FireForged
New member
that is a very reasonable way to state it.
Gaming vs. Training
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Hi, Fastbolt,
My point is that "learning techniques" may be fine for game playing, but I have never been sure why or how it translates to the real world for those who may need to protect themselves or others. Not only is the sporting training not the ultimate end-result and goal, but it is not always even applicable and can actually prevent taking the necessary action by having rules, scenario training and treating the whole exercise as a sport.
Sports training, which we are talking about (the fact that the "tool" is a gun, not a baseball bat, is irrelevant), differs from the real world not in having rules, but that in the real world there are no rules. The rules in baseball (to use that example), say you cannot trip the runner, hit him with the bat, throw the ball at him, or knock him down and cut his throat. In the nasty real world, you can, and might have to, do any or all of those things - there are no rules and the loser dies. Of course, no training will involve serious damage to your opponent - but most "training" is so unrealistic as to be, IMHO, next to useless in a real nasty situation when the opponent is not a paper target and the "bad guy" with a 5x hole in him just might kill you.
Jim
__________________
My point is that "learning techniques" may be fine for game playing, but I have never been sure why or how it translates to the real world for those who may need to protect themselves or others. Not only is the sporting training not the ultimate end-result and goal, but it is not always even applicable and can actually prevent taking the necessary action by having rules, scenario training and treating the whole exercise as a sport.
Sports training, which we are talking about (the fact that the "tool" is a gun, not a baseball bat, is irrelevant), differs from the real world not in having rules, but that in the real world there are no rules. The rules in baseball (to use that example), say you cannot trip the runner, hit him with the bat, throw the ball at him, or knock him down and cut his throat. In the nasty real world, you can, and might have to, do any or all of those things - there are no rules and the loser dies. Of course, no training will involve serious damage to your opponent - but most "training" is so unrealistic as to be, IMHO, next to useless in a real nasty situation when the opponent is not a paper target and the "bad guy" with a 5x hole in him just might kill you.
Jim
__________________
zincwarrior
New member
Thats why you put more holes in them until the threat is ended. Unless you have a .45 acp of course, in which case even a near miss can be fatal.
Agree with the first part of this, but competitive gun-games "mimic self-defense situations" not at all. They may help re-inforce good or bad gun-handling habits, and get folks acquainted with shooting on the move, but that's about it.
Without actually shooting a real-life threat on the street, the absolutely closest training for SD situations is still 2-way (or multiple partner) force-on-force training that employs simunition projectiles from real-world firearms. Those projectiles can sting on impact, so you know when you're hit, which means you know when you screwed-up.
Running scenarios in that training environment against similarly armed opponents forces you to employ all the factors/variables/tactics that might occur on the street ... or in your home: proper use of cover, clearing tactics if working through halls and rooms inside a structure. ... Or, in one-on-one, in-your-face "street assault" scenarios, the use of some gun-fu - i.e., initial off-hand jabs/off-elbow strikes/push-aways, etc., to get distance, followed by drawing your weapon, and/or to prevent a gun-grab, etc.
For those defaulting to the martial-arts analogies, the closest legal real-world fighting we have that mimics what an unarmed physical assault on the street really looks like (with bloody cuts, contusions, fractured bones, et. al) is MMA. It should be an Olympic sport, in my opinion, as the best of MMA's practitioners incorporate a repertoire of fluid but "street effective" techniques - strikes, kicks, grappling and, most importantly, ground fighting.
And it's not one thing; it's many things. That's why for decades the Gracie Jujitsu family could defeat larger, stronger opponents who were skilled experts in only one discipline: boxers, or 3rd degree Karate black belts. They lacked any training in the other effective skill-sets. Try putting your best "Kata King" in the Octogon with Tito Ortiz.
Similarly (back to real-world armed defense), the best training for surviving a gunfight on the street or in your home is training that as closely as possible mimics a gunfight without maiming or killing anyone. So far, the best & safest we have isn't IDPA or IPSC, where gun-gamers shoot against static targets or at least targets that don't fire back.
