• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Tueller Drill

H

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
imported post

Armed with a stopwatch and my Sig, I realized very quickly, the lack of efficacy of UOC.
Although a wholehearted suppoter of UOC for political statement, neutered right and general defense, I fully see its inadequacies.

When considering the Tueller drill, (has anyone been successful in accomplishing it within time or modified with time?), I start to wonder what distances can be considered reasonable to feel threatened. With a court of law in mind.

Obviously, opening fire on someone at the edge of your property is not an immediate danger to you, whether or not they had a knife. At least, it would be impossible to conclusively prove in a court of law.
I factor in a retention holster, drawing and loading the mag to the drill, extending the time/distance of the drill, and come up fruitless.
Being forced to choose UOC over disarmament, doesn't change the reasonable distance to open fire on an attacker does it?
 
Y

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
imported post

heliopolissolutions wrote:
Obviously, opening fire on someone at the edge of your property is not an immediate danger to you, whether or not they had a knife. At least, it would be impossible to conclusively prove in a court of law.
I factor in a retention holster, drawing and loading the mag to the drill, extending the time/distance of the drill, and come up fruitless.
Being forced to choose UOC over disarmament, doesn't change the reasonable distance to open fire on an attacker does it?
Click to expand...
When I'm at home, on my property, I LOC. If someone wants to bring a knife to a gunfight, I won't argue with them.
 
S

Sionadi

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
62
Location
Laytonville, California, USA
imported post

yelohamr wrote:
heliopolissolutions wrote:
Obviously, opening fire on someone at the edge of your property is not an immediate danger to you, whether or not they had a knife. At least, it would be impossible to conclusively prove in a court of law.
I factor in a retention holster, drawing and loading the mag to the drill, extending the time/distance of the drill, and come up fruitless.
Being forced to choose UOC over disarmament, doesn't change the reasonable distance to open fire on an attacker does it?
Click to expand...
When I'm at home, on my property, I LOC. If someone wants to bring a knife to a gunfight, I won't argue with them.
Click to expand...
Big +1 to that.
 
H

heliopolissolutions

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
542
Location
, ,
imported post

Yelohamr: Thank goodness that we are 'allowed' to LOC on our own property, in MOST cases. However, proving a legitimate threat to ones safety is a challenge for many self defense cases.
The purpose of the Tueller drill, where it applies, is that there is a distance of which it is logical and reasonable to believe that yourself is in danger when faced with a knife-wielding attacker, and where you could respond to that.

With UOC, that margin of safety just got a whole second or two bigger. How does this tie into convincing a court of law of your innocence? (Because yes, pathetically enough, the victim must provide proof of their innocence in many cases)
 
Y

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
imported post

If someone was on my property with some type of weapon and I was in the house, I would call 911. The bringing a knife to a gunfight was meant if that person broke into the house and put someone in danger.
I don't advocate shooting someone just because they're in your yard or driveway...even if they are a liberal.
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

The sad reality is that UOC is not a viable defense to a knife-attack against your person. Even a loaded firearm is a marginal defense unless you have some advance warning of the impending attack. In my experience, the two guys with knives didn't let me know they had knives until they were about 6 feet away. Even a loaded firearm might not have been enough to save my life had those men decided to end it.

The situation the state puts us in is to use other tools of self defense. For example, you may actually be better off using blunt objects to fight off an attacker than trying to load your gun. Unless you're physically disabled in some way that prevents hand-to-hand combat... then I guess you're just screwed. You may as well just grab your cell phone and scream a description of your attacker to the 9-1-1 operator in hopes they'll catch the guy once you're dead.

Isn't it wonderful knowing the state is here to take care of us? Especially the physically disadvantaged among us?
 
N

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Isn't it wonderful knowing the state is here to take care of us? Especially the physically disadvantaged among us?
Click to expand...
Once you know the state wants you dead, it's a lot easier to understand the reasoning for the myriad of problems they create to lead to that effect.
 
Sons of Liberty

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
imported post

heliopolissolutions wrote:
[SNIP]With UOC, that margin of safety just got a whole second or two bigger. How does this tie into convincing a court of law of your innocence? (Because yes, pathetically enough, the victim must provide proof of their innocence in many cases)
Click to expand...

So, what's the alternative? Don't build in a extra margin of safety and end up dead?

Do what you need to do to protect your family and yourself.

There's always a separation of the wheat from the tares at harvest. There's not a whole lot you can do about that.
 
I

inbox485

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
353
Location
Riverside County, California, USA
imported post

heliopolissolutions wrote:
Armed with a stopwatch and my Sig, I realized very quickly, the lack of efficacy of UOC.
Although a wholehearted suppoter of UOC for political statement, neutered right and general defense, I fully see its inadequacies.

When considering the Tueller drill, (has anyone been successful in accomplishing it within time or modified with time?), I start to wonder what distances can be considered reasonable to feel threatened. With a court of law in mind.

Obviously, opening fire on someone at the edge of your property is not an immediate danger to you, whether or not they had a knife. At least, it would be impossible to conclusively prove in a court of law.
I factor in a retention holster, drawing and loading the mag to the drill, extending the time/distance of the drill, and come up fruitless.
Being forced to choose UOC over disarmament, doesn't change the reasonable distance to open fire on an attacker does it?
Click to expand...

UOC (and LUCC for that matter) seem like more of an option for when you see a threat coming but don't have a safe way out or for some (hopefully justifiable) reason, your are initiating contact with the threat. Neither seem like viable options for surprise attacks if you intend to use the gun in a traditional sense. Lucky for you, your gun is an incredibly effective hand weapon even when it is unloaded. Like learning to shoot, it isn't something you learn overnight, but kubotan techniques take on a whole new level of hurt when you apply them with a handgun, and most techniques land you in a position where you can load the gun while controlling the attacker. Unloaded gun vs. knife is a surprisingly fair fight (not that a fair fight is a good thing, but it is better than an unfair fight with you on the losing end).
 
I

inbox485

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2009
Messages
353
Location
Riverside County, California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
The sad reality is that UOC is not a viable defense to a knife-attack against your person. Even a loaded firearm is a marginal defense unless you have some advance warning of the impending attack. In my experience, the two guys with knives didn't let me know they had knives until they were about 6 feet away. Even a loaded firearm might not have been enough to save my life had those men decided to end it.

The situation the state puts us in is to use other tools of self defense. For example, you may actually be better off using blunt objects to fight off an attacker than trying to load your gun. Unless you're physically disabled in some way that prevents hand-to-hand combat... then I guess you're just screwed. You may as well just grab your cell phone and scream a description of your attacker to the 9-1-1 operator in hopes they'll catch the guy once you're dead.

Isn't it wonderful knowing the state is here to take care of us? Especially the physically disadvantaged among us?
Click to expand...

That blunt object to which you refer would be your not yet loaded gun. Seriously, loaded or not, it is a great weapon. If you want to go crazy, slap one of these on and get a custom holster to fit:
pb1-0ss.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top