Quote:
|
Why do so many articles and "experts" recommend learning a questionable skill set when carrying a weapon is much more effective?
|
Apart from the political answers to that question (not gonna go there today, thanks), there are two solid answers I can think of right off the bat.
1) Who said it's either-or??? Police officers learn basic disarms and retentions in academy training. They also learn something called "defensive tactics," police jargon meaning unarmed defense skills. Why do they do that instead of carrying a weapon? Answer: they don't. They carry a weapon ... too.
2) In the real world, not in the fantasy world we'd all like to live in, carrying a firearm is not always legal and even where legal it is not always practically possible (as anyone who is honest with himself will admit). Given the choice between a super-effective but sometimes unavailable weapon and a less-effective weapon which will
always be present, I'd take both. Wouldn't you?
Many reputable firearms trainers with a solid track record for teaching good material and avoiding twaddle do teach the basic disarms and retentions. And your local cops - who also carry guns - are trained to bet their lives on it when the chips are down and the gun is not a viable choice.
pax