The Crux of It All

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Temkin

Matthew Temkin

Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Messages
1,263
Location
NYC
A close friend of mine—-a 26 year veteran of Airborne Infantry and combat veteran—sent me this.
After years of pondering this issue—-and going back and forth with him for years—-he finally (IMHO) hit the nail on the head.
Here goes:




“To me, arguments about point shooting versus aimed fire is about as useless as arguing the benefits of MMA versus combatives. Both indicate, to me, a lack of understanding about the subject.

The proponents of both MMA and Shaw get their experience from the range or the ring. And, we know we cannot duplicate life or death fight or flight in either. I don't buy that introducing yelling or other stress factors even comes close to simulating fight or fight. Force On Force probably comes the closest.

So how do they measure success? On the range it is what I used to call the "3 T's: Timer, Tape Measure, and Target. If one can hit a certain size target, within a certain time limit, at a specified range, then we call that success. If you can do that better then the other guy you "win". In MMA, we determine what works by pitting two individuals against each other and whoever wins did what worked - right?

When one's experience is all range and ring than can be forgiven for thinking what works there is best. After all, like a high ranking BJJ guy once said, we can see what works just look!

What they fail to consider is "what works" only works in terms of that endeavor. What they fail to grasp is real life violence rarely resembles the range or ring. Tactics are different, techniques better work under extreme SNS stress, and mindset is paramount.

It is my belief that no matter what people say, few are training for real life self-defense. Shooters train because they like to shoot. They like being accurate. If they can shoot faster and more accurately, then that is good. A little different with MMA but still the same principle.

What we are talking about is EGO. It is about learning a skill instead of learning survival. Skills make one feel good when can accomplish. Survival is a rather grim business and not ego satisfying.

And, we know the secret appeal of skill is the belief that if my skill level greatly exceeds the other persons than I can fight and win in relative safety without getting hurt. Trying to substitute skill for guts.

That is why the first thing I do when someone asks me about training is to ask them what is their mission. Most are puzzled. I make a big deal about this as few really know what their true mission is.

In the gun world, even the defensive gun culture, I submit their true mission is skill building and having fun. Not survival.

I'll give an example. In Varg Freeborn's class he talked about really coming to terms with killing another human being. A large part of the class was about the willingness to drop the hammer on another live human being instead of a paper target. There was a guy in class who was not a snowflake, but he admitted that he had never thought about it before the class and the class made him realize he couldn't do it.

Varg talked about examining your deep-seated beliefs about violence, your morals, beliefs, and cultural norms installed as a child. Your attachments. Lecture was backed up with realistic role-playing with students playing various good guy and bad guy role. The purpose to make one think about real violence.

The guy admitted that he couldn't shoot a live human being even if they were trying to kill him. Now here is the point: he was a combat competition shooter. He was part of an organization that gathered every Sunday afternoon at that range and staged combat competitions. He had his fancy race gun and deluxe holster with 15 magazines. All the cool gear. His wife participated and afterward the couples would all have a tailgate food and drinks in their folding chairs. It was a party. A social event. I'm sure they all felt they were bad eggs, including this guy, till he got a dose of reality from Varg.

Trying to wrap this up, but my point is most are just playing games for fun and ego and not survival. Their opinions about point shooting are all based from the range mentality perspective.

I believe one reason is because most "gun guys" don't train unarmed. I agree with many astute instructors that unarmed should be learned first even though we use weapons first in reality. Having a good unarmed base and then adding weapons reinforces the idea of a fight and the gun being only one fighting tool. When one's world is shaped by the "3 T's" they get unrealistic ideas.

That is for students. We know why instructors don't like PS. Can't make any money. No "Advanced Point Shooting" classes. No Level 1-2-3-4 point shooting. And they can start to believe their own BS.

