What type of CQC are you interested in?

Trigger Jerk · January 12, 2000, 01:35 PM

I'm curious as to what people on this forum are mostly interested in. I guess I'll break it down into two categories and let others subdivide if neccessary.
Offensive and Defensive.
I would say that defensive has more to do with defending ones own home and business or whatever.
I would say that offensive has more to do with...well being on the offensive, taking them out before they take you out.
Obviously Law Enforcement has a need for offensive tactics, but do us civies NEED such information?
I think we do, but I am interested in your arguments as to why.
I will share my opinion after the discussion gets started.

[This message has been edited by Trigger Jerk (edited January 12, 2000).]

nobody · January 12, 2000, 02:25 PM

I would be happy to avoid it all together. However, I can see no reason us "civvies" should not possess any and all information relevant to the subject. After all, many of us learned offensive tactics in the military. We didn't forget it just because we were handed a DD form 214.

ctdonath · January 12, 2000, 03:31 PM

You cannot properly understand one without the other. To know defense, you must understand the offense you prepare against. To know offense, you must know what defense may resist you. The skills needed for each overlap; "front sight...press" is needed for both. In larger situations, one may defend by mounting what is in essense an offense; one sniper may defend his own by picking off enemies on their own turf.

I would say that offensive has more to do with...well being on the offensive, taking them out before they take you out.

Isn't that essentially defense? They're gonna get you, so you get them first?

As some wags say, "The best defense is a good offense."

Obviously Law Enforcement has a need for offensive tactics

Why? Do you expect cops to attack people?

do us civies NEED such information?

Questioning such a "need" belies either ignorance or hostility to 2nd Amendment (and 1st as well) rights.

Hunting IS offensive.
We ARE all, by law, militia members and thus should know some such info.
Defense and offense heavily overlap...to understand the former REQUIRES an understanding of the latter.

It's strange that you raise a question so commonly raised by those opposed to distribution of such knowledge.

The only real difference between defense and offense is (a) who makes the first move, and (b) whether, having stopped an assault, you continue weilding deadly force. The difference is attitude, not information.

Trigger Jerk · January 12, 2000, 05:09 PM

You both bring up excellent points. I want to go on record and say that I DO NOT agree with the limitation of distribution of such ideas and information. Please grant that I was (without saying so) playing the devils advocate a little, when I asked about the "civies" need for such info. I beleive that all law abiding citizens have the right to the same training, information, etc, that the government has. When our founding fathers included the right to keep and bear arms, I believe they were thinking that the average Joe should have equal access to whatever the goverment has in order to defend one's self against the government. I'm preaching to the chior here but many say that the 2nd admendment doesn't refer to "assault weapons" and I say that's exactly what they meant. 200+ years ago, a flintlock muzzle loader was a assault weapon. It was the most advanced technology of the day. That's what I mean when I say they meant for the citizens to not be denied the most advanced technology of the day for the purpose of defending themselves.

Now getting back to the subject... Yes I do expect LEO to attack people....but under specific and very limited circumstances. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I guess the reason I started this thread is that I've been studying the defensive side of tactics for many years without much emphsis on what I call the offensive side. Now I would like to learn more about the offensive side. I was curious if others had a similar quest for knowledge and maybe someone(s) could point to specific information that has been valuable to them.

[This message has been edited by Trigger Jerk (edited January 12, 2000).]

Edmund Rowe · January 13, 2000, 05:12 AM

I had a little taste of close quarters tactics/training in some classes.

The best thing I learned from it all was
THIS SUCKS. Keep doing this and sooner or later you'll eat a bullet or knife or run into The Thug That Was Tougher Than Me.

It's a good training lesson in staying defensive if possible, don't go looking for trouble, and don't think you're going to live forever. When the pros say maximize distance, they're NOT kidding.

On the flip side, knowing something about the offensive stuff helps if you've got absolutely no other choice. Say, you're in deep kimchee and if you stay in your present spot you're going to die and the only way out is attack through the threat.

Whoops, little note here: when I say defensive and offensive, I mean
defensive: wait for the threat to come to you
offensive: go after the threat, not necessarily for an offensive reason, the reason may be like that stated above: the only way out is through the bad guys.

