Short answer (long thread) for those who don't want to do their homework otherwise: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159985
Now that said: the personality of the trainer isn't at issue here. No more on that subject, please.
pax
Shooting and Fighting Aren't The Same...
- Thread starter AK103K
- Start date
Short answer (long thread) for those who don't want to do their homework otherwise: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159985
Now that said: the personality of the trainer isn't at issue here. No more on that subject, please.
pax
"Shooting isn't fighting" - I get that. Another wizened philosopher once said "a man's gotta know his limitations". I know I'm not a "fighter" being on the back side of middle age and 140lbs soaking wet. If the altercation turns to hand-to-hand, I'm going to be at a huge disadvantage against most. Shooting, or the threat of the shot, is probably the only chance I've got to survive a "fight".
I’ve never heard of the author before, so I had no preconceived opinions before reading “Shooting and Fighting Aren’t the Same.” I have to say I agree with 95% of the authors premise. I’m a firm believer that shooting and shooting well is an art form, one I’m still trying to master. Fighting is a mindset, one that requires the fighter to forget every idea of fair play and decency that has been installed in us, and do whatever is necessary to survive. In the real world there are no “dirty fighters,” just winners and losers.
I've never heard of Mr. Suarez either. I'll read Pax's post later.
I get what he is saying. But I don't know if he does.
A fighter studies the art of fighting in all it's facets. If the fight turns to fists, great he's studied. If it turns to knives, cool he's studied that also. He is prepared to do whatever to win. A shooter, he observes is someone who relies on his one skill to get him through. He could also say "a boxer is not a fighter."
Ok, point taken.
I get off the boat when people quote Musashi to me.
The samurai class had the luxury to study fighting in all its forms. That was their job. The serfs provided them food. The local daimyo provided them housing. Those of us with jobs and families and volunteer duties and hobbies and kids' hobbies and the wife's hobbies don't have quite the same set of priorities. If CJ has time to learn how to use a pistol and practice and compete and he puts all his chips on the biggest hammer in the legal suitcase of self-defense tools, it might be the best choice for a person who has limited time resources.
Should a person who is carrying also be willing to use? Yes, I believe that a person who is carrying a self-defense tool of any stripe (mace, knife, pokey key chain thing, etc) should be willing and able to use it. If that person isn't well versed in 5 different martial art forms as well.... So be it.
I believe it was Musashi who also said "When I face off in a duel one of three things will happen. I will cut down my adversary. He will cut me down or we will both die." Even trained fighters can't avoid the fact that sometimes results of a fight are beyond their control. I'll look that last quote up again, but I stand behind the idea that the best way to win a gun (any) fight is to not be there when it happens. The second best way is the have the biggest tool to use in the fight. I choose a gun.
I get what he is saying. But I don't know if he does.
A fighter studies the art of fighting in all it's facets. If the fight turns to fists, great he's studied. If it turns to knives, cool he's studied that also. He is prepared to do whatever to win. A shooter, he observes is someone who relies on his one skill to get him through. He could also say "a boxer is not a fighter."
Ok, point taken.
I get off the boat when people quote Musashi to me.
The samurai class had the luxury to study fighting in all its forms. That was their job. The serfs provided them food. The local daimyo provided them housing. Those of us with jobs and families and volunteer duties and hobbies and kids' hobbies and the wife's hobbies don't have quite the same set of priorities. If CJ has time to learn how to use a pistol and practice and compete and he puts all his chips on the biggest hammer in the legal suitcase of self-defense tools, it might be the best choice for a person who has limited time resources.
Should a person who is carrying also be willing to use? Yes, I believe that a person who is carrying a self-defense tool of any stripe (mace, knife, pokey key chain thing, etc) should be willing and able to use it. If that person isn't well versed in 5 different martial art forms as well.... So be it.
I believe it was Musashi who also said "When I face off in a duel one of three things will happen. I will cut down my adversary. He will cut me down or we will both die." Even trained fighters can't avoid the fact that sometimes results of a fight are beyond their control. I'll look that last quote up again, but I stand behind the idea that the best way to win a gun (any) fight is to not be there when it happens. The second best way is the have the biggest tool to use in the fight. I choose a gun.
You have to make the choice of whats important to you as to what your life, and/or that of those around you are worth, and how you deal with it.
I understand the general lethal force rules, and what is expected, but I see nothing in them, that does not allow you to protect yourself, by any means necessary. Once things start, your full focus should be on winning. Anything else, will get in the way, and likely cause you to not give your full attention to the task at hand.
Worrying about what others might think in the aftermath, while things are in play, is only going to be detrimental in solving the problem. Focus on the problem, and solve it. Worry later.
