point shooting home study course

[Matthew Temkin]

7677 You stated that the mind will chose the method, maybe I can give an example. Though all my formal training was with sights as I have explained in some of my other posts I have practiced Quick Kill for about 35 years. All my practiced point shooting is done with two hands including pistols, I had one course Bullseye Shooting that taught one hand. Here's the story.

While on a raid one night we had served a search warrant on a man who was selling JR High kids his scripts. There was a bed in the living room of the home and the man was setting on the side.( Why do these people always seem to sleep in their living room?!) Sorry back on topic. I shoot left handed so the man was sitting to my right on the bed and I was standing near him about 4 ft away. He was shaking like a leaf, and we were still securing the home still trying to ascertain who was who. The man was asked by a uniformed Deputy to put his hands infront of him and stand so he could be searched. He reached for his shirt pocket with his right hand and then immediatly plunged his left hand across his body grabbing something under the matress. I was standing beside him we were both facing forward. I caught the shirt moving in my peripheral. As he started with his left I was drawing. The shot that had to be made was for me to draw and move the revolver across my body pushing toward his head. I had locked my left bicept against my left breast muscle and the trigger was half way through the stroke when I notice he had a pack of cigarettes. Marlboro's! He almost died. Now I had not ever practiced that move nor had I been taught to shoot in a combat mode one handed it just happened. I had no intention of sighting I was locked into a pointing position and was microseconds from shooting. The man was so startled from that movement he fell flat on the floor. Matthew I think this is what you refer to as "in route". 7677 I think this is a good example of blended techniques if you will.
Jim

Excellent example, and thanks for sharing.
A good thing about the WW2 point shooting/ hand to hand/knife/stick fighting systems ( and others to be sure) is that they are fluid and can flow into things that we were never taught----but rather can be done as needed to respond to any given situation.
Why?
Simplicity for one.
That they are based on the body's natural reactions to combat is a second.
But mostly because they are based on concepts/principles as opposed to, "If he does that then you do this" technique fixated systems.

 

[brownie0486]

Ankeny,

That was the exact point I was trying to make to Grump. What is strived for and what is acceptable are two very different animals. I don't think he understands the difference btween them, either that or he doesn't want to, or as a last option Grump is looking for something to back his idea of acceptable accuracy. In this case he was trying to use IPSC to back his idea of acceptable accuracy by bringing up the A zone which is smaller and fits more with his ideas of "acceptable accuracy"

Thanks for your post and reiterating what I was attempting to relate.

Robin Brown

 

[Grump]

1. IMNSHO, every shooter with a rational grip on reality will see a need for extreme CQB pointshooting training and practice of some sort. Yes, I've done it and was convinced since I tried a snapshot on impulse one way with a .38 Snubbie and got a head shot (!) at 20 yards, from the hip, while walking, and shooting just less than 90 degrees to the right of my direction of travel. NO, that's not my usual and repeatable level of performance and that shot also hit fully 12 inches higher than intended. Oh well, practice can lead to cheap(er) experience.

2. Though I have had some difficulty nailing down the differences, there seem to be more differences between various PS methods than just their names. Looks to me like there is more overlap than difference. QK (if taught right), FAS which Brownie says few people understand without training, OKJoe's very minority P&S approach with the index finger pointing (seems like more of a grip variation than anything), and maybe things like Stressfire (tm? or (c)?) and FistFire (tm? or (c)?) and whatever else has popped up in books over the years.

2.A. I'm frustrated by the general tone of "it doesn't matter, all the bad guys died first" responses to my attempts to find out whether whatever differences between the techniques make any difference.

2.B. It would seem irresponsible to fund a nice big DOJ study to divide PDs in the country into two groups, train each differently, and then stand back and count the dead bodies of BGs and LEOs and try to improve on the -what?? 30-year old???- SOP-9 thing that NYPD did. Thus I want to test rather than throw the LEOs out there and see what happens.

2.C. I'm again frustrated by what now appears to be changing standards on "good enough" in the accuracy question. I try to show through the FBI shootout that some hits possibly "acceptable" under *whatever* standard did no good when the BG was sideways to the LEO shooter. I don't care *how* those hits were delivered nor from how far away or anything--I'm just trying to examine whether some generally accepted "good enough" is really "good enough." That deteriorates into discussions of what's good enough for the feds and IDPA is good enough for me. I don't buy that. The feds told the US citizens there was nothing to fear from Nevada Test Site fallout, too--and though I think at least a few "downwinders" are whiners, there *is* a proven increase in cancer from that low-level long-term exposure. AND, my daddy bought his own seatbelts and installed them in the family van back before the feds required them in their own vehicles. "Good enough for the feds" was once a huge criticism of the FBI's square-range training back in the 1960s, when unrealistic targets and time limits started to disappear from LEO training.

Think of how all this will play out if "60 Minutes" examined LEO firearms training techniques and whether "good enough" is really "good enough". The maximum-points scoring ring should be smaller, IMO, and I believe I have shown strong reasons for that position. Okay, we disagree.

3. On the question of aimed fire techniques, I see the firearms press going all in favor of either isosceles or some small modified iso stance. The proof of that pudding seems to be accepted as the practice of the top champion speed shooters, whether on a pass/fail (as far as accuracy is concerned) speed shoot on steel, or the blended speed/accuracy of IPSC or IDPA on paper. Seems strange to me that some champions of some specific types of pointshooting resist almost any attempt to test and quantify the levels of performance possible with the various techniques. I believe it *can* be tested on a square range, looking at various samples and doing baseline testing to establish the beginning skill levels and seeing how groups of 30 shooters per sample do with various techniques over several sessions. Add stress, shoot epinephrine on some tests if you want to, have the shooters taking incoming from paintball guns or include simunitions, but have a way to measure both accuracy and speed.

All those success stories are valid as compared to the dead BGs. But what about the *better* BGs--could they be the ones who KILLED the LEOs who didn't survive the encounters (absent the general shoot-em-in-the-back bushwhackings for which no *shooting* technique will work)? Speed measurements can tell us which PS technique is most *likely* to help direct fast shots against those better BGs, and accuracy measurements of that performance can tell us which PS technique is most *likely* to give us hits that WORK and work quickly. I am convinced that Platt would have been out of the Miami fight much quicker if shot #4 had hit his spine or traversed his lungs, regardless of *how* that shot was fired. Yeah, it's hard to hit when the target is moving and all that, but it should be axiomatic that a center hit is better than a peripheral hit, and that center hits are always more acceptable.

BTW, talking about percentages of shots being more clustered at the center of your 8-inch circle should have little convincing power. There are too many times when the shooter gets only one clear shot. You might not be able to fire that second shot if your first doesn't impair your opponent enough.

 

[Ankeny]

That deteriorates into discussions of what's good enough for the feds and IDPA is good enough for me.

Well then determine your own levels of acceptable accuracy and strive towards that end. It really is that simple.

 

[7677]

Grump,
This is my attempt to answer your questions:

1) Those who have never had to fight with and/or shoot someone at close quarters may not see the use for point shooting. But, those that have done the dance of death swear by it. Now who would you believe about sex the porno star or the virgin?

2) There is actually more in common then is different between most of the point shooting techniques. Those that attended Sightless in Tuscon saw this first hand. FSA is one handed shooting and Quick-Fire (QF) is two-handed ISO point shooting. Quick Kill (QK) is a method of aiming that requires more visual input to get hits further out then FSA and QF. There is work currently going on the form FSA, QF, & QK into two workable systems.

As far P&S is concerned…what you see is what you get. John is a good guy, but I do not see the reason to shoot with my middle finger nor have I found any advantages in doing so. Fist Fire is the only other system I know of and I have not made up my mind about it due to a limited exposure with it. I do find it interesting that DR and others have won several competitions using it. I do think he is on the right track with using both threat focus and sighted fire in one package. Maybe one of these days we’ll get a invite for a demo?

