Tactical Tailor

Gunfighter Moment – Daryl Holland

“At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”


Like it or not, Law and Order is a must or you have chaos, which is what the savages long for anyway. It’s not just in the Middle East anymore; Ferguson, Baltimore, and more recently Waco, Texas are good examples of how close the leader of the Free World can become the Wild West.

Sure, nobody wants to be a victim, and with the lack of trust in our close minded and uninformed politicians who attack our 2nd Amendment rights, we buy more guns, ammo, and equipment. If you’re like my family, you can never have enough guns. However, why don’t we spend some of that money on training and improve upon a perishable skill?

I, too, would love having a gun collection like the one Charlton Heston had, but you can only shoot one gun at a time to get truly proficient with that weapon system. I try and keep things simple and only use Glocks and 1911 type pistols, because that is what I grew up with and used during my Military career.

Do you think the guy that surprised the two Jihadist down in Texas had been trained, or had really cool Gucci gear that did all of the work? Obviously, this guy was confident in his ability, and it’s very important to know your own ability before springing into action hero status. Anybody can spring into action when you roll out surrounded by commandos, but to act alone is simply heroism.

The conceal carry laws and training outline by the NRA barely scratch the surface on accuracy and accountability; I add the later because if your gun goes ‘bang’, you had better know where that bullet is going.

I believe that having a conceal carry permit is a privilege, while being proficient and accurate is a responsibility.

Train on.


Daryl Holland


Daryl Holland is a retired U.S. Army Sergeant Major with over 20 years of active duty experience, 17 of those years in Special Operations. Five years with the 1st Special Forces Group (SFG) and 12 years in the 1st SFOD-Delta serving as an Assaulter, Sniper, Team Leader, and OTC Instructor.

He has conducted several hundred combat missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Philippines, and the Mexican Border. He has conducted combat missions in Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush Mountains as a Sniper and experienced Mountaineer to the streets of Baghdad as an Assault Team Leader.

He has a strong instructor background started as an OTC instructor and since retiring training law abiding civilians, Law Enforcement, U.S. Military, and foreign U.S. allied Special Operations personnel from around the world.

Gunfighter Moment is a weekly feature brought to you by Alias Training & Security Services. Each week Alias brings us a different Trainer and in turn, they offer some words of wisdom.

Tags: ,

30 Responses to “Gunfighter Moment – Daryl Holland

  1. orly? says:

    Wonderful insight.

    May common sense prevail.

  2. Matt says:

    I only really disagree with the last bit about it being a privilege, it’s a right. You while exercising that right have the responsibility to be trained.

  3. Patrick says:

    I too disagree with the “privilege” bit. Possessing the means to defend oneself and their family is a Natural Right given to man by God.

    • TominVA says:

      What makes you think so?

      • BillC says:

        The Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.

        • TominVA says:

          Yes, but Patrick does not invoke the Bill of Rights. He invokes God. My question centers on that.

          • Terry B. says:

            Patrick / TominVA

            I would agree that having the right to defend oneself is an “Unalienable Right” as the Founders described it.

            Having the MEANS to defend yourself is something very different. If God or Nature (whichever anyone might prefer to evoke) had meant to guarantee us the means to defend ourselves our species would have functional claws and fangs or other built in defensive mechanism. Porcupine quills perhaps?

            And the Founding Fathers in the “Bill of Rights” did not “guarantee” you any particular means to defend yourself either. If they had then the Government would be obliged to issue you a weapon.

            The 2nd Amendment is no more about providing for your individual self defense than it is about hunting or “sport shooting”. Having a firearm certainly lets you do those things…but that is not the purpose of the Amendment.

            The Founders provided the explicit opportunity (not a mandate) for every citizen to voluntarily arm themselves in order to “provide for the common defense” and support the “security of a free state”. Their words not mine.

            The intent is for the individual citizen to then be fully prepared to take his firearm and band with his neighbors in the collective defense of liberty when required.

            Leaving his own home and family uncovered if need be. Willingly putting himself in harms way for his community if need be. Defending not himself but the ideals of the Constitution with his own life if need be.

            It is an honorable and selfless duty that each citizen can choose to shoulders or shirk. That is ultimately what the 2nd Amendment is about and that is why we have the Constitutionally guaranteed Right to own firearms.


