Bad guys, police and armed citizens

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually I am quite familiar with the "advanced airsoft" weapons. Some of them look like the real thing from anything more than a few yards away.

Just to clarify or repeat: I'm not in favor of "banning airsoft." I would favor banning their carry or use by any person or in any location or situation where a real firearm would be banned.

For example, way, way back in 1986, when Soviets and other dinosaurs roamed the earth, a buddy and I bought "Softair" (yes, that was the name back then) guns. He had an MP5K, I had a KG-9. They looked pretty realistic, even weighed and handled like the real thing, using plastic casings and plastic BBs. We replaced those with copper BBs, of course. A few of our friends quickly followed suit.

In that innocent age, we took them to our high school in briefcases and bags, and shot them at one another. It was a huge old school with a lot of poorly-supervised after-school activities, so it was possible to stalk one-another through the halls, laboratories, classrooms, bathrooms and abandoned wings of the place and gun one another down from ambush.

That sort of behavior --- would not be a very good idea today.
Ok, well the laws you are proposing are already in place.

As for the realism, I was once pulled over with my airsoft gear in the car. The officer asked about the gear and I explained what it was. I showed him the rifle, and while holding the rifle he insisted that it was a real M4! I had to prove to him that it was not.
 
Ahead of the ate ball

"Mercop:"

I want to get away from the Airsoft conjecture for a moment, and go back to the 70 versus 40% data.

When you (felon in this instance) are "ahead of the curve" as you state it; that is, you have taken your aim on your adversary first -you have the higher hit vs. miss ratio. You have the split second more for precise aim.

It is that simple. When you are taken under fire; surprised or ambushed is implied, you are in an imposition. You are prone to achieve the 40%.
Returning fire, defensive fire, is shaky business.

All the discussion on training, this and that, the combat veterans here all miss the mark by advocating a particular training, when where it really is at is not to get into that defensive position at the onset.

The article mentioned the officers made first contact, and then did something to trigger a lethal reaction. I'm not a trainer, but I would investigate the various triggers that an officer might cause, avoid those, and know when and how to go into being "ahead of the curve."

I'm not referring to a "quick draw" by this at all.
 
Having been in a few of these scrapes where something I did triggered the fight or flight in the suspect they are usually when they have given you a bad name and know you are close to figuring out they are wanted. That or when the know they are going to jail. The last is when you start to search or are close to finding a weapon/contraband. Those the the primary triggers.

The last year that I cared to pull my stats was in 2004 when I conducted approximately 1100 traffic stops. Before you break out the calculator I worked approximately 20 days a month and stopped about six or so cars a day. A perfect figure using that data would put me at 1440 stops so 1100 makes sense. The vast majority of those stops were on RT 40 between Philly and Baltimore. I was looking for bad guys, drugs and guns.

Every stop had a pretext (legal reason for the stop), interview (screening process) and conclusion. You get pretty good with the screening process and figuring out what you had. You also get pretty good and anticipating when there is going to be a problem. You combat that by dominating the stop by controlling the subjects moment and occupying their minds. Traffic stops are ultimately more controllable that walk up stops. The person is tied to the car and has to produce identification. Even using all the skills sets in the world officers are injured and killed. Just as you learn to notice the clues that add up to different crimes you also learn to add up the ques that let you know a fight is coming.

When you are a citizen it is the criminal who decides on the pretext for the encounter. The difference is that he front loads the scanning process to weigh cost vs benefit from his selection. Using awareness and positioning skills along with the ability to walk away from places and things can keep you out of many situations. For those that you cannot avoid you need to see the ques leading to the fight and act accordingly.- George
 
For the record while the Army still uses MILES II we have moved away from that.

A training program these days might look something like this;


1. Basic Rifle Marksmanship Primary Marksmanship Instruction

2. Computer simulator (note that computer simulators use compressed air to give you some limited recoil). Computer simulators are like a giant video game, say half of the size of a basketball court.

3. Live fire zero/ practice/ qualification night/ day ranges

4. MOUT with MILES II

5. Integrated live fire range using plastic composite bullets mounted and dismounted (these rounds are relatively new and allow you to use the same barrel and weapon as the bullets shatter on impact and have almost no penetration, still dangerous of course).

6. Advanced drills of all kinds on ranges with live ammo

7. Live fire MOUT with composite bullets

8. Other advanced ranges.

This just to give you a rough outline for current training.
 
Treo,
Any engagement simulator that you can think of can be cheated. The only way to avoid that is to train force on force with live ammunition, which everyone will agree is impractical.

Properly planned and resourced force on force training can be very realistic no matter what you are using as an engagement simulator. Unfortunately it's not always properly planned, resourced and conducted.
 
Unfortunately it's not always properly planned, resourced and conducted.

That is another thing that has changed quite a lot. Not everyone is the same of course but across the board it is a lot better.
 
When I was active duty navy going to security team training we started off with paintball, that wasnt very realistic, then they went to simunition until someone was severely injured by a neck shot:what:, then finaally we went to airsoft it is great training for how to shoot and move in an enclosed environment. Pain is great teacher.
 
Mercop,

I read the same article a couple of weeks ago. While there is surely some truth in it to be had, I do not trust it overall. The implication that some (let alone many or most) people incarcerated for shooting a cop have extensive gun handling experience born of gravel pit and back alley shooting is particularly difficult for me to accept. Most of the other literature and studies suggest that this is far from the case, that the risk of discovery, lack of access to transportation, and difficulty of obtaining ammunition prevent most felons from doing much practicing. Other sources state that a street gun recovered from a criminal is typically partially loaded, or loaded with mismatched ammunition, or both, hardly a condition that someone who practices regularly would end up with. I believe that the study methodology, based on interviews with felons in custody with no cross checking, is badly flawed and has led to the repetition of inflated claims.

Therefore I am skeptical of drawing other conclusions outside areas where there are corroborating sources, based on actual busts or on data that can be cross checked.
 
OK, all that aside I think people underestimate the willingness of people to do violence. They believe they are going to have a static situation to respond to such as a person holding gun or knife on them during a robbery. The intensity of these situations and the people who live this life need to be understood.

Where can I find information on cases where firearms had the wrong ammunition in them when recovered? People underestimate the intelligence of some of these individuals. As quoted by Robert Deniro in Heat "you don't see me robbing liquor stores with born to loose tattooed on my chest" Train for the pros and you will have no problem with the Joes.
 
It didn't take very long for "The Duke" to hijack this thread did it? I'm starting to see a pattern.

But I will relate that I have engaged in combat.

By "combat" he means that he is fighting the urge to grace us with more of his eloquence.
 
Other sources state that a street gun recovered from a criminal is typically partially loaded, or loaded with mismatched ammunition, or both, hardly a condition that someone who practices regularly would end up with.

You will bleed just as fast if you are shot with a mixture of jhp and ball. Maybe they haven't been to every class offered at Gunsite. But they have the advantage of years of street experience and the ability to act first.

"They may be booger eaters, but they are booger eaters with guns." Paul Howe.
 
KB: "It didn't take very long for "The Duke" to hijack this thread did it? I'm starting to see a pattern.

Quote:
But I will relate that I have engaged in combat.

By "combat" he means that he is fighting the urge to grace us with more of his eloquence.
"

Looks like I've made a friend.
 
Personal remarks ARE NOT on topic. Stay on topic or lose the thread- and maybe more than that.

lpl
 
I agree...:

That the bad guys are willing, able and usually the initiators.
That "better" good guys, behind the power curve, are at a disadvantage.
That properly designed FOF utilizing non-lethal marking cartridges are valuable to developing mindset, tactics, and