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
Last edited:
Factors in Surviving Gunfights
- Thread starter gerhard1
- Start date
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)
3rdgeargrndrr
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,162
- Reaction score
- 1,193
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.
Rastoff
US Veteran
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.
HamHands
Member
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.
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.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5CJEOI8fmk[/ame]
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.
Tomayto, Tomahto.
Last edited:
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
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.
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,249
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.
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.
Last edited:
gwpercle
Member
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
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
Rastoff
US Veteran
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.
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 . . .
Whitwabit
US Veteran
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 !!
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 !!
Similar threads
