TexasCHLforum.com

troglodyte wrote:I'm looking for some self defense myths that have shown up in your classes.

Recently I had the good ol' "Racking the slide will scare them away" and "I just want to shoot them in the arm/leg."

What "gems" have you had in your classes?

Yeah, lots of good shotgun ones: "just point in the general direction of the attacker, no aiming needed", "buck shot will knock a man 20 feet in the air", and my personal fav, "shotguns require less training to operate effectively".

For those of you that posted to this thread and don't have a CHL, you need to take a class to find out how good our gun laws are. Or go on to the DPS web sight and read the CHL laws, you will be surprised at how great our laws are.

Rick343 wrote:For those of you that posted to this thread and don't have a CHL, you need to take a class to find out how good our gun laws are. Or go on to the DPS web sight and read the CHL laws, you will be surprised at how great our laws are.

Texas self-defense laws are very good.

Texas gun laws need some serious work. Total repeal of 46.035 and at least a partial repeal of 46.03 for starters.

Here are few of my favorites:

Hold the flashlight as far away from your body as possible so the BG will shoot at the light instead of you.

A BG will follow a laser sight right back to you and shoot you.

Skippy behind the counter at CTD, while handing me a Romanian PSL, "This is a real Dragunov, made in Russia."

You're more likely to be shot with your own gun than to use it in self defense.

You're more likely to shoot a family meber than a BG if you keep a gun in the house.

Only the poilce (and criminlas, apparently) have enough training to use guns safely.

If you hit him ANYWHERE with a .45, he's going down!

Guns kill people.

Assault rifle... enough said.

The gun just went off.

austinrealtor wrote:

C-dub wrote:

redlin67 wrote:I thought my instructor was excellent. His thing was that the first sound that a potential threat would hear is the sound of the safety being clicked off.

What did he have to say about Glocks?

If you watch enough TV and movies, you'll soon learn that even a Glock must be cocked before every tough guy speech

Although in many cases the slide rack is done for dramatic effect on folks who don't know anything about handguns, it also might have something to do with which country the film's technical consultant came from. The highly professional elite operators of one of our close allies carry their Glocks chamber empty and execute a slide rack / chamber load maneuver during the draw / presentation cycle. These folks are emphatic about thinking we're reckless carrying with chamber loaded.

I don't agree with them on this point, but after seeing them use their technique I wouldn't stand downrange and try to outdraw and outshoot one of these guys either - I'd probably lose.

Excaliber wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

C-dub wrote:

redlin67 wrote:I thought my instructor was excellent. His thing was that the first sound that a potential threat would hear is the sound of the safety being clicked off.

What did he have to say about Glocks?

If you watch enough TV and movies, you'll soon learn that even a Glock must be cocked before every tough guy speech

Although in many cases the slide rack is done for dramatic effect on folks who don't know anything about handguns, it also might have something to do with which country the film's technical consultant came from. The highly professional elite operators of one of our close allies carry their Glocks chamber empty and execute a slide rack / chamber load maneuver during the draw / presentation cycle. These folks are emphatic about thinking we're reckless carrying with chamber loaded.

I don't agree with them on this point, but after seeing them use their technique I wouldn't stand downrange and try to outdraw and outshoot one of these guys either - I'd probably lose.

That is interesting. How do they handle close quarters/retention shooting type situations? It certainly appears that their use of their guns has to be determined beyond the 21 foot circle. If I understood correctly, we as regular citizens were much more likely to face a BG close in rather than out at both hands extended range. I've always been curious if there was any statistics for non-LEOs regarding proximity. Without stats, anecdotal input would be great.

Warhammer wrote: If you hit him ANYWHERE with a .45, he's going down!

Wait a minute, that ones true. But only if the gun is a 1911 (especially if held by Chuck Norris)

chasfm11 wrote:

TxSheepdog wrote: If you have the misfortune of having to shoot the thug and live to tell about it, prepare to be demonized by the DA and media.
Hooray for the Castle law!

Not necessarily. Here are several recent examples where that is not true, at least in Texas

viewtopic.php?f=108&t=39395&hilit=Homeowner

For places like CA, NY, NY and IL, the thinking is so warped that you may indeed be in trouble for defending yourself. In those places, you would likely be in trouble for any sort of self-defense regardless of the method that you use.

I attended the Friday lecture at the Forum day at PSC. Charles did a wonderful job of explaining the latitude that we have in Texas and why the Castle law is different than many of us believe.

Yes, my statement was concerning California. I finally escaped and arrived here in Texas, where I can actually defend my family.

Rick343 wrote:Well my neighbor wanted to take my class but told me she wouldn't kill em, she would just wound them. I told her " What happens when the guy or whoever gets out of the hospital or jail and comes to see you, what then? She didn't take my class. Fools, one borne every minute.

You should have told her "Great! Because we don't teach shoot to kill, we teach shoot to "STOP". Now if they die as a result of shooting to stop well then i guess they weren't meant to rob or attack anyone anymore.

Two comments in reverse order:

chasfm11 wrote: ...It certainly appears that their use of their guns has to be determined beyond the 21 foot circle. ...

The "21 foot circle" is itself a "myth."

