So now you can read minds. You know what the people were thinking. Great...just great.
P95. This has got to be one of the most assinine, stupid statements that I have ever read on this forum. You do not need to be a mind reader, phychatrist, teacher or anything else to read a one paragraph, generic article of a 70 something year old man defeating a younger, stronger, armed attacker, a 15 year old defending his family, or a doctor protecting his patients to know these people have the will to survive, never quit and demonstrated a "Warrior Mindset".
Are you truly that hard headed and lacking in common sense that you truly believe this?
In regards to you wanting "Ninja Stories" to show that training works simply go to officer.com, any military forum, or on this very forum for experiences of those who care to post them. You want a story about how my training has helped me? Here you go, I worked 20 plus years on the streets wearing a badge and carrying a gun, I have been living and working in the war zones and armpits of the world for 6 years I am not happy nor proud about some of the things I have had to do to survive but I am still living with no extra holes in me, other than that you do not deserve to hear a damn word about anything myself or others have done.
You sit in the safety of your home typing on your computer spewing trash and posting links to stories of "what other people have done" while you have done nothing to compare to it. As I stated before these are generic, one paragraph articles that say nothing about the people not being trained or taken any training. As far as anyone knows the 15 year old may shoot IDPA in the master class. The 70 year old may be a retired SF Sergeant Major, the doctor may have had his training in the jungles of SE Asia you don't know nor do you care to know as long as you think it proves your point which it does not.
I've read most of the lengthy and opinionated posts and agree with most points on both sides of the argument. I thought I would share a story.
Last summer one of the local heroin addicts that lived across the street from me was antagonizing me and calling me into the street to throw fists. A friend who was over for dinner said it would be quite easy to kick his but and that I should go down there and do it. I agreed. However, I told him that this is a Bad Guy, he doesn't live by the same ethics and morals as we do. This guy who looks so easy to defeat would not think twice about stabbing me in the throat!
My point! Bad guys, Killers, Thieves, Rapist, thugs and drug addicts live their lifestyles 24/7/365. They are in a way professionals at what they do. Just like Soldiers and LEOs. These bad guys have all day to think about how they are going to kill, steal, rob and rape. We as honorable and law abiding citizens are just not of the same mindset. Training can help to make us more proficient in firearms and tactical simulations. However, unless we are thrust into a war zone or career that forces us to think like a warrior we will never be on the same level as criminals, soldiers and LE. I practice to the best of my ability to put me a little closer to their level.
I agree with both sides but I have no illusions of how harsh the real world is. My respect for human life and high moral standards puts me at a disadvantage to someone that does not. Remember we all work, live and play at different threat levels. What is practical and prudent for some may not be for another.
Just some thoughts!
Kinda like the USCCA selling their "insurance."
This comment reminded me of something I forgot. P95, You are posting links to a site that advocates training in there memberships and videos so which is it? Is it possible some of the people mentioned on their site have received training? Dear God say it isn't so.
Got good health? A solid will? Good insurance? A career that keeps you and your fmily out of "bad" areas? For me, these come ahead of my proficiency as a gunfighter. I carry a gun to avoid a fight, not stay in one.
I think the fact that we are all on this forum shows we take our carrying a firearm seriously.
The thing about arguments is this and I fall victim to it.
We are not listening to what people are saying, we are waiting for them to stop talking so we can make our point. I think there are good points on both sides yet we don't want to acknowledge them for need to be 100% right all the time. We need to win arguments instead of learn something new or God Forbid admit we are wrong.
I myself do not carry a gun to be in a fight either, I carry one to be part of what may be needed to go home safe if I find myself in one. (to end one so to speak)
Sheeesh guys.... now the "trained ninjas" are callin' out the untrained to the new FOX reality series "Death Paint 2012" To air before the end of the Mayan calendar (you know, just in case).
Well, tell you what, Bill or whoever put out the challenge... I'll play... On one condition... All you gotta do is go through a similar exercise against SEAL Team 6 (or, heck, I'd even let you pick which SEAL team you go up against), with live ammo, in the sandbox... If you come out alive, I'll meet you for the games...
Neener neener boo boo!
Point being, again... no matter how well you train... somebody has trained more, mo' better, mo' often.... And, the VAST majority of the criminals on the street don't even know how to hold a firearm...
