
 
Training is what can inform mindset. Which informs skillset. It's as important to know when to not shoot, when it's better to disengage.
Right. I had referred to skillset development beacuse the subject involves the use of the toolset. But I did not have in mind learning to shoot.

Shoot/no shoot, consider what's in front of the target and behind it, don't shoot at a fleeing suspect, is one of the shoppers really another perp, did you notice the guy by the door--those are all things that we know to keep in mnd, but may not handle properly in a really scary incident. Well scripted training should help.

Hearing gunfire in a mall? Everone talks abouttihat, but I think it is a much less likely scenario than having a perp jump out from behind a gas pump, or somone following a shopper on his way to his car..

This has been the purpose of FoF training, but I think that new technology could be used with greater effect.
 
and I see they have a rifle, it could just be a teenager playing a bad/sick joke.
Which is why so many CCW discussions focus on the issues of "man with a gun." The problem with things that are not obvious is that they are not obvious.
Which leads us to ROE, Rules of Engagement, which apply even if we are under no other authority but our own and our local laws.

Which is precisely what is encapsulated in the leading sentence of the OP.

A person is behooved to have considered their reaction to Man With [weapon] before that event occurs. This, whether they are CCW or not. If a person is startled by a man with a mattock, a hoe, or a pitchfork, probably the first thing to do is determine if they are landscapers, not shoot them. This might change if a person were, say, in the local Library. Or if one is at a rally championing the oppression of farm & ag workers as indentured servants.
 
If a person is startled by a man with a mattock, a hoe, or a pitchfork, probably the first thing to do is determine if they are landscapers, not shoot them
Yes indeed!

What we need to train is being observant, analyzing, exercising judgment, making the right decision, and then, and only then. acting.
 
I've used a multi-screen simulator. It was the full room setup with floor-to-ceiling screens. It took a major near-six-figure investment just for the simulator (not counting the property or building). When I participated, it was operated by a veteran LEO firearms trainer. The most common users of the training facility was our county's law enforcement (since the department paid the steep tuition). It, the whole facility, was shut down early last fall. I don't know why. There was some drama that I didn't get involved in. It's all gone now - besides the simulator, they had classroom training and a "pro shop." Live fire range was the public range that is off-site about 5 minutes away.

In my experience, the simulator was good for skillset building but how good it is depends on the quality and applicability of the scenarios. Scenarios ranged from zombie games, to school shooter, traffic stop, warehouse, bank robbery, shopping mall... etc. It is way easier to program scenarios that are applicable to law enforcement than it is for self-defenders. Almost all the scenarios I went through could have been avoided by simply leaving - but I had to "clear rooms" and do sweeps of yards and find shooters in the school rooms. Also, movement is limited. I could move all around the room, but I couldn't move and use objects on the screens for concealment. It's not quite VR and freedom of movement is a lot more limited than simunitions or airsoft battles. Again, for "combat," movement is critical, but for self-defense, the most desirable movement is often to get out and leave, which means I'm no longer participating in the "simulation" I paid for. I guess what I'm saying is you really have to check the defensive mindset at the door and just agree to get in the simulated fight for the sake of some skillbuilding.

Hitherto, a great deal of expense has been in the simulator hardware, software to make it function, and the installation. It's expensive to set up and the equipment can push technological boundaries, but that doesn't accomplish the most important task which is in the scenario setups. Walking through a warehouse blasting zombies adds a dimension not attainable on a square range, but it doesn't mean anything to a defensive skillset. Cop scenarios are more predictable - at least the circumstances are more predictable because the deadly force encounters often happen during routine tasks - but what are routine tasks for non-law enforcement persons? How can those things be setup? A carjacking is one of the few more or less consistent set of circumstances that a person can encounter. The simulator I used didn't have a car to sit in, but that could be a worthwhile optional prop -- you just need the seat, dash and door. Carjacking at the pump would be another meaningful circumstance. Other than that, the circumstances get far-fetched because we just don't know what they will be. The simulators are worth something, but probably more the LEO than individuals. Maybe if scenario generation could be accelerated by AI in the future, we could get a greater value out of simulation for individuals.

The simulators are good for invoking stress. It's like watching a scary movie in a very immersive theater. Old-school training tried to simulate stress using physical exertion because it wasn't practical to induce psychological stress. House of horror shoot-houses were the best we could do but those could be dangerous with live fire. They freak out about safety before entering the Terminator at Thunder Ranch and they show you some of the ways bullets behaved unexpectedly in there even with the sinterfire ammo. The simulators can definitely set a person on-edge and get some adrenaline response -- not as much as the real thing, but enough it could expose things like trigger affirmation and startle response.

I would say that advanced driving simulators would be more valuable to most non-LEO. This is an underserved market. We have driving games that are all racing related or some kind of offroad stuff. We need more traffic simulations. The scenarios there are predictable, and some can present very difficult dilemmas. As mentioned in the OP, we have this for tricky situations in aviation, but too many people learn to drive by the seat of their pants and only get the most valuable experience the hard way and too often at too great expense.

As for hardware, VR is the future. I fly simulators in a $300 Quest 2 and it blows away a $10K multi-screen setup (those are the costs of just the displays, not any of the rest of the simulator like the software, PC, controller hardware, yokes, instrument panels, etc). With the Apple Vision Pro, and Meta Quest Pro, the performance for any sim would be hard to beat with any screens.
 
I've used simulators and in my opinion they're of limited value. What I find is that defensive training typically focuses on two areas, live fire accuracy and speed training, and scenarios that involve complex decision making processes. There is a third type of training that should get more attention and these are situational drills. These are exercises with SIMS or Airsoft and are basically target shooting with a reactive target, ie an opposing human who is similarly armed.

These drills are typically structured in a way that involves your range work like speed and accuracy against an opponent in a limited scope. For example. drawing and shooting from your back with an opponent on top of you with a rubber knife, or sitting in your car and someone opens your unlocked door to attack you, or sitting on your couch and someone bursts through the door or wear a blind fold and when it is pulled off react to what you see in front of you which may be someone charging with a knife or holding a gun on you etc.

There are no complex decisions to be made with branches of the scenario extending in various directions. What is required is immediate reaction to what is in front of you in order to train specific skills that can't be done using live fire. Move, draw, and shoot on a moving target etc.
 
I've used simulators and in my opinion they're of limited value.
Same here, and I agree completely. In fact, good post, @shafter.
Perhaps that could be described as knowing what to do and when; being able to do it; and having the tools with which to do it.
The biggest part of "knowing what to do and when" and "being able to do it" is the mindset.

I fear that when we start to emphasize the skillset over everything else, we relegate to the background the fact that the mindset is the most important.

Of course, my opinion comes only after training with, and training, military and law enforcement personnel for more than twenty years. And in a little over forty-three years, I've unfortunately seen too many examples of folks that had undergone the finest training available (at the time) but when something occurred, couldn't get the skillset and toolset to align with their mindset.

I've trained many, many officers over the past seventeen years (who all qualified on the range a couple times a year) whom I know would never be able to come up with the physical and mental fortitude to stand, face an adversary, and provide accurate, aimed fire at that adversary to kill that adversary.

Technology is no substitute for experience. Jim Cirillo did not have the benefit of the type of training available today, nor were the awesome high-tech simulators yet invented. And yet, he survived an unholy number of gunfights using the lowly .38 SPL revolvers.

Practicing defensive skills (i.e., marksmanship, speed, movement) is all good, but let's not pretend that this alone will make one capable of rising to whatever challenge appears and coming out alive.
 
Back
Top