            • james says:

              Ah, but he did give us the means:the intelligence to create and use tools.

              • Terry B. says:


                Different discussion. I don’t think that is what Patrick was referring to when he made his comment about having the “means” to defend himself.

                Based on the subject of the article I presumed he was referring specifically to a firearm. And I was responding to him in that context.

                You may know how to make a tool – given the necessary time and resources. But that knowledge alone certainly doesn’t mean that you are assured of having the tool available when you need it.


                • james says:

                  That is the point. Other creatures have defense(and offense)mechanisms given by god;be it claws,teeth, stingers, size, or foul odors. We were given intelligence and dexterity. So we create our weapons using that. Regardless of man’s law people will and do make them. Any law attempting to deny this deeper natural law is not only foolish but also immoral.

                  • Terry B. says:


                    I have already agreed with you that a person has the right to defend themselves. And that right is unalienable or natural if you prefer.

                    But this was initially a discussion about carrying firearms. Firearms are indeed a product of man’s nature and ingenuity…but firearms are not a product OF nature.

                    A man in the 1st Century AD simply could never build an AR 15 or Glock no matter how intelligence or good with his hands he might have been.

                    Nor can you or I even today unless the manufactured parts and the necessary assembly tools – to include ammunition components – are available to us.

                    Assuming we also have the appropriate manual in a language we can read or already have experience building guns.

                    If placed in a primate setting with only our wits and natural resources available even modern man is still limited to the construction of only rudimentary stick and stone weapons. No matter how smart we are.

                    As a practical matter Nature is perfectly indifferent to our individual “right” to survival.


  4. Bradkaf308 says:

    I agree with Mr. Holland. My personal philosophy is, to own is right, but to ccw is a privalage. This is for multiple reasons that affect, people around and you. For the people around you, you should be an asset not a liability. Having training helps you to an asset. If you don’ have traing you are a liability, or you got lucky. If you don’t have training that improves the bad guys chances. This issue isn’t just one thing. It’s about rights, tactics, liability for different parties, responsibility for different parties involved. But the end objective is for a competent citizen to carry safely and in a sound way. Not based on what they learned from Charlie’s Angles. Do professional soldiers or cops join up, get a uniform and then dropped in the shit? Would train someone to fight in a jungle & drop him in a desert? Who would you be helping? From a rights point of view this is a simple issue, but when you start thinking about the rest of it, it gets a bit more complex. The objective is to get citizen trained to do the job in a competent way. Well regulated militia.

    • T Dubbs says:

      I’d say a person could end up being just as much of a liability to those around them for NOT carrying.

      • Bradkaf308 says:

        Absolutely! But just blind carry without skills isn’t good. Get skills, carry, maintain skills, improve skills.

      • Bradkaf308 says:

        Absolutely. Get skills, carry, maintain skills, improve skills.

  5. LawDog says:

    The right to keep AND BEAR arms…. nope, doesn’t sound like a privilege to me.

  6. Kip Staton says:

    1. a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

    I don’t think that Mr. Holland’s comment contradicts the idea that the bearing of arms is a Natural Right, but is rather simply a factual reflection of the current state of affairs when it comes to exercising that right.

    Many states require a class, paperwork, fee and subsequently issued ID in order to be included in the group of individuals allowed to carry a concealed handgun.

    Jump through the hoops, and only then may you become a member of the privileged class.

    • TominVA says:

      But isn’t that the way it should be. Do we really want folks carrying without at least some proper training?

      • mark says:

        It’s the classic dilemma of Ideology vs. Self-Interest.

      • james says:

        But who decides what is appropriate?

      • Evets Steve says:

        I really wish the SJW-types would come to realize that treating the ‘bear arms’ part of the 2nd amendment as a privilege, which requires training, licensing, forms, fees, and/or leaves a flexible interpretation of “in immediate danger” to the whims of bureaucrats, is a thinly veiled means to return women to their pre-firearm-era subjugation; such that they must degrade themselves and preform “womanly-efforts” to keep a big strong man, who can wield primitive/improvised weapons (such as an axe or a table leg) interested/happy enough to protect them.