If youre justified to use force, then your justified to use it, and use it as aggressively as you possibly can. If youre hesitant to do so, you may want to think about things some more.
No doubt.
Best to be the teacher here, than the student.
Id say youve certainly got the loser convinced.
Whos fault is that?
People lose more because they have already convinced themselves, they cant win. Fear is the mind killer.
Fighting isnt always about brawn (not that that doesnt help), its about knowledge and skill. If you havent bothered to keep yourself in shape, and learn even just some basic skills, and even worse, convinced yourself in your own mind, you dont stand a chance, then youre your own worst enemy.
Well said, and very much the truth.
While there is no need to be even well versed in one, I think the bigger problem is, more are not versed in even the basics of one. Add to that, more than not, are not in even reasonable shape to sustain even a brief fight, or even break and run off, if need be.
This whole thing is about a package, not just a specific part.
Even Musashi knew Murphy. I suppose its only those who have tried, that have met him. Those who lack the experience, just havent met him yet. Hopefully, hes in a decent mood when they do.
No doubt.
Me too, if its doable in the moment.
Having the skills and will to use it (and other things), are a BIG help as well.
But at the end of the day its all about calculated risk.
How many people carry and do the bare minimum to allow it. Many if not most. Even at that level they've increased their ability to defend themselves a thousand fold. They carry because it gives them a sense of security and safety allows them to enjoy their lives more. They don't want to learn martial arts or keep in shape or be an expert knife fighter. Those skills take time and money they would rather use on other things. How many of them will even need to draw or use their gun? Barely any. Probably less the 1%. As long as they conduct themselves in a safe manner to those around them and how they handle their firearm let them be.
It's no ones fault he is simply being factual. Some people have permanent injuries or ailments that would be a HUGE factor when faced with hand to hand fighting. Even myself, I have an injury if known or found out about could end a fight with me very quickly. Its not about wrong mindset its about knowing your limitations. He didn't say if i lose my gun i'll give up did he?
If a person feels that the above isn't enough to keep them safe enough let them seek out additional training or martial arts etc etc. how many of them will need it in their life time? again hardly any. I know two people that I would be more terrified of with a bit of metal or a big stick then most with a firearm but it took them YEARS to become that proficient at fighting. Lots of people don't even have the interest to expend that kind of energy on things they like then something they could careless about.
And it keeps going like that. there's plenty of people that have spent their entire lives training for battle and never had to use any of it then there's a guy who runs a small business that's been in several gunfights. It doesn't matter how good you are once you find yourself out matched in a gunfight you'll know you are pretty quick.
I disagree with this completely. While in the realm of 'the fighting' sure it makes sense, but when taken in as a whole this could be just as harmful to your life and livelihood as losing a gunfight.
How to solve problems should be something thought of beforehand and carefully considered. One simple action in the moment could change you from brave citizen defending his family to ruthless executioner of a wounded criminal. How you conduct yourself during and after the fight especially if viewed by others who weren't there and can second guess every action you do from eye witness accounts or video of the event.
Is it tactically sound to leave a wounded enemy behind you in battle? No of course not that rudimentary stuff. Does that give you the right to execute a bleeding man on that floor with his hands up simply because you must go past him for any reason? Reach a phone. Save a loved one. Help a friend. If you did how would it look to the media and a jury?
Look how many of SD shootings spark nationwide coverage and debates. you can become a villian with one news report. Even if everything you did was just. It could ruin your career. Life in public. you could lose everything.
A local man in my state at the age of 80 shot two teens who attacked them with bats. A male and female beat him with them in a stairwell @ his work. He shot both in SD and they ran away and expired outside a short way off. Apparently they were married and had a 9 month old child and the female was 17. Soon as that info was released the uproar was massive he went from 'brave old man' to killing a young mother and father to leave their child an orphan. I remember hearing a reporter or interviewed person say 'they only had baseball bats, they didn't deserve to get shot.'
What I am getting from this paper is yes shooting and gunfighting definitely not the same hardly an novel or insightful statement.
But IMHO Gunfighting and Self defense shooting is hardly the same either.
How many people carry and do the bare minimum to allow it. Many if not most. Even at that level they've increased their ability to defend themselves a thousand fold. They carry because it gives them a sense of security and safety allows them to enjoy their lives more. They don't want to learn martial arts or keep in shape or be an expert knife fighter. Those skills take time and money they would rather use on other things. How many of them will even need to draw or use their gun? Barely any. Probably less the 1%. As long as they conduct themselves in a safe manner to those around them and how they handle their firearm let them be.
