Self defence

[paulvallandigham]

WADR. your suggestion that law enforcement officers receive " significant " training in armed encounters is quite laughable. Unless an officer attends schools on his own dime and time, he knows almost nothing about surviving a shoot-out. I attended a private training class back in 1982, ( I know this is almost ancient history to some of you) and visited a friend who was then a fairly new State Trooper. He began to grill me on what I was taught in class. His giggles and smiles very quickly became frowns and then out right concern and anger as I listed the exercises I had been taken through. He then told me that he had just been through a 3-Day Refresher training Course at the academy! I had been taught 3 different weapons retention techniques, and he had only been taught two of them! He was ******! I taught him the third and ran him through the drill enough with his empty gun that he could do it well, before I left his store. ( He ran a family owned tobacco shop before, during, and after his years with the State Police.)

We talked about defensive shooting techniques often after that, and when I went back to school in 1996, with a different instructor, he could not wait for me to return. By then he had been through several firearm retraining programs and felt much more confidence. I stopped in his shop when I got back, and we did the same thing I had done with him 14 years earlier. Sure enough, I had learned a few new techniques he didn't know, and had been required to pass certain shooting tests that he knew he would not do well on, with his training. He just shook his head. He wasn't happy, but at least he didn't start swearing at his department. We talked. My point to him, and to you, is that people who want to make a living as a firearms trainer, and draw in the civiliam market which is NOT a captive audience, as law enforcement officers being trained by their departments are, have to be at the top of the " game ", and know all the latest techniques, if they intend to stay in business. The Instructors I study with teach all over the country, and also attend classes with other instructors. They talk shop with any other instructor, and with shooters who have studied with another instructor to learn what the competition is doing, that might be a better way.

The other thing you should consider is that the Departments don't want their officers getting into gunfights!!! Dead officers are bad publicity, and officers in any gunfight are more likely to make mistakes, and shoot the wrong persons. A civilian under attack knows who the good guy is and who is the bad guy. An officer rolling up to the scene of the shooting in progress has no real way of sorting out who is the good guy, and who is the bad guy. So, police firearms training is filled with cautionary advice about avoiding controntations, and a lot of other considerations that a civilian is not burdened with if the poop hits the air conditioner! Oh, the schools do spend a lot of time teaching civilian students about the aftermath of any shoot out, and how to survive the cops, and the courts, but none of that stuff is used to clutter student's minds when they are taught what and how and when to use a firearm in self defense.

As for statistics, you will find that they rely on no good data based on civilian use of firearms for self defense, incoming up with their scare tactics. Typical of the kind of stuff you will be presented will be the " Cincinatti study", which is no study at all. A politician simply took an arbitrary period of time, based on when the city had the beginning of a rash of civilians shooting innocent people in their homes reported to police, to come up with a " Body Count " claim that you were 43 times more likely to be shot in the home with your own? gun than you were to shoot a burglar with one. No atempt was made, for instance, to determine how many times a burglary or home invasion was stopped without any one being shot, but by the showing or display of a firearm by the homeowner. According to the " study " the only way a gun is used to stop crime is when you shoot someone dead! If that were true, of course, we would have an overcrowded Morgue Problem, and not an overcrowded Prison problem. We also would need far fewer judges, bailiffs, stenographers, prosecutors and public defenders. And the ammo budget for police officers would have to rise dramatically.

My final rhetorical question to you is, Just how many murders, rapes, Armed Robberies and other " gun crimes " have you heard occurring in Police Stations? If a gun at home is not going to deter crime, then I would think we might have heard of at least as many such crimes committed in police stations, no?

 

[gmww]

Just a little clarification on LEO and gun fight training. Speaking from 22 years on and a lot more to go I would like to add my

. My Dept. is a small to medium size dept. and I would say we represent what most depts. our size does in training. I based this on my encounters with other officers from other agencies around the country.

In my Dept. we qualify (mandatory) every 3 months which is 4x's more than the state requirement. In fact we don't use those large silhouette targets anymore but rather a smaller size to train our officers to shoot tighter. On average the Depts. in my state qualify and train far more than what is state required.

Depts. can subscribe to private a cable LEO training site where we can watch training others are doing. IN THE LINE OF DUTY put out many training videos that Depts. have used and added to. I can't tell you how many times I've seen videos of the L.A. B of A shootings and the countless dashboard videos of traffic stop shootings. This would be the stuff the general public doesn't see.

In addition to the mandatory qualifications, we run scenarios several times a year on street shooting and encounters. Those are usually 10 hrs. days with numerous scenarios from traffic stops to citizen contacts. It's usually based on what has occurred in real life to other officers to learn from their successes and mistakes. I can say that since Columbine, nationally a significant number of Dept. are training in active shooting. The big difference with this training from the training of the past is we used to secure and contain until SWAT arrived.

Now with the Active shooter scenario we enter and engage almost immediately. Additional to the qualifications, the 10 hrs. trainings and active shooter trainings, we have gotten into the high tech scenarios in a simulator where it can change at the programmer's will. So if the programmer sees the officer making a mistake, he can direct the simulation to take advantage of that.