Edmund

WETSU · January 13, 2000, 09:27 AM

Ditto to what Edmund Rowe, and some of the others said. Ambush is an example.Clearly when abushed you are in defence mode. And you will die quicker if you stay that way. The best CHANCE for survival is to assault through the abushers. I say again, this may be your best chance for survival, not a sure thing at all. Going to ground, putting up a spirited defence will get you dead quick. Another example of going into what I consider an offensive posture is when confronting armed BG's in your house. They are in your house-that would mean you are defending. However, to truly dominate the situation you have to absolutly explode into them in a physical and mental sense. (not with guns blazing mind you) This is kind of the Ben Cooley way. Very dynamic, gain control of the situation, and be prepared to use deadly force within a fraction of a second. Action verses reaction and all that. Needless to say, this takes a lot of practice, and some professional training would be helpful. Just my $.02

Adam · January 15, 2000, 11:32 AM

A lot of cops these days are training in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. The ground fighting is great. It also teaches a lot of stand-up real life situations, like when someone bear hugs you, puts you in a full nelson, puts you in a stand-up headlock, etc. I had a wrestling background before I got into it, and have now been doing it for about 7 years. For unarmed, CQC you cannot beat grappling. I also train in some boxing, because I believe hands are better than feet. That old adage, KISS (keep it simple stupid) is really true. Brazilian jiu-jitsu, at its higher levels, does get very intricate and complex. But it is a system you can apply immediately. The moves are practical, simple and easy to do. It's not like karate, where it takes you 10 or 15 years to be able to do a back spinning kick with precision and speed. Just be sure that any jiu-jitsu teacher you train under puts just as much emphasis on street fighting as he does on sport (torunament) jiu-jitsu. The cops are also training in Krav Maga (Israeli), from what I hear. It is also practical and straight forward. The Krav Maga people are incorporating Brazilian jiu-jitsu into their regimen. Almost every no holds barred fighter is currently training in Brazilian jiu-jitsu to learn ground fighting. Obviously, the best thing to do is avoid a confrontation if possible. But if it happens, and you are unarmed, you can't beat grappling. I read an article a while back regarding studies done by the cops. It indicated that, in a violent situation, the guy who is trained only in striking usually forgets his fighting system and the fight degenerates into a sloppy streetfight of wild swings, clinching, etc. The same study inducated that the guy who is trained in grappling usually maintains his poise and sticks to his training. Grappling is a more basic instinst than punching/kicking, thus it is easier to do in a real life situation. Obviously, a good handgun always comes first in some situations. And if a guys pulls a knife on you, and you are unarmed, run like hell.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 12, 2000, 01:35 PM	#1
Trigger Jerk Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 1999 Location: Eastern WA Posts: 136	I'm curious as to what people on this forum are mostly interested in. I guess I'll break it down into two categories and let others subdivide if neccessary. Offensive and Defensive. I would say that defensive has more to do with defending ones own home and business or whatever. I would say that offensive has more to do with...well being on the offensive, taking them out before they take you out. Obviously Law Enforcement has a need for offensive tactics, but do us civies NEED such information? I think we do, but I am interested in your arguments as to why. I will share my opinion after the discussion gets started. [This message has been edited by Trigger Jerk (edited January 12, 2000).]

January 12, 2000, 02:25 PM	#2
nobody Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2000 Posts: 163	I would be happy to avoid it all together. However, I can see no reason us "civvies" should not possess any and all information relevant to the subject. After all, many of us learned offensive tactics in the military. We didn't forget it just because we were handed a DD form 214.

January 12, 2000, 03:31 PM	#3
ctdonath Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 1999 Posts: 1,904	You cannot properly understand one without the other. To know defense, you must understand the offense you prepare against. To know offense, you must know what defense may resist you. The skills needed for each overlap; "front sight...press" is needed for both. In larger situations, one may defend by mounting what is in essense an offense; one sniper may defend his own by picking off enemies on their own turf. I would say that offensive has more to do with...well being on the offensive, taking them out before they take you out. Isn't that essentially defense? They're gonna get you, so you get them first? As some wags say, "The best defense is a good offense." Obviously Law Enforcement has a need for offensive tactics Why? Do you expect cops to attack people? do us civies NEED such information? Questioning such a "need" belies either ignorance or hostility to 2nd Amendment (and 1st as well) rights. Hunting IS offensive. We ARE all, by law, militia members and thus should know some such info. Defense and offense heavily overlap...to understand the former REQUIRES an understanding of the latter. It's strange that you raise a question so commonly raised by those opposed to distribution of such knowledge. The only real difference between defense and offense is (a) who makes the first move, and (b) whether, having stopped an assault, you continue weilding deadly force. The difference is attitude, not information.

