PDA

View Full Version : "Keep it Simple Stupid"


Sweatnbullets
December 23, 2007, 08:20 PM
“Keep it Simple Stupid”

We have all heard this over and over again, but what does it actually mean? Many believe that it means “keep it simple or you are stupid.” The true meaning is “keep it as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler.”

In the world of the gun its true meaning has been contorted by those that teach a certain system or methodology. These instructors taught a “one size fits all” methodology that is geared to a “lowest common denominator” mindset, inside of a “square range” mentality. They taught one stance, one grip, one means of sighting the gun, one draw stroke, and one form of retention shooting.

Back in 2000, instructors were beginning to step outside of this tight little box. There began an age of enlightenment. Terms such as “integration” “continuum” “matrix” and “progression” would send all of the “old guard” guru worshipers into a frenzied state, throwing KISS rule haymakers at every new concept that they did not understand. It is this lack of understanding that is the crux of the problem…..not the newer concepts.

This new breed of instructors were taking what they knew and testing it in force on force (FOF.) To many of these instructors, the limitations of their past training became very apparent. It became very obvious that the past training had kept things much too simple. It was so simple, that it did not work against a thinking, breathing, resisting, and aggressive adversary. Remember, “keep it as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler.” If the past KISS training failed miserably inside of properly run FOF, it is very apparent that this contorted KISS ideology was the main factor in this failure.

“The More You Sweat in Training, the Less You Bleed in Combat”

Simply said, “put in the work!”

So, what is the work that we need to put in? Go out and learn the fundamentals. As soon as you have safety down, the draw stroke down, and you can keep the gun running and hitting……you need to take these basics into professionally run FOF. Here is where you find out that the fundamentals are nowhere near good enough. Here is where you find out that you need to sweat a hell of a lot more, so that you do not bleed so much. Here is where you find out that you need to be more “well rounded” and versatile. Here is where you find out that you need to be able to work at the subconscious level…..because that conscious level KISS training fell flat on it face.

The epiphany is complete. You now understand that keeping it simple in training does not equate to doing well in a confrontation. “Gun fighting is a thinking mans game.” The only way for you to keep it simple in a confrontation is by putting in the work while training. You need to work with solid natural/instinctive concepts…..ones that can be accessed by the caveman brain at the subconscious level. This breaks us away from that “one size fits all” technique based training and leads use into much more natural and fluid concepts. These fluid concepts begin to cover a much larger portion inside of the fight continuum. Even though they cover much more ground, these well rounded and versatile concepts are actually simpler to access and perform while under pressure. They are simpler due to the fact that they are more natural and instinctive. You have also put in the work in training, so that you have a certain understanding and comfort level that leads to a “just do it” state of mind.

It is this “just do it” state of mind, inside of the fight, that is the true meaning of "Keep it Simple Stupid!"

hogdogs
December 23, 2007, 08:53 PM
lemme fist admit i am just self trained with the help of some well meaning friends way back who had military/police training. i was taught not to count on my preferred stance as it may be vulnerable. I was also taught to be ept with either hand. they than drilled me on point shooting (they called it different names but meant look from gun to target and hit target in COM or head). I was also schooled to practice practice practice in any possible scenario and type of cover and from any angle to be fast on engagement and try to put a bullet in each visible target before putting more in each. I know it is lame but it was all I had at the time!
Brent

Double Naught Spy
December 23, 2007, 11:56 PM
Back in 2000, instructors were beginning to step outside of this tight little box.

Just curious, what is it that happened around 2000 that you can point to that shows these changes started happening then?

The epiphany is complete. You now understand that keeping it simple in training does not equate to doing well in a confrontation.

Um, no, I don't understand this from the claims you are making. You say it is so, but haven't provided any documentation to support this premise.

“Gun fighting is a thinking mans game.”

This comment seems to be in conflict with

The only way for you to keep it simple in a confrontation is by putting in the work while training. You need to work with solid natural/instinctive concepts…..ones that can be accessed by the caveman brain at the subconscious level.

If you are talking about doing things at the 'caveman brain' level, at the subconcious level, then you are not talking about fighting being a "thinking man's game." FYI, you aren't talking about a caveman brain, but the primitive reptilian brain.

