What the hell are they teaching here!?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Big Mac,

I agree. I feel that the Israeli Method was designed by people who were afraid of others carrying with a round in the chamber.

I think it is foolish to carry in condition 3. I posted the link to show that there are others that feel it is a valid way to carry a gun.

I have taken several classes, none of the instructors belived condition 3 to be prudent.

I personally like cocked and locked, but I am also happy with other modes of carry as long as there is a round in the chamber.

Charles
 
marlboroman84, despite all the rantings in this thread, nobody has actually explained to me why I am wrong. I don't think I am wrong and neither does the 5 page discussion found near the top of 'tactics and training'. I don't know if you people are misunderstanding me or what.

I don't want to kill any man, criminal or not, I don't think anybody sane really does. However, I think if you carry that you should be able to do it if necessary. Maybe you should re-read my last 2 posts and try to figure out what I am trying to say. Whenever possible, you should warn the attacker before you fire, what do I mean by warn? A simple 'Freeze!' is a warning. If you can draw your weapon, you can certainly yell that as you draw. If the attacker stops, you should not fire, if he continues you should fire.

Is that clear enough now? That is what I have been trying to say from the very beginning of this thread. Powderman, who is a LEO, is saying exactly what I am trying to say.

If you disagree with this, then explain why. If you agree, then say so.
 
Completely understood. Shooting someone in cold blood when you could de-escalate it peacefully (albeit with a loaded weapon helping secure the said resolution) makes you no better than the vermin attacking you. Yes, most criminals will not learn from their mistakes, but that doesn't give you a free ticket to blast away when there are alternatives to fighting.

Sum1 is right, no sane person would actually look forward to killing someone, criminal or not.


Charles, I guess it boils down to "to each their own", eh?
 
Thank god. :)

I am finally being understood. I have been frustrated all weekend because of this thread.

Does anyone else agree with what I have said above?
 
Sum1_Special Secondly, maybe it's just me, but I don't carry a gun just for my protection. I want to protect the lives of myself and my fellow human beings. If I see a mugging, robbery, or rape in progress, I will try everything I can to help stop this crime. I'm not just worried about myself. How could you say you wouldn't do the same?
Click to expand...

Sir, unless you are a police officer you got no business protecting anyone other than yourself. Your attitude seems like a wonna-be and it is just the kind of person we don’t want carrying guns.
Did you report your little incident to the local police? I bet you did not or otherwise you would have been charged with a number of offences. Had you done the right thing you would have been able to report the incident and maybe have the person(s) arrested and hence offer some real protection to the community.

Sum1_Special You would not draw a gun if somebody was trying to take your wallet, really? Why carry a gun then, if you are not going to use it as a crime Deterrent.
Click to expand...

Using a gun is your last option (the last resort), NOT your first option. It appears that you have the wrong idea altogether. It will not be long before you find out the hard way.
 
Wow

This is always hard to explain to someone but I get it .Maybe a better way to say it will help you. The way I teach my CCW students is that when put into a situation that things happen quickly your mind is going a million miles an hours . Would you agree? The way to look at it is that a reasonable person put in the same situation would do the same thing. I agree nobody here wants to go shoot anybody or they would be doing it. I can tell you watch to much TV in 20 years of working side by side with LEO I never once heard one say freeze. Stop, Do Not Move, and many other ways of saying the same thing but never freeze. It boils down to this if you truly think about it when you carry a weapon you have decided if the need arises that you will take another human life to save you,yours or that of a third persons. If you can not take that life if need be then leave the gun home. It also comes to this when things are said and done you have to be able to articulate that you where in fear for your life or a loved one or that of a third party. when the weapon is on your side you are now in control of life or death period there is not in between. Hopefully we all practice for something we hope we never have to do if that makes sense. The best of luck to you and yours because like I said you need to decide which you will do run or fight you don't have the luxury to decide which one you will do when some dirt bag has the drop on you and your mind goes bye bye. Because it will and your subconscious will kick in ask anybody who has been in a life or death situation. Hopefully your training kicks in and you go home safe. Be Safe Out There Kurt
 
I'm guilty of some "speed scanning" here and not reading in depth, so if someone has come out and actually said this, then just give me one of those :p smileys.

I agree that a crime deterrent, generally speaking is not a good reason to carry. The crime deterrent aspect is a byproduct, as has been mentioned.

