ExSniper
Well-Known Fanatic
Solomon told us "there is nothing new under the sun" and that holds true for self defense, both with and without weapons. Many of the instructors and "experts" claim they have a new techniques, new drills, new systems, but most can be traced back to some much earlier training.
Many of these "new" techniques are based upon one specific detail. An example would be point shooting versus sighted fire. Both techniques work in some instances, both have their weaknesses, and proponents of each side can cite numerous examples of why their system/technique is superior. Both sides are absolutely correct!
The problem, as I see it, is that we use examples to support our particular pet skill and these examples while valid for the instance cited cannot be accurately applied to ALL situations. The thing is that no two self defense situations are ever alike. People get shot in the chest and live, others get a survivable wound and die. Some continue to fight long after multiple fatal wounds have been inflicted, some faint at the thought of impending harm.
Statistical analysis of one-shot stops, bullet effectiveness, and any of the other myriad of studies that have been made all suffer from the same flaw, the database is too small and has too many outside variables. Since we cannot shoot, stab, or pummel thousands of similarly sized/shaped/conditioned people under precisely controlled conditions, these studies will remain just a report on how some people reacted to somewhat similar stimuli.
Most of the arguments we find on gun forums, in gun magazines, or in professional journals of military and law enforcement personnel, are based on anecdotal evidence. "I shot a guy with a 9mm and he did not fall down" does not prove or disprove anything. Neither does 100 or 1000 police or military reports that detail the incapacitation rate for weapon X. The devil is indeed in the details.
What I draw from these studies and from the many popular shooting, knife fighting, or empty hand defense techniques is that we need to know as many of them as possible, become proficient in a select and various few, and be able to quickly move from one to the next if our first choice is ineffective.
Learning to point shoot is not difficult for a skilled sight user and vice versa. Being skilled with a handgun should not make us comfortable until we are also skilled with empty hands, edged weapons, and long guns. The old adage about being wary of the man who only owns one gun may be true if the situation lends itself well to the limitations of that one gun.
I usually carry a 1911. It is my primary handgun and the one I am most comfortable and skilled with. This does not stop me from training with my Glock duty weapon, an XD sub-compact, a .357 revolver, or any other firearm I can get hold of. Knowing how to effectively use whatever tool is at hand makes you a more devastating adversary. The same can be said of various types of knives, swords, daggers, machetes, etc., or of rifles, shotguns, sub-machine guns, or rocket launchers. Even the unarmed martial arts, the empty hand techniques, are best employed by someone who has trained in a variety of skills. The point is being able to come up with the correct solution for the task at hand.
My plan is to expand on this basic premise as I add to my training to prepare my students for "real world encounters." The average accountant or storekeeper probably does not need to be a master of all weapons systems and all schools of fighting. The threats he or she is likely to encounter would probably be rather limited and therefore the responses could probably be handled by a few wise choices and a smaller range of training. Obviously an infantryman or a cop on the street would need a few more choices and sufficient training in a number of areas.
So what say you? What areas of training are necessary across the board? What additional areas for specific roles? Are the arguments really valid or are we just wasting ink and keeping instructors and writers employed? Let me know what are the essentials, the nice to know, and a complete waste of time.
What do you think?
Many of these "new" techniques are based upon one specific detail. An example would be point shooting versus sighted fire. Both techniques work in some instances, both have their weaknesses, and proponents of each side can cite numerous examples of why their system/technique is superior. Both sides are absolutely correct!
The problem, as I see it, is that we use examples to support our particular pet skill and these examples while valid for the instance cited cannot be accurately applied to ALL situations. The thing is that no two self defense situations are ever alike. People get shot in the chest and live, others get a survivable wound and die. Some continue to fight long after multiple fatal wounds have been inflicted, some faint at the thought of impending harm.
Statistical analysis of one-shot stops, bullet effectiveness, and any of the other myriad of studies that have been made all suffer from the same flaw, the database is too small and has too many outside variables. Since we cannot shoot, stab, or pummel thousands of similarly sized/shaped/conditioned people under precisely controlled conditions, these studies will remain just a report on how some people reacted to somewhat similar stimuli.
Most of the arguments we find on gun forums, in gun magazines, or in professional journals of military and law enforcement personnel, are based on anecdotal evidence. "I shot a guy with a 9mm and he did not fall down" does not prove or disprove anything. Neither does 100 or 1000 police or military reports that detail the incapacitation rate for weapon X. The devil is indeed in the details.
What I draw from these studies and from the many popular shooting, knife fighting, or empty hand defense techniques is that we need to know as many of them as possible, become proficient in a select and various few, and be able to quickly move from one to the next if our first choice is ineffective.
Learning to point shoot is not difficult for a skilled sight user and vice versa. Being skilled with a handgun should not make us comfortable until we are also skilled with empty hands, edged weapons, and long guns. The old adage about being wary of the man who only owns one gun may be true if the situation lends itself well to the limitations of that one gun.
I usually carry a 1911. It is my primary handgun and the one I am most comfortable and skilled with. This does not stop me from training with my Glock duty weapon, an XD sub-compact, a .357 revolver, or any other firearm I can get hold of. Knowing how to effectively use whatever tool is at hand makes you a more devastating adversary. The same can be said of various types of knives, swords, daggers, machetes, etc., or of rifles, shotguns, sub-machine guns, or rocket launchers. Even the unarmed martial arts, the empty hand techniques, are best employed by someone who has trained in a variety of skills. The point is being able to come up with the correct solution for the task at hand.
My plan is to expand on this basic premise as I add to my training to prepare my students for "real world encounters." The average accountant or storekeeper probably does not need to be a master of all weapons systems and all schools of fighting. The threats he or she is likely to encounter would probably be rather limited and therefore the responses could probably be handled by a few wise choices and a smaller range of training. Obviously an infantryman or a cop on the street would need a few more choices and sufficient training in a number of areas.
So what say you? What areas of training are necessary across the board? What additional areas for specific roles? Are the arguments really valid or are we just wasting ink and keeping instructors and writers employed? Let me know what are the essentials, the nice to know, and a complete waste of time.
What do you think?
) you wont find us in a bar or strip club as we have found that 99.999% of bar fights happen in Bars... 