Even though they cover much more ground, these well rounded and versatile concepts are actually simpler to access and perform while under pressure. They are simpler due to the fact that they are more natural and instinctive.

Um, no, I think you have confused "simpler" with "easier." We often perceive simpler tasks as being easier to perform, but "simpler" and "easier" are not synonymous terms.

The fact that more things are being taught means that the training is actually more complex, not simpler. Said training may be easier to perform because of the quality of instruction, yet remain being more complex.

The Tourist
December 24, 2007, 12:17 AM
I believe that while our hardware is getting better, and cartridges are becoming more lethal and more reliable, the principles for fighting have not changed, and probably won't.

A Civil War general said that the winner was the guy who could deliver "the fastest with the mostest."

I took heat in a defense forum one time for stating that my intention when facing a superior MA was to crack him over the head with a barstool at the nearest convenience. I wanted to win, and I didn't see the rationale for taking a beating in achieving that.

One of the best things I ever learned in fencing is that you do not have to shatter your opponent's sword, hack off his arm and stab him a dozen times.

You only need to deflect his blade enough for it to pass harmlessly over your shoulder.

Having done that, aim for center mass, and lunge.

It seems to always be true. Most of the really good fights I've seen last a matter of seconds, if that. A superior fighter knows what he is doing and how to achieve it. The other guy is the loser. Done correctly, you don't even spill the beer of the man next to you.

1SOW
December 24, 2007, 12:18 AM
Holy ^#%_ !

"The epiphany is complete.."
Shoot & pray?

“Gun fighting is a thinking mans game.”
Front site-Target- Frontsite-SHOOT?

.."natural/instinctive concepts…..ones that can be accessed by the caveman brain at the subconscious level."
SHOOT, Turn & Run?

"They are simpler due to the fact that they are more natural and instinctive."
JUST Run?


All the practiced basics, but be ready to be flexible?
HONESTLY, No offense meant, but that was a mouthful.

Sweatnbullets
December 24, 2007, 01:42 AM
Just curious, what is it that happened around 2000 that you can point to that shows these changes started happening then?


I see that the direction that the training industry is headed is directly related to concepts brought forward by 7677 in 2000-2001. When he first started talking about these concepts no one was doing it or teaching it. Now numerous instructors are doing and teaching it.....and more are joining every day.

Um, no, I don't understand this from the claims you are making. You say it is so, but haven't provided any documentation to support this premise.


You need to take some professionally run FOF. There is plenty of documentation but that is nothing compared to actually experiencing it yourself in FOF.

This comment seems to be in conflict with


That would be your opinion due to lack of knowledge of what I speak.

The fact that more things are being taught means that the training is actually more complex, not simpler. Said training may be easier to perform because of the quality of instruction, yet remain being more complex.

Once again an opinion based on lack of knowledge of what I teach. Fluid concepts will always be simpler than a mish-mash of disjointed techniques. If you do not own fluid concepts then you would be speaking from a position of not knowing what you do not know. You would actually need to have an understanding of both types of training to make an informed decision.....and obviously you do not.

Sweatnbullets
December 24, 2007, 01:49 AM
1SOW, that may be the most incomprehensible post that I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

No offense meant but *** was that suppose to mean?

Brit
December 24, 2007, 06:34 AM
The fact that more things are being taught means that the training is actually more complex, not simpler. Said training may be easier to perform because of the quality of instruction, yet remain being more complex.
I totally agree.

In teaching use of a firearm in fighting, and not neglecting the boot, the butt, the punch. The more things you add to the mix, the more choice you give, the more you confuse the person in an actual fight.

Repetition of simplicity, from walking, sitting, turning from left, right, and back to target(s) good light, and poor, addresses access to weapon.

First research the threat to your student, in their daily activity's, work or play. Build a program to address that. A generic same for all program is not the way to go, and spending the first hour with each person standing up and giving a bio, is dumb like S***.

Jay1958
December 24, 2007, 11:26 AM
My observation is that the vast majority of gun owners are never going to have the time, the money and in most cases, even the desire, to get the kind of training that is being discussed in this thread.

The good news is: odds are that more than 95% of them will never need it!

I totally agree that training is good, and that every gun owner and every concealed carry permit holder should get as much training as they can.