2a) No not all of the bad guys died first, if this was true we would not be having this discussion. Yes, EU/ED (1/2 hip) is faster then going through a full draw stroke and using one sights within 5 yards. The urgency of making the shot (time) and distance dictate the technique to be used. Use the same way the size of a bolt will determine which socket or wrench you will use.

2b) A test like that is not necessary they have been done however the biggest problem is there are to many cooks in the kitchen and none of them agree which is the right way to bake the cake. Just the same way none of them can agree what is the best make, model and caliber of a duty gun. The studies have been done and the results are as plain as the nose on your face. Both techniques are needed but gun fighting is the only thing I know of were someone can violated every tactical rule in the book and survive and another person follow every procedure by the book and ends up dead. Life and death does not make sense nor does it play by any set of rules I know about.

2c) Standards, well we are back to the too many cooks in the kitchen again none of them can agree. I do not see how shooting from a stationary position at a stationary target is indicative of any standard of a person’s performance in a real shooting. 60 minutes would find that a large number of dept/agencies standards needed to be raised and they would also find that there are some agencies have trained their officer/agents above the standards.

3) This is the reason we use shoot houses and simunitions. The student is first run through the shoot houses to get a baseline and to get their attention that despite watching tv they are not tactical Ted. After running them through the shoot house the students are taught marksmanship and gun-handling skills and next comes threat focused shooting. Then tactics and movement are introduced. The final comes in the form of the shoot houses only the difficulty level is increased to make them think and be on their toes. Yes, houses, as in 5 to 6 different scenarios that involved different amounts of forces that change so officer/agents never know when they will have to use force and/or deadly force. The shoot houses are to teach the students how to use the proper tactics and techniques and to use what they are taught and above all that it actually works for the student.

As far as Platt is concerned, the path the bullet would have taken through Platt would not have made a difference, as he most likely would not have bleed out fast enough to keep him from killing the agents he did. I can tell you, I have first hand shot and seen people shot with both 5.56, 7.62X39 & 51 and some of them took a large amount of damage before they when down unless the head or spine was hit. The other thing was a hit to a artery (aorta) caused a faster bleed out then hitting the heart. IMHO the targets that are considered the standard do not teach the proper shot placement.

Also, I’m am starting to see the use of stances such as ISO or Mod Weaver going away and fluid platforms that allow shooter to use a wide range of techniques coming into the picture and these platforms are more along the lines of fight platforms. By filling the toolbox with tools it allows the person’s mind to pick the right tool for the job not force fit techniques into something it was never designed to be. The problem I have historically observed with gun training is it seeks to make the gun the answer for every problem under the sun with as few techniques as possible. Whereas, H2H, pepper spray or tazer should be the correct answer.

 

[okjoe]

Not trying to belabor anything, but P&S gives you a strong, flexible and level platform for shooting one or two handed. The following is a brief reiteration of why it makes sense at least to me.

In shooting videos, officers usually do at least 2 things, have the gun pointed in the direction of the perp, and they are able to pull the trigger.

Now, we all can point fast, naturally, automatically, and accurately at stuff with our index finger. So IMO, using the index finger to aim a gun fast, naturally, automatically, and accurately also makes sense.

The two go together as hand in glove. Sort of like connecting dots.

And add the little shelf like aiming aid which anyone is welcome to add to their personal weapon/s, and you have a gun in hand deal that really feels good as the aid helps in holding and holding up the gun. You will feel in better control of your gun. The use of the aid is not required however.

And the middle finger pulls back straighter in the hand and is the stronger, so shooting DAO, or DA/SA is of little concern.

Bullets do not find their way to the target by magic, perhaps by luck, but they don't have brains or memory.

So, KEEPING THE INDEX FINGER ALONG SIDE THE GUN, ALLOWS EACH SHOT to be aimed fast, naturally, automatically, and accurately as long as the shooter points at the target and pulls the trigger. point-n-pull

If you don't want to use the middle finger to pull the trigger, or if your gun design won't allow for that, you can use your weak hand index finger to pull the trigger.

Using this method, is not a bar to using other PS methods or the sights.

