Handgun Holster, what are they used for? (in canada)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Military training with a holster involves the instructor telling the student to put the pistol in the holster. The student is then told to pull the pistol out and engage targets when told to etc..
That's about the extent of it. When we do gunfighter ranges and #### where we transition from the rifle (or missile launcher) to pistol we expect people to understand the complexities of pulling their pistol out aiming it and pulling the trigger because people have understood the dynamics of it since they were 5 :)
 
r34skyline said:
Did someone say way of the gun doge city?

50622-1-1391287636.jpeg
Click to expand...

Yep my new expression, feel free to use it! Pretty much describes 90% of the posts here.
 
Sorry for the injection of a little reality here ....

The REAL reason for disallowing the use of slings was the general lack of knowledge or ability to use one and the REAL reasons for disallowing the sitting position is because (a) a shooter slung up with a military sling in the sitting position is rock solid, and (b) most of these schmucks couldn't get their lard bucket carcasses down on the ground and back up again without assistance. Kneeling was a severe challenge for some.

Doing it with a rifle in hand meant muzzles were all over the place. Ergo, we had to lower the bar to accommodate the lowest common denominator. Simply a fact of the human bio-mechanics of the participants, a sad commentary on their general physical fitness.

mikethebike said:
You do NOT need military training or target rifle tactical carbine ninja bushido way of the gun dodge city doctrine training to understand the use of a sling...
Come on now, lets stop the insanity...

The best tactical training you'll ever get in your whole life is to be able to run 4 miles cross country and be able to put 10 shots on target on a 10 inch gong at 100 yards after those 4 miles regardless of firearm type. Since I'm not able to do that yet, no point in doing any other ninja tactical training.

When ill be able to do that and I've lost about 25 pounds and my damn love handles sure ill go the green line tactical ninja school.

Lets get real here guys and lets stop with the I've had training in this and that and thus better than anyone else argument and penile measurements please!
Click to expand...
 
Can-down said:
I remember having a fun debate with TDC about the ACTS and Prove VS the Fabulous Four a few years ago.... :)

If I recall correctly the part TDC doesn't like about ACTS PROVE is the examination of the bore after the gun has been checked and cleared of ammo.

The crucial 4 does not allow for an unloaded gun and there fore an examination of the bore by eye.

All guns are always loaded. This means that in order to eyeball the bore you would have to break one of the mighty 4 rules.

I get it ..... but that's a bit too rigid for me.

The fact that TDC sees ACTS and PROVE as complete insanity shows where he's coming from in this "debate" about holsters and training.

I don't see much difference in the ACTS and the Fundamental 4 but obviously somebody came up with the acronyms and course material to help newbies develop safe habits.

Nothing is perfect because of the human factor and I will agree with TDC that the Fundamental 4 that he prefers does cover it all simply.
Click to expand...

Hang on - you are saying that TDC believes in the fundamental four, despite his insistance that "ACTS and PROVE are completely retarded"
Doesn't that seem a little off? There are at least three points in ACTS that overlap with the fundamental four - ok as part of the four, but when they are part of ACTS they are "completely retarded".
This is what get for trying to have a discussion on the internet I guess :)
 
maetsack said:
Then why did you ask about them?
So you could troll.
And another one for which I'm done.
Click to expand...

I was commenting on the absurd overkill of your 3 to 4 month holster qualification regime which you are holding up as the way it should be done. My only question to you was which gun club you belong to so I can stay well clear...

If disagreeing with you is trolling, then I'm a troll.
 
maetsack said:
Hang on - you are saying that TDC believes in the fundamental four, despite his insistance that "ACTS and PROVE are completely retarded"
Doesn't that seem a little off? There are at least three points in ACTS that overlap with the fundamental four - ok as part of the four, but when they are part of ACTS they are "completely retarded".
This is what get for trying to have a discussion on the internet I guess :)
Click to expand...

You misunderstand him.
He is arguing for a simpler approach.

If you always assume it's loaded and treat it as such, there is no reason to make it safe for handling.

Obviously cleaning the chamber requires further steps.
 
Can-down said:
I've often had the same thoughts about the good ol days when the Wright Brothers were flying by the seat of their pants!

How exiting learning how to build a flying machine and then fly it all with basicly no previous experience or lessons!

Today's planes almost fly themselves and are way more advanced then the original designs but it takes for ever to go through all the training and is very expensive..... doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...

A little diversion, but TDC's logical fallacy falls into the category of appeal to authority. This one is a particular favourite of mine and I see it often on sites like CGN.
He must be right cause of his credentials (not provided) and yet I cannot be right cause I haven't provided mine - not at all hypocritical, but then I didn't open the door as enefgee would say.
Of course should I provide them, the typical tactic is to assault them, diverting us away from the validity of the actual argument. Hard to imagine we were going anywhere else with this.

I suspect we are both in a very similar boat - those that knows us acknowledge our credentials cause they know us, but neither of us is stupid enough to provide information to one another here and despite this appeal has no bearing on the argument anyway.

I'm sure he does have some training and I know I do.
 
Can-down said:
You misunderstand him.
He is arguing for a simpler approach.

If you always assume it's loaded and treat it as such, there is no reason to make it safe for handling.

Obviously cleaning the chamber requires further steps.
Click to expand...

No, no - he was quite clear - ACTS and PROVE are COMPLETE GARBAGE
He did not say ACTS and PROVE are excessive, but might be helpful to some who learn better via mnemonics.
He did not say they are good with the exception of the last step.

He said they were complete garbage. I can only assume he clears his weapon via some sort of telekinesis or psy-link :)
 
r34skyline said:
Can I ask what your credentials are? You talk big game, but you are talking smack to a lot of people I know have a lot of experience handling guns and some that shoot at top tier levels.
Are you suggesting that your holster training eliminates all chances of NDs? Last I checked that stood for NEGLIGENT discharge, somebody was not paying attention to what they were doing and ended up making the gun go bang when they didn't mean to. Training or not people can get careless, and that is what will lead to the ND.

If someone with no training is slow and careful about their draw always indexing their finger, practices thousands of times are they more likely to have a ND vs some hotshot that attended your fancy holster training session, and now thinks they are the king sh*t of the world and doesn't follow all the rules under an actual stressed scenario?

Remember you yourself said, after repeated practice you build muscle memory. Training is good, but having the right mindset is better still.

Since you push your doctrine rather hard, I have to ask you again, what do you do for a living?
Click to expand...

No, you may not ask personal information - we are not dating here.

This is again an appeal to authority fallacy - I tell you my credentials and you decide what about them you don't like and use that as justification to invalidate the argument.
Your request is BS - my credentials, while both valid and qualify me to say the things I say, are none of your business and have nothing to do with my argument that safe holster usage is more than just strapping on a holster and following ACTS/PROVE/the fundamental four or whatever flavour or variant you want to use.

Tell you what - you tell me what are the reasonable/minimum credentials I should have to make the claims I'm making. I guarantee I have them.

As for the point you made about someone who is slow and careful and practices a thousand times, you are correct, they are very likely to do that motion consistently the next time they do it. But you, like so many others, failed to address the fact that they MAY be doing it wrong. So they have practiced consistently doing something wrong and will continue to do it wrong. That may be ok in your books, but it really shouldn't be.

Finally who the eff said that I had some fancy holster training session??? I believe I was quite clear - members get basic instruction and then learn over the course of those few months. To do so they wear and use their holsters every night. The only thing outstanding is their formal certification. Your attitude is ridiculous - do you expect to walk into the door and say here's my holster I just bought, hand over my qualification? And remember, we do this for FREE. This is not a black badge course that occurs over a weekend. Our members volunteer their time and experience week over week so anyone who wants to learn can. Your judgmental attitude towards this is pathetic - try pointing it at your club if they don't offer something like this.
 
So I think I'm starting to understand TDC a little better - not agree with him, mind you.
If you would all indulge me in small survey, which of the following statements best describes your interpretation of the A in ACTS

1 - Assume all firearms are loaded
2 - Assume all firearms are loaded until proven otherwise

I won't comment on my choice, and I'm pretty sure I know what TDC would pick, but please, your thoughts?
 
maetsack said:
No, you may not ask personal information - we are not dating here.

