Personal Defense Network Forum » Tag: Training - Recent Posts

AE3007H1 on "Why Carry? Is your reason for carrying good enough?"

AE3007H1 — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:01:10 +0000

Yes, I do agree with you. The ones that I spoke of making a statment sometimes seem to fit the same MO as the ones that would say ""if I caught someone trying to break into my car, I would shoot them", I do not view myself as having the right or ability to decide one's actual qualifications. Rather I am offering up an observed "profile". WHAT? did I just PROFILE??? ohhh the humanity! The ACLU might be after me now!! hahaha

cshoff on "Why Carry? Is your reason for carrying good enough?"

cshoff — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:07:52 +0000

I'm not so sure anyone is truly qualified to be the arbiter of what constitutes a "valid" reason for why another human being chooses to carry a firearm. I mean, there are dozens of reasons why a person might choose to carry a gun, none of them necessarily more "valid" than the other, at least not by any quantifiable measure. If a person chooses to carry a gun because his/her "job requires it", or because "it's a right", or because it makes them "feel safer", then who are we to question the validity of that decision? Now I do believe it is appropriate to ask what a valid reason for USING the gun would be. And I say this because society has already dictated, through statutory law, the circumstances under which the use of deadly force is considered justified, or "valid", if you will. For example, when I hear someone make a statement such as, "if I caught someone trying to break into my car, I would shoot them", then I question how valid their reasons are for USING the gun. This kind of attitude would cause me much greater concern than the person who says he carries a gun because it makes him "feel safer".

AE3007H1 on "Why Carry? Is your reason for carrying good enough?"

AE3007H1 — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:03:45 +0000

I do agree with your thoughts and comments save one thing: While I do agree about the second amendment being enough, I caution against those who seek only to make a political statement. It is reasonable to assume that those who would do so are quite passionate people who are looking for controversy, confrontation, and an argument. It is also safe to assume that those same people have the attitude that they know best and need no "training" because they probably have an unrealistic image of "self". All of this being said leads me to the point that the people that fit this MO are the LAST people that should have a gun. They will make all of us that do carry responsibly look bad and are sure to be on the news once things go sour for them. I am not saying that they should not have the right to carry, just that they should not be encouraged! haha

fkarlh on "Why Carry? Is your reason for carrying good enough?"

fkarlh — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:16:49 +0000

I recently listened to Rob's appearance on Armed American Radio. He and Mark discussed a recent article by Rob which unfortunately I have not had the opportunity to read. But the topic was interesting and I found Rob's take on it rather interesting as well. The disciussion was "Why do you carry" ... or more to the point ... what is a "valid" reason to carry. Rob went through several standard answers and described why they were not "good" reasons for carrying. My job requires it, I want to make a policital statement, it makes me feel safer, etc. And while I understand and agree with Rob's point that the only "true" reason to carry is to protect oneself or the innocents around you, I think the discussion overlooked an important point. And I think it's a point that is often overlooked in many related discussions. That is, Rob's point of view ... his understanding ... his final decision ... reflects years of training and education. But there are many gun owners that are just beginning that journey. Their reasons may not be as well thought out, not as matured, not as seasoned as someone who lives and breathes personal defense. So, while I agree 100% with Rob's ultimate resolution of the question, I wonder if some may be disuaded from starting their journey as a result of that philosophy. If they are told and believe that carrying a gun "because I need it for my job" is not a good enough reason ... well, would Masaad Ayoob be where he is today? He began carrying a gun because his family owned a jewelry store. His journey began because "he needed it for his job" ... What if he had been disuaded from starting that journey ... I guess my point is that everyone doesn't go directly from novice to expert instantaneously ... whether it be in training, in understanding, in philosophy. Those who have been on the journey for a long time sometimes lose sight of where they started. Everyone has to be allowed, indeed encouraged, to make the journey on their own. Everyone has to learn to "drive a car" (to use an analogy that Rob used on the show). They don't go from never having driven to driving in high-speed chases in a single day. If they are told that the only "true ... pure" reason to learn to drive is to win the Indy 500 ... then maybe they decide never to learn to drive. So ... why do you carry? What is a "valid" reason to carry? Personally, I don't believe anyone needs more than the second amendment. Making a statement that the second amendament is valid by carrying a gun is okay by me. I personally would encourage everyone to go much further down the road and to take the responsibility of firearm ownership seriously. I would encourage everyone to train and educate themselves. I believe that someone who does no more than strap a gun on their hip without training and education is a more dangerous gun owner ... but I still think simply demonstrating your belief in the second amendment is a valid reason for owning and carrying a gun. More to the point, I believe that the more law abiding citizens who become familiar with guns and comfortable with carrying them the better we will be as a society ... and the more Rob Pincus' and Masaad Ayoobs we will develop. I would encourage people to start their journey for whatever reason gets them on the road ... and then help them become the most educated and well-trained gun owners that they can be. So, is your reason for carrying "good enough"?

