September 24, 2006 at 7:34 am #49856binagakiMember
Re: Civilian weapons retentionquote \”jburtonpdx\:
Absolutely. If you decide that you want to carry a firearm for personal protection, then you should seek out the best training possible.quote \”jburtonpdx\:
Yes, it would behoove the good guy to get the best training possible, and I applaud any person that carries concealed that seeks out training so they can learn how to be safer. However, the Krav Maga Force Training Division made the decision that gun retention techniques are a restricted area of teaching. You can go into a million arguments in either direction, but the simple fact is that we don’t want to put any officer’s lives at risks. To me that’s an argument that can’t be beat.
GiantKiller does bring up a valid question though in asking how great a danger would it be to police officers since they are trained to keep their distance. In reality, while officers are trained to keep their distance as best as possible, many elements of their job require them to get close to a suspect (arrests, searches, etc.), so space is not an option quite frequently. Space is a luxury that officers don’t have very often, and when it comes to the nitty-gritty of their jobs (i.e. arresting someone) space is non-existant.
The next question is about how many instances are there really where officers are doing hand defenses against armed suspects. I don’t think there is hard data on this, but we do know that officers are killed most often from very short distances (less than five feet), so the potentional for them to use Krav Maga techniques is quite substantial
Carrying a concealed gun is something that is highly regulated throughout the United States, and in many states it is virtually impossible to get a CCW license (and that’s even if they’re available at all). If you live in a state where CCW is not allowed, there’s no benefit to teaching students gun retention because they’re not allowed to carry.
Alright, so the folks from Virginia are now saying, \”What about us? We can get CCWs here, so shouldn’t we be allowed to see this type of training?\” Good argument, but again, should we possibly put officer’s lives at risk so that a small minority of the law-abiding population can learn weapon retention. Absolutely not. And if you’re sitting there thinking, \”well, that’s just dumb because I want to carry, so I should learn weapon retention\” then you’ve put quite a bit of thought into the responsibilities associated with carrying concealed and I applaud you for your foresight. However, as a Force Instructor my job is to train officers how to be safe, and I never want to put them in danger because of what I’m teaching.
And let me combat the next question quickly – don’t we put officers in danger by teaching gun defenses? Yes, we potentially do, but that can be said about any technique we teach. However, we do know that civilians are held up at gun point frequently, so the benefits of teaching gun defenses definitely outweigh the downsides. How often are civilians who carry concealed having to worry about retention in a self-defense situation? I don’t have the answer to that question, but I would venture to guess the number is insignificant in comparison to the number of people held up at gun point.
To put it simply, no Krav Maga instructors wants to put law enforcement officers in danger. Gun retention may be a useful skill, but it would be useful to such a minority that it’s not worth opening it up to everyone. If you’re that worried about gun retention the simple answer is to not carry. There are enough techniques already in the system to help keep you safe.September 24, 2006 at 3:39 pm #49861
Excellent, well articulated points and while I generally agree I take issue with a couple of points.
While I’m not LE and not privy to details of multiple cases, and therefore clearly am not qualified to speak authoritatively, I’ve seen what appears to be a pattern in the cases of LEO injuries / deaths that occur in the cases that I am familiar with. Many seem to occur due to not following procedure, or to lack of situational awareness. I have the utmost respect for LE and that is not meant to be critical – Just an anecdotal observation.
As for the specific comments:
\”Alright, so the folks from Virginia are now saying, \”What about us? We can get CCWs here, so shouldn’t we be allowed to see this type of training?\” Good argument, but again, should we possibly put officer’s lives at risk so that a small minority of the law-abiding population can learn weapon retention. Absolutely not.\”
How many times every year do officers actually employ hand to hand firearm disarms, and how many LEO injuries / deaths occur because they could not do so either due to poorly executed techniuque or because the \”perp\” was able to remain in control of the weapon? I don’t know the answer to those questions, nor do I expect you to know the answer, but I anticipate that it is very low statistically (not intended to detract from each individual tragedy), in spite of the fact that you point out that many injuries / deaths occur at close range. I don’t think that fact can be interpolated to mean that the officer was unable to disarm the bad guy of his/her firearm because the BG knew any weapons retention technique.
