Home / Reviews / CCW Videos

Armed Response Fundamentals of Defensive Shooting Video

Armed Response “Fundamentals of Defensive Shooting”

By David Kenik and Ralph Mroz

What is the biggest problem regarding gun safety facing gun owners today? It is the fact that many if not most do not practice or try to get additional training material. Many of our students buy a gun, practice before the CCW class and then never touch the pistol again. Then they wonder why they panic in a crisis. We stress training, training, continuing education and more training.

I have been an NRA Instructor for years and feel that I learn from every class I teach, or each time I go to the range to test equipment.  I will admit that one of my own faults is that I do not get to practice shooting skills as much as I should.  Being a Black Belt does help with close quarter drills and the tactical applications of using your hands or alternate weapons for defense. David Kenik has written Armed Response and the book is a great resource. It covers many of the issues that are not covered in most CCW courses.

This video developed by David Kenik and Ralph Mroz was very helpful because they covered the basics and many more advanced techniques. I will be showing some portions of this video in my CCW classes as Ralph Mroz is a very professional presenter and covers the topics smoothly and professionally. The advantage for showing parts of this DVD in my CCW class would be to help with consistency, and to let the students know that there are additional materials that are available at very reasonable prices.

If every student would purchase these videos and watch them, it would make me feel better that the students are trying to continue the learning process. If people are serious about protecting their family, this video series is a small price to pay for the amount of information covered. There are enough safety tips that it just might save their lives. Paying an instructor to cover all of these topics would be astronomical and they would not be able to replay the DVD for the parts that additional practice.

The some of the topics covered included: “Gun Safety on the Street”; “Handgun Fundamentals”;  “Reloading”; “Magazine Management”; “Different Carry Positions”; “Tactical Draw”; “Malfunction Clearing Skills”; “Sighted and Non-Sighted Firing”; “One-Handed Manipulations and Shooting”; “Accuracy”; and “Stopping Power”.

The first topics of Gun Safety were well done. Ralph goes through the normal gun safety rules and describes what the street rules for safety would be.  One of the best examples is the rule to always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. This is one of the most important rules of gun safety, but they have added; “touch the trigger finger to the pistol on the slide”. Practicing this addition to the rule will allow the subconscious and the muscle memory to retain when the finger is off the trigger. If the finger is just held off the trigger, you would not get in the habit or remember to do the same thing every time.  

Many instructors say that you fight as you train, and you should train as you would want to fight. Adding this simple but effective tip has the potential to save lives. This would help stop people from pulling their sidearm and putting their finger right on the trigger, therefore opening the possibility to accidently discharge the firearm before the target was acquired. The missed bullet could be into the concealed carry person’s leg, or an innocent bystander. This also applies to re-holstering the sidearm.

They also cover the fact that a safe shot on the range is so much easier to determine…it is down range and into the embankment. In the street there are so many additional factors that need to be taken into consideration.  Just acquiring your target, the bad guy, may not be that easy. You may have an innocent bystander behind the bad guy. Moving to the right or left may eliminate the problem with the target acquisition. Practicing shooting on the move is covered in the other video “Tactics and Techniques for Defensive Shooting”.

The Speed Load and Tactical Load was very interesting and had some key take away issues. All reloads should be “Speed Loads”.  The reason is because the speed load drops the magazine and quickly reloads the firearm. The tactical reload is a little more cumbersome and is usually used when there is a “lull” in the firefight. The shooter would drop the magazine from the firearm even with live rounds still in the magazine, and fill the handgun with the full magazine. The next step would be to drop the partially spent magazine into your pocket. They contend that most shootings are under 5 shots and if you have time to do a tactical load, you may want to drop the magazine as you would in a speed load and scan the area around you. If you verify that the area is secure, then pick up your additional magazine and place in your pocket. I liked the idea of practicing only one kind of reload in a crisis. 

I also liked some of the recommendations for magazine management. Keep your practice magazines separate from your magazines that you carry every day.  They also recommended changing the springs at least once a year, and marking or labeling the magazines. This will help you keep the practice magazines from getting mixed up with the carry magazines.