swerve on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

swerve — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:04:20 +0000

The ranges are normally so short, weak hand only draw and hit times are so slow, that this "skill" doesn't mean much at all. Expending your resources wisely includes looking closely at the stats, and the stats say that 9 x out of 10 incidents, you won't have to hit the bad guy with a bullet in order to run him off. So the "need" for ambidexterity, for pistol use is not real, for anyone but "operators" in a combat zone. In high risk areas, if you aint got a real fighting rifle, as well as at least concealed body armor, there's not much hope for you, realistically. With the longarm, you DO need to practice a lot with the weak side shoulder, because firing strong side from the weak side of cover forces you to expose your entire torso. Using the weak shoulder makes you about 3x as difficult a mark. However, using AirSoft "longarms", .22lr conversion units, an optical sight, and a good "can" on your M4 mean that you don't have to fire much centerfire rifle ammo at all, really. 1-2k rds per year will suffice, as long as you also shoot several k each with a similar handling AirSoft "rifle' and a .22 unit in your M4. The optical sight and the sound suppressor make the 223 every bit as "tame" to use as the .22unit in the unsuppressed "mode" of firing. So you need not put a lot of rds thru the suppressor, either, if it offers the "snap on and off" convenience of say, a SureFire "can".

Rob Pincus on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

Rob Pincus — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:08:02 +0000

Chris, but training IS Based on the probability within context.... One you have decided that needing a gun is Plausible Enough to warrant some of your limited resources, you need to expend them wisely within the niche. -RJP

5shot on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

5shot — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:07:56 +0000

According to the NYPD's long term (and now dated but still good), SOP 9 study of over 6000 Police combat cases, Officers with an occasional exception fired with the strong hand.

Rob Pincus on "Training"

Rob Pincus — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:46:06 +0000

Nice tip.... I think a lot of people miss that Self Defense is largley a dynamic athletic endeavor... very different from just "shooting" ! -RJP

mslr on "Training"

mslr — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:40:22 +0000

Looking to improve your reaction times, tune up your fine motor skills? Along with the added benefit of cardio and a dose of good clean fun. Try Ping Pong. According to Dr. Wendy Suzuki, professor of neuroscience and psychology at New York University. “Table tennis works parts of the brain that are responsible for movement, fine motor skills and strategy. Table tennis is the number one brain sport” I’m certainly not suggesting you strap-on your favorite 1911 and head out to the local Ping Pong Tourney. Simply include three or more 30 minute sets of table tennis per week into your training regimen. While the physical movements used for table tennis do not mimic those used in the presentation of a hand gun from a holster, they will significantly increase your reaction skills. Ping pong tables are relatively inexpensive and can be set up in your home. All in all Ping Pong is a lot fun. (Unless of course your wife wins and then dances around the table gloating) Google; Ping Pong health benefits.

cshoff on "Hello to all from a new member"

cshoff — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:39:42 +0000

<blockquote>stevenm wrote: Thanks for the welcome, Chris. I see you are a Missouri CCW instructor. Back in '98-2000 I lived in Springfield. Oh, how I miss Missouri. It was quite a life style change from up here in Rhode Island. A better change, too.</blockquote> I'm in Central, MO about 2.5 hours from Springfield. If you left in 2000, then you never got to enjoy the concealed weapons and "Castle Doctrine" laws that we passed in 2003. A lot has changed here in MO over the last 10 years, as far as self-protection is concerned. It's good to have you aboard!

stevenm on "Hello to all from a new member"

stevenm — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:18:08 +0000

Thanks for the welcome, Chris. I see you are a Missouri CCW instructor. Back in '98-2000 I lived in Springfield. Oh, how I miss Missouri. It was quite a life style change from up here in Rhode Island. A better change, too.