I think powderman may have come the closest to saying what I expected to see in this thread. That would be to present your weapon only when you feel the threat is unavoidable and meets all the other legal and moral criteria of doing so, but before firing, if possible, give one last warning before committing an act you may cannot undo. I say, give the goblin one last moment to save his own existence, or any way you choose to phrase it. There is also the evidence that was mentioned concerning how many goblin-related events are stopped each day merely by letting the goblinperp know that the victim is armed. The citizen shooter will have the question asked of him or her, "Did you give the person any kind of warning?" I want to be able to say "Yes" with a clear conscience. I would always try to find an opportunity to not shoot. You don't get a do over.

General Comment: Something I notice in these tactics and training threads is how the discussions of scenarios are approached. The technical details of each and every move you make and when you make it goes for pages. 1st step, 2nd step, 3rd step, etc. Now, I'm all for being prepared mentally, in fact I believe it is a survival requirement. Mindset can overcome every obstacle, even equipment failure. But there are only a couple of rules for survival. Be aware. Be prepared. Don't give up. Somewhere in there is a "go" button. My point is that all these "steps" must to be put together in a continuum that is situation driven. So we need to be flexible because you won't have time to get your checklist out once it's on. I know that training is built on "steps" and "building blocks", but it's necessary to make the transition to that flexible, responsible, continuum of action before we start carrying a firearm in public. I think that is best done with expert training. Exactly when you make that irreversible move to commit needs to be based on your developed sense whether you can live with the results of your actions and your knowledge of you. This too-long post assumes a working knowledge of your state and local laws. I could be preaching to the choir here.
 
Bud Helms said:
I could be preaching to the choir here.
Click to expand...
Indeed I think you are. Crime deterrent is absolutely the worst reason I can think of for carrying a firearm. In fact, in New York State it is illegal to "show" someone your firearm for the purpose of scaring them. That's called brandishing and can get YOU arrested.

Training and preparation are very important but when the SHTF one must act on instinct. Generally speaking, there is no time to "think" about what to do next. If you need to think about what to do then it's probably too late. When one is involved in a shooting they are hard pressed to recall the events not only because of the stress involved but because it's usually over in a split second. There could be 10 witness' and all would likely have a different view of what happened.

Like I said earlier, it's all about mindset and how that individual will react when the time comes and no one knows until that moment arrives. To me that's a very personal decision.

riverrat66...out
 
The sight of the muzzle should be plenty of warning. If the situation has become so desperate that I have presented there's no time for talk. I have a hard time doing 2 things at once. If it's time to shoot all my attention is going to be devoted to assessing the situation and hitting the target. I don't want to be thinking about what to say. Due to age and orthopedic injuries flight is not an option. If the low life sub-human who is menacing me decides to leave when I present I will not shoot, but if he continues the attack I will shoot to slide lock (followed by reload) or until he falls down, whichever occurs first. I carry to protect my life and my wife's. The general public can either pack or depend on the police. I have no intention of pounding my life savings down the rat hole on lawyers for some sheep who doesn't care enough about his/her own well being to defend it.
 
I haven't read all of this thread but it seems like most think like I do. I see nothing wrong with what the author wrote excet that I would not carry an empty chamber.

About warnings...
If the attack is imminent but not actually in progress, a warning may be justified and logical.
If thye attack IS in progress, as in "immediate", one should present to CoM and stop the threat.

We teach very much the same thing here but are not quite as conservative.
 
There have been several threads addressing this in the past, and this one seems no different. Folks seem strongly polarized in their opinions, with few wavering from their beliefs.

One thing few seem to consider is the fluidity and difference in circumstances of each and every situation. Anytime we consider a scenario here, it must, by nature, be static. By that, I mean that we make the surrounding environment stand still, and we force the actors into pre-established roles and actions, so that we can dissect the results and state our responses. It can't be helped.

Consider watching a movie. The scene will play out as it will; you can't change it by your actions.

Real life situations, however, are dynamic, ever changing. Second by second things change; environment, lighting, cover, actions of non-combatants, and of course, both the actions of the BG's and you. No two situations are the same.

Along with a win-at-all-costs attitude, the most important factor in being able to survive an armed encounter is the ability to quickly analyze both your surrounding environment and the actions of your assailant(s), and then re-analyze, second by second, and react accordingly. This is true, situational awareness.

We must never plan our responses in such a way that they can't be changed in a split second. This includes drawing a weapon up to the point of firing. At the point you've made the decision to draw, the circumstances have dictated that it's necessary to deploy deadly force, and you are in the mindset to fire. A split second later, the circumstances may change (BG drops his weapon, etc.) and you have to be able to analyze the change, and change your actions accordingly. In this case, it means de-escalating your response from firing to a point/aim and verbal commands only. This is expected of law enforcement officers, and is the primary reason we are trained in shoot / don't shoot scenarios. It's also expected of armed citizens.