I have a concealed carry permit, and based on my observations and experience, I spend more time and money training than the vast majority of my fellow gun owners and concealed carry permit holders. That said, I have only averaged about 3,500 rounds per year over the past three years.

I own and use a shot timer, I practice fundamentals, I do scenario training, I occasionally compete in local IDPA matches, I read and participate in the forums, I read self-defense firearms books and watch self-defense firearms videos and I've taken three self-defense pistol training classes (5 days total) over that same three-year period. I will be going to the range later today to do more practice and training.

There are very few people outside of law enforcement, military and other specialized occupations who need, want or can afford to immerse themselves to the extent necessary to really utilize and benefit from the level of training that is often discussed in this type of thread.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed, I'm just saying that in my opinion, the audience is very limited, and if the intent is to get Joe (CCW) Doe to sign up for and take said training, I don't think it is necessarily doing Joe any favors...

Most of us need to continue to concentrate on the fundamentals and learn as much as we have the time, money and motivation to learn, and not worry about the latest:

'Tactical Force Continuum, High Stress, Fast Thinking, Keep It Simple While Adapting to Every Fluid Detail, Move While Shooting, Rapid Fire, Accuracy Based, Intelligent Rapid Response, Point Shooting, Move To Cover, Intense Combat in the Home or Street Ultimate Training System'.

Or "TFCHSFTKISWAEFDMWSRFABIRRPSMTCICHSUTS", as it's known FOR SIMPLICITY.

PS. Yes, I am Joe (CCW) Doe, I am NOT one of the "Experts".

Sweatnbullets
December 24, 2007, 12:48 PM
Brit, what you are talking about is Hicks law. Hicks law simply does not apply to what we do. A mish mash of disjointed techniques has you picking and chosing but the choices are still very limited due to "the context of the fight." It is the question "what is the context of the fight?" that blows Hicks law right out of the water. More on that later.

Fluid concepts require no picking and choosing. The responses just flow out of the logic of "the context of the fight." Notice that I said "logic" this is where the phrase "fighting is a thinking mans game" comes into play. The mental aspect of the fight is much more important then the physical aspect of the fight. It is the mind that is the ultimate weapon......not the body or the newest/latest whizz bang blaster. The mental aspect of the fight is something that needs to be address well before the fight. This is where professionally run FOF comes in. If you do not understand the dynamics of a violent attack.....how do you know what to train on. Without the knowledge that FOF or real world experience gives you, you have no clue what works and what does not work. That is the point of my article.

I had over forty Modern Technique course before I went into FOF. The eight guys that I trained with, on a regular basis, also had anywhere from twenty to fifty courses. Some of these guys were instructors at one of the big "gun schools." When we took all of this substantial training into FOF and we found that it was virtually useless. This is the point that I am trying to get across to people. Just because you have the latest blaster, just because you know how to punch holes in paper, does not mean that you know jack about fighting. I know that this is a blow to many peoples ego, I know that I will not be popular for saying it, I am well aware that I will be attacked because I am pointiong out the lack of many people real preparedness. But I do not really care.

What I care about is the truth. And the truth is that you need to take some quality run FOF so that you really know where you stand inside of the mental and physical aspect of the fight.

Now, if all you want to do is be able to shoot tight groups....that is fine.....nothing wrong with that at all. But please do not make the mistake of thinking that you have all that you will ever need. You have a very small portion of the fight continum covered.....you have a very small portion of "the context of the fight" covered. Finding out that you are no where near where you should be, in the middle of the fight, is a fools mistake.

Sweatnbullets
December 24, 2007, 01:03 PM
There are very few people outside of law enforcement, military and other specialized occupations who need, want or can afford to immerse themselves to the extent necessary to really utilize and benefit from the level of training that is often discussed in this type of thread.

Jay, 70% of my students are LEO, military, or firearms instructor. The other 30% are civilians that just want to be the best that they can be. You are really mistaken on the amount of expense or immersion it takes to reach the levels that I am talking about.

All I am is a guide. A guide that unlocks the doors to abilities that you already have and own. Since this is already stuff that you are capable of, the time it takes to reach a very high level is very short. The training of the recent past has tried to train your abilities out of you. This is the type of training that takes time and expense. People that train with me basically never have to train with me again. They own it inside of two days.

So once again, we have people not knowing what they do not know, making statements that are not even close to the reality of the situation.

