2014 Training Classes Central Indiana

[Jackson]

I understand the sarcasm/joke intentions, but this is just a slight pet peeve of mine with what the "professional" instructors tout as the mantra in the industry.

I don't think its necessarily all instructors or necessarily an industry-wide deal. I do know what you're saying though. The majority of instructors will probably say concealment is a good idea.

It's premised on the assumption that you're more likely to be a bystander to a violent crime than the intended target.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think its based on the idea that, even if you are the intended target, displaying the gun forces the situation along the force continuum much more quickly. It is possible that displaying it will cause the assailant to move along to the next potential victim to avoid that end of the continuum and you'll never know it. It is also possible the assailant will see the gun and realize he needs to act decisively and with significantly more agression against you, and you'll never know that either until its happened. I think these instructors are viewing it in terms of that risk. There are two components to measuring risk. Probability and severity. While the probability of the second outcome may be smaller (though, as you mentioned, we have no data on which to base that assumption), the severity would be much greater. Greater even than if you'd not displayed the gun and left yourself more options with which to deal with a less decisive and less agressive threat.

Please note, I am not making an argument either way. I am just saying it could be seen this way. I don't think pro-concealment instructors are assuming you will only be witness to a crime. I think they are saying that you will be the victim and above is how they may weigh the risk of concealment vs open carry.

 

[Jackson]

TDI is the one out of Ohio right? There's another school with a similar acronym and I get the names mixed up.

Yes. You may be confusing TDI (in Ohio) with DTI (Defense Training International) which is John Farnam's organization.

 

[Jackson]

Sort of. For the average soldier, yes. For grunts (combat arms military occupations/infantry) pretty much the same. Even at the most basic level of training Marines (and I would assume Army grunts too) learn building and room clearing and movement. They do this in single man, two man, three, and four or more man teams. Obviously, single man is not preferred, but situation dictates tactics and sometimes it may become necessary. A significant portion of the recent war consisted of mostly/nothing but close building work for a lot of those deployed.

I don't have a lot of time to create a long detailed post to help you like I'd like bingley (I've got to get ready to catch a flight), but if there is any one thing I can post to help you it's the single most basic and yet most important principle of structure work.



Also, beyond this I do think there was a good video or two on the basics for single man movement on Panteao. Likely worth the $20 for a month for you.

Indeed. I guess I assumed it was specially trained units doing these searches. Again, I don't claim to have any knowledge of .mil training. I do seem to notice it being an area where the military is beefing up training in reaction to the current war environment. And where military training can really bring a lot to the table in this discussion is in terms of team work. All of the military training I see on TV or other videos generally has an element of team building or other team work. I'm confident the military has some effective methods to build effective teams.

I would also note that what works for a team of Marines with body armor, explosives, and reinforcements, may not be applicable to the average citizen on his own. So while some concepts carry over, others might just get the average joe in a bad situation.

 

[Jackson]

Sort of. For the average soldier, yes. For grunts (combat arms military occupations/infantry) pretty much the same. Even at the most basic level of training Marines (and I would assume Army grunts too) learn building and room clearing and movement. They do this in single man, two man, three, and four or more man teams. Obviously, single man is not preferred, but situation dictates tactics and sometimes it may become necessary. A significant portion of the recent war consisted of mostly/nothing but close building work for a lot of those deployed.

I don't have a lot of time to create a long detailed post to help you like I'd like bingley (I've got to get ready to catch a flight), but if there is any one thing I can post to help you it's the single most basic and yet most important principle of structure work.



Also, beyond this I do think there was a good video or two on the basics for single man movement on Panteao. Likely worth the $20 for a month for you.

If you put the outside of that doorway in the corner coming immediately off of a narrow stairwell, you can really complicate the issue. :-)

 

[the1kidd03]

I don't think its necessarily all instructors or necessarily an industry-wide deal. I do know what you're saying though. The majority of instructors will probably say concealment is a good idea.




I don't think that's necessarily true. I think its based on the idea that, even if you are the intended target, displaying the gun forces the situation along the force continuum much more quickly. It is possible that displaying it will cause the assailant to move along to the next potential victim to avoid that end of the continuum and you'll never know it. It is also possible the assailant will see the gun and realize he needs to act decisively and with significantly more agression against you, and you'll never know that either until its happened. I think these instructors are viewing it in terms of that risk. There are two components to measuring risk. Probability and severity. While the probability of the second outcome may be smaller (though, as you mentioned, we have no data on which to base that assumption), the severity would be much greater. Greater even than if you'd not displayed the gun and left yourself more options with which to deal with a less decisive and less agressive threat.