The reason I like Fairbairn shooting and unarmed is both comply to a set of principles that work under SNS stress: simplicity, gross motor skills, and trained till instinctive and convulsive. Opps! There I go again using the "I" word. ”
 
I long ago figured it out while working as a young (and very green) cop down here in south Florida (started in March 1974 after only a ten week Academy...) before things simply got out of hand in later years... down here in paradise. I learned the hard way that violence and the resulting injuries or surviving without a scratch was a pretty random proposition. My conclusion was that you should do everything possible to minimize it, avoid it, if possible, and if not possible - do whatever it takes to survive, period. At times I was able to "talk down" someone who had already done major injury or actual killing... at other times simply realizing that things were beyond hazardous I was able to stop short - distance is your friend when things are about to go south in a big way...

And if all else fails, I learned the hard way to get as much help as possible on scene before things got interesting. The difference in the amount of force needed to deal with a serious problem is directly related to the assets you have on the scene. I can actually think of more than a few incidents where I would have had to use deadly force to survive a situation - that, with enough manpower on scene we actually resolved with a minimum of force to the individual(s) causing the problem...

As already noted above - training and competition is fine to a point - but in real life nothing goes according to plan - heck, at times you can't even tell where the real danger is coming from - until you're downrange -- and much, much too close... Anyone reading this by now has already figured out that I'm saying gunfights should be avoided at all costs since the "good guys" don't always win...

In recent times with the great rise in actual video of critical incidents -both for the policing side - and the armed (or un-armed) citizen... I'm absolutely appalled at the very bad tactics I'm seeing time after time in our current police operations.... and I won't even mention the mostly disastrous situations that ordinary citizens get themselves into... It's as though nothing that modern police forces learned in years past (my era was from 1973 to 1995) was either completely forgotten - or never taught at all...
 
lemaymiami said:
I long ago figured it out while working as a young (and very green) cop down here in south Florida (started in March 1974 after only a ten week Academy...) before things simply got out of hand in later years... down here in paradise. I learned the hard way that violence and the resulting injuries or surviving without a scratch was a pretty random proposition. My conclusion was that you should do everything possible to minimize it, avoid it, if possible, and if not possible - do whatever it takes to survive, period. At times I was able to "talk down" someone who had already done major injury or actual killing... at other times simply realizing that things were beyond hazardous I was able to stop short - distance is your friend when things are about to go south in a big way...

And if all else fails, I learned the hard way to get as much help as possible on scene before things got interesting. The difference in the amount of force needed to deal with a serious problem is directly related to the assets you have on the scene. I can actually think of more than a few incidents where I would have had to use deadly force to survive a situation - that, with enough manpower on scene we actually resolved with a minimum of force to the individual(s) causing the problem...

As already noted above - training and competition is fine to a point - but in real life nothing goes according to plan - heck, at times you can't even tell where the real danger is coming from - until you're downrange -- and much, much too close... Anyone reading this by now has already figured out that I'm saying gunfights should be avoided at all costs since the "good guys" don't always win...

In recent times with the great rise in actual video of critical incidents -both for the policing side - and the armed (or un-armed) citizen... I'm absolutely appalled at the very bad tactics I'm seeing time after time in our current police operations.... and I won't even mention the mostly disastrous situations that ordinary citizens get themselves into... It's as though nothing that modern police forces learned in years past (my era was from 1973 to 1995) was either completely forgotten - or never taught at all...
Click to expand...
True.
I have been working at an indoor shooting range in Savannah Ga. and I am stunned there aren’t more gun accidents.
 
Combat is a dangerous business, no matter what level it may taking place. Training and experience give the individual and/or team a higher likelihood of success, but there are no guarantees. I have seen some of the most highly trained and experienced people on the planet killed or severely wounded by literally the village idiot.
 
From what I’ve seen in real life the outcome all too often is entirely too random… In my later years in police work most of what we did was intended to control possible outcomes by planning and execution. I’d like to say we were always successful but that’s not how things work most days.

Glad I’m no longer in that world, period.
 
My humble opinion is that none of us knows they are able to take another human life unless you've already done it.

