Why I prefer the Israeli Method in light of the Sandy Hook event [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why I prefer the Israeli Method in light of the Sandy Hook event


Jake Starr
12-21-2012, 05:42
I am an advocate of the Israeli method for quite sometime. Prefer it to all others.

In light of the recent tragic events in CT, here is why I prefer it.

1. The obvious safety factor of carrying C3, especially in a civilian context, i.e. schools.
2. It is taught from a Counter-terrorists perspective. It is exactly what we would deem the appropriate response to an Active Shooter Scenario.
If schools or other “soft-targets” were to have armed teachers or private armed security, I would want them to be trained in the Israeli Method.

And this is not primarily about condition of carry, but rather appropriate response.

If you focus on the former and ignore the later you do not understand the "Israeli" method.

Lior
12-21-2012, 06:08
1. Carrying C3 is okay if you are not being specifically targeted, but are part of a group that is being attacked. I would not carry C3 in a high crime environment.
2. I strongly recommend that laws be changed to allow adults who work at schools to train to shoot and carry firearms, if they want to.

JMS
12-21-2012, 07:12
If someone cannot carry safely in C-1 they have no business carrying at all.

KalashniKEV
12-21-2012, 07:14
If "The Israeli Method" is having armed guards/ fixed site security, then I agree with you... if it's not having a round in the chamber, then I certainly don't.

The whole idea is that someone would attend training to become proficient with their weapons- so "C3" aka Condition 3 aka Dead Man's Carry aka Status Amber would be completely unnecessary.

Lior
12-21-2012, 07:16
We know, *** **** * **** ** for C3.

Not a very respectful post, Sir. Would recommend that you edit. And I do carry C2 sometimes.

G36's Rule
12-21-2012, 07:17
UNnecessary...

Dude never misses a chance to push the empty chamber stuff.

NeverMore1701
12-21-2012, 07:24
Not a very respectful post, Sir. Would recommend that you edit. And I do carry C2 sometimes.

Not directed at you.


UNnecessary...

Dude never misses a chance to push the empty chamber stuff.

This.

ronin.45
12-21-2012, 07:41
How would not having a round chambered be beneficial at Sandy Hook? While I wish that a gun, in any condition, was available, I fail to see how C3 would have made a difference.

Lior
12-21-2012, 07:41
Right. Sorry. Carry on Sir.

tarpleyg
12-21-2012, 07:48
It has been my experience with people that have theories like this that they often have never had any formal training. I may be wrong about Jake Starr but I'm guessing I'm not. With a competent instructor you can actually see how the different methods are employed and thus see that condition 1 carry is vastly superior. I'd prefer to have one less thing to worry about when I hear the first gun shot.

smokin762
12-21-2012, 07:52
Maybe that teacher will have time to grade some papers too before they had to protect children and themselves.

DustyJacket
12-21-2012, 08:19
.. With a competent instructor you can actually see how the different methods are employed and thus see that condition 1 carry is vastly superior...

I carry cocked and locked, however - when you are talking teachers and other people who do not train a lot, that might not be safest. We are talking teachers here, right?

I would prefer to have lockd doors and buzzers, camera on every entrance exit door, and a team of at least 2 armed security/police, who would escoert visitors to the office. Maybe even metal detectors or wands to be used at the doors.

NeverMore1701
12-21-2012, 09:19
I carry cocked and locked, however - when you are talking teachers and other people who do not train a lot, that might not be safest. We are talking teachers here, right?

I would prefer to have lockd doors and buzzers, camera on every entrance exit door, and a team of at least 2 armed security/police, who would escoert visitors to the office. Maybe even metal detectors or wands to be used at the doors.

Which would do what when someone makes their own door with a truck?

DustyJacket
12-21-2012, 09:41
That is what armed security/police are for

jp3975
12-21-2012, 09:52
If you're talking a school environment and its a teacher carrying...i say israeli is best.

People can be incompetent. A student could get the gun. Having the chamber empty could save someone. And we really wouldnt need bad press on teachers carrying if they where allowed to, which i doubt will happen in many instances.

AK_Stick
12-21-2012, 10:00
Your right, teachers are likely to be untrained, and inexperienced. Precisely why C3 is a bad idea. They're likely to forget or miss a step and have no chance to defend themselves.

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 10:03
That is what armed security/police are for

Like those super tactical overweight security guards? Yep, one look at those guys and I can just tell they are shooters. Certainly the best trained option for the schools. Much better than a proactive, committed teacher that may have the actual desire to protect their children as apposed to guy who needed a gig to pay bills.

AK_Stick
12-21-2012, 10:14
Haven't met many teachers who I imagine would be willing to plunk down the extra time to learn to be truly proficient with a weapon.

Your much more likely to end up with a bunch of teachers who fired the gun once and put it away, in places like CT, end up with a bunch of liberal teachers who want nothing to do with guns anyways.

Yep, would much rather have a paid security guard than a teacher trying to play security.

Dragoon44
12-21-2012, 10:18
Your right, teachers are likely to be untrained, and inexperienced. Precisely why C3 is a bad idea. They're likely to forget or miss a step and have no chance to defend themselves.

WTF are you talking about? don't you know that mere possession of a gun imparts the mindset of a warrior?

isn't it strange how the far left and many of the pro gun camp agree? That it is the gun itself that turns people into stone cold killers.

