Hard2Hurt ECQC Review

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    I don't know who this guy is - it sounds like I should - but a couple places in the middle there, it sounds like he's advocating in a couple scenarios he "should have taken the first punch" or "should have been punching this guy a whole lot." Now I know not every problem is a gun problem, yadda yadda, but he makes the point: if I've told this guy to go away, and he hasn't gone away - "We're in a FIGHT, he just hasn't hit me yet." And says "I'm gonna throw the first punch." Obviously every person has to make that call for themselves based on the moment, but in the Craig drill, he had plenty of time to bring the gun into play, but he didn't, presumably because it seemed like he thought he'd be graded by the instructor on whether he brought it in at the right time, too soon, etc. And his takeaway was, "I should have been proactively punching the guy," which was presumably the right answer here.

    They are seemingly treating punches like just another level of conversation, but it's not. It is initiating physical violence. Now this is just me, but if you've told the person to go away, and they don't, I'm having a hard time understanding how something can cross the threshold where you _can_ be justified throwing the first punch, and at the same time it "wasn't time to go for the gun yet." Drawing the gun doesn't mean you have to shoot. It can mean getting to ready position and continuing to assess and interact. I totally get it if you _can't_ get to get the gun - no argument there. But that clearly wasn't the case in that drill. The time he spent "monkey dancing," not going for the gun - I get it, you don't always think clearly. But after he had time to think about it calmly, his takeaway was not that he should have gotten to the gun before contact was made - it was that he should have initiated contact sooner by punching him. He appears to come from a striking background, and I get that when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But if the person wasn't going away, it's not clear to me how throwing the first punch leads to a better result than putting a front sight on him and telling him to go away again.

    This looks like really intense reps, I get that it's mostly a sparring session to see what happens, and I think the pro instructors will get a lot from it because they understand the context that you're trying to "sharpen the instructor's saw." But this doesn't look like "everybody" training, to me, in terms of what he said in that clip. I don't think the average person is frequently going to be on good ground, punching first when the person won't go away, if he has time to bring the gun into play. You had another level of deterrence available to you, but you initiated physical violence, which now probably doesn't end until someone is in the hospital or worse.

    If you assess the situation and believe you need to initiate physical violence to stay alive or prevent serious harm - it's gun time. ("If" you can get to it, of course). Not necessarily shooting time. The approach of initiating physical violence as a more preferable course of action to getting a firearm ready, seems to me like it could lead to problems for the average person.
     

    jsharmon7

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    119   0   0
    Nov 24, 2008
    7,822
    113
    Freedonia
    I don't know who this guy is - it sounds like I should - but a couple places in the middle there, it sounds like he's advocating in a couple scenarios he "should have taken the first punch" or "should have been punching this guy a whole lot." Now I know not every problem is a gun problem, yadda yadda, but he makes the point: if I've told this guy to go away, and he hasn't gone away - "We're in a FIGHT, he just hasn't hit me yet." And says "I'm gonna throw the first punch." Obviously every person has to make that call for themselves based on the moment, but in the Craig drill, he had plenty of time to bring the gun into play, but he didn't, presumably because it seemed like he thought he'd be graded by the instructor on whether he brought it in at the right time, too soon, etc. And his takeaway was, "I should have been proactively punching the guy," which was presumably the right answer here.

    They are seemingly treating punches like just another level of conversation, but it's not. It is initiating physical violence. Now this is just me, but if you've told the person to go away, and they don't, I'm having a hard time understanding how something can cross the threshold where you _can_ be justified throwing the first punch, and at the same time it "wasn't time to go for the gun yet." Drawing the gun doesn't mean you have to shoot. It can mean getting to ready position and continuing to assess and interact. I totally get it if you _can't_ get to get the gun - no argument there. But that clearly wasn't the case in that drill. The time he spent "monkey dancing," not going for the gun - I get it, you don't always think clearly. But after he had time to think about it calmly, his takeaway was not that he should have gotten to the gun before contact was made - it was that he should have initiated contact sooner by punching him. He appears to come from a striking background, and I get that when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But if the person wasn't going away, it's not clear to me how throwing the first punch leads to a better result than putting a front sight on him and telling him to go away again.