And thats really what the discussion is as I read it.

One can do any type of training, practicing or competing you want and you will still not know if you have the fortitude to take a life to defend yours or someone else's.

I suspect mainly combat vets and possibly some LEO might have the most insight to offer on this topic.

Its a worthwhile discussion but I hope those of us that haven't already had to make that decision never have to.
 
When it comes to training I always pay attention to who's doing the stuff that isn't fun. I pay attention to who's working up a sweat, who's skipping dessert, the guy who's out there when it's cold and wet, or too hot. I notice the person who's training for reality.

That's the person who will do what needs to be done when the time comes. You can't train like meal team and perform like seal team.
 
I've been a student of Fairbairn. What he promoted made a lot of sense within a certain context. Applegate and the FBI and their devotees took it too far out of context. They so regarded Fairbairn as knowing something -- the proverbial one-eyed man in the land of the blind -- that they set aside common sense for dogma. It was the kind of stupidity that only governments are capable of. The bottom line is that Fairbairn promoted point-shooting for the scantily-trained and for close range. He himself promoted the use of sights in Shooting to Live, but it has been overlooked through the history of his influence.

The idea that a person can't or won't use their sights effectively in a survival situation or that vasoconstriction from adrenaline will preclude fine motor control is a gross exaggeration. This has been proven by example countless times and we can see it for ourselves on many videos -- whether it's a police officer, church security team member, a business owner, or home defender, people have consistently been shown to be able to place shots with the sights effectively even under the gravest of circumstances.

Believing that point shooting is the only thing you'll be capable of under stress could set you up for trouble. The use of lethal force in self-defense and in the defense of others facing a threat of death or serious bodily injury is justified by the "reasonable man" doctrine, that is when you do what a reasonable and prudent person would do under the same circumstances, knowing what you know. If you point shoot in circumstances where a reasonable person might have taken heed to use the sights, your judgment could be called into question. If your justification for point shooting is that it is all you are capable of doing in a survival situation, you may be judged unreasonable and instead of having rational and prudent fear, your actions might be construed as undertaken in blind panic. Even if you're not criminally liable for your point-shot bullets, you would have a substantial risk of civil liability for gross negligence. In either case, your affirmative defense would be tarnished by stipulating that point shooting was all that you were capable of in your condition at the time. It would be far more prudent to train to a high level of skill and performance, and then expect only a reasonable degradation of skill under extreme duress, rather than expect to be operating in irrational bare fear and blind terror without that capability to employ a basic skill.

Fairbairn's concerns about liability paled in comparison to what law enforcement and civilians face in US society today. Fairbairn was a British citizen and the chief of police in Shanghai, which was for all intents and purposes an occupied territory following the second opium war. I wouldn't describe him as negligent, but his methods wouldn't pass muster in a modern society. He developed them with a set of constraints that are unfamiliar today. He had to take recruits that had never fired a handgun before, and train them to survive on the streets in a few hours with less than a box of ammo. Look at his budget in the appendix. For a force of 1000 men, he expends 36,000 rounds in 12 months for training and practice. That's 36 rounds per man per year.

If you carry, it would behoove you to train more diligently than constraints allowed his recruits. If you should ever have to use a firearm, you may find yourself defending your actions to a jury. Therefore, give careful consideration to how they might perceive your rationale. Will they perceive you as blindly pointing your gun without carefully aiming it? Will they perceive you as determined to carry a firearm but also unwilling to avail yourself of training in its use? Is there a better narrative you could deliver to the jury?
 
Matthew Temkin said:
...Now here is the point: he was a combat competition shooter. He was part of an organization that gathered every Sunday afternoon at that range and staged combat competitions. He had his fancy race gun and deluxe holster with 15 magazines. All the cool gear. His wife participated and afterward the couples would all have a tailgate food and drinks in their folding chairs. It was a party. A social event. I'm sure they all felt they were bad eggs, including this guy, till he got a dose of reality from Varg.
Click to expand...

