Stopping Active Shooters Immediately [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Stopping Active Shooters Immediately


Deaf Smith
04-09-2009, 16:46
Here is an excellent article on why if's necessary for the first responding officer or civilian to immediately engage any active shooter.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1695125-Ohio-trainer-makes-the-case-for-single-officer-entry-against-active-killers/

A few high points:

• 98% of active killers act alone.

• 80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site.

• Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.

• They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”

• “They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped.” They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.

• They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”

• 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

Deaf

PhoneCop
04-09-2009, 21:17
Thanks for the post.

You know you'll soon be under attack for being such a cowboy. A rambo. A wannabe... ya know, nothing new. :upeye:

All I know is that if I am at the nursing home/mall/university/church/restaurant/school when the shots start up, I'll it could be moving towards the shooter and not away.

We'll be the wanna-bes together. Dead or alive, we'll still be heros, not ball-less biatches defending our cowardness with intellectual pockycock.

TINCUP AL
04-10-2009, 08:11
Thanks for the post. I think some of the comments afterwards were more informative and thought provoking than the article itself.

chuckman
04-10-2009, 08:26
Thanks for the post.

You know you'll soon be under attack for being such a cowboy. A rambo. A wannabe... ya know, nothing new. :upeye:

All I know is that if I am at the nursing home/mall/university/church/restaurant/school when the shots start up, I'll it could be moving towards the shooter and not away.

We'll be the wanna-bes together. Dead or alive, we'll still be heros, not ball-less biatches defending our cowardness with intellectual pockycock.

Who the hell wants to be a 'hero'? I just want to be alive. Have you been around an active shooting? My priority is me and my family, everyone else is a distant second. If I can do something to the shooter, that is gravy, but not job one. But this is a good article.

TINCUP AL
04-10-2009, 08:31
I think this post is directed towards the lone officer responding as first on the scene, not regular joe out shopping with his family. The priorities of life as given to an officer puts him second from the bottom. Not on top.
( edited to add that in my opinion this is not being a "hero", it is just what needs to be done to save lives )

David Armstrong
04-10-2009, 09:00
Who the hell wants to be a 'hero'? I just want to be alive. Have you been around an active shooting?
Exactly. Dead heroes are just dead, and usually only heroes in their own mind. You don't save folks by getting yourself killed. And it is a pretty good bet some of the commentors not only have never been around an active shooter, they have never been in a gunfight at all.

CAcop
04-10-2009, 09:23
Couple of things I always point out when this article surfaces.

One, they are playing a numbers game going by averages and statistics. Kind of like the stats that say the average gunfight is over in less than a half a dozen rounds yet how many people refuse to carry a revolver because they are limited in capacity.

Two, if you go in and get killed by yourself, at least for an officer you have to remember that not only are your guns and ammo now available to the suspect but so is your radio. How would you like to be officer #2 showing up with the suspect knowing where you and any other information you put out on the radio?

PhoneCop
04-10-2009, 09:27
Who the hell wants to be a 'hero'?

I sure as hell don't want to live as a coward.

PhoneCop
04-10-2009, 09:33
Have you been around an active shooting? I've had a few people try to hurt my feelings...

But this is a good article.
it is it will generate a lot of discussion.

Hedo1
04-10-2009, 10:21
“Officers need to understand valid military principles that apply to these calls, such as speed, surprise and violence of action,” Borsch insists. “They need to learn how to close in and finish the fight with aggression, having and keeping the ‘momentum of battle’ on their side. The idea is to keep the adversary off-balance by forcing him always to react to your actions, rather than, after contact, reacting to him.”

He is telling the responders to get inside the OODA loop of the shooter. This serves two purposes. It distracts the shooter from his task which is killing more people. It also makes him react to the responder rather then initiating the pace and tempo of the confrontation.

I think this is a good strategy. Might not be the safest route for the responder but it seems like it would be effective in shutting down the shooter. Would like to see some practical examples.

chuckman
04-10-2009, 10:47
I've had a few people try to hurt my feelings...


it is it will generate a lot of discussion.

I am not talking about being a coward. Keeping me and my family alive is plenty heroic. I think the article is aimed toward LEOs, but good info nonetheless. The reason I asked re: having been in a shooting, I remember going downrange for the first time (mil, not LEO), thinking all sorts of heroic things, only to see myself turn into someone very afraid, falling back on training (and yes, that training did make me run to the sounds, not away). I am not gonna say I cried, but I will say that if I did, there no longer any photographic evidence.

Deaf Smith
04-10-2009, 16:27
All I can say is this guys. The SOP of getting all the SWAT team together, get intel on the setup of the building, and then waiting till the shooting is over has so far been 100 percent to late.

A few have tried. One at the Tacoma, Washington Mall, and another at the Tyler Texas court house. Both did get shot to pieces, but at least the one in Tyler forced the killer to break contact and leave (Mark Wilson was his name of the man who gave is life) and definatly saved lives.

The SWAT SOP waiting till the shooting is over has not save any that I know of.

We will see if any LEO actually tries the new tactic.

Deaf

Sam Spade
04-10-2009, 16:31
I sure as hell don't want to live as a coward.

The proper order is:

Live hero
Dead coward
Dead hero
Live coward


Jeff Cooper wrote that. Just injecting some history.

Sam Spade
04-10-2009, 16:32
The SWAT SOP waiting till the shooting is over has not save any that I know of.

We will see if any LEO actually tries the new tactic.

Deaf
You might wanna get brought up to speed on SOPs before you pontificate on this one.

David Armstrong
04-10-2009, 22:12
You might wanna get brought up to speed on SOPs before you pontificate on this one.
+1. Way too many folks try to talk about way too much stuff they have absolutely no knowledge about or understanding, particularly when it comes to LE ops, tactics, etc.

Beeman
04-11-2009, 05:07
You might wanna get brought up to speed on SOPs before you pontificate on this one.

Yep, Columbine changed things for the departments around me. Even the little Township PD here trains for active shooters.

PhoneCop
04-11-2009, 21:30
The proper order is:

Live hero
Dead coward
Dead hero
Live coward


Jeff Cooper wrote that. Just injecting some history.


I need to read more of his writings. Thanks for sharing.

MTPD
04-17-2009, 01:13
Exactly. Dead heroes are just dead, and usually only heroes in their own mind. You don't save folks by getting yourself killed. And it is a pretty good bet some of the commentors not only have never been around an active shooter, they have never been in a gunfight at all.

Oh no, here we go again! :whistling:

The object is NOT to be a dead hero, but to take out the criminal ASAP so as to save innocents. As I have mentioned multiple times, the "wait for SWAT" mentality didn't exist prior to SWAT.

In those days the first responders (on my high crime area department at least) immediately confronted armed felons, and if the felons didn't surrender instantly they were shot. And "instantly" was a mater of seconds, not minutes, hours or days. And guess what David, it always worked just fine = no dead heroes, just dead or wounded felons.

David Armstrong
04-17-2009, 09:48
Oh no, here we go again!
Yep, here we go again. MTPD will now share with us his mystical made-up adventures in MTPDland.
on my high crime area department at least
That same department you have not been able to convince any real cops you ever served on? OK.:upeyes:
And guess what David, it always worked just fine = no dead heroes, just dead or wounded felons.
Yes, we've heard it all before. You and yours were ahead of all other agencies in the country and never did anyting wrong and were famous for outdrawing the BGs and you saved the President and fought off hordes of gangbangers and won all sorts of awards and such. Too bad none of it has ever been shown to have the slightest shred of proof.

Tailhunter
04-17-2009, 19:01
Well, ya know, people will do what people will do. Some will help, some will run. The ones that run will use their families as an excuse. The ones that help will have no excuse, just a need to do the right thing according to them. So just as the caliber wars rage on, so will the discussions on what to do.

Right or wrong ... we will all do something.

MTPD
04-18-2009, 08:56
Hate to tell you this DA, but everything I have ever posted is true. And you know it is, which is why you never took my 10k offer to prove it. You just can't stand it that your "modern tactics" are driven more by fear of lawsuits and officer injuries than ours were back in the "olde days". To us armed violent felons were automatically "authorized targets", and they knew it. And our regular street cops were expected to take them out if they didn't surrended instantly, and we did. Which is why we never lost any innocents or cops in those kinds of situations. Our take-downs happened so fast that the BG's never had time to get ready.

David Armstrong
04-18-2009, 10:20
Hate to tell you this DA, but everything I have ever posted is true.
And yet, AFAIK, not another verified LEO on GT, at least none I have talked with, has said that they think you have any real LE experience.
And you know it is, which is why you never took my 10k offer to prove it.
LOL!! that is real persuasive: "I'll prove all these wild stories I keep tellling tha nobody believes, but only if they promise to pay me $10,000."
To us armed violent felons were automatically "authorized targets", and they knew it. And our regular street cops were expected to take them out if they didn't surrended instantly, and we did.
And it is comments like that which indicate to real LEOs that you have no idea of what LE work is or was really like.
Which is why we never lost any innocents or cops in those kinds of situations.
Umm, you need to keep track of the stories you keep telling, as in several of them you have commented on cops and innocents lost in those situations when they followed tactics others have suggested. You need to make up your mind...either you never lost any or you lost them when they didn't do just what you said.

MTPD
04-19-2009, 06:49
Umm, you need to keep track of the stories you keep telling, as in several of them you have commented on cops and innocents lost in those situations when they followed tactics others have suggested. You need to make up your mind...either you never lost any or you lost them when they didn't do just what you said.

Not true my boy. All the officers on my department that got killed or wounded did so during street confrontations, domestic disturbances or traffic stops. None during raids. No innocent civilians were shot during raids either. And raids are the types of "situations" we were talking about in this thread. At least I was.

23 David
04-19-2009, 07:29
Not true my boy. All the officers on my department that got killed or wounded did so during street confrontations, domestic disturbances or traffic stops. None during raids. No innocent civilians were shot during raids either. And raids are the types of "situations" we were talking about in this thread. At least I was.

OK, OK, I believe you.
Now, which department did/do you work for?

BuckRod73
04-19-2009, 14:14
Everything I have ever read from Chuck and David is tuck your gun and run. If you are ever in an active shooter situation, give your gun to someone who will use it as you are exiting the building. Hi! I am the chuckman and I gotta go find David.

That said, there is a time to leave and a time to fight, at least for some of us.

Buck

apfire26
04-19-2009, 14:59
Well, ya know, people will do what people will do. Some will help, some will run. The ones that run will use their families as an excuse. The ones that help will have no excuse, just a need to do the right thing according to them. So just as the caliber wars rage on, so will the discussions on what to do.

Right or wrong ... we will all do something.


Well said.

Tactician
04-19-2009, 15:37
I like the MTPD posts where he stands there and shoots everyone while never ducking for cover.

K. Foster
04-19-2009, 16:34
but everything I have ever posted is true. And you know it is, which is why you never took my 10k offer to prove it.

Tell us about that $10,000. offer.

David Armstrong
04-19-2009, 21:32
Everything I have ever read from Chuck and David is tuck your gun and run.
Then obviously you have been rather selective in your reading, and rather weak in your comprehension.

Beeman
04-19-2009, 21:41
OK, OK, I believe you.
Now, which department did/do you work for?

I'd like to know too.

chuckman
04-20-2009, 05:46
Well, ya know, people will do what people will do. Some will help, some will run. The ones that run will use their families as an excuse. The ones that help will have no excuse, just a need to do the right thing according to them. So just as the caliber wars rage on, so will the discussions on what to do.

Right or wrong ... we will all do something.

It depends on your purpose or reason to carry. Is it personal/family protection, or is it because of business (i.e., LEO)? Safety is part of Maslow's Heirarchy, and self-preservation is a very basic, primal need. Now, responding to a threat (shooting) is not normal, and requires training to overcome instinct. I dare say most people who carry and who are not trained or LEOs will 'run' because it is the 'right' thing to do for self-preservation. Those who help, if they do, it is likely by luck and not training (taking into account an average amount of training and not those who train a lot or who have much experience). All this is to say that I agree, people will do what people will do, and those who question someone who runs from a threat are idiots who love to monday-morning quarterback (I am NOT saying you are in this category, just explaining my response).

MTPD
04-21-2009, 03:34
I like the MTPD posts where he stands there and shoots everyone while never ducking for cover.

Hahaha! Obviously you fail to understand that if you shoot first, fast & accurate you don't have to duck for cover. It's a well known tactic that's sometimes called "HIDING BEHIND YOUR BULLETS". :supergrin::wavey::supergrin:

Bear in mind that I have no problem with those who would rather jump around trying to dodge bullets. In fact, I might do the same thing if I ever screw up and let the BG's get off the first shots. (If I'm lucky enough not to already be dead or seriously wounded, that is.)

MTPD
04-21-2009, 03:47
...All this is to say that I agree, people will do what people will do, and those who question someone who runs from a threat are idiots who love to monday-morning quarterback... .

Hate to tell you this, Chuck, but you can't outrun a bullet! :upeyes::whistling::upeyes:

chuckman
04-21-2009, 06:31
Hate to tell you this, Chuck, but you can't outrun a bullet! :upeyes::whistling::upeyes:

OK...you are right, but you can out-think (AND outrun) a shooter. I will overlook your sarcasm. Glad to know, too, that you are such a good shot and so experienced with active shooters to think that your round will get going before those of the bad guy...

Just curious, though...I never follow the who-does-what and who-works-where crowd...but where do you work and what is your experience?

David Armstrong
04-21-2009, 10:29
Hahaha! Obviously you fail to understand that if you shoot first, fast & accurate you don't have to duck for cover.
Gosh, MTPD, but mere mortals in the real world do not have your godly abilities to always read the mind of the BG, always outdraw the BG, and always drop the BG with one shot so he cannot respond. Of course, that is probably the difference between MTPDland and the real world.
It's a well known tactic that's sometimes called "HIDING BEHIND YOUR BULLETS".
Apparently not well known. Perhaps you could direct us to a single police department that teaches that tactic, or anyplace it is mentioned in print for use as a recommended tactic for LE or CCW?
In fact, I might do the same thing if I ever screw up and let the BG's get off the first shots.
Iknow you have trouble understanding the difference, but in real life BGs don't get the first shot just because you have screwed up, and such a comment is an insult to all the officers out there who have been shot at first.

K. Foster
04-21-2009, 10:38
Perhaps you could direct us to a single police department that teaches that tactic, or anyplace it is mentioned in print for use as a recommended tactic for LE or CCW?

I’d like to see that, myself. But I won’t hold my breath.

JohnF
04-21-2009, 10:40
I sure as hell don't want to live as a coward.

I'm glad to hear that there are still people like you with enough gumption to go into harm's way and defend me and mine. I'll send flowers, unless you prefer that a charitable contribution be made. Thanks again from the rear echelon.

Dragoon44
04-21-2009, 15:38
The tidal wave of crime and bloodshed that hit South Fl in the early 80's wasn't really due to Crack, it was because MTPD retired.

:cool:

PhoneCop
04-22-2009, 15:20
I'm glad to hear that there are still people like you with enough gumption to go into harm's way and defend me and mine. I'll send flowers, unless you prefer that a charitable contribution be made. Thanks again from the rear echelon.

Flowers would be nice (the insurance coverage is about $1.3 mil), hope you have enough class not to write something like, "sorry your husband had to try and be a hero." If you do, don't be surprised when Mrs. PhoneCop kicks your pathetic ass.

Tailhunter
04-22-2009, 15:59
Flowers would be nice (the insurance coverage is about $1.3 mil), hope you have enough class not to write something like, "sorry your husband had to try and be a hero." If you do, don't be surprised when Mrs. PhoneCop kicks your pathetic ass.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ron3
04-22-2009, 20:00
Like it's been said, people will do what they want to do during a mass murder attempt. No one here is going to change somebodys elses mind. They have to decide for themselves.

But decide now, don't try to decide during an event or you'll be certain to f'up.

I'm not going to fault someone for wanting to live and going the other way. (Unless of course, they had a weapon and get shot in the back. Oops)

If that person is a Police Officer and armed they should engage in the most efficient manner they can.

A CCC (concealed carrying civie) may do either.

As a CCC myself, I plan to engage as efficiently as possible. I don't want to be a hero because one of the last things I want in my life is publicity. I also don't want to die yet. There are people who love me I want to be around for as well.

I hate bullies. I hate rude people, I hate cowards. I don't like people making decisions for me. I don't like people ruining my day by hurting me, my friends, family, coworkers. This is why I hate mass murderers. I love my life, friends, family, and peace. This is also why I want to stop them.

I hate regret. Whether it's doing nothing or doing something.

If I encounter a mass murderer like this I'm going to do something if at all posslible. I'd have a hard time respecting myself if I didn't. I am a first responder when it comes to this type of event because I'm there, have some training, a weapon, and a mindset to use it.

There are people I love and people I hate. I will use both emotions to fuel my actions and I will try to stop the attack if I can.

Ron3
04-22-2009, 20:07
The proper order is:

Live hero
Dead coward
Dead hero
Live coward


Jeff Cooper wrote that. Just injecting some history.