:whistling:

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 10:19
Haven't met many teachers who I imagine would be willing to plunk down the extra time to learn to be truly proficient with a weapon.

Your much more likely to end up with a bunch of teachers who fired the gun once and put it away, in places like CT, end up with a bunch of liberal teachers who want nothing to do with guns anyways.

Yep, would much rather have a paid security guard than a teacher trying to play security.

If they don't keep up on the training than they shouldn't be part of the plan. Just because someone is a paid security guard doesn't make them a great option either.

Dragoon44
12-21-2012, 10:21
Like those super tactical overweight security guards? Yep, one look at those guys and I can just tell they are shooters.

So what exactly does a shooter look like? during my career I had opportunity to interact with many who had pulled the trigger, either wrongfully or in self defense. I can't recall there being a particular body type. so I'm curious, what in your experience id the body type profile of a "Shooter".

AK_Stick
12-21-2012, 10:26
If they don't keep up on the training than they shouldn't be part of the plan. Just because someone is a paid security guard doesn't make them a great option either.

We struggle as it is to find enough teachers. Where are you going to find enough new teachers to replace the old ones who don't want to carry a gun or meet the training criteria?

Where are you going to find the money to pay for the kind of training and the schedule of fire required to make teachers into warriors?

PaulMason
12-21-2012, 10:26
I am an advocate of the Israeli method for quite sometime. Prefer it to all others.

In light of the recent tragic events in CT, here is why I prefer it.

1. The obvious safety factor of carrying C3, especially in a civilian context, i.e. schools.
2. It is taught from a Counter-terrorists perspective. It is exactly what we would deem the appropriate response to an Active Shooter Scenario.
If schools or other “soft-targets” were to have armed teachers or private armed security, I would want them to be trained in the Israeli Method.

And this is not primarily about condition of carry, but rather appropriate response.

If you focus on the former and ignore the later you do not understand the "Israeli" method.

Modern 1911s (45 and 9mm) have a grip safety and slide safety and a retention holster and you have 3 safeties.

How many more are needed?

Go C3 if you want - it is better then not having a gun at all.

I'm carrying a S&W bodyguard 380 now - it has a frame safety and long hard trigger pull - 2 safeties.

Maybe you are carrying the wrong gun for your experience/knowledge/abilities and carrying C3 is appropriate.

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 10:31
So what exactly does a shooter look like? during my career I had opportunity to interact with many who had pulled the trigger, either wrongfully or in self defense. I can't recall there being a particular body type. so I'm curious, what in your experience id the body type profile of a "Shooter".

A "Shooter" can be anybody that trains properly. There is no body type nor is there a common profession that says you are or are not a shooter. To most here, a teacher is not a shooter but a security guard is. My experience is that most people can't shoot even though they think they can. I don't give the benefit of the doubt to a security guard nor a teacher but I think that either of them are capable if they are type of person that has the mindset to apply themselves to what we are discussing. Being a teacher does not automatically put one into the non-shooter category.

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 10:34
We struggle as it is to find enough teachers. Where are you going to find enough new teachers to replace the old ones who don't want to carry a gun or meet the training criteria?

Where are you going to find the money to pay for the kind of training and the schedule of fire required to make teachers into warriors?

Look bro, I understand where you are comming from. And I'm not saying there needs to be a replacement of teachers. The ones that can meet whatever requirements the school system requires should be allowed to be on board. There is not going to be a "warrior" pool of security guards to pull from either.

Roering
12-21-2012, 10:40
First off, we should allow/encourage teachers to carry, not force them.
Also, each teacher should be allowed to carry in a manner that they are comfortable with given their own assessment of ability and proficiency with their weapon.

AK_Stick
12-21-2012, 10:44
Evidently you don't see where I'm coming from.

Teachers, are busy enough trying to be teachers and nothing else.

Security guards come in all flavors. From the bums who work at the mall for 9 an hour, to legitimate weapons trained professionals. You get what you pay for.

Arming teachers, who want to be part of the "plan" is a feel good measure, and nothing more. Your advocating an exercise in mental ************. You would end up with a handful of teachers scattered across the country with a clue, and thousands who are simply accidents looking to happen.

You want real security? You mandate the level of training you require, and make sure the security guards you get are not unarmed mall cops like you have now.

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 10:55
Evidently you don't see where I'm coming from.

Teachers, are busy enough trying to be teachers and nothing else.

Security guards come in all flavors. From the bums who work at the mall for 9 an hour, to legitimate weapons trained professionals. You get what you pay for.

Arming teachers, who want to be part of the "plan" is a feel good measure, and nothing more. Your advocating an exercise in mental ************. You would end up with a handful of teachers scattered across the country with a clue, and thousands who are simply accidents looking to happen.

You want real security? You mandate the level of training you require, and make sure the security guards you get are not unarmed mall cops like you have now.

No, arming teachers is an extra benefit. Their role should be no more than last resort. If they can make time to stay current, fine, if not than too bad. Again, not forcing anyone to be armed. Are there thousands of accidents waiting to happen across the country right now with current CCW holders?...

Obviously you don't pay attention to what you say. If funding for teacher training is such an issue in your mind where will the funding come from to provide the "get what you pay for" operator security guys? The warriors you speak of?

