Full force training. Certainly if we need to perform a skill under stress we should have some practice in that skill under stress. Ideally we would be training in as close as we can to “actual combat conditions,” but there are limits to how well we can simulate this environment, and more importantly the student needs some ability to perform the skills required before applying stress.

Relaxed Training. Is where you learn new skills. Ideally drilling parts of the skill in isolation and building to a complete technique. I can take a new shooter and scream “speed reload” at him until I am blue in the face and eventually the fumbling will accomplish getting the gun reloaded, but not in a timely or efficient fashion. This also holds true with combatives techniques. Until a technique has been rehearsed without resistance and time pressure it has very little hope of becoming consistent. If you can’t do it under perfect conditions what chance do you have under combat conditions?

Stressed in training, calm in reality. This an excellent goal, and from what I have observed: confident, successful, application of technique comes from first training the skill in a low stress environments and after achieving proficiency, then ratcheting up the realism. I completely agree that you ultimately have to progress to executing techniques in realistic scenarios under realistic stress if you want the best chance at executing successful techniques in the real world.

Disengagement. This is a complicated way of saying “running away” (or used preemptively, “don’t be there.”) Obviously this perfectly sound advice and I am in complete agreement that this a very good idea for staying out of both danger and legal trouble. It is not the ultimate trump card that some make it out to be simply because there are situations where you cannot run away from, either for practical reasons (no available path of escape) or moral reasons (running would mean you leaving your child or spouse to face the danger alone.) In terms of self defense as a private citizen we are always working towards disengagement, but we must recognize that there might need to be intervening steps between the beginning of the confrontation and our finally being able to disengage.

Deescalation. Deescalation is the process of being (or at least appearing to be) reasonable and or conciliatory, in the hopes of diffusing a potentially dangerous situation. This is what is known as “talking your way out” of fighting. Most people have some basic idea of how this works, and the better and more practiced at it you are the more applicable it becomes. I consider deescalation to be a core self defense skill and should get at least as much thought and attention as learning to shoot or fight. Unfortunately many situations cannot be deescalated through reason, compromise, or dialogue. This is where pacifism fails: some people are ideologically bent upon causing you harm and they are not going to be dissuaded by discussion.

Verbal Commands. A verbal command is a stated demand for compliance. This generally implies that there will be consequences for non-compliance and those consequences include the application of a higher level of force than verbal commands. I think this is where a lot of generic self defense curriculum goes awry, because if there isn’t a credible ability to use force after issuing verbal commands it simply amounts to a bluff. Should a subject comply with the commands then that might create an opportunity for using deescalation and/or disengagement.

Application of Violence. Hopefully, there was an opportunity in a developing situation to apply the previously mentioned steps and something (or some combination) was effective. Other times a situation can require the immediate application of violence because of the nature of the threat and the circumstances. Ideally the amount of violence will be the minimum that is sufficient to stop the attack. In the wider self defense community the martial arts purists seem to think that they can fight their way out of every situation (except for those that believe an armed assailant is instant death) and the firearms purists who believe that any physical altercation is justification for gunfire. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. As a general guideline, you will have an easier time (legally speaking) if you can stop an attack using something less than lethal force – even if you are not required by law to do so.

Using less lethal in deadly force scenarios. Nobody would choose to fight a knife wielding attacker with their fists if they had anything else available. Seeing as how fist fighting is more force than pepper spray, clearly pepper spray is not the answer to deadly force attacks.

Bypassing less lethal tools in deadly force scenarios. There is a lot of confusion about the use of force continuum. Law enforcement has been addressing this in their training for at least a decade: it’s not a ladder and you don’t have to touch every rung. A lethal threat warrants a lethal response. An escalating situation (as most are) provides room for stopping the fight before it becomes a deadly force encounter.

Liability of not using less lethal in deadly force scenarios. This theory that having pepper spray and not using it in a deadly force situation is going to somehow expose you to more legal liability is totally spurious. This is like saying you better not take a martial art, because you will be expected to use some ninja move instead of your firearm. I don’t shoot because I don’t know how to do anything else, I shoot because my training has told me that this is only appropriate response to the circumstance.

Pepper spraying people is trivial. Especially in comparison to shooting people. If you can effect a stop with pepper spray then you aren’t going to be justifying your shooting in court. This is the most likely case: bad guy gets sprayed and quits. Some people are trying to optimize their equipment selection for defending themselves against manslaughter charges: “I carry nothing but deadly force tools”. I would recommend optimizing for winning the fight in a way that gets you the least involvement with the legal system.

I’d just run away. So would I, if I could. This stops being the perfect answer as soon as you are a better runner than your significant other or children. If they aren’t within arms reach it could very well turn into you needing to stand and fight while they get away.