January 12, 2000, 05:09 PM	#4
Trigger Jerk Senior Member Join Date: November 22, 1999 Location: Eastern WA Posts: 136	You both bring up excellent points. I want to go on record and say that I DO NOT agree with the limitation of distribution of such ideas and information. Please grant that I was (without saying so) playing the devils advocate a little, when I asked about the "civies" need for such info. I beleive that all law abiding citizens have the right to the same training, information, etc, that the government has. When our founding fathers included the right to keep and bear arms, I believe they were thinking that the average Joe should have equal access to whatever the goverment has in order to defend one's self against the government. I'm preaching to the chior here but many say that the 2nd admendment doesn't refer to "assault weapons" and I say that's exactly what they meant. 200+ years ago, a flintlock muzzle loader was a assault weapon. It was the most advanced technology of the day. That's what I mean when I say they meant for the citizens to not be denied the most advanced technology of the day for the purpose of defending themselves. Now getting back to the subject... Yes I do expect LEO to attack people....but under specific and very limited circumstances. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I guess the reason I started this thread is that I've been studying the defensive side of tactics for many years without much emphsis on what I call the offensive side. Now I would like to learn more about the offensive side. I was curious if others had a similar quest for knowledge and maybe someone(s) could point to specific information that has been valuable to them. [This message has been edited by Trigger Jerk (edited January 12, 2000).]

January 13, 2000, 05:12 AM	#5
Edmund Rowe Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 1998 Location: Warner Robins, GA USA Posts: 351	I had a little taste of close quarters tactics/training in some classes. The best thing I learned from it all was THIS SUCKS. Keep doing this and sooner or later you'll eat a bullet or knife or run into The Thug That Was Tougher Than Me. It's a good training lesson in staying defensive if possible, don't go looking for trouble, and don't think you're going to live forever. When the pros say maximize distance, they're NOT kidding. On the flip side, knowing something about the offensive stuff helps if you've got absolutely no other choice. Say, you're in deep kimchee and if you stay in your present spot you're going to die and the only way out is attack through the threat. Whoops, little note here: when I say defensive and offensive, I mean defensive: wait for the threat to come to you offensive: go after the threat, not necessarily for an offensive reason, the reason may be like that stated above: the only way out is through the bad guys. Edmund

January 13, 2000, 09:27 AM	#6
WETSU Member Join Date: January 11, 2000 Location: Indiana Posts: 94	Ditto to what Edmund Rowe, and some of the others said. Ambush is an example.Clearly when abushed you are in defence mode. And you will die quicker if you stay that way. The best CHANCE for survival is to assault through the abushers. I say again, this may be your best chance for survival, not a sure thing at all. Going to ground, putting up a spirited defence will get you dead quick. Another example of going into what I consider an offensive posture is when confronting armed BG's in your house. They are in your house-that would mean you are defending. However, to truly dominate the situation you have to absolutly explode into them in a physical and mental sense. (not with guns blazing mind you) This is kind of the Ben Cooley way. Very dynamic, gain control of the situation, and be prepared to use deadly force within a fraction of a second. Action verses reaction and all that. Needless to say, this takes a lot of practice, and some professional training would be helpful. Just my $.02

January 15, 2000, 11:32 AM	#7
Adam Member Join Date: December 21, 1999 Location: Long Beach, California, U.S.A. Posts: 32	A lot of cops these days are training in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. The ground fighting is great. It also teaches a lot of stand-up real life situations, like when someone bear hugs you, puts you in a full nelson, puts you in a stand-up headlock, etc. I had a wrestling background before I got into it, and have now been doing it for about 7 years. For unarmed, CQC you cannot beat grappling. I also train in some boxing, because I believe hands are better than feet. That old adage, KISS (keep it simple stupid) is really true. Brazilian jiu-jitsu, at its higher levels, does get very intricate and complex. But it is a system you can apply immediately. The moves are practical, simple and easy to do. It's not like karate, where it takes you 10 or 15 years to be able to do a back spinning kick with precision and speed. Just be sure that any jiu-jitsu teacher you train under puts just as much emphasis on street fighting as he does on sport (torunament) jiu-jitsu. The cops are also training in Krav Maga (Israeli), from what I hear. It is also practical and straight forward. The Krav Maga people are incorporating Brazilian jiu-jitsu into their regimen. Almost every no holds barred fighter is currently training in Brazilian jiu-jitsu to learn ground fighting. Obviously, the best thing to do is avoid a confrontation if possible. But if it happens, and you are unarmed, you can't beat grappling. I read an article a while back regarding studies done by the cops. It indicated that, in a violent situation, the guy who is trained only in striking usually forgets his fighting system and the fight degenerates into a sloppy streetfight of wild swings, clinching, etc. The same study inducated that the guy who is trained in grappling usually maintains his poise and sticks to his training. Grappling is a more basic instinst than punching/kicking, thus it is easier to do in a real life situation. Obviously, a good handgun always comes first in some situations. And if a guys pulls a knife on you, and you are unarmed, run like hell.