Now, I am sure that the above sounds like a screechy or broken record to many, who IMHO have yet to see the light, but it is music to my ears.

It would be nice if those who bring up this and that about PS, or objection x, y, or z, would take a bit of time and read up on the various PS methods, try them at their own risk and expense, and using common sense; and then report back their results and ask questions if any.

 

[Grump]

7677: Thank you.

1. Your 1, in my 1. Yes, we agree. After studying how powder marks and GSR play out in investigations about 20 years ago, the term "intermediate-distance" struck me as bellygun proximity. I saw the need for PS to be in the toolbox.

Your 2., also in my 1. We definitely agree.

Looks to me like there is more overlap than difference.

Your 2a. Well, perhaps I should have been more clear--I was talking about the evidence that PS version A, B, or C works and should be taught-->their success stories. Yeah, not every BG had to die to get a checkmark in the "success" column, just stop the hostilities. My intent is to see whether there is room to reduce the failures any further. Good is the enemy of Best.

2b. This thread has been dominated by references to FAS and pre-through WWII summaries, and summaries of NYPD's SOP-9. You got anything more recent? We got better science these days and the ability to sort stats and compare them with what's going on TODAY. I'm interested in anything after 1989! Testing should precede any in-field experiments with new training!

2c. Ah, the twin blessings and curses of Liberty and local control. Chart your own course and live with each jurisdiction being its own Fiefdom. I never said the testing on the square range had to be static. I just want it repeatable and measureable.

3. Run 'em through shoot houses with automated traps and such so the experiences are identical and you're on track, in my book. When I say square range, I mean the location, not the techniques. Run 'em, move 'em, squirt 'em with a hose and throw dishes at them! Just do it the same for each shooter.

Since the Miami event is reported to have lasted more than 4 minutes, I believe that the two deaths near the end are most likely to have not happened if Platt's lungs had been perf'd by shot #4, which happened during the first 30 seconds or so, IIRC. We may disagree on this one, but I appreciate your reasoned response.

Ankeny--Seen a lot of your posts elsewhere, IIRC. Good stuff. Yes, I will "solve" that problem myself by assessing my practice performance more harshly than the IDPA target does. I'd like to see B-27 X- and 10-rings in the middle of the IDPA, up high where they belong.

 

[JMusic]

Okjoe, good hearing from you. As I have told you, your method is unique, but I gave it a try. I have several airpistols that I shoot in the winter. One is called a P23. Looks like a Sig 230, 11 shot double action CO2 air pistol. Your technique seems to have some merit. Though I have not shot much it does indeed seem to be a natural way of pointing straight. Now I doubt that I would use this technique in a gunfight, but you do have a point. New shooters who have not picked up the bad habits I have would benifit the most. No endorsement here guys just an observation.

Grump, like you I have a hard time with the acronyms. I intend on taking a course on this to know the difference. I do not have the same concerns with accuracy that you have. I do not believe tight groups even in considered fatal area's are more dibilitating than say a wider spread, excluding the nerve centers ofcourse.

I know a few people who have the Quick Kill skills. None considered it a seperate method of shooting. To a one, I never heard a discussion with them about sights vs no sights. In fact it was looked at as an overall skill set. They were simply considered better overall shots.
Jim

 

[brownie0486]

"I will "solve" that problem myself by assessing my practice performance more harshly than the IDPA target does."

Yes, please do let us know when you have mastered keeping ALL your shots inside an "A" zone while it and you are moving dynamically. When you get there, I'd like to see some video of the 100% success rate you have with A hits on the run.

If you can do that, you have unlocked the holy grail of the shooting world and are a better man than any shooter who has come before you.

Robin Brown

 

[Grump]

"I will "solve" that problem myself by assessing my practice performance more harshly than the IDPA target does."

Yes, please do let us know when you have mastered keeping ALL your shots inside an "A" zone while it and you are moving dynamically. When you get there, I'd like to see some video of the 100% success rate you have with A hits on the run.

If you can do that, you have unlocked the holy grail of the shooting world and are a better man than any shooter who has come before you.

