[jack76590]

There is a lot of interest in Force on Force (FOF) recently. But to me the way they appear to be run (I have not attended any) involves and open area with nothing to trip over, plus soft ground not concrete to fall on. I can understand why that is done, but guess how realistic.

I think about the places and situations, where I might be attack. Not that many given my life style, but still they seem to mainly involve places where movement is limited and a fall could easily result in injury or restrict ones ability to respond to the threat.

I know you have studied many gunfights. I am primarily interested in the civilian context.

My questions are: In the gunfights you have studied, what generally was permitted in the way of movement? And what would have been wise in regard to movement?

[Mas Ayoob]

Jack, the circumstances drive the tactics. For instance, the famous gunfights of California watchmaker Lance Thomas found him in a relatively enclosed space with little option for tactical movement, yet he was still able to kill multiple armed robbers in a string of shootouts. A driver seat-belted behind the steering wheel when he has to engage a carjacker will have even less movement option (not counting those available through the accelerator and steering wheel).

Moving while shooting, and moving and THEN shooting, are both important skills to "have in the toolbox," but won't always be applicable in the given situation.

Often, the best potential for life-saving tactical movement occurs in the moments PRIOR to the gunfight, when the alert citizen has seen danger signals and maneuvered to create distance or get behind solid cover.

best,
Mas