I’d just shoot them. Ultimately I see a lot of people painting themselves into a corner where they are going to have to pull the trigger in order to have any self defense response. I hear a lot of talk in training circles about “lethal force options.” Lethal force is not optional, it’s mandatory. If I had a choice to make I would choose something other than shooting. Lethal force is what happens when all those options are taken away. If I am not facing a deadly force threat then shooting isn’t even an option.

Evaluating Risk. Yeager explains that driving to the range is more dangerous than standing between the targets. While it is true that there is some risk associated with driving there is a benefit (transportation) that we deem to be worth the risk. I fail to see what the benefit is for the students (or the instructor) by having the instructor stand down range.

Stress Inoculation. Yeager explains that this practice better prepares students for ‘real world’ gunfight pressures. I certainly believe that if a skill is going to need to be performed under stress then some portion of the practice of that skill should be performed under stress. There are a lot of ways of inducing stress such as time pressure, distracting noise, testing, ambiguity, sleep deprivation, etc. None of these require putting somebody in the position taking a bullet should a student make a mistake or stumble. If the goal is to simulate a gunfight for stress inoculation purposes then why not have two parallel berms and have the instructor shoot at targets that are behind the students while they are on the firing line? If ‘realism’ trumps safety then wouldn’t that be a better drill?

Safest Training. I am not going to dispute the safety “record” of Yeager or his staff, but I fail to see a procedure or system that makes this training inherently safe, or at best any more safe than that of any other shooting school. A person getting shot during training is a big deal, and some of the larger training schools have had people get shot. Generally they shoot themselves holstering or drawing the gun and in rare circumstances a student will shoot someone else. If you have cycled through 50,000 or more students one of them is bound to be an idiot – regardless of how strict the range rules might be.

Makes People Safer. I am sure it makes people think and focus a lot more about keeping the gun on target, and where the muzzle is pointing when the instructor is a foot away from the target. The student that trips over his own feet is an open question as far as “safety” goes. Safety is a process, not an event.

Jabbering of Internet Commandos. Having discussed this video with some actual (non-internet) commandos they don’t see any utility in the increased risk of this particular training “method” because it doesn’t meet any particular training objective. I don’t think the risks are worth the benefits unless you are going to be shooting targets in close proximity to your teammates – and have gone through a slow progression building up to running the drill live.

I don’t believe this training accomplished anything other than stir up some controversy, and generate some potential marketing buzz. My overall impression (based solely on the videos) is that Tactical Response isn’t particularly concerned with safety, and that Yeager’s response was more of an attempt at justifying an unsafe act.

In the Gun:

• 1 live round in the chamber.
• 5 live rounds in the magazine. (Some sources say 4 live rounds.)
• 1 dummy round in the magazine. (Not the first or last round.

In the Reload:

• At least three live rounds.

The drill is shot as follows:

• On the buzzer draw and start shooting.
• Perform immediate action when you encounter a malfunction.
• Speed reload when you reach slide lock
• Shoot twice more.

If you followed the directions correctly you will end up with two empty magazines (one on the ground, one in the gun) and one live round in the chamber.

The “standard” is shooting a 8.5″x11″ sheet of paper at 8 meters with a disqualification for a miss. Farnam expects his students to complete this in 18.25 seconds and his instructors to complete it in 12 seconds.

Now for the “modified” part of the drill:

• Add one second to your total time for each miss. This allows you to capture your progress. It’s not perfect but it is kind of helpful to see improvements.
• Change the distance. Both closer and farther away.
• Reduce the size of the target.
• Add a step of movement on the draw, immediate action, and reload.
• Add verbal commands throughout the drill.

The people that seem to have the best success at this drill are the ones with the most efficient gun handling. Being able to quickly and precisely clear the malfunction and speed reload will give you more time to get your hits.

When looking at the increasing numbers of reports about violence against women, it is clear that women’s self-defense against men is becoming an important issue in today’s society. There are many products and techniques designed for women’s self-defense against men, from mace guns to judo and assertiveness training. Unfortunately, these things are becoming increasingly necessary, and it is essential to stay informed of the most effective strategies for women’s self-defense against men.

I guess they are repeating the title over and over again to try and improve the search rank of the article. Otherwise there really is no content in the opening paragraph other than a vague reference to “increasing numbers of reports about violence against women.”

Since more and more women are working overtime and at late hours, extra attention should be given to women’s self-defense against men. Dark parking lots are among the most dangerous places, and it is good idea to walk into a parking lot with a special device, such as a small alarm, whistle or light, or where it is legal, a mace gun or stun gun. The mace or stun guns should not be shaped like actual guns, but should be disguised as cell phones, pens or key chains which can be carried by hand without attracting undue attention.