AK_Stick
12-21-2012, 11:02
Paying for trained security guards, of whatever caliber you require, will cost substantially less than trying to turn teachers into teaching security guards.

But your right. The mythical. "Pro active teacher with a gun " is the logical choice. Not security.

Giving liberal teachers basic firearms training and setting them loose in one of the highest density collateral damage areas is obviously the common sense choice here.

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 11:06
Paying for trained security guards, of whatever caliber you require, will cost substantially less than trying to turn teachers into teaching security guards.

But your right. The mythical. "Pro active teacher with a gun " is the logical choice. Not security.

Giving liberal teachers basic firearms training and setting them loose in one of the highest density collateral damage areas is obviously the common sense choice here.

Nope, teachers are not a replacement for security guards. I would rather see an SRO in every school combined with teachers who choose to carry. That is only one part, physical security enhancements would be a priority.

Also, if they are liberal teachers you would have to force them to be armed. I made it clear that I wouldn't want to force anyone to be armed.

Dragoon44
12-21-2012, 11:10
A "Shooter" can be anybody that trains properly.

No, a shooter is the person that will actually pull the trigger when the SHTF.

I am all for training, but you can't train someone unwilling to pull the trigger to do so when they should. The fastest draw and most accurate shot are dead meat if they choke when it matters. The mediocre shot that is willing to pull the trigger NOW wins.

The winner of armed confrontations is not automatically the one that trains the most and is the most accurate shot. Most often it is the one that will take it further, faster than the other guy.

To most here, a teacher is not a shooter but a security guard is.

Here's the first and foremost difference. The armed security guard has chosen to enter a profession where he knows there is a possibility he may have to shoot. So right off the bat you have someone that has expressed a belief they are capable of doing so. I don't know any teachers that entered the teaching profession by accepting the idea they might have to kill someone else in the course of their job.

That is not to say that just because the security guy THINKS he can pull the trigger he will. Or that a teacher would not. it is simply the reality that the mental aspects of entering both professions are completely different.

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 11:24
No, a shooter is the person that will actually pull the trigger when the SHTF.

I am all for training, but you can't train someone unwilling to pull the trigger to do so when they should. The fastest draw and most accurate shot are dead meat if they choke when it matters. The mediocre shot that is willing to pull the trigger NOW wins.

The winner of armed confrontations is not automatically the one that trains the most and is the most accurate shot. Most often it is the one that will take it further, faster than the other guy.



Here's the first and foremost difference. The armed security guard has chosen to enter a profession where he knows there is a possibility he may have to shoot. So right off the bat you have someone that has expressed a belief they are capable of doing so. I don't know any teachers that entered the teaching profession by accepting the idea they might have to kill someone else in the course of their job.

That is not to say that just because the security guy THINKS he can pull the trigger he will. Or that a teacher would not. it is simply the reality that the mental aspects of entering both professions are completely different.

I can agree with most of what you wrote here. But again, mindset is key. There are a lot of former military in our schools that have retired or since left the military to become teachers. These individual share the commonality of what you describe
with the security guards from their former profession. And honestly, I still don't put much credence to a security guards mindset. But none-the-less, they have to understand the possibility of risk before taking the job. Even if that job is all that is available at the time.

Also, my description of a shooter was not in the aspect of what you thought I was referring to. I simply meant physical ability. No matter who you put in the schools regardless of their job title, if they haven't done it (had to pull the trigger), they are not a shooter by your definition. In lieu of real life incident, all you have is training.

Dragoon44
12-21-2012, 11:41
I can agree with most of what you wrote here. But again, mindset is key. There are a lot of former military in our schools that have retired or since left the military to become teachers. These individual share the commonality of what you describe
with the security guards from their former profession. And honestly, I still don't put much credence to a security guards mindset. But none-the-less, they have to understand the possibility of risk before taking the job. Even if that job is all that is available at the time.

Also, my description of a shooter was not in the aspect of what you thought I was referring to. I simply meant physical ability. No matter who you put in the schools regardless of their job title, if they haven't done it (had to pull the trigger), they are not a shooter by your definition. In lieu of real life incident, all you have is training.

Just to be clear,I am all for letting teachers who want to be armed, be armed.

AK_Stick
12-21-2012, 11:44
I think his idea of what most teachers are, and the reality of most teachers, is significantly different.

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 11:44
Just to be clear,I am all for letting teachers who want to be armed, be armed.

Very well.

johnd
12-21-2012, 11:45
pooey. I thought this was a real discussion about how the Israelis secure their schools.
I commuted to, lived and worked there for decades and carried there after being trained there and the only reason we carried like that and the only people who did were those who were working in crowds.
The IDF "carries" just like the USMIL does.
Every soldier etc whether on duty or off when duty in uniform carries their loaded issue weapon, mostly M16CARs.
Re the schools, the parents of the kids in the schools are trained with and are issued weapons, mostly M1 Carbines and they self arrange the security while their kids are in schools and on field trips. Yes the teachers are armed too, mostly with BHP or P85s.

The Israelis seem to have realised something that this great nation hasnt twigged yet: that there is and are threats out there. Here, everything is a motive and no one is responsive for anything anywhere anytime, an attorney will defend that " right"...from a parking viloation to mass murder, no one is ever guilty here, everything is defensible.

