So in the unarmed combatives system that I am currently practicing/teaching there is a shortage of throws and takedowns. I feel that this is something that the system should be addressed because quickly and efficiently dropping people has some significant tactical advantages in some situations. My question is that given a seminar format program, rather than a dedicated school, what throwing techniques would you include into the system?

Because of the format of the training course we must recognize that we cannot depend upon strength, speed, timing, or finesse. Additionally we need something that is semi-safe to practice when the participants are not particularly good or familiar with (Ukemi) Break Falls.

The (Kazushi) breaking of the opponents balance needs to be the rear or rear obliques, and cannot include any (Sutemi) Sacrafice throws as primary technique, in fact I am biased against most the sweeps, reaps, and hooks because of the compromise of balance.

I read Bearing Arms in the Workplace written by an employment law specialist. We have gone back and forth in the comments for a few exchanges and I am posting the latest round here.

I do not believe that Mr. Phillips is anything other than ignorant. I don't believe that he fully understands the issue from the practical side, and while I am not a lawyer, I think some his legal reasoning is faulty. This is exactly the sort of person that the firearms community should be engaging with, as we all have the same goals of personal safety and security - but we differ on the implementation. I am ignorant of the legal liability of allowing employees to be armed, or simply not having a weapons policy. I would like to see some common ground and improvements that will actually keep people safer.

I talked about psychological stopping in this post: The Stop. In a recent discussion with a close friend we came to agree that wars are won in the will. The military talks about "imposing your will on the battlefield" but I don't know that most people really get it. You have to deprive the enemy of the will to fight. This fundamental truth is applied in all forms of human conflict. It is a matter of dissuading participation, and raising the cost of failure.

Over at Hell In A Handbasket Cautionary Tales: Home Invasions

James suggests key-opening deadbolt locks and I agree. There is nothing that says you can't hang the key near the door either. While this might violate fire codes, it is a good way to prevent people from breaking a window and simply unlocking a door.

Via SayUncle and KDT:

Homeowner fired to protect his wife during invasion

So we have two 19yr old adults, one with a prior criminal history, and one carrying a weapon, put on masks and break into a 70 yr old mans home and he shoots them both.

First I should begin by saying I have not seen the orginal SOP9 document (if anyone has a link to it I would like to get a hold of it.) So my comments are based on the analysis done here NYPD SOP 9 - Analysis of Police Combat

The bulk of this article is an endorsement of point shooting. Much of the SOP9 material here is used as a justification of point shooting. I am not a point shooting advocate, and I don't see any evidence here to change my mind.

We would like to see granular data that gives a picture of the hit rate for officers using a crouch in low light conditions at some particular distance. What we have instead is a mixture of point shooting and aimed fire under a range of different conditions.

Much of the argument that people will be disarmed of their weapons and have those weapons used against them stems from a long history of police officers being shot with their own firearms. To combat this problem law enforcement has adopted various handgun retention systems.

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.