Am I reading this wrong? Is he saying he'd rather be a dead coward than a dead hero?

PhoneCop
04-22-2009, 23:21
Am I reading this wrong? Is he saying he'd rather be a dead coward than a dead hero?


Yeah, you misunderstood, I'll try to explain:

What he and Col. Cooper are saying is that it preferential to have a living Hero first, a dead coward before a dead hero, and dead hero before a living coward.

Maybe the reverse is easier to understand:

The worst thing to be is a living coward.
The next worst is to have a dead hero.
It's better to have a dead coward.
It's best to be a living hero.

chuckman
04-23-2009, 05:15
There is a lot of talk on this board as well as many other boards that go like this: "well, I'm just gonna do fill-in-the-blank, and I'm never gonna fill-in-the-blank." The truth of the matter is how you want to act is not necessarily how you DO act. Sure, you don't rise to the occasion but rather fall down to your level of training, but a lot of people, and almost every civilian (non-LEO, non-mil), have NEVER been shot at and lack the intensity and quality of training to be able to respond appropriately and reflexively. Just sayin.'

23 David
04-23-2009, 05:28
There is a lot of talk on this board as well as many other boards that go like this: "well, I'm just gonna do fill-in-the-blank, and I'm never gonna fill-in-the-blank." The truth of the matter is how you want to act is not necessarily how you DO act. Sure, you don't rise to the occasion but rather fall down to your level of training, but a lot of people, and almost every civilian (non-LEO, non-mil), have NEVER been shot at and lack the intensity and quality of training to be able to respond appropriately and reflexively. Just sayin.'
Ain't that the truth.
Lots of whiskey courage being thrown about here.

JohnF
04-23-2009, 06:09
Flowers would be nice (the insurance coverage is about $1.3 mil), hope you have enough class not to write something like, "sorry your husband had to try and be a hero." If you do, don't be surprised when Mrs. PhoneCop kicks your pathetic ass.

Is she hot? A hot, rich widow. Priceless.

PhoneCop
04-23-2009, 09:23
Is she hot? A hot, rich widow. Priceless.

Hot? Very!
And loves guns, shoots 'em really well which makes her even more priceless.

But she has standards... many a *ahem* man *cough* on GT wouldn't rate.

PhoneCop
04-23-2009, 09:41
There is a lot of talk on this board as well as many other boards that go like this: "well, I'm just gonna do fill-in-the-blank, and I'm never gonna fill-in-the-blank." The truth of the matter is how you want to act is not necessarily how you DO act. Sure, you don't rise to the occasion but rather fall down to your level of training, but a lot of people, and almost every civilian (non-LEO, non-mil), have NEVER been shot at and lack the intensity and quality of training to be able to respond appropriately and reflexively. Just sayin.'


This is 100% true, and a purely academic argument given the number of citizens who show they can stand and deliver. Who without mil or LE training, without meeting someone else's standards- win out.

On a side note, I recall how few mil and LE guys can match the skill with arms of the weekend USPSA or IDPA shooter. How they dismiss so easily those gamers and pout as they walk away thoroughly embarassed having gotten their asses kicked by non-mil and non-LEO the (usually singular) time they show up and attempt to show the "wanna-bes" that the really aren't qualified to carry a gun... :upeyes: anyways- back on thread:

It's an easy argument to make while steadfastly ignoring non-mil and non-leo doing what argument says they can't or shouldn't be able or aren't likely to be able to do, yet they do.

Maybe it's a ego-protection mechanism. "I'm this, or I'm that, and you haven't done this or haven't done that, so you aren't qualified." Yet still, reality shows they are qualified enough, somehow, beyond all the real or imagined odds, qualified they are. This former LEO, former Cpt. MP USA, had to swallow pride on a few occassions and deal with the reality that:

- though I was USA BT trained, USA OBC traning, KLETC trained, and better shooter than 90% of my LEO compadres, I couldn't shoot.
- though 2nd degree blackbelt in Shorin Ryu karate, sparring weren't a bloddy knee all out scrap on the street.
- though I was scoring 300 on the AFPT, many a footbal and basketball player was just as healthy.

Instead of discounting and arguing against reality, I changed my world view to accept that many a civilian could out shoot me, many a street punk could scrap as well or better than I, and many a HS athelete wasn't gonna tire out as fast as I hoped.

It may be a glass half-empty or half-full scenario... how do you see it?

If I were constantly around the worst of society and repeatedly seen men tuck tail and run, I might be inclined to believe that's what all or most men would do. Since I happen to hang with men who say they wouldn't flee and by my years of experience knowing them I believe they wouldn't, I tend not to lump all people into the same category or runners.

I know some will run, I know some will fight, some will succeed if they do and some will fail Though I believe that those who fight have put up good stats.

But the boogey-man arguments don't manifest, while Joe Six Pack keeps winning out over the criminal when he chooses to carry and take on just a little practice responsibility. That's just my take.

PhoneCop
04-23-2009, 09:42
Ain't that the truth.
Lots of whiskey courage being thrown about here.


By who?

Ain't this a bit of the proverbial pot calling the ketle black... defend this "whiskey courage" appearing statment. Name names and show how their statments are false bravado.

JohnF
04-23-2009, 09:53
Hot? Very!
And loves guns, shoots 'em really well which makes her even more priceless.

But she has standards... many a *ahem* man *cough* on GT wouldn't rate.


OK. I'm going to exit on that.

David Armstrong
04-23-2009, 10:25
On a side note, I recall how few mil and LE guys can match the skill with arms of the weekend USPSA or IDPA shooter.
Please don't confuse skill at arms in a fighting sense with the ability to do good at a game. There certainly is some overlap, but many of those game winning skills do not translate into fight winning skills, just as many of the fight winning skills do not translate into game winning skills.
Name names and show how their statments are false bravado.
And what possible good would names serve? Seems some here are always trying to turn discussions into personal fights instead of dealing with the issues themselves.

PhoneCop
04-23-2009, 12:52
OK. I'm going to exit on that.

It's all good, bro.

:wavey:

Dragoon44
04-23-2009, 13:47
But the boogey-man arguments don't manifest, while Joe Six Pack keeps winning out over the criminal when he chooses to carry and take on just a little practice responsibility. That's just my take.

The sticking point however is that they are not, "Joe six pack" they are individuals that have the will and temperament to resist, to fight back. They have made the decision to be prepared, to attain the skills, and have the will to use them.

even among this group there are different levels of will, ability, and preparedness. at the top are the ones that Lt Dave Grossman would say "Have a capacity for violence". one that is properly controlled and narrowly directed. (towards the predators not the innocents) They possess the temperament, the will, and the self confidence in their skills and experience to act.

This is simply not a common trait, if it were the history of the world, and the current world would be a considerably different place.

in the end there will always be those that run from the sounds of violence and those that run towards it.

PhoneCop
04-23-2009, 18:51
The sticking point however is that they are not, "Joe six pack" they are individuals that have the will and temperament to resist, to fight back. They have made the decision to be prepared, to attain the skills, and have the will to use them.

even among this group there are different levels of will, ability, and preparedness. at the top are the ones that Lt Dave Grossman would say "Have a capacity for violence". one that is properly controlled and narrowly directed. (towards the predators not the innocents) They possess the temperament, the will, and the self confidence in their skills and experience to act.

This is simply not a common trait, if it were the history of the world, and the current world would be a considerably different place.

in the end there will always be those that run from the sounds of violence and those that run towards it.

Can't argue with that... well I could, I just choose not to anymore.

:wavey:

Deaf Smith
04-23-2009, 18:52
Please don't confuse skill at arms in a fighting sense with the ability to do good at a game. There certainly is some overlap, but many of those game winning skills do not translate into fight winning skills, just as many of the fight winning skills do not translate into game winning skills.


True, but Charlie Askins was a gamer. A consummate gamer who uses totally game guns to win a VERY LARGE number of trophies. I have his prewar book on handgun shooting while he was a Captain, and those guns sure were not ‘combat’ guns nor his NRA off hand method a combat ‘stance’.

Jim Cirillo was another consummate gamer. His PPC guns, if you ever saw them or their holsters, you would think it was something Rob Letham used in IPSC. And he used all the game rules to also win a VERY LARGE number of trophies.

Bill Jordan was also a gamer. His competition rifle sure was not a combat and his technique was not 'combat'. He also had lots of trophies as he was on the Mississippi State Rifle Team in 1938 as well as the Border Patrol and U.S. Marine Corps Reserve teams in the immediate postwar years.

Even Jelly Bryce, who was a very gifted shot at an early age, shot matches while in the police department. And at that time, it was more of a NRA bullseye match. Plus before becoming a policeman he, while being in a citizen's military camp at Ft. Still, won first in pistol, first in rifle, and then went on to win the national rifle competition at Camp Perry in Ohio. Now boy that's a gamer!

These gents all used real game guns and game technique yet they did very well when the chips were down.

Ever considered that all the practice they did at these 'games' came in very handy in real life encounters? And in fact, you can be a gamer and still do quite well on the street. And that maybe those skills they learned in those 'games' really did help them?

Deaf

PhoneCop
04-23-2009, 20:28
True, but Charlie Askins was a gamer. A consummate gamer who uses totally game guns to win a VERY LARGE number of trophies. I have his prewar book on handgun shooting while he was a Captain, and those guns sure were not ‘combat’ guns nor his NRA off hand method a combat ‘stance’.

Jim Cirillo was another consummate gamer. His PPC guns, if you ever saw them or their holsters, you would think it was something Rob Letham used in IPSC. And he used all the game rules to also win a VERY LARGE number of trophies.

Bill Jordan was also a gamer. His competition rifle sure was not a combat and his technique was not 'combat'. He also had lots of trophies as he was on the Mississippi State Rifle Team in 1938 as well as the Border Patrol and U.S. Marine Corps Reserve teams in the immediate postwar years.

Even Jelly Bryce, who was a very gifted shot at an early age, shot matches while in the police department. And at that time, it was more of a NRA bullseye match. Plus before becoming a policeman he, while being in a citizen's military camp at Ft. Still, won first in pistol, first in rifle, and then went on to win the national rifle competition at Camp Perry in Ohio. Now boy that's a gamer!

These gents all used real game guns and game technique yet they did very well when the chips were down.

Ever considered that all the practice they did at these 'games' came in very handy in real life encounters? And in fact, you can be a gamer and still do quite well on the street. And that maybe those skills they learned in those 'games' really did help them?

Deaf

Dangit Def, ya had to quote the guy, I do so much better when I don't have to read his... writings.

Is this about to become yet annother gamer not a gunner thread?

I don't confuse them, they are the same thing. Shooting fast and accurate is shooting fast and accurate, end of debate. The rest of what will follow is plain BS.

When it becomes a gun fight, skill at arms is critical. Gamers illustrate a skill at arms the vast majority of gunners (cops and Mil) just don't possess.

Let the anecdotal arguments commence...

I shot with Antoine Lane, Austin PD and a TX Ranger this past weekend, both really good shooters- they both believe cops should be "gaming."

I'll take any random sample of the guys and gals shooting at the Space City Championships over any cop team and most SWAT teams any day.

Dragoon44
04-23-2009, 20:40
Can't argue with that... well I could, I just choose not to anymore.

:wavey:

it's a sad day when I can't get you to argue anymore.

:crying:


:supergrin:

Ron3
04-23-2009, 21:19
Yeah, you misunderstood, I'll try to explain:

What he and Col. Cooper are saying is that it preferential to have a living Hero first, a dead coward before a dead hero, and dead hero before a living coward.

Maybe the reverse is easier to understand:

The worst thing to be is a living coward.
The next worst is to have a dead hero.
It's better to have a dead coward.
It's best to be a living hero.

Got it, thanks!

Dragoon44
04-23-2009, 21:27
I don't confuse them, they are the same thing. Shooting fast and accurate is shooting fast and accurate, end of debate. The rest of what will follow is plain BS.

The problem is you are assuming that what someone can do in a game they can do when their life is on the line.

The world is full of guys that can swing a bat, dribble a ball, or throw a football better than the top athletes in the business. So why aren't they the ones at the top of those sports? because they can't do it under pressure. And THAT is what separates them from the pros, NOT pure mechanical skill, but the ability to perform under stress, when it counts.

A mediocre shot who uses better tactics, can act quicker and more decisively, and hold it together under stress will beat the fastest most accurate shot in the world that hesitates or chokes when it's life and death.

Just because someone can do something on a range does not mean they can do it on a dark street when thier life is on the line.

David Armstrong
04-23-2009, 22:09
True, but Charlie Askins was a gamer.
I doubt that, but so what?
Jim Cirillo was another consummate gamer.
Given the fact that Jim was rather insulting toward IPSC on more than one occassion, again, not really accurate, but so what?
Bill Jordan was also a gamer.
Which rates another not really, but so what?
Even Jelly Bryce, who was a very gifted shot at an early age, shot matches while in the police department.
And yet again, so what?
In fact, each of those gentlemen is a good example of what some of us have been saying. Even though they shot competition, it was secondary to their combat skills and was done as a way to help keep their shooting skill at a high level to compliment their fighting skills. They certainly didn't think that just becasue a person was good at wiining a game it menat they were good at serious gunfighting. And since I got to meet with and talk with Jordan quite a bit (he was good friends with one of my LE compadres) I can assure you he was well aware of and in agreement with what I said, "There certainly is some overlap, but many of those game winning skills do not translate into fight winning skills, just as many of the fight winning skills do not translate into game winning skills." In fact, that is a bit of a paraphrase of what he used to say quite a bit.
These gents all used real game guns and game technique yet they did very well when the chips were down.
Yes, they used real game guns and game techniques to win games. But they also put the game guns and game techniques away and used real fighting guns and real fighting techniques "when the chips were down" as you put it. See deaf, these were not gamers who got into gunfights, these were all gunfighters who played games on the side and knew the difference.

PhoneCop
04-23-2009, 22:10
The problem is you are assuming that what someone can do in a game they can do when their life is on the line.

I don't assume that, you may assume that I assume that, maybe I am assuming that you assuming that I assume that, but I don't assume that... :wavey:

The world is full of guys that can swing a bat, dribble a ball, or throw a football better than the top athletes in the business. So why aren't they the ones at the top of those sports? because they can't do it under pressure. And THAT is what separates them from the pros, NOT pure mechanical skill, but the ability to perform under stress, when it counts.

The world isn't full of guys who can do the mechanics than the pros, there are maybe a few.

A mediocre shot who uses better tactics, can act quicker and more decisively, and hold it together under stress will beat the fastest most accurate shot in the world that hesitates or chokes when it's life and death.

How are ya going to know the can do from the can't do before hand?

Just because someone can do something on a range does not mean they can do it on a dark street when thier life is on the line

I also don't assume that because someone is good at it on the range they will freeze when it's time to go... in fact I tend to think that they will more likely go.

I submit that until one does, the only thins that one can do is prepare to do:

I see this like the way "street fighters" insisted my karate didn't prepare me for a "real fight." The problem with this argument was it failed to consider that my karate had me throwing thousands of punches and kicks and avoiding the same. It provided me a level of conditioning and confidence the street tough didn't have. Tournament fights weren't a street fight but it was still a competition against another person intent on out fighting me.

Same sorry argument. Macho talk covering an insecurity and an inability.

I kicked the street fighter's ass. I bested other cops who were used to simply winning based on size difference or intimidation.

I know the arguments "they" used against "dancing karate" guys is the essentially the same as "tacticool" guys use against "gamers" today. They didn't know how to punch, I did. They didn't know how to avoid a punch, I did. But they talked heap big smack, much like I hear stated against gamers. Here's the problem; like the karate guy, the gamer is already a better draw and shot and acting on a level of mechanics the tacticool simply doesn't possess. The crappy tacticool guy falls to the level of preparedness which is dwarfed by the gamer.

Because I trained to go, I was able to go. That's the way it generally works.

"Gamers" are guys who shoot a lot, they practice to shoot a lot, they draw, they reload. They shoot on the move, from weird angles.

"Gamers" is a term insecure macho LEO/Mil "wanna-bes" (not you) apply to guys who are better shooters than they are, and who they fear are better able win the gun fight than they are.

I still love ya, bro.

David Armstrong
04-23-2009, 22:21
I don't confuse them, they are the same thing. Shooting fast and accurate is shooting fast and accurate, end of debate.
If one thinks they are the same thing then one truly is confused. And while shooting fast and accurate is certainly part of the picture, for one to claim it is the end of the debate indicates how little they understand the picture in the first place.
When it becomes a gun fight, skill at arms is critical. Gamers illustrate a skill at arms the vast majority of gunners (cops and Mil) just don't possess.
Seems to be a contradiction there, as the vast majority of cop win their gunfights. So either they do possess some pretty good skill at arms or skill at arms isn't that critical.
they both believe cops should be "gaming."
Most folks that shoot believe cops should be gaming. I think every LEO out ther eshould participate in either IPSC, IDPA, NRA Action, or some such. Not sure what that has to do with anything, as nobody has said gaming is bad or that cops shouldn't do it. But this strange belief that just because you can win a game means you'll be good at night in a dark alley when the BG is shooting at you, or when you have to go into a building to take down a BG is just silly, as well as strange.