Please note, I am not making an argument either way. I am just saying it could be seen this way. I don't think pro-concealment instructors are assuming you will only be witness to a crime. I think they are saying that you will be the victim and above is how they may weigh the risk of concealment vs open carry.

I understand and can see that as well. I just don't agree with it from my personal experience and research into that element of our society. The large majority are not willing to go to that level of risk for merely what you have on you and the sight of the gun will deter them. My wife and I have both witnessed that affect first hand as well. However, there are entirely different motivations pushing someone who's willing to go to that next level and no amount of deterrence will affect their decision much.

Most of the statistics which support the theory of OCing being targeted involve uniformed LEOs. However, that's really irrelevent when you consider motivations. The person likely conducting the attack already has a criminal history and from their life experience has deeply rooted resentment for police. Hence, they are likely to target them for those psychological reasons (typically ascribing blame for their misfortune to officers in general.) Not purely because he/she had a gun which is what we would have to assume to apply that to the average OCing citizen.

Perhaps it's just from my sociological/psychological studies and research, but the way I see it the likelihood of encountering or being in an area to encounter a person willing to initiate that level of violence regardless of the risk to themselves is incredibly small. Of course, on that same premise if I'm going to be walking down the street in an area like Haughville, or 42nd and Post Rd. (where I'm more likely to encounter such a person) then an outer cover garment will be added to my mix of strategies as well as a few other differences. I'm mostly speaking in terms of the "most common" and of course based on the areas which I frequent since I don't know the areas everyone else here frequents.

 

[the1kidd03]

Indeed. I guess I assumed it was specially trained units doing these searches. Again, I don't claim to have any knowledge of .mil training. I do seem to notice it being an area where the military is beefing up training in reaction to the current war environment. And where military training can really bring a lot to the table in this discussion is in terms of team work. All of the military training I see on TV or other videos generally has an element of team building or other team work. I'm confident the military has some effective methods to build effective teams.

I would also note that what works for a team of Marines with body armor, explosives, and reinforcements, may not be applicable to the average citizen on his own. So while some concepts carry over, others might just get the average joe in a bad situation.

Yes and no. The military adjusts training focus based on the environments they are encountering the most in the current times. During Vietnam, they hadn't really encountered that sort of environment much prior and with the sort of weapons/tactics which were faced. So, it was a steep learning curve which came at a great cost. The training you've likely seen on TV is entry level training like basic. This is focused on learning teamwork, unit cohesion, and simply adusting them to military lifestyle. The real training happens after that, once they've proven they can hack it in military life. Of course, they don't focus a great deal on individual building movement, but they do train in it in case they need it. They try to abide by a buddy system of having at least 2 men. Circumstances just don't always allow for that though.

However, in areas where the two worlds meet military and top LE groups meet and train with one another quite often. Particularly LA units and the surrounding Marine bases. Most of their LE tactics originated from lessons learned from military units and joint training efforts. Hell, LAPD posts flyers all over Camp Pendleton looking for Marines to join their ranks after separation with starting salary figures and other perks posted on them. Of course, there are some aspects where the LE have knowledge to offer specific military units as well. For some reason, something regarding urban counter sniper operations comes to mind as being one where LE specifically had experience to offer, but I can't remember exactly because that's not from firsthand experience.

The military units do have more disposable resources at hand than the average citizen. They typically have less legal concerns as well to some degree. However, that doesn't mean they take unecessary risks/chances at the unit level. The job is to fight for the guy to your left or right. Taking unecessary risks is not just putting you at risk, but the whole team as well. So, while they may have body armor on, the objective is still to not need/use it. The tactics or basic principles are relatively the same, especially at the introductory level. They will change a bit from single man, to team efforts though in accordance with the inherent risk.

 

[the1kidd03]

If you put the outside of that doorway in the corner coming immediately off of a narrow stairwell, you can really complicate the issue. :-)

I hate trying to visualize words.. lol

 

[bingley]

Deleted.

 

[the1kidd03]

Deleted.

Agreed. Exactly why I mentioned my mode of carry changed depending on location.

EDIT: That was quick, lol.

 

[Jackson]

Deleted.

Now I'm curious. I was too late, apparently.

 

[Jackson]

I hate trying to visualize words.. lol

I could have used a better description and some commas to help out. No matter. :-)

 

[the1kidd03]

Now I'm curious. I was too late, apparently.

Just reiterating the point of location changing carry styles and wishing to avoid the dreaded OC/CC debate.