It's no ones fault he is simply being factual. Some people have permanent injuries or ailments that would be a HUGE factor when faced with hand to hand fighting. Even myself, I have an injury if known or found out about could end a fight with me very quickly. Its not about wrong mindset its about knowing your limitations. He didn't say if i lose my gun i'll give up did he?
If a person feels that the above isn't enough to keep them safe enough let them seek out additional training or martial arts etc etc. how many of them will need it in their life time? again hardly any. I know two people that I would be more terrified of with a bit of metal or a big stick then most with a firearm but it took them YEARS to become that proficient at fighting. Lots of people don't even have the interest to expend that kind of energy on things they like then something they could careless about.
And it keeps going like that. there's plenty of people that have spent their entire lives training for battle and never had to use any of it then there's a guy who runs a small business that's been in several gunfights. It doesn't matter how good you are once you find yourself out matched in a gunfight you'll know you are pretty quick.
I disagree with this completely. While in the realm of 'the fighting' sure it makes sense, but when taken in as a whole this could be just as harmful to your life and livelihood as losing a gunfight.
How to solve problems should be something thought of beforehand and carefully considered. One simple action in the moment could change you from brave citizen defending his family to ruthless executioner of a wounded criminal. How you conduct yourself during and after the fight especially if viewed by others who weren't there and can second guess every action you do from eye witness accounts or video of the event.
Is it tactically sound to leave a wounded enemy behind you in battle? No of course not that rudimentary stuff. Does that give you the right to execute a bleeding man on that floor with his hands up simply because you must go past him for any reason? Reach a phone. Save a loved one. Help a friend. If you did how would it look to the media and a jury?
Look how many of SD shootings spark nationwide coverage and debates. you can become a villian with one news report. Even if everything you did was just. It could ruin your career. Life in public. you could lose everything.
A local man in my state at the age of 80 shot two teens who attacked them with bats. A male and female beat him with them in a stairwell @ his work. He shot both in SD and they ran away and expired outside a short way off. Apparently they were married and had a 9 month old child and the female was 17. Soon as that info was released the uproar was massive he went from 'brave old man' to killing a young mother and father to leave their child an orphan. I remember hearing a reporter or interviewed person say 'they only had baseball bats, they didn't deserve to get shot.'
What I am getting from this paper is yes shooting and gunfighting definitely not the same hardly an novel or insightful statement.
But IMHO Gunfighting and Self defense shooting is hardly the same either.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by AK103K:
Your objective is not to use force to seriously harm an attacker "once things start". Your objective is to do what is immediately necessary to prevent him from seriously harming you. That my require harming him, perhaps even fatally, but that is not your objective.
Not does it mean that one should "move forward with speed".
The only circumstance that I can visualize in which that would be appropriate would be to prevent someone from harming another person. Moving forward to defend yourself is an oxymoron of sorts, unless "forward" means "toward cover" or "toward the exit".
Let us understand this: "fighting" per se, except in sanctioned contests conducted under strict rules, is illegal. Period.
You do not want to think of that ambush in the parking lot as a "fight". Rather, it is an unlawful attack. You may do what is reasonably necessary, and no more, to prevent serious injury to yourself or to others at that moment.
Again, the book by Marc MacYoung is worth reading. One, but only one, of the many important gems in that book addresses how many MMA instructors claiming to be teaching "self defense" are teaching their students how to get killed or go to jail.
Yes, and "winning" means not getting hurt, whether it is necessary to harm the attacker or not.
Your objective is not to use force to seriously harm an attacker "once things start". Your objective is to do what is immediately necessary to prevent him from seriously harming you. That my require harming him, perhaps even fatally, but that is not your objective.
True. You really need to think things though beforehand.
It is essential that you "solve" it lawfully.
Worrying later will do no good whatsoever. What is done will have been done.
That is almost true. You are justified to use force to the extent that is is necessary. You may not use more force than a reasonable person would consider necessary, or continue using it after the danger has diminished.
Not does it mean that one should "move forward with speed".
The only circumstance that I can visualize in which that would be appropriate would be to prevent someone from harming another person. Moving forward to defend yourself is an oxymoron of sorts, unless "forward" means "toward cover" or "toward the exit".
Let us understand this: "fighting" per se, except in sanctioned contests conducted under strict rules, is illegal. Period.
You do not want to think of that ambush in the parking lot as a "fight". Rather, it is an unlawful attack. You may do what is reasonably necessary, and no more, to prevent serious injury to yourself or to others at that moment.