We have several churches in that have had a lot of students come through our CCW classes. Some of the churches take it even more seriously by having practices in the church to help with how to move to acquire targets while minimizing innocents being hurt.  In fact our last course had a lot of students from my own church. We had a “blast” and I am thrilled that more people are taking the necessary steps to protect our families and churches.  The entire series would be excellent for church members to purchase before they go to the range for key safety tips, and shooting drills.

As a Concealed Carry Instructor I will be recommending these to my students for continued education regarding CCW issues.  These will be made available to them at the time of the class. We have found that people who are serious about protecting their families want to learn from the pros. I would like to personally thank David Kenik for contacting us about Armed Response “Tactics and Techniques for Defensive Shooting”.  I have enjoyed talking with him, and I am very grateful for what David and Ralph are doing for the shooting community.

We will be covering other videos from David and Ralph as well. You can purchase this video, as well as all of the other videos at Armed Response.

Happy trails and keep the lead down range – Clark.

16 comments (Add your own)

1. RON HARTMAN wrote:
I worry about those of us who curry a licenes for concealed hand guns will be the first disarmed in the event of all the fool's decision's in Washington ..! TEXAS PROUD & FOUGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY.

Fri, December 4, 2009 @ 7:26 AM

2. Thomas Carroll wrote:
When the Russians invaded the country of Hungary they went to the courthouse. They obtained records of all registered gun owners. Using the list soldiers searched door to door until all guns were confiscated. Unarmed subjects are easier to control.

Sat, December 12, 2009 @ 6:36 AM

3. Robert P wrote:
Geeze, I wonder of the acting President of the USA and his cohorts are aware of this as they push for gun confiscation...dah!

Fri, February 26, 2010 @ 5:14 AM

4. Dan Sr. wrote:
When seconds count, police are minutes away...

Wed, March 3, 2010 @ 9:42 AM

5. Russ M. wrote:
I can remember as a young boy, my father had a bumper sticker on his truck that read: "When we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!" Take a look around you at all of the gun control legislation that has and is being introduced, and that bumber sticker could eventually be true. We have the power to protect our 2nd Ammendment rights, do your part and stand strong!

Thu, April 15, 2010 @ 12:19 PM

6. Kevin wrote:
Someday my gun may save someones life, that someone, someday may be you!

Tue, July 27, 2010 @ 5:04 AM

7. Jason W. wrote:
Both political parties are to blame for gun control.
Get active and voice your right to carry. Even if it's legal now it might not be tomorrow.

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes"

Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican former mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about current and future Presidents. But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.

Thu, January 6, 2011 @ 3:27 PM

8. Kayleen wrote:
I have been so bewdielerd in the past but now it all makes sense!

Thu, October 20, 2011 @ 12:38 AM

9. xocfkilb wrote:
Iy0HUY nalywbzottpn

Sat, October 22, 2011 @ 3:05 AM

10. Gary wrote:
In Virginia if you have a DD-214 or retired law emerocenfnt credential you do not need to take a training course. Any NRA firearms safety course, or a permit from another state, such as Utah, or Ohio, which require training, is accepted as evidence of training. The first time you receive a permit you will receive a brochure containing a summary of the Code of Virginia which relates to carrying weapons and use of deadly force. You sign a receipt which acknowledges you have received a copy and you understand that you are responsible to comply with those provisions.

Sun, March 11, 2012 @ 10:59 AM

11. Dayana wrote:
Tom Givens, who teaches in Memphis, has had 56 sdteunts involved in DGUs over the past 5 years. He's also had 2 sdteunts, who were unarmed when they were attacked, die. There are documented cases of CHL holders in Texas who were killed when they were unarmed as well, including a often-cited one involving a Christian musician who was mugged and killed coming out of a recording studio in Dallas.If your hypothesis (which cannot be called a conclusion , since conclusions require supporting data and not just opinion) is correct, and permit holders are incapable of making appropriate decisions under stress, there would more stories of failed DGUs, with armed citizens dying, going to jail, or shooting the wrong person, than there are DGU success stories. There are over 6 million permit holders nationwide now. If you are right, find the data and back up your claims.You should get on YouTube and pull up the video of Suzanna Hupp's testimony to the Texas Legislature. She watched a crazed gunman drive through the front of a Luby's cafeteria and kill a bunch of people, including her parents. She could not fight back because her gun was locked in her truck. Texas had no CHL program until 1996, because people like you, running our state government, believed the same lie you do that regular people are incapable of good judgment when carrying a firearm in public. 16+ years later, the data on Texas CHL holder behavior collected by the state police, to assess that very issue, shows that permit holders are 6-15x LESS likely to commit violent crime than the population as a whole.It's presumptuous and arrogant of you to assume that your own life experience (a data point of one) is sufficient to allow you to understand what other people can or can't do, in life threatening situations, and worse yet for that arrogance to lead you to believe that because you've never been in a situation where deadly force was truly the only survivable option, that others should be denied that fighting chance.Unlike you, who judges the armed citizen community based on nothing more than your own prejudices, I've spent the last 20 years teaching force on force classes where I run armed citizens through scenarios where they have to make those same critical decisions you claim they are incapable of making. Those scenarios are based on real incidents, some in which the victims lost, and some in which the intended victims fought back and lived. For the most part, armed citizens are capable of making good decisions, and the ability of most of them improves dramatically after they've participated in and observed multiple scenarios.

Sun, March 11, 2012 @ 1:53 PM

12. Tina wrote:
The one best silver lnniig of the Tucson shooting has been a return to a public debate on appropriate gun controls. And it looks like additional legislation might also come out of it, if the McCarthy bill to prevent large ammo clips goes through, or yesterday's proposal from Mayors Against Illegal Guns for strengthening background checks and mental health records.And there certainly is a strong correlation state-to-state correlation between stricter gun control and fewer deaths per capita. See my blog post for.Recent polls by Gallup and by Mayors Against Illegal Guns have both shown a for stricter gun control legislation, better mental evaluation records, and better background checks.NOTE: Edited to embed URLs.

Sun, March 11, 2012 @ 3:18 PM

13. Hunk wrote:
My logic and reasoning killss have nothing at all to do with the factual accuracy of either statement. Gun rights supporters such as Lott, whose statement has no factual basis whatsoever except the ones he invented argue that people consider the likelihood that victims might be armed when making decisions about committing crimes. Since such people are by definition sociopathic, this cannot be true unless it works on crazy people. No, the onus on showing the merits of CCW rests on those who would make changes to the previous policy: that private citizens must show cause for a need to carry weapons on their person during routine daily activities. And you may want to avoid comparing Second and First Amendment rights both have, as they should, some limits.

Sun, March 11, 2012 @ 8:33 PM

14. wbknpaftik wrote:
tGjNXV dxoxpohdkrkx

Mon, March 12, 2012 @ 9:10 PM

15. acvqec wrote:
XLmNTf lfqhrbieohhm

Mon, March 12, 2012 @ 9:46 PM

16. Sumbal wrote:
Pierre De Vos says:October 28, 2009 at 12:32 pm//It is bound to get emotional when govrenment tries arbitrarily to remove the valuable and valued property of law-abiding people who have committed no offence at all!For the past 200 years in many countries, gun laws and bans have been implemented continuously one after the other none of these experiments' have produced any evidence that they have worked as desired to reduce crime. If they had succeeded, that evidence would undoubtedly be widely and easily available from numerous source and GFSA would most certainly have that evidence to use to bolster their argument they do not have any such thing and cannot therefore produce it. Where is the list of successes?Why should that be? when the result of these laws cannot be shown as success, could it be that the opposite is true, as in the UK for example? That the banning of guns affects only the already law-abiding and therefore can have no impact on criminal activity.Those who understand the indivisibility of freedom of the individual in democratic states also know that if the govrenment is successful in banning guns in of course, only the law-abiding hands, then what may come next on the list of things that the govrenment prefers citizens may not own computers perhaps? after all the internet can be a very powerful and subversive tool in the eyes of authoritarian states and the list grows from there.The ultimate issues are much larger than the question of legally-held guns in civilian hands. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemoller

Tue, March 13, 2012 @ 5:57 PM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.