MTPD
04-24-2009, 03:44
Gosh, MTPD, but mere mortals in the real world do not have your godly abilities to always read the mind of the BG, always outdraw the BG, and always drop the BG with one shot so he cannot respond. Of course, that is probably the difference between MTPDland and the real world.

Apparently not well known. Perhaps you could direct us to a single police department that teaches that tactic, or anyplace it is mentioned in print for use as a recommended tactic for LE or CCW?

Iknow you have trouble understanding the difference, but in real life BGs don't get the first shot just because you have screwed up, and such a comment is an insult to all the officers out there who have been shot at first.

Apparently some are inept at utilizing (or even understanding) an aggressive proactive "shoot first or die" survival mindset. Here's a hint: allowing BG's shoot first, and hoping to be able to dodge their bullets, isn't conducive to survival.

The officers on my department that were "shot at first", were all either killed or wounded. The least of their worries are alleged insults regarding their competence, or lack thereof. My primary concern is not with them, but with educating the inexperienced to street survival reality.

chuckman
04-24-2009, 04:56
Apparently some are inept at utilizing (or even understanding) an aggressive proactive "shoot first or die" survival mindset. Here's a hint: allowing BG's shoot first, and hoping to be able to dodge their bullets, isn't conducive to survival.

The officers on my department that were "shot at first", were all either killed or wounded. The least of their worries are alleged insults regarding their competence, or lack thereof. My primary concern is not with them, but with educating the inexperienced to street survival reality.

No offense to ANY officer that dies in the line of duty, but unless you are just plain suprised or ambushed, there is no causation (though there is correlation) that if you get shot at first, then you get hit. Talk about a lack of SA. This is also not true with officers I have known and worked with. Where do you/did you work again? Just curious...
If you are an LEO, then yes, by all means, please shoot first. Shoot second and third. In fact, I prefer you to be the only shooter in this situation. But for Billy Bob carrying concealed, this is fraught with peril...physical, legal, ethical.

As for translating games into real-world tactics, I cannot say, but I do imagine that any additional training and experience can only make you better. But with games, no one shoots back (except with Simunitions, and still you know everyone is going home at the end of the day). But, since I have not participated in games but have been downrange and came back in one piece, I have some authority to say that being a "gamer" or whatever is not necessary to being able to win a gunfight.

As for the argument that shooting fast and accurately is the same regardless of whether in training, a "game," or in a fight, I call BS. Rounds cracking by your ear and screams of injured people are distractions that just cannot be simulated. If me calling it a "game" or calling people "a gamer" makes me insecure, whatever. Think what you want.

As for the assumption that if someone is good on range then they will be more likely to "go" when the SHTF, I call BS. For some people this may be true, and for people who lurk these boards it might be true, but that is a gross generalization that ignores two elements: 1) that people are stupider than they think, and 2) that people are 'equipped' with the skills, knowledge, and tactics when they likely would not be.

David Armstrong
04-24-2009, 08:56
Here's a hint: allowing BG's shoot first, and hoping to be able to dodge their bullets, isn't conducive to survival.
Here's another hint: Nobody advocates letting the BGs shoot first and hoping to dodge their bullets.
The officers on my department that were "shot at first", were all either killed or wounded.
Amazing how much that made-up department of yours differs from the normal departments areound the country. I guess that is the difference between fiction and reality. I'm aware of plenty of officers that were shot at first who were not killed or wounded, and in fact they went on to win the fight.

MTPD
04-24-2009, 09:10
chuck, I've been in multiple shooting situations as a cop, civilian and PI. In those cases where I shot first, the BG never got a shot off. Many of my police co-workers did the same, with the same results. So.............in my personal experience, shooting first is the #1 most effective way to survive life/death encounters with armed felons.

Truth is, I had 600-800 felons at gunpoint over the years, and only had to actually shoot a few times. But in each and every case I was ready and able to shoot first, which caused the vast majority to surrender immediately or flee. Most felons have excellent street savvy and can tell instantly who is going to shoot and who isn't, and they don't want to get shot either.

As for legal problems, ethics, etc., you can let your lawyer worry about all that stuff after you have survived. On the other hand, if the felon shoots first and you are killed or seriously wounded, the law and ethics are going to seem mighty unimportant.

Most civilian shooting situations (and even many police shootings) take place at close range, measured in FEET not yards. At those up-close and personal distances even teenage dopers can hit their targets. So it is an often fatal error to allow them to get off the first shots.

The often repeated advice to "move, run, duck, take cover", etc., etc., is only appropriate at longer ranges, or if you have screwed up and allowed the felon to get off the first shots. In those cases, (if you are lucky enough not to be dropped by the first shots) by all means move and/or take cover.

In my opinion, it is very much preferable to be the person shooting, rather than the one trying (perhaps vainly) to dodge speeding bullets.

David Armstrong
04-24-2009, 11:26
The often repeated advice to "move, run, duck, take cover", etc., etc., is only appropriate at longer ranges, or if you have screwed up and allowed the felon to get off the first shots.
Interesting how virtually every recognized professional firearms trainer and LE agency disagrees with that statement. In fact, IIRC, NYPD determined the best thing an officer could do to enhance survival in a shooting was to take cover.

Thorazine
04-24-2009, 15:23
Stopping Active Shooters Immediately

Simple enough...


Extreme Shock Ammunition! :)


http://www.extremeshockusa.com/gfx_splash/top_2.jpg

Deaf Smith
04-24-2009, 18:09
I don't confuse them, they are the same thing. Shooting fast and accurate is shooting fast and accurate, end of debate. The rest of what will follow is plain BS.

When it becomes a gun fight, skill at arms is critical. Gamers illustrate a skill at arms the vast majority of gunners (cops and Mil) just don't possess.

Let the anecdotal arguments commence...

I shot with Antoine Lane, Austin PD and a TX Ranger this past weekend, both really good shooters- they both believe cops should be "gaming."

I'll take any random sample of the guys and gals shooting at the Space City Championships over any cop team and most SWAT teams any day.

I'm with you PhoneCop. Way to many people try to put others in neat round peg holds. They think anyone who competes in matches is a 'gamer' and cannot have any idea how to shoot when the chips are down. That’s a fallacy. It shows narrow mindedness. Usually those that say such cannot do, so they consider the others ‘gamers’ to cover their own shortcomings.

Every major police department, from fed to local, promote matches (NYPD sure did with Cirillo and I know the DPS sure do.) They hope and pray their officers will compete as they know that will raise their skill levels considerably and won’t cost the department much except maybe in ammo.

We now and then have FBI agents at our IDPA matches. They shoot Glock 23s using Winchester factory HPs the FBI lets them use (and man is there envy in our club.) And they shoot in the expert class.

So yes, many a gamer can and are quite a good defensive pistol shot.

Deaf

David Armstrong
04-24-2009, 18:49
They think anyone who competes in matches is a 'gamer' and cannot have any idea how to shoot when the chips are down. That’s a fallacy.
Can you show us anywhere in this thread, or others on GT for that matter, where it has been said that anyone who competes in matches is a gamer and cannot have any idea how to shoot when the chips are down? It seems to me most have been saying just the opposite, that many who compete are not gamers, and that some of the best fighters also shoot in competition to hone shooting skills.
So yes, many a gamer can and are quite a good defensive pistol shot.
And many gamers, when tossed into the mix of realistic training, have been found wanting. But many good defensive shooters do compete. They just know the difference between what it takes to win a a game and what it takes to win a fight. Jim Cirillo, who you keep mentioning, certainly knew that. Allow me to quote from an article by Michael Bane:
"Despite hype to the contrary, IDPA is no closer to "tactical reality" than bull's-eye shooting. That's because of a simple fact pointed out to me by the great Jim Cirillo, who, heaven knows, is one of the few people qualified to comment on shooting people professionally and who happened to shoot on my squad in the first big national invitational IDPA match. "Notice anything about the targets?" Jim asked me.
"Plain old cardboard," I said.
"That's right," said the old gunfighter. "Not a damn one of 'em is shooting back.""

Deaf Smith
04-24-2009, 19:41
Can you show us anywhere in this thread, or others on GT for that matter, where it has been said that anyone who competes in matches is a gamer and cannot have any idea how to shoot when the chips are down? It seems to me most have been saying just the opposite, that many who compete are not gamers, and that some of the best fighters also shoot in competition to hone shooting skills.

Sure can!

http://glocktalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12740159


Gamer versus fighter at its finest. The gamer, like deaf, sees that little head shot as being really hard to hit so that must mean it is a good idea. The fighter sees the little head as a target indicator and recognizes it isn't very good except in very narrow circumstances.

Deaf

Tailhunter
04-24-2009, 20:36
it's a sad day when I can't get you to argue anymore.

:crying:


:supergrin:

Dragoon ... that wasn't an admission of trolling now was it?? :tongueout:

Tailhunter
04-24-2009, 20:51
Enhancement and honing of skills can only help. Just like gun games in archery we have 3d tournaments. They are gun games with a bow. They are full of pressure and test your every ability to the max. I got into it to help me in my hunting abilities. (kind of like a cop would do with gun games to hone his skill) I found that when the adrenaline dumped while hunting big deer, i was already used to it. I knew what it felt like and what I had to do to overcome it. I shot so much in competition that I knew my equipment in and out. I knew when it was right and when it was wrong and what to do in both those conditions to make the end the same. Competition made the real thing so much easier. It finely hones your skills and builds confidence and we all know that confidence wins.

David Armstrong
04-24-2009, 21:44
Sure can!
Apparently you can't, as there is nothing there that says anyone who competes is a gamer, nor is there any mention of those who compete cannot have any idea of how to shoot when the chips are down.

MTPD
04-25-2009, 12:57
Here's another hint: Nobody advocates letting the BGs shoot first and hoping to dodge their bullets.

.

You advocate letting BG's shoot first, David, by implication. Why else would you advocate going for cover? You don't need to take cover if you have already dropped the BG's. :upeyes:

And why else would you badmouth those advocating shooting first, unless you were against it? And being against shooting first means you are in favor of NOT shooting first. And not shooting first implies that the BG's are allowed to shoot first. :whistling:

If you can't be smart, at least try to be honest. And the first step towards honesty is for you to quit playing disingenuous, childish word games.

Deaf Smith
04-25-2009, 13:17
Sorry but word games are his fortie.

Even notice he never starts a thread here at GT? Go ahead an do a search. david is here for the word games. He really is THE gamer. Dgg9 isn't far behind either.

Deaf

David Armstrong
04-25-2009, 15:03
You advocate letting BG's shoot first, David, by implication.
Nonsense. I advocate shooting when necessary. Nothing in that concept suggests letting the other guy shoot first.
Why else would you advocate going for cover? You don't need to take cover if you have already dropped the BG's.
In real life, unlike MTPD fantasyland, the BG does not always drop when shot. And I advocate going for cover because it has been found to be one of the best ways to survive a gunfight.
And why else would you badmouth those advocating shooting first, unless you were against it?
Probably because those advocating shooting first are advocating shooting first when inappropriate or some other silly stuff.
And being against shooting first means you are in favor of NOT shooting first. And not shooting first implies that the BG's are allowed to shoot first.
That's nice, but nobody, including me, has said they are against shooting first, allowing the BG to shoot first, or favor not shooting first. I know you have some trouble with it, but try to deal with reality instead of making things up.
If you can't be smart, at least try to be honest.
Says the man whose entire internet persona apparently is based on deception.

David Armstrong
04-25-2009, 15:09
Even notice he never starts a thread here at GT? Go ahead an do a search.
Once again, deaf, a little basic research will keep you from making a fool of yourself. In fact, I started a thread 4-16-09. But perhaps you will tell us what starting threads has to do with stopping active shooters? Or are you just trying to hijack another thread so you can try to attack someone?

Tailhunter
04-25-2009, 19:59
Once again, deaf, a little basic research will keep you from making a fool of yourself. In fact, I started a thread 4-16-09. But perhaps you will tell us what starting threads has to do with stopping active shooters? Or are you just trying to hijack another thread so you can try to attack someone?

I don't think Deaf looks like a fool ......

David Armstrong
04-25-2009, 22:12
I don't think Deaf looks like a fool
I do agree it is a matter of perception, but when someone makes claims of fact that are so easily proven wrong it just strikes me as, well, foolish.

MTPD
04-26-2009, 07:15
Nonsense..

Ahhhh, more childish, disingenuous word games. That's so typical of your responses. :supergrin::faint::supergrin:

OK, I'll bite. Exactly when do you advocate shooting first? And where have you posted any "shoot first" advice?

David Armstrong
04-26-2009, 08:47
Ahhhh, more childish, disingenuous word games.
Umm, what part of "Nonsense" is disingenous to you?
Exactly when do you advocate shooting first?
Whenever it is appropriate.
And where have you posted any "shoot first" advice?
I don't post "shoot first" advice, just like I don't post "let the BG shoot first" advice, or "don't shoot first" advice, or any other form of that nonsense. I post shoot when you reasonably feel your life or the life of another is in danger.

Tactician
04-26-2009, 09:12
I see both points of view here. Gamers may revert to their training and perform well under pressure. The key word here is "may". Anyone who has experienced sweaty palms and shaking hands where simple motor skills are almost impossible to perform, understands what Dragoon is talking about.

Very few men can get past this condition and get into the tunnel vision zone of warfare.

I believe a gamer has just as much a chance of rising to the occasion as anyone else. All the stress in a real situation will level the playing field quite alot however.

PhoneCop
04-26-2009, 22:09
I've been spending some time lurking on Brian Enos Forums... I think some GTers should go over there and read what the LEOs who also shoot competition think of cop shootng ability.

David Armstrong
04-26-2009, 22:17
I think some GTers should go over there and read what the LEOs who also shoot competition think of cop shootng ability.
More of that gamer mentality popping up. Competitive shooting ability doesn't seem to matter much in who wins and loses a LE gunfight. Most LEOs aren't good shots. Yet they seem to win most of their fights in spite of that. I wish they were better, but I also wish they were better at lots of things besides shooting.

Dragoon44
04-26-2009, 22:31
I have nothing against competition, used to compete myself in action shooting. And I consistently won too. But winning was not my objective, competing using my duty rig, duty gun, and using duty ammo was.

The shooters showed up and competed with what they carried daily, the gamers showed up with tricked out high priced game guns and holsters that were little more than a shelf for the pistol.

It upset the gamers with thousands of dollars in their rigs considerably when the cop using a duty rig, which included a security holster, closed mag pouches, and shooting a Stock Sig P226 shooting 115 gr. +P ammo kicked their butts.

The range I shot at did not have different classes anyone could with whatever gun and equipment they liked. And it did not matter to me, I was not there to win trophies I was there to test myself with what I carried daily.

That said, I would add that the idea that someone who competes is automatically better able to prevail in a real life gun fight than the person who does not compete is simply BS.

PhoneCop
04-27-2009, 07:17
I have nothing against competition, used to compete myself in action shooting. And I consistently won too. But winning was not my objective, competing using my duty rig, duty gun, and using duty ammo was.

I commend this. :thumbsup:

The shooters showed up and competed with what they carried daily, the gamers showed up with tricked out high priced game guns and holsters that were little more than a shelf for the pistol.

It upset the gamers with thousands of dollars in their rigs considerably when the cop using a duty rig, which included a security holster, closed mag pouches, and shooting a Stock Sig P226 shooting 115 gr. +P ammo kicked their butts.

Just as it upsets some guys shooting Limited or Open when I beat them with my Single Stack Kimber 1911.

When we beat these guys, we are beatin gthe guys who think that it is the rig or the gun which makes a better shooter. We know it doesn't.

The range I shot at did not have different classes anyone could with whatever gun and equipment they liked. And it did not matter to me, I was not there to win trophies I was there to test myself with what I carried daily.

That said, I would add that the idea that someone who competes is automatically better able to prevail in a real life gun fight than the person who does not compete is simply BS.

Dragoon, think about that last sentence...

Is the guy who works out and hits the heavy bag or boxes a couple times a week automatically better able to prevail in a real fight that the person who doesn't?

Is the guy who runs 3 miles at a time a couple times a week automatically better able to run down the fleeing felon?

Is guy who practices mediation and deescalation techniques automatically better able to talk down the upset person than the person who doesn't.

You don't usually bog down in semantics and I appreciate that about you. So if automatically able isn't meaning the same thing to you as it is meaning to me, we can work through that.

But, I'll take the guy who practices sometime onto my team before the guy who doesn't practice everytime.

Dragoon44
04-27-2009, 09:58
Phonecop,

You mentioned that you were in Martial arts so let me try an example from that.

How about someone who does Kata? does being good at Kata automatically mean the guy will prevail in full contact?