If this was about money, I would be teaching the fundamentals.....because the fundamentals require "immersion." What I teach is about fighting with the tools God gave you. No reprogamming, just an acceptance of what you are really capable of and guiding you through the discovery of the amazing human machine.

Sweatnbullets
December 24, 2007, 01:13 PM
Brit, On Hicks law.

This is from my article "Benefits of Conceptual Training"

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269601

What is the context of the fight?

This is a question that blows the Hicks law right out of the water. One of the most common things that you will ever read on a gun forum is “It is situational.” The exact context of the fight opens up a very limited choice of responses. This is a simple concept that can be seen in any basic boxing match. No one in there right mind throws a hook or uppercut from way outside and nobody in their right mind throws a looping overhand power shot from a clinch. The situation dictates the logical punching combination. This is no different from any real fight. No one in their right mind point shoots at thirty yards and no one in their right mind uses the sights at three feet. The specific context of the fight opens up the logical concepts that you have trained in. The illogical responses are never even considered. They are never a part of the decision making process. This conceptual approach allows for a vast integration of a variety of skill sets. This well rounded integration allows for the best response for each and every situation. But each skill set has its logical place inside of the context of the fight. Once again, illogical skill sets are never even on the table.

Ditto_95
December 25, 2007, 04:51 PM
The quote "keep it as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler" is from Albert Einstein.
His meaning was that the process/equation should be as simple as possible but not so simple as to leave out any pertinent information.
While my military training is older, I understand that any confrontation is going to be fluid. The ability to adapt to any scenario is key. If you only train to certain aspects, you will become locked into wanting to use what you are comfortable with.
I believe that by continuing to keep your eye on the ball so to speak the outcome of any particular incedent be in your favor.
In this case the ball would be survival.
Survival does not always mean killing the BG. Survival means going home in one piece.
I do think that ongoing training of any sort will be beneficial.
Being observent is one of the best tools a person can have. Know what is going on around you will always benefit you, wether you are at the mall or on the range, at work or even sitting on your porch you should be aware.

Avenger11
December 26, 2007, 05:49 PM
Sweatybullets,
What's so hard to understand? It means uncomplicated is better! Maybe youv'e heard ( It's the economy, STUPID). Same idea.

matthew temkin
December 26, 2007, 09:36 PM
To me KISS means to have a handful of combat proven techniques that can easily be adapted to many situations rather than have many "attack specific" methods.
I must stress the term combat proven, since FOF--while a wonderful tool--is not ( at least IMHO) the final word on what does and does not work.

Sweatnbullets
December 26, 2007, 11:42 PM
What's so hard to understand? It means uncomplicated is better! Maybe youv'e heard ( It's the economy, STUPID). Same idea.

Wrong Avenger, it means "keep it as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler."

Big difference!

Too simple fails in FOF!

This is something that completely escapes people that have not taken their skill sets into FOF.

Test it.....until then it is just target practice.

matthew temkin
December 27, 2007, 07:23 AM
I suppose the question is this--How do you define "too simple"?
As someone else pointed out, simple is not the same as easy.
(As in the case of--It's very simple to quit smoking. Just throw away the pack and don't buy anymore.")
But I am very interested in learning what techniques you are referring to as "too simple."
As well as what methods you have found lacking in FOF drills.

Sweatnbullets
December 27, 2007, 09:35 AM
Read the original post Matt.

This article is not aimed at you and the original post will make that clear.

They taught one stance, one grip, one means of sighting the gun, one draw stroke, and one form of retention shooting.


What has failed so badly in FOF is the Modern Techniques.

matthew temkin
December 27, 2007, 05:24 PM
I never thought that you were referring to me, but I was curious as to exactly what method you had in mind.
The problem with the MT is that it was born and bred via competition, which--IMHO--proves not a whole lot when the target shoots back.

Avenger11
December 27, 2007, 07:49 PM
Don't really know what FOF means, much less the " just do it" mindset! Don't really care. I'm just an average guy intent on protecting my own. I have a CCP, shoot regularly, and am aware of my enviroment. That's what I call simple! Don't need much more except to hear from people with real life experiences that we can all learn from.Why complicate it with alot of obsessive training nonsense.

matthew temkin
December 27, 2007, 10:48 PM
FOF means Force On Force.
That is where you use Airsoft/Paintball or Sims guns to see how well you do against an armed opponent(s)
Provided that it is run properly it can provide excellent feedback as to what works in actual combat.
Of course nothing can can really duplicate a firefight so I hesitate to say that FOF is the ultimate testing ground for techniques.

