Guns

Do you have ownership over yourself?

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

Do you own yourself? Do you have ultimate dominion over yourself, your body, your mind?

Or does someone else, like the state?

An interesting question put forth by Nico Perrino

Do you own yourself?

It seems like a simple question, doesn’t it? Not so, apparently. It has always been my belief that I own myself. That the individual is sovereign. That my body and mind is a ship that only I can captain, that only I can steer. This is one truism that I have always taken for granted. Call me naïve, but I didn’t think many people thought otherwise because to do so would be to admit to a state of enslavement.

Thinking about it, I guess I figured I always had ownership over myself. I cannot fathom it otherwise, that someone else could own me. I mean, ever since my childhood exposure to “Free to Be… You and Me” I thought we had that sort of freedom, right? OK, maybe my Mom has some right and dominion over me, but Mom’s get special dispensation here. 🙂  And even tho I take others into deep consideration, like Wife, ultimately I still own me, I still control me.

Right?

I mean, if it’s “my body, my choice”, doesn’t that imply one has ownership over themselves? That they do not want the State to interfere and control them? That you do not want the State to interfere with, control, dictate, harm, you?

From that, doesn’t it also flow that then you must take responsiblity for yourself? That you cannot, should not, and/or are unwilling to delegate ownership, control, and responsibility for yourself and your life to someone else, like the State?

The cognitive dissonance I’m experiencing here is saying it’s my body, it’s my choice, that on the one hand one doesn’t want the State involved in my life and controlling me, telling me what I can and cannot do. But then on the other hand, demanding the State control me and alleviate me of being responsible for myself, and telling me what I must do. Look around at the mainstream political issues going on right now, be it abortion, birth-control, self-defense, health care, whatever. Doesn’t matter what mainstream media, talking head, or politician we look at, because just about all are guilty of this behavior in some manner or other.

I don’t get it.

But this seems to be a common affliction these days, of wanting things that we perceive will achieve our desired end, even if the means conflict, even if the means are inconsistent, even if the means are hypocritical. But in many regards, it comes back to one issue:

A desire to alleviate the need to be responsible for yourself and your actions.

We want the good and not the bad. We want the benefits and not the cost. We want the glory but not the sacrifice. And if someone has to pay, you will pay for me.

And are you willing to give up your ownership over yourself to get there? I’m not, but apparently many are. Worse, they want to force me to do the same.

Wither society.

Plastic pocket holster

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

How to make a plastic pocket holster…. out of a milk jug.

From Claude Werner (h/t to Greg Ellfritz)

I’m not saying this is the right and best way to do things, but it’s something to keep in mind, because certainly this could be useful.

(and please, don’t show up to class with one of these).

It’s OK to make mistakes

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

I spend time in a classroom, as a teacher. It’s not any sort of classroom, but a classroom full of intensity and pressure. It’s a pressure where people understand they are learning life-saving skills, and failure to master those skills could lead to their own death or the death of others, and mastery could save lives. Consequently, students tend to get pretty hard on themselves when they make mistakes.

Please stop.

You are human.

You will make mistakes.

You will fail, perhaps many times, before you succeed.

You are a student. You are in class. You are admitting you don’t know something, that you aren’t good at something. But by paying the money and spending the time, you are demonstrating your willingness to overcome, to fill that void, to improve yourself.

Don’t be so hard on yourself.

Some months ago while participating as a student in a class, I watched a gentleman fail and make mistakes. This guy is smart, very capable, and a master of certain realms in his own right. But here he was, admitting his lack of knowledge, remedying his void, and being humble in his learning. He didn’t cuss himself out when he failed. He didn’t get angry about his inability. He chalked it up, learned from it, and moved on. He’s traveled the road to success, and he knows that mistakes and failure is just part of the process. Just be willing to ultimately learn and grow from those mistakes.

Every so often I see students getting so hard on themselves when they don’t do something right. While it is understandable, it begins a descent into a hole that’s hard to emerge from. If it isn’t stopped, it makes the problem worse because now the student gets so focused on the mistakes and the act of “not making mistakes” when instead they should be focused on the class material. Where you focus is where you will improve; if your brain is thinking “don’t screw up”, then your brain is focused on “screwing up” and that’s what you will do. And things will snowball downward.

Acknowledge it’s OK to make mistakes. Acknowledge it’s acceptable to not grasp the concept quite yet or at the same rate as the other students. If you’re struggling, tell an instructor and ask for help. You may even find an extreme remedy is necessary like dropping out of the class and stepping back to another class that might focus more on what you need; build the stronger foundation. That’s OK, if ultimately it gets you where you need to be. That’s the thing to focus on: where you want to be. Focusing on your mistakes won’t take you to where you want to be. Learn from the mistake, and move on — that will get you there.

Framing the debate

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

There is no question that how one frames and presents things affects the tone and tenor of any debate or discussion. But sometimes we must step back and decide if the choice of words properly reflects and is guiding the debate in the desired direction.