MikeNH
12-21-2012, 11:48
I'd never carry on an empty chamber. Great way to end up dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 11:49
I think his idea of what most teachers are, and the reality of most teachers, is significantly different.

I think the ones who want to be armed, and have met a reasonable standard (yet to be determined) should be. I know that there will probably be few. I also know that you don't actually have an idea of what I think most teachers are. Out of the tens of thousands of teachers in our country, some will have what it takes and should be armed, simple as that.

AK_Stick
12-21-2012, 12:21
I'm not disagreeing with that.

However when you say things like " there are alot of former/retired mil in our school systems" it makes one wonder about your....exposure to said system. I have recently returned to school, in pursuit of a degree. I live in a state with quite possibly the highest ratio of .mil to civilian population.

Of that we have ridiculous small percentage of .mil teachers and/or instructors. Up until you get to technical work.

In the other state I went to college in, the story was similar.

I know most of the other teachers at the girlfriends school, a k-6. A single national guard admin chick is all that works there. And even in my ridiculously conservative bastion of AK I see the majority of teachers I come into contact with are liberal.

Everyone I talk to in other states, echoes much the same.

This leads to my question, what is your use of "alot" are you saying because there are a million or so teachers , and maybe .5% have some .mil association, and that is a large number, or are you stating a large percentage are former mil.

uz2bUSMC
12-21-2012, 13:28
I'm not disagreeing with that.

However when you say things like " there are alot of former/retired mil in our school systems" it makes one wonder about your....exposure to said system. I have recently returned to school, in pursuit of a degree. I live in a state with quite possibly the highest ratio of .mil to civilian population.

Of that we have ridiculous small percentage of .mil teachers and/or instructors. Up until you get to technical work.

In the other state I went to college in, the story was similar.

I know most of the other teachers at the girlfriends school, a k-6. A single national guard admin chick is all that works there. And even in my ridiculously conservative bastion of AK I see the majority of teachers I come into contact with are liberal.

Everyone I talk to in other states, echoes much the same.

This leads to my question, what is your use of "alot" are you saying because there are a million or so teachers , and maybe .5% have some .mil association, and that is a large number, or are you stating a large percentage are former mil.

I used "a lot" too loosely. I'm saying that there are former military in schools but obviously the ratio of former military to non former school teachers will be low. Similar to former LEO who may have taken up the teaching career, there will not be as many of them as straight outta school teachers. You will have many schools that will have no veterans of any sort in their faculty, just the way it is. But my point is that you will have some that are veterans or what have you that have the right mindset and you will have some that are not veterans that will still have the mindset needed. Granted, most may be liberals but the word teacher doesn't automatically mean sheep.

Jake Starr
12-22-2012, 06:22
1. Carrying C3 is okay if you are not being specifically targeted, but are part of a group that is being attacked. I would not carry C3 in a high crime environment.
2. I strongly recommend that laws be changed to allow adults who work at schools to train to shoot and carry firearms, if they want to.


I agree. When on duty or a mission, I carry C1. In a civilian context, C3.

We should have a Federal Teacher Firearms Officer program akin to the FFDO program for pilots.

I was trained by Duvdevan instructors. This is the same type of training I would recommend for the teacher program.

Your right, teachers are likely to be untrained, and inexperienced. Precisely why C3 is a bad idea. They're likely to forget or miss a step and have no chance to defend themselves.

Not if you make it part of the requirement to become an armed teacher. Pilots do it, Private Armed Security Guards do it, why can't teachers? Plenty of people around the world and here in the US do it all the time. I train more of them than most would imagine.

Some here think I am merely pushing and agenda. I am promoting what I have seen and know that works. And I have had training with many LE agencies at the local, state and Federal levels, as well as, cross training with US Military Spec Ops. Just saying all of what I have seen and been trained in I still prefer the Israeli method. And the Israeli Method is not C3 carry. Many Israelis carry C1.

KalashniKEV
12-22-2012, 07:38
And the Israeli Method is not C3 carry. Many Israelis carry C1.

OK... you just took it way back to my post...

What are you talking about when you say, "the Israeli Method?"

Spiffums
12-22-2012, 07:57
I carry cocked and locked, however - when you are talking teachers and other people who do not train a lot, that might not be safest. We are talking teachers here, right?

I would prefer to have lockd doors and buzzers, camera on every entrance exit door, and a team of at least 2 armed security/police, who would escoert visitors to the office. Maybe even metal detectors or wands to be used at the doors.

Kinda like the Cops who only shoot once a year for Qals?

PaulMason
12-22-2012, 08:03
OK... you just took it way back to my post...

What are you talking about when you say, "the Israeli Method?"

You don't have a round in the chamber but load it when you draw the gun.

Jake Starr doesn't really tell us how it would have helped anything in the Ct. shooting.

Jake Starr doesn't tell us why a slide safety and a grip safety on a 1911 style gun is not enough.

There was a video posted here showing a jewelry store robbery. The jeweler was carrying C3 and got shot because he couldn't chamber the round.

Jake Starr
12-22-2012, 22:56
What are you talking about when you say, "the Israeli Method?"

Okay. The Israeli Method is a mindset more than a mode of carry. The greatest thing that Israel possesses and exports is a Warrior culture. It is a mindset that most Israeli civilians and military share.