Rifleman 173
January 11, 2008, 06:07 AM
I get it. He's trying to talk instructor-to-instructor and explain some newer concepts about advanced shooting ideas. It's like when he says, "Here is where you find out that the fundamentals are nowhere near good enough." He's trying to tell us that based upon what he's learned and seen, the most basic of shooting techniques will not always work and that some people need to advance some more. He's also trying to stress that people need more practice, training and need to re-think how they do both and how they shoot in times of stress. In other words, the idea of everybody being in lockstep may NOT be good for some shooters. Suppose you have a slightly disabled shooter, if you're trying to teach the disabled shooter things, you will probably have to make modifications in the way he stands, the way he moves as he shoots and so on. Where his message gets muddled is that he's saying that it ALSO applies to most other shooters too.

Perldog007
January 11, 2008, 03:03 PM
First my apologies to all, this poster is an admitted @$$0#0lic but I try not to be THIS insensitive.

FOF - Pass..... Not because I say so. Because Shidoshi Steven Hayes says so, to wit: "Warrior training that does not involve actual danger is merely playing at being bold". FOF sounds like a nifty tool for training, but something to bet the farm on. BGs may not fight like the "trained" adversary you face in FOF drills. I am just not sold on the value of FOF where 'second place' is getting smacked with an airsoft or paintball.
Would rather spend my time and money in IDPA and other matches getting used to the stress of competing which correlates to gunfight survival according to Mas Ayoob.

Not saying it might not have some benefit but NYPD stake out squad legend Jim Crillo may have had less training than some of our forum members. Jim did know Jack about being in a real fight. So did Bill Jordan, Charlie Askins, Jeff Cooper. (yeah I know Guru worship - guilty as charged - get over it)

KISS - Don't play with guns. That includes play guns. Here endeth the lesson.

I undrestand that methods, equipment, tactics and training are constantly evolving. Scenario training with non-lethal devices may provide some benefit. I liken it to martial arts, kata and drills do not teach one to fight. FIghting teaches one to fight, not sparring, not sporting contests.

What will one do in a fight? WIth a small margin of error what one has trained to do. That has been my experience in hand to hand confrontations in the line of duty and what other officers who have been in shooting fights have told me.

The techniques you have learned come with you, if you bring your focus and your heart. Without the mindset to fight, all else is irrelevant. Fortunately most humans are predisposed to self preservation. That means at some level most know "jack" about being in a fight. They know they want to survive it.

It may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but by the time I am convinced on FOF I may have to sign up for the senior wheelchair and walker class. YMMV.

jabotinsky
January 11, 2008, 03:58 PM
KISS is "an acronym for "Keep It Simple, Stupid" [that] states that design simplicity should be a key goal and unnecessary complexity avoided. It serves as a useful principle in a wide array of disciplines, such as software development, animation, engineering, and strategic planning. Common variants of the acronym include: "Keep It Simple & Stupid", "Keep It Sweet & Simple", and "Keep It Short & Simple".

Complexity should, very simply, be avoided: simplicity becomes a goal in itself. Extra features are not needed; an approach that seems "too easy to be true" is in fact the best way; a very straightforward approach may seem less glamorous and less dramatic but that trivial approach should indeed be taken; surprisingly the very obvious approach is often best.


Related concepts

The principle is somewhat similar to Occam's razor, and Albert Einstein's maxim that "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

michael t
January 13, 2008, 12:09 AM
Iam still trying to figure out how the 70 year old man and the 80 year old woman defend them selves and many times kill the BG with out all this fancy training. Untrained people every day defend themselves. with firearms . They do it many times with only a few rounds fired Unlike the trained pros who fire up the country side .
All this FOF training just how many fights are you planing to be in and how many BG are you takeing on with your J frame or Kel Tec. .

I see that the direction that the training industry is headed is directly related to concepts brought forward by 7677 in 2000-2001. When he first started talking about these concepts no one was doing it or teaching it. Now numerous instructors are doing and teaching it.....and more are joining every day.