“Gun control”. This tends to be the phrase bandied about, and there’s no question the use of those 2 words sets the tone of the discussion.

Some months ago I came across this article. The author writes:

Calling the debate “gun control” presupposes that there will be control — i.e., that government control over guns is the end, rather than the means. The only question remaining in such a debate is how much control the government will ultimately exert over citizens’ guns.

Most people, though, if they thought about it, would say that what they’re really aiming for is “violence minimization.” If one properly identifies minimizing violence as the goal, the debate changes dramatically. It forces those participating in the debate to ask, not “how many guns can we take away or how many magazines can we limit?” but, instead, “what approach results in the fewest number of gun deaths or overall violence?”.

When I speak with most people on these issues, I dig a little into their true intentions and most in fact are desiring to minimize violence and “senseless death”. Of course, they still tend to believe that banning guns would help achieve that end, but there’s data to support otherwise. The discussion continues.

But really, if the discussion is going to continue, we should strive to continue it towards the truly desired end. I mean, if what you’re truly interested in is minimization of violence, then let’s frame the discussion as such. There’s so much talk about “finding common ground”, I dare say you’ll find more on this discussion.

Of course, if you choose to keep the discussion about “gun control”, then perhaps that’s really what you are after. If so that’s fine, just be honest about it and stop hiding behind the children.

Denying the vulnerable

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Would you deny a woman the ability to protect herself from rape?

How about a pregant woman? Or an elderly woman? People who are more vulnerable than your average woman.

For all you women-empowerment types, that want to “stand by women”, and “girl power” and all that. You want to empower women, right? You want women to be able to stand on equal (or greater) ground than men, right?

Why would you deny her the best means of equalizing force?

Oleg Volk writes:

Opponents of firearms for effective self-defense tell others to run away from danger, to learn martial arts, or to “give the bad guy what he wants”. Not everyone can follow that advice…in fact, almost no one can. Least of all, the kind of people who are visibly vulnerable already, such as pregnant women or the elderly.

Ashley is a beautiful woman. She is currently three weeks away from delivering a child and one of the most fit looking expecting mothers I’ve seen. However fit and athletic she is, has little capability for hand-to-hand combat. It’s difficult to fight while carrying a heavy, fragile load within your own body.

Why might a woman like her have to fight? Pregnant women are easy prey for both human criminals and animal predators, especially dogs. They can’t fight effectively, nor can they flee quickly. Look up news headlines in your area and you will see examples of both kinds of attacks. Some women also face a threat from the future father who is not happy about having to support an unwanted child.

Indeed. People tend to get caught up in headlines and drama, instead of looking at the hard facts of reality. They tend to look at themselves or someone like them in a situation, not always considering there are those more vulnerable than they that may have needs greater than their own.

Those who oppose armed self-defense won’t be happy. Even though pregnant women are almost unknown to become violent criminals, the prohibitionists are against anyone other than the special people — the high-ranking politicians — having the benefit of effective protection. But they shouldn’t dictate how the rest of us take care of our own lives.

Walk into the wind

/ hsoi

I’m so busy these days I haven’t kept up with the bloggers like I should, but I think it was Kathy Jackson who posted Tam’s article on recoil control which referred to this GunNuts article on the “tactical turtle”.

First, I have been victim of the tactical turtle myself, but have been working to overcome it the past some months (year?). I never intentionally set it to tuck my chin in, it just happened. In fact, I can’t recall anyone saying anything regarding the head position one way or the other, either how to do it, where to put it, or if I was doing anything right or wrong. I came to the same conclusion as Caleb on my own, that it forces you to look out the top of your eyeballs, and that things work out much nicer if you just stay up (but forward) and bring the gun up to you, instead of you down to the gun. I’d be curious to determine why people actually do this, and then what we can do in our instruction to help manage it.

But that’s not what I wanted to talk about.

When I was reading comments on Tam’s article, the phrase “nose over toes” came up. This is a phrase we use all the time at KR Training to help explain good shooting stance. But I think I’ve found a better way to describe it, and I believe credit goes to Tom Givens for it because I swear I heard him toss out this analogy during the Instructor course a few months ago.

“Walk into the wind”

Ask someone, what would you do, how would you position your body if you were walking into a strong wind?

Everyone leans/pushes forward.

Magic. 🙂

I’ve tried to relate the “weight forward” concept in a number of ways. “Nose over toes” sounds good, rhymes well, good for memory, but yet it doesn’t seem to really be grasped by people to do that thing; maybe because if I’m just standing straight up, my nose is over my toes, at least that’s how I perceive it. I’ve tried talking about things like how a football player would receive a tackle, and while that’s right, the analogy always fails when I see the blank looks on student faces.

I started using the “walk into the wind” analogy, and people get it. I say it, and they do what we’re wanting of them. When we’re out on the range shooting and I see them falling back in their stance, I just have to say “walk into the wind” and instantly they know how to recover and correct.