A very small percentage of legal gun owners actually carry concealed. An even smaller percentage are actually licensed to do so (I believe it’s something like 5-7 % of legal gun owners). A tiny fraction of those practice KM. Why not teach weapons retention to those of us who are licensed to carry? To make that license a prerequisite to receive the training? This seems to me to be an amicable alternative for us law abiding citizens (as so deemed by the state in which we live) and I strongly believe would not put LE at any more risk than allowing us to carry concealed, which I agree is the first priority in this discussion, though not personally my first priority if I’m defending the lives of my wife and kids.
While there is likely no way to predict the potential impact of providing weapon retention training to civilians, I would offer this for your consideration; If licensed to carry civilians learned weapons retention and it cost the life of one officer over 10 years, but saved the lives of 10 innocent women and children during the same time period, I would argue that it would be worth it to have taught those civilians. And yes, I would feel the same way if I was in LE. Again, I firmly believe that allowing this tiny fraction of society (those licensed to carry) to learn weapon retention techniques would not unduly put officers lives at risk.
Secondly, you said \”Gun retention may be a useful skill, but it would be useful to such a minority that it’s not worth opening it up to everyone. If you’re that worried about gun retention the simple answer is to not carry.\”
As I stated above, I agree that weapons retention should not be open to everyone. However, I think that for anyone who has the commitment and the conviction to train, apply, receive a license, and carry a weapon, making the decision not to carry is not a simple one as you said. While not having access to weapon retention techniques would not dissuade me from carrying, I think it’s a bit unfair and narrow-minded to just say \”if you don’t like it don’t carry.\”
$0.02September 24, 2006 at 7:47 pm #49866binagakiMember
Ahhh, disagreements with intelligence… I love it!
kravjeff, you said, \”Why not teach weapons retention to those of us who are licensed to carry? To make that license a prerequisite to receive the training?\”
I definitely see your point in this, but the problem that I see is that every state is different in how they license CCWs. In some states the vetting process is minimal and it’s easy to obtain a license. In others a CCW is hard to come by, and your background is checked very thoroughly. Because of these differences it’s difficult to apply a general rule that people with a CCW should be allowed to learn gun retention techniques.
You’re right in saying that we cannot show a causal link between officer death by handgun and bad guys learning weapon retention. However, if 296 of 594 officer killings in 2002 are occurring between 0 and 5 feet (according to the FBI UCR data), then that means there were at least 296 opportunities where a bad guy could have used some type of weapon retention technique.
You do make one important comment – \”If licensed to carry civilians learned weapons retention and it cost the life of one officer over 10 years, but saved the lives of 10 innocent women and children during the same time period, I would argue that it would be worth it to have taught those civilians.\” This is an argument similar to ones I have made in support of CCWs. Admittedly though, when making this argument it’s inherently flawed because you’re starting to play the \”what if\” game. I could very easily turn this around and say, \”If teaching weapon retention to even licensed civilians endangered the lives of 10 officers over a ten year period but saved only one person over that same time frame, then it’s definitely not worth teaching.\”
I used to carry when I lived in Virginia, but I stopped after I started teaching Krav Maga for the simple fact that my carrying of a weapon introduced a whole new dimension of worry to my own personal defense. When carrying a weapon the realm of what can go wrong instantly increases exponentially – now I had to worry about losing the weapon in a fight, getting shot with my own gun, worrying about where my rounds would go if I fired the weapon, etc. Without a gun I don’t have to worry about those things, and I feel that I’m safer for it. However, this is my own feeling, and even though I don’t carry a weapon anymore (I can’t anyway since I live in Maryland now), I understand why people want to and I support their choice.
For gun retention to become part of the general curriculum, there would have to be a major paradigm shift in American culture (and laws/statutes) to the point where a large percentage of people are carrying weapons. However, the chances of this happening are pretty slim.
kravjeff, we definitely agree on a lot of things (CCWs, etc.), and there are a few that we don’t. Your arguments are sound (even though I may disagree and vice versa), but at least you understand that our job is to keep officers safe. Here’s my question that I definitely don’t know the answer to and maybe you can do some research on this. Of people that have CCWs and are involved in violent situations, what percentage of them actually get into struggles with their weapons? While I don’t have numbers, officers disarm bad guys all the time, and I do think that the incidents of officers disarming or attemping to disarms bad guys are significantly more numerous than private citizens carrying getting disarmed by bad guys.
I would check out this book – The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy by David Kopel – if you haven’t already read it. The focus of the book is on gun control laws which isn’t necessarily our topic of discussion here, but it gives a great comparison between differen gun laws throughout the world and is corrollary to this conversation.September 24, 2006 at 11:24 pm #49869
My God, a rational debate, using clear and concise arguments and somebody actually trying to answer my questions! 😀 I love it, too bad the angry people are probably going to be back on Monday, ruining it all, but until then…
binagaki, good points. About the statistic, it says 0 to 5 feet, is there any way of knowing how many were from 0 to maybe 1 foot? It appears as though a weapon retention technique would be done from very close, since obviously the attacker needs to be in range to grab the weapon. How many of those deaths involved firearms? Is this data for the US alone, or does it include other countries? 594 deaths in one year sounds like a very high number. Also, in how many of these instances was the officer ambushed/surprised and had no chance to actually attempt to do a defense technique?
When you are arresting someone, what are the procedures (as far as you are allowed to comment)? Wouldn’t you usually have another officer there, who could back you up in case the suspect becomes combative? If not, would you make distance, deploy your weapon and tell the suspect to get on the ground and into a position where it would be hard if not impossible for him to make a defense, before you attempt to handcuff him? Of course, you might talk to a person of interest and that person suddenly tries to go for your gun in your holster. Now the retention for that technique may not be very applicable to civilians, since few openly carry a gun in a holster and so that one could be kept secret.
The other retention techniques however, the ones done when the weapon is in your hand, could have relevance to civilians. Personally, I don’t just see this as a safety issue for individuals with concealed weapon licenses. Could be that a person has a gun at home, for his own personal protection against burglars or even home invasion robberies. He might draw the gun in self-defense and find himself in a struggle against an intruder in his own home. In most states it seems to be easy to buy a gun for your own protection at home and burglaries and break-ins happen every day.
Another use for civilians could be that they are held up in the street by a gunman, do a defense (the KM defense for example), but are unable to knock the assailant out with their first counter. They may stun him, are able to get the weapon, but the assailant, now also fighting for his life, might get a hand on it before the defender is able to retreat. A struggle ensues and if the attacker is stronger, he may very well end up with the weapon and use it to shoot the defender. Here, a weapon retention technique could be lifesaving.
Another thing to consider is how much the danger of bad guys finding out about these techniques would really increase if a few trusted KM students were taught in addition to the many people in the KM instructor program, who are already learning them. This would be an advanced technique appropriate for Level 5 and students at that level have usually been training for years. One could caution them not to tell others about the techniques.
Of course, just as with KM instructors now, a few may be weak and tell a friend, but even if that happened one would also have to consider that in order for that person to properly show the friend the technique he would need to have a gun handy to demonstrate it (may not always be the case in casual conversation). Then that person, after just a brief chat, would have to remember it and then tell another friend days later and, since our members are usually law abiding citizens, it would take a while until the information somehow trickles down to gang members and by that time it may be quite distorted and no longer be the correct technique.
The Level 5 students at the NTC are not gang members, nor are other level 5 students across the country, meaning that they would use the techniques for good not for evil and it would not be too likely that through them the techniques somehow get to criminals.September 24, 2006 at 11:27 pm #49870
One wouldn’t have to disclose the techniques in books or videos, but as I have said, if a few trusted students learned them in addition to KM instructors, I just don’t believe it would be an increased danger. Also, if gang members really wanted to find out about these techniques, they could just have one of them join the KM instructor program and learn them that way, or even join the police. Plus, there are other weapon retention techniques out there that may work just as well and they could simply learn those. So, they may have all kinds of options, while the trusted KM practitioner is deprived of potentially lifesaving techniques.
I also find it interesting to know if there are any statistics on regular KM techniques having been used against police officers, here or abroad. Seems as though KM would be a good system for gang members, since they find themselves in self-defense situations much more often than the average person, especially against guns or knives, yet are they training in it on a large scale basis?
Yes, it seems as though there would be greater applications for the regular gun defense, but as I have said, during a struggle, a gun retention might come in handy. And we teach the rifle and granade defense, even though it may be much less likely that a civilian in the US would have to defend against a rifle, machine gun or even a granade. Yet it could happen (school shootings, postal workers), so we teach it anyway, even make it public in books or videos, even though a criminal might use the rifle technique and takeaway against a SWAT team member.
So, again, I think these techniques can have definite applications for civilians under a variety of circumstances, yet I would believe the increased danger, if these techniques were taught to trusted advanced students, to be minimal.
GiantkillerSeptember 25, 2006 at 4:20 am #49876
I am not well versed in the varying laws amongst the states. Where I live (Colorado) we have ìShall Issueî law, leading me to believe that it is one of the easier states in which to obtain a license. However even here, the issuing county performs an extensive background check, and not everyone who applies is granted a license. I suppose it raises another question, analogous to other points that weíve both made, and that is; how many ìbad guysî actually apply for and receive a CCW? I think that this is an important point that can not be overlooked. If youíve argued for concealed carry laws, then surely you acknowledge that they are effective in decreasing violent crime committed against individuals, and that crimes committed with a handgun, perpetrated by someone licensed to carry are really an aberration. To carry that out logically, one would have to conclude that the likelihood of an officer being involved in a violent confrontation with someone licensed to carry is very low, and if individuals who are licensed to carry and who train in KM (specifically weapons retention techniques) were taught those retention techniques, the likelihood of that violent confrontation becomes almost nil.
With regard to the causal link between LEO deaths and weapons retention, here you are correct, though it kind of depends on oneís perspective. Each of us is ìplaying the numbersî a bit to make our point, I just happen to come down on the side of doubt that many (if any) of those 296 incidents involved some type of weapon disarm (specifically firearm disarm) technique in which the officer was unable to control the weapon because the bad guy knew some type of weapon retention technique. I would think that edged weapons may have played a larger role, and who knows, the officers may have been hit with a brick, stomped, choked etc Ö unless of course you know that these were all firearm related deaths. Itíd be nice to know the details Ö
\”If teaching weapon retention to even licensed civilians endangered the lives of 10 officers over a ten year period but saved only one person over that same time frame, then it’s definitely not worth teaching.\” Absolutely, this argument could be made either way, and if the numbers were reversed I would be unquestionably opposed to the training of civilians. However, I suppose this comes down to where one stands on the argument of whether or not the situation would present itself, and specifically it depends on whether or not you believe that the chances of a civilian KM student who has a CCW and knows weapon retention techniques would actually employ those techniques against an officer and then kill him or her. Perhaps Iím a bit naÔve, but I sincerely doubt this to be the case. For the record: I would not argue for anything that unduly puts officers at risk ñ I think they risk plenty for their communities as it is.
It is interesting that you raise the point regarding the fact that you no longer carry. I actually started taking KM after I purchased, and in part, because I purchased a handgun. My attitude about firearms began to change once I began firearms training and I went from ìIíll just blow them awayî (OK, my attitude wasnít quite that extreme) to ìI really hope I never have to use it.î Hence, part of my decision to learn KM. I think that for those of us who still choose to carry, the exponential increase in ìwhat could go wrongî is precisely the argument for learning weapon retention techniques.
(Continued in next post)September 25, 2006 at 4:25 am #49877
I think we probably agree more than we disagree ñ Frankly I hadnít given a lot of thought to learning LE type retention techniques prior to this thread but now, I think itís a good idea (and something Iíd definitely like to learn). Iíll see what I can find out about the number of people with CCWís who get into struggles with their weapons. In turn, perhaps you know or can find out, how many LE disarms are done H2H as opposed to at gunpoint, or through the use of other means (OC spray, taser, etc Ö)
Incidentally, the book you recommend sounds interesting – I’ll pick it up.
It’s a pleasure \”speaking\” with you Bryan.
Incidentally, I think GK’s point; \”… Could be that a person has a gun at home, for his own personal protection against burglars or even home invasion robberies. He might draw the gun in self-defense and find himself in a struggle against an intruder in his own home.\” is quite valid. However, I can assure you that if I were to confront someone in my own home, I’d be much less hesitant to fire than I would \”in the street\” thereby lessening the likelihood of an opportunity for someone to attempt a disarm. Hopefully, it won’t be while I’m in bed!!!September 25, 2006 at 12:28 pm #49880kravmdjeffMember
An Israeli acqaintence of mine told me that, when I was planning to travel to Israel, the biggest thing that would surprise me is how prevalent and comfortable everyone is with firearms being everywhere. He mentioned how soldiers watching a movie at the theater would have their rifles across their laps while watching. He talked about checking out an uzi from the local armory when parents act as chaperones on 3rd grade field trips.
I know the handgun disarms are fundamental to their training as it relates to weapons. Does anyone know what/how they teach retention, and to whom, under what circumstances?September 25, 2006 at 4:20 pm #49887
I certainly don’t know, but am interested in the answer as well.
I would however assume that due to cultural, political and general threat differences, coupled with the fact that KM is integrated into their society, that their training would be much more liberal. This actually raises another interesting thought:
Is LE in Israel at risk from BG’s in the way they are here? No one (news specifically) ever talks about crime in Israel, I suppose because there are simply too many other things going on.September 25, 2006 at 9:37 pm #49899
You are right, inside your house you may be less hesitant to shoot, but could be that you are hearing a noise, you are not quite sure what it is, you go down to investigate and an intruder surprises you, grabbing the gun before you can shoot. Or you point it at one intruder from a safe distance and another one you didn’t see attacks.
About the statistic, I’d also wonder if these deaths include only on duty incidents, where a police officer was killed by a suspect, or does it include other situations, such as vehicular accidents, other accidents, off duty deaths or even suicide? Unless 2002 was an unusual year for some reason, that would mean that about 600 police officers are killed by suspects every year and that just seems like a high number unless it also includes other types of death.
I live in LA, which is a big city with plenty of gangs, yet when a police officer from here or even many surrounding areas is killed it is usually a top story for the local news and it doesn’t seem to happen more than maybe once or at best twice a year, probably less. Much more often do you hear about kids being caught in gang crossfire. So, even if you are talking about the entire US, it sounds like a large number and it would be good to have some more details if available.
Yes, I wonder if KM in Israel has gun retention techniques, one would think so. If they do, do they teach it to civilians and has it been used against police officers there?
GiantkillerSeptember 26, 2006 at 5:23 am #49905
GK -> \”You are right, inside your house you may be less hesitant to shoot, but could be that you are hearing a noise, you are not quite sure what it is, you go down to investigate and an intruder surprises you, grabbing the gun before you can shoot. Or you point it at one intruder from a safe distance and another one you didn’t see attacks. \”
All possibilities – However for anyone with training this seems unlikely, if they in fact adhere to that training.
Investigating a noise is generally a bad idea – I’d be more worried about someone getting in without setting off my alarm or waking my dogs, then confronting me in bed whilest I sleep 😯 (highly unlikely given the alarm and the dogs) …
Just like KM, I (and I’m sure many if not all gun owners) go through scenarios in our minds like, what I’ll do if the alarm is tripped, where can I get a clear view of the house and still have cover/concealment, etc … It is much about situational awareness, just like any (potential) confrontation.
Basic home protection training teaches you to retreat to a \”safe room\” during a break-in, with your weapon of course, and call the police. Firing only if the saferoom is breached – That training also teaches how dangerous it is to clear a house without the proper tactical training. Now, I don’t know if I could do that, but if I was convinced someone is in my home I don’t think I’d attempt to clear the house either – It’s just too easy to be ambushed from behind a corner, out of a shadow, etc …September 26, 2006 at 6:22 am #49907clfmakMember
That reminds me of when I was a kid, and my dad told me that if there was a break in, I was supposed to lock myself in the bathroom, and take off the toilet lid to smash the head of the intruder if they broke in.
I don’t own any guns, but if someone broke into my house and managed to get into my room, they’d find themselves on the business end of a pair of these:
http://www.coldsteel.com/88bf.htmlSeptember 26, 2006 at 2:32 pm #49908
Zoinks! I’d like to learn how to use those!!!
Be safe if they’re armed … Remember the classic scene in \”Raiders of the Lost Ark\” where Indiana Jones simply shoots the sword wielding bad guy 😆September 26, 2006 at 9:44 pm #49919
Wow, right away I’m wondering, how would you defend against a pair of those? Are they usually swung at the same time, or one after the other? If they both come at the same time, maybe block with both arms, give a simultaneous groin kick, then run? If it’s one strike after the other, maybe you could block the knife/sword that is coming toward you and just go for a big counter and make distance. Either way it would be hard.
You are right, you should probably stay in one room and not move, but I don’t know, things can always go wrong. Maybe you had a false alarm just a few days ago, you really don’t think it’s anything, you know better, but you go down anyway, bad guy grabs gun…
Or maybe you are confronted by a violent person, whom you know, you take the gun to scare him off, but can’t bring yourself to shoot at him and suddenly he grabs it.
Seems as though plenty of civilians have guns in their homes in the US, so anything could happen, even if they have been taught to use common sense.
GiantkillerSeptember 27, 2006 at 12:02 am #49920jburtonpdxMemberquote :
Carefull with this one, I know the training I recieved would say you dont use a gun to scare somebody, you only use the firearm when deadly force is justified.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.