    This looks like really intense reps, I get that it's mostly a sparring session to see what happens, and I think the pro instructors will get a lot from it because they understand the context that you're trying to "sharpen the instructor's saw." But this doesn't look like "everybody" training, to me, in terms of what he said in that clip. I don't think the average person is frequently going to be on good ground, punching first when the person won't go away, if he has time to bring the gun into play. You had another level of deterrence available to you, but you initiated physical violence, which now probably doesn't end until someone is in the hospital or worse.

    If you assess the situation and believe you need to initiate physical violence to stay alive or prevent serious harm - it's gun time. ("If" you can get to it, of course). Not necessarily shooting time. The approach of initiating physical violence as a more preferable course of action to getting a firearm ready, seems to me like it could lead to problems for the average person.
    This is a thought-provoking discussion. From watching this guy’s scenario, it seemed his opponent kept stalking forward on him. So if he pulled his gun right then, would he be justified in killing the guy if he kept moving toward him? Or is he pulling his gun as a deterrent? What if the guy doesn’t care that he pulled a gun and keeps moving forward? He’s now in the same situation, but with a gun in his hand.

    These are the kinds of scenarios gun owners should all think through. If some guy is trying to get in my face, is he going to cause me serious bodily injury or death? Is he trying to puff up and monkey dance? Am I willing to kill him over this? If not, what’s Plan B? I know people who are convinced pulling out their gun will instantly stop aggression, but I wouldn’t count on it.
     
    Last edited:

    Jackson

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2008
    3,335
    63
    West side of Indy
    Putting a muzzle on someone = deadly force in many places. Striking someone does not typically equal deadly force.

    Did the person advancing give enough reason to make the defender believe deadly force was justified legally and tactically?

    If you pull the gun and he doesn't stop, will it be appropriate to shoot him? Once you have the gun out you've boxed yourself in to a shooting response. Pulling the gun early comes with a number of risks and limits options. So does pulling the gun too late. Either way, if you can't sell that shoot to a jury based on the totality of the circumstances you're in a pickle.

    Craig actually teaches a couple of verbal and physical things between talking and punching to help navigate the force continuum and articulate that progression. It's part of his MUC material.
     
    Last edited:

    Jackson

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2008
    3,335
    63
    West side of Indy
    This looks like really intense reps, I get that it's mostly a sparring session to see what happens, and I think the pro instructors will get a lot from it because they understand the context that you're trying to "sharpen the instructor's saw." But this doesn't look like "everybody" training, to me, in terms of what he said in that clip. I don't think the average person is frequently going to be on good ground, punching first when the person won't go away, if he has time to bring the gun into play. You had another level of deterrence available to you, but you initiated physical violence, which now probably doesn't end until someone is in the hospital or worse.
    I disagree that it isn't training for everyone. If you're pulling a gun out in self defense its not likely to be as clear cut and obvious as you like. The situation may be chaotic, ambiguous, and difficult to manage. It may not be clear what the best option is and you'll need to make those decisions under considerable pressure and stress.

    These exercises allow you to do that. You get to feel a bit of the stress and ambiguity. You get to make those choices in context, within the bounds of your skills and abilities, then break it down after without your life or freedom on the line. The very act of asking the questions you have shows that you would benefit.

    Maybe your solution is the best. Maybe its not. Scenarios like these are where you test them.
     

    jsharmon7

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    119   0   0
    Nov 24, 2008
    7,822
    113
    Freedonia
    Putting a muzzle on someone = deadly force in many places. Striking someone does not typically equal deadly force.

    Did the person advancing give enough reason to make the defender believe deadly force was justified legally and tactically?

    If you pull the gun and he doesn't stop, will it be appropriate to shoot him? Once you have the gun out you've boxed yourself in to a shooting response. Pulling the gun early comes with a number of risks and limits options. So does pulling the gun too late. Either way, if you can't sell that shoot to a jury based on the totality of the circumstances you're in a pickle.

    Craig actually teaches a couple of verbal and physical things between talking and punching to help navigate the force continuum and articulate that progression. It's part of his MUC material.
    I’m generally not a big fan of OC spray as an effective tool to stop aggression. However, this may be a good situation for it. It will at least cause the guy advancing to cover his face as you spray him and disrupt his thought process long enough for you to get out of the situation.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    ...If you pull the gun and he doesn't stop, will it be appropriate to shoot him? Once you have the gun out you've boxed yourself in to a shooting response. Pulling the gun early comes with a number of risks and limits options. So does pulling the gun too late. Either way, if you can't sell that shoot to a jury based on the totality of the circumstances you're in a pickle...
    I hear the "boxed yourself into a shooting response" comment a lot in discussions like this. But what I was trying to focus on in the above, is that the video presenter says, twice, "I should be punching him" or some variation of that. He is clearly talking about throwing the _first_ punch. So why is that not subject to the retort, "You've boxed yourself into a punching response?" Because there seems to be a perception that "becoming the aggressor" in that manner is somehow less-limiting.

    If there's anything you learn from watching these engagements, it's that once you or the other person initiates physical contact, you're entangled, and if things continue to go worse, most people - and especially average people - no longer _have_ an effective gun response at that point.

    I think this really points out the value of pepper spray, but am still puzzled at why so many think initiating physical contact is the "flexible" choice that you can somehow back away from. It may be, but it doesn't seem likely. The reasoning here seems to be that you're going to "tussle" with the guy until you've established that deadly force is "justified," and I'm just really curious on how the courtroom aspect of that is going to work out when _you_ punched first?
     

    Jackson

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2008
    3,335
    63
    West side of Indy
    I hear the "boxed yourself into a shooting response" comment a lot in discussions like this. But what I was trying to focus on in the above, is that the video presenter says, twice, "I should be punching him" or some variation of that. He is clearly talking about throwing the _first_ punch. So why is that not subject to the retort, "You've boxed yourself into a punching response?" Because there seems to be a perception that "becoming the aggressor" in that manner is somehow less-limiting.

    If there's anything you learn from watching these engagements, it's that once you or the other person initiates physical contact, you're entangled, and if things continue to go worse, most people - and especially average people - no longer _have_ an effective gun response at that point.

    I think this really points out the value of pepper spray, but am still puzzled at why so many think initiating physical contact is the "flexible" choice that you can somehow back away from. It may be, but it doesn't seem likely. The reasoning here seems to be that you're going to "tussle" with the guy until you've established that deadly force is "justified," and I'm just really curious on how the courtroom aspect of that is going to work out when _you_ punched first?
    I like this discussion.

    I do not really disagree with you and I like the way you've made the point. Any choice you make has the potential to narrow your options. If you pull the gun now you've made it a gun problem and narrowed your options to gun responses if they don't comply. If you strike them first you've made it a fight and narrowed your options to fighting responses. There may be other possibilities. I don't want to assume these two are the only options.

    As mentioned in the thread, there are probably other tools, verbal techniques, and physical interventions that could be an option between talking and punching or guns. I would agree that if its going to guns anyway, getting the gun out before being entangled is better IF it can be adequately used before the entanglement.

    I'm not going to advocate any specific course for this scenario or for any other. The guy in the video apparently does a fair amount of boxing training. For him, that may have been a good solution. For you or me it may not be. Maybe it was suboptimal even for him. The way to test that is to try that new solution in FoF and see how it plays out.

    [Side note: when I took ECQC, boxing was not an optimal solution for the people I saw try it.]

    Pulling the gun may completely alleviate the situation or it may make it a gun fight. Punching will almost certainly make it a fist fight that could evolve in to a gun fight. Which of those choices is best would really depend on the circumstances, environment, my ability, perceived intent and ability of the two subjects, and a whole bunch of other facts. I think its possible to come up with scenarios that favor either approach.