So there is your cue for stance: “walk into the wind”. There is your analogy.

Now I’ll have to see how this affects their head position. 🙂

Training young shooters

/ hsoi

I’m sure some people get the vapors at the mere thought of teaching children how to shoot a gun.

Well, would you rather children have education and knowledge? or ignorance?

Tim sent me this video over a year ago. Yeah, I’ve got a backlog….

First and foremost, when teaching anyone (kids or adults) how to use firearms, safety is the most important thing. It isn’t directly shown in the video, but you can see from the captions and the way the father and son are working, safety has certainly been discussed and remains emphasized.

Here’s some things I like about this man’s approach

Focus on one topic; no overload

Watch the first segment where he’s talking about grip. He focuses on talking about grip and what to do. He doesn’t use small words, he doesn’t talk down to his son, but he does keep it simple, straightforward, and presents in an appropriate manner.

Most of all, when introducing the new concept, he remains focused on talking about grip. Notice when the son tries out what Dad’s teaching? notice son’s finger’s end up inside the trigger guard? Dad doesn’t stop everything and correct the finger mistake. While that’s certainly a problem, to stop everything, change gears, correct the mistake, then switch back, it would be instructional overload. Focus is good.

Teach IN safety

Not just teaching about safety, but in safety too. Dad’s using a SIRT Pistol, which is basically a fancy laser pointer. There’s no chance of harm or risk of danger in using it. Another advantage is, there’s feedback. Yes, you really shouldn’t stare at the red dot, but again the kiddo is learning. He’ll learn well enough to focus on the front sight, but for now to see that dot down there while he initially practices, that’s good and positive feedback he’s doing right and well.

When they go live fire, the gun is essentially a single-shot. There’s no chance of excitement or nervousness leading to an unintentional discharge. Dad seems to be a reloader because he mentions the loads are so light they aren’t cycling the slide, but you can replicate this easily by loading only 1 round into the gun at a time or using a very light round/caliber like a .22LR.

Also notice that Dad is completely focused on son? He’s always right there, always watching, always being aware of what’s going on. I know you cannot see it, but I can tell from subtle cues that Dad’s paying a great deal of attention and is at the ready to ensure the session remains safe for everyone. No distractions. One-on-one.

What to do

Dad’s phrasing tends to be expressed in terms of what to do, not what not to do.

When you want someone to do something, you need to tell them what to do. If you say “don’t run” when you mean “walk”, well, don’t get upset if the person responds by skipping, because they did do what you said, which was to stop running. If you want them to walk say “walk”. This shouldn’t be confused with “positive” or “negative” wording, because saying “don’t touch the hot stove!” is the right and desired effect — it is what you want them to do.

Yes, sometimes you have to say “don’t do this”, but it should generally then be followed up by “do this”.

Repetition

Redundancy fosters learning.

Dad uses the same phrasing and approaches every time. The whole “starfish and clam” thing works well to make the point, and he tests this every time son takes a grip on the pistol. I’m sure years from now when son is teaching his own kids how to shoot, he’ll be checking if the starfish can get into the clam.

Don’t Overdo It

“that’s good enough for now”. Later on, there’s some work, some refinement… no, not quite right, let’s start over and do it again. And then… well, that’s good enough for now”. That’s key. You need to stress those key things, but you can’t overstress them, else you overstress the kid. They won’t pick it up in a day, it will take many trips to the range. Make sure they want to keep coming back to the range. Keep it fun.

Other

All in all, a nice video with lots of good tips for how to help introduce and instruct kids in shooting. There’s still a lot more to it, and frankly if you find yourself teaching enough people how to shoot, consider getting an NRA Instructor Certification. It doesn’t mean you have to teach for a living, but there’s a lot about teaching, what to teach, how to teach, etc. that comes from these classes. The formal training can only serve you well.

I’ll also send you over to Kathy Jackon’s CorneredCat.com website for some of the best “Kids & Guns” resources you could ever hope to find.

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

Minimum Competency.

Minimum – the least or smallest amount or quantity possible, attainable, or required.

Competency – the ability to do something successfully or efficiently.

When it comes to the use of a pistol for self-defense, minimum competency would be the least amount of skill and ability needed in order to use that gun to successfully defend yourself.

What would that be?

I got to thinking about it. I see people at gun ranges that blaze away at a target 3 yards in front of them, and they are barely hitting paper. I see people slow plinking, taking one slowly and carefully aimed shot, checking their target, taking their time to set up again for another shot, repeat. I see videos of people attending “tactical band camp” training, throwing lots of lead, but are they hitting anything? are they doing anything effective? I see people passing their Texas CHL shooting test, and their B-27 target looks like it was peppered by a shotgun blast. I see people who are really good at shooting competitions, but struggle with defensive concepts.

Will this cut it? Is this enough true skill and knowledge to survive and win? Or is it a false sense? Sometimes in life it doesn’t matter if our assessment of our competency is different from the reality. But in a case like this, when your life is what’s at stake, you need to be soberingly aware of your skill and ability.

