Friday, December 14, 2012

A Forum You Might Like

Hi Folks. JD from AI&P Tactical and the author of the "Myths About the Shotgun" post here on this blog has started a new forum I am helping with and I thought it might interest some of you. We are really trying to avoid some of the nonsense and lack of professionalism that goes on at some forums and instead focus on good advice given by folks who know what they are talking about and/or are serious about firearms, tactics, training, etc. So please, come by the forum, look us over, and if you'd like to join in we would be glad to have you.

If you know of a good forum you think would be of interest to others this is a good spot to post a brief description or discussion.


Wednesday, November 21, 2012


My friend Eric Stafford ("Arik") gave me permission to re-post this from the Geshmache Yid! forum at I thought it a good fit for the site because I recently was involved in a discussion with a CCW holder who seemed totally oblivious to the idea that we need to prepare for threats that might not rise to the level of using deadly force. Equally important, we might not always have the chance or the ability to get to a firearm. So with that, let's keep in mind that the Thinking Gunfighter thinks about more than just the gunfight, and prepares for "the fight" whatever it might be and whatever it might need.

I posted this a long time ago on the fighting arts discussion forums:
This is just from my personal experiences and observations, so it is possible that some may disagree with me on some of these things bit I have come across many Myths in the real of self defense especially involving martial artists.

Myth #1: "Bad guys don't train"
Reality: What is a "bad guy?" To me it is anyone who is standing in front of you wishing you to do you harm first of all, and that can be someone who is either trained or untrained. Who is to say that a person wanting to rob/rape or murder you is not a trained boxer, wrestler or Karateka? Working in the Dept. of Corrections, one would be surprised at how many inmates who come through the gates who were ex military, ex-boxers, Karate black belts, ex wrestlers, and so on. Now obviously, they must have done something "bad" to get into prison, yet some are also trained fighters. One must never assume that the "bad guys" don't train.

Myth#2 " Most muggers and other criminals are generally not in good shape and therefore, wouldn't be much of a challenge against a trained Martial Artist"
Reality: I hear this lame line a lot. People often get criminals mixed up with the hot head who thinks you just stole his parking space mixed up. Sure, both may be an adversary at some point in your life. However, Criminals, by their very lifestyle tend to be in better shape than the average joe and in some cases more than the average martial artist. If you have ever visited a prison yard, chances are you will see huge inmates pumping massive amounts of Iron, they are bench pressing more than the average karate student will ever hope to and have ripped muscles and have the ability to probably pull your arms out of your sockets. If you have ever driven by a basketball court in the ghetto and saw some of the thugs who hang around playing basketball while not selling their dope, you will notice some pretty impressive physiques on quite a few of them.

Myth #3 "Self defense situations are usually over with quickly, therefore you don't need to concern yourself with conditioning and endurance much"
Reality: Self defense is more than just punching someone in the mouth. When I think of self defense or better yet, self protection, I often think of not only a would be mugger, but maybe the idea that you may have to drag or carry an unconscious family member out of a burning house, run away from a potential threat, Even pushing your car to the side of the road to avoid getting it rammed and yes, in some cases, if you have to fight and the fight goes the distance. I agree that most SD situations may be over quickly, although in the case of stamina/endurance, it for is is along the lines of "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

Myth#4 "It is unlikely that a Martial Artist would have to worry about getting into a fight with another martial artist, since we generally do not get into street fights."
Reality: Hogwash! Martial Artists are human beings, and being such suffer from and are affected by the same emotions as non-MA's such as envy, greed, wrath, etc. therefore, there is no way to come to the conclusion that MA's are less likely to get into a fight or lose there temper than anyone else.
Myth#5 " Any training is better than no training."
Reality: That's only true if you are getting good, quality training. Poor and ineffective training can actually do you more harm than good by giving you a false sense of security and having you armed with shoddy techniques that can make a physical situation go from bad to worse.

Myth#6: BJJ, boxing, Judo, MT, and (fill in the blank) are not real effective and were invented for sport, therefore haven't much value in unarmed combat.
Reality: All these "sports" were designed with combat in mind. Let a Judo practitioner use one of his "sport" throws on you on a solid ground and see if it feels real or not. BJJ was designed as a street fighting art. the whole reason for the point system was to reinforce good habits in attaining better positioning during an actual fight, with top and back mount being highest since in a ground fight, those are two of the strongest positions to be in.
Boxing was one of the fighting styles taught to the ancient Greek soldier as well as Wrestling and Pankration. While they may not have as many "deadly moves," Both are quite functional.

Myth#7: "(fill in the blank) style wouldn't be effective because you don't see people using (fill in the blank) style in Pride or UFC"
Reality: While MMA is definitely a good test of overall fighting skill, it has in some ways distorted some people perceptions about " effectiveness" Yes, it has helped open people's eyes to the effectiveness of grappling and has shown to be a good test of skill, the thing to remember is that these fighters are modern day gladiators really. They sometimes spend 8 hours a day, 7 days a week training. People like to take styles that the MMA fighters take in an attempt to be "more effective" without realizing that it is not the style itself that makes some of these fighters, but the level of fitness and amount of training. While in some ways, MMA has definitely shown the advantages of some styles like Muay Thai and BJJ, It doesn't, by default mean all other styles would be ineffective in a self defense situation.

Myth#8 "(fill in the blank) % of fights go to the ground"
Reality: If I hear this one more time.....There is no scientific data to support what percent of street fights go where. Period.

Myth#9 "(fill in the blank) style beats (fill in the blank style i.e. Stand up versus ground) XYZ% of the time.
Reality: See answer to myth #8

Myth#10 "The ground is a bad place to be in a street fight anyway, so training to fight on the ground would be a waste of time."
Reality: The fact that in a lot of cases it is a bad place to be is the exact reason one should train it in the event that they find themselves there. There are also situations where it may be a better place to be such as if you are a trained ground fighter and your adversary is obviously better stand up fighter than you and it is a one on one weaponless fight with no chance of you running away.

Myth#11 " Size doesn't matter."
Reality: Everything matters! His skill, your skill his strength and yours, his mindset experience or lack thereof, if either of you are intoxicated, etc..
Even if you are much more skilled than your opponent, if he outweighs you by 100 lbs of solid muscle, it force you to change your strategy. What techniques work on someone your size or smaller may well not work on someone who is a great deal larger than you. Also a 275 lbs power lifter may lack technique, but may not need much of it if he manages to seperate your head from your body or pick you up and throw you against a wall or body slam you into the pavement.

Myth#12: Martial artist have a great advantage over a "street fighter."
Reality: the term "street fighter" is a generic term That covers too broad of a spectrum for that to hold much truth. While some so-called street fighters may be nothing more than hot-headed punks who have trouble backing down and lack real skill, there are others who have spent years growing up in the roughest areas of town, have done time in state prisons and know from first hand experience how to fight with knives, guns and bare hands. They may never have stepped into a dojo, but they have learned from fighting for their lives in the mean streets and the prison cells, they are great at using improvised weapons, using violence to get what they want and are used to hitting and getting hit, something not all MA's are used to. Such an individual can be a terrifying opponent in the street. While being a trained boxer or MT fighter may definitely give you an advantage, one must not be to over confident when confronted with any opponent.

Sunday, March 18, 2012


This is a moderated blog. That means before anything is published I have to review it and approve it. I’ve recently had to reject a number of responses to posts. I haven’t rejected them because I’m unwilling to accept diverse viewpoints. I have rejected them because they were rude and insulting without adding anything of value to the discussion.

As an example, if you want to discuss C1 versus C3, please do so. But comments like “If you are going to carry C3 you might as well stay home in the basement with the other scared little girls” or “Anyone who carries C1 is a mall ninja and a danger to everyone around them” won’t make it to the light of day, at least not here. I don’t mind getting down and dirty in a fight as many folks on various forums can testify, but this isn’t the place for that.

Let’s focus on issues and discuss facts. Comments like “The guy who wrote that post is a doofus FUDD who would shoot unarmed suspects if he thought nobody was watching” don’t contribute much. Feel free to offer posts that discuss why a particular belief seems wrong, or why you disagree with a comment and so on, but to borrow from an old Saturday Night Live sketch “Jane, you ignorant slut” just won’t fly here.

Thanks for your cooperation and your understanding.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Self Defense Findings

The following comes to us courtesy of Claude Werner, Director of Firearms Training LLC. It is an analysis of five years of incidents reported in the NRA "Armed Citizen" column. Lots of things here to think about, and many thanks to Claude for allowing me to post it here.

Here's my analysis of what armed self-defense for the Private Citizen, not LEO, looks like. You decide what suits your needs best to solve this type of problem.
Private citizens reload in approximately 1/2 of one percent of shooting incidents (3/482).
If the defender fires any shots, most likely it will be 2 rounds.
The shooting distance in the vast majority of cases was slightly in excess of arm's length.
At this distances, even .22s and .25s are highly immediately lethal.
A revolver, even J-frame, is perfectly capable of dealing with almost all of the incidents. The ones which were beyond the capabilities of a five shot revolver would be best deal with by a shotgun, anyway.
For those who do not practice, a revolver is far preferable to the autoloader because of the revolver's simpler manual of arms. Eighty per cent of gunshot wounds are self-inflicted. Guns are handled many times more than they are shot and so safe gunhandling qualities are much more important characteristics than its ability to be shot accurately and reloaded quickly. Revolvers are much less likely than autoloaders to AD in the hands of novices.
The perceived need for massive quantities of ammo, reloading, and precision shooting at distance is largely a figbar of people's imaginations. There is simply no evidence to support the contention that any of those conditions occur during armed confrontation involving the Private Citizen.
The Armed Citizen - A Five Year Analysis
Executive Summary
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