    I believe the key takeaway from these kind of exercises is the experience of trying to make those decisions in real time with real pressure.
     

    rosejm

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Nov 28, 2013
    1,775
    129
    NWI
    There's a lot of good & bad in here IMO.

    Something to remember about this specific training is the focus on firearm handling/retention/malfunctions during a physical encounter. That is to say, don't get too wrapped up in the "preventing the contact" part... that's definitely something to avoid, but not the main focus here. In fact, it's the opposite - there should be physical engagement here.

    It's been mentioned above, but I'll agree that having an OC spray is a level of force between harsh language & deadly, it's also a short range distance tool and doesn't present the same image to the public (a jury). Many more folks will agree that an aggressor deserves a dose of the hot sauce, long before they will admit that a punch/kick/gouge was warranted. Doubly so if the aggressor appears to be a lessor threat.

    While the law may see OC spray & physical engagement as equal levels of force, people generally do not especially when it comes to "who threw the first punch".
     

    Jackson

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2008
    3,335
    63
    West side of Indy
    There's a lot of good & bad in here IMO.

    Something to remember about this specific training is the focus on firearm handling/retention/malfunctions during a physical encounter. That is to say, don't get too wrapped up in the "preventing the contact" part... that's definitely something to avoid, but not the main focus here. In fact, it's the opposite - there should be physical engagement here.
    This is not necessarily so. This specific course has a significant block on managing the situation verbally with the intention of avoiding a physical altercation and filtering out the people where a physical altercation is the most likely outcome so you know what you're dealing with and can make decisions. That is a significant focus for this particular class.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    I like this discussion.

    I do not really disagree with you and I like the way you've made the point. Any choice you make has the potential to narrow your options. If you pull the gun now you've made it a gun problem and narrowed your options to gun responses if they don't comply. If you strike them first you've made it a fight and narrowed your options to fighting responses. There may be other possibilities. I don't want to assume these two are the only options.

    As mentioned in the thread, there are probably other tools, verbal techniques, and physical interventions that could be an option between talking and punching or guns. I would agree that if its going to guns anyway, getting the gun out before being entangled is better IF it can be adequately used before the entanglement.

    I'm not going to advocate any specific course for this scenario or for any other. The guy in the video apparently does a fair amount of boxing training. For him, that may have been a good solution. For you or me it may not be. Maybe it was suboptimal even for him. The way to test that is to try that new solution in FoF and see how it plays out.

    [Side note: when I took ECQC, boxing was not an optimal solution for the people I saw try it.]

    Pulling the gun may completely alleviate the situation or it may make it a gun fight. Punching will almost certainly make it a fist fight that could evolve in to a gun fight. Which of those choices is best would really depend on the circumstances, environment, my ability, perceived intent and ability of the two subjects, and a whole bunch of other facts. I think its possible to come up with scenarios that favor either approach.

    I believe the key takeaway from these kind of exercises is the experience of trying to make those decisions in real time with real pressure.
    I think that's a balanced way of looking at it. People tend to over-value skill sets that they possess, and in this example, this guy seems to value striking because it's what he does well.

    I really do think it should stop being conceived of by people that drawing a gun is somehow this irreversible, doomsday nuclear decision that automatically leads to someone being shot and the defender being in front of a jury. It could be, but as you pointed out, the reality is that everything you do in a situation you didn't ask for narrows your options. There is putting your hand on your gun. There is putting your hand on your gun and drawing, but keeping it pointed downward. There is progressing to a full-on ready position which is pointing near the attacker's feet if things look more serious, and of course there is pinning a front sight on his chest. There is a tremendous amount of room for discretion, judgement, and decision-making along that continuum.