It's going to be training against a human opponent(s) armed with simunitions, air-soft, paintball-type weapons, role-playing as the aggressor or the defender, who's got a plan, tactics, and is seeking an end-result, just like you.
Last edited:
FireForged
New member
It mimics self defense situations in that it may look like Sd and smell like Sd but you simply are not responding in the way you would to a real threat. Gun games are a highly regulated and timed tango... run run run, hop on one foot, lean over here, bang bang..lean over there bang bang bang.. stand right here and reload, pretend you are using cover, run run run over there, plant your feet and lean this way..bang bang bang, lean that way.,.bang bang bang. Its a timed tango with no concept of the survival element to combat. Is it skillful?.. sure.. is it fighting training?.. No.
I am not critical of what gun games are.. I am not critical of people who are masterful at them.. I acknowledge and applauded their skill. I am critical of the suggesting that gun games are a version of armed fighting training. I don't feel it is.
I am not critical of what gun games are.. I am not critical of people who are masterful at them.. I acknowledge and applauded their skill. I am critical of the suggesting that gun games are a version of armed fighting training. I don't feel it is.
Last edited:
The major reason we do poor training is that most of us simply don't "think right" (or maybe "wrong"). Years ago, I saw a WWII film on Commando training. It showed a "green" trainee facing the "expert" (Fairbairn?). The instructor walked up to the newbie. The soldier came to attention and started to salute, but the instructor did some "magic" and the trainee ended on the ground with the instructor's knee in his back and a "knife" being drawn across his throat.
Lesson one: Always be alert - you can be attacked at any time by anyone.
That may be more than a bit extreme - no sane person would advocate going around killing everyone who approaches us too closely, but being alert is always good practice.
During my basic training, the platoon sergeant was a "retread" from the WWII 101 Airborne Division, a small but wiry type who looked like a mild mannered office clerk. But one morning, a trainee from LA, reportedly a street thug and gang member, responded to the wakeup call by rolling out of his bunk with a knife in his hand, apparently his normal response to being wakened unexpectedly. A second later, he was sliding down the wall with a broken collar bone, a broken arm and two broken ribs, courtesy of the "office clerk".
Remember, learned skills are not easily unlearned, something to keep in mind when training in a normally peaceful environment.
Jim
Lesson one: Always be alert - you can be attacked at any time by anyone.
That may be more than a bit extreme - no sane person would advocate going around killing everyone who approaches us too closely, but being alert is always good practice.
During my basic training, the platoon sergeant was a "retread" from the WWII 101 Airborne Division, a small but wiry type who looked like a mild mannered office clerk. But one morning, a trainee from LA, reportedly a street thug and gang member, responded to the wakeup call by rolling out of his bunk with a knife in his hand, apparently his normal response to being wakened unexpectedly. A second later, he was sliding down the wall with a broken collar bone, a broken arm and two broken ribs, courtesy of the "office clerk".
Remember, learned skills are not easily unlearned, something to keep in mind when training in a normally peaceful environment.
Jim
zincwarrior
New member
And do they have this training at least once a week? I find at least one IDPA USPSA competition a week, not to mention practicing for such.
Who exactly is your target market for all this?
FireForged
New member
Force on force is an intrical part of self defense related training. Are people doing it weekly? like anything else, I guess you could if you desire it, have the time and money.
Force on force is typically the last segment of a multi day course. You use the tactics, strategics and methods learned in practical training and apply them to a realistic scenario with real people.
Who is the market directed at? People who want to learn to lawfully defend themselves in an armed confrontation against the violent criminal.
Force on force is typically the last segment of a multi day course. You use the tactics, strategics and methods learned in practical training and apply them to a realistic scenario with real people.
Who is the market directed at? People who want to learn to lawfully defend themselves in an armed confrontation against the violent criminal.
There are plenty of tactical firearms school out there that offer civilians 1-day or 2-day courses on Force-on-Force training. Yeah, maybe it's not every week, and maybe interested folks could only afford one or two courses a year, but that's where having a couple of similarly-motivated friends is real helpful in pursuing this type of training more frequently, or in between taking formal courses. It could be air-soft guns that mimic the look & feel of what you actually carry (a Glock or Sig, for example) or paint-ball guns, and then just find a place to do it.