This is again an appeal to authority fallacy - I tell you my credentials and you decide what about them you don't like and use that as justification to invalidate the argument.
Your request is BS - my credentials, while both valid and qualify me to say the things I say, are none of your business and have nothing to do with my argument that safe holster usage is more than just strapping on a holster and following ACTS/PROVE/the fundamental four or whatever flavour or variant you want to use.

Tell you what - you tell me what are the reasonable/minimum credentials I should have to make the claims I'm making. I guarantee I have them.

As for the point you made about someone who is slow and careful and practices a thousand times, you are correct, they are very likely to do that motion consistently the next time they do it. But you, like so many others, failed to address the fact that they MAY be doing it wrong. So they have practiced consistently doing something wrong and will continue to do it wrong. That may be ok in your books, but it really shouldn't be.

Finally who the eff said that I had some fancy holster training session??? I believe I was quite clear - members get basic instruction and then learn over the course of those few months. To do so they wear and use their holsters every night. The only thing outstanding is their formal certification. Your attitude is ridiculous - do you expect to walk into the door and say here's my holster I just bought, hand over my qualification? And remember, we do this for FREE. This is not a black badge course that occurs over a weekend. Our members volunteer their time and experience week over week so anyone who wants to learn can. Your judgmental attitude towards this is pathetic - try pointing it at your club if they don't offer something like this.
Click to expand...

That's what I am asking, what exactly do you mean by wrong? If you are drawing from the holster in a manner that does not set the firearm off it is drawing safely no? Perhaps you can tell me why that concept is so wrong. Are you arguing safety or efficiency?

The fundamental 4 is all that is required to run a holstered or unholstered firearm safely, follow the 4 and practice repeatedly.

Your reluctance to show your credentials and your rather hostile attitude when asked for it tells me you actually don't have much in the way of training(along with the hardware you are running, but that's beside the point as we are talking about the tactics not the gear). Let me guess, you are gonna dismiss this as trolling as well like you did with 5 other people? You should try and go into office with the liberal party of canada or the NDP, you have the right mindset for it.

There are guys on here that are competitive shooters, some are ex mil/le or current mil/le, some are both. We already know who they are. And you are insulting them and pretending you know more. And I have now posted this question on redback ones page, let's see what Jason Falla has to say on this matter. Of course you must know more than a ex aussie sas, that is also a professional instructor now too right?
 
r34skyline said:
That's what I am asking, what exactly do you mean by wrong? If you are drawing from the holster in a manner that does not set the firearm off it is drawing safely no? Perhaps you can tell me why that concept is so wrong. Are you arguing safety or efficiency?

The fundamental 4 is all that is required to run a holstered or unholstered firearm safely, follow the 4 and practice repeatedly.

Your reluctance to show your credentials and your rather hostile attitude when asked for it tells me you actually don't have much in the way of training(along with the hardware you are running, but that's beside the point as we are talking about the tactics not the gear). Let me guess, you are gonna dismiss this as trolling as well like you did with 5 other people? You should try and go into office with the liberal party of canada or the NDP, you have the right mindset for it.

There are guys on here that are competitive shooters, some are ex mil/le or current mil/le, some are both. We already know who they are. And you are insulting them and pretending you know more. And I have now posted this question on redback ones page, let's see what Jason Falla has to say on this matter. Of course you must know more than a ex aussie sas, that is also a professional instructor now too right?
Click to expand...

ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

You just can't let it go.
I gave you a chance to provide what credentials you would feel would be acceptable and you chose not to.
I guess we are done.
 
There is something profoundly wrong in an acronym that tells a noob to point a gun in his face in order to check if its unloaded. Incidentally, the same guy who taught the us the acronym during my gun license class also got into an argument with me about mag capacities: he didn't believe me when I told him the Lee-Enfield and M1 Garand we allowed 10 and 8 shots respectively. He dismissed it and said I was mixing hunting rifles with military assault rifles.

f:P:
 
r34skyline said:
There are guys on here that are competitive shooters, some are ex mil/le or current mil/le, some are both. We already know who they are. And you are insulting them and pretending you know more. And I have now posted this question on redback ones page, let's see what Jason Falla has to say on this matter. Of course you must know more than a ex aussie sas, that is also a professional instructor now too right?
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom