Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Firearms
#1
Question 
Who trains with a firearm?  If you do, what do you train?

I carry a Glock 21 .45ACP on duty and a Glock 19 9mm off duty.  I teach both (and other calibers/handguns) as well as shotgun (12 gauge).
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#2
On duty, Sig P-226 .40. Personal carry, is either a Glock 26 in 9mm or a Kel-Tec P-11 in 9mm. I am also a certified handgun instructor.
Reply
#3
(08-18-2015, 10:06 PM)Harold Wrote: On duty, Sig P-226 .40. Personal carry, is either a Glock 26 in 9mm or a Kel-Tec P-11 in 9mm. I am also a certified handgun instructor.

Same here, I hold two instructor certifications.  One is a Police instructor certification through the state and the other is Israeli. 

I feel that firearms are part of a good martial arts programs (if based on self-defense and if in a country that hasn't taken away this tool from it's citizens).
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#4
I agree that firearms are a part of a martial arts training program along with impact and edged weapons.
Reply
#5
Kong Soo Do

I feel that firearms are part of a good martial arts programs (if based on self-defense and if in a country that hasn't taken away this tool from it's citizens).

Hmm! I've visited many different countries including some out of the way places and I'm not aware of any country that has taken firearms away from its citizens. I have visited many countries which control or attempt to control the unlawful use of firearms and only one where the use of firearms is totally out of control. Admittedly, I haven't travelled to many Middle Eastern countries and I'm not sure of the policy in China although I believe you can still have firearms for hunting and sport even China.

In the mean time I'll continue with the firearm self defence I teach here in Australia.   Smile
Reply
#6
(11-30-2015, 12:05 PM)K-man Wrote: Hmm! I've visited many different countries including some out of the way places and I'm not aware of any country that has taken firearms away from its citizens.


I'm not aware of any country (other than the U.S. and IIRC Sweden or Switzerland) where a citizen is free to keep and bear arms.  Let's use Australia as an example.  From what I understand, the government issued a mandatory buy-back of 650,000 weapons deemed 'assault weapons'.  Now I can't speak for Australia, but the term 'assault weapon' here in the U.S. is a media buzz term that has no basis in fact.  According to the U.S. government, an assault weapon is one that has a select fire switch that allows automatic fire.  Citizens in the U.S. don't have access to these accept under special licensing through the Federal government which is strictly regulated. 

The 'Port Author' laws are in dispute as to the effectiveness of preventing gun suicides and homicides.  Both the 2007 study, "Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran and the 2008 study from the University of Melbourne by researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded that the law and buy-back had little tangible effect.  Additionally, any trend in downward homicide rates was already occurring in the 15 years prior to the law.  The law was not a catalyst for a decline. 

In regards specifically to suicide rates, according to the World Health Organization, Developed Western nations such as Hungary, Poland, France, Belgium, and Austria all have higher suicide rates than the United States — and all have stricter gun-control regimes.


Quote:Admittedly, I haven't travelled to many Middle Eastern countries and I'm not sure of the policy in China...


The Middle East is a unique creature due to Islam and terrorism (same thing) as well as the importing of weaponry from multiple countries based upon political agendas.  It would be an apple to orange comparison.  China still has mass killing, many involving edged weapons.


Quote:In the mean time I'll continue with the firearm self defence I teach here in Australia.
What firearm self defense do you teach?
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#7
In regards to the United States Constitution allowing citizens to keep and bear arms, we need to understand several points.  First, don't believe everything you may see in the American (or abroad) media.  First, many/most of them have political leanings and have left the defining nature of what the media is suppose to portray i.e. neutral watch dogs of society.  They are often uneducated on firearms and misrepresent or mislead the viewer.

Secondly, the second amendment was put in place to allow people to be self-reliant in their personal protection rather than depending upon others and/or the government.  People often think that it's the polices job to keep them safe.  It isn't.  Police are a reactionary force to enforce laws.  That is simple logistics and numbers.  The citizen will be the one on scene, in attendance when a violent crime begins.  It is the citizens responsibility to protect themselves whether through de-escalation, escape/evasion or the use of force.  To depend upon someone else (police for example) to respond, which often takes several or more minutes, when seconds count is illogical. 

Thirdly, the second amendment is in place specifically for the citizens to prevent, resist or overthrow a government in the event they become a tyranny.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#8
I don't train in use of a firearm, though we do some simple defenses.

Mostly I don't train in firearm use because my wife would kill me......no amount of bullets would stop her....
Reply
#9
Why does she feel that way?

I often find that some folks shy away from firearms, or are afraid of them because they've never been exposed to them in an educational way.  Never handled or shot one.  Or they get misinformation from the media which has a bias against firearms.  

I was at a party once many years ago.  The next door neighbor of the couple hosting the party was a nice lady but she was against guns in a very vocal way.  She stated that only police and military should have firearms.  I asked her a simple question:  who's responsibility is it to keep you safe?  She answered that it was the police's job.  I told her that no it wasn't.  The host was also a Deputy in the same agency I worked for and several of the folks there were Deputies.  They all chimed in that I was correct, it isn't the job of the police to protect individual private citizens.  It is a matter of logistics and sheer numbers.  Police are reactionary and can't be physically in every place all the time.  I then asked her if she ever heard of a police department being sued for failing to prevent a rape or mugging.  Of course she hadn't.  I asked her why and it's like a light bulb went off for her and she answered that it was because it wasn't their job.  She then realized that she is her own first-line of defense.  A very true statement is the police are minutes away when seconds count.  

A firearm isn't the only method of defense but it is usually the best for the many situations that may arise i.e. multiple attackers, armed attackers, distance, disability or illness etc.  

Take a look at this thread:  A lot of the thread are memes, but through the pages are videos and links to much information.  Well worth the time to watch.  A firearm is not only a responsibility but it is a right and a duty.  Most in this day and age miss the point that it is a right and a duty.  Driving a car is a privilege but firearm ownership is a right and a duty.

An armed society is a polite society
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#10
Another thread of information:

The Armed Citizen
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)