Who is 7677 If my instructor going to have a number for a name I want 007 to train me .

All I am is a guide. A guide that unlocks the doors to abilities that you already have and own. Since this is already stuff that you are capable of, the time it takes to reach a very high level is very short. The training of the recent past has tried to train your abilities out of you. This is the type of training that takes time and expense. People that train with me basically never have to train with me again. They own it inside of two days.


Sounds like some of that New Age late night info commerical stuff
Sorry I ain't buying

Buzzcook
January 13, 2008, 03:25 AM
Just like to point out that the "basics" or fundamentals", don't mean do this and nothing more.

Being an iconoclast against perceived limitations doesn't work as well when those limitation don't exist.

I understand that there can be conceptual differences in any pursuit. But you don't seem to be attacking concepts as much as aphorisms.

matthew temkin
January 13, 2008, 08:19 AM
7677 is a friend of mine who does not like to use his name on forums.
At the tender age of 38 he is a former Dallas police officer (7 years of service), a combat vet of the first Gulf war and is now a Federal Agent.
His grandfather was a WW2 Marine Raider who passed along a lot of his hard won knowledge to the grandson.
in other words, 7677 is for real and, along with myself and Brownie, was one of SweatnBullets first point shooting instructors.
Now as to KISS--all of my instructors with combat experience were firm believers in keeping things as simple as possible.
Hence KISS.
I do believe that SWB is over complicating the very simple concept of point shooting and cannot support him on this issue, since it violates the very core of what dozens of military/police vets have passed on to me.
Then again, perhaps SWB has discovered something that has somehow eluded all of these men.
Quien sabe?

Derius_T
January 13, 2008, 03:11 PM
With all due respect, it doesn't sound like he has discovered some hidden secret that all the great gun guru's before him have somehow missed out on, it just sounds like he is self-importantly over-emphasizing things that were made simple for a reason.

You can shoot each other stupid with paintballs and plastic rounds all you want as you "train", but the fact is that your brain, even your "primitive" one, still realizes that there is no true danger. It DOES NOT PREPARE YOU FOR A REAL LIFE THREATENING SITUATION. All the new-age mumbo jumbo aside, it doesn't really force you to feel in true danger, thereby forcing you to deal with the very real "fight or flight" response.....;)

Sweatnbullets
January 14, 2008, 12:05 AM
Where have you guys been?! This post has been up for a while.:)

It is not as if I have tip toed quietly through your world.

Yes, I am questioning if you have tested what you know and do inside of FOF......and I still am.

Scoffing at FOF does not answer the question. I wondered about the effectiveness of FOF training before I took it also. This lack of knowledge, on my part, was quickly replaced with an obvious understanding that what I thought was "good enough" was not even close. That realization happened to seven or eight of my "highly train" training partners....all at the same time. Eight for eight.....hard core/advanced Modern Techniquers finding out that all of their training performed poorly in FOF.

Was that a blow to the ego?......you bet......but we got over it.;)

"Keep it as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler."

I do believe that SWB is over complicating the very simple concept of point shooting and cannot support him on this issue, since it violates the very core of what dozens of military/police vets have passed on to me.


Matt, "point shooting" is only a small portion of what I teach in my courses. The "point shooting" that I teach is no different from what you teach. It is the intertwining of additional skill sets and mindsets that you consider complicated. Without this intertwined skillsets and mindsets, I consider the "point shooting" information to be extremely flat sided and incomplete. My students and peer group (which also happen to include "dozens of military/police vets") tend to agree with me.

You have "your people" and I have "my people." Opinions and desires vary, as they should! I am very pleased with my piece of the puzzle. I am also very pleased that you do not teach my piece of the puzzle.

Some people only want the basics.....some people want a more complete understanding.

And that is a beautiful thing!

This means that you will have "your people" and I will have "my people" and both of them get exactly what they are looking for. Both of us leave no doubt as to who we are as instructors. People know exactly what they are going to get before they spend one red cent. Some gravitate towards you and some gravitate towards me.

Just as it should be!:)

What is "overcomplicated" to one person, is simple as pie to another. People that take my course do not think that it is over complicated. These people, with this actual knowledge of what I teach, are the only people that I tend to care about.