I can’t tell you about everyone, everywhere in Israel. What I can tell you is that I have been trained by and with warriors from Israel’s elite Duvdevan Counter-Terror unit. This unit’s tactics are designed to deal with Israel’s primary threat, a terrorist event within its borders. What we here would call an “active shooter.”

The Israeli method in this case trains people how to respond to a terrorist event with explosive aggression. For aggression offered up by the terrorist / active shooter, the Israeli method response is even greater aggression.

Defensive handgun techniques and tactics are not sufficient to deal with America’s greatest and most publicized terrorist events: The Active Shooter. The Israeli Method is designs specifically for such an event.

Those who espouse such things as those who carry C3 are akin to carrying a brick or that those who do so don’t have proper training are just displaying their own ignorance. They add nothing valid to the discussion or situation at hand.

I would feel more secure with someone who is carrying C3 and trained in the Israeli method when going up against and Active shooter than almost anyone else who may be carrying C1 and has not been trained in this method. Very few in the US have been trained in this way, including our own LEO/MIL and certainly far fewer civilians.

If you are serious about training, you need to find someone who trains in the Israeli method. Whether you carry C1 or C3 is a moot point. If you would like the names of some who do so, just ask me. If you ever come to Louisville and tell me you read about this on Glocktalk, I will offer you a spot in one of my classes at no charge.

There was a video posted here showing a jewelry store robbery. The jeweler was carrying C3 and got shot because he couldn't chamber the round.
That video had nothing to do with method of carry but rather situational awareness. The guy was shot before he ever drew his gun, so condition of carry was moot.

cowboy1964
12-23-2012, 00:28
It's kind of funny to see pro-gun people poo-poo teachers carrying based on lack of training, skill, whatever. I bet many of them have no problem with Joe Sixpack getting strapped and going out in public with no regard to training or competency demonstration.

billn
12-23-2012, 00:31
Chances of dying by mass murder in a school

20 / 314,989,095

0.000000063%



10,500 homicides a year

10,500 / 314,989,095 = 0.000033334% chance of being killed with a gun.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

arizona_andy
12-23-2012, 02:04
I agree. When on duty or a mission, I carry C1. In a civilian context, C3.


If you can safely carry in C1, why would you ever carry in C3? It just adds unnecessary steps that you need to take should trouble arise. The fight could begin with your left arm being disabled, and then getting a round chambered could become quite difficult. If you are competent and use a quality holster I see absolutely no reason to ever carry in C3, even in a "civilian context."

Now, as for schools, step one is clearly to remove the absurd "Gun free zone" status that has been imposed. That automatically means there could be a chance that a citizen could intervene should something bad happen, and that's a LOT better than what we have right now. Second, arming teachers is fine, as long as the teacher wants to take on that responsibility. Forcing an anti-gun teacher to carry a gun just doesn't fly, and they'd be liable to perform very poorly in a bad situation. Lastly, additional security measures such as stricter rules on keeping doors locked, + 1 or 2 armed guards sounds good as well.

I must say, the whole "no guns in schools" mentality is just something that totally boggles my mind. All it says is "I don't want anyone to have the ability to defend the children in our schools should the need arise." Insanity. What are these people so afraid of? Someone who is trained and is carrying concealed in a quality holster poses ZERO risk to anyone. Besides, just about everyone (including our children) encounter people on a daily basis that are armed (whether we know it or not.) If you personally don't want to carry, that's fine -- but don't say that others should have no right to defend innocent lives.

ithaca_deerslayer
12-23-2012, 02:50
We struggle as it is to find enough teachers. Where are you going to find enough new teachers to replace the old ones who don't want to carry a gun or meet the training criteria?

Where are you going to find the money to pay for the kind of training and the schedule of fire required to make teachers into warriors?

It is too much of a generalization against teachers. Give them the chance to learn. Many are already more proficient than the average GTr :)

Give them the legal right to defend themselves where they work.

Haven't you heard, teachers get Summers off. Plenty of training time if they want to. They've already learned 2+2 and how to drive a car. I think they can handle it. If they don't want to, give them pepper spray.

Money is always available for whatever we believe is important :)

As to C3, I don't believe that debate has any immediate relevance here. First let a school ok arming teachers, then decide carry method, security, training, etc.

We need to get rid of victim zones NOW, even if it saves just one life :)

DWARREN123
12-23-2012, 02:57
Go with what makes you happy. I will always go with one in the chamber, I have seen what happens when you don't.

ithaca_deerslayer
12-23-2012, 02:59
Just to be clear,I am all for letting teachers who want to be armed, be armed.

That's good, now if we can just everyone else approving that basic right to keep and BEAR arms, we will be a much better place :)

ithaca_deerslayer
12-23-2012, 03:07
Chances of dying by mass murder in a school

20 / 314,989,095

0.000000063%



10,500 homicides a year

10,500 / 314,989,095 = 0.000033334% chance of being killed with a gun.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

A teacher who gets to carry at school gets the additional benefit of being able to carry to and from work. Mass murder is not the only danger out there.

