Admittedly new to all this but I'm not sure we should base our training on our opponents incompetence

Wouldn't it be better to think of our opponent as being at as least competent as we are

While I normally side with the "don't presume everybody is as bad as you" argument--it's a good one to make, everything works against the unskilled--you're a bit left of the point.

First off, the assertion is that BE has little to do with defensive shooting. Well, this guy scored 5 hits out of 6 shots, after being shot, while being shot at. I dunno, I think that's pretty good. Given that this guy didn't do a lot of shooting outside of winning BE matches, it's clear he managed to retain a good portion of his ability under fire.

Now, in response to your mis-aimed counterargument, Bullseye Dude pretty much hit the Bad Situation Bingo. His opponent outdrew him, got off the first shot, and made the first hit. When the shooting started, he didn't even have a gun on his person. To make matters worse, he was fighting in a damn hallway.

Go ahead, shoot yourself in the arm, then record your split times. Hits outside the A-zone are a 1-second penalty. Personally, I think Bullseye Dude was pretty tough. Especially when you consider that his opponent was not "incompetent"--Dead Guy was a career criminal, with a long history of robberies and shootings to his credit.

Do I think BE is the sole Way and Truth of cross-training? No, but it does teach some useful skills if you pursue it with a serious mindset. Again--it's about patching holes in your skillset. Yeah, you got 50 shots on an FBI silhouette, but you didn't deliberately put any of them on there in a particular place. You literally couldn't miss.

On the other hand, I don't think you can go wrong with much of anything when it comes to training, so long as it:

*has some form of pressure, either accuracy or time or preferably both
*is repeatable and has an objective standard to judge improvement on, which makes it something you can study and examine yourself with
*is enjoyable to the shooter (training you don't do is worth nothing)

yep I read somewhere compiling 60 + years of caliber stats, that the 380 was the most deadly threatstopper
only because it was far more likely to be used and carried.

Yeah, I read lots of stuff on the internet, but it has to pass a simple logic test; does it make sense? In this case it doesn't. If the .380Auto were so popular, the ammo would be less expensive.

Caliber and gun mean nothing if you can't put rounds on target.
You can't put rounds on target if you don't see the threat coming.

The best way to survive a gun fight is to avoid it in the first place. So.....
Use your situational awareness to stay away from trouble.
Get some training with whatever tool you intend to use to defend yourself.
Practice that training with that tool.

Fortune favors the prepared.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Never shoot to kill or to wound. Shoot to stop! This may kill the bad guy, but that's not your intent. You just want to stop him from doing whatever it was that made you shoot him in the first place.

Correct... You absolutely have to choose you choice of words precisely or you'll have the DA up your arse. It's best to not say anything no matter how right you are. Let your attorney give the police your statement... say nothing yourself!

Honestly, "shoot to..."-whatever arguments are just so much pathetic virtue signaling.

No, you're not trying to kill anyone.

Yes, you should be comfortable with the fact that it's called "lethal" force for a reason.

Move on.

Virtue signalling??? How do you get that?? When I say that my intent when shooting is to stop whatever action that forced me to shoot in the first place, it isn't virtue signalling, it's being practical. If I stop my foe by wounding him, my intent was not to wound, it was to stop. My use of force has accomplished what I intended. Likewise, if I kill my foe, I will have stopped him. That was my intent, not to kill him.

But, by the same token. when you shoot in self-defense, you should not do so unless you are justified in killing your opponent, because the shot that is likely to produce an instant stop (to the brain-stem or the medulla) or the upper spine, are also quite often fatal.

__________________
Let's be careful out there

Blind luck plays a huge part. John Wesley Hardin was shot in the abdomen by Phil Sublette in Trinity City Texas when a drunk grabbed him from behind and pushed him into the line of fire.

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Because one side rages about being mentally-prepared to use lethal force, or you shouldn't carry at all!

The other side cops a "I shoot to stop, not to kill" holier-than-thou attitude.

It's a dumb semantic argument, between groups of people compelled to prove their superiority. Just the din from the kids' table.

I think the proper semantics is "shoot center-of-mass until there is no longer a threat". Insert the word "reasonable" for legal purposes.

Tomayto, Tomahto.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

all you need is rexkwondo

I'm not sure that's where the kids' table is located.

I pray I never have to use a firearm to save my bacon. If I do, I pray the assailant doesn't die, but just stops threatening me. If he dies, I'll be sorry and may never get over it, but my life matters to me. A lot.