I won't argue that there is an obvious disconnect between combat and combat sports. That's true whether it's a hand-to-hand martial art or firearms. I have a son that competed in Jiu Jitsu and won first in major regional (like Northern California) tournaments. He wasn't interested in "real world" combat skills whatsoever. He just liked competition and winning. That's how he explained it. He held no illusions. It's a game. It's a sport. There's little to no relation to real violence and survival. None of this should be surprising and it's not a new dilemma.

Confronting gun gamers with the potential for the need to use lethal force outside the context of their sport is fair, but it shouldn't be shocking to find they're not more prepared than kids at a Karate tournament are prepared to defend their lives against real, brutal violence with no rules. Bear in mind that not all participants in sports are there merely to compete. Some people use competition purposefully to create stress and adrenaline response and train under those conditions. There simply isn't a more practical alternative.

There is indeed more to preparing to defend one's life than just practice of weapons manipulation. There is preparation concerning the moral, ethical, and mental demands that would be upon you in the event, and there are also serious considerations for the aftermath, legally, financially, sociologically, psychologically, and spiritually.
 
westernrover said:
I've been a student of Fairbairn. What he promoted made a lot of sense within a certain context. Applegate and the FBI and their devotees took it too far out of context. They so regarded Fairbairn as knowing something -- the proverbial one-eyed man in the land of the blind -- that they set aside common sense for dogma. It was the kind of stupidity that only governments are capable of. The bottom line is that Fairbairn promoted point-shooting for the scantily-trained and for close range. He himself promoted the use of sights in Shooting to Live, but it has been overlooked through the history of his influence.

The idea that a person can't or won't use their sights effectively in a survival situation or that vasoconstriction from adrenaline will preclude fine motor control is a gross exaggeration. This has been proven by example countless times and we can see it for ourselves on many videos -- whether it's a police officer, church security team member, a business owner, or home defender, people have consistently been shown to be able to place shots with the sights effectively even under the gravest of circumstances.

Believing that point shooting is the only thing you'll be capable of under stress could set you up for trouble. The use of lethal force in self-defense and in the defense of others facing a threat of death or serious bodily injury is justified by the "reasonable man" doctrine, that is when you do what a reasonable and prudent person would do under the same circumstances, knowing what you know. If you point shoot in circumstances where a reasonable person might have taken heed to use the sights, your judgment could be called into question. If your justification for point shooting is that it is all you are capable of doing in a survival situation, you may be judged unreasonable and instead of having rational and prudent fear, your actions might be construed as undertaken in blind panic. Even if you're not criminally liable for your point-shot bullets, you would have a substantial risk of civil liability for gross negligence. In either case, your affirmative defense would be tarnished by stipulating that point shooting was all that you were capable of in your condition at the time. It would be far more prudent to train to a high level of skill and performance, and then expect only a reasonable degradation of skill under extreme duress, rather than expect to be operating in irrational bare fear and blind terror without that capability to employ a basic skill.

Fairbairn's concerns about liability paled in comparison to what law enforcement and civilians face in US society today. Fairbairn was a British citizen and the chief of police in Shanghai, which was for all intents and purposes an occupied territory following the second opium war. I wouldn't describe him as negligent, but his methods wouldn't pass muster in a modern society. He developed them with a set of constraints that are unfamiliar today. He had to take recruits that had never fired a handgun before, and train them to survive on the streets in a few hours with less than a box of ammo. Look at his budget in the appendix. For a force of 1000 men, he expends 36,000 rounds in 12 months for training and practice. That's 36 rounds per man per year.

