(DRTV) Earning Your Draw

[drtv]

Earning Your Draw

One of the most disturbing aspects of many traditional combat shooting curricula is the fact that they contradict themselves. Michael Janich explains...
Source: Earning Your Draw

[alfsauve]

I'm all in favor of learning hand-to-hand or open hand techniques.  And I definitely think very close-in shooting is a good thing to practice.   However, I'm concerned with the logic by which MJ arrived at his conclusion.

1)  Is any sample drawn from LEOs valid when applied to the civilian population?
2)  Is a sample drawn from LEOs killed a valid basis for all other aggravated attacks?
3)  Do criminals have the same motive, motivation and goals when attacking LEOs as when they have when committing aggravated assault on civilians.

Again, not challenging the need for Very Close Quarters training, just the path at which MJ arrived at that conclusion.

Just some unorganized thoughts about the differences between civilian and LEOs.

LEOs put themselves in harms way daily.  And they do so at very close proximity to perps.
LEOs confront bad people.
Could it be the motivation is vastly different between civilian and LEO assaults?
Could it be criminals attack LEOs in order to avoid arrest, while they attack civilians for robbery or sexual assault purposes?    Does that make a difference for defensive training purposes?
Could it be attacks on LEOs are reactionary, spur-of-the-moment, and with whatever can be used for a weapon?
Could it be robbery/sex assaults are more planned and the weapon thought about in advance?
Could it be civilian targets are of opportunity while LEOs are attacked due to confrontation?

Why not study all aggravated assaults, not just those resulting in death.  Divide them  into categories, LEO and Civilian.  Then compare the findings to see what type of training is needed for each.    It could be the same results for both.   It could be different.   

All that said, yes, I do believe everyone needs to practice "earning their draw".

[Michael Janich]

Dear Alfsauve:

Thank you very much for your post and your comments. I agree completely. That's why I also study and analyze the statistics of simple and aggravated assaults. Just because they were not included in this article doesn't mean that I don't focus on them or consider them relevant.

The reason I chose the FBI statistics is that they then to be a favorite among the gun-centric crowd when it comes to characterizing the circumstances of the "typical gunfight." In fact, more compelling statistics for typical violent crime as it pertains to civilians can be found in Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports, which are based on NCVS surveys rather than reported crimes. Here's a link to the 2009 report:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

One of the most significant statistics in this report, in my opinion, is that roughly three quarters of all violent incidents do not involve the use of weapons. If that doesn't highlight the need for empty-hand and less-lethal weapon skills, I don't know what does.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Stay safe,

Mike