Does that make me "holier than thou"? Do I believe it makes me superior? Not at all. I think it just makes me a normal human being who isn't a killer by nature but wants to survive.

If that puts this octogenarian at the "kids' table", so be it.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

Never been in a gunfight. Hope I never am. Seems like the three big factors for surviving a gunfight are...

1) Avoid it. Don’t be where the gunfight is.

2) If you can’t avoid the gunfight, don’t get shot.

3) If you can’t avoid the gunfight, shoot the BG before he can shoot you.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

The biggest factor in the shooting I survived , ( he had the gun I was ambushed ) was the Good Lord Liked Me and Protected me...it had to be !
After firing 4 shots , he stood over me and the 5th round jammed after clearing the jam , the pistol clicked on a empty chamber...Out Of Ammo !
He got flustered and ran away.
Sometimes being on good terms with the Lord saves your behind .

Reminds me of what my mom used to say ..." The Lord watches out for children, drunks and fools . "

I do pray on a regular basis...the Lord just wasn't ready for me to go that day .
Gary

__________________
Certified Cajun
NRA Member

It's neither a dumb nor semantic argument. It's really two sides of the same coin. You need both to survive the aftermath if you ever use a gun to defend yourself.

If you're going to carry a gun (or any deadly tool), you really do have to be mentally prepared to use it. If you're not, you'll hesitate and you'll be on the receiving side. If you are mentally prepared, you're less likely to hesitate.

The "shoot to stop" idea is also part of mental preparation. If the goal is to stop, you're more likely to stop shooting once the threat is no longer viable, even if still alive. The legal aspect of this is real. Saying, "I just wanted him dead," vs "I just wanted him to stop," makes a huge difference in any court.

Also, whether you agree with it or not, once the threat has been stopped, any further shots make you the assailant. This is why I advocate starting with a controlled pair and then assessing the situation while moving.


All any reasonable person wants is to not be attacked. Therefore, stopping said attack is the goal. If the attack is not life threatening, no need to have the gun out. If the attack is life threatening, placing rounds on target quickly is very important. Aim for the largest part of the attacker. Not because this is the "kill" zone, but because bigger targets are easier to hit and you don't have time to pick and choose.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Very rational post. I only differ slightly on a couple points, one substantive and one semantic. My default is three rounds, and all I’m trying to do is make that other fella’ remember that he’s got something more fun and important to do elsewhere at the moment than get shot at by me. Otherwise, Rastoff is spot on . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Wait, so you mean you need both, so arguing either/or is...dumb?

What a revelation.

Muss Muggins .. Maybe . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerhard1
Anyway, back to training, does the ability to shoot small groups in what the quoted poster refers to as 'square range' shooting, mean that you are able to protect yourself on the street?

MAYBE NOT : I've seen well trained people put under stressful situations that was life threatening turn in to hunks of shivering human flesh unable to do even basic tasks .. some had to be restrained to keep from hurting themselves !!

Some would advocate honestly looking yourself in the mirror once in a while and asking yourself if you can shoot another human being. If yes, then visualize situations. This is not my idea, but I heard this in training sessions. I believe that they said that most cops never consider using their firearm(s) in defensive situations and it makes it very difficult for them to cope with the aftermath, when it happens.

Col. Cooper’s Gunsite teaches the “Mozambique Failure Drill”. Three shot drill with two to the chest and one to the head if the first two didn’t stop the assailant. My range has moving targets. That adds a fun degree of challenge. What I should really focus on is being a faster runner.....

__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615

Do they still call it the Mozambique drill? The reason I ask goes toward mentality. The way I learned the Mozambique was three rapid shots, two to the chest and one to the head. There was no assessment, just three shots.

I call it a "failure to stop" which I prefer. In this it's two to center mass, assess and if necessary, one to the head. The third shot is not always necessary.
Lot of value in this. The best fight is no fight.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I believe they still call it that. I was there not that long ago. If one searches “Mozambique Failure Drill” it pops up on the internet. If someone kills another, it is a homicide. It will be investigated as such. If we are the shooter, we need to clam up and get an attorney. It may be the wrong words in the excitement that causes us to be charged. Call it semantics. Words matter, as I know you are aware. Lots of small things have sent people to prison.

__________________
SWCA 3255 SWHF 615

The notion that shooting to stop the threat is 'virtue signalling' is patently false.

A person who presents a credible deadly threat to me will meet an attempt to stop the threat. If I wound him, and he stops, fine; the next step for the bad guy will be the hospital and then the criminal justice system.