stevenm on "Hello to all from a new member"

stevenm — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:13:51 +0000

<blockquote>GrantCunningham wrote: Steven -- Don't worry about that! Lots of people take CFS with a revolver (heck, I did) and they don't slow anyone down. The only difference between you and the auto shooters is that you won't go through as many rounds. While the DVDs are good, there is only so much information that can be transmitted through them. Nothing beats attending a CFS class for yourself, and I encourage you to take the opportunity to do so.</blockquote> I couldn't agree more about the limitation of DVD vs class attendance. Right now, the economy has beat me up pretty badly and I have to regain some lost financial ground before taking any classes but I do plan on saving up to take a CFS course as soon as I can. So, for now, I can at least get some benefit while I'm working toward having enough for a class. Thanks for the correction about the revolver in class. I wasn't aware of that and it's good to know that I could use my wheel gun for the course.

cshoff on "Hello to all from a new member"

cshoff — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:30:55 +0000

Welcome to PDN, Steven!

GrantCunningham on "Hello to all from a new member"

GrantCunningham — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:00:51 +0000

<blockquote>stevenm wrote: With that said, I don't believe I could take a CFS course with my revolver. With the fewer rounds available in the gun, I think I'd be slowing the class down too much and it wouldn't be fair to the students or the trainer </blockquote> Steven -- Don't worry about that! Lots of people take CFS with a revolver (heck, I did) and they don't slow anyone down. The only difference between you and the auto shooters is that you won't go through as many rounds. While the DVDs are good, there is only so much information that can be transmitted through them. Nothing beats attending a CFS class for yourself, and I encourage you to take the opportunity to do so.

darlencegen on "Hello to all from a new member"

darlencegen — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:44:18 +0000

thanks for your sharing!! ___________ Wonderful day...<a href="http://www.dvdhotdeal.com">Lowest Price DVD</a> <a href="http://www.dvdhotdeal.com/one-tree-hill-seasons-1-8-dvd-boxset.html">One Tree Hill DVD</a>

stevenm on "Hello to all from a new member"

stevenm — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:20:05 +0000

Hi all, I'm Steven and back in March, I received my CCW permit. Wanting to know all that I could regarding training and legal aspects of responsible self defense led me to Mr. Massad Ayoob and Mr. Rob Pincus among many other quality educators. After watching the videos here on PDN, I became very impressed with CFS. It really is the first training system I've come across that is completely designed with personal defense in mind (as opposed to target training and crossing over into personal defense). Mr. Pincus's methodologies are very intuitive and his teaching method was easily understandable. So, I ordered the set of 3 DVDs from the PDN store and tore into all of them, especially the CFS video. One of the many things I like about it is that CFS seems very adaptable to the use of a revolver (I carry a snub nose J-frame). Combat accuracy, balance of speed and precision, high compressed ready and presentation all seem to work well with my snubby. Some things like reloading need to be adapted obviously but the core of the CFS program doesn't appear to be dependant on having a semi-auto pistol. With that said, I don't believe I could take a CFS course with my revolver. With the fewer rounds available in the gun, I think I'd be slowing the class down too much and it wouldn't be fair to the students or the trainer but the DVD has enough clear instruction that I can take these principles to my range and practice. I can also practice many of these techniques dry at home (verified empty gun and safe practice area). This is also the first "gun" forum I've joined and chose to do so because it's no nonsense, respectful, self-defense oriented and has many respected trainers and experts. I have many questions and perceive that I would get very informative but respectful answers. One day, I hope I'll have the knowledge and experience to pass on to other new shooters. Many thanks to Mr. Pincus and all involved in the PDN. It's a fantastic resource!

nice8520 on "hello to all, I am new"

nice8520 — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 03:36:39 +0000

hello guys, I am too new to be here with all of you.

LouisEngelbrecht on "hello to all, I am new"

LouisEngelbrecht — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:10:24 +0000

Hello, I am new but would like to say hello and make some new friends. I'm from South-Africa, a British Vet and now living in America Florida. I'm an executive personal protection officer also doing bodyguarding. I would like to be part of this group because we share so much intrest. I would gladly like to take part in courses to better my skills. Wish you all the best.