Self defense is a basic human right. People who try to take that right away are MONSTERS.

ithaca_deerslayer
12-23-2012, 03:09
I must say, the whole "no guns in schools" mentality is just something that totally boggles my mind. All it says is "I don't want anyone to have the ability to defend the children in our schools should the need arise." Insanity. What are these people so afraid of? Someone who is trained and is carrying concealed in a quality holster poses ZERO risk to anyone. Besides, just about everyone (including our children) encounter people on a daily basis that are armed (whether we know it or not.) If you personally don't want to carry, that's fine -- but don't say that others should have no right to defend innocent lives.
Well said.

billn
12-23-2012, 03:12
Most schools already have armed guards and metal detectors in schools.

ithaca_deerslayer
12-23-2012, 03:43
Most schools already have armed guards and metal detectors in schools.

Most? I've never seen data showing that. But even if they did, so what? Are you saying teachers should not be able to carry a gun for self-defense?

The more defenders the better :)

Wil Ufgood
12-23-2012, 03:57
Me thinks this thread was started with a capitalist rather than warrior mindset in place.

billn
12-23-2012, 03:59
Mayor Emanuel releases fiery statement on NRA

It’s worth noting that for many years, many Chicago high schools have had armed police and metal detectors.

http://www.wlsam.com/common/page.php?pt=Mayor+Emanuel+releases+fiery+statement+on+NRA&id=2061&is_corp=0

billn
12-23-2012, 04:02
Call or look up your local county schools on line. Many will find they already have a security resource officer on site, especially at high schools. My school did in the 70.

ithaca_deerslayer
12-23-2012, 04:24
Call or look up your local county schools on line. Many will find they already have a security resource officer on site, especially at high schools. My school did in the 70.

I know they don't. Funding has been cut in many places. But I still don't know the data for across the country. For those who do have police officers at school, great. Probably need a bunch of them spread throughout the larger schools. That would be an advantage of armed teachers.

ithaca_deerslayer
12-23-2012, 04:29
Mayor Emanuel releases fiery statement on NRA

It’s worth noting that for many years, many Chicago high schools have had armed police and metal detectors.

http://www.wlsam.com/common/page.php?pt=Mayor+Emanuel+releases+fiery+statement+on+NRA&id=2061&is_corp=0

That's good. Hopefully kids are not getting murdered in Chicago schools. His next step should be to allow law abiding citizens carry concealed guns . I've heard his city has a huge murder problem and that only criminals there can carry guns there.

Jake Starr
12-23-2012, 07:10
If you can safely carry in C1, why would you ever carry in C3? It just adds unnecessary steps that you need to take should trouble arise. The fight could begin with your left arm being disabled, and then getting a round chambered could become quite difficult. If you are competent and use a quality holster I see absolutely no reason to ever carry in C3, even in a "civilian context."



There are plenty of valid reasons for any carry condition. From my own research, training and experience, I prefer C3 over C1, most always. But that is me. And yes I can safely carry C1.

As to your above scenario, it can and does happen. But rarely. A person is much more likely to be injured with their own sidearm through everyday administrative handling then they are in danger of a CQB attack.

Go with what makes you happy. I will always go with one in the chamber, I have seen what happens when you don't.

Valid. But I have seen far more incidents from when you do. And NDs happen more than you may like to admit, even with professionals.

Me thinks this thread was started with a capitalist rather than warrior mindset in place.
Me thinkst you are mistaken. But I never said I was a socialist.:supergrin:

PaulMason
12-23-2012, 08:06
Okay. The Israeli Method is a mindset more than a mode of carry. The greatest thing that Israel possesses and exports is a Warrior culture. It is a mindset that most Israeli civilians and military share.

I can’t tell you about everyone, everywhere in Israel. What I can tell you is that I have been trained by and with warriors from Israel’s elite Duvdevan Counter-Terror unit. This unit’s tactics are designed to deal with Israel’s primary threat, a terrorist event within its borders. What we here would call an “active shooter.”

The Israeli method in this case trains people how to respond to a terrorist event with explosive aggression. For aggression offered up by the terrorist / active shooter, the Israeli method response is even greater aggression.

Defensive handgun techniques and tactics are not sufficient to deal with America’s greatest and most publicized terrorist events: The Active Shooter. The Israeli Method is designs specifically for such an event.

Those who espouse such things as those who carry C3 are akin to carrying a brick or that those who do so don’t have proper training are just displaying their own ignorance. They add nothing valid to the discussion or situation at hand.

I would feel more secure with someone who is carrying C3 and trained in the Israeli method when going up against and Active shooter than almost anyone else who may be carrying C1 and has not been trained in this method. Very few in the US have been trained in this way, including our own LEO/MIL and certainly far fewer civilians.

If you are serious about training, you need to find someone who trains in the Israeli method. Whether you carry C1 or C3 is a moot point. If you would like the names of some who do so, just ask me. If you ever come to Louisville and tell me you read about this on Glocktalk, I will offer you a spot in one of my classes at no charge.

That video had nothing to do with method of carry but rather situational awareness. The guy was shot before he ever drew his gun, so condition of carry was moot.


OK - still no answers for the below. Do you have a link for more information for the part bolded and underlined above?

"The Israeli method response is even greater aggression. " Then what?

Do you have a link for that video? I searched GT and Youtube but could not find it.

Thanks

You don't have a round in the chamber but load it when you draw the gun.

Jake Starr doesn't really tell us how it would have helped anything in the Ct. shooting.