 

[Jackson]

The military units do have more disposable resources at hand than the average citizen. They typically have less legal concerns as well to some degree. However, that doesn't mean they take unecessary risks/chances at the unit level. The job is to fight for the guy to your left or right. Taking unecessary risks is not just putting you at risk, but the whole team as well. So, while they may have body armor on, the objective is still to not need/use it. The tactics or basic principles are relatively the same, especially at the introductory level. They will change a bit from single man, to team efforts though in accordance with the inherent risk.

I'm not saying they take unnecessary risks. I am saying they take different risks and different tactics maybe appropriate for each. What a Marine flowing in to a building with a stack of other marines behind him should do is not necessarily what Joe Citizen with nothing but a pistol and a prayer should do when faced with the same danger on the other side. That's all I'm saying.

 

[the1kidd03]

I'm not saying they take unnecessary risks. I am saying they take different risks and different tactics maybe appropriate for each. What a Marine flowing in to a building with a stack of other marines behind him should do is not necessarily what Joe Citizen with nothing but a pistol and a prayer should do when faced with the same danger on the other side. That's all I'm saying.

Of course. Exactly why I said they certainly change between one man and multiple. Changes are more slight from 2 to 3, 4, 5, etc.

Like I said, I think someone on the Panteao lineup put a video that covers some good basics for such an instance like bingley is looking for. I think maybe it was Paul Howe, but I could be wrong on the person. Probably worth his look for only $20.

 

[Jackson]

Of course. Exactly why I said they certainly change between one man and multiple. Changes are more slight from 2 to 3, 4, 5, etc.

Like I said, I think someone on the Panteao lineup put a video that covers some good basics for such an instance like bingley is looking for. I think maybe it was Paul Howe, but I could be wrong on the person. Probably worth his look for only $20.

I agree. I think we're speaking the same language.

I think the big break in approach comes between 3 people and 4+ people. With 2 or 3 you can leave a lot open and have to move slowly to not leave gaping openings in your fields of responsbility. With 4 people you can cover a lot of area, increase the pace, and start to get a lot more work done. I've never worked in a 4 person group, but that's what I suspect based on what little I know.

I'd be interested in learning how to work in a larger team but its really not applicable to my life. My resourses are better spent elswhere. I also don't have 4 like-minded people who are up-to-speed enough on the basics to take with me. And going and learning with strangers, while fun, leaves me a lot less to bring home and work with.

If you come up with the name of that video please post it. I'd be interested.

 

[the1kidd03]

I agree. I think we're speaking the same language.

I think the big break in approach comes between 3 people and 4+ people. With 2 or 3 you can leave a lot open and have to move slowly to not leave gaping openings in your fields of responsbility. With 4 people you can cover a lot of area, increase the pace, and start to get a lot more work done. I've never worked in a 4 person group, but that's what I suspect based on what little I know.

I'd be interested in learning how to work in a larger team but its really not applicable to my life. My resourses are better spent elswhere. I also don't have 4 like-minded people who are up-to-speed enough on the basics to take with me. And going and learning with strangers, while fun, leaves me a lot less to bring home and work with.

If you come up with the name of that video please post it. I'd be interested.

I really want to say it was a Paul Howe video. Perhaps it was the active shooter one. I guess it could have been the Pat Rogers one on shoot houses, but I really think it was Howe because I remember some things he covered/mentioned in the video as being specifically military in nature. He was covering it from a one man perspective (using angles of vision, moving slowly, etc.)

Also, Howe really hit the nail on the head on a lot of things in his mindset video. That video can really give you some insight into the mind of the common psycho, LOL. Warning however, if you are squeemish don't watch it. There is a video clip near the end which is very real and likely the most graphic thing many people have ever seen. (like right out of a classic horror movie, only real people and death)

 

[bingley]

Like I said, I think someone on the Panteao lineup put a video that covers some good basics for such an instance like bingley is looking for. I think maybe it was Paul Howe, but I could be wrong on the person. Probably worth his look for only $20.

I don't see such a video under Howe's titles at Panty-o. There is Exterior Movement, but not something on interior movement. Do you remember other details?

 

[the1kidd03]

I don't see such a video under Howe's titles at Panty-o. There is Exterior Movement, but not something on interior movement. Do you remember other details?

Yeah, you're right. I just skimmed the preview for the one I thought it was. That definitely isn't the one I remember. I'll skim through and see if I can find it real quick. They've changed the layout of the site since I was last on it.

 

[the1kidd03]

Some of the content appears to be on Civilian Response to Active Shooters with Paul Howe, but I think another video of his he's demonstrating more movement tactics too because the video I remember he didn't have the porn stache. Have you watched that one?

 

[bingley]

I haven't seen the Civilian Response video. I take classes regularly, but I haven't done videos. Maybe the video you're thinking of isn't by Panteao?