If I kill him that will be an unfortunate side effect, but killing him was most emphatically NOT my intent. It was to stop him. In that case the next step will be the state medical examiner.

I find the introduction of 'virtue signalling' into this conversation perplexing, to put it mildly. By stating that my intent was to stop the action that forced me to shoot, I'm not signalling my virtue; I am simply stating a fact. Nothing more.

__________________
Let's be careful out there

Read it again.

Being prepared to use lethal force, and understanding the goal of lethal defense (stopping threats) is fine. That's what you want.

Arguing about it on the internet is the dumb, virtue-signaling part, between the saber-rattling "prepared to kill" gang, and the packs of the self-righteous.

But hey, thanks for proving exactly my point.

I don’t care what they call it, I just like getting three rounds out quickly. Mainly a throwback to when my MP5 had a three round burst notch, but we trained to throw out three while keeping the switch on the fun button . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

You're reading that into it.

__________________
Let's be careful out there

I like Wyatt Earp's strategy. When asked the best way to win a gunfight,
he reportedly said: "That's easy. Just don't show up."

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

I go the opposite, I assume my attacker is going to be better than me. Hence why we constantly train & practice. The one time you are in a gunfight it may be against a highly skilled opponent??

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Yes, Moz drill or FTS drill. In competition it is automatic, on the street it can be or it can have a pause for assessment. Reality, most are trained today to shoot the threat to the ground or until the threat ceases to be one. There are no hard fast rules. Why a 5shot for me, not enough. If my threat is still on his feet pressing an attack, the number of rounds I have to fire is not limited.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Agree but for the controlled pair. A gunfight or violent assault is a very fluid thing. IF we always train for a controlled pair & evaluation, it may be too slow. Keep an open mind in your training & practice.
If your threat is close & over whelming, say 250 man with a machete, you may want to be firing a lot as you retreat with no eval. I don't think anyone can truly train for a violent attack. The best we can do is be as well rounded & free thinking enough under the stress to react appropriately, whatever that may be, controlled pair, FTS or mag dump.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I don't think it is semantics at all. If your mindset is I am walking around all day waiting to kill someone or I carry a gun to stop a threat, not semantics. IF my attacker dies as a result of me trying to stop his attack, not good or bad, just is. If he mends in the hospital & spends his life behind bars, fine too. As long as I am not killed or seriously injured in the attack.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I think it's prudent to assume your attacker(s) will be younger, bigger, faster and stronger than you, but they aren't likely to be "highly skilled" in the sense of a highly trained martial artist or defensive shooter. It's important to make that distinction because I've seen some very skilled individuals with extensive training get caught off-guard and have difficulty dealing with a relatively primitive attacks because they hadn't trained for it and it was unfamiliar to them. An untrained and awkward fighters movements can actually be hard to read if all you train with is highly trained fighters. Same with guys who only spar with opponents of the same style.

A world class boxer with no grappling experience will likely have trouble keeping the fight from going to the ground against a sloppy street tackle. An advanced practitioner of FMA's may have no clue how to effectively deal with a prison style shanking. A USPSA Grand Master won't be well versed on how best to handle a contact shooting if he's limited his training and practice to his sport.

You have to train in the proper context and that would include any force-on-force training. If it's not evidence based and grounded in the realities of what you're likely to encounter, it's not going to very effective preparation. You're simply not likely to be attacked with someone that is highly trained, so limiting your training interaction to those who most would consider highly skilled and highly trained isn't the best approach since street criminals won't likely move or attack like they do.

That's pretty much the main point of "Meditations on Violence". I highly recommend reading it.

__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611

Another good one. On Killing- Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Helped me sort out a few things.

Not likely but possible. So under estimating the opponent is a sure bet you are well behind the curve. I have seen it in many officer involved shooting vids. Their mindset, as it should be, is "I am better" but their skill set proved inadequate. Never under estimate your attacker, never. BTW, how does one limit their training to a highly skilled attacker? Train for the worst & hope for the best seems prudent??

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

I don't think anyone should underestimated.

What being highly skilled means will differ between individuals. Maybe you're a successful IDPA and USPSA competitor who also has high ranking blackbelts in Shotokan and Kyokushin karate and have won a few full contact bouts. You compete as well as participate in FoF sessions with your buddies who have similar backgrounds. Most people would probably consider you pretty highly skilled/highly trained, but those supposedly advanced skills may not help you much in a street-fight or mugging since there may be very little commonality in environmental factors and the methods your assailant(s) is likely to use and how your buddies move and attack in your training drills. I've actually witnessed it firsthand on a few occasions.