Jake Starr doesn't tell us why a slide safety and a grip safety on a 1911 style gun is not enough.

happyguy
12-23-2012, 08:46
The biggest problem I have with C3 carry is not how much longer it takes to get the gun in action.

C3 encourages sloppy gun handling and the mindset that the "unloaded" gun is "safe". This is bad thinking and results in a lot of people being shot by "safe" and "unloaded" guns.

Teachers wouldn't have to carry a Glock or 1911. There are a lot of other suitable guns out there including revolvers and DAO semi-autos and in my opinion they should all be routinely carried in C1.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy :)

Jake Starr
12-24-2012, 06:07
"The Israeli method response is even greater aggression. " Then what?



Whatever aggression is offered, i.e. by a terrorist, the Israeli response is to meet such aggression with even greater aggression. This is a direct qoute from my instructor. I have also heard it stated in some Youtube clips concerning Israeli training and the Mossad.

As per the vid of a jewlery store shooting, I do not have the link although I have seen the vid.

The biggest problem I have with C3 carry is not how much longer it takes to get the gun in action.

C3 encourages sloppy gun handling and the mindset that the "unloaded" gun is "safe". This is bad thinking and results in a lot of people being shot by "safe" and "unloaded" guns.


This is just not true. How much longer does it take to get the gun into action? The difference is mere 100ths of a sec. I wouldn't call that "how much longer." Maybe for some but not for others. I could say that I know people who carry C3 and can draw cock and shoot faster than many people who carry C1. So the point is moot.

Perhaps untrained C3 carry encourages sloppy gun handling. But the Israeli method does not. By far the safest training I have been around. Besides C1 of C3 carry does not negate the dictum of "treating all guns as always loaded" or "keep the finger off the trigger until on target ready to shoot."

PaulMason
12-24-2012, 07:02
Whatever aggression is offered, i.e. by a terrorist, the Israeli response is to meet such aggression with even greater aggression. This is a direct qoute from my instructor. I have also heard it stated in some Youtube clips concerning Israeli training and the Mossad.



What does it mean meet terrorist aggression with even greater aggression in the context of a one Good Guy Vs one Bag Guy. I think we all know what it can mean on a large scale occurrence - e.g. terrorist organization uses one missile and the Israeli response would be two or more missiles.

We also understand that if a terrorist is running into a classroom with a gun - shooting him before he could shoot others would be better.

What does that look like in real life - example of terrorist aggression and how one defender would act with more aggression.

What about the other questions below? The first one below is most relevant because you state: " Why I prefer the Israeli Method in light of the Sandy Hook event (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1459109)"


You don't have a round in the chamber but load it when you draw the gun.

Jake Starr doesn't really tell us how it would have helped anything in the Ct. shooting.

Jake Starr doesn't tell us why a slide safety and a grip safety on a 1911 style gun is not enough.

There was a video posted here showing a jewelry store robbery. The jeweler was carrying C3 and got shot because he couldn't chamber the round.

Patchman
12-24-2012, 08:49
Israeli security experts are saying there have been no terrorist attacks at their schools because terrorism is down overall, not because of armed teachers/faculty.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israelis-shoot-nra-claim-article-1.1226401

Averageman
12-24-2012, 08:54
I think his idea of what most teachers are, and the reality of most teachers, is significantly different.
I've enjoyed your postings here, but I must add to this; wouldnt this be a great incentive to hire former Soldiers as Teachers.
I did it myself upon my retirement and would have been happy to carry while teaching.

happyguy
12-24-2012, 09:02
Israeli security experts are saying there have been no terrorist attacks at their schools because terrorism is down overall, not because of armed teachers/faculty.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israelis-shoot-nra-claim-article-1.1226401


What an utterly ridiculous conclusion.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy :)

.264 magnum
12-24-2012, 09:12
Israeli security experts are saying there have been no terrorist attacks at their schools because terrorism is down overall, not because of armed teachers/faculty.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israelis-shoot-nra-claim-article-1.1226401


Copied from that link:

“Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon,” said Berko.

To my understanding that quote is either a misquote or Berko was trying to minimize the number of Israelis who are armed.

beatcop
12-24-2012, 09:15
What is this thread about?

In the USA we hire security or get cops in the building...good enough for me. Could not care about the manner of carry in this case...appears totally irrelevant.

If a teacher wants to carry concealed, I'd support that. Will they? I'm guessing that it's not in the prevailing teacher "culture" in most areas. Standards of training, conduct, qualification, etc start coming into play if you "swear" these folks in as TSA types...prob not the route I'd go.

happyguy
12-24-2012, 09:18
Whatever aggression is offered, i.e. by a terrorist, the Israeli response is to meet such aggression with even greater aggression. This is a direct qoute from my instructor. I have also heard it stated in some Youtube clips concerning Israeli training and the Mossad.

As per the vid of a jewlery store shooting, I do not have the link although I have seen the vid.


This is just not true. How much longer does it take to get the gun into action? The difference is mere 100ths of a sec. I wouldn't call that "how much longer." Maybe for some but not for others. I could say that I know people who carry C3 and can draw cock and shoot faster than many people who carry C1. So the point is moot.

Perhaps untrained C3 carry encourages sloppy gun handling. But the Israeli method does not. By far the safest training I have been around. Besides C1 of C3 carry does not negate the dictum of "treating all guns as always loaded" or "keep the finger off the trigger until on target ready to shoot."