Robin Brown

And I await your report and videos of your own mastery of the 8-inch circle standard you have staunchly defended as either adequate or to be strived for, or something like that.

You still cannot give me a well-reasoned explanation of whether the differences between the PS "techniques" or "schools" or whatever make any difference. But I noticed that you have taken no potshots at my suggestions about shoothouses which unavoidably have moving shooters, and repeatable tests *which use moving targets*, etc.

If you want to hide behind your claims that none of this can be tested, fine. We can agree to disagree on what the acceptable level of accuracy is. Care to repeat your timer shoot with those 8-inch paper plates instead of TQ-15s? Before I commit myself to training, as you suggest, I want to know how well your technique works on the standard you cite. I'd be satisfied with results from only 300 rounds fired, but the distribution among the types of shots attempted should be about the same, proportionally.

Don't care about the feds and their TQ-15s. And I don't want to learn any bad habits if there is a better PS technique than yours. Yours is good. What is best?

 

[brownie0486]

And I await your report and videos of your own mastery of shooting and moving with groups the size of an A zone on an IPSC target as well.

Make sure NONE of your shots show going outside that A zone now right?

"the 8-inch circle standard you have staunchly defended as either adequate or to be strived for, or something like that."

I have already stated numerous times here that 8" is acceptable accuracy in a defensive shooting situation IMO [ dynamicly moving and shooting, not stationary ].

It is also acceptable to IDPA, and is quite acceptable in iPSC as well [ those would be A and B hits ], so I'm NOT the only one who considers 8" COM hits acceptable, we on the same page AGAIN?

You seem to have a probelm with ME, as you do not address others comments about this issue, but constantly bang at me about what I post. If you have a problem with me, spit it out, and don't beat around the damned bush anymore, got it?

I'm tiring quickly of your persistantly complaining to me about the 8" COM acceptability, and not writing letters to the IDPA association or addressing others who have stated basically the same thing I have.

"You still cannot give me a well-reasoned explanation of whether the differences between the PS "techniques" or "schools" or whatever make any difference."

Have you been reading the posts at all Grump? Let me reiterate what I have stated for you once more----FAS and QK give acceptable hits equally on BG's in SD situations, with speed. You want to know which is more accurate, gives the better hits? Both are accurate and give good hits. Fist size groups are the norm, 8" is MY acceptable accuracy at speed while I'm taking incoming. By speed I mean 3-4 rounds per second, all inside that 8" COM, and many of those inside 4 inch groupings.

Now, if that acceptable accuracy with speed is NOT acceptable to you, I await your doing the same speed and getting them cute little A zone groups on video and showing us how it's done. If you can't, I suggest you get out there and shoot some more until you can. You'll surely be a world champion shooter and we'll be reading about you in the newsletters of the national IDPA and IPSC championship events, okay?

"But I noticed that you have taken no potshots at my suggestions about shoothouses which unavoidably have moving shooters, and repeatable tests *which use moving targets*, etc."

You think I've been taking potshots? I haven't started until this post.

I can shoot movers [ I know, cause I'm SWAT trained and have had to do it in the shoothouses, I've also shot matches on movers, and played FoF with airsofts using QK ]. I did it with QK no less, imagine that. Shoothouses are NOT repeatable tests btw Grump, scenarios are fluid and change on the fly with every sceanrio, just like real life.

"If you want to hide behind your claims that none of this can be tested, fine."

It has been tested Grump, just not on the days we were using the TQ-15's. You must be of the impression I'm some cherry and the only time I have tested anything was that weekend with SNB here in the desert.

We can agree to disagree on what the acceptable level of accuracy is. Care to repeat your timer shoot with those 8-inch paper plates instead of TQ-15s?"

Sure, already have. Same weekend, 21 feet, two handed QK, no sights on the gun at all [ so I could not be accused of cheating and using them ], 14 rds fired, 12 rounds that measured 2.5 inches high by 3 inches wide, two called flyers that brought the total of 14 rds group to 4" wide by 4.5 inches high.