So having a weapon that looks like a weapon would cause undue attention, and women should have a James Bond-esque cell phone that shoots electricity or pepper-spray? Clearly a concealed firearm isn’t even considered by the author.

It is important to principle of women’s self defense against men always to look straight ahead and always to appear alert. Potential attackers are always on the lookout for women who seem unaware of their surroundings, so give an impression of confidence.

I guess that in the authors opinion nothing projects confidence like locking your gaze on the horizon and marching in a straight line.

Women’s self-defense against men is not always focused on strangers, but, more often than not, an attacker is someone the woman knows. Before making the attack, the person usually stalks the woman to find out her habits and where she is the most vulnerable.

It is therefore a good idea to change your route frequently if you jog or walk for exercise. Be on the lookout for people who are watching your activities and make sure that you are aware of potential dangers. Like fire drills, women’s self-defense calls for identifying potential danger spots, so, as you go through your day, look for those places where a person can easily intrude.

Actually, the non-stranger attacker doesn’t do a multiple day reconnaissance and surveillance, but rather becomes “familiar” and exploits a convenient vulnerability. This isn’t a guy hiding in the bushes with a spotting scope and a notebook. This is the guy she lets carry her groceries because he lives across the street.

Many strategies for women’s self-defense against men include some kind of martial arts training. Although many critics complain that techniques learned in classes can not be adapted well to the street, martial arts give women strength and confidence to be able to ward off an attacker.

The rest of the article goes on to try and sell a number of different martial arts without an real knowledge or analysis. The whole article is just a little bit of fear-based marketing copy designed to pad someones website and sell pepper spray disguised as lipstick or a block of Tae Kwon Do classes.

So why am I bothering to call this out? Because there are a lot of people who have a scary experience, throw a few keywords at google, and end up buying a stun gun (that doesn’t work) or enroll in some less than reputable martial arts class for a couple of weeks.

The wrong gun. There are guns that are just wrong for some people. If you are smaller and/or weaker than a lot of larger guns are going to give you problems. A gun that doesn’t fit your hand and doesn’t let you reach the trigger properly isn’t going to work for you. If you can’t rack the slide then you have the wrong gun. All firearms require a certain amount of strength and dexterity to operate, and some require more than others.

Exchanging the problem. If the starting place is having the wrong gun, the next step is to start making modifications. A lighter recoil spring will make the gun easier to rack, but the gun won’t function as reliably. Adding some external lever or handle might make it easier to manipulate, but it will make it harder to carry and more prone to malfunction (should the lever get hung up on anything.) This isn’t an apparent liability if all you do is square range target shooting.

Shooting is only part of the process. Getting the gun ready to shoot isn’t the whole equation. You still have to keep the gun running. Clearing malfunctions and reloading are also important skills. If we discount these operations then we could simply start with an unmodified gun in Condition One (loaded chamber, loaded magazine, and all safeties engaged) and hope for the best. There are also a complete set of techniques for one handed manipulation of a semi-auto handgun that work if you have the necessary strength and dexterity to accomplish them.

Consider a revolver. Depending on the existing limitations a revolver might be the answer, since there is no slide to rack, basic malfunction clearances are simple, but reloading can require a bit of dexterity. The trigger pull on a double action revolver is going to require more strength than most semi-autos.

Previously military combatives systems had the primary goal of killing the enemy in close combat. The purpose for this was for things like POW Escape, sentry removal, or the rare “out of ammo” scenario. Contrast this with FM 3-25.150 (FM 21-150):

1-2. PURPOSES OF COMBATIVES TRAINING
Soldiers must be prepared to use different levels of force in an environment where conflict may change from low intensity to high intensity over a matter of hours. Many military operations, such as peacekeeping missions or noncombatant evacuation, may restrict the use of deadly weapons. Hand-to-hand combatives training will save lives when an unexpected confrontation occurs.

More importantly, combatives training helps to instill courage and self-confidence. With competence comes the understanding of controlled aggression and the ability to remain focused while under duress. Training in combatives includes hard and arduous physical training that is, at the same time, mentally demanding and carries over to other military pursuits. The overall effect of combatives training is—
• The culmination of a successful physical fitness program, enhancing individual and unit strength, flexibility, balance, and cardiorespiratory fitness.
• Building personal courage, self confidence, self-discipline, and esprit de corps.

So this is not some sort of “quick kill” system that has removed all of the martial arts “nonsense.” Far from it, some of these programs are complete martial arts in and of themselves, seeded with an amount of what I can only call “spiritual development” like you would find in any traditional martial art. I am sure that it has been “streamlined” but remember what the design goals are, it is not just the inefficient things that have been paired down. Most of the implementations of military combatives that I have seen have been a cross between a physical training event and morale event. There are competitions at all echelons, and these competitions need to be safe enough to not injure the participants.