Tueller's article in the March 1983 SWAT magazine used the distance of seven yards. He doesn't state why he uses this distance, but I am pretty sure it was because this was considered the distance (or less) at which most police shootings occurred, or at least it was the (one of) the distances police officers trained for. He stated that those who practiced pistol craft were of the mind that a good shooter should be able to draw and put two shots center of mass at that distance in 1.5 seconds.

He further said that through some experiments, he determined the average adult male (armed with a knife, club, or other contact weapon) could cover that distance in the same 1.5 seconds.

His conclusion was that if the attack starts at seven yards (twenty-one feet), the attacker is already with in the "Danger Zone" and the defender is quite possibly going to get hurt or killed if he doesn't do something to change this. Thus he goes on to recommend a number of things, like movement, cover, obstacles, drawing weapon as soon as danger is sensed (or "determing use of the gun beyond the 21 foot circle"), etc.

There was nothing magic about 21 feet, and in fact he concluded that this could in fact be "too close."

chasfm11 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

C-dub wrote:

redlin67 wrote:I thought my instructor was excellent. His thing was that the first sound that a potential threat would hear is the sound of the safety being clicked off.

What did he have to say about Glocks?

If you watch enough TV and movies, you'll soon learn that even a Glock must be cocked before every tough guy speech

Although in many cases the slide rack is done for dramatic effect on folks who don't know anything about handguns, it also might have something to do with which country the film's technical consultant came from. The highly professional elite operators of one of our close allies carry their Glocks chamber empty and execute a slide rack / chamber load maneuver during the draw / presentation cycle. These folks are emphatic about thinking we're reckless carrying with chamber loaded.

I don't agree with them on this point, but after seeing them use their technique I wouldn't stand downrange and try to outdraw and outshoot one of these guys either - I'd probably lose.

That is interesting. How do they handle close quarters/retention shooting type situations? It certainly appears that their use of their guns has to be determined beyond the 21 foot circle. If I understood correctly, we as regular citizens were much more likely to face a BG close in rather than out at both hands extended range. I've always been curious if there was any statistics for non-LEOs regarding proximity. Without stats, anecdotal input would be great.

The folks I referred to used their empty chamber technique at all distances, from contact on out. They insist it's essential to prevent ND's.

I saw several issues with requiring two hands to use the weapon, introducing multiple additional and unnecessary potential points of failure, and extending the time required to fire the first shot, but they insisted it works for them.

Another interesting point is that their doctrine executes the initial slide rack maneuver with the side of the slide parallel to the floor. Does that ring any bells with some of the stuff you see in the movies and in gangbanger imitations on the street? The pros don't fire the gun in this position, but in the movies, it seems this small point sometimes gets lost in the translation.

It should be kept in mind that most of the pistol engagements for these military folks are offensive - as in eliminating an assigned target . However, their doctrine does not vary whether the application is offensive or defensive. Their combat record is extraordinary, so I have no reason to doubt that the system works for them, but I still wouldn't adopt a technique that I see as fundamentally flawed.

To answer your distance question, handgun engagements are almost always close in affairs because at extended distances, there are usually better options available. The short distance expectation is particularly true for non LEO's who rarely encounter situations where they have justification to use deadly force beyond across the room distances. Street encounters tend to take place within a couple of feet of arms length (both closer and further).

"Just use birdshot in your shotgun, you won't kill 'em and they'll run off"
"Put snakeshot in your revolver and shoot 'em in the face"
"Shotguns are great because you don't even have to aim them"

While taking my CHL class I heard the old "My 9mm hollow point has the same stopping power as a .45 because on impact it expands to the size of a .45" to which my instructor replied..."My .45 will NEVER shrink to the size of a 9mm on impact...."

Warhammer wrote:
Hold the flashlight as far away from your body as possible so the BG will shoot at the light instead of you.

One of my many newsletters from Front Site said that. That has to make it true doesn't it?

Excaliber wrote:The folks I referred to used their empty chamber technique at all distances, from contact on out. They insist it's essential to prevent ND's.

...

It should be kept in mind that most of the pistol engagements for these military folks are offensive - as in eliminating an assigned target . However, their doctrine does not vary whether the application is offensive or defensive.

I'm coming in late, but I believe that it's also worth mentioning that these same operatives have, for at least three decades, also trained in systems that directly integrate firearms handling, blade use, and empty-hand combatives techniques. That's partly the spec-ops-type nature of their roles. That's something that's ocurring more now in this country among LEOs and civilians, and I think's it's partly because of so many trained military operators returning to take civilian and police jobs over the course of the past decade. Prior to the early-90s or so, I believe it was fairly rare for a police department to fully integrate small arms and martial arts; they typically treated them as two separate things. Excaliber will certainly know better than I.

But the short of it is that, at close distances and all else being equal, I'd rather face someone trained with a pistol but not hand-to-hand combatives, than someone who is trained integrating both skills...even if I may disagree with the efficiency of certain aspects of the training. Another aside is that Excaliber mentioned the racking of the slide with the pistol held parallel to the ground; also worth observing is that this takes place with both hands meeting close to the center of the chest, not with the offhand reaching over to the gun-side. So there is ECQ application planned into the application.

Back to our regularly scheduled program.