And there's a pretty decent paintball facility within about 3 miles of my place:
This kind of reminds me of a martial arts conference I attended years ago in Vegas, where all the greats attended and gave seminars. Al Tracy, of Tracys Karate, and the founder of Tracy's Kenpo was speaking. In his speech, he talked about an incident that happened to him. When he asked the audience how many techniques that one needed to effectively deal with the attack, everybody suggested this and that. Now, in the traditional system, there are at least 300 techniques to learn, which are taught one on one by private lesson.
The thing that stuck me about his answer, and took me awhile to understand was he said " one". The point I later learned, was that even though the execution may differ, it is all the same. The block becomes the punch, the punch becomes a set up or positioning tool, the positioning tool becomes a lock, or any combination therein.
It's kinda the same way with anything. There is only so much you can learn, but it all either fits the situation, or it has to be adjusted to meet the need at the time. The situation itself is what it will be, and you have to adjust to that.
Fundamentals are the core of every system. Once these are mastered, everything else is gravy. It just depends on how much gravy you like. But if you can shoot well, perform a reload or malfunfuntion drill, know how to do a good smooth draw, I believe you have alot going for you for home protection and away from home too.
Training to expand on these things is always beneficial, but not entirely necessary to be able to put a bullet in a thugs buttocks.
Wow. This thread is going nowhere fast. It seems that a certain few believe that training is not a necessary part of concealed carry, basing this on a few cases where someone who may or may not have been trained, survived a violent encounter. Like I said earlier, just because a few survived, doesn't mean a hundred didn't. It seems they're trying to create statistics for themselves, without looking at the big picture. It kind of reminds me of a quote that fits perfect there:
One person may survive being shot in the head, but a countless number do not. One, two, or even three cases proves nothing.Quote:
There are lies, *bleep* lies, and statistics.
It seems that some people feel that the odds of them being in a life or death situation are so low that they don't feel the need to better their skills. I have a question for those people. If the odds are so low that you don't believe you'll ever need to use it, why do you carry a gun at all?
IMO, every person that carries a gun owes it to themselves, and everyone around them, to be proficient. You're responsible for EVERY shot that leaves your barrel.
How would someone who is in competition, engaged with the stress of either the timer behind their back or, simply, the ranking system alone, and being able to therefore directly measure their skill sets, not what you'd asked for?
Or is it what Bill MO said:
RE: Force-on-Force training - and the training "disconnect"
MadMac and Bill MO -
I think both of you bring up very, very valid points.
A lot of the "training" out there really don't jibe with the realities that we - I should rather say myself and others like me - "Average Joe" everyday citizens see.
What several members here (including me) have said, as as even the likes of the late Paul Gomez has pointed out, most of us common average everyday citizens here, residing in the continental US, are very, very unlikely to need to go to the gun in a defensive scenario against violent crime. I live and work in a relatively secure area and I have the luxury of being able to avoid the Iron Triangle. On the average day, I'm more likely to be given the finger by a passing soccer-mom blazing thorough the active School-Zone than I am to have to deal with even an aggressive pan-handler. I'm no ninja-assassin. Heck, I'm not even a rent-a-cop: I'm a nerdy basic-scientist who has spent more time in school than out. I'm so friendly that, four years ago, when I lost my temper at an experiment prep. that went haywire, my students later approached me and remarked that was the first time (some had been with me for upwards of 5 years, by that point) that they'd ever seen me mad. When I pick up my daughter from school (she's just finished Kindergarten this year), which I do every day, her friends flock to me and asks me to join them in games - I'm their mascot, my wife says. I'm the proverbial laughing Buddah, and some of my friends have half-jokingly nicknamed me "Kung Fu Panda." Yeah, it's like that. :embarassed:
Now, given that I take what many would consider to be a good amount of training classes, yes, I do see that this is where the disconnect comes in, particularly when it comes to firearms training.
For most classes, we come in with a full-sized pistol housed in a OWB holster that's counterbalanced by three or even four high-capacity magazines on the off-side. How many of us carry this way, in our daily lives? I know that I do not.
Yet, I still attend these courses. I actually eagerly seek instruction from all the schools/instructors around me. Why, particularly even with this disconnect?