    What I think is sometimes overlooked in these discussions, is that all those great verbal-management, positioning, and even hand skills, continue to be equally valid when the gun is in your hand. I sometimes get the impression there seems to be this automatic training assumption that when a gun comes out, it's going to be shot. There is a whole range of options you have with a gun in your hand, that you may not have, once you get entangled and can't get to the gun. When you draw a gun, you're not automatically going to kill someone, any more than when you utilize jiu-jitsu techniques, you're going to choke a person out until he's brain-dead. I don't understand why it's only firearms that are singled out for this binary, "boxed-in / "no other way out" mode of thinking. You don't draw the gun to kill someone; you draw the gun to gain advantage over the assailant. Whether or not he gets shot is still up to him. Police utilize this decision-tree every, single day.

    I really believe that for the average person, who is not prepared to dominate a hand-to-hand engagement with one or more people half their age, the idea of waiting to draw the gun until the absolute last moment when death or serious injury is already imminent, is funneling down their options in a way that can lead to worse outcomes. Every time someone posts video of a class like this, it shows how hard it is to crisply and one-sidedly dominate a physical engagement with a determined adversary. Even good martial artists are often unable to get the gun effectively into play, and find themselves in a position where if they don't get the submission, they wouldn't live if it was for real. The purpose of a gun is to level out some of that physical playing ground. If you find yourself in a position where you feel you need to be dropping a bunch of F-bombs and goddammits to deter a pesky person who won't take no for an answer, the average person probably needs to be seriously considering at least having a hand on their gun, if not getting it free of the holster.
     
    Last edited:

    cedartop

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 25, 2010
    6,687
    113
    North of Notre Dame.
    I think that's a balanced way of looking at it. People tend to over-value skill sets that they possess, and in this example, this guy seems to value striking because it's what he does well.

    I really do think it should stop being conceived of by people that drawing a gun is somehow this irreversible, doomsday nuclear decision that automatically leads to someone being shot and the defender being in front of a jury. It could be, but as you pointed out, the reality is that everything you do in a situation you didn't ask for narrows your options. There is putting your hand on your gun. There is putting your hand on your gun and drawing, but keeping it pointed downward. There is progressing to a full-on ready position which is pointing near the attacker's feet if things look more serious, and of course there is pinning a front sight on his chest. There is a tremendous amount of room for discretion, judgement, and decision-making along that continuum.

    What I think is sometimes overlooked in these discussions, is that all those great verbal-management, positioning, and even hand skills, continue to be equally valid when the gun is in your hand. I sometimes get the impression there seems to be this automatic training assumption that when a gun comes out, it's going to be shot. There is a whole range of options you have with a gun in your hand, that you may not have, once you get entangled and can't get to the gun. When you draw a gun, you're not automatically going to kill someone, any more than when you utilize jiu-jitsu techniques, you're going to choke a person out until he's brain-dead. I don't understand why it's only firearms that are singled out for this binary, "boxed-in / "no other way out" mode of thinking. You don't draw the gun to kill someone; you draw the gun to gain advantage over the assailant. Whether or not he gets shot is still up to him. Police utilize this decision-tree every, single day.

    I really believe that for the average person, who is not prepared to dominate a hand-to-hand engagement with one or more people half their age, the idea of waiting to draw the gun until the absolute last moment when death or serious injury is already imminent, is funneling down their options in a way that can lead to worse outcomes. Every time someone posts video of a class like this, it shows how hard it is to crisply and one-sidedly dominate a physical engagement with a determined adversary. Even good martial artists are often unable to get the gun effectively into play, and find themselves in a position where if they don't get the submission, they wouldn't live if it was for real. The purpose of a gun is to level out some of that physical playing ground. If you find yourself in a position where you feel you need to be dropping a bunch of F-bombs and goddammits to deter a pesky person who won't take no for an answer, the average person probably needs to be seriously considering at least having a hand on their gun, if not getting it free of the holster.
    Some of that I don't disagree with but I think you are being a bit hopeful as it relates to controlling a situation with your pistol. There are many VCA's out there who won't be impressed by you and your drawn gun. I have been in the situation both in FOF and real life where a possible shoot situation turned into a no shoot situation and it can sometimes be quite awkward to say the least. I am in total agreement with you that just because a gun comes out doesn't mean someone gets shot, but it is now a deadly force encounter any way you look at it.
     
    Top Bottom