Bear in mind that bad-guys and street thugs are getting real world "training" in some form or fashion every day, and especially on the weekends - look at Chicago
- only their victims change. Any law-abiding, lawfully armed citizen who's serious about coming out a confrontation on the street alive or successfully repelling a home invasion.
zincwarrior
New member
That seems...extreme...for John Q Public, both in practice and legally.
Clearing rooms etc. are not advised for the average homeowner.
Again this appears to be a false comparison. I compete with police, military, and the local county's marksmanship unit. I'm not seeing anyone equate a USPSA competition with actual training, but I'd much rather take an active competitor vs. someone who took a class a year ago (not counting that the competitor probably took the same class as well as they tend to be gun junkies).
Legally the available scenarios I can lawfully use lethal force are severely restricted, and with good reason. That reduces down to a few scenarios-most of which come down to doing other protective actions than self defense (leaving the area etc.). Of those scenarios where self defense remains applicable, these competitions help substantial portions-fast, accurate shooting, drawing from concealment, or in my last match shooting from a ladder (because hey why not
). Of the multiple self defense classes I've taken, I'd proffer 90% was helpful to self defense.
I think of them as skills and drills for a variety of self defense basics:
*drawing.
*shooting fast and accurately.
*extremely fast reloading or clearing a firearm.
*moving quickly / reloading while moving /not looking at your firearm.
*shooting multiple targets.
*shooting at moving targets.
*shooting in the dark (advantages of indoor range competitions)-very trippy.
Are they a replacement for advanced self defense tactics? Of course not. I don't think even your best gamer thinks that. Do even basic self defense classes add a different element? of course. but competition allows you to deal with the "higher level" issues, instead of back at the level of thinking about the the basics like drawing your firearm.
Clearing rooms etc. are not advised for the average homeowner.
Again this appears to be a false comparison. I compete with police, military, and the local county's marksmanship unit. I'm not seeing anyone equate a USPSA competition with actual training, but I'd much rather take an active competitor vs. someone who took a class a year ago (not counting that the competitor probably took the same class as well as they tend to be gun junkies).
Legally the available scenarios I can lawfully use lethal force are severely restricted, and with good reason. That reduces down to a few scenarios-most of which come down to doing other protective actions than self defense (leaving the area etc.). Of those scenarios where self defense remains applicable, these competitions help substantial portions-fast, accurate shooting, drawing from concealment, or in my last match shooting from a ladder (because hey why not
). Of the multiple self defense classes I've taken, I'd proffer 90% was helpful to self defense. I think of them as skills and drills for a variety of self defense basics:
*drawing.
*shooting fast and accurately.
*extremely fast reloading or clearing a firearm.
*moving quickly / reloading while moving /not looking at your firearm.
*shooting multiple targets.
*shooting at moving targets.
*shooting in the dark (advantages of indoor range competitions)-very trippy.
Are they a replacement for advanced self defense tactics? Of course not. I don't think even your best gamer thinks that. Do even basic self defense classes add a different element? of course. but competition allows you to deal with the "higher level" issues, instead of back at the level of thinking about the the basics like drawing your firearm.
What? Advised by who? Some politically-correct police chief on the local news ...
Tactical firearms schools like GunSite, Thunder Ranch in Oregon, and TDI in Ohio and others, have been teaching civilian students how to safely clear rooms in defense of their homes (using teaching structures called "Live Fire Houses") with pistols, shotguns, and ARs for decades.
zincwarrior
New member
NRA, Pinkett, attorneys, SWAT I shot with in Cali back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
EDIT: note none of my posts are intended as attacks (unless you're a cat lover in which case my wiener dog tells me you have no soul). Maybe I am confused as to the intent of the posts and the thread.
EDIT: note none of my posts are intended as attacks (unless you're a cat lover in which case my wiener dog tells me you have no soul). Maybe I am confused as to the intent of the posts and the thread.