More negligent discharges occur with "unloaded" guns than any other and that goes for well trained individuals as well.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy :)

Paul53
12-24-2012, 10:46
If someone cannot carry safely in C-1 they have no business carrying at all.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I respect each individuals choices based on their individual comfort level and situations. Your solutions work for you, might not for others.

Patchman
12-24-2012, 10:55
Copied from that link:

“Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon,” said Berko.

To my understanding that quote is either a misquote or Berko was trying to minimize the number of Israelis who are armed.

It's my understanding that Israel has a CCW requirement but that requirement is not hard to meet.

PhotoFeller
12-24-2012, 11:25
Go C3 if you want - it is better then not having a gun at all.

I'm carrying a S&W bodyguard 380 now - it has a frame safety and long hard trigger pull - 2 safeties.

Maybe you are carrying the wrong gun for your experience/knowledge/abilities and carrying C3 is appropriate.

Interesting thoughts expressed here^^.

Maybe C3 is better than no gun at all. That implies individual judgement has a role in these decisions instead of a universal rule that anoints C1.

Maybe firearm choice is important if C3 is preferred. Fascinating.

Common sense sure is refreshing!

Bren
12-24-2012, 11:35
Whatever aggression is offered, i.e. by a terrorist, the Israeli response is to meet such aggression with even greater aggression. This is a direct qoute from my instructor. I have also heard it stated in some Youtube clips concerning Israeli training and the Mossad.



Problem with that is, most people can't learn to do it. As a drill sergeant, in our constant battle with people upstairs trying to make things warm, safe and fuzzy for new soldiers, I often distinguish between "earning to be a soldier" and "learning soldier skills." The skills, like shooting, land navigation, etc., are not evry important and, if that's all you needed, we could just send kids straight to a unit to OJT, like in the civil war.

What is important to survival are the things soldiers learn from being placed in a high stress environement and tortured for a few months - attention to detail, aggression, refusal to give up, placing other things above their safety.

Nobody is going to learn those things in a shooting class. They can be "told" those things, but they won't "learn" them. My wife is a favorite example - she has a black belt and instructor's certificate in Kung Fu; she is a competitive shooter; she works out hard an average of slightly more than once a day (3 times some days) and she runs those "mudder" obstacle course races - but shes completely unsuited to being a soldier or police officer, because if you say "duck," she will ask "why" and if you say, "did you see that guy with the gun" she will say "what guy?" She has skills, but not the real fundamentals.

Short answer: being aggressive and charging toward the gunfire is a technique I agree with and aggression without skills is worth more than skills without aggression. But you can't learn aggression in a class or a week of classes.

Patchman
12-24-2012, 13:53
And which is why complacency and the "Officer Friendly" attitude will get LEOs killed.

And people here make jokes about first responders wanting to get home safely to their families. Disgusting!

happyguy
12-24-2012, 15:24
Interesting thoughts expressed here^^.

Maybe C3 is better than no gun at all. That implies individual judgement has a role in these decisions instead of a universal rule that anoints C1.

Maybe firearm choice is important if C3 is preferred. Fascinating.

Common sense sure is refreshing!

C1 is best for me in just about every environment I can imagine.

C3 is miles ahead of no gun at all and I'll never disparage a person who has made the decision to go armed because of their method of carry.

Just be safe - PLEASE!

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy :)

Teecher45
12-24-2012, 16:51
What happens if my off hand/arm is injured or busy doing something else (holding a child)?
Those that think there wouldn't be many teachers step-up if given the chance to become armed haven't spent much time in schools.
The teachers I know (and work with) would move heaven and earth to get to a child in trouble.

G23Gen4TX
12-24-2012, 17:29
Copied from that link:

“Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon,” said Berko.

To my understanding that quote is either a misquote or Berko was trying to minimize the number of Israelis who are armed.

That quote is correct. It's is very hard to get a gun permit in Israel.

You can own a gun (one pistol, registered to your name) if:

- You are active military past the initial mandatory term (this might have changed).

- police officer

- Security guard

- Deal with jewelry etc.

- live in a designated area like the west bank or border areas.

If you live in Tel-Aviv and work in an office the chances of getting a permit is Zero.

On top of that, those who own pistols are mandated to do a training session with them once every three years. You can lose your permit if you don't.

G23Gen4TX
12-24-2012, 17:31
It's my understanding that Israel has a CCW requirement but that requirement is not hard to meet.

No such thing as CCW in Israel. If you have a permit then you can carry concealed or open. Most carry the pistol in 4 o'clock position IWB.

Jake Starr
12-25-2012, 08:56
Short answer: being aggressive and charging toward the gunfire is a technique I agree with and aggression without skills is worth more than skills without aggression. But you can't learn aggression in a class or a week of classes.


No complaint with this statement. But many civilians have to start somewhere. The Israeli method incorporates "Aggression Training." Not much like it that you can find here in the states, at least not in many places.

PhotoFeller
12-25-2012, 09:32
C1 is best for me in just about every environment I can imagine.

C3 is miles ahead of no gun at all and I'll never disparage a person who has made the decision to go armed because of their method of carry.

Just be safe - PLEASE!

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy :)

Thanks. I know you're a strong C1 guy, so its good to see you can accept the choices other people might make.