Then again, perhaps SWB has discovered something that has somehow eluded all of these men.

Possibly something that has escaped them, but has not escaped the people that I have learned from. Knowledge is a very personal thing. You have your peer group.....and I have mine.....therefore different knowledge/experience base. Everything that I teach has been taught to me by someone else. None of this is my discovery.

Double Naught Spy
January 14, 2008, 07:39 AM
That would be your opinion due to lack of knowledge of what I speak.

If this is the case, then lack of knowledge for what you teach stems from your lack of proper explanation. The fact that Temkin has had to step in and try to explain your position for you better is indicative of the lack of clarity you have provided. You have made repeated references to events and documentation, but actually cited nothing.

Tell us again, where do you teach? Maybe all of us who are so ignorant of that which you teach need to visit the oracle in person.

Derius_T
January 14, 2008, 04:28 PM
I have to agree with DNS, you can claim the great mystic training powers you have, yet you provide no kind of proof.

Believe me, I have taken alot of training over the years, both courtesy of Uncle Sam, and civilian. I have participated in room clearing, hostage scenarios, mock battles, ect, ect. Yes, you learn some, "tactics". Yes you learn to think and act more quickly and confidently.

BUT, none of this training TRULY prepares you for the way you will react when your brain knows the bullets coming back at you are real, and that there are real lives on the line, including your own.

Paintball or airsoft may give you a very,very,very slight idea, but you cannot train your body properly, or prepare it for what will happen to it physically and mentally when that massive "real" adrenaline dump happens.

matthew temkin
January 16, 2008, 08:11 AM
While nothing can duplicate combat ( which is why I find those who push competition shooting as a great way to shoot under "combat duplicating" stress a bit troubling) I must say that some type of FOF--be it with Simunitions, Airsoft or even lasers--to be a helpful training tool.
Police departments and the military are using these tools with good results and Ken Good's organization is very big on Siminuations.
But to base untested theories solely on their effectiveness in FOF is, IMHO, a recipe for disaster.
One of the reasons why I have sought the advice of combat veteran is because it was always obvious to me that these men have insights that can only be learned by placing one's butt on the line.
Anything else is second rate.

Derius_T
January 16, 2008, 10:29 AM
matthew, I'm not saying its not helpful. I'm just saying its not the end-all holy grail that sweatnbullets seems to make it out to be. I think its his "I know more than you" or "You just don't understand my superior way of thinking and training" attitude that seems to be getting in the way of what he is trying to say.

matthew temkin
January 16, 2008, 10:53 AM
Derius_T--Excellent points and I could not agree more.
I know for a fact that SWB means well, but someone like himself with zero military/police/security/combat experience should be more humble in the attitude department.
I was a personal friend/student of Col. Applegate for the last 7 years of his life and I told him that I felt under qualified to teach combat shooting due to my never having been in a gunfight.
He smiled and said that while combat experience is not required to be a good instructor, those without should be careful about adding what they perceive to be "improvements" over the tried and true.
PS..7677 and myself will be teaching a free law enforcement class in Akron OH this summer.
Please contact me via a PM if you would be interesting in attending.
It sounds as if you have some valuable information to share with us.

ibfestus
January 17, 2008, 08:01 PM
LEO's seldom come into a situation where they confront an armed opponent. When they do, it is rare when shots are fired. Endless training for non LEO's is generally a waste. Only 1 in 10,000 CCW's will ever find themselves in the position to use their weapon to ensure a positive outcome.

Should we have CCW's? Hell no!!! Any american citizen should have the right to tote a firerarm. Open carry is what we need to promote. Why do we have to hide our guns?

Good night, my head hurts.

Derius_T
January 18, 2008, 12:01 AM
ibfestus, while most people on these forums believe that it is a God-Given Right to carry any type of firearm we choose, the Government unfortunately wants to fight us tooth and nail on this issue. I'd love to see National Open Carry, with no permits, but thats just not going to happen. Lets be glad for those states who have passed the Concealed Bill, and continue to fight the good fight, to help our brothers and sisters in states where their rights are still being completely trampled.


Side Note: I kinda see the governments point. If I were in charge of a government that repeatedly took away people's rights, and slowly chipped away at their very freedom, I'd be scared to death for all those unhappy people to have guns too. :D