The obvious answer is no, while he may know the forms nd be able to perform them flawlessly in Kata competition, that does not translate into victory in full contact. ( at the same time many who are champions in full contact CAN perform a flawless kata routine)

In full contact the Kata guy now has to deal with several things that he does not have to deal with in Kata.

He now has a mobile flesh and blood opponent, who is unpredictable and is out to knock him out. He needs Metal toughness, aggression, the ability to think on his feet and react to his opponent. the ability both physically and mentally to take a hit and to effectively deliver his own blows.

Prevailing in ANY form of combat, armed or unarmed is largely MENTAL. Having the ability to react quickly and effectively, to continue the fight even if hit.

Competition does NOT impart these traits. Top competitors may indeed have them but it is simply NOT a given.

A mediocre shot who has the traits necessary act quickly and ruthlessly will prevail over the best competitor in the world who lacks the traits necessary to prevail.

it's that simple.

PhoneCop
04-27-2009, 10:18
Phonecop,

You mentioned that you were in Martial arts so let me try an example from that.

How about someone who does Kata? does being good at Kata automatically mean the guy will prevail in full contact?

The obvious answer is no, while he may know the forms nd be able to perform them flawlessly in Kata competition, that does not translate into victory in full contact. ( at the same time many who are champions in full contact CAN perform a flawless kata routine)

In full contact the Kata guy now has to deal with several things that he does not have to deal with in Kata.

He now has a mobile flesh and blood opponent, who is unpredictable and is out to knock him out. He needs Metal toughness, aggression, the ability to think on his feet and react to his opponent. the ability both physically and mentally to take a hit and to effectively deliver his own blows.

Prevailing in ANY form of combat, armed or unarmed is largely MENTAL. Having the ability to react quickly and effectively, to continue the fight even if hit.

Competition does NOT impart these traits. Top competitors may indeed have them but it is simply NOT a given.

A mediocre shot who has the traits necessary act quickly and ruthlessly will prevail over the best competitor in the world who lacks the traits necessary to prevail.

it's that simple.


Why do you think I disagree with this?

Maybe we should simplify-

I would rather take a skilled competitive shooter over the average cop shooter.
I would rather take a equally skilled cop over the same skilled competitive shooter.
If the issue is not knowing if the skilled shooter would "go" I'd offer to take the cop whose BTDT over the unknown... up to a point.

I know of BTDT guys who frooze for no good apparent reason.
I know of no research that predicts who will or will not freeze.
I know some guys who are great shots who aint BTDT yet whom I trust to go when goin' needs gettin'.

I'll read a guy's demenor and feel for false bravado.

I'll also rely on certain observed behavior... for instance:

At a match a pit-bull, in a poorly choosen attempt to play with 12 yo, barked, growled, and grabbed his pant leg in his teeth.

3 of us grabbed for our weapons, but none of use were geared up. I reacted first, next, and yelled and kicked at the dog.

Would you want any of us 3 at your side? One USPSA B class, one A class, one M class. Ready to go, not hestitating.

So, please, tell me, where are we really at odds?

PhoneCop
04-27-2009, 10:23
How about someone who does Kata? does being good at Kata automatically mean the guy will prevail in full contact?


If the guy knows what his moves in the kata really mean and having practiced them a few times, he has a leg up on the guy without training. He will probably defeat the average joe you just gets into a fight every once in while...

Deaf Smith
04-27-2009, 10:38
Phonecop,

You mentioned that you were in Martial arts so let me try an example from that.

How about someone who does Kata? does being good at Kata automatically mean the guy will prevail in full contact?

The obvious answer is no, while he may know the forms nd be able to perform them flawlessly in Kata competition, that does not translate into victory in full contact. ( at the same time many who are champions in full contact CAN perform a flawless kata routine)

In full contact the Kata guy now has to deal with several things that he does not have to deal with in Kata.

He now has a mobile flesh and blood opponent, who is unpredictable and is out to knock him out. He needs Metal toughness, aggression, the ability to think on his feet and react to his opponent. the ability both physically and mentally to take a hit and to effectively deliver his own blows.

Prevailing in ANY form of combat, armed or unarmed is largely MENTAL. Having the ability to react quickly and effectively, to continue the fight even if hit.

Competition does NOT impart these traits. Top competitors may indeed have them but it is simply NOT a given.

A mediocre shot who has the traits necessary act quickly and ruthlessly will prevail over the best competitor in the world who lacks the traits necessary to prevail.

it's that simple.

Dragon,

I 'do' kata. I also used to 'do' competion, both Kata and sparring. We found those who excell in both kata and sparring tended to be the best martial artist and most effective at sparring. Why? Because they could do excellent technique (as shown in kata) and use that technique in sparring where there was a 'flesh and blood' opponent who is trying to beat them.

Sure, it simply is not a given that a competitor will be the one on top, but it's a leg up on the joe that takes a 2 day shooting course and goes back to their donuts and twinkies.

And if they go into competition and have many a class on both shooting technique and 'reality based' classes, then they are way way ahead.

Deaf

Dragoon44
04-27-2009, 10:53
I would rather take a skilled competitive shooter over the average cop shooter.

And this is probably our area of disagreement. The implication here is that pure mechanical shooting skill is paramount. it is not.

Someone already brought up Jim Cirillo, in his book :Guns, bullets, and gunfighters on page 55 he gives the lessons they learned picking people for the stakeout squad.

Lesson Number ONE- "Being a superb marksman does not necessarily make one a good gunfighter."

Also we have the F.B.I. report every year on officer involved injuries and fatalities. Every year the analysis is the same.

It is not that the cops could not shoot accurately enough.

it is:

1. they did not recognize or react to the danger signs soon enough.

2. they did not shoot when they should have.



If the guy knows what his moves in the kata really mean and having practiced them a few times, he has a leg up on the guy without training. He will probably defeat the average joe you just gets into a fight every once in while...

Again you are putting mechanical skill as paramount. this is what I do not agree with.

The Kata master is not going to prevail if he does not have what it takes to perform under pressure, to take a hit, or the determination to go the distance.

Dragoon44
04-27-2009, 11:10
Sure, it simply is not a given that a competitor will be the one on top, but it's a leg up on the joe that takes a 2 day shooting course and goes back to their donuts and twinkies.

The advantage will be with the one that is prepared to take it the furthest, the fastest, the one that will act or react the quickest, and the one that will not hesitate to shoot.


And if they go into competition and have many a class on both shooting technique and 'reality based' classes, then they are way way ahead.

No one is arguing that someone who has the necessary MENTAL and emotional tools to prevail would not benefit by honing their physical skills.

What is being disputed is the implication that pure mechanical skills are the most important thing and that someone who can excel at shooting paper targets means they will excel in a real life deadly force encounter.

David Armstrong
04-27-2009, 11:22
Sure, it simply is not a given that a competitor will be the one on top, but it's a leg up on the joe that takes a 2 day shooting course and goes back to their donuts and twinkies.
Not necessarily, which is the point some are making. Those shooting skills don't necessarily give one a leg up. Let's face it, what skill level does one need to shoot a man-sized torso at 15'? It's not particularly high. Joe has enough skill for that (and more), but while not eating his donuts and twinkies Joe is out there regularly dealing with people who are a danger to him and to others, learning to read them, learning to respond to them, and generally learning to stay alive and keep the situation under control. The range gives a completely different set of skills. Those skills might be needed in some small fraction of the time, but rarely. The ability to do a quick draw and shoot a double tap to the bullseye comes in a far second to the mental and emotional tools, as Dragoon calls them.

Currahee
04-27-2009, 11:44
I know I've recommend this one before but....

"Meditations on Violence" by SGT Rory Miller - the book is all about how training differs from combat, and how to factor that in. The book is very thought provoking. I highly recommend it, because it touches on so many of the issues in this thread. Read it, you won't regret it.

PhoneCop
04-27-2009, 12:27
And this is probably our area of disagreement. The implication here is that pure mechanical shooting skill is paramount. it is not.

Someone already brought up Jim Cirillo, in his book :Guns, bullets, and gunfighters on page 55 he gives the lessons they learned picking people for the stakeout squad.

Lesson Number ONE- "Being a superb marksman does not necessarily make one a good gunfighter."

Also we have the F.B.I. report every year on officer involved injuries and fatalities. Every year the analysis is the same.

It is not that the cops could not shoot accurately enough.

it is:

1. they did not recognize or react to the danger signs soon enough.

2. they did not shoot when they should have.





Again you are putting mechanical skill as paramount. this is what I do not agree with.

The Kata master is not going to prevail if he does not have what it takes to perform under pressure, to take a hit, or the determination to go the distance.

Upon which I don't think we disagree.

Let harken you back to the question I should have more strongly highlighted-

until you know who has what it takes to prevail under pressure, which one are you going to want watching your back:

1- The fit 3rd degree black belt or the soft bellied guy who never trains to fight?
2- The competition shooter who scored perfectly on the qual or the guy who barely passed, was slow and fumbled a lot?

Do you want the guy who has practiced to prevail or the guy who hasn't?
Do yo want the guy who has practiced a lot or the guy who only did the minimum.

That's really my point.

Currahee
04-27-2009, 12:48
I agree that training is the best proxy available to evaluate who will perform under pressure. How reliable of a measure is that proxy? Well I guess that depends on the training.

My experience from the military is that those who will fail, do so before even stepping foot in the combat zone. When we got our deployment orders, we immediately had a group who said "no way I quit".

Of those who went to combat, 90% performed as they should. Those that didn't, clearly shouldn't have been in the military to begin with. I think this points more to the effectiveness of the training, and self selection than anything else.

As a civilian the point is moot - I really only rely on myself and my family, and I try to be aware of their limitations, and mine.

David Armstrong
04-27-2009, 14:01
1- The fit 3rd degree black belt or the soft bellied guy who never trains to fight?
2- The competition shooter who scored perfectly on the qual or the guy who barely passed, was slow and fumbled a lot?
Seems you are stacking the deck a little bit, there. How about:
The fit 3rd degree black belt who has never been in a real fight, or the old, soft-bellied guy who has been in a dozen street brawls and subdued the BG every time? The competition shooter with the perfect qual score who has never heard a shot fired in anger, or the guy who barely passed but has been a half-dozen deadly force situations and come out on top in every one?
You are still focusing on that mechanical skills issue that so many non-fighters see as paramount. Certainly good skills versus no or bad skills, the good skills is the better choice. But it is more than just the skills. Sometimes it is the good mechanical skills but no experience versus the poor mechanical skills and lots of BTDT.

Dragoon44
04-27-2009, 14:24
Upon which I don't think we disagree.

Let harken you back to the question I should have more strongly highlighted-

until you know who has what it takes to prevail under pressure, which one are you going to want watching your back:

1- The fit 3rd degree black belt or the soft bellied guy who never trains to fight?
2- The competition shooter who scored perfectly on the qual or the guy who barely passed, was slow and fumbled a lot?

Do you want the guy who has practiced to prevail or the guy who hasn't?
Do yo want the guy who has practiced a lot or the guy who only did the minimum.

That's really my point.

Which one would you want if you were going into a situation where a gunfight was likely,

The rookie fresh out of the academy who shot tops in his class, or the veteran cop that is an average shot.

You it would appear, would opt for the best shooter, I would opt for the one with more experience.

In short, I place a higher value on experience than I do on pure mechanical shooting skills.

Short Cut
04-27-2009, 15:23
If such a mall shooting has to take place I'd love to see a citizen with a concealed carry permit take the BG down and minimize the loss of life. It would be a plus to those whose lives were saved and a HUGE benefit to the whole concept of concealed carry by citizens.

Dragoon44
04-27-2009, 15:52
If such a mall shooting has to take place I'd love to see a citizen with a concealed carry permit take the BG down and minimize the loss of life. It would be a plus to those whose lives were saved and a HUGE benefit to the whole concept of concealed carry by citizens.

Me too, And I think there are CCW people out there that can and will rise to the occasion, but there are also those that simply cannot bring themselves to pull the trigger, like the CCW guy at Tacoma Wa. mall that drew his gun on a wannabe mass murderer, but he could not bring himself to pull the trigger, so the shooter shot him. he survived but spent a lot of time in the hospital.

or the two CCW that confronted the Church shooter and didn't fire on him. it was the third CCW, ex cop Jeanne Assan that arrived and fired on him.

Beware Owner
04-27-2009, 15:54
or the two CCW that confronted the Church shooter and didn't fire on him. it was the third CCW, ex cop Jeanne Assan that arrived and fired on him.

If that same Jeanne Assan spoke on GT, she'd be dubbed an armchair commando and a whole bunch of things except a hero, I'll tell you what!

Deaf Smith
04-27-2009, 16:00
Not necessarily, which is the point some are making. Those shooting skills don't necessarily give one a leg up. Let's face it, what skill level does one need to shoot a man-sized torso at 15'? It's not particularly high. Joe has enough skill for that (and more), but while not eating his donuts and twinkies Joe is out there regularly dealing with people who are a danger to him and to others, learning to read them, learning to respond to them, and generally learning to stay alive and keep the situation under control. The range gives a completely different set of skills. Those skills might be needed in some small fraction of the time, but rarely. The ability to do a quick draw and shoot a double tap to the bullseye comes in a far second to the mental and emotional tools, as Dragoon calls them.


Not necessarily either. It may be a man-sized torso, or a partially exposed one, or a moving one, or an armored one. No crystal ball to tell just what the situation will be. A competitor may have just those skills at the emotional level just as the next joe but also the skills to shoot at any range or speed or precision needed.

Deaf

David Armstrong
04-27-2009, 17:33
Not necessarily either. It may be a man-sized torso, or a partially exposed one, or a moving one, or an armored one. No crystal ball to tell just what the situation will be. A competitor may have just those skills at the emotional level just as the next joe but also the skills to shoot at any range or speed or precision needed.
Again, there is that emphasis on the mechanical skills. I think that is probably the biggest difference between gamer and fighter, and why gamers have such a hard time understanding the whole fighting paradigm. There is an old Russian saying that seems to fit, "Perfection is the enemy of good enough." I'll go with the guy that is good enough but has the experience of handling the tough situations, as opposed the the guy that shoots perfectly and has not seen the elephant, as they used to say. The mechanical skills are nice, I wish more (including LEOS) had them at a high level, but they just don't make that much difference ordinarily.

Dragoon44
04-27-2009, 17:53
There is an old Russian saying that seems to fit, "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."

There is another that goes right along with it, "Idealism is the enemy of truth."

Deaf Smith
04-27-2009, 17:54
Again, there is that emphasis on the mechanical skills. I think that is probably the biggest difference between gamer and fighter, and why gamers have such a hard time understanding the whole fighting paradigm. There is an old Russian saying that seems to fit, "Perfection is the enemy of good enough." I'll go with the guy that is good enough but has the experience of handling the tough situations, as opposed the the guy that shoots perfectly and has not seen the elephant, as they used to say. The mechanical skills are nice, I wish more (including LEOS) had them at a high level, but they just don't make that much difference ordinarily.


And those LEOs you talk about shoot while moving, head shots, moving shots, and the like. That don't sound like "Perfection is the enemy of good enough" to me (which BTW, Voltaire said that, and he was French.) In fact it sounds like those who practice alot and might well shoot matches alot, like Cirrillo, Askins, Bryce, Jordan and other 'gamers'.

Especially like in this thread about Active shooters where there may be multiple innocents, armored shooters, lots of people moving. Come to think about it, most of the people your talking about just wait till the shooter runs out of ammo and they hope he killed himself.

Deaf

David Armstrong
04-27-2009, 19:06
And those LEOs you talk about shoot while moving, head shots, moving shots, and the like.
OK, and is there a point to any of this?
which BTW, Voltaire said that, and he was French.)
Catherine and Peter brought quite a bit of the French to Russia.
In fact it sounds like those who practice alot and might well shoot matches alot, like Cirrillo, Askins, Bryce, Jordan and other 'gamers'.
There is that mental block showing up again. Not everyone who competes is a gamer. Heck, I used to compete quite a bit. What you seem to be having a hard time with is understanding that there are fighters who compete, but they are still not gamers. They don't fall into the mental trap of the gamer. They recognize what the game is about and use what they can from it to enhance their fighting skills and abilities.
Come to think about it, most of the people your talking about just wait till the shooter runs out of ammo and they hope he killed himself.
As usual, you illlustrate quite nicely that you have no idea of what I am talking about when you make such a ridiculous accusation.

PhoneCop
04-27-2009, 19:44
Which one would you want if you were going into a situation where a gunfight was likely,

The rookie fresh out of the academy who shot tops in his class, or the veteran cop that is an average shot.

You it would appear, would opt for the best shooter, I would opt for the one with more experience.

In short, I place a higher value on experience than I do on pure mechanical shooting skills.

So we are really not all that much in disagreement.

If the veteran cop has on many an occassion drawn and shot, then I'd take that experience over the rookie sharp shooter.

I'd take the USPSA shooter over the Rookie who shot tops in his class.

I'd take the better shooter of two guys who have equal trigger time on BGs.

If this places a premium on mechanical skills, I unappologically accept that position.

Given how poorly I feel LEOs are prepared mechanically to shoot, I'd take the known quality of a USPSA B class or better shooter over the predictably poor mechanics of the average cop. Especially given the strong possibility that the average cop has never pulled the trigger either.

I think we see this through different lenses. You have shot with gamers and did well. I have shot with cops and believe they basically suck. Better than untrained, barely qualified as proficient.

I am uncertain as to why we have this difference in perception. The reasons potentially run both positive and negative for both of us. You may be a great shooter who is also a cop. You may have also simply not been around great competitive shooters. I don't know, these are just possibilities which explain the disparity. I may have been unfortunate to have been around cops in KS and TX who couldn't shoot but were considered qualitified. I know I shot with a number of M and GM shooters.

My personal tesitmony is of being a top gun at my academy and top 3 in my 300-350 man department. I would barely have qualified as C class. Barely. And I was an above average for KS LE. I looked at one of my earliest classifiers (11/06) and I shot a C class 46%, my lowest has been 18%, my best, 82%)

Good competitive shooters would be exceptional from cop perspective. Exceptional competitive shooters would be barely comprehendible for cops, magical almost:

I submit for you to consider the results of an El Presidente classifer from the last match I shot. One stands with his back to 3 targets which are 10 yards away and spaced 3' between, on signal the shooter turns, draws, and shoots 2 shots each into 3 targets, does a reload, repeats the 2 shots each on 3 targets. It's not a gun fight, but it is an excellent test of mechanical skills, draw, shoot, reload, shoot.

How fast do you think the average cop could do this? Turn and draw in what, 1.5 seconds, 2? 3? Most cops I've seen take closer to 3. They aren't confident enough to do it in less. (the typicall B class or better already shot 3 shots, maybe 4 in 3 seconds.)

Shoot 6 shots on 3 targets? I'm saying 3 seconds.

Reload? 2 - 4 seconds

Shoot the 3 targets again? Another 3 seconds.

That's probably 12 seconds. Let's reduce it by 2 seconds in case I'm unfairly skeptical. 10 seconds. I suspect that their score won't be perfect and more akin to a 50 pnts out of 60 with a miss (-10) and is a 4 HF, which classifies right at the top of D class, almost C class.

The competitve and overwhelmingly non-LEO shooters averaged much better: 5.5 HF. The best C class shooter shot 7.2 HF. The best D class shot 5.3.

GM and M class shooters averaged 49 pnts, 3 penalty points, 6.25 seconds and a 7.37 HF

A class averaged 51 pnts, 2 penalty pnts, 7.02 seconds, 7.05 HF
B class averaged 50 pnts, 3 penalty pnts, 7.3 seconds, 6.4 HF
C class averaged 44 pnts, 9 penalty pnts, 9.7 seconds, 3.8 HF
There were only 3 D class shooters, as opposed to 54 GM, M, A, B, and C class shooters, so I didn't bother to computer their averages.

This is why I would rather have a gamer, the average gamer is much better than the average cop. Absent reason to know that the particular cop or gamer has BTDT, I'll take the average gamer because he's more than 25% better than the average cop. The typical B shooter, 50% better than the average cop. A class is typically 75% better. M and GM, averages about 80% better.

My friend and mentor shot it 150% better than the average cop with a 10+ hit factor.

In looking at the performance of 69 Limited and Production division shooters, a 4 HF places one at 55 out 70 competitive shooters... think about that. The typical cop would shoot it in the bottom 25%.

This from a former LEO who wants every one of them to make it to retirement. I'm not belittling tactics, but their shooting skills is lacking.

I know A class shooters who have invited SWAT teams to come shoot, only to see them get horribly embarrased and walk away mumbling, "gamers."

The good news is more and more cops are gaming. Good for them.

We might stray next into the realm of what matters more- tactics in a gun fight or mechanical skill.

I understand your position is tactics rule (at least I recall that- memories fail).

If tactics STOP the gunfight then we agree. But we are discussing the the gun fight which is happening, I opt for pure shooting skill over the tactician. The difference would be extreme.

Currahee
04-27-2009, 19:52
You need all of them - mindset, tactics, skill and physical ability. Luck doesn't hurt either ;)

Deaf Smith
04-27-2009, 19:58
Catherine and Peter brought quite a bit of the French to Russia.

So did Napoleon, and your point is?


There is that mental block showing up again. Not everyone who competes is a gamer. Heck, I used to compete quite a bit. What you seem to be having a hard time with is understanding that there are fighters who compete, but they are still not gamers. They don't fall into the mental trap of the gamer. They recognize what the game is about and use what they can from it to enhance their fighting skills and abilities.

So not all gamers are gamers? Right? Your problem is you call everyone gamers you just don't like. If you don't like their opinion, then they are gamers.

Deaf

Dragoon44
04-27-2009, 20:27
If tactics STOP the gunfight then we agree. But we are discussing the the gun fight which is happening, I opt for pure shooting skill over the tactician. The difference would be extreme.

I think the main reason we differ to the degree we do is that you tend to believe that the performance that someone can deliver on the range during a match, they can replicate on the street fighting for their life.

And I do not think that is necessarily the case.

PhoneCop
04-27-2009, 20:55
I think the main reason we differ to the degree we do is that you tend to believe that the performance that someone can deliver on the range during a match, they can replicate on the street fighting for their life.

And I do not think that is necessarily the case.

Fair enough, can you point to some research that shows that range queens can't deliver at all in the fight? More so than rookie cops?

I know performance degrades under pressure.

I believe that the piss poor performance by cops under life and death is strongly attributed to poor capability to start with.

I believe that cops performance looks like the top scaling as opposed to the middle or bottom when compared to the realm of the shooting world:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4334/scalingshooterskill.png

PhoneCop
04-27-2009, 20:56
You need all of them - mindset, tactics, skill and physical ability. Luck doesn't hurt either ;)


I think we found a post we can all agree on.

David Armstrong
04-27-2009, 21:08
So did Napoleon, and your point is?
The point is that a quote from a French writer, through cultural diffusion, has become a folk-saying in Russia.
So not all gamers are gamers? Right?
No. By definition, gamers are gamers. But again, not everyone who competes is a gamer.
Your problem is you call everyone gamers you just don't like. If you don't like their opinion, then they are gamers.
Your problem is you keep making things up about me. It has nothing to do with whether I like somebody or not. In fact, I like a lot of the gamers. It has nothing with opinion. It has everything to do with the emphasis and focus one brings to the competition.

David Armstrong
04-27-2009, 21:12
Fair enough, can you point to some research that shows that range queens can't deliver iat all in the fight? More so than rookie cops?
Well, there is the rather well-known SOP9 from NYPD, which gave one conclusion that range score of officers had no relationship to success in gunfights, that might be relevant to the issue.

Dragoon44
04-27-2009, 21:45
Fair enough, can you point to some research that shows that range queens can't deliver at all in the fight? More so than rookie cops?

It is not just "range queens" that is the point, it affects LE shooters as well,
As already mentioned there have already been studies that show that an officers range performance showed no relationship to gunfight survival.

You also have Jim Cirillo's experience and observations that being a Superb marksman does not mean you can win a gunfight.

The simple truth is you could have almost supernatural shooting skills on the range and still not be able to hold it together when it's the real thing.

Superb shooting skills cannot overcome failure to react when you should, panic, or the hesitation or inability to drop the hammer on another human being.

That is the point I have been trying to get across, just because someone is an ace pistolero on the range does not mean they will be one on the street.

MTPD
04-28-2009, 01:39
The reason cops drop a lot of BG's is because they are often too close to miss. But even so, the cops on my department still missed about 75% of their shots. In our basement range we had bullet marks all over the ceiling, walls and floor, as silent testimony as to the fact that some of the cops were bad shots!.

Let's face it, the person who is hyper-aware of what's going on, and mentally determined to survive no matter what, is way more likely to survive unhurt than someone who is hesitant, unaware, unmotivated, and used to bluffing his way through bad situations by flashing a gun or badge. And this is true regardless of shooting ability.

As for combat type shooting expertise, the ability to shoot fast and accurately isn't a sure-thing guarantee of survival. But being an expert combat shooter is a "plus" in any shooting situation. If nothing else it gives the "expert" the necessary self-confidence to dominate the situation.

Based on experience, I found that shooting first was the best way to survive confrontations with armed, violent felons, regardless of level of expertise. Or, to put it another way, even a champion IPSC/IDPA shooter isn't likely to prevail over a felon that's an inexperienced shooter, if the expert screws up and allows the felon to shoot first at belly-to-belly touching distance.

PhoneCop
04-28-2009, 13:23
It is not just "range queens" that is the point, it affects LE shooters as well,
As already mentioned there have already been studies that show that an officers range performance showed no relationship to gunfight survival.

I have heard and I accept that information. I counter with an opinion that the range of barely pass to barely perfect qual is insignificant. That range of shooting skill is small and at the bottom of shooting capability.

I suspect that given a wider population and range of skill levels, we'd see it- if only because the greater practice makes for better performance under stress.

You also have Jim Cirillo's experience and observations that being a Superb marksman does not mean you can win a gunfight.

The simple truth is you could have almost supernatural shooting skills on the range and still not be able to hold it together when it's the real thing.

Superb shooting skills cannot overcome failure to react when you should, panic, or the hesitation or inability to drop the hammer on another human being.

That is the point I have been trying to get across, just because someone is an ace pistolero on the range does not mean they will be one on the street.

I agree, superior skill doesn't overcome failure to react. It overcomes inferior shooting skill. Exceptional skill just might.

BTW- does that mean there are no studies which show exceptionally skilled shooters can't perform, of are we stuck on the conditional argument?

(were not gonna get much further, are we... :highfive: )

Dragoon44
04-28-2009, 16:33
I suspect that given a wider population and range of skill levels, we'd see it- if only because the greater practice makes for better performance under stress.


Only if they can function under stress to begin with, if they can hold it together in the face of a real life deadly force encounter.


I agree, superior skill doesn't overcome failure to react. It overcomes inferior shooting skill. Exceptional skill just might.


Here again it is no just failure to react in time, it is the ability to function effectively in a life or death situation.

BTW- does that mean there are no studies which show exceptionally skilled shooters can't perform, of are we stuck on the conditional argument?

I don't know of any studies that show that exceptional shooters CAN"T perform, but I don't know anyone making the argument they they cannot to begin with.

The disagreement here is that some, (yourself and others) tend to clearly imply that being an exceptional shooter on the range means you will do better in a real life situation. In short, you tend to place mechanical shooting skills at the top of the list of things that are most important.

David Armstrong
04-28-2009, 17:51
I counter with an opinion that the range of barely pass to barely perfect qual is insignificant. That range of shooting skill is small and at the bottom of shooting capability.
Having trained literally thousands of shooters, and observed many more, I find such an opinion to be extremely questionable. Perhaps it is more a result of ones own limited experience than an accurate reflection of the situation.

Deaf Smith
04-28-2009, 19:01
Well, there is the rather well-known SOP9 from NYPD, which gave one conclusion that range score of officers had no relationship to success in gunfights, that might be relevant to the issue.

Range scores? I've officiated LEO qualifications, not to mention witnessed security guard qualifications and of course, ran CHL qualifications. The range quals are so easy and so pass-fail they are meaningless. It's square range stuff with no dynamic movement, no partially exposed targets, no real time constraint. To use that as a basis to look for any relationship is very poor indeed. No that is not relevant to the issue.

If they want to look for such a relationship, instead look at the police teams that compete in marksmanship tournaments and look for the relationships .vs. those that never compete.

Deaf

Deaf Smith
04-28-2009, 19:05
It is not just "range queens" that is the point, it affects LE shooters as well,
As already mentioned there have already been studies that show that an officers range performance showed no relationship to gunfight survival.

You also have Jim Cirillo's experience and observations that being a Superb marksman does not mean you can win a gunfight.

The simple truth is you could have almost supernatural shooting skills on the range and still not be able to hold it together when it's the real thing.

Superb shooting skills cannot overcome failure to react when you should, panic, or the hesitation or inability to drop the hammer on another human being.

That is the point I have been trying to get across, just because someone is an ace pistolero on the range does not mean they will be one on the street.

True, but if they are an ace pistolero and don't hesitate? Would they have an advantage, all other things being equal, over a mediocre shot who does not hesitate?

Deaf

23 David
04-28-2009, 19:32
I think the main reason we differ to the degree we do is that you tend to believe that the performance that someone can deliver on the range during a match, they can replicate on the street fighting for their life.

And I do not think that is necessarily the case.
And that sums up this whole debate quite nicely.

Dragoon44
04-28-2009, 19:43
True, but if they are an ace pistolero and don't hesitate? Would they have an advantage, all other things being equal, over a mediocre shot who does not hesitate?

Deaf

Then we would be looking at distance as a factor wouldn't we? the Ace pistoleros advantage would only be a benefit at greater than average distances, since the average shootout happens within 7 yards or less. and even untrained shooters can get COM hits at that distance.

PhoneCop
04-28-2009, 20:07
I don't know of any studies that show that exceptional shooters CAN"T perform, but I don't know anyone making the argument they they cannot to begin with.

Then until it is shown that an individual can't do under pressure, I'll take that ace pistolero over the average copper.

Thanks for the great discussion. Good ideas from you as always and you keep it polite, even when we don't agree.

:cool:

Dragoon44
04-28-2009, 20:33
Then until it is shown that an individual can't do under pressure, I'll take that ace pistolero over the average copper.

Thanks for the great discussion. Good ideas from you as always and you keep it polite, even when we don't agree.

:cool:

And I'll take experience in handling high stress encounters over the pure mechanics. :rofl:

again, it's been an interesting discussion, as usual.

:wavey:

Currahee
04-28-2009, 21:04
There is only one way to settle this.... Pistolero vs Cop

Sorry I just watched "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike

Beware Owner
04-29-2009, 07:11
Just call in Nacho Libre and call it a day.

MTPD
04-29-2009, 07:39
Drag44 is correct. The greater the distance, the more the advantage goes to experienced top shooters.

On the other hand, at up close belly-to-belly distances exceptional expertise isn't needed to hit COM. At close range speed is king and whoever starts first is likely to hit first.

But......in all cases, regardleass of the distances involved, shooting first, fast & accurate is to be preferred. That fact is so obvious to me that I keep wondering why I have to keep repeating it over and over before some can figure it out?

David Armstrong
04-29-2009, 09:00
Range scores? I've officiated LEO qualifications, not to mention witnessed security guard qualifications and of course, ran CHL qualifications. The range quals are so easy and so pass-fail they are meaningless. It's square range stuff with no dynamic movement, no partially exposed targets, no real time constraint.
Again, that may be more an artifact of ones limited exposure to the field than any real problem. Unless you now want to start arguing that the mechanical skills are not of any importance? But yes, as NYPD found the range scores are meaningless outside of the range, much like an IDPA or IPSC rating.
If they want to look for such a relationship, instead look at the police teams that compete in marksmanship tournaments and look for the relationships .vs. those that never compete.
And once again we see that over-riding concern with marksmanship skills as opposed to fighting skills. According to the late Col Applegate: 'There is a tremendous difference between shooting methods that work well when you're simply trying to put holes in the target and those that work well when the target is trying to put holes in you. Failing to understand this difference is a mistake that will get you killed if you ever have to use your handgun in a real armed confrontation.'

Deaf Smith
04-29-2009, 17:15
Then we would be looking at distance as a factor wouldn't we? the Ace pistoleros advantage would only be a benefit at greater than average distances, since the average shootout happens within 7 yards or less. and even untrained shooters can get COM hits at that distance.

First, for things like what this thread is about, you could easily have moving assailants, partially exposed assailants, innocent bystanders, hostages, etc... and the 7 yards of less is an average. Some will be farther some nearer.

And that is where the difference is between a qualification score and competition.

Take for instance the difference between a CHL qualification and a IDPA state match. One is very static, no drawing is done, very generous time limits. The other is a simi-man-against-man where the faster time and better score beats out the other. There is dynamic movement, not only for the shooter, but the target sometimes. Partially exposed targets are quite common. Just as hostages/bystanders (called no-shoot targets.)


Again, that may be more an artifact of ones limited exposure to the field than any real problem. Unless you now want to start arguing that the mechanical skills are not of any importance? But yes, as NYPD found the range scores are meaningless outside of the range, much like an IDPA or IPSC rating.

The NYPD range scores, like the CHL scores, are like Drivers ED. Hard to correlate the Drivers ED scores to those involved in high speed chases. But then if you look at the drivers in, say the Indianapolis 500, or Daytona, and you see how well they handle a high speed chase, I bet you find those near the top do much better than those near the bottom (and those near the bottom of the Indy still do better than most who graduate from just Drivers ED!)

Oh, and Applegate's training courses in WW2 are in many ways like some IDPA matches, as those who attend indoor ones will attest. Just as those attending Polite Society matches will also confirm. In fact, I've seen the Special Forces on a TV documentary using mostly IPSC targets, including swingers. Alot of matches have changed since WWII.

