I would guess that the majority of violent crime against civilians happens at extreme close-quarters/contact distances.
However, looking over some of the available stats regarding civilians using firearms in self-defense, while they do mostly happen at fairly close distances, it seems they rarely occur at ECQ range/contact distances.
Why might that be the case?
Thank you.
One of the most common, if not THE most common reason for a civilian to use a handgun in self defense is an armed robbery. The key word is "armed". The whole purpose of the robber's gun/knife/club is to allow him to terrorize a victim into compliance from a stand-off distance, then close in and take the stuff once compliance is gained.
Robberies, car-jackings and home invasions don't start as fist-fights, then turn into shootings. In 66 debriefed student shootings of ours, only 2 involved any physical contact at all. Only one of those involved intentional contact, the other was purely accidental.
Undercover narc's, like Southnarc, have to be in arm's reach of thugs continually to do hand to hand drug transactions. These often become rip-offs. Thus, he has been in a lot of contact distance fights.
Contact distance fight techniques like those taught in ECQC are still important. IF you do get involved in a bad breath distance fight, controlling your adversary and accessing your own weapon will require some skill.
I think it's because if we drew a Venn diagram of people who have the skills to turn an ECQ-distance attack into an ECQ-distance defensive firearm use, and people allow themselves to get into that situation, you'd end up with very, very little overlap.
Awareness of both the problem and the skills to handle it usually induce a proclivity to avoid it altogether.
I'd wager the majority of actual ECQC-type events occur between folks that no matter who wins it doesn't get counted as a "defensive" gun use (e.g. Both parties are already engaged in criminal behavior).
That's not to discount the importance of the skill set, or of the class. But for the average-Joe classtaker guy, much (most?)of the benefit is putting them into the hole so deep they know not to find their way into one.
Last edited by LOKNLOD; 11-15-2016 at 01:59 PM. Reason: "Bad language" = poor grammar and spelling
--Josh
“Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws.” - Tacitus.
For the average citizen the MUC (Managing Unknown Contacts) portion of Craig's training is by far the most valuable part of ECQC. This is how you learn to keep the problem from becoming an entangled fight. Positioning, verbal agility, recognizing pre-assault indicators-- this stuff is invaluable to everyone. When Craig starts reading from the Book of Fallopians you should listen.
I think if you look at Tom's data base what we can say is that his students do an exceptionally good job of using their awareness to pick up threats early and they've been conditioned by Tom in his mindset lecture to get to doing business. That doesn't mean that robberies and carjackings don't occur at contact ranges.
Here's six random videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMIJuW2kVes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFxztkh5Jxg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MkXs67ledE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQYEjkOHD3A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfnIlMSgWg
http://ktla.com/2016/09/22/man-woman...illance-video/
Every single one involves body contact and touching of the victim.
Tom,Originally Posted by Tom Givens
I know you didn't intend to, but this sort of minimizes Craig's coursework, which I found to be really excellent.
He doesn't really teach shooting in the class, but he runs a line and teaches contact distance shooting better than anywhere or anyone I have ever seen. You cannot learn to fight in 2 days, but his combatives are more relevant than pretty much anywhere else I have trained. I especially want my daughters to go through it when they are older. Most fights I have seen where the loser ended up really badly hurt or killed were ECQC type affairs. Most people are unprepared for that type of fight. ECQC gives you the education to train better, and at least an introduction to it for those who won't.
Last edited by SLG; 11-15-2016 at 09:48 PM.
SLG,
I absolutely did not intend to minimize Craig's work. What I meant was, if you get the MUC part right, you might not have to do the entangled fight part.
I was one of the very first to host an open enrollment class for Craig well over 10 years ago, and have hosted ECQC several times, as well as AMIS, EWO, and MUC/PUC. He and I teach together 2-3 times each year. He handles the 0-2 meter stuff and I the 2-25 meter stuff. He is without doubt, the very best in the industry for teaching how to handle the close in problem, with hands, blades and guns integrated. I certainly did not intend to disrepect him or his coursework.
Last edited by Tom Givens; 11-15-2016 at 10:03 PM.
As I said, I know you didn't intend anything by it. For others with less exposure, I thought it was worth going over some of the highlights. Totally agree about MUC being a foundational aspect to the whole thing. I will admit, I forgot that you guys do courses together, my bad.
Last edited by SLG; 11-15-2016 at 09:49 PM.
And just so everyone knows Tom was one of the very first guys to help me in the early days of my road show and has been completely supportive of everything I teach. He is a trusted industry senior who I always listen to and dear friend.
Last edited by SouthNarc; 11-15-2016 at 10:27 PM.
"When treading amongst giants be careful not to step on your own crank." --Guy whose name isn't orange
If anything in my post could be construed as devaluing Craig's coursework, it wasn't my intent at all. Tom nailed it with the comment on the value of the MUC component. It's something you can use to hopefully ensure you never have to rely on the concepts taught the next day...
--Josh
“Formerly we suffered from crimes; now we suffer from laws.” - Tacitus.
Reply With Quote