That was just a description of gun fight training. We also train in ground fighting with knives. I'm not talking about the Hollywood squaring off with knives. Those officers with the nice knife clipped onto their pocket is probably just one of several he/she has on her person. We learned to have one placed in different areas of our uniform should we be forced to ground fight. You won't feel the cut until about the forth stroke cause they are sharp.

So as you can see training in LE has changed. Many of our Vets coming back from abroad and are joining up as LEO's. :applause: They bring back with them some great Urban fighting tech. Which we are seeing more and more of on the street in LEO and from the bad guys.

Sorry to say it's because of the times we live in. :shake:

 

[sidelock]

In my home an armed or otherwise invader is going back out feet first------ and I will be doing the sending out. Course I don't live in Canada.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Know of one instance that happened quite a few years ago in Houston. Armed robber got to see what a .36 Navy "Sheriff's Model" will do if aimed at the point of his nose! He landed in the Frito-Lay display and the cops stood the attendant, or tried to, a breakfast!

Recent ballistic testing based on extensive research showed a 1860 Army with it's combat load (35 grains of FFFg) was superior to a .45 Long Colt sith it's conical slug. Very interesting research.

 

[Todd Rickard]

Contrary to what most folks think, Canada has well armed citizenery. A home invasion in rural western Canada would be a most dangerous idea. I do not know anyone who lives in the rural areas that don't have firearms. We are known for our 'politeness'...lol.
On the topic: I would not feel undergunned if my home defence plan included a ML shotgun and/or cap and ball revolver. I think the comment about an armed person's chances of survival being less is a 'bunch of hooey'. I think many such incidents go unreported anyway, and that would skew the results of any satistics.

 

[Stophel]

Contrary to what most folks think, Canada has well armed citizenery.

Hey, if you have ever watched "The Red Green Show", you know what you always hear in the background? Chainsaws and gunshots! :haha:

 

[Bob Riegl]

:hmm: Frankly given my 'druthers I prefer either my Glock .40 or PPKS in such a situation--- I believe in firepower, not smoke to do the job quick & clean. :winking:

 

[Ron LaClair]

A self defense arsenal?? :hmm:

 

[d.thomson]

I agree with you . Here in Canada we have been brain washed to think that our best protection is (911 dial a prayer) but How many times have the cops gotten to a crime to prevent it rather than to take notes and hope they catch the person before the stike again. Talk about sheeple!F.K.

 

[wildeagle]

In response to your question,BP weapons won our freedom yrs ago,I think they would work today also!Personally I prefer my mod 30 glock .45 because of todays criminal threat(better armed perp.)My dad was a cop for 30 yrs and he told me "if you draw your weapon ,be prepared for the consequenses,do not draw it to bluff!"I'm sure the sight of a weapon would deter most criminals but that is their profession,don't take it for granted.If you draw your weapon ,be prepared to use it,and realize the consequenses of your actions.

 

[Britsmoothy]

What a wonderfull responce :v Stikes me that we are all concerned about the sanctity of life and it,s preservation right :v Here in Britain we are not alowed to look after our selves, being a nation of blissfull sheep the bad guys help them selves and the government punish those who are easy "meat". in our ancient constitution we are supposed to be able to carry self defence arms but our tyrannical goverment won,t let you- no sir. Old style Russia is alive and well over here :cursing:

 

[sidelock]

Glad to hear that. All I know is no one walks into a home in the Bitterroot unanounced. :hatsoff:

 

[Itegorm]

Here in Britain we are not alowed to look after our selves, being a nation of blissfull sheep the bad guys help them selves and the government punish those who are easy "meat". in our ancient constitution we are supposed to be able to carry self defence arms but our tyrannical goverment won,t let you- no sir.

Sounds like you may have a need for a bit of civil disobdience and maybe some that is not so civil. "So you say you want a revolution." (singing tunelessly). I always liked the Beatles...

 

[markinstettler]

Now I feel really bad that this thread has been completely hijacked.

I still stand by what I said (which was mentioned to partially explain my choice of firearm in a self-denigrating post and not meant to become the subject of debate). Based on several of the posts, I think that most of the people who "disagree" with me aren't understanding what was said. If you think that I'm against gun ownership, you're reading me the wrong way because nothing could be further from the truth.

Here's a thought exercise to better explain my thinking: You're sitting in your living room when an armed robber crashes through the front door. You are either holding A) a paper cup of water or B) a threatening weapon. With which is your survivability greatest? Thinking about this from the robber's perspective, it becomes obvious that the answer is A. Sure, the addition of another weapon drops the robber's survivability too, but the situation isn't that sort of win-lose contest.

Feel free to continue with the non-sequiturs, ad-hoc logic, and even ad-hominem remarks fly. However, I think we'd all rather read more on-topic contributions like Mike Alexandre's. No?

 

[Zonie]

MarkInStettler: If I were sitting in a chair with a loaded pistol (cartridge or black powder, it makes no difference), I believe I would have the upper hand in the armed intrusion in the proposed situation.

First, the intruder would not be expecting to find me armed. That would give me a decided advantage.