It's because I believe that one can have specific goals to shoot for - no pun intended - regardless of the class structure. No, I'm not stepping downrange in StaniStan every morning, so I'm not wearing nearly 100 rounds of ammo on me, but through these classes, I can learn how to run what I have in my gun, and I can learn how to rigorously manipulate my weapon. And even if it's a class tailored towards competition shooting, I can still learn to shoot effectively and efficiently. In other words, the training is what I make of it.
But is it better if my training does connect with my reality? Certainly.
And there are some courses out there that's like that. Courses that specifically encourage or require students wear their normal everyday clothing and use their carry gear - and that goes for everything, there are local classes tailored towards concealed-carriers that cover everything from unarmed self-defense to knife-work, and, circling around to this the long way, to Force-on-Force, too, where the scenarios are just as you'd imagine them, MadMac, a strong-arm robbery while two guys sandwich you at the gas pumps or a behind-the-back threat at the ATM.
I think that it's vitally important that the concealed-carrier, should he/she choose to be further trained, seek out training that mesh with their everyday realities - failing that, to at least head into training with a set goal in-mind, so that they can adapt the skills learned to their real-life needs.
And as for age and physical conditions....
I do understand that for some, armed self-defense is what's necessary because of physical limitations. However, again, one needs to realize that these limitations are also what, in some cases, makes them a target. For example, some say that they carry a gun because they cannot run: but they completely ignore the fact that the cane they use to help them walk is, in and of itself, a very potent weapon that can either buy them time to get to the gun or may well enough stop an attack in the first place. I think that it is important for those with physical limitations to be able to "work with what they've got," and realize that in a violent criminal assault, they may not be able to get to that gun (or guns) that they're counting on to save them.
Here is a definition. See what you think?
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
NOT SAYING YOU ARE, but what do YOU think?
The Armed Citizen - A Five Year Analysis
For the period 1997 – 2001, reports of 482 incidents were examined. All involved the use of firearms by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. No law enforcement related incidents were included.
The majority of incidents (52%) took place in the home. Next most common locale (32%) was in a business. Incidents took place in public places in 9% of reports and 7% occurred in or around vehicles. The most common initial crimes were armed robbery (32%), home invasion (30%), and burglary (18%).
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty.
Handguns were used in 78% of incidents while long guns were used in 13%; in the balance the type of firearm was not reported. The most common size of handgun was the .35 caliber family (.38, .357, 9mm) at 61%, with most .38s apparently being of the 5 shot variety. Mouseguns (.380s and below) were at 23%, and .40 caliber and up at 15%.
The range of most incidents appears to be short but in excess of touching distance. It appears that most defenders will make the shoot decision shortly before the criminal comes within arm's length. Defenders frequently communicate with their attackers before shooting.
The firearm was carried on the body of the defender in only 20% of incidents. In 80% of cases, the firearm was obtained from a place of storage, frequently in another room.
Reloading was required in only 3 incidents. One of those involved killing an escaped lion with a .32 caliber revolver, which was eventually successful after 13 shots.
Multiple conspirators were involved in 36% of the incidents. However, there are no apparent cases of drivers or lookouts acting as reinforcements for the criminal actor(s) once shooting starts.
Immediate flight is the most common response for drivers and lookouts at the sound of gunfire.
The largest group of violent criminal actors was 7, who committed serial home invasions in Rochester NY. An alert and prepared homeowner dispatched them (2 killed and 1 seriously wounded) with a shotgun when they broke in his door.
Incidents rarely occurred in reaction time (i.e., ¼ second increments). Most commonly, criminals acted in a shark-like fashion, slowly circling and alerting their intended victims. The defender(s) then had time to access even weapons that were stored in other rooms and bring them to bear.
The most common responses of criminals upon being shot were to flee immediately or expire. With few exceptions, criminals ceased their advances immediately upon being shot. Even mouseguns displayed a significant degree of immediate lethality (30% immediate one shot kills) when employed at close range. Many criminal actors vocally expressed their fear of being shot when the defender displayed a weapon. Upon the criminals' flight, the "victims" frequently chased and captured or shot the criminals and held them for the authorities.
Analysis by Claude Werner
Where could I get FOF lion training?Quote:
One of those involved killing an escaped lion with a .32 caliber revolver, which was eventually successful after 13 shots.