DavidWilliams on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

DavidWilliams — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 15:59:59 +0000

.

cshoff on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

cshoff — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 20:53:31 +0000

But in the overall scheme of things, it's not very plausible to think that you will ever need a defensive handgun to begin with. Face it, the vast majority of us will NEVER have to draw, much less fire, our handgun in self defense. With this reality in mind, should we then conclude that anything more than a few casual rounds fired at the target range every couple of months is unnecessary based on the "plausibility principle"? Of course not. Like it or not, the entire idea of defensive training as a whole is NOT based on "plausibility" to begin with, at least not for the average gun-carrying citizen. As normal civilians, we are essentially preparing for an emergency situation that will likely (and hopefully) never occur. If we were to approach the idea of defensive handgun training based on plausibility alone, most of us probably wouldn't need much more than a run of the mill gun safety course. As Rob said, training resources are limited. So why spend thousands of dollars on training courses, guns, gear, and ammunition with the likelihood of ever needing it being so low? Plausibility? Probability? Nope. I think it's important to have some understanding of that before we try to use "plausibility" as a cornerstone by which we either accept or dismiss any particular tactic or skill. The reason we spend all of the money and all of the time on training and practice is because, no matter how remote the possibility and no matter how low the plausibility may be, the COSTS associated with failing are so very high! It only takes one failure to cost you your life or the lives of loved ones, and for most of us here, that potential cost is simply too high to ignore and leave to pure chance. The same thing can be said for developing fighting skills with our "weak" hand. No, it's not likely you will have to rely on that hand to see you through the fight, but the price of not being able to could be ultimate and final. THAT is reality, whether plausible or not. But I digress, my intention here is not to argue or even contradict. IMHO, I believe Rob is accurate in suggesting something around 5 - 10% of our training time be devoted to weak hand manipulations. Regardless of how plausible it is we will need it, I seriously doubt that most people possess the physical and mental ability to develop much more pistol handling dexterity in their support hand than what can be realized with that level of training without devoting HUGE amounts of time to support hand training (and at the expense of strong hand manipulations development and maintenance). Remember that support hand training isn't only a physical task, but it is largely a mental one as well. The human mind and body have a very strong tendency to naturally want to do things a certain way. It's not realistic to think you are going to change that built-in "programming" by running a few IDPA matches weak-hand only. Spending much more time on support hand training could quickly get to a point of diminishing returns. Heck, we now have some instructors out there that no longer refer to the support hand as the "weak hand", but rather, they call it the "Other Strong Hand" in an attempt to make the shooter not relate his/her "off" hand with the word "weak" (as if it really matters). Never mind the fact that 99.9% of us have two hands, one of which is stronger and more dexterous than the other, and always will be. I think some of these folks are trying to over-complicate things when we get to this point, or perhaps they are simply trying to incorporate something "unique" into their training classes as a way to set them apart from everyone else. This has been a very interesting and informative conversation, everyone. I can't thank you all enough for sharing your opinions and expertise with the rest of us.

CecilBurch on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

CecilBurch — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:38:14 +0000

I love the Plausibility Principle Rob. I am using it (with due credit of course) every time I teach from now on.

Rob Pincus on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

Rob Pincus — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:25:03 +0000

<blockquote>Truth is, I shoot just as good left handed as I do from the right. </blockquote> Glockster, I've had a lot of people show up to class saying that... never had anyone prove it. If you show up to a course and it's true, I'll comp tuition AND pay for your ammo. -Rob

Rob Pincus on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

Rob Pincus — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:23:03 +0000

<blockquote>We don't live in a Right handed world.</blockquote> Yes, we do... I don't even know what that is supposed to mean, Chris. Guns are built mostly for right handed people... and most people do most things with their right hand. Saying something that sounds profound does not make it so. Quoting sometimes makes it worse.... This is starting to sound like a "But you CAN train to shoot 2" groups at 25 yards if you just practice more!" thread.... maybe, but why would you? Show me the propensity for left handed defensive handgun use on during counter ambush in the general population... Training resources are always limited. Expenditure of said resources must be based on Plausibility of needing the skill that you are developing. It IS a great idea to train with the weak hand, but it seems a gross waste of resources to chase parity or anything close to it. You need to know how to run your gun left handed of course, but I am really shocked that so many seem to be determined to stress the need to train for the exception. 5% is my recommendation... maybe 10%, after you've spent a lot of time for getting the two handed and strong handed stuff really down. -Rob