Second, his crashing thru the door would alert me to his obvious intention of causing me or my family harm which would put me totally on the offensive.

Third, by the time he realized I was armed, I would have shot him, not once, but several times.

I don't know where you got your information about unarmed people having a better chance but I must assume it is from one of the "anti gun" sources.

Monthly, the American Rifleman prints at least 8 and often more newspaper accounts from across the USA where a loaded firearm stopped attacks and robberies. In more than one case, the attacker will not bother anyone else.

zonie

 

[Claude Mathis]

Now I feel really bad that this thread has been completely hijacked.

With all due respect, it was you who took this discussion off topic with the first reply, so I can see why you would feel bad. :winking:

And, I believe you are mistaken. Criminals have repeatedly testified that they'd rather attack an unarmed person. (duh!) They may be criminals, but they apparently retain some sense of logic and self-preservation.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I gather you have never broken down a door before, and entered a home you have never been in. Trust me when I tell you that you are disoriented by the activity, and precious seconds are lost as you gain your bearings and check to see if anyone is present, where, and how many. The advantage is to the defenders, not you as the attacker. I whole heartedly agree with Zonie about what would happen. You said that you will talk to some RCMP officer and get the source of that information you are relying on. Please do. I have combating the anti-gun, anti-self defense garbage being put out for almost 40 years. These are people who want to make it illegal for you to defend your self, by making it impossible for you to have the means( tools) to do so effectively. One anti-self defense here locally actually told an audience that she was only in favor of people having Brown Bess rifles for self defense, so they could be part of their local militia-- that is how she interprets the Second Amendment, and how she wants it to be interpreted by everyone. This woman is a committed pacifist, a declared Socialist, who is actually in full agreement with ever tenet of Communism, and runs in the Democratic primary because that is where she can get enough votes to be elected. She is the local representative of The Brady Group, formerly the Committee to Ban Handgun Violence, and several other alter egos, and incarnations. Like vultures they can't wait for some multiple homicide case to take their cause up again in Congress. But they have gotten caught this time, as people well remember how they kept quiet after the murders in the Amish School House last October, because the head of the Democrat party didn't want them to stir up pro-self defense voters and get us out to the polls. He wanted the party to steal the election, and they fell in line, said nothing about the murders, raised no claim to need a new " assault weapon ban bill ", and the Democrats succeeded. In the USA, this is not a Dem vs. Rep. issue. There are plenty of Republicans who want to ban guns, too. Now that they think they control Congress, they are back pushing for another assault weapon ban, laws delegating to a " gun Czar " what guns can be owned and what can't, etc.

I think you do want to protect your family, but like so many people who have listened to the anti-self defense nonsense on TV, in the newspapers, and on the radio, you know longer trust your own common sense to understand that YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF if you are armed. When you are unarmed by laws, you are a mandated victim for gun violence, or any other kind of torture and violence. Remember: Charlie Manson never killed anyone. He talked his followers into killing people for him. Only one of the victims was killed with a handgun. The rest were strangled or stabbed to death, or both. John Wayne Gacy strangled all 32 of his victims. Richard Speck murdered 8 student nurses by strangling them all, one at a time. The Green River killer in Washington State strangled all of his 40+ victims. So did the BTK killer( over 20 victims) in Kansas City. Restrictions on handguns, or all guns is not going to stop mass murder, or serial killings. Gun laws are not obeyed by criminals. That should be obvious. Only the law abiding obey them, and such laws simply disarm you so that you are a pigeon for criminals to pluck. After the American Civil War, the South passed a series of laws disarming blacks. The sheriff would go to the home of a former slave, and seize all his guns. Then he would leave and the KKK would come in, lynch him, whip any others, and burn down the house, and barn and kill the livestock. The same thing was being done in 1963 when the 3 civil rights workers were killed in Meridian, Mississippi. They were first arrested on false charges by the Sheriff, held until the Klan could get their members together and set up a plan, and then turned loose so that the Klan could stop them, kidnap them, and kill them, and bury the bodies. Some people resfuse to learn from history; its obvious that criminals do.

 

[mike alexandre]

I think one of the difficulties with this thread is the difference between the start of it which I thought was a general info seaking quiry and some of the replies which are MORE than understandable from folks whose lives have actual been touched by this subject.
If its agreeable to everyone could we choose which one of these we are going to follow please. I hope my post is taken in the spirt it is meant.

 

[sidelock]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Geraldo]

I gather you have never broken down a door before, and entered a home you have never been in. Trust me when I tell you that you are disoriented by the activity, and precious seconds are lost as you gain your bearings and check to see if anyone is present, where, and how many. The advantage is to the defenders, not you as the attacker.

Time for a reality check. If this was true, then I would have been killed a long time ago. High risk warrant service is just what you describe. When I worked with SWAT we always had the advantage, and against people who knew that raids by LE or attacks by rivals were a definate possibility. The reason so many homeowners prevail is that they are facing burglars and not dedicated violent home invaders.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be prepared, but be realistic about what you may face. Most people aren't that alert in their own homes, and reaction time works against them. Get some good training and keep a modern weapon and light ready to go.