And if I really tried, I could hold smaller groups than that, but I was running the gun at a pace that was not conducive to smaller groups than I was getting [ I didn't want to ingrain any bad habits of taking my time to shoot BG's trying to kill me ]. I care not to be a bullseye shooter like you do, and know enough about the street to understand that isn't going to happen in a dynamic firefight.

"And I don't want to learn any bad habits if there is a better PS technique than yours. Yours is good. What is best?"

That IS soley dependant on the individual shooter and their personal skills level and training. It is not something that can be tested objectively, no matter how vehemently you disagree with that thought process.

BTW Grump, You can't make claims QK is good, you don't know the system and have not been properly trained in it yet. Your going on assumption when you make that statement.

"And I don't want to learn any bad habits if there is a better PS technique than yours."

Learn them all would be my suggestion to you.

We on the same page now? If you have a problem with me, lets have at it. I like bringing out the Marine Bat, it's fun. I'm only in the on deck circle right now though. Don't accuse me of hiding behind anything Grump, thats a real quick way of getting called out.

I'm not one with an alligator mouth and a hummingbird arse, if ya know what I mean.

Robin Brown

 

[sturmruger]

Were all going to burn

Whenever people post about PS it has this feel of those TV evengalists that are always telling us we are all on our way to hell and that we have to do it their way or the highway. Why is this such a big deal?? Why do people that believe in PS feel like they have to convert the rest of us shooters??

I do a lot of IPSC shooting and can attest to the fact that point shooting is practical out to about 7 yards. After 7 yards I use my sights would not PS for fear of having misses. The bottom line is some people prefer to use their sights, and I just wish I knew why that burned people up so much.

 

[brownie0486]

sturmruger:

Good post,

I've not seen one threat focused advocate ever state sights were not to be used. Have you?

I would respectfully ask that if you can find ANY PSer who has advocated their way exclusively all the time that you post the link and quotes for us. I'm not aware of any such posts and I scour the boards pretty well.

Past 7 yrds, I'd be prone to using sights like you for the very same reason you mention. I might even use them inside that distance, it is situational dependant with time the big question, not little tiny groups.

Robin Brown

 

[7677]

Whenever people post about PS it has this feel of those TV evengalists that are always telling us we are all on our way to hell and that we have to do it their way or the highway. Why is this such a big deal?? Why do people that believe in PS feel like they have to convert the rest of us shooters??

I do a lot of IPSC shooting and can attest to the fact that point shooting is practical out to about 7 yards. After 7 yards I use my sights would not PS for fear of having misses. The bottom line is some people prefer to use their sights, and I just wish I knew why that burned people up so much.

I think it is a two way street when it comes to evangelists. There are evangelists on both sides of this issue and there are certain groups that believe in sights only and that are quite vocal that point shooting is nothing but hocus-pokus. I have met some these same people which come up to Matt and I after class and say I wouldn't have believed it work if I hadn't done it with my own hands.

I believe in using both threat focused and sighted techniques and they both have their place within the sight continuum. If saying this makes me evangelist then so be it.

I have earned the tee-shirt and I have them in many colors and the truth is some of those tee-shirts were done with threat focused shooting and some of them was done with sighted fire. In each case the method I used was appropriate for the situation and the other option would have most likely gotten me killed or injured. Fill the toolbox and prepare for the worse case situation and everything else is a cake walk!

 

[okjoe]

Way to go Robin.

Last time at the range, the range guy was telling me about using the sights, (he teaches bullseye), and I said politely, but I don't use the sights, and he said "Yeh why do that they just confirm where the shot is going?"

I couldn't agree more, but that doesn't mean I will use them or need to use them at CQ distances.

The holes in the targets prove that whatever I am doing (P&S), works quite well thank you.

Now, I have been called a moron, stupid, idiot, liar, and P&S has been called a POS and etc., and I have been banned from many sites for bringing up the subject of Point Shooting and in particular P&S.

Hey, I just put out info that may be helpful in saving lives in CQ shootouts, given what current shootout accuracy is and which flows from traditional shooting ways.

That's all.

And for that one gets pilloried and burned at the stake, for being an abomination straight from hell!!!

