Excellent DB, Cecil, Haggard (etc.) Podcast

[Rex G]

Excellent. Just finished watching it; will need to see a few more times, to process everything.

Edited to add: This one will probably become one of my “regular” things to hear, during long drives, and such, as I do with the P&S episode on Snub-Guns.

[Rex G]

New here, but I’m certainly looking forward to listening to this

Welcome to P-F!

[cundiff5535]

Thanks brother! Much love man.

[blues]

Good podcast with good, common sense advice.

Why is that so rare these days?

Thank you, gentlemen.

[Cecil Burch]

thanks everyone. That was a fun episode to do too. We could have gone hours longer, but Chuck was nodding off

I am really happy to see this kind of stuff get traction.

[parishioner]

I'll start with saying that was an awesome podcast. Just so sensible and what I feel the community could use more of. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

However there is one thing I'm not clear on and I hope I can articulate myself well enough because sometimes I have difficulty doing that.

I feel as though there are conflicting ideas that have been presented that I hope can be fleshed out and maybe explained a bit better to me.

On one hand we have this entire discussion about being prepared for the most likely scenario one is to encounter, for example the mugging or unwanted encounter at the gas station vs the "ISIS attack at Walmart". This would lend itself to a more minimal/practical daily load out like OC along with a small pistol vs a "roland special with a 20rd magazine" multiple spare magazines and armor in the truck. Obviously everyone needs to asses their own situation but this this seemed to be the general take away.

On the other hand, I'd like to mention a post that Cecil made recently describing writings from an older book. Ill quote the post.

One aspect of this that never fails to amaze me is how much knowledge there was before, that gets lost. We get a bit complacent in the 21st century with all the advantages to the internet age and assume that we know so much that prior generations did not, and to an extent, that is true. However, it is not true across the board. Often, we forget hard won chunks of information and knowledge and are forced to waste time and re-discover things. A great illustration of the point is this book. It is about case studies in police survival situations, and it was written in 1975. Take a look at the chapter headings. How many of those are still being brought up in an effort to learn? Chapter 12 in particular stands out screaming at me, and is perfectly applicable to the armed private citizen and their self-defense needs. “Beware of the typical and average” could have been written on a social media or blog post yesterday. It covers how there truly is no such monster as “an average gunfight/self-defense situation”. Look at one of the pages from that chapter that just shows how many of these incidents start. You still hear this kind of advice in the defensive hand gunning community – “the typical gunfight is …….” And yet in 1975 it was understood by some folks that there is no such thing. And yet nearly 50 years later we are still fighting to get that out. Just amazing to contemplate.

Daryl in this very podcast even touched on something similar when he described post incident interviews with officers and how the incidents never happened how the officer envisioned they would. What I take away from this is just that, there is no 'most likely scenario' and how these violent encounters often descend into pure chaos and to me this lends itself to the other side of the spectrum of being more prepared with something like a "roland special" or what have you since we don't know what were going to encounter.

I'm not advocating either or. I just want to explore these seemingly two opposing thoughts and find a balance somewhere. I hope this made sense. I have the utmost respect for the panel and this is not a criticism in any way. I'm probably just missing something obvious to be honest.

[revchuck38]

I think you're getting hung up by thinking "most likely scenario" rather than "more likely scenario". While there is no "typical" gunfight, it's more likely that as normal earth people we'll encounter a short-range, low round count situation. Bolke has noted in at least one of the classes I've taken with him that drawing to what he calls a "hard ready" stops most encounters right there since it's apparent that you're not food, and the bad guy is looking for an easy meal.

I'm not a convert to the J frame lifestyle, yet anyway. I'm quite comfortable with a K frame, though, and my full-size PX4s are spending more time in the safe.

[blues]

I'm not a convert of the J frame lifestyle, yet anyway. I'm quite comfortable with a K frame, though, and my full-size PX4s are spending more time in the safe.

I've been an adherent to the J-frame lifestyle for home and walking distances from home...dog walks, mailbox down on the "main road", neighbor visits etc.

Once my foot enters the 4Runner I have a G26 with a spare mag.

(POM spray, or a midget sap usually accompany as the less than lethal alternatives.)

Bolke seems to be on board with this as well, though I was doing it before I was aware of his personal choices.

[parishioner]

I think you're getting hung up by thinking "most likely scenario" rather than "more likely scenario". While there is no "typical" gunfight, it's more likely that as normal earth people we'll encounter a short-range, low round count situation.

I feel like most and more are fairly analogous in this context?

"We are most likely to encounter a short-range, low round count situation"

"We are more likely to encounter a short-range, low round count situation rather than an ISIS attack at Walmart"

The net result is the same to me. I feel like I'm taking the ACT again, lol

[45dotACP]

My thoughts on the J frame life...its for very uncomplicated situations/systems.

A grappler I respect a good deal has talked about how systems and systematic thinking tends to work well for situations that are more predictable and less chaotic, but that as the unpredictability increases, one must rely on rules of thumb, and for the most dynamic/chaotic systems, you tend to rely on intuition or your own ability to appropriately react in a self organized way (a way that's often done without mental effort), often the result of familiarity and experience.

For instance: A mugging or robbery might require a fairly straightforward systematic response of "wait for the right moment to counterattack" and is less chaotic than a mass shooting, which may require you to navigate obstacles, maintain muzzle and trigger finger discipline, consider your ability to engage an armored target, several targets etc. There are likely several rules of thumb and decision trees you have to go through in that situation.

One rule of thumb is "Carry a big, easy to shoot gun with lots of ammo and shoot the enemy until he stops. Have a long gun if you can, friends with long guns if at all possible"

But that rule is moot when you consider that the shot is 3 yards or less on a big target and you can produce a head shot in less than 1.5 seconds from a pocket drawn J frame. The responses to your situation are not very numerous. You don't need a bunch of Marines with Benelli 12 gauges and M4s.

But that rule applies more if you wind up exchanging gunfire with a criminal and the situation is no longer a basic notion of "If A then B".

"Which direction is this person going? What targets can I hit? Should I be behind cover? When do I stop shooting? How do I know he's down?"

These are usually questions that those of us who are inexperienced with this sort of thing must solve by using rules of thumb which were distilled down by smart, experienced instructors and then shared with us.

Having those skills intuitively...that is to say the skills of a two way fight with guns...is something you don't get unless you have had a lot of two way fights with guns.

As for the technical side of things...yes, we know the techniques and have the skills, but ask any purple belt today to show you all the techniques they know and I'll bet they know more than someone like Megaton Dias knew at purple belt. Some might know more than he does at black. But he is able to beat them easily, because he has intuition, which is described as rules of thumb being embodied so that you can act on them in a way that requires no real mental effort. That purple belt needs to still operate in a way that requires thought. Megaton doesn't.

Anyways I'm rambling. To me, a j frame or pocket gun is a rule of thumb by itself.

It is a single response to a highly predictable and less complex situation. It will not be sufficient for a chaotic or unpredictable situation and that limits your response to something like that to "disengage and gtfo whether that guy is dead or moving or whatever because you are out of ammo"

At this point the question is what situation seems most likely. The service gun or rifle offers you more leeway in your response, but also does require you to have an intuitive grasp of the situation at hand or at least to be functional at a high degree of competence (e.g. being well trained)

Anyways, the effect of my caffeine is waning so without making myself sound more stupid I'll defer to the smarter, more experienced guys

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk