What is a gun?

[Coach]

I agree wholeheartedly but unfortunately we know this happens. This is why we have the shootings with "non-guns".

So, what do you advise for a "decontamination" process to go from or to Force on Force scenarios? What do you guys do?

I don't do force on force training. For a number of reasons. Rhino has described what ACT does. When I was with ACT all guns to be used were inspected and yellow tape added to them to distinguish them from firearms, and to note that they were inspected.

Kirk, I am a lot more likely to be in agreement about airsoft, simunitions and other such. But I see blue guns as an entirely different animal. Anyone who shoots someone and then says he/she/it thought it was a bluegun is lying.

 

[Jackson]

I don't do force on force training. For a number of reasons.

Out of curiosity, what are your reasons?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But I see blue guns as an entirely different animal. Anyone who shoots someone and then says he/she/it thought it was a bluegun is lying.

From my perspective as a student, I see it as a matter of habituation.

If you point your blue gun at yourself or others because "it ain't no gun, Jasper" then sooner or later you will point a real gun at yourself or others.

Again, lots of people have been shot with non-guns (they weren't non-guns, but they thought they were handling non-guns). I do not always see it as lying, I see it as a bad habit (pointing non-guns at people) becomong a very bad habit.

 

[rhino]

If you point your blue gun at yourself or others because "it ain't no gun, Jasper" then sooner or later you will point a real gun at yourself or others.

Disagree. A solid piece of plastic is not a gun and is easily verified to not be a gun. That's why they exist: so that you can use them to safely demonstrate and practice techniques so that you won't have to actually point a gun at someone.

How do you feel about inert replicas that are less realistic than Rings Blue Guns? Like wooden copies? Or the pieces of plastic coat hanger that Louis Awerbuck uses to teach take-aways? Or someone making a "gun" with their finger?

 

[Coach]

From my perspective as a student, I see it as a matter of habituation.

If you point your blue gun at yourself or others because "it ain't no gun, Jasper" then sooner or later you will point a real gun at yourself or others.

Again, lots of people have been shot with non-guns (they weren't non-guns, but they thought they were handling non-guns). I do not always see it as lying, I see it as a bad habit (pointing non-guns at people) becomong a very bad habit.

I have not made that mistake and I won't.

 

[Coach]

Out of curiosity, what are your reasons?

I'd rather not say.

 

[esrice]

I can demonstrate proper grip and have the class do it and we can be in the classroom. I can step around to the other side and not have to go behind.

Weapons retention drills.

I can do transitions drills in the living room and people can be in the other room.

I can practice transitioning the gun from right to left hand and do it anywhere. Show the border shift and what not to do with a semi-auto.

I can do a safety briefing and show 19 different ways that I have seen people sweep their hands, arms and legs that they did not think counted as sweeping.

Thanks for the clarification Coach. And I agree with your points. But I also agree with Kirk's position.

For me personally, I don't have two different ways I manipulate guns. I manipulate blue guns the same way I manipulate real guns. When handled administratively I don't point blue guns at innocents, I don't spin them around on my finger like a cowboy, I don't put my finger on the trigger, etc. I wouldn't do that with a live firearm so I don't do it with a blue gun.

Now what about pointing a blue gun at a roleplayer? I'm very much OK with that because it's in the context of a training environment where the attacker is fake and so is the gun. In FoF I'm training my brain to process a certain way, so I'm still using the blue gun in the same manner I would a live firearm. The difference, however, is that in the training environment we've mitigated the risk by using fake attackers and fake guns. So the "violation" of the 4-rules is an acceptable one (just like in real life).

Simplified:

Innocent = no pointing of live weapon in real life
Innocent = no pointing of blue gun in training

Attacker = acceptable pointing of live weapon in real life
Attacker = acceptable pointing of blue gun in training

It is not a gun. All circumstances.
......

In short I have a blue,gray, orange piece of plastic that is not a gun that is a valuable training tool, and prevents me from violating the four rules of gun safety.

I would actually argue that, for the described purposes it IS a gun, and you're still violating the 4-rules, but there is simply ZERO risk involved because it's made of solid plastic. But the rules were still violated.

As far as demos I don't have a big issue with an instructor flagging his body to make a point, but I don't think students should be doing it themselves.

 

[jdhaines]

Sort of along the lines with Evan, for myself, it isn't about using blue guns differently than I would use a real gun, it's about allowing for a rapidly changing pretend environment.

If I have a blue gun in my hand and two training partners I'm teaching something to, I will do something like this.

-------Blue Gun-------------------------Environment
------------------------------------------------------
Blue Gun in my hand down and talking----instructor with two students
Blue gun pointing at someone------------that student is now a bad guy
Pointing at students behind cover--------students are now video cameras, not people

These are just examples. I use a blue gun as a real gun but in a continuously changing environment. The ability to make up scenarios at the drop of a hat is great. In theory, if I behave correctly the blue gun never does anything that a real gun wouldn't do...but I change the ideas of what the situation is quickly so it seems like it. If I'm not in training, my environment is real and unchangable by me, and I treat the gun as I should in that environment. If I'm doing FoF or combatives training, the environment is bent to whatever makes sense for training in the moment. Think of it like Morpheus changing the matrix. Neo wouldn't fight him until the environment switched to another training program.

I'm about to go into an exam so this was quick. I'll clarify if I come back to a **** storm. It makes sense in my head. Every instructor I've been with has done this to one degree or another regarding the environment switching.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree wholeheartedly but unfortunately we know this happens. This is why we have the shootings with "non-guns".

So, what do you advise for a "decontamination" process to go from or to Force on Force scenarios? What do you guys do?

All magazines and firearms are left in a secure room. You then go to a separate room where the FoF weapons are. You are checked for ammo/guns on the way out of the "hot" room and again upon entry into the "cold" room. Different people do each checkpoint.

People in the cold room issue the training pistols/rifles. They have blue slides (pistols) or blue handguards (rifles) to differentiate them from regular firearms (hence my earlier misunderstanding about what a "blue gun" was in this context. Our rubber ducky guns are red.).

The safety officer at the stage again verifies all blue guns. You then do the FoF training and turn the guns back in. The guys in the safe room who do the issue and receive them back are the only ones who ever load them or the magazines.

Counting yourself, there are a total of 4 people who verify you have no live rounds/weapons going into the FoF scenario.

 

[Coach]

Thanks for the clarification Coach. And I agree with your points. But I also agree with Kirk's position.

For me personally, I don't have two different ways I manipulate guns. I manipulate blue guns the same way I manipulate real guns. When handled administratively I don't point blue guns at innocents, I don't spin them around on my finger like a cowboy, I don't put my finger on the trigger, etc. I wouldn't do that with a live firearm so I don't do it with a blue gun.

Now what about pointing a blue gun at a roleplayer? I'm very much OK with that because it's in the context of a training environment where the attacker is fake and so is the gun. In FoF I'm training my brain to process a certain way, so I'm still using the blue gun in the same manner I would a live firearm. The difference, however, is that in the training environment we've mitigated the risk by using fake attackers and fake guns. So the "violation" of the 4-rules is an acceptable one (just like in real life).

Simplified:

Innocent = no pointing of live weapon in real life
Innocent = no pointing of blue gun in training

Attacker = acceptable pointing of live weapon in real life
Attacker = acceptable pointing of blue gun in training



I would actually argue that, for the described purposes it IS a gun, and you're still violating the 4-rules, but there is simply ZERO risk involved because it's made of solid plastic. But the rules were still violated.

As far as demos I don't have a big issue with an instructor flagging his body to make a point, but I don't think students should be doing it themselves.

Ok. I guess we just disagree and that is fine.

 

[HICKMAN]

If you point your blue gun at yourself or others because "it ain't no gun, Jasper" then sooner or later you will point a real gun at yourself or others.

I disagree.

For example, I attended a class given by Coach and Rhino.

A blue gun was used to show proper and improper grip from all angles so that students could really get in and see where the hands where placed without worry of being swept by a real gun.

It's a training aid and nothing more.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement.

"It ain't no realy ****-tull gon, Jasper. Eye been around gunz all MEYE lie-efff" happens every single day.

It just happened today in fact: Baltimore police training shooting of University of Maryland officer leaves Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake angry, 'speechless' - baltimoresun.com

It ain't no real gun=sloppy=complacency=negligence waiting to happen

 

[Coach]

I disagree with your disagreement.

"It ain't no realy ****-tull gon, Jasper. Eye been around gunz all MEYE lie-efff" happens every single day.

It just happened today in fact: Baltimore police training shooting of University of Maryland officer leaves Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake angry, 'speechless' - baltimoresun.com

It ain't no real gun=sloppy=complacency=negligence waiting to happen

It was not a blue "gun".



Would it be fair to say you are completely against F on F and simunitions?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It was not a blue "gun".

Thinking it was a non-gun: St. Joseph police officer, Iowa native, killed during training - Des Moines gun rights | Examiner.com

I can do this all day. Death after death after screwing around by treating plastic training guns as non-guns and then when they have real guns, well, the bad habits are hard wired in and they end up with additional holes or putting additional holes in people.

Would it be fair to say you are completely against F on F and simunitions?

As I have done it, more than once, no I am not against it. I want clean areas, vocalizations and people who know what they are doing in charge.

 

[225646]

I agree that gun safety is a matter of habit. All guns should be treated the same way. Finger off the trigger and only point at something to be destroyed.