Such comments from members of the polite society, show up the insecurity and low self worth of those who can not or will not allow anything or anyone to question what they do and even if not directly, by bringing up alternative methods.

Don't know of any PS advocate who said PS is better.

Only that it works at CQ distances and in some cases beyond.

Get real.

Pull back the curtain, go out to the range, or get out your air gun, and try some PS.

If you havn't tried it how can you enter into a meaningful and thoughtful discussion about it.

 

[redneckrepairs]

double post sorry

 

[redneckrepairs]

Well now.... since both sides have descended to an appropriate level of foaming bat????tery , which would be better for point shooting / aimed fire , 9mm or .45 :banghead: :banghead:

posted tongue firmly in cheek LOL

 

[7677]

Well now.... since both sides have decended

I wouldn't say both sides but two people? And, I say let them work it out.
Then again, I'm from Texas, which is one floor below the and hell is cooler during summer

 

[redneckrepairs]

lmao yea its turned into as my daughter said about her brother when about 4 yrs old a " He hit me back first " situation LOL

 

[brownie0486]

redneckrepairs:

You think that what it's about huh?

Go back and read the posts. Through 9 pages, I have explained and re-explained the thought process behind my posts in a civil manner, even when it was apparent Grump hadn't either read the posts entirely or had a problem with comprehension when reading them.

He doesn't have to agree with me, he only needs to reamin civil and keep the smart-arse comments out of the discussion. It's when I'm told I'm hiding behind some position that it will get ugly.

I'm quick on being an arse hole, sometimes too quick. Thats been a problem ocassionally, and I've learned to put the Marine bat down over time and not be so quick with it. Friends have made that suggestion and I have adhered to that thinking. One could even say I'm in remission of late where the bat is concerned.

Grump has a problem with me, he can state the problem and we'll deal with it. It's quite apparent he does, as he does not come back to others posts even though many of them support my position here, but keeps coming back to me.

I like that, I don't have a problem with that. It makes me feel wanted and that he cares. What I will not put up with his alluding that I'm hiding behind something.

I don't hide from anyone, I pick the bat up and cherish the thought of having to use it.

My future responses to Grump will be dictated not on being civil at all costs like it has been, but will be determined by his demeanor, no more or less.

So Grump, you want to address others posts who support my position as well as mine, not ignore their posts and come after me with your unrealistic street theories. You come after me like you did in your last post and I'll step up to the plate very quickly.

You don't have to agree with me, nor do I care one way or the other, but if you have a problem with me, spit it out and lets get it out in the open. Don't goad me any further with your snide inuendos in any way here.

Like I said, I am NOT some alligator mouth with a hummingbird arse. I call it the way I see it, you do the same. We'll be on the same page.

I worked the streets for almost 3 decades. I know a little something about that arena after that time. I also have the T shirt. Unless you have the experience I have in that arena, don't come at me about being unrealistic.

Robin Brown

 

[Ankeny]

Well according to the cards in my wallet I have "mastered" the A zone and the 8 inch circle so there.

 

[brownie0486]

Ankeny,

Tarot cards don't count.

I've got a card in my wallet that has a big red "S" on it, does that make me Clark Kent?

Robin Brown

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Wow..nearly 4,000 views.
Good, bad or indifferent...that is a lot of interest.
I think we all agree that both sighted and unsighted fire--of whatever persuation---are important skills to own for self defense.
And when to use them is a matter of subjective need.
Lastly..is anyone here going to Ft. Benning for the Best Ranger event this April?
My dad has been asked to be one of the judges and I am tempted to tag along.

 

[strambo]

There was a time when I would have considered competing in it....I'm not in shape enough to even consider it anymore! You should go, I'm sure it will be a great event and Benning in April will have tolerable weather. I'll unfortunately be in Mississippi training up for a deployment to Afghanistan.

 

[JMusic]

I don't know about the rest of you guys but if Brownie gets that Marine BAT out after me I'm using point shooting, handgrenades, and whatever else I can throw!!!
Nothing but love
Jim