        Unfortunately for many women, the belief that any man-less/relationship-less independent woman can just pick up the phone, dial 911, and have a dozen+ armed men rush to their home and save them is the lie perpetuated instead.

        I believe that anyone who postulates that the right to bear arms is a privilege or should require some non-inate hurdle as a barrier to protect society at large should take at least a weekend and volunteer at a battered women’s shelter. while you listen to the things them women have been through, remember to tell the 50 year old, 90 lbs Thai grandmother working in a hotel, “but all you would have had to do was to fill out a form, pay a fee, take a 2 day class first, and wait for your license to be mailed to you, then you would have been able to pull a revolver from your purse and gut shot the man who had climbed on top of you to rape you. or you could have just been a good wife to a man and stayed home in the first place”

        firearms make the weakest of us equal to the strongest of us. taking that away is evil.

        • Terry B. says:


          I’m not sure what an “SJW -type” is so I’m not certain if I am one or not.

          If those women you refer to are American citizens and have not been convicted of a felony or otherwise been legally disqualified from owning a firearm then they have the same right to buy a gun as any man.

          I don’t see anyone here questioning that right.

          The discussion was specifically about CCW. I won’t argue the semantics of “right” or “privilege” again since that has been beat pretty hard already on this thread.

          I personally prefer that anyone who is required or chooses to carry a firearm in a public place, concealed or open carry, have some minimal training first. Since at that point their right to bear arms may infringe on the safety of the people around them if they mishandle said firearm.

          And I truly believe that those vulnerable women you speak of (or any male for that matter) would be far better served by having at least some understanding of the fundamentals of firearm safety and use before they have to defend themselves with that gun.

          Can we at least agree on that?


          • Evets Steve says:

            No. “pull out firearm, point at assailant, pull trigger” requires no training. please un-learn whatever hero-complex you think needs to be forceably indoctrinated on our fellow human beings before they are “allowed” to leave their home and defend themselves.

            • Terry B. says:


              You can’t be serious? How did the weapon get loaded safely in the first place without any training?

              Where and how is this person safely carrying this weapon before this hypothetical confrontation? Jammed into a purse tangled up in baby naps?

              Does she even know anything about the gun like how to engage and disengage the safety of the weapon?

              And who is behind or beyond the assailant when the untrained gun owner in your scenario pulls that trigger? A child or other innocent bystander? Maybe me or you?

              Even trained people don’t always hit what they are shooting at when they are in a high stress situation. But training makes it considerably less likely that your stray bullets with hit someone else unintentionally.

              People with little or no training also manage to shoot themselves or their loved ones accidentally on a pretty regular basis. Training makes that much less likely.

              You are making training (which I personally support for all gun owners) sound like it only servers the purpose of somehow “oppressing” one or more classes of people. That is simply nonsense!

              Training in fact instills confidence in the weapon and in themselves and actually empowers women (and men). Appropriate training with firearms is designed first and foremost to help make someone more likely to be a survivor of a violent confrontation not a hero.

              Frankly, since you clearly want these vulnerable women to be survivors and victors in a violent confrontation with any assailant you should be a vocal advocate of training.

              That is much better and far preferable IMO to simply handing them a gun they don’t really know how to use and telling them “good luck” or “do the best you can”.

              As for myself, I would never allow any member of my family, male or female, to put themselves and others at risk by carrying a firearm without any training in the safe handling of firearms in general and that weapon in particular.

              But that’s just me.


              • Evets Steve says:

                you’re making my point exactly.

                them girls should just stay in the kitchen and put up with whatever their man feels like doing to them, because listen to how complicated guns are, or listen to how potentially dangerous guns are, or listen to how scary guns are, or listen to how many bad things might happen once a gun goes bang….

                [quote]…I would never allow any member of my family,…[/quote]

                Me, I live in a constitutional republic where every member of every family has the God given, government protected, right to defend themselves and each other.

                No one must first beg their head of household for permission. No one must kiss anyone’s ring first.

                But that’s just me.

                • Terry B. says:


                  Funny. I thought you would fixate on the word “allow” and miss the context and larger point.

                  Believe it or not, I used “allow” not in the sense of “giving permission” as you inferred.