To say that, once you draw, you must shoot, is locking yourself into a static mindset. Not only can that place you in a legal and moral dilemma, it can also reduce your ability to survive by reducing your ability to adapt.

Train, and train hard, but never train so that your actions become mechanical only. Self defense is a thinking man's game ;) .
 
Learning from Sum1's experience

I'd like to comment on Sum1's account, because it touches on several common issues that are frequently discussed here.

The Original Article cited: "Don't shoot to protect your wallet. Only shoot to protect yourself." (Agreed); AND "Do not issue any warnings; (Disagree) you should not be shooting unless the situation is very grave". Agree.


Sum1_Special: "Last year I was mugged in a parking garage, I was carrying a 22 pistol. The robber had a knife, he was about 4-5 feet away and I reached for my wallet but pulled out the pistol from my back pocket, pointed it at him, and yelled. He ran. confrontation defused, no police, no problems."


The citation says "don't SHOOT to protect your wallet. Only shoot to protect yourself". I agree. What was Sum doing? He was in fear of his life and preparing to defend himself. It has nothing to do with robbery deterrence; theft of the wallet was merely the perp's immediate motive.


I think Sum's situation was this: He was not immediately under attack, but was been threatened with attack; he cannot know if the threat will be followed through, so must prepare for it. The 3 criteria for self defense are met: Means, Opportunity and Intent (intent at least implied - "if you don't give me the wallet, I'll use the knife").

Sum was fortunate in that he was not immediately attacked, was able to draw and turn the tables. He clearly exercised self-control, and drew WITH THE INTENT OF SHOOTING IF NECESSARY. When the perp ran, the 3 criteria no longer held, and Sum was able to secure his weapon.

I do not believe this is a case of brandishing (drawing to threaten), it is a case of drawing for self protection in the face of imminent danger. There may be issues of jurisdiction as to whether he should draw or just hand over the wallet and hope the perp goes away, but usually an imminent threat with a deadly weapon is considered adequate reason for an armed response". Note I said "armed response", not "shoot". If the perp presses the attack, shoot; if he retreats, don't. One can't know what the perp might do if you offer no resistance. If he attacks you on presentation of your weapon, he almost certainly had further plans for you after taking the wallet. So to my mind, drawing for a defensive purpose is fully justified in this situation. Shooting is not, unless an attack is pressed.

Having read many of these scenarios, I have come to the conclusion that "If you draw, you must shoot" is quite incorrect; it should be "If you draw you must be PREPARED to shoot. I have read that over 95% of draws are resolved without an attack, because the BG backs down on his (presumably) lethal threat. If you have the time and opportunity to give a warning/command, I think it is wise to do so, not only to emphasize your command of the situation, but to show you made every effort to avoid a shoot, in case it comes to that.

If you can't get the drop on the perp as Sum did, it's altogether another ball game.

I think there are many instances where it would be wise to draw, sometimes descreetly, in order to ensure that the perp does not get the advantage over you.

I don't endorse the article particularly: it is a good starting point for leaning the business, but not the end.

I believe this incident SHOULD be reported to the police; I can't see how Sum did anything wrong. In fact, Sum, congratulations for handling it well! Again, wisdom of reporting might depend on the jurisdiction and unrelated circumstances. General Rule: call before someone else tries to put you in the wrong.

C
 
Last edited:
What the hell are they teaching here!?

It's not just there. Below is a direct quote from a fairly well known commercial trainer/instructor. It is very bad advice, yet some people believe it...and repeat it.

"My gun is not coming out unless it is with intent to pull the trigger on someone because thats what is necessary to stay above ground. I do not care to attempt to de-escalate anything when the gun needs to be used as a civilian as some intimidation mentality. That process can likely get one killed IMO.

There's a time for shooting and you get to shooting. I work from a defensive posture as a civilian, not an offensive position similiar to swat or in some instances line officers.

Having been trained in swat and swat commander while carrying a shield, I do know the difference between the two."
.
 
Man... I was alone for 2 pages, trying to understand why everyone was saying I was being unreasanable. I believe forums work in a certain way, the first few responses usually indicates where the thread is going. In this case, I am wrong, the next person agrees, 10 people follow, I explain a situation that happened to me last year, everybody tells me I am wrong again, even a Leo tells me I am wrong and yet explains exactly what I was trying to say. people are pretty much looking at me as if I am an idiot who should not be carrying a gun. Finally, somebody agrees with me, Captain Charlie chimes in, and now everybody is beginning to agree with me. Is it the hostile way I write my posts? :D Or is sense finally entering this thread? Don't mean to be rude, but I could not believe some of the things I was reading. I would think what I was trying to say was common knowledge and that people would be on my side... I guess not.

cgraham and Captain Charlie have it dead on.