If you carry, it would behoove you to train more diligently than constraints allowed his recruits. If you should ever have to use a firearm, you may find yourself defending your actions to a jury. Therefore, give careful consideration to how they might perceive your rationale. Will they perceive you as blindly pointing your gun without carefully aiming it? Will they perceive you as determined to carry a firearm but also unwilling to avail yourself of training in its use? Is there a better narrative you could deliver to the jury?
Click to expand...
Much of what you say about Fairbairn and his training methods is not very accurate.
In the past I would have pointed out your many misconceptions, but I have a better idea.
Instead:
Here is a link Fairbairn’s and Syke’s book, Shooting to Live.
http://www.patriotresistance.com/FMFRP12-81-ShootingToLive-January1990.pdf
Pages 3-6 are a must read on why Fairbairn taught point shooting—-along with aimed fire—to all of his students.
I submit that what his men faced in the streets of Shanghai are now faced in the streets of America.
Later chapters details many other aspects of combat shooting ( gear, stopping power,,use of a shoot house, statistics and many other issues that were also covered in the program.
.
 
Last edited:
I've read that book at least 5 or 6 times.

On page 3, you'll want to study just cause for responding to "furtive movement" under the law of self-defense in the US and in your state. Needless to say, you're not in Shanghai and this is not the 1930's. Nevertheless, furtive movements can be justification for shooting, but I dare say we'd need more specific conditions than Fairbairn's men to be justified indeed.

On page 4, the idea of dark conditions being the most likely circumstances for the use of lethal force has proven not to be the case in our present day culture. I couldn't speak to what it was like in Shanghai back in the day, but we do know that in the US today, defensive gun use (DGU's) incidents are not skewed toward nighttime or darkness. Even at nighttime, our conditions are radically different than 100 years ago with the abundance of cheap energy and lighting.

Fairbairn's contrast of combat shooting and target shooting was appropriate -- but this was before the advent of "practical" shooting competitions. It's not that I'm advocating shooting competitions (I'm not), but we have to put Fairbairn's criticism of 'target shooting' into the proper context. In his day, competition was something like bullseye target shooting. Nobody was doing anything like IDPA, USPSA, or IPSC. Those were all invented in the 1970's and 80's. In fact, what Fairbairn details in his chapter on the "shoot house" was essentially a pre-cursor to practical shooting courses. I am not claiming that modern, practical shooting competitions are combat simulations. They're not. They're very obviously games and most people involved in them are gamers. My point is that Fairbairn wasn't drawing a contrast to these, but to bullseye target shooting. Personally, I think Fairbairn would have been an IDPA shooter. I don't think he would advocate it as combat simulation, but he would have loved to do it anyway. I believe he would have excitedly relished a modern 3-gun event.

Fairbairn's demand for speed can be met with aimed fire. If we add all the other conditions our present day culture demands, aimed fire is often the only way to meet them. We certainly know that speed alone is insufficient.

On page 5, Fairbairn, in insisting on the importance of speed, claims that aimed fire is too slow. Again, there may be some circumstances where aimed fire is not possible -- at muzzle contact distances for example -- but there are plenty of circumstances under which aimed fire is essential and point shooting would be ill-advised. Fast people have emptied their guns without making any hits. It's happened time and time again. Study the Newhall shooting -- lots of empty guns, and not many hits, and most of them were by the bad guys. FBI 1986 Miami, same thing. While the agents ultimately scored a remarkable number of hits, there were far more misses. These are just some famous examples, but there are lots of civilian examples on video too. The bottom line is that shooting fast doesn't matter. What matters is getting a hit fast. The key isn't just to shoot fast. You need to shoot well.

As for Fairbairn's criticism of special stances and so forth, that's all very well. We have to start somewhere, and learning some kind of combat stance is part of any martial art. There's no dogmatic demand for executing this stance before beginning to fight. Shoot from stance and get good at it. Then try a cover crouch or kneel, try shooting while moving, and combine ducking, moving, and using cover. We have to walk before we run.

Fairbairn pinned the safeties to disable them on 1911's and recommended others do the same, and carry them in Condition 3. Was he right about that?
 
Last edited:
.Fairbairn pinned the safeties to disable them on 1911's and recommended others do the same, and carry them in Condition 3. Was he right about that?


