Anyway the guy asked me what I was looking to get out of it and I mentioned that I am a firearms instructor and wanted to bridge the gap in my hands on skills for self defense and general fitness purposes.
He tells me, "well, without fighting skills, you are just a walking holster, right? You need to learn how to retain that gun."
I let the comment go, but it rubbed me the wrong way. I don't think this guy knows much about the kind of shooting people interested in self defense are engaged in.
Is this a common attitude in the combat sports?
I know this post is older, but I've been away for a while.
As both a firearms instructor and martial arts instructor, I have to agree with the guy. He could have phrased it better, sure, and he put a lot of attention and emphasis towards retention, which yeah, it's a really important aspect but not the beginning and end of the subject; more like a side tangent.
In my firearms classes, I recommend students seek out hand to hand training of some form; whether it's tai chi or something a lot more aggressive. It rarely hurts to get in better shape, and learn to tie your body together, improve gross and fine motor control, and learn how to work various problems, and incorporate some of them in to muscle memory.
In martial arts classes, all of the instructors shoot. When we had a senior instructor over from Japan, he went to the range, too, and got to shoot firearms he'd never seen or held, or had access to, before.
That's Minoru Kawawada, at our local IL shooting range, after a martial arts clinic the organization I'm part of held.
Minoru Kawawada (7th dan) is the vice general manager of the Japanese Karate Association's (JKA) technical division and a chief instructor at the JKA headquarters dojo in Japan. He's also an instructor at the Hoitsugan dojo, of master Nakayama fame.
And there he is, holding an American AR-15, and .. with all respect I can summon using the word, he was quite giddy about the experience!
For never having held a rifle before he was a superb marksman, by all accounts.
Back on topic; even traditional karate instructors in the US understand the limits of what hand to hand can provide in a world that has so many ranged combat options. Virtually all of the instructors at our local dojos, and many others in the larger traditional karate organization, are accomplished marksmen. I'm sure this trend carries on wider as you look at other types of martial arts and so forth - because people who are serious about self defense, tend to view every tool as an option to be explored.
Conversely, ranged combat options we have for personal defense, provide little guarantee of protection for hand to hand combat.
I was forced to defend myself one time, against lethal force. A firearm was not an option at the time - I was tackled and flat on my back when I discovered I was in a predicament with my strong arm pinned over my chest and my weak arm at my side. Fortunately in a position to grab his shirt cuff, as I felt the knife blade against my wrist as he tried to free that arm. I got enough of my right arm loose to elbow his jaw, which caused him to rear back a ways, and a second elbow strike was delivered to his jaw with a great deal more momentum. After that it was over, I rolled him off of me, put one more in to his jaw, which knocked his head against the concrete, and he was lights out. I had control of the knife.
You are (statistically speaking) more likely to be attacked by a friend or family member than a random stranger, and such was the case here.
Shooting the attacker wasn't an option, even if I *had* that option, which I didn't, due to the position it all started in.
But, I'm not about to say that guns aren't an option. They are a very valuable option. However, there are many situations in which they are *not* an option.
An example would be if the attacker isn't using sufficient force to cause death or serious bodily injury. In many (most?) states you can't escalate to lethal force, if the attacker is using non-lethal force (fists). This is highly subjective, as a 20 year old with fists *could* strike and kill a 90 year old man; in that case, it's already justifiably lethal, and lethal force is an option.
But again, it's all so subjective and case-specific! The attacker and defender's relative capabilities matter; how *many* attackers there are, and so on. And at any point in a scuffle, an unarmed attack *may* suddenly meet the requirements for lethal force defense (e.g. if they are about to stomp your head in to the concrete).
There is an infinite amount of possibilities and it is impossible to cover them with a post, or even, a single self defense class. It's tough to do with a long *series* of self defense classes.
As a middle aged martial arts instructor, a "reasonable man" argument would indicate I have every tool at my disposal for dealing with an unarmed threat in a non-lethal fashion. Some may even argue that I have some capability of defending myself against some level of lethal force (particularly since I once did so! History matters in court!).
I will attempt to draw this out in to very generic spheres, though. In my shooting classes we do the flag drop drill, to illustrate this concept. We give one person (the runner) a flag. We put one person on the shooting line, facing targets. At the horn, the shooter draws and fires two shots at a target 7 yards away. The runner runs the opposite direction, and at the first shot, drops the flag, and the second shot, stops running.
Simple, right?
The flag is always, universally, over 7 yards from the shooter when it's dropped, and the runner is usually 15 or so yards out by the time the second shot is fired (momentum, and all that.)
The shooter safes, and the class looks. The runner, in every single case to date, was able to close the same distance as the shooter's target.
The lesson here is someone who is 7 yards away *can and will be able to tackle you* prior to you clearing a holster and firing a single shot. Since we know it often takes more than one round to stop a threat, a motivated attacker could be *much* further away and close the distance to tackle you and contest your firearm if they are willing to take a hit on the way in.
Given that our local county public defender literally shot a man dead in his front yard last year who was on bath salts and tried to
eat his face, it is indeed a strange world we live in today. In that lethal force shoot the public defender, who started with a gun in his hand, was still tackled and had his face bit prior to shooting the assailant dead. (That incident happened less than a mile from where I live in the country, by the way, I *heard the gunshot*)...
Anecdotal, yes, but also useful. If the attacker had decided to stab the public defender, instead of biting his face, might have ended up a lot different!
So, back to those spheres, or circles, or what have you.
Inside of 7 yards, hand to hand combat is absolutely vital as a skill. Even if it's just to manage a charging attacker *while* you get your lethal force option in your hand.
Beyond 7 yards, it may still be incredibly relevant against a drugged up attacker who doesn't care if they get shot on the way in to... eat your face, or whatever.
I tell you this both from personal experience, as I've been in that situation, and a lifetime of instruction.
So yes, definitely DO pursue hand to hand of SOME form. The worst that'll happen is you'll get in better shape and pick up a cool looking bruise or two, from time to time, if it's an aggressive style. If it's a classic or more passive style, probably no bruises, but you'll still get in better shape, and learn a LOT about how your body works, and how to use it.
You might find it saves your life one day, when a gun just isn't an option for whatever reason.
It saved mine. My 6 kids still have a grumpy old father around.