Again, the book by Marc MacYoung is worth reading. One, but only one, of the many important gems in that book addresses how many MMA instructors claiming to be teaching "self defense" are teaching their students how to get killed or go to jail.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
You might want to ask Jerome Ersland or Markus Kaarma what they think of that advice. Each was found by a jury to have gone too far, and each was convicted of murder. Ersland lost his appeal and is in prison serving a life sentence. Kaarma was sentenced to 70 years in prison, and it's been reported that he will appeal.AK103K said:
This really opens up the debate between two large groups of thought.
1. The Warrior mindset...win at all cost and destroy all opposition.
2. The Defense mindset...avoid conflict, but if attacked, fight until the threat ceases to exist.
The group that teaches #1 is growing and in many of it's tenants, it is in conflict with the law. The group in 1 also tends to look with disdain at those who have the mindset in group 2.
Ask yourself this question...would you rather be trained tactics by a person who successfully avoided taking a life multiple times due to his use of evasion, verbal tactics and retreat, or a person who is built to kill and has killed?
While shooting and fighting are not the same, when guns come out, the most highly trainer shooter wins the vast majority of the time. Rounds on target as fast as possible...that is what action shooting is all about and when it becomes part and parcel of who you are, it is a valuable fighting tool, but just one element of many you may need.
1. The Warrior mindset...win at all cost and destroy all opposition.
2. The Defense mindset...avoid conflict, but if attacked, fight until the threat ceases to exist.
The group that teaches #1 is growing and in many of it's tenants, it is in conflict with the law. The group in 1 also tends to look with disdain at those who have the mindset in group 2.
Ask yourself this question...would you rather be trained tactics by a person who successfully avoided taking a life multiple times due to his use of evasion, verbal tactics and retreat, or a person who is built to kill and has killed?
While shooting and fighting are not the same, when guns come out, the most highly trainer shooter wins the vast majority of the time. Rounds on target as fast as possible...that is what action shooting is all about and when it becomes part and parcel of who you are, it is a valuable fighting tool, but just one element of many you may need.
seeker_two
New member
With all the talk about wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs, I tend to be more of a mountain goat....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_goat
Mountain goats use their horns & hooves protect their own....they don't go chasing after wolves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_goat
Mountain goats use their horns & hooves protect their own....they don't go chasing after wolves.
markco said:
Do you have a link to your data?
My civilian experience (8 years deputy sheriff) has been that when the guns come out the one who has achieved the best tactical position and greatest degree of surprise BEFORE the guns come out is the one who wins the vast majority of the time.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by MarkCO:
Following the second school of thought is not only a far better approach to avoiding criminal prosecution, it leads to lower risk of immediate harm, lower risk of retaliation, and lower risk of adverse civil proceedings.
Lest there be any misinterpretation by anyone here, I would rephrase the second to read "use appropriate means, including force if necessary, until the attacker ceases to pose an immediate threat".
Following the second school of thought is not only a far better approach to avoiding criminal prosecution, it leads to lower risk of immediate harm, lower risk of retaliation, and lower risk of adverse civil proceedings.
zombietactics
New member
I also would like to see something substantive, backing the general claim the most highly trained shooter "wins" in self-defenses cases, most of the time.
At first gloss, that notion seems to assume a fair "contest", governed by rules focused upon a narrow range of skills.
That does not sound like any criminal or self-defense incident of which I am aware, but I am open to instruction.
At first gloss, that notion seems to assume a fair "contest", governed by rules focused upon a narrow range of skills.
That does not sound like any criminal or self-defense incident of which I am aware, but I am open to instruction.
seeker_two
New member
That quote, pertains to a Watch repair businessman. If you read the escalation of his mindset, small guns placed all about, to a better (bigger one! 15 round magazine) in a better holster, training from the holster, etc!
We can look at his escalation, and start where he got too, in the end!
The above is for equipment. So think about this, a pistol that works all the time, a reasonable capacity (at least a 15 round magazine, plus a spare) a good fast holster, yes carry a good folder, I always have.
And get good with your stuff, however you feel to do!
It helps that in your past, is a whole lot of fights! Nasty violent ones!
How the fighting in the past really helps, is not so much the training aspect, but the ability to start! Click, go! Most truly civilized people, hesitate! Some freeze totally!
A trained boxer aims for the places you can strike legally. A street fighter hits what hurts most! A flat fist punch to the throat can kill? Do you care? NO!!
If you have used that strike, in the past, and it worked? The size of your criminal opponent matters little.
Mind set! Go about your life in peace, be nice, hold the vehicle door for your Wife (more tactical than good manners) smile a lot, be happy.
But if threatened, you or yours, explode! Violence of action can sometimes be the difference in a street attack. Age is no major detriment, providing your bits all work.
Keep out of places you should not be, don't (Teenager advice! do not stay out after midnight!) Works for me too.