With the conditions he faced—-yes.
It was also a common practice with early Border Patrol and other experienced lawmen back in the 1920’s through the mid 40’s.
Now that we have Glocks and other Glock clones this is no longer an issue.

“On page 3, you'll want to study just cause for responding to "furtive movement" under the law of self-defense in the US and in your state.”


Fairbairn writes that often the only HINT that a shooting may take place is a furtive movement of the opponent’s hand.
He was NOT saying that this should be followed by the IMMEDIATE police use of deadly force.
It is, however, an example of how police are behind in the reactionary zone and the need for a need to go into action quickly and instinctively.

“Fast people have emptied their guns without making any hits. It's happened time and time again. Study the Newhall shooting -- lots of empty guns, and not many hits, and most of them were by the bad guys. FBI 1986 Miami, same thing. While the agents ultimately scored a remarkable number of hits, there were far more misses. These are just some famous examples, but there are lots of civilian examples on video too. The bottom line is that shooting fast doesn't matter. What matters is getting a hit fast. The key isn't just to shoot fast. You need to shoot well.”

The vast majority of cops are trained primarily with two handed aimed fire and the national hit rate is dismal—-anywhere from 8-25%
Agencies who actually teach point shooting—-California Highway Patrol, Massachusetts State Police, Akron Ohio PD ( 3 agencies that I am familiar with) have good results with both aimed and point shooting.
Shooting fast and getting good hits is NOT mutually exclusive.
Being forced to shoot fast when sights are not possible—-and never being taught exactly how to do so—-is called spray & pray.


“As for Fairbairn's criticism of special stances and so forth, that's all very well. We have to start somewhere, and learning some kind of combat stance is part of any martial art. There's no dogmatic demand for executing this stance before beginning to fight. Shoot from stance and get good at it. Then try a cover crouch or kneel, try shooting while moving, and combine ducking, moving, and using cover. We have to walk before we run.”

Very true.
What is not well known is that all SMP Officers had to first pass the British Army L course before being hired.
This was a challenging bullseye type of shooting out to 25 yards.
Only after being appointed were they taught the shooting to live methods.

“Fairbairn's demand for speed can be met with aimed fire.“

Not always.
And certainly not in the 0-5 feet range where so many of incidents happen.
As Evan Marshal recently stated, “Before practicing for that 40 yard shot first become VERY skilled at bad breath distances.”

“Personally, I think Fairbairn would have been an IDPA shooter. I don't think he would advocate it as combat simulation, but he would have loved to do it anyway. I believe he would have excitedly relished a modern 3-gun event.”

Since Fairbairn enjoyed judo and rifle/bayonet sparring contests you are probably right.
Fairbairn and Sykes also put highly visible sights (gold shotgun beads) on their personal handguns so they certainly saw the need of marksmanship.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you that Fairbairn would have adopted the Glock type action if it had been available to him. It would have perfectly suited his criteria. I believe he would have adopted the DA/SA type firearm also, but the first of that type, the Walther P-38 wasn't available to him until after all the experience he wrote from. I think DA/SA would have suited his preferences less than the Glock-style action, but it still would have met the demands of his force better than the 1911.

The fact that he pinned the safeties on a 1911 to disable them might have worked for him, but it will be highly ill-advised in today's litigious society. Following a incident, a citizen may or may not face a criminal complaint depending on the circumstances and the disposition of the DA, but there is a high probability that there is a dirtbag lawyer who will solicit the dirtbag decedent's family to avail themselves of their services for a wrongful death suit, and you would be the guy that disables safety devices on firearms! Their case for gross negligence is practically made for them. Even in criminal court, an ambitious DA wouldn't have to prove that you weren't justified in shooting the decedent in an act of murder. Instead, they could claim that you fired accidentally due to your use of a single-action trigger with the safety disabled and are criminally culpable for manslaughter.

Carrying with an empty chamber, as Fairbairn also promoted, is highly ill-advised. Too many people have been caught unprepared with empty guns to even begin to think this is a smart practice.