As friend and fellow KR Training Assistant Instructor Tom Hogel likes to say, “you don’t know what you don’t know”. If you don’t know what it takes, if you don’t know what you can and cannot do, well… what’s that going to get you? So, I started to think about what a minimum set of drills would be to try to illustrate this concept to folks. That is, if you shot these drills and could not do them cleanly on-demand, then you don’t have the minimum competency. That someone who thinks “I’ve got what it takes”, you give them this drill(s), have them shoot it right then and there, and if they cannot do it no they don’t have what they think they have.

This isn’t to say once you can do these drills then you are done and can rest here; no, because this is minimum. Karl Rehn likes to point out something he learned from Paul Ford (former Austin Police SWAT member). Paul pointed out that in a gunfight you will do about 70% of your worst day at the range. Think about that: take your worst day (under the ideal circumstances of the range), and now make it a lot worse, and that’s how you’ll do. If this is how it goes, how good do you think you really need to be so when the flag flies and your skills degrade to being “worse than your worst”, then that level is still high enough to get you through? So, you must train well beyond these minimums.

But that said, if you cannot perform to the minimum, the sooner you can know that the better. The sooner you can work to remedy it.

Hasn’t this already been defined? Well, maybe. Take a look at this extensive collection of handgun standards. If we have so many standards, do we really have a standard? Well, we do have to consider these standards are likely within a particular context, e.g. qualifying for police, carry permits, etc.. Furthermore, every trainer out there wants to have their own set of standards and performance assessment, but are their standards truly testing something? are they well thought out towards achieving a particular end? or did they just string together a bunch of stuff so they could slap their name on a drill? And is there really a “standard” or “drill” that is trying to answer the question I’m asking?

Ultimately, my motivation is trying to bring some cold truth to folks. I speak to people all the time that passed the Texas CHL shooting test, maybe even got a perfect score. They are quite proud of their accomplishment, and consider that the end – that they have passed the CHL test, they know all they need to know, that they are as proficient as they need to be, and will be able to handle themselves should they ever need it. I speak with people who grew up around guns, learned to shoot in the back pasture, but it’s evident from watching them they really couldn’t shoot their way out of a paper bag much less deal with a response to being assaulted. I’m no expert, but I’ve learned enough to know that I don’t know. Furthermore, I know it’s better to have your bubble burst when it doesn’t matter, than to see your world fall apart when everything is on the line. If I’m in the business of helping people protect themselves and their loved ones, I’d like to see what I could do to come up with a simple way to help people assess if they truly have the minimal skills or not.

So then, what is minimum competency? The Texas Legislature and Department of Public Safety think the TX CHL Shooting Test is minimum. Karl Rehn formulated the “3 Seconds or Less Drill” that’s based around the typical gunfight, and this test gets used in the various Defensive Pistol Level 1,2,3 classes at KR Training. I could be remembering this wrong, but I swore one of Tom Givens’ students only took Rangemaster’s Level 1 class and was able to successfully defend themselves. Claude Werner seems to come up with different statistical analyses of gunfight realities, and one could argue it’s mostly (only?) important to have a gun and draw it.

Defining “minimum competency for defensive pistol” is hard.

However, just because it’s hard doesn’t mean we should avoid doing it.

I think before we can answer the question, it’s important to define and frame the problem. If we’re going to define minimum competency for a self-defense situation, then we need to first know what is a self-defense situation. We’re not hunting. We’re military nor police (tho it’s possible there’s some overlap). We’re talking about private citizens going about their daily lives, but having to deal with robbery, assault, burglary, rape, etc. and refusing to be a victim of such crimes.

Tom Givens has examined incidents of FBI and DEA agents, along with the 60+ student incidents he’s had. What are the common threads?

  • Distance between victim and assailant? up to about a car length. But exceptions can occur (e.g. out to 25 yards)
  • You’re in plain clothes, gun is concealed, you need fast access.
  • Occur in public areas such as parking lots, shopping malls. Home is rare.
  • Shots fired? 3-5, on average
  • Multiple assailants are not uncommon

What Tom’s data concludes is that a typical private citizen “incident” is:

  • armed robbery in some form
  • 1-2 assailants highly likely
  • 3-7 yards
  • limited response time
  • “3 shots, 3 steps/yards, 3 seconds”

I know I lean on Givens’ teaching and data a good deal, but Tom’s a top-notch researcher. Certainly to an extent he’s biased, but what Tom is biased towards isn’t necessarily “pro gun, rah rah rah”. Rather he has a bias towards helping people stay alive in the face of a violent world (like Memphis, TN), and to do so you better have a solid, methodical approach towards finding the Truth and what really works; anything else will get people killed. So I consider Tom’s research serious and genuine. Besides, you don’t have to take his word for it: the data is out there, so you can see for yourself.

Another way to look at it? It’s the ability to get:

  • multiple hits
  • in a small area
  • from “close” range
  • quickly

Unfortunately, if you just say that, everyone’s going to define it their own way. So we need to have clear definitions and create standards based upon the clear definition.

In her book Effective Defense, Gila Hayes described a simple test:

  • 5 shots
  • in 5 inches
  • a 5 yards
  • within 5 seconds

Some people refer to it as the “forty-five” drill, some the “4×5” or “5×4” or “4^5” or “5^4”. Claude Werner has a “5^5” variation, adding “repeat the drill 5 times to eliminate luck and ensure consistency”. Greg Ellfritz made a “6×6” varation. However you label it, doesn’t that seem to mesh directly with multiple hits? small area? close range? quickly? It’s quite a simple drill, and looks like it can fit the bill.

Looks are deceiving tho, because it doesn’t require you to draw from a holster. If the data shows that most incidents are going to be in public spaces, that means you need to be carrying the gun (i.e. it’s not on a table, in the nightstand, in the glove box, etc.), which means it’s in a holster, which means it’s concealed (under clothing, in a bag, etc.). So this implies you know how to draw and present a gun from concealment. That’s actually two implications: drawing from concealment, and being able to carry concealed in public.

If you’re going to carry concealed in public, in most states in the USA that means you need to have some sort of concealed handgun/weapons/carry license/permit. Many times that means you have to pass some sort of shooting test. To receive a concealed handgun license (CHL) in Texas, there is a shooting test. Notice the test is structured around getting multiple hits, (somewhat) quickly, from various “close” ranges. It’s a bit better than Gila’s test since it works different amounts of shots and different distances. But it fails on a few counts. First, the B-27 target and “within the 8-ring” is akin to hitting the side of a barn; that’s not “in a small area”. Second, just like Gila’s, there is no drawing from a holster. Did you catch that? The Texas test for obtaining a license to carry a concealed handgun — which implies a need to draw the handgun out of concealment — doesn’t require you to show you can draw the gun from concealment. Note, I’m not advocating changing the test because there are reasons why it is the way it is. But do these tests truly provide you with the needed skills? or a false sense?

I will say this.

Both of these tests are something I could label “sub-minimal”. That is, they are reasonable tests, but not quite to the standard we’re trying to define.

I believe the primary reason for Gila’s test isn’t so much a proficiency test as a shopping test. That is, if you get a gun, you need to be able to do her test with that gun. If you cannot, that is probably not a suitable gun for you. All too often I see a woman that comes to class with the gun her husband or boyfriend gave her: she has small, weak hands, and he gave her a Sig P226 which she simply cannot operate — she would easily fail Gila’s test. As soon as we swap her with a more reasonably fitting gun, her skills and abilities didn’t change, but now she could pass Gila’s test. If you read the linked-to article on the 6×6 variation, Greg Ellfritz struggled with the Ruger LCP because it’s too small a gun (fit) for him. So perhaps consider this test more of a good way to suss out appropriate equipment than skill.

But certainly, if you cannot perform Gila’s test (or I’d say Claude’s variation, to ensure you didn’t get lucky on the one run) or if you cannot clean the Texas CHL, and you cannot do these consistently and on-demand, then certainly you do not have the minimum competency. These aren’t enough due to shortcomings in the drills themselves, but they are a rung on the ladder.

So if these are “sub-minimal”, what might be minimal?

It seems we have expanded our criteria:

  • multiple hits
  • in a small area
  • from close range
  • quickly
  • drawing from concealment

To see what else might be necessary, we can also look at video. Hooray for video! Hooray for dashcams, security cameras, everyone having a phone with a camera, and then a willingness to share all of this on video websites like YouTube. You can see a lot of what really goes on.

One thing that happens often? Hands. Shooting with two hands, shooting with one hand. There’s no question you should try to shoot with both hands. Why? You’re faster. This goes back to “quickly”, and shooting slower is the opposite of “quickly”. That said, the reality of life is your situation may require you to shoot one-handed — and perhaps with your weak hand. You may have something in your hands that you cannot drop: like a child. Or another reality is, sometimes you just start shooting with one hand. I’ve seen it, I’ve done it — we know better, but yet something happens in the head and you just start shooting one-handed. It’s good to know how to do it.

At this point, a drill like KR Training’s 3 Seconds Or Less Drill starts to come into play. This drill was intentionally designed around the the “3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds” typical gunfight. It works on multiple hits, in a small area, from close range, quickly, drawing from concealment, two- and one-handed shooting.

The drill also adds in another aspect: movement. Do we need to move in a self-defense situation? You betcha. Karl often asks, “is it better to shoot, or not get shot?” not get shot. Some like to phrase it that incoming bullets have the right of way. Thankfully since bullets only travel in a straight line (well ok, an arc, and there’s wind, but go with me here, this isn’t Wanted), a simple but large enough side-step is important. It “gets you off the ‘X'”, it causes the assailant to reset their OODA loop, and well… movement is going to happen.

That’s the thing. Movement is going to happen, or at least, it should. Generally, something happens and people scatter, running away from the source of trouble. This of course is a good thing (distance yourself from the problem). However, it’s really either move or shoot, not shoot on the move. Paul Howe pretty much says to do one or the other:

shooting on the move, it’s a skill all shooters aspire to learn and spend a great deal of time and effort trying to master. I’ve never had to use it in combat. When moving at a careful hurry, I stopped, planted and made my shots. When the bullets were flying, I was sprinting from cover to cover, moving too fast to shoot. I didn t find an in-between. If I slowed down enough to make a solid hit when under fire, I was an easy target, so I elected not to.

As for shooting and closing on a target, it only makes the bad guys accuracy better and walking into a muzzle may help you to test your new vest sooner than you wanted to. Diagonal movement works, but again if you have to slow down too much, you re an easy target, and are generally in the open. Speed can act as your security in this case to get you to a point of cover.

Training to “shoot on the move” with a Groucho Marx walk? Well, nice skill, but is it really important within our context? Howe’s case was military, and if he doesn’t need it there, would we really need it in the “3 seconds” of a private citizen self-defense incident? A little movement, like a quick and decisive (and far enough) side-step on the draw is good. Much more than that? Not really needed.

So now we’re starting to find things we don’t need.

Are there other things we don’t need, in terms of minimum competency?

I asked Tom Givens, of his 60 students that were involved in self-defense incidents, did any need to reload? Further clarifying, if so, did any reload as a part of the fight? Or was it administrative after the fight was over?

Tom’s response to this question:

John-

None of ours had to reload and continue shooting.

I can think of four off the top of my head that went to slide lock, however, further shooting was not required at that point.

Tom

Think about reloads. If typical private citizen gunfights are 3-5 shots, that’s not even enough to warrant reloading a snub revolver. Of course, that’s average. With Tom’s students, I think the range was 1 to 11 shots fired, but again, no reloads (tho apparently some came close). So do we need reloading as a minimal skill? It would seem not.

For that matter, how about malfunction clearing, be it simple failure to eject, stovepipe, double-feed, whatever type. Do malfunctions occur enough that we need to consider them a minimal skill? Again, data would point towards no. This isn’t to say it’s not useful and good to know, but remember we’re looking at minimal competency.

So if you start to look at tests like the FBI Qualification or Rangemaster Level 5, are these reasonable “minimal” tests? Nope. I would say there are somewhere above the minimum. They cover shots out to 25 yards, which doesn’t fit the bill of a typical gunfight. They cover reloads. They cover malfunctions. They also cover things like changing positions (e.g. going to kneeling). Again, all good skills to have, but beyond minimum.

Look at the FASTest, the Farnam Drill (or Tom Givens’ flavor “3M Drill”), IDPA Classifier, Gunsite Standard, Hackathorn Standards, the list goes on. At this point, what new skills or techniques are being added? Shooting from kneeling, from prone, around barriers, turn and shoot, multiple targets, transition to a backup gun, disability (e.g. loss of one hand so must do everything with the “other” hand, including reloads), using a light (weapon-mounted or held in the other hand), and the list goes on. Are these skills that are involved in the typical gunfight? Well, maybe one here or there but the exception does not prove the rule. All in all, these sorts of things just aren’t being done in the typical incident. Thus, it’s hard to argue they are part of “minimum competency”.

So have I been able to define “minimum competency” required for defensive handgun use?

Maybe, maybe not – I’m sure there will be folks who take issue with what I’ve written. It seems when we look at what unfolds in a typical incident and what needs to be done to handle that typical incident, you get:

  • drawing from concealment
    • And perhaps moving on that draw (like a side-step then stop; not shoot-and-move)
  • getting multiple hits
  • in a small area
    • 5″ circle? 6″ circle? 8″ circle? consider human anatomy
  • from close range
    • Within a car length, so say 0-5 yards
  • quickly
    • 3 seconds or less
  • using both hands, or maybe one hand (or the other)

In his email to me, Tom Givens said of this:

If I had to list the prime skills for concealed carry, the list might be
Primary:
presentation from concealed carry
shoot with 2 hands
shoot with 1 hand, both dominant and non-dominant
Secondary:
reload, slide forward and empty gun
fix simple malfunctions like failure to eject, TRB.

Everything beyond that is certainly good to know, but unlikely to be used by typical CCW.

When I asked Karl Rehn, his answer is what I expected:

[My] 3 seconds or less [drill] is my answer to that question.

All in all, the same set of minimal skills are being presented.

So what you need is the ability to do the above – at bare minimum. If you cannot do the above, you’ve got work to do. If you cannot do the above, there is no shame in that, if you use it as motivation to get better. However, there is shame in letting your ego continue to lie to you.

Remember that I am working to establish a minimum.