 

[Coach]

Thinking it was a non-gun: St. Joseph police officer, Iowa native, killed during training - Des Moines gun rights | Examiner.com

I can do this all day. Death after death after screwing around by treating plastic training guns as non-guns and then when they have real guns, well, the bad habits are hard wired in and they end up with additional holes or putting additional holes in people.



As I have done it, more than once, no I am not against it. I want clean areas, vocalizations and people who know what they are doing in charge.

What else is a person going to say? I didn't think it was loaded? I thought it was a training gun? I am a dumbass? The last one is likely the only accurate one.

So you have violated your own advice. You have done F on F and actually pointed gun at a living breathing human being who is not a bad guy. But that is ok? Now I am confused. You have been arguing against bad habits being formed and for following the four rules always, which I have agreed has a certain logic to it. However, you have not lived up to those standards.

Stupid people killing other people does not make blue guns an unsound practice. Plus once again no one has even been shot with a bluegun because it is impossible. People have been killed because some dumbass does not know the difference. Those bad habits existed long before training guns came into the scenario. Bad gun-handling skills exist long before a person touches a blue gun. They did not become hard wired by using training guns. Go to any gun store and watch the bad gun handling and lack of safety and by folks who have never touched a blue gun.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Go to any gun store and watch the bad gun handling and lack of safety and by folks who have never touched a blue gun

I am not THAT brave.

 

[ghostdncr]

My favorite part of the whole story was found down in the comments:

As with all rules:

The rank amateur doesn’t know them.
The intermediate practitioner knows them.
The true expert knows when to break them.

 

[esrice]

Stupid people killing other people does not make blue guns an unsound practice. Plus once again no one has even been shot with a bluegun because it is impossible. People have been killed because some dumbass does not know the difference. Those bad habits existed long before training guns came into the scenario. Bad gun-handling skills exist long before a person touches a blue gun. They did not become hard wired by using training guns. Go to any gun store and watch the bad gun handling and lack of safety and by folks who have never touched a blue gun.

I don't believe that handling blue guns causes folks to be unsafe with real guns. But I do believe that unsafe handling of blue guns causes unsafe handling of real guns-- or at least can cause unsafe handling.

I work hard to ingrain good gun-handling habits, so I don't see any reason to undo that by changing my methods with blue guns. I use blue guns in training because it widens my margin for error, but I still use them like I would a real gun.

You make a great point about using training guns in FoF. How is this done without breaking the 4-rules? Well, remember that the rule about pointing has the qualifying statement " . . . . unless you are willing to destroy it". In FoF that willingness is there, so guns are pointed and triggers are pulled.

Even in skills-based FoF when simply learning the mechanics of putting the sights on a human being and pulling the trigger we have the other person brandish a weapon and threaten to take life. Why? Because you're setting the stage for the real world, so we make sure that things like intent, ability, and opportunity are met, even in training.

I think where we disagree is on whether or not the '4-rules' apply to blue guns or not. And that's ok. I appreciate the discussion and hope it's provided some food-for-thought to any readers.

 

[rhino]

I don't believe that handling blue guns causes folks to be unsafe with real guns. But I do believe that unsafe handling of blue guns causes unsafe handling of real guns-- or at least can cause unsafe handling.

I work hard to ingrain good gun-handling habits, so I don't see any reason to undo that by changing my methods with blue guns. I use blue guns in training because it widens my margin for error, but I still use them like I would a real gun.

I think it's wise to treat functional replicas (airsoft, simmunition, etc.) with respect as you would a "real" gun because they are capable of firing projectiles. They have moving parts and in some cases are actual firearms with a barrel switch or other minor modifications.

I can't agree with respect to Blue Guns or other completely inert replicas. They are completely inert, non-functional pieces of plastic or some other material that can't ever by used to propel a projectile.

Again, I ask, if Blue Guns should be treated as real guns, where do you draw the line for other inert objects that you don't have to treat as real guns? What if we drilled holes in a Blue Gun so that it looked like swiss cheese? There is no conceivable way anyone could mistake that for a functional weapon, nor could anyone mistake a functional weapon for a swiss cheesed blue gun.

What about wooden replicas that kind of look like guns, but not really?

What about the pieces of plastic coat hanger that Louis Awerbuck uses to practice disarms so people don't get hurt by getting their finger caught in the trigger guard of their Blue Gun?

What about making a "gun" with your finger?

Where do you draw the line where you have to treat an inert object as a firearms and where you don't? At risk of the ol' reductio ad absurdum, based on your argument, I don't see why you wouldn't have to treat any object you encounter as if it were a firearm unless you can provide some objective level of resemblance to a real firearm that you can apply. There really isn't a significant functional difference between a block of plastic that is shaped like a gun and a block of plastic shaped a rectangular prism in the context of whether or not it will ever be used to launch a bullet and hurt someone. Neither can do so and neither ever will.