The low rate of hits for police comes primarily from the New York Times smear piece that interpreted the stats with bias. With the proliferation of bodycam video, we can see for ourselves more than just hit rates. We certainly see a few bad cases -- those tend to get promoted the most because there's really something to look at. We also see meaningful examples of good marksmanship at all kinds of distances. What we don't see are police making good hits from the hip. There are cases where officers have had to make hits at contact range -- Jared Reston comes to mind. I wouldn't call muzzle-contact to the side of the head "point shooting."

I wouldn't discourage the practice of 'point shooting' for the circumstances under which aimed fire is not possible. I don't think that adopting an 'instinctive' shooting method like what might be practiced in archery or "quick kill" rifle is a good idea for self defense with a handgun. There are too many practical and legal risks to adopting such a practice exclusive of the use of the sights.
 
westernrover said:
I agree with you that Fairbairn would have adopted the Glock type action if it had been available to him. It would have perfectly suited his criteria. I believe he would have adopted the DA/SA type firearm also, but the first of that type, the Walther P-38 wasn't available to him until after all the experience he wrote from. I think DA/SA would have suited his preferences less than the Glock-style action, but it still would have met the demands of his force better than the 1911.

The fact that he pinned the safeties on a 1911 to disable them might have worked for him, but it will be highly ill-advised in today's litigious society. Following a incident, a citizen may or may not face a criminal complaint depending on the circumstances and the disposition of the DA, but there is a high probability that there is a dirtbag lawyer who will solicit the dirtbag decedent's family to avail themselves of their services for a wrongful death suit, and you would be the guy that disables safety devices on firearms! Their case for gross negligence is practically made for them. Even in criminal court, an ambitious DA wouldn't have to prove that you weren't justified in shooting the decedent in an act of murder. Instead, they could claim that you fired accidentally due to your use of a single-action trigger with the safety disabled and are criminally culpable for manslaughter.

Carrying with an empty chamber, as Fairbairn also promoted, is highly ill-advised. Too many people have been caught unprepared with empty guns to even begin to think this is a smart practice.

The low rate of hits for police comes primarily from the New York Times smear piece that interpreted the stats with bias. With the proliferation of bodycam video, we can see for ourselves more than just hit rates. We certainly see a few bad cases -- those tend to get promoted the most because there's really something to look at. We also see meaningful examples of good marksmanship at all kinds of distances. What we don't see are police making good hits from the hip. There are cases where officers have had to make hits at contact range -- Jared Reston comes to mind. I wouldn't call muzzle-contact to the side of the head "point shooting."

I wouldn't discourage the practice of 'point shooting' for the circumstances under which aimed fire is not possible. I don't think that adopting an 'instinctive' shooting method like what might be practiced in archery or "quick kill" rifle is a good idea for self defense with a handgun. There are too many practical and legal risks to adopting such a practice exclusive of the use of the sights.
Click to expand...
Nobody today would advocate pinning safeties or carrying chamber empty.
The SMP had to work things out for their situations and available tools.
As to dirtbag lawyers—-I spent 32.5 years working in the NYC Court System so mega dittos.
Which is why I advise having a pistol with zero safeties—-Zimmerman carried his pistol off safe and the DA made an issue of it.
I really can’t disagree with much of your other points—-you obviously speak from knowledge and experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Had a range session in Huntsville Alabama that knocked my socks off!
Replies
11
Views
524
lemaymiami
lemaymiami
A
  • Locked
Paintball?
Replies
11
Views
447
ASHeat
A
Adam "Gerty" Goertzen
  • Locked
Handgun class with Fighting Chance
Replies
1
Views
599
hdwhit
H
P
  • Locked
RBFC in Atlanta 18/19 March
Replies
0
Views
236
Paul Gomez
P
L
  • Locked
Firearms Academy of Seattle Two Thumbs Up!
Replies
8
Views
676
C. H. Luke
C
Back
Top