Let me restate the problem: Private citizens being the unfortunate victim of a violent crime. The choice to use a handgun as a tool to contend with their immediate victimization. To use the tool with some measure of effectiveness, one needs some modicum of skill with that tool. And, that you should have a realistic assessment of your skill with that tool, instead of a false impression.

We have to look at what really happens in a violent crime. No, nothing will be perfect, nothing will be absolute, but we can see enough of a pattern if we look at enough crimes, we can then formulate a solution for dealing with it. This is like solving any problem.

That you can plink tin cans in the back pasture is a false sense. That you can pass the TX CHL test is a false sense. You need to be able to draw the handgun from concealment and get multiple fast, accurate hits on a small target within a reasonable distance. You need to be able to do this with both hands, and one hand (each hand). This is the bare minimum.

Tests like Gila Hayes’, the TX CHL, those are good starts but sub-minimal. If you cannot do these, seek further instruction and practice. Tests like “3 Seconds or Less” are a good standard for bare minimum. It might look easy on paper, but I’ve been through more than enough classes where students struggle — yes, more practice is needed. Even a test like the FBI Qualification can be considered a good minimum (can you clean stage I and stage II? maybe stage III without the reload, and stage IV?).

I would suggest this.

Start with a test like the Texas CHL. Work until you can clean it on-demand. Then make it a little harder by drawing from concealment, but otherwise change nothing about the test. When you can clean that on-demand, use a better target like an ISPC or IDPA target, Rangemaster RM-Q2, IALEFI-Q, QIT-99, etc.. Work to clean it on-demand.

Move up to the “3 Seconds or Less” drill. Work to clean it on demand.

After this, you’ll start to move beyond minimum competency. Skills like slide-lock (emergency/speed) reloads, malfunction clearing, shooting at distances out to 25 yards, etc. are going to come into play and are well-worth your time to learn and study. Courses like the FBI Qualification, the Rangemaster Level V, are good for this. But if you want something simpler, I’d say the Farnam Drill is probably one of the most compact tests out there. When you start to get into this level of things, you’ll find lots of drills out there you can use as testing and assessment, so you’ll be able to find what you need.

Note: that doesn’t necessarily mean to shoot these drill as your practice. Rather, shoot the drill and see how you do (test, assess). See what you do well, see what you need to work on. When you identify what you need to work on, your practice time (both live fire and dry fire) should work on the fundamentals necessary to help that. Formulate a plan and a program to help you achieve the goal of cleaning the drill. Work on those skills for a while, then come back and shoot the drill again. Keep notes on your progress.

Keep in mind the Paul Ford “70% of your worst day”. Look at how you’re performing “at your worst” and think about how much worse that will really be. Use that as a guide to establish where you really need your skills to be.

So many things push to a higher standard, and that’s good. The problem with always pushing for higher standards, to have the most uber-tacticool or difficult challenging drill/test/standard is it starts to make you wonder where the baseline is. Everyone’s out to push things high, so how does that look to someone just starting out? Does it make it seem like an unachievable goal? That if it’s going to take me 5 years of dedicated work to get there, how does that help me deal with the death threats I’m currently receiving from my crazy ex-spouse? Or if some standards are setting the bar too low, are people getting a false sense of accomplishment and ability that could wind up doing them more harm than good should they need to call on those skills?

You don’t need to be a Rob Leatham in order to protect yourself. But you likely need to be better than you think you are.

The point I’m trying to make is to not make this the standard to train to , but rather I’m out to bust false senses of ability. I think it’s wise to know what minimum competency is, and to not consider “minimum” to mean either some really low-level that’s essentially equated to “skill-less” or to mean once you’ve met the minimum that’s satisfactory and you can stop your journey. It’s none of those things. It’s merely a way to come to some sort of realistic terms of where your skills and ability lie. When your life is at stake, you need honest assessment. Ego or pretense could get you killed. But sometimes it’s neither of those; it’s simply that you don’t know what you don’t know, so here’s an opportunity to learn.

(I’d like to thank Karl Rehn, Tom Hogel, and Tom Givens for their input, mentorship, and contribution to this effort).

This article was originally posted as a multi-part series. I had originally written it as a single article (what you see here) but when it was evident how long it was, I thought it made better sense to break into smaller chunks. Here are links to those smaller chunks:

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – What to do about it

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

I would suggest this.

Start with a test like the Texas CHL. Work until you can clean it on-demand. Then make it a little harder by drawing from concealment, but otherwise change nothing about the test. When you can clean that on-demand, use a better target like an ISPC or IDPA target, Rangemaster RM-Q2, IALEFI-Q, QIT-99, etc.. Work to clean it on-demand.

Move up to the “3 Seconds or Less” drill. Work to clean it on demand.

After this, you’ll start to move beyond minimum competency. Skills like slide-lock (emergency/speed) reloads, malfunction clearing, shooting at distances out to 25 yards, etc. are going to come into play and are well-worth your time to learn and study. Courses like the FBI Qualification, the Rangemaster Level V, are good for this. But if you want something simpler, I’d say the Farnam Drill is probably one of the most compact tests out there. When you start to get into this level of things, you’ll find lots of drills out there you can use as testing and assessment, so you’ll be able to find what you need.

Note: that doesn’t necessarily mean to shoot these drill as your practice. Rather, shoot the drill and see how you do (test, assess). See what you do well, see what you need to work on. When you identify what you need to work on, your practice time (both live fire and dry fire) should work on the fundamentals necessary to help that. Formulate a plan and a program to help you achieve the goal of cleaning the drill. Work on those skills for a while, then come back and shoot the drill again. Keep notes on your progress.

Keep in mind the Paul Ford “70% of your worst day”. Look at how you’re performing “at your worst” and think about how much worse that will really be. Use that as a guide to establish where you really need your skills to be.

So many things push to a higher standard, and that’s good. The problem with always pushing for higher standards, to have the most uber-tacticool or difficult challenging drill/test/standard is it starts to make you wonder where the baseline is. Everyone’s out to push things high, so how does that look to someone just starting out? Does it make it seem like an unachievable goal? That if it’s going to take me 5 years of dedicated work to get there, how does that help me deal with the death threats I’m currently receiving from my crazy ex-spouse? Or if some standards are setting the bar too low, are people getting a false sense of accomplishment and ability that could wind up doing them more harm than good should they need to call on those skills?

You don’t need to be a Rob Leatham in order to protect yourself. But you likely need to be better than you think you are.

The point I’m trying to make is to not make this the standard to train to , but rather I’m out to bust false senses of ability. I think it’s wise to know what minimum competency is, and to not consider “minimum” to mean either some really low-level that’s essentially equated to “skill-less” or to mean once you’ve met the minimum that’s satisfactory and you can stop your journey. It’s none of those things. It’s merely a way to come to some sort of realistic terms of where your skills and ability lie. When your life is at stake, you need honest assessment. Ego or pretense could get you killed. But sometimes it’s neither of those; it’s simply that you don’t know what you don’t know, so here’s an opportunity to learn.

(I’d like to thank Karl Rehn, Tom Hogel, and Tom Givens for their input, mentorship, and contribution to this effort).

(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – Do we have a definition?

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Maybe, maybe not – I’m sure there will be folks who take issue with what I’ve written. It seems when we look at what unfolds in a typical incident and what needs to be done to handle that typical incident, you get:

  • drawing from concealment
    • And perhaps moving on that draw (like a side-step then stop; not shoot-and-move)
  • getting multiple hits
  • in a small area
    • 5″ circle? 6″ circle? 8″ circle? consider human anatomy
  • from close range
    • Within a car length, so say 0-5 yards
  • quickly
    • 3 seconds or less
  • using both hands, or maybe one hand (or the other)

In his email to me, Tom Givens said of this:

If I had to list the prime skills for concealed carry, the list might be
Primary:
presentation from concealed carry
shoot with 2 hands
shoot with 1 hand, both dominant and non-dominant
Secondary:
reload, slide forward and empty gun
fix simple malfunctions like failure to eject, TRB.

Everything beyond that is certainly good to know, but unlikely to be used by typical CCW.

When I asked Karl Rehn, his answer is what I expected:

[My] 3 seconds or less [drill] is my answer to that question.

All in all, the same set of minimal skills are being presented.

So what you need is the ability to do the above – at bare minimum. If you cannot do the above, you’ve got work to do. If you cannot do the above, there is no shame in that, if you use it as motivation to get better. However, there is shame in letting your ego continue to lie to you.

Remember that I am working to establish a minimum.

Let me restate the problem: Private citizens being the unfortunate victim of a violent crime. The choice to use a handgun as a tool to contend with their immediate victimization. To use the tool with some measure of effectiveness, one needs some modicum of skill with that tool. And, that you should have a realistic assessment of your skill with that tool, instead of a false impression.

We have to look at what really happens in a violent crime. No, nothing will be perfect, nothing will be absolute, but we can see enough of a pattern if we look at enough crimes, we can then formulate a solution for dealing with it. This is like solving any problem.

That you can plink tin cans in the back pasture is a false sense. That you can pass the TX CHL test is a false sense. You need to be able to draw the handgun from concealment and get multiple fast, accurate hits on a small target within a reasonable distance. You need to be able to do this with both hands, and one hand (each hand). This is the bare minimum.

Tests like Gila Hayes’, the TX CHL, those are good starts but sub-minimal. If you cannot do these, seek further instruction and practice. Tests like “3 Seconds or Less” are a good standard for bare minimum. It might look easy on paper, but I’ve been through more than enough classes where students struggle — yes, more practice is needed. Even a test like the FBI Qualification can be considered a good minimum (can you clean stage I and stage II? maybe stage III without the reload, and stage IV?).

Where do you go from here?

(This post is part of a multi-part series. For now, you can find other published parts of the series by looking at the “minimum competency” tag or category).