Deaf

MC
04-29-2009, 18:59
This thread is now up to 130 posts and not one single thing has changed, nor will it. :deadhorse:

It needs a mercy killing. Meanwhile I'll digest this information from Deaf that Askins, Bryce, Jordan etc were 'gamers'. You learn something new every day.

Sigh, with Deaf it's like watching the 'Outer Limits' and believing it's a reality show rather than science fiction.

Arc Angel
04-29-2009, 19:30
:thumbsup: That some good stuff, Deaf!

I'll admit, however, that - while I agree with the tactics and logic - if I'm there I may or may not be willing to fight. (I have visions of being shot in the back by the first LEO responder through the door!) :freak:

Got 'a say that my initial concern would be to get me and mine out of the kill zone as quickly as possible. Then, whether or not I should decide to go back into the fight is a decision I'm not ready to make right now.

But, yes, you're correct. The longer the wait, the greater the carnage; and, yes again, these guys are rarely strongly committed gunmen; and, I'll further agree that they all seem to miss a lot.

Still, you always have to be ready for the, 'Charles Whitman' kind of killer. He's good with firearms, wants to die, and will continue to fight until you decisively take him out.

David Armstrong
04-30-2009, 08:12
One is very static, no drawing is done, very generous time limits. The other is a simi-man-against-man where the faster time and better score beats out the other. There is dynamic movement, not only for the shooter, but the target sometimes. Partially exposed targets are quite common. Just as hostages/bystanders (called no-shoot targets.)
You argue against your own point. You say that qualifications scores shouldn't count, but then you give examples where the type of shooting done for qualification (precise shooting at distances) to support the idea of the competition shooter being good. And of course you continue to ignore the fact that LE shootings rarely involve the problem you are emphasizing.
The NYPD range scores, like the CHL scores, are like Drivers ED.
Really? Perhaps you will share with us, deaf, your experiences with the NYPD and the training and qualification they go through? You claim to be so knowledgeable about what is done there.
Oh, and Applegate's training courses in WW2 are in many ways like some IDPA matches, as those who attend indoor ones will attest. Just as those attending Polite Society matches will also confirm. In fact, I've seen the Special Forces on a TV documentary using mostly IPSC targets, including swingers. Alot of matches have changed since WWII.
Which brings up the ever popular "So What?" issue. Applegate was still writing and discussing how to improve fighting skills until his recent death. Guns have changed, tactics have changed lots has changed. What hasn't changed is the fact that has been presented over and over and over, that the mechanical skills are of limited, and usually minor, importance in an actual CCW fight.
I'm reminded of a story told about Audie Murphy. Now I know you will claim he was a gamer because he did shoot in some competitive events, but most of us know he was a fighter, not a gamer. But during the "quick-draw" craze, a well-known quick-draw champion kept challenging Murphy, talking about how Murphy wasn't so hot, his film gunfights were staged, and that the champion could beat him in a shootout any time. He kept at it and kept at it, making several challenges to Murphy, and becoming more obnoxious about it as time went on. Finally tiring of it, Murphy responded to the champion, saying he would be glad to meet him face to face. Only Murphy specified a couple of conditions---the targets be placed on each other and they use live ammunition. The champion never bothered Murphy again. And that is the difference between a gamer and a fighter.

Tailhunter
04-30-2009, 14:09
Dave,

are you saying it is impossible to be both and that one attribute does not help the other?

PhoneCop
04-30-2009, 15:00
This thread is now up to 130 posts and not one single thing has changed, nor will it. It needs a mercy killing.

I got material for a sigline...

Deaf Smith
04-30-2009, 17:15
You argue against your own point. You say that qualifications scores shouldn't count, but then you give examples where the type of shooting done for qualification (precise shooting at distances) to support the idea of the competition shooter being good. And of course you continue to ignore the fact that LE shootings rarely involve the problem you are emphasizing.

Well that's a pretty stupid statement david. Precise shooting is only a part of competition and most definatly not the whole. Surely your 'strong' MT and 'marksman' skills at IDPA would have told you that.


Really? Perhaps you will share with us, deaf, your experiences with the NYPD and the training and qualification they go through? You claim to be so knowledgeable about what is done there.

The NYPD, up to 2007, the very time the Rand corperation was doing the survey for showing no relation between scores and abilty on the street, used stationary targets at 7-, 15-, and 25-yard distances. 50 round qualifications. I'd mention what all they do now but I'd get some very helpful people into trouble that way.


Which brings up the ever popular "So What?" issue. Applegate was still writing and discussing how to improve fighting skills until his recent death. Guns have changed, tactics have changed lots has changed. What hasn't changed is the fact that has been presented over and over and over, that the mechanical skills are of limited, and usually minor, importance in an actual CCW fight.


Oh, now it's a 'CCW fight'? Sorry david, but this thread is not about a 'CCW fight', as if you would notice it's titled "Stopping Active Shooters Immediately".

But for any of the other readers here in GT, here is an excellent compilation of CCW news (and some sure ain't average 'CCW fights'.)

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html


I'm reminded of a story told about Audie Murphy. Now I know you will claim he was a gamer because he did shoot in some competitive events, but most of us know he was a fighter, not a gamer. But during the "quick-draw" craze, a well-known quick-draw champion kept challenging Murphy, talking about how Murphy wasn't so hot, his film gunfights were staged, and that the champion could beat him in a shootout any time. He kept at it and kept at it, making several challenges to Murphy, and becoming more obnoxious about it as time went on. Finally tiring of it, Murphy responded to the champion, saying he would be glad to meet him face to face. Only Murphy specified a couple of conditions---the targets be placed on each other and they use live ammunition. The champion never bothered Murphy again. And that is the difference between a gamer and a fighter.

Oh, no, another Voltaire/Russian story.... Ever thought it was just a story david? I mean, 'well known quick draw champion?' Why there are stories of this being a B-rated movie star doing the challenge and more.

http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_display/39426

http://www.gunfighter.com/cgi-bin/bbs/fastdraw-a/fastdraw-a.cgi?read=1999

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-22465.html


And I have mentioned Audie before, and how he became a crack shot hunting food for his family during the depression. But then, I doubt you would look that kind of thing up anyway.

Deaf

David Armstrong
04-30-2009, 17:49
Dave,
are you saying it is impossible to be both and that one attribute does not help the other?
No, not at all. I'm saying, much as Dragoon, 23 David, etc. have said, there is a very different mentality and/or focus between gamers and gunfighters. Certainly good mechanical skills are of value in gunfights, but their value typically is limited and of far less importance than a number of other factors.

David Armstrong
04-30-2009, 18:07
Well that's a pretty stupid statement david.
You made a pretty stupid comment, deaf, and that is why I pointed out how stupid it was.
The NYPD, up to 2007, the very time the Rand corperation was doing the survey for showing no relation between scores and abilty on the street,
Once again, deaf, your lack of knowledge just jumps out at folks who know the right stuff. The range/street comment is not from an RAND study up to 2007, it was made by the NYPD itself back in 1981. But I note that in your response you failed to respond to the issue, which was what is your experience with the NYPD and the training and qualification they go through
Oh, now it's a 'CCW fight'? Sorry david, but this thread is not about a 'CCW fight', as if you would notice it's titled "Stopping Active Shooters Immediately".

OK, if it makes yo feel better lets's change it to read ".....in a CCW fight or a LE shootout." There, feel better now? But again, "So What?" I note in your response you apparently have no response to Applegate's statement.
Ever thought it was just a story david?
Sure. I'm reasonable sure it is in some amount urban legend, which is why I started the thing with "I'm reminded of a story told about ..." No claims on my part as to the accuracy of the story, just that it is a story that illustrates the difference between that gamer mentality and fighter mentality. And again I'll note that rather than respond to the issue you choose to try to attack the way the issue was presented. Shall we take that as a pretty good indicator that you can't respond to the concepts and issues presented? Or would you care to get back to discussing the topic instead of discussing me?

Deaf Smith
04-30-2009, 18:46
Once again, deaf, your lack of knowledge just jumps out at folks who know the right stuff. The range/street comment is not from an RAND study up to 2007, it was made by the NYPD itself back in 1981. But I note that in your response you failed to respond to the issue, which was what is your experience with the NYPD and the training and qualification they go through

Would not matter either way. Still same qualification. Static range. Same difference as for a qualification .vs. a match. So my statement still stands.


OK, if it makes yo feel better lets's change it to read ".....in a CCW fight or a LE shootout." There, feel better now? But again, "So What?" I note in your response you apparently have no response to Applegate's statement.

No, change it to read a 'Stopping Active Shooters Immediately" and it does not matter if it's an LEO or civilian who does the stopping.

So what if Applegate comments of differences about shooting targets .vs. people. In his training course he did use targets. Everyone knows actual combat, wither by guns, knives, or fist-n-feet are different than punching bags and cardboard targets. Your problem is you assume everyone else doesn't understand that and it takes your kind of genius to see these things. Sorry you think that way. It’s myopic, narrow minded, and conceiting. It shows arrogance that no one else could fathom these things.


Sure. I'm reasonable sure it is in some amount urban legend, which is why I started the thing with "I'm reminded of a story told about ..." No claims on my part as to the accuracy of the story, just that it is a story that illustrates the difference between that gamer mentality and fighter mentality. And again I'll note that rather than respond to the issue you choose to try to attack the way the issue was presented. Shall we take that as a pretty good indicator that you can't respond to the concepts and issues presented? Or would you care to get back to discussing the topic instead of discussing me?

I would if you wouldn't present fairy tales as some sort of evidence.

Deaf

Tailhunter
04-30-2009, 18:53
No, not at all. I'm saying, much as Dragoon, 23 David, etc. have said, there is a very different mentality and/or focus between gamers and gunfighters. Certainly good mechanical skills are of value in gunfights, but their value typically is limited and of far less importance than a number of other factors.

would you continue on and compile the list of other factors for my reading? .......

cowboywannabe
04-30-2009, 19:07
Thanks for the post.

You know you'll soon be under attack for being such a cowboy. A rambo. A wannabe... ya know, nothing new. :upeye:

All I know is that if I am at the nursing home/mall/university/church/restaurant/school when the shots start up, I'll it could be moving towards the shooter and not away.

We'll be the wanna-bes together. Dead or alive, we'll still be heros, not ball-less biatches defending our cowardness with intellectual pockycock.

hey, so i peiced my name together so i can add my two cents....yeah, i agree, taking out an active shooter quickly is the best method of dealing with them.

and your avitar looks a lot like my Tardis. by the way have you seen the Tardis?

PhoneCop
04-30-2009, 20:07
hey, so i peiced my name together so i can add my two cents....yeah, i agree, taking out an active shooter quickly is the best method of dealing with them.

and your avitar looks a lot like my Tardis. by the way have you seen the Tardis?

We must be long lost soul-brothers.:wavey:

David Armstrong
04-30-2009, 22:08
Would not matter either way. Still same qualification. Static range. Same difference as for a qualification .vs. a match. So my statement still stands.

Not sure about that, but I did notice that what still stands is that you still have not told us of your experience with the NYPD and the training and qualification they go through. I guess at this point we can just recognize that, once again, you have decided to opine on something you know little or nothing about.
No, change it to read a 'Stopping Active Shooters Immediately"
Why? Unless your contention is that these things only apply to Active Shooter scenarios and have no application to other CCW and LE gunfights, it really doesn't matter.
So what if Applegate comments of differences about shooting targets .vs. people.
LOL!! That is what this thread has become focused on, so that would be fairly important.
Your problem is you assume everyone else doesn't understand that and it takes your kind of genius to see these things. Sorry you think that way.
BEHOLD! The amazing deaf once again demonstrates his ability to read minds! And as usual, once again he fails miserably, but that doesn't stop him from making stuff up!
I would if you wouldn't present fairy tales as some sort of evidence.
And with that we now get to take notice that in the midst of many other things you talk about without having any understanding of them, you also don't understand the concept of evidence, as there was nothing in there that was presented as evidence.
Ummm, any chance you'll get back to discussing the topic instead of discussing me?

David Armstrong
04-30-2009, 22:41
would you continue on and compile the list of other factors for my reading? .......

In no particular order, and with some redundancy, a pretty good listing from various contributors to this thread includes:
An understanding of and ability to use the OODA Loop concept
Out-thinking the BG
Previous experience in gunfights
Prior exposure to life and death situations
Ability to engage in critical thinking in the midst of emergencies and chaos
Will and temperament to fight
Ability to use skills while in danger
Have a capacity for violence that can be called up at the correct time
Self-confidence and experience
Ability to perform when lives are on the line
Tactics
Decisiveness
Well-rounded combat skills
Mental toughness
Ability to think on your feet
Ability to read and react to the BG
Ability and willingness to fight after being injured
Experience in handling high stress encounters

One might not need any of them for any particular gunfight situation, but I would suggest that typically any of them would generally outrank mechanical shooting skill.

talon
05-01-2009, 18:50
Excellent post David. I would have said a "cool head under fire" for several of these. There are several I havent given enough thought to especially relating to can they be learned or is it a matter of birth.

I see your using the term gunfighter in several of your posts. A way to differentiate between gamers and such I guess. However, I would appreciate if you could define both for me. I am very familair with the gamer vs. "tac-guy"(my term) arguments but I have trouble understanding gunfighter. I never met anybody claiming to be one.

Deaf Smith
05-01-2009, 18:59
Not sure about that, but I did notice that what still stands is that you still have not told us of your experience with the NYPD and the training and qualification they go through. I guess at this point we can just recognize that, once again, you have decided to opine on something you know little or nothing about.

Are you saying the NYPD range qualfications I posted were incorrect for the period the study was done david? If not, then what's the point? I'm right and you are wrong.

Deaf

David Armstrong
05-01-2009, 21:46
Are you saying the NYPD range qualfications I posted were incorrect for the period the study was done david? If not, then what's the point?
I've just asked a fairly simple question, which you have still not answered: What is your experience with the NYPD and the training and qualification they go through? You are trying to present yourself as some sort of expert on the issue, might help if you can qualify that expertise with something, given that you've been so wrong on so much other LE related stuff.
I'm right and you are wrong.
Good grief, I thought I was dealing with an adult, not some kid in elementary school. I can hardly wait for you to go na-na-na-na-na-na.

David Armstrong
05-01-2009, 21:55
Excellent post David. I would have said a "cool head under fire" for several of these. There are several I havent given enough thought to especially relating to can they be learned or is it a matter of birth.
I see your using the term gunfighter in several of your posts. A way to differentiate between gamers and such I guess. However, I would appreciate if you could define both for me. I am very familair with the gamer vs. "tac-guy"(my term) arguments but I have trouble understanding gunfighter. I never met anybody claiming to be one.
Gunfighter, tac-guy, combat operative, etc. I don't think the term is nearly as important as understanding the mental difference. I suppose one could use "warrior" but I think that is so mis-used that I hate to toss it into the mix. I like the gunfighter term because we are talking about focusing on fighting with a gun in this context as opposed to focusing on winning a game.
As for definitions, within the context of this discussion I would toss out for approval: gamer is one whose primary focus is the skills and tactics neeeded to do well in a competitive game, while the gunfighter would be one whose primary focus is on the skills and tactics needed to win a hostile engagement involving firearms.

talon
05-02-2009, 05:33
I suppose I have settled on sportsman and martial artist.

I will reserve gunfighter for one who has won, oh lets say at least 3 gun fights.

Gunfighter, tac-guy, combat operative, etc. I don't think the term is nearly as important as understanding the mental difference. I suppose one could use "warrior" but I think that is so mis-used that I hate to toss it into the mix. I like the gunfighter term because we are talking about focusing on fighting with a gun in this context as opposed to focusing on winning a game.
As for definitions, within the context of this discussion I would toss out for approval: gamer is one whose primary focus is the skills and tactics neeeded to do well in a competitive game, while the gunfighter would be one whose primary focus is on the skills and tactics needed to win a hostile engagement involving firearms.

chuckman
05-02-2009, 05:59
I will reserve gunfighter for one who has won, oh lets say at least 3 gun fights.

Don't narrow your focus. That would eliminate, oh, 98% of all LEOs. I think 'gunfighter' is applicable, and really means that not only does someone have the mechanics to win the fight, they understand how to win the fight. Now, as I said, I am not a LEO so I feel uncomfortable going there, but thanks to Uncle Sam I have been downrange and have seen the difference between someone who shoots because they are simply trained to shoot, and someone who is actively trying to maneuver, get inside the bad guy's OODA loop, outhink the otherside, etc. This last group may not always wear "expert" on their chest, but they walked out of those situations, and the bad guys did not.

David Armstrong
05-02-2009, 10:15
I suppose I have settled on sportsman and martial artist.
I will reserve gunfighter for one who has won, oh lets say at least 3 gun fights.
Fair enough, as I said I don't think the nomenclature really matters. I would question why gunfighter would be based on winning as opposed to participation. I think one can learn a lot by losing as well as winning.

Tailhunter
05-02-2009, 15:18
Fair enough, as I said I don't think the nomenclature really matters. I would question why gunfighter would be based on winning as opposed to participation. I think one can learn a lot by losing as well as winning.


like how to die perhaps?

David Armstrong
05-02-2009, 17:04
like how to die perhaps?
I doubt one needs to learn how to do that. But if one doesn't understand how one can learn even if they don't win, I would have to question their ability to learn in the first place.

talon
05-02-2009, 17:36
I'm not sure I really understand your point. Actually I personally view the term as just a bit silly. In its simplest form I would have to say a gunfighter is one who fights with a gun. If thats true then one who trains to be a gunfighter is a wannabe till that first fight. Certainly there is warrior, soldier,
and all those other terms but I think martial artist is a good fit for one who trains to fight.(with or without actual experience)

Don't narrow your focus. That would eliminate, oh, 98% of all LEOs. I think 'gunfighter' is applicable, and really means that not only does someone have the mechanics to win the fight, they understand how to win the fight. Now, as I said, I am not a LEO so I feel uncomfortable going there, but thanks to Uncle Sam I have been downrange and have seen the difference between someone who shoots because they are simply trained to shoot, and someone who is actively trying to maneuver, get inside the bad guy's OODA loop, outhink the otherside, etc. This last group may not always wear "expert" on their chest, but they walked out of those situations, and the bad guys did not.

David Armstrong
05-02-2009, 17:50
If thats true then one who trains to be a gunfighter is a wannabe till that first fight. Certainly there is warrior, soldier,
Not to disagree, because as I said I don't think the term matters too much as long as we can all agree on what the term means, but you touched on a pet issue of mine, the "warrior" term. Lots of folks claiming warrior status, but have never been in a war (or even the military sometimes). Can you be a warrior without ever being in a war, and can a soldier be a warrior just by virtue of training instead of experience?

talon
05-02-2009, 17:59
Good question on warrior. Seems to me in a strict sense war experience is required. Broadly speaking I guess you might include battle, conflict, struggle etc. Personally I would probably reserve the term for those Samauri guys,
Apaches, MOH winners, etc.


Not to disagree, because as I said I don't think the term matters too much as long as we can all agree on what the term means, but you touched on a pet issue of mine, the "warrior" term. Lots of folks claiming warrior status, but have never been in a war (or even the military sometimes). Can you be a warrior without ever being in a war, and can a soldier be a warrior just by virtue of training instead of experience?

Tailhunter
05-02-2009, 18:43
I doubt one needs to learn how to do that. But if one doesn't understand how one can learn even if they don't win, I would have to question their ability to learn in the first place.

a subtle jab ...... do you ever answer or comment without an attack on someone or something.

I would think that losing a gunfight would mean death or at the least you are shot to sheet and on your way there... kinda what the definition of lose is right ...

Deaf Smith
05-02-2009, 19:28
Good grief, I thought I was dealing with an adult, not some kid in elementary school. I can hardly wait for you to go na-na-na-na-na-na.

Then that means I'm right and you were wrong. The qualifications were static range when the survey was taken.
Which means any link I have with the NYPD is moot.

I will say my links to LEOs in general and NYPD in particular have alot to do with my being in my companies ERT (Emergency Response Team.. no not a ninja but HAZMAT), which since my company is quite large has allowed me over the years to get on some specific websites not allowed to the general public. I’ve given demos to the team and table top exercises as well as actually having been in a real hazmat emergency, space suit and all.

And the company I worked for before, also large, had their own police force with their own police chief. And when they, and two other police forces, had qualifications I ran them for a while. Even once got an 'atta boy' letter from one of the chiefs. Before the qualifications started I demonstrated what I had picked up from the last school I had attended. Oh, and that chief was an ex-NYPD officer of many years. And THAT is how I got to watch DPS films showing shootings the DPS were involved in.


a subtle jab ...... do you ever answer or comment without an attack on someone or something.

david? Poor innocent david? Are you kidding?

And as for this 'gunfighter' dream, yes it is silly. It's trying to make yourself out to be something you are not. Like some bad dude.

I'm a student of the martial. Both with the 'art' and without. Caught a burglar once at gun point and two of us one caught a purse snatcher. LEO's took both into custody. No gun play except pointing one once.

And for the record, I've never been an LEO, or military, or para-military, or spook or anything like that. Never have said I was and never will.

Deaf

PhoneCop
05-02-2009, 20:42
I observe that there are a lot of people willing and capable of doing violence. Barbarian type people, the Germanics in the days of Cesar. I note that the Romans, being far better skilled, trained, practiced, including playing games, bested these men who were unskilled but fully prepared to do violence by orders of magnatude.

I reject this notion that simple willingness will carry the day, except over the one not willing. The actor may best the one who freezes. But force of will doesn't trump the guy who draws and has three accurate shots into you before you could clear leather.

This is not to say that the willingness to act nor the capability to act without hestitation is without merit. But were I to find myself fighting- I'd rather be surrounded by Rangers than roofers. Both roughnecks might be willing. But the skill the Ranger possesses so far exceeds the roofers as to be paramount until the surviving roofers show their worth.

David Armstrong
05-02-2009, 21:53
a subtle jab ...... do you ever answer or comment without an attack on someone or something.
No attack at all. If one can only learn through victory, I doubt that one can truly learn at all.
I would think that losing a gunfight would mean death or at the least you are shot to sheet and on your way there
Not at all correct. Most people involved in gunfights live through them.

David Armstrong
05-02-2009, 21:57
Then that means I'm right and you were wrong. The qualifications were static range when the survey was taken. Which means any link I have with the NYPD is moot.
No deaf, it means you gave a very childish response. It has nothign to do with you being right or wrong. And it also means that you still have not addressed the issue of your experiences with the NYPD and the training and qualification they go through. BTW, just like you were wrong in your claim that the "range quals do not equal gunfight success" was a result of the RAND study, you are also wrong on your description of the training and the qualification process. Perhaps it is the gamer mentality again, as you only noticed part of it, and the only part you noticed was the mechanical skills segment. How did MC put it? Oh yeah..."with Deaf it's like watching the 'Outer Limits' and believing it's a reality show rather than science fiction."
And for the record, I've never been an LEO, or military, or para-military, or spook or anything like that.
For the record, I don't think anyone with any actual experience in those areas would have thought that you were.

David Armstrong
05-02-2009, 22:01
I reject this notion that simple willingness will carry the day, except over the one not willing.
AFAIK, nobody has suggested that simple willingness will carry the day.

chuckman
05-04-2009, 08:41
I'm not sure I really understand your point. Actually I personally view the term as just a bit silly. In its simplest form I would have to say a gunfighter is one who fights with a gun. If thats true then one who trains to be a gunfighter is a wannabe till that first fight. Certainly there is warrior, soldier,
and all those other terms but I think martial artist is a good fit for one who trains to fight.(with or without actual experience)

I agree that what one calls the person is largely irrelevant; many titles would be accurate. I also agree with your last sentence.

Dragoon44
05-04-2009, 09:52
Good question on warrior. Seems to me in a strict sense war experience is required. Broadly speaking I guess you might include battle, conflict, struggle etc. Personally I would probably reserve the term for those Samauri guys,
Apaches, MOH winners, etc.

War experience would make one a combat veteran, but "warrior" I think is more of a mindset. that of a person who is willing to fight, resist. etc. There of course there are various levels of physical abilities and skills among such people.

Deaf Smith
05-04-2009, 17:41
No deaf, it means you gave a very childish response. It has nothign to do with you being right or wrong.

Hahaha. Oh david "gunfigher" armstrong, I think it does.

All the other readers here just have to look at the range quals the NYPD had. Static range. Now all any of the readers here has to do is see that such qualification does not push anyone. And as a result I can see the studies showing no correlation.

BUT, it's like I said, get Indianapolis 500 or Daytona 500 drivers and see how many of them did well in any emergency driving at high speeds. Then do the same for those doing Drivers Ed. I bet there is a correlation between the race drivers and how well they did, yet none for the Drivers Ed.

And note.... Cirillo was a gamer, a racer. So was Askins, and Jordan. Cirillo ever wrote that completion was a very good quality to have on the stakeout squad. Yes, a gamer was a plus in his book.

But I guess david “gunfighter” armstrong’s book it isn’t.

And you can see above from my post just where I get my NYPD stuff.

Deaf

David Armstrong
05-04-2009, 22:05
Oh david "gunfigher" armstrong, I think it does.
As we have repeatedly seen, deaf, what you think and what really happens are quite often very different. This happens to be another one of them.
And note.... Cirillo was a gamer, a racer. So was Askins, and Jordan.
Only in your own mind, deaf. The men were fighters who also competed some times. But their focus was fighting, not games.
And you can see above from my post just where I get my NYPD stuff.
Yep, the same place you got it wrong that "range versus street" was from the RAND study, the same place you got that incorrect NYPD qualification stuff, the same place you got that wrong SWAT SOP stuff, the same place you got the incorrect understanding of the quick peek and active shooter response stuff. Notice a pattern there??

23 David
05-05-2009, 05:46
Hahaha. Oh david "gunfigher" armstrong, I think it does.

All the other readers here just have to look at the range quals the NYPD had. Static range. Now all any of the readers here has to do is see that such qualification does not push anyone. And as a result I can see the studies showing no correlation.

BUT, it's like I said, get Indianapolis 500 or Daytona 500 drivers and see how many of them did well in any emergency driving at high speeds. Then do the same for those doing Drivers Ed. I bet there is a correlation between the race drivers and how well they did, yet none for the Drivers Ed.

And note.... Cirillo was a gamer, a racer. So was Askins, and Jordan. Cirillo ever wrote that completion was a very good quality to have on the stakeout squad. Yes, a gamer was a plus in his book.

But I guess david “gunfighter” armstrong’s book it isn’t.

And you can see above from my post just where I get my NYPD stuff.

Deaf


You fail to mention that in my NYPD days, as well as today, our guys have won nearly all of their gunfights.
And most were won by MOS who were not into guns and had no other training than what they got at the academy.
Bad guys rarely have a good day when they take on the NYC Police Department.
Guess that means we are doing something right.

David Armstrong
05-05-2009, 07:36
You fail to mention that in my NYPD days, as well as today, our guys have won nearly all of their gunfights.
And most were won by MOS who were not into guns and had no other training than what they got at the academy.
Bad guys rarely have a good day when they take on the NYC Police Department.
Guess that means we are doing something right.
Exactly, and it is all that goes into the firearms qualification and training BESIDES the static range shooting that helps NYPD have that enviable record. Lots more to the training and qualification than the simplistic "shoot the paper target" idea.
ETA: in the last 30 years, in gunfights, NYPD has managed to kill the BGs at a rate of about 10 BGs to 1 MOS, in spite of a fairly low hit rate. They may not teach them to shoot well, but they certainly teach them to fight well.

talon
05-05-2009, 07:47
16 gunfights, NYPD in 05 ? I sure would have thought quite a bit more.

http://wcbstv.com/local/nypd.firearms.discharge.2.244570.html

David Armstrong
05-05-2009, 10:22
16 gunfights, NYPD in 05 ? I sure would have thought quite a bit more.
http://wcbstv.com/local/nypd.firearms.discharge.2.244570.html

NYPD uses a very narrow definition of gunfight, where both the MOS and the BG have to shoot a firearm at each other to qualify. If the BG fires and MOS subdues him without shooting, or if the BG attacks with a knife and the MOS shoots him, or if the BG threatens to shoot and the officers beat him to the shot, and so on, it isn't a gunfight by their definition. Personally I think a more accurate picture comes from adding the gunfight and the shooting vs. subjects categories.

Deaf Smith
05-05-2009, 10:39
You fail to mention that in my NYPD days, as well as today, our guys have won nearly all of their gunfights.
And most were won by MOS who were not into guns and had no other training than what they got at the academy.
Bad guys rarely have a good day when they take on the NYC Police Department.
Guess that means we are doing something right.

And that they did. No argument there.

But it was not marksmanship but tactics. The scores at the qualifications were what the correlation was about, not tactics taught or learned.

Deaf

MTPD
05-05-2009, 13:16
As I've said before, I've been in 600-800 situations where I had felons at gunpoint, but only several times did I have to fire. And I've NEVER been in a "gunfight", defined as BOTH shooting and taking fire.

I've never been in a "gunfight" because I always shot first, causing the BG's to either drop wounded or flee. Since they never got a chance to shoot back, there wasn't any "gunfight".

In fact, I never knew a "gunfighter" personally, even though I knew lots of cops that had been in shooting situations. A few had been in 5 or more and still no "gunfighters". All the cops I worked with that shot first never took any return fire, and the ones that screwed up and allowed the BG's to shoot first were either killed or wounded without returning fire = no "gunfights".

There was one sort-of exception where a fleeing felon was chased down alleys in the dark. He fired some shots at long range, and the cops shot back, but they were so far apart that I don't call it a true "gunfight".

However, I did notice a strong correlation between range ability and street shootings. Those cops that were top shooters during qualifications were also the ones that had the self-confidence to shoot first when necessary and dominate life/death situations on the street. On the other hand, those cops that got shot by BG's were always (with no exceptions) poor shooters. They were also (almost always) unaggressive types that (in my opinion) should have been in another line of work.

In essence, the best shooters on the range were also the best shooters on the street. They were also way less likely to be killed or wounded by BG's because of their shooting ability, self-confidence and aggressiveness.

David Armstrong
05-05-2009, 14:40
In fact, I never knew a "gunfighter" personally, even though I knew lots of cops that had been in shooting situations. A few had been in 5 or more and still no "gunfighters". All the cops I worked with that shot first never took any return fire, and the ones that screwed up and allowed the BG's to shoot first were either killed or wounded without returning fire = no "gunfights".
Any chance you would tell us where this police department is, with such a strange set of gunfight outcomes that pretty much fly in the face of any actual possibility? You know, just in case anyone wanted to see if any of this stuff really happened?

K. Foster
05-05-2009, 14:58
But it was not marksmanship but tactics.

That is one of the differences between gaming and fighting. Gaming is about running your gun fast and optimizing your equipment. Fighting is about mindset and tactics, then skill and equipment.
There is a lot more to police firearms training than just static range drills.

23 David
05-05-2009, 15:55
That is one of the differences between gaming and fighting. Gaming is about running your gun fast and optimizing your equipment. Fighting is about mindset and tactics, then skill and equipment.
There is a lot more to police firearms training than just static range drills.
Thank you.
You saved me from responding to him.
It is amazing how many police firearm experts there are out there who moonlight as car salesmen, computer techs and other job titles.

Deaf Smith
05-05-2009, 17:16
That is one of the differences between gaming and fighting. Gaming is about running your gun fast and optimizing your equipment. Fighting is about mindset and tactics, then skill and equipment.


Sure there is more to fighting than just skill and equipment, but that skill and equipment is important. Ever notice Jim Cirillo came up with some ideas of his own as for equipment (like ammo?) If you don't have some skill to deliver, than all the tactics are moot.

Games such as IDPA matchs have tactics as well as skill and equipment. If you go to a good local match they keep down the speed demons by breaking the stage up so you can do such as 'tac-load', or moving to the end of the cover, or scanning for threats behind you without time penalties. They also force you to make decisions as to how to enguage the targets.

Static range drills? Guess you never went to an IDPA match were the targets moved and you moved to at the same time. IDPA has you move in, I'd say, 75 percent of the stages. You don't stand there plugging away.

Games are what you make them. Askins, Jordan, Cirillo, Bryce, etc...all knew how to get what they wanted from their games. All you have to do is pick want you want out of the game and gain that skill.


There is a lot more to police firearms training than just static range drills.

The study was about the qualification range. No doubt there is more, but the study had to do with those square range drills and if they related to street performance.

Deaf

David Armstrong
05-05-2009, 17:51
The study was about the qualification range.
Umm, since you've demonstrated beyond a doubt you were wrong about who was doing the study and that you were wrong about when it was being done, perhaps you should give up trying to tell us you know what it was was all about.:upeyes:

K. Foster
05-05-2009, 18:49
Ever notice Jim Cirillo came up with some ideas of his own as for equipment (like ammo?)

I’m familiar with Mr. Cirillo’s contributions. What has this got to do with anything?


Games are what you make them. Askins, Jordan, Cirillo, Bryce, etc.

You continually refer to those four as if they were your poster children for gamers that survived gunfights. I propose that they were gunfighters, warriors (what ever term you want to use) first and competitors second.

Just so nobody gets their panties in a wad.... I have nothing against games or competition. I think it deserves a slice of the defensive training pie. My contention is with people who play a few games and then anoint themselves qualified to expound on the inadequacies of Law Enforcement training without any actual, boots on the ground, experience.

23 David
05-05-2009, 19:33
I’m familiar with Mr. Cirillo’s contributions. What has this got to do with anything?




You continually refer to those four as if they were your poster children for gamers that survived gunfights. I propose that they were gunfighters, warriors (what ever term you want to use) first and competitors second.