1. I was afraid that if I did not give the man my money he would stab me to death, considering he was 5 feet away and was threatening just that. I did not call the police because I didn't think it was necessary. The mugger was long gone and I didn't want to explain all of this to a police officer. I just wanted to go home. Maybe I was wrong, but I didn't want to complicate things, all I remembered was the knife the guy was holding. If it was under different circumstances, I might have called the police.

2. I believe Captain Charlie is 100% correct. And if what he and powderman say is true then the article is undoubtedly wrong. And that goes for the rest of you who disagree.
 
To say that, once you draw, you must shoot, is locking yourself into a static mindset. Not only can that place you in a legal and moral dilemma, it can also reduce your ability to survive by reducing your ability to adapt.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. However, to say I draw with the intent of shooting (my personal belief) is quite different. I will not issue a verbal warning (I am not a police officer and I do not feel that I am obligated to the attacker in any way form or manner), my only obligation is the protection of myself and my family. If a situation escalates to the point I am drawing my gun, it is my intent to fire at the time I draw. However, I have drawn my gun twice in my life and have yet to fire in self defense. How can that be you ask? To answer your question, there mugger in question, upon seeing my gun elected to cease his current actions and flee the scene. I felt no need to restrain him, I did call 911 and wait 30 minutes for an officer to arrive, at that point in time I called back and left my name and number so I could be contacted and left (let that be a lesson to those who think the police can be there to protect you). The second instance an individual felt the need to break in my house. I entered the room and the individual (with a screwdriver in hand) was entering the house. I managed to get a clear sight picture and the individual in question elected to leave.

If the individual in question had not stopped the actions that prompted me to draw my gun. I would have shot. There is no question in my mind. In neither instance did I yell "freeze," "stop, I'll shoot," ect. I would have shot without warning (other than the fact that I was drawing my firearm), I had the mindset and the ability.

I hope I am never again faced with the need to utilize a gun for self defense, but make no mistake about it, I am prepared to utilize deadly force to protect myself and my family.

I do encourage all of you to take a defensive handgun course. I highly recommend LFI. Ayoob's book, In the Gravest Extreme, the afore mentioned book On Killing, The Street Smart Gun Book Farnham, and No Second Place Winner, Jordan are all good starting points.

Again, there is no substitute for quality training.

Capt Charlie, is correct: One must be flexible in their tactics, situations are fluid and you must change to match the situation. After five years in full contact martial arts, I have realized It never works out in real life like you had previously planned for it to.

Good luck

Charles
 
The reason I say to warn first(as in yell 'Freeze!', 'Stop!', 'Don't move', or whatever) , and the reason I did yell 'Freeze!' is because the parking garage was dark, and I wanted to make 100% sure the attacker knew I had drawn my gun on him. If you are in a well lit area, and the attacker sees you draw your gun, you have obviously just warned the attacker. Therefore, I think Charles S did the right thing whether or not he yelled anything...

Just making things perfectly clear on my part. :)
 
Regarding the brandishing part. Yeah it MIGHT get you arrested but keep in mind, it takes 12 people to convict you. If you have a good enough lawyer, the case can get dismissed if you have a DAMN good reason for brandishing that weapon. Not that I am advocating whipping out Ol' Betsy when you get into a fender bender or someone gets in your face and talks some crap, but if you see a felony in progress, it is your duty to help prevent it within reasonable constraints.
 
I believe the article give's a general view of good advice. Except for the condition of carry. Cocked & Locked is the only wayto do it. It may only save a split second, but that split second may save your life! It took me a little time to get used to it & I'm sure that if we all thought back to when we started we would find that it was a little scarry knowing we had a chambered round that was ready for action, but it soon became accepctable to us. A split second will win in any sport I can think of. You can win a car race by a split second. you can win a calf ropeing by a split second. You can save a life by a split second. Just use your head, size up the situation in a split second and act accordingly.;)
:) " May The Force Be With You!":) (or something).
 
I respectfully disagree with post above stating that one has the duty to interfere with the commission of a felony. Legally the police have virtual immunity for whatever they do in the line of duty- a peon doesn't. The sentiment is noble, but the law is full of trickery and a vigilante (you know that's what the lying media will call you) can find himself spending all he has or will ever have on lawyers. Even if you do prevail in court and don't get sent to prison you won't have anything left when it's all over. After all, the purpose of the law is to create busy work for the legal industry. Ask yourself if you have a spare $50,000 and if it's worth spending it on this. If you want to help, be a good witness. Personally I would leave and hope not to become involved. The last thing I want to do is be standing there holding a hot smoking pistol when the police arrive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top