                  But rather to declare that I would never passively sit by and let a member of my family do something, anything inherently risky without doing all I could to make sure they had the proper training and / or safety equipment.

                  Not because I want to “control” or “oppress” or even “infringe on their rights” in any way. But because I very much want them to be safe and I want them to survive the activity intact.

                  Ride a motorcycle, skydive, operate a chainsaw, or carry a gun. All activities that come with real but manageable risk. Assuming you have the training to know what you are doing.

                  Training is gender neutral not part of some misogynist conspiracy to “keep them girls in the kitchen”. Doing risky things without the proper training is foolhardy not empowering.

                  You are correct that most adult citizens in the USA have the right to keep and bear arms. No one has been disputing that with you.

                  But you are ignoring the fact that a firearm itself is a powerful tool that can cause serious bodily harm or death whether you use it properly or improperly.

                  Knowing how to carry and potentially use a firearm responsibly is not an instinctive human activity. That is where training comes in.

                  Because the right to bear arms clearly carries with it the individual responsibility for anything that you do or fail to do with that firearm. And a real citizen, male or female, doesn’t just covet his or her “rights” but also readily shoulders the associated responsibilities.

                  I have more confidence in women than you seem to. I think the majority of them are more than capable of not only bearing arms but also carrying and using them responsibly. Just like any man.


                  • Evets Steve says:

                    It’s hard to let go once you’re invested in something. I know, I’ve fallen into the same trap myself a few times,

                    Many people believe they need to invest their own time/money/practice in the use of a firearm; admitting that someone who has zero training could successfully load, carry, draw, aim, and fire a firearm when needed is easily perceived as an invalidation of their beliefs and a devaluation of their own investment.

                    The redcoats said it of colonials, believing that without proper training in war Americans would never even win a battle, let alone free their own country. They were wrong.

                    The US Army said it of the viet cong, believing again that without proper training in firearms and tactics they’d never be able to stand up to big green. We were wrong.

                    On the CCW front, we’ve had numerous constitutional carry states for years now, and for even longer we’ve had shall issue states that issue carry licenses without any training requirements. ND’s don’t happen in public places, stray bullets aren’t the bane of polite society, blood isn’t running in the streets.

                    I think this boils down to how does one feel when balancing a personal investment in firearms training with the knowledge that thousands of people have been walking around carrying firearms with zero formal training for decades.

                    I clearly won’t be able to free you of your id’s grip on how valuable firearms training is to your self worth. At the same time you won’t convince me that government needs, in any way, to get in between a person and the means to defend themselves especially when it is only providing an external validation of your beliefs.

                    We’ll have to leave it at that, I don’t think you’ll understand that government involvement is oppressing whole underclasses when that same government involvement is validating your class’s beliefs.

                    • Terry B. says:


                      I am amazed that you feel so confident that you understand my “id” or my “class” or what contributes to my sense of “self worth” as well as you believe you do.

                      It must be hard to find a hat to fit over an ego that big.

                      BTW, your might want to find different historical examples to bolster your argument that training is somehow irrelevant and unnecessary.

                      The American Colonists and the Viet Cong did train extensively. Not to the level of their opponents, but “formal training” none the less.

                      The Colonists in particular recognized the value of training and did as much as they could given their resources and circumstances.

                      And the fact is both the Viet Cong and the Colonists paid a very steep price in blood for the inadequacy of their training when facing someone who was better prepared for the fight.

                      Have a nice day.


  7. ED HICKEY says:

    As I responded to this on the Alias thread. I consider it a right & a privilege cause if you do something wrong you will risk loosing that privilege to carry concealed. It’s really that simple!

  8. Sean says:

    Have a firearm is a right as defined by the constitution. Having a concealed carry permit should be a right and a privilege. By that I mean anyone can have one however you have to you have to put the proper work in order to keep it. I don’t want people flying an aircraft who haven’t been in the cockpit in three years and neither do you. I think ED is correct that if you show you are not mature enough to carry a firearm then you should have that taken away. We do the same thing with driving a car, get a whole bunch of speeding tickets you don’t drive for a while. I am a HUGE proponent of more people carrying concealed, however you have to be a mature individual to do that and I don’t think holding ourselves to a higher standard in a bad thing.