Just so nobody gets their panties in a wad.... I have nothing against games or competition. I think it deserves a slice of the defensive training pie. My contention is with people who play a few games and then anoint themselves qualified to expound on the inadequacies Law Enforcement training without any actual, boots on the ground, experience.

You said a mouthful there, good buddy.

MC
05-05-2009, 20:10
Deaf,

I don't know why you continually lead with your chin like this but the bottom line is that as far as LEO situations go you haven't got a schmeck. It takes 492 schmecks to make a clue and you haven't got a schmeck.

Deaf Smith
05-05-2009, 20:51
Umm, since you've demonstrated beyond a doubt you were wrong about who was doing the study and that you were wrong about when it was being done, perhaps you should give up trying to tell us you know what it was was all about.:upeyes:

Hahaha. And that comes from 'gunfighter armstrong', yea.

Either study had square range quals, so it would not matter which time period the NYPD study you select. And that is why I'm right and you are still wrong.

I’m familiar with Mr. Cirillo’s contributions. What has this got to do with anything?

Cirillo spent quite some time developing his own special bullets and guns. In fact so did Askins, both for gunfighting. So they did try to optomize their equipment, both for matches and for the street. In fact, alot of the 'game' gun modifications have later shown up on standard street guns used by LEOs.


You continually refer to those four as if they were your poster children for gamers that survived gunfights. I propose that they were gunfighters, warriors (what ever term you want to use) first and competitors second.

You don't know much about their history, do you? Just when did they do their 'game' shooting? Any idea? No, what bothers me is you lump all those who do games, from IPSC to IDPA to IHMSA etc... as 'gamers', but just cause they shoot those games does not necessary mean that at all.

I have no doubt if you met Cirillo before he joined the stakeout squad you would consider him a gamer if you saw him wearing his PPC gear.



Just so nobody gets their panties in a wad.... I have nothing against games or competition. I think it deserves a slice of the defensive training pie. My contention is with people who play a few games and then anoint themselves qualified to expound on the inadequacies of Law Enforcement training without any actual, boots on the ground, experience.

Whoa.... all that really shows is how closed minded you are Foster. You can't see the forest for all the trees it seems. Even the NYPD contracted the Rand Corp. to do a study on this very thing and guess what? The ones that did it were not LEOs. Care to explain why the NYPD would use non-LEOs? In fact a google search would show a surprising amount of police research is done by people ‘without any actual, boots on the ground, experience.’

Your prejudice is showing.

Deaf

23 David
05-05-2009, 21:02
Hahaha. And that comes from 'gunfighter armstrong', yea.

Either study had square range quals, so it would not matter which time period the NYPD study you select. And that is why I'm right and you are still wrong.



Cirillo spent quite some time developing his own special bullets and guns. In fact so did Askins, both for gunfighting. So they did try to optomize their equipment, both for matches and for the street. In fact, alot of the 'game' gun modifications have later shown up on standard street guns used by LEOs.



You don't know much about their history, do you? Just when did they do their 'game' shooting? Any idea? No, what bothers me is you lump all those who do games, from IPSC to IDPA to IHMSA etc... as 'gamers', but just cause they shoot those games does not necessary mean that at all.

I have no doubt if you met Cirillo before he joined the stakeout squad you would consider him a gamer if you saw him wearing his PPC gear.




Whoa.... all that really shows is how closed minded you are Foster. You can't see the forest for all the trees it seems. Even the NYPD contracted the Rand Corp. to do a study on this very thing and guess what? The ones that did it were not LEOs. Care to explain why the NYPD would use non-LEOs? In fact a google search would show a surprising amount of police research is done by people ‘without any actual, boots on the ground, experience.’

Your prejudice is showing.

Deaf

Why does the NYPD use non LEO's at times?
Simple: Political Correctness.
Or just plain dumbness.
Too bad the street cops don't have much say in the great scheme of things.

PhoneCop
05-05-2009, 21:35
Jeez, this had turned into a cluster...

David Armstrong
05-05-2009, 22:24
Hahaha. And that comes from 'gunfighter armstrong', yea.
Well, deaf, even though I have been in some gunfights (unlike you) I don't attach the term to myself. But yes, the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about does come from me. Of course, it looks like it also is coming from a fair number of other folks who know the difference between reality and imagination.
And that is why I'm right and you are still wrong.
And once again, you have no idea what you are talking about, and exhibit that over and over. You were wrong about the date of the study, you were wrong about who did the study, you were wrong about most all of it.
You don't know much about their history, do you?
Given that you keep saying they were gamers, it is glaringly obvious that you certainly don't know much about their history.
Even the NYPD contracted the Rand Corp. to do a study on this very thing and guess what? The ones that did it were not LEOs.
But they had LOTS of boots on the ground experience, and several of them had previous experience in LE training in non-sworn capacities.
Care to explain why the NYPD would use non-LEOs?
As 23 David said, sometimes it is simple PC. Other times it might be because of a certain level of expertise in a particular area, such as training research and analysis. You see, understanidng what expertise is and using it appropriately works out better than having someone with no experience, expertise, or understanding try to pontificate on an issue. You have been a poster child for that concept. One can gain expertise in an area in a number of ways, but as was said, just playing a few games and then anointing yourself just doesn't cut it. I might add doing a quick google search and reading what pops up won't make you an expert either. You might try actually reading some of these studies and research that you want to comment on, instead of just the summary.

David Armstrong
05-05-2009, 22:28
Jeez, this had turned into a cluster...
Yes, that often happens when people who know nothing about an issue try to argue with those that are quite familiar with the issue.

K. Foster
05-06-2009, 06:03
You said a mouthful there, good buddy.

Thank you, sir.:cheers:

K. Foster
05-06-2009, 07:20
what bothers me is you lump all those who do games, from IPSC to IDPA to IHMSA etc... as 'gamers', but just cause they shoot those games does not necessary mean that at all.

No. My definition of a gamer is someone who plays games and thinks that experience alone qualifies him to be a subject matter expert in LE training or other areas in which he has no experience.

I have no doubt if you met Cirillo before he joined the stakeout squad you would consider him a gamer if you saw him wearing his PPC gear.

So, you want to pontificate on what I would think if I met someone who has been dead for 4 or 5 years, as they were in the 1960's & ‘70's?




Whoa.... all that really shows is how closed minded you are Foster. You can't see the forest for all the trees it seems.

I work in the 'forest' Deaf. Do you?

In fact a google search

When it comes to Law Enforcement training, here’s the difference between us. One of us has 22 years experience with one of the less prestigious Federal Bureaus. One of us is a lead firearms instructor for that agency. One of us is a member and instructor for one of his agency’s tactical teams. The other, uses google.
Deaf, You have an interest in defensive firearms training, and that’s good. You have an opportunity here to learn and gather information. Instead you want to ramble on about things you have no first hand knowledge of and then bicker and argue with people when they correct you or just have a different opinion. You have over 6000 posts on this forum so obviously, you find this entertaining. Speaking just for me, I don’t care to argue. You can post again and get in the last word if you want but after 8 pages, I don’t see us resolving anything. So, unless you really push my buttons, I’m done with this thread.
Gentlemen, Thank you and good bye.

Beware Owner
05-06-2009, 07:31
Okay, back to anserrin the OP question, bussm in da noggin! BAM! End of story. :supergrin:

Deaf Smith
05-06-2009, 17:47
Why does the NYPD use non LEO's at times?
Simple: Political Correctness.
Or just plain dumbness.
Too bad the street cops don't have much say in the great scheme of things.

Bull 23. I'm sure with any beauocracy you have some, but labeling all outside advice and study 'PC' is a mighty broad brush.

Well, deaf, even though I have been in some gunfights (unlike you) I don't attach the term to myself. But yes, the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about does come from me. Of course, it looks like it also is coming from a fair number of other folks who know the difference between reality and imagination.

david the "gunfighter" (come on we know you were trying to get talon to anoint you that) you remind me of Plus P, Daryl Mulroy. We had lively discussions back on shooters. Finaly he gave up his 'seeing the elephant' experinces (kind of like yours.) Turns out the only time he shot at someone.... he missed. Just as you 'participated', right? Just how did you 'participate'?

And speaking of your defination of 'gunfighter', if the games one practices with their 'skills and tactics' mimics the 'skills and tactics' of fighting, then those games help alot.



No. My definition of a gamer is someone who plays games and thinks that experience alone qualifies him to be a subject matter expert in LE training or other areas in which he has no experience.


I do a bit more than just shoot matches Foster....


I work in the 'forest' Deaf. Do you?

Happly I don't. As a result I feel I see more and it's a plus.



When it comes to Law Enforcement training, here’s the difference between us. One of us has 22 years experience with one of the less prestigious Federal Bureaus. One of us is a lead firearms instructor for that agency. One of us is a member and instructor for one of his agency’s tactical teams. The other, uses google.
Deaf, You have an interest in defensive firearms training, and that’s good. You have an opportunity here to learn and gather information. Instead you want to ramble on about things you have no first hand knowledge of and then bicker and argue with people when they correct you or just have a different opinion. You have over 6000 posts on this forum so obviously, you find this entertaining. Speaking just for me, I don’t care to argue. You can post again and get in the last word if you want but after 8 pages, I don’t see us resolving anything. So, unless you really push my buttons, I’m done with this thread.
Gentlemen, Thank you and good bye.

I thought you said that before Foster?

And Foster, you know as well as I the NYPD's qualification back in 2000 or so was same square range stuff as the study pointed out. It's david 'the gunfighter' who hates the idea I'm right.

Yes I like Glocktalk. Notice the date when I started. Notice I've start quite a few threads. Notice I give advice on other parts of GT. Notice I do more than try to act cute like some others here whose only reason in being seems to be to cut down others when they post.


Deaf

David Armstrong
05-06-2009, 22:33
Bull 23. I'm sure with any beauocracy you have some, but labeling all outside advice and study 'PC' is a mighty broad brush.
Once again the deaf smith distortion machine goes in to action. Note that while deaf rails about "labeling all....." what was really said was "at times." A huge difference there between "all" and "at times."
david the "gunfighter" (come on we know you were trying to get talon to anoint you that)
Ahh yes, the amazing deaf, now able to read minds! Actually what is amazing is how wrong you regularly are.
And speaking of your defination of 'gunfighter', if the games one practices with their 'skills and tactics' mimics the 'skills and tactics' of fighting, then those games help alot.
Pay attention now, deaf. Nobody, including me, has said games can't help. That little red herring doesn't play.
I do a bit more than just shoot matches Foster....
That is true. You do tend to hang out on the internet and pontificate a lot on stuff you know little to nothing about.
And Foster, you know as well as I the NYPD's qualification back in 2000 or so was same square range stuff as the study pointed out. It's david 'the gunfighter' who hates the idea I'm right.
deaf, I guarantee you that if you walked on the range at NYPD as a rookie and all you did was shoot 50 rounds on a static target, even if you got a perfect score you would not have been qualified. Once again you talk about something it is glaringly obvious you know nothing about.

MC
05-06-2009, 22:51
<<Quote:
Originally Posted by K. Foster
I work in the 'forest' Deaf. Do you?

Happly I don't. As a result I feel I see more and it's a plus.>>

Every single LEO here is happy that you don't as well!

W.E. Fairbairn once spoke of 'the supercilious arrogance of utter ignorance.' If ever a single person embodied that statement, it 's you.

While you're at it, try Googling 'hubris'.

Deaf Smith
05-07-2009, 16:50
deaf, I guarantee you that if you walked on the range at NYPD as a rookie and all you did was shoot 50 rounds on a static target, even if you got a perfect score you would not have been qualified. Once again you talk about something it is glaringly obvious you know nothing about.

So yes or no david the 'gunfighter' on the square ranges used by the NYPD?

Since we all know you hate to answer questions strait out, and you've tried your best to not answer this one, then we know the NYPD did use static ranges at any and all times the studies were done correlating qualification scores to street marksmanship ability.

You can try as you might to hide that, but we know, don't we?

Deaf

David Armstrong
05-07-2009, 17:24
So yes or no david the 'gunfighter' on the square ranges used by the NYPD?
You know, deaf, most people grow out of calling people made up names and chanting "I am right and you are wrong" by the time they get out of elementary school. Just out of curiousity, when do you plan on growing up?
You can try as you might to hide that, but we know, don't we?
What we know is that once again you have been caught getting the facts wrong by a number of folks who know just how wrong you are because they know what the facts are. I think MC nailed you quite well.

Tailhunter
05-07-2009, 17:29
You know, deaf, most people grow out of calling people made up names and chanting "I am right and you are wrong" by the time they get out of elementary school. Just out of curiousity, when do you plan on growing up?

David,

Please ... you didn't just accuse him of something you are the king of ..... did you?
You want the ability to use those tactics while calling others on the same thing you do all the time. Can't have it both ways. Can't you argue your points without belittling other people? It would make your points much more credible.

David Armstrong
05-07-2009, 18:18
David,
Please ... you didn't just accuse him of something you are the king of ..... did you?
No, I didn't. I don't believe you will find a thread here where I have made up a name for someone then called them that name repeatedly in the thread. I know you won't find it occurring on a regular basis.
Can't you argue your points without belittling other people? It would make your points much more credible.
I try not to belittle people, I belittle their positions or claims. Often people fail to differentiate the concepts. "You are stupid" is very different from "You said something stupid." That is one reason I usually quoted only what was said, without reference to who said it, until recently told by a mod to quote with name. And if one should chose to base the credibility of a point on whether or not a person belittles or compliments another, one obviously doesn't understand how to determine credibility.

talon
05-07-2009, 20:38
Alas, post 189 would have been the best end for this thread.

Tailhunter
05-07-2009, 21:31
No, I didn't. I don't believe you will find a thread here where I have made up a name for someone then called them that name repeatedly in the thread. I know you won't find it occurring on a regular basis.

I try not to belittle people, I belittle their positions or claims. Often people fail to differentiate the concepts. "You are stupid" is very different from "You said something stupid." That is one reason I usually quoted only what was said, without reference to who said it, until recently told by a mod to quote with name. And if one should chose to base the credibility of a point on whether or not a person belittles or compliments another, one obviously doesn't understand how to determine credibility.


You just did it again ...

David Armstrong
05-07-2009, 21:53
You just did it again ...

Yes, I did. I made a statement about general principles regarding learning issues and poor reasoning. I did not direct it at anyone in particular, nor did I call anyone a name. As mentioned, "Often people fail to differentiate the concepts." Statements are credible based on what they are. Saying it nice doesn't make it more credible, saying it mean doesn't make it less credible. If it did, Obama would perhaps be the most credible President in history.

Tailhunter
05-08-2009, 18:25
Yes, I did. I made a statement about general principles regarding learning issues and poor reasoning. I did not direct it at anyone in particular, nor did I call anyone a name. As mentioned, "Often people fail to differentiate the concepts." Statements are credible based on what they are. Saying it nice doesn't make it more credible, saying it mean doesn't make it less credible. If it did, Obama would perhaps be the most credible President in history.
:rofl:

TBO
05-02-2010, 09:40
:bump:

Tailhunter
05-02-2010, 15:39
Why? ......

mitchshrader
05-02-2010, 16:02
I think most folks lack anything resembling expertise at real live gunfights. Seems like a high risk skillset. Among groups who train and compete extensively there tends to be more of such experienced folks, which in great part explains why they're there. Brushing up on, maintaining, improving, skills they consider survival related.

My theory is if the target in question is dumb enough to give me a shot, I'm smart enough to take the freeby.

I don't, however, intend to be there in the first place. I'm more like the LAST responder.

Being good at hitting the target isn't related to being willing to pull the trigger first, when it's a human on the other end. Lots of good shots wouldn't be, shooting at people.

It isn't much under anyones conscious control, either, not without some sincere discipline and even that isn't guaranteed.

So for the folks who are expected to hero on demand, I am sorry, cause some will and some won't and you can't change that easily whichever you are.

Once you KNOW who you are, then you can accept what you're likely to do, and plan around it. It doesn't work the other way. It's not make a plan and then you'll automatically do THAT. You are *likely* to default to your training. Best guess.

Lots of exceptions. As there are those novices who react hastily and get it right.

Winners don't need excuses. If you see the shot you ought to take, take it. Don't stutter.

RoundBrown
05-02-2010, 22:01
“Officers need to understand valid military principles that apply to these calls, such as speed, surprise and violence of action,” Borsch insists. “They need to learn how to close in and finish the fight with aggression, having and keeping the ‘momentum of battle’ on their side. The idea is to keep the adversary off-balance by forcing him always to react to your actions, rather than, after contact, reacting to him.”

He is telling the responders to get inside the OODA loop of the shooter. This serves two purposes. It distracts the shooter from his task which is killing more people. It also makes him react to the responder rather then initiating the pace and tempo of the confrontation.

I think this is a good strategy. Might not be the safest route for the responder but it seems like it would be effective in shutting down the shooter. Would like to see some practical examples.

One of the smartest responses Ive seen on this site.