The 260 hour black belt is certainly on par with many martial arts studios: working out 5 hours a week for a year and getting a black belt isn’t all that unusual. I do not believe that the military has lost its zeal for physical fitness and I am sure that these sessions are certainly physically taxing, but that can also be true of any physical training for a contact sport. More to the point that a belt rank really only has relevance within it’s own art. Ranks are awarded within the art in question for demonstrated knowledge of the material. Additionally, I would say that in most martial arts a black belt isn’t anything close to being a “master” but rather the place where you have enough of a foundation in the mechanics to actually start learning. It’s more of a high school diploma than a PhD.

The military has a lot of other things that it’s personnel need to do. Combatives are only the primary job of a very few combatives instructors. The average infantryman needs to maintain his physical fitness, equipment, marksmanship, career training, and a lot of mandatory administration. Fighting unarmed is not a top military priority.

Finally the “buddy with a gun” philosophy I consider to be an edge case justification for the curriculum. Should the corner stone of the system be the idea that you are alone, unarmed, and facing a single unarmed opponent? Should the strategy for winning that scenario be to fight to a stalemate and hope your friend shows up first?

I am actually a fan of the modern military combatives systems that I have been exposed to, but not for reasons of combat effectiveness or military necessity.

While the private citizen carrying a concealed firearm isn’t as likely to be a target for a disarm while the firearm is holstered, I can certainly see a number of scenarios where an assailant might make an attempt against a drawn gun.

If a criminal doesn’t believe that you are going to shoot, or is willing to risk a bullet to escape arrest they might decide to try to do a disarm.

Get good equipment. I frequently see $1000 guns in $20 holsters, worn on $2 belts. A good holster and a belt are a significant portion of the holstered retention equation. Cheap holsters will not keep the gun from falling out, or will rip right off of the belt leaving the attachment loops behind. Holsters that snap or clip onto the belt offer almost no resistance. I highly recommend purchasing high quality holsters, and belts. While much more expensive they truly do last much longer so the expense is justified in the long run.

Use good ready positions. Some ready positions lend themselves to gun grabs more readily than others. The weaker the position the more inviting it is for a grab. The classic low-ready (arms extended at about a 45 degree angle) is one of the worst for both shooting and retention. Keeping the firearm tucked against the body is the mechanically strongest un-holstered position.

Don’t use the wrong tactics. People that want to hold the assailant at gun point until the police arrive expose themselves to a greater risk of disarm attempts. The time spent in proximity to the criminal is a window of opportunity for something to go wrong. Complicating that with trying to dial 911 and communicate with the dispatcher creates a distraction that most people could do without. It would be better to get a good description and have them run and then call the police after they have left. The legal justification for using your firearm is a threat to your life, the subject’s non-compliance may or may not constitute a threat that you can justify shooting him for. It would be much better for us if we didn’t have to shoot anyone.

You can’t always ‘Just shoot’ them. A common answer to people grabbing for an un-holstered handgun is to shoot the person making the grab, but this isn’t always as simple as it sounds. If the assailant has a hold on the gun it can retard the action of the slide (or bind the cylinder on a revolver) preventing more than one round from firing. When the gun discharges it might not be oriented toward the assailant, so gambling on the ‘one shot stop’ is even less of a good bet.

There is also whole class of gun-grabbers that we don’t want to shoot. It might be a friend or spouse who thinks you are over-reacting, it might be the 70 year old grandmother of the assailant who just wants to protect their grandchild. We might be able to make the argument that shooting this class of people is legally justified by the circumstances but again, it would be preferable not to have to do so.

Martial arts or combatives might help you. These can fulfill at least part of the role of retaining the gun. The problem is that a lot of martial arts are largely incompatible for fighting with a drawn gun. Whatever arts or techniques you intend to apply must maintain control of the muzzle and be aware that this fight is going to take place in a clinch. If you need distance to execute your technique you are probably not going to get it. Losing control of the firearm generally means that you are now in the position of needing to perform a disarm in order to ultimately retain the gun. Disarming techniques are part of retention.

Don’t abandon the gun. I have seen it advocated to let go of the gun, and either transition to another weapon or apply combatives or martial arts techniques to recover it. It would never be my primary plan to loose physical control of the gun. At best such a strategy provides the assailant with a club, and at worst a fully functioning firearm.

Transition to another weapon. I am all for transitioning to another weapon if it is available, but I would keep control of the primary whenever possible. In such a situation I would prefer a knife to a backup firearm. A few good cuts should produce some psychological and mechanical advantage.