Last edited:
FireForged
New member
Understanding the methodology behind how you do it and how to mitigate the dangers as you do it, can be applied to many situations and conditions. The "spirit" of any particular tactic can have practical applications in other similar circumstances. It is that knowledge and understanding as well as its application that is typically absent from gun games.
Knowing how to clear a room properly and in a manner which is conducive to your own personal safety can also highlight the proper way to move from place to place or position to position in a hostile environment for any reason. Running carelessly around blind barricades and standing in the exact middle of a port is not how trained people are likely to fight. If you never clear a room, that knowledge can still help you survive a armed criminal attack by helping you make better decisions.
zincwarrior
New member
Kind of like the 50% covering rule on shooting through a port in IDPA...
FireForged
New member
the fact that rules even exist about cover or to force cover is the perfect point. They mimic tactics only to the degree that the rules mandate. Its like saying if you tag home base, your're safe.
zincwarrior
New member
Yep. I didn't bring that up in my list of benefits as people get annoyed saying "ah thats not really cover" or whatever.
On the flip side, unless you have the option of a training class every week its an excellent way to keep your skill sets in practice.
Maybe thats what I'm really trying to say. Neither should replace the other. Both can complement the other.
PLus I'm looking forward to shooting from a ladder again.
On the flip side, unless you have the option of a training class every week its an excellent way to keep your skill sets in practice.
Maybe thats what I'm really trying to say. Neither should replace the other. Both can complement the other.
PLus I'm looking forward to shooting from a ladder again.
Last edited:
Fixed it for you.
And few cops, including the ones I've dealt with, realize that there's actually a huge amount of tactical firearms training available to civilians that equals or, in some schools, exceeds in quality what their department provides, unless they get it on their own time, and usually their own dime.
Even now, there are still cops (outside of those assigned to specialized units that train regularly) who confuse the annual or semi-annual ritual called "qualification" with training.
You're the first person from Texas I've ever seen claim that Texas restricts your right to clear rooms inside your home. Does Texas also impose a Duty-to-Retreat on the home owner inside his or her own residence?
I'd thought Texas, more so than most states, had an expansive view of the right to use lethal force in SD, especially on your own property and/or inside your home.
zincwarrior
New member
Didn't say legally.
This was more-why are you clearing your house-wait in a secure position for the police to come advice given.
Never mind. I have now been...completely enlightened about the amount of training required.
This was more-why are you clearing your house-wait in a secure position for the police to come advice given.
Never mind. I have now been...completely enlightened about the amount of training required.
FireForged
New member
regardless of what a person wants to do, is able to do or expects to do.. the situation you find yourself in may demand that you do something else. If remaining static is a realistic option then its reasonable to assume that moving might also be a realistic option. I do not see the logic in narrowly focusing on only one method. If we were talking about 26 options, ok, I get it... but we are only talking about 2. I cant help but think that some people simply construct an argument based on what they want to do and not want is practical or prudent.
I have no intent to roam around my home looking for an intruder. I do accept the fact that I may not be able to remain static for a whole host of reasons. Maybe they set something on fire, maybe my wife ran out of the room and is in danger, maybe my wife got up in the middle of the night and came upon an intruder and cant make it back to me. There are countless reasons I might have to move during a violent encounter. I would prefer to know how to do that while optimizing my chances of success.
I have no intent to roam around my home looking for an intruder. I do accept the fact that I may not be able to remain static for a whole host of reasons. Maybe they set something on fire, maybe my wife ran out of the room and is in danger, maybe my wife got up in the middle of the night and came upon an intruder and cant make it back to me. There are countless reasons I might have to move during a violent encounter. I would prefer to know how to do that while optimizing my chances of success.
zincwarrior
New member
These are fair points. You win...this time.
Back to gaming vs. training:
Which drills do you find not helpful? Lets compare to IDPA as USPSA has long since moved away from defensive aspects to fully embrace its gaming nature.
Alternatively what would you change to make them better in this aspect (remembering that safety is a factor and so is fun)?