"The controlled study documented in these videos show that concealed carry permit holders are fooling themselves if they think they will be able to react effectively to armed aggressors. Most CCW holders won't even be able to un-holster their gun. They will more likely be killed themselves or kill innocent bystanders than stop the aggressor."
This was an obvious set up...Imagine trying to get your gun out from under a very large loose shirt while wearing gloves...What a terrible joke to play on folks who don't know any better...The police trainer should be ashamed of himself allowing the totally biased media to use him as a tool....I guess he is one of those police officers who doesn't think civilians can fend for themselves...He might have a big hero complex...He should devote his time to training folks correctly if he is really interested in real safety....I have half a mind to make this one of the Martial Myths to show far better ways to teach for this and other gun related emergencies...
--John Perkins
Part 1
ReplyDeleteJohn,
I actually had a different take on the video (I admit to only watching it once and may need to view it again). I did not think it was really an anti-gun video until they threw in the so called experts near the end. The rest of the time I felt that they were emphasizing the point that people need to train, train, train, and that things can happen outside of how a person thinks a situation is going to go down or how they will react and that it is not enough to just carry a weapon and believe that you will be ready for whatever happens. The first thing that came to mind in the 2nd time instance of the experiment is whether or not (and I believe the shooter did know) who had the weapon when he entered the room shooting which really skewed the results in favor of the gunman when the shooter could key on the only one in the room that he knew had a weapon...
Part 2
ReplyDelete...When I lived in Louisiana I had a girlfriend who owned a weapon and I could never get her to go to the range to practice until one time when she finally went with me and she had a difficult time hitting the silhouette of the target with the weapon out from 3 feet away. I pointed out to her that if she was having difficulty in a safe, serine environment what would happen when there was real stress involved in an actual situation. Needless to say from that point on getting her to practice was not a problem.
The other point is that some or maybe even most police trainers do not know how to train your basic civilian to be able to deal with that or similar situations. The part of the video where the shooter shot the woman who stood up to return fire reminded me of the time you had me at the range and taught me just how to move, stand and return fire then ducking again behind cover and then standing to shoot again but from a different angle when someone is shooting at you up close. Those types of dynamic movement are not even taught to law enforcement officers much less the general public. So in the training officer's defense I think it is more of a point of not knowing what or how to teach and that is where the disconnect is.
While the gloves worn in the video were very bulky, I remembered when I was assigned to the FBI Investigative Team (JTTF) for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, we had to qualify with gloves on and believe me it was an eye opening experience from getting to the weapon, to drawing, to pulling the trigger, to re-holstering .
With your emphasis on reality and making students masters of motion, I would say this with confidence that most 1st degree GC black belts or above would be better at handling themselves in the simulated attack in the video then a lot of law enforcement officers and definitely the majority of civilians. I remember during my first year with the FAMS, and only before I became a Black Belt I would ask a few of my coworkers about what would they do if a terrorist on a plane suddenly charged at them with a knife from only a few feet away, the majority of them looked at me as if it was such a stupid question and answered they would pull their weapon and shoot them without acknowledging the need to be able to fight them off to get to their weapon. The surprising thing was after I mentioned that key fact to them not one person said that of course they would do that and that was implied in their answer so the truth is they didn't have a clue.
You view things on a level that most people cannot see or understand by themselves so that is why GC and your training methodology is beyond many people's comprehension unless they spend time in your system. I think that is why some people while seeing and even feeling GC cannot accept it even while acknowledging that there is something there. It is the exact opposite of my and some other students who have studied other martial arts system where we could not put our hands on it where the disconnect was on what we were learning but we knew consciously and subconsciously that something was missing.
This is also why when so many of us sing your praises verbally or in writing it probably appears to most people outside of the art that we are trying to kiss up to you or receive favor instead of the truth which is out way of saying thank you for taking so many of us out of the darkness created by so many so called self defense experts.
--KH
It takes a relatively few hours of CORRECT training to learn how to properly employ a handgun in combat. Therefore, it is a relatively simple matter for virtually anyone who wishes to do so to acquire lethally effective skill with a personal sidearm.
ReplyDeleteIf firearms laws were revoked — and I mean all firearms laws, and I mean completely revoked — and people were simply as free to go armed as they were free to carry their keys, then workplace (or any other "place") deadly violence would be less frequent, and when and if it occurred, there would be far fewer - if any - innocent casualties.
Obviously, everyone cannot be a combatant. However, the fact that anyone might be an armed and deadly combatant, and the certainty that SOMEONE WOULD BE, would constitute about the only truly effective deterrent to these insane incidents that is ever likely to be found.
Nothing can prevent the occasional outbursts of insane and murderously violent individuals in an otherwise peaceful society. This sort of thing happens. However, the idea that people need to cringe and run when and where it happens, and that they'd better wait for "the professionals" to arrive, is preposterous nonsense.
The video below is politically correct DRIVEL. Notice how, when finally obliged to fight back, the innocent victims are enjoined to "improvise weapons" and to go all out to stop the deadly lunatic. Well, at least there is a tacit admission here that retaliatory, defensive violence may well become the final option. WHY ON EARTH SHOULD ANYONE BE RELEGATED TO "IMPROVISED" WEAPONS, WHEN ACCESS TO TOP QUALITY, UTTERLY RELIABLE FIREARMS IS THEORETICALLY AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY?
Instead of "Run. Hide. Fight" how about "Take cover if possible and shoot the would-be killer. Or if no cover offers, draw your weapon and shoot the would-be killer"?
Brad Steiner
President ICMAF
http://seattlecombatives.com/
I also think how ludicrous it is to have certain places like hospitals, schools and malls specifically not allow any workers to carry legally owned handguns....JPerkins
Delete