mrainwater on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

mrainwater — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:22:03 +0000

Gentlemen, I'm an FNG to this forum, but I feel compelled to comment on this discussion…How many train for ambidexterity? In my humble opinion, the need for support hand training and the necessity…in the real world…to have the ability to manipulate yours or any weapon with either hand is greatly neglected in most tactical firearms courses; especially courses for Law Enforcement. My experience in Iraq and Afghanistan taught me that the vast majority of injuries occur to the extremities (arms and legs)…this being a direct result of the long awaited availability of the high quality body armor and helmets. Granted your average armed citizen and police officer aren’t dodging IEDs or involved in long duration firefights, but policemen do wear body armor and the most vulnerable portions of their bodies are their extremities. As for the average citizen, who’s to say you won’t injure you strong hand/ arm during a violent encounter or a “Significant Emotional Event”? According to the FBI, the majority of gunfights occur in low or no-light conditions with all involved moving. Don’t you think there’s a decent chance that as you’re moving around, and scared like you’ve never been scared before, during a gunfight in the dark…that you might fall, trip over a curb, run into something, etc. Please don’t misunderstand me, the likelihood of having to use you weapon with your support hand only is only slightly less likely than you ever being involved in a real gunfight, but how much is your life or the lives of your loved ones worth? Will you ever be “Good Enough”? I’m not saying spend all your time, ammo, and range time on WHO training, but I do believe it should be emphasized more in training and a routine part of your Dry-Fire training regimen. Example…I trained to shoot my M4 and MEU (SOC) .45 in every way I thought I would ever have to in combat, prior to my deployment and participation in the invasion in 2003. But the first ambush I was involved in…I found myself firing my M4 left handed (I’m right handed) , twisted around, while trying my damndest to lie down on my right shoulder behind a rucksack that was strapped to the side of the HMMWV I was riding in. If someone had told me to do that in training, I’d have ordered him to the clinic for a drug test. Now I train to do everything with both hands, from every position imaginable (if the RSO or Range Master will let me). Another benefit of more SHO/WHO training is that it makes you shoot better, since they’re less stable and more difficult than freestyle shooting. My point is…you never know! So why not spend a little more time, energy, and ammo to be prepared just in case you have to do the “Highly Unlikely” for real. Remember, there’s no Course of Fire to follow in a real gunfight...Mike Marine, Contractor, Firearms, and EP/CP Instructor

MadScienceMMA on "Books to read and to learn from"

MadScienceMMA — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:13:08 +0000

"On Killing" is definately a must-read, especially for anyone in the LE and Military professesions. Also recommended for their loved ones as well. I do disagree with two small items in Grossman's text, but on the whole it's an indespensible resource. "The SAS survival manual" by John Wiseman is another favorite. I have the pocket size one tossed in with my survival kit. Some of the items covered are exotic, but it is meant to cover all the climate regions and terrain. "Survive" by Les Stroud is also very good for general survival and preparedness. For an entertaining fiction read with some thought-provoking ideas on government, citizenship and the use of force, I recommend Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers". It bears very little resemblance to the film.

Glockster23 on "How many train for ambidexterity?"

Glockster23 — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:51:48 +0000

I am right handed, but left eye dominent. EVERY range session includes one handed shooting from each side and two hand shooting, left handed. Truth is, I shoot just as good left handed as I do from the right. It may be the only thing in life I do "very well".

icecjkuok on "Books to read and to learn from"

icecjkuok — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:33:20 +0000

sorry,I don't know how about. _______________ <a href="http://www.nflwholesalejerseys.com"> wholesale jerseys </a>

Snowman on "Books to read and to learn from"

Snowman — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:49:39 +0000

Don't forget "IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME" By Mas Ayoob. It was written well over twenty years ago, but is still relevant today.

mpd28 on "Books to read and to learn from"

mpd28 — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:12:51 +0000

klopesw - Thanks for the great list of books. I have added a few of them to my must read list. I would like to add "On Combat" by Dave Grossman. Excellent read!! <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1288066327&sr=8-3" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1288066327&sr=8-3</a>

orygunmike on "Books to read and to learn from"

orygunmike — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 08:13:38 +0000

"On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society", by Dave Grossman An eye-opening revelation about how humans react to and deal with the act of commiting violence against another human. Reading this book will change your preconceived ideas on man-on-man lethal confrontations.