Force-on-force training can be a fantastic tool or it can be next to worthless depending on how its conducted. I've seen very realistic scenarios and very effective drills and I've seen sessions that had no more value than a paintball free-for-all. Bad guys intent on doing you harm aren't generally looking for fair fights and tend to try and stack the deck in their favor from the get go, so learning effective reactive close-quarter counter-ambush methods is essential.

Is a lifetime criminal with absolutely no training, but has been involved in countless violent encounters where he has come out on top considered "highly skilled"? Even though he has no training, I'd say yes, although he's differently skilled from what likely comes to mind when the majority of people of gun forums use the term highly skilled. Regardless, you have to train and understand his specific methodology and environment if you want to be able to effectively deal with it.

Not disagreeing with your overall point, but pretty sure if a BG has lived long enough to be considered a lifetime criminal, they've had plenty of training. Training in prison. Training within their gang. Lots of mentored OJT. That's how they become highly skilled. Their version of training just doesn't fit into the square box we call training.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

No, shooting tiny groups taking all day means you are mechanically accurate but not combat accurate by a mile. Yes indoor range rules of 1 rd per sec max, no holster work, no movement, all detrimental to developing your skill set for combat. Things change a lot when you are moving & have to deliver accurate shots in under 1.5sec.
Take a couple training classes that employ thinking & shooting, then a force on force class to learn how not to get shot. Then find a practice venue that allows you to put it all together at least once a month. For me that is generally IDPA competition. Not required but for those that do not have a range that allows them movement, holster work & 1/4 split times, its a very valuable practice choice.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Chances of survival increase if a person does not get shot.

My mechanical skill level with a handgun is high, my tactical training over the years is solid, but I will always assume my attacker is going to be better in the fight. IMO, anything else is a false sense of security. I have seen enough LEO shootings vids to see where the attacker wins just because he is more determined & the LEO skill set didn't hold up. Its all about getting as many hits on my attacker as fast as I can deliver form contact to 50y if need be. Which takes me back to why I don't carry a pocket gun or 5shot. We don't get to pick our fight or the attacker in it. Plan for the worst, hope for the best, which is no fight.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Actually the advantage a criminal has is his willingness to use and his comfort with violence; something a regular person probably does not have. A criminal will not hesitate to shoot while a normal person might.

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to my statement, but shouldn't we prioritize our training? We all have a finite amount of time, energy and money, so I don't want to waste mine.

We don't get to pick our scenario, but some are a lot more likely than others. A contact out to 3-5 yards is extremely likely, but past 7-10 or so isn't and 25 yards would be so astronomically improbable for me to give it much thought. I don't care all that much about most LEO shootings since they have very little in common with my needs.

I already know that you dislike 5 shots revolvers and think you'll be able to keep your auto running in a contact situation due to some highly advanced unnamed training, but who knows. The revolver is inherently better in that role, and you'd be hard pressed to find many reputable instructors who understand the issue that would disagree. Contrary to the cliche of "you're looking for a hardware solution to a software problem", the tools you choose matter a geat deal no matter how skilled you might think you are, but people seem to apply that concept selectively.

Believing you can keep a Glock running in ECQ as effectively as a hammerless snub is akin to thinking that a 6 shot revolver is adequate for a ranged gunfight with 6 determined armed attackers if you "know how to shoot". Just make six head shots right? Or how about making multiple 50 yard hits with a snub? Isn't that simply or "software"/training issue or should we actually live in reality?

I watched Apollo 13, Moonraker, The Right Stuff, Armageddon, and Gravity multiple times. Doesn’t mean I’m ready for Mars . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

You watched Armageddon multiple times?

I like Steve Buscemi. What can I say . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Is this based on all your experience dealing with criminals Fred?

Maybe if you watched The Martian

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

In my 30.5 years of REAL crime fighting/dealing with attackers (on and off duty) I NEVER thought my adversary was better. Ever. Why would I? Crawl up in a ball and quit? Nope.

Once was engaged with a guy who was much smaller but was wearing me out. (Duty incident...not a bar fight. ) Broke my dominant hand on his head and then had to fight one handed. Finally ‘won’; never thought about shooting him. Duty incident. But NEVER considered him better...later found he was a heroin addict in a methadone maintenance program thus why my efforts were a bit futile at first.

Bottom line: No one is ‘better’ if we must be engaged. Never for me! Absolute. Period.

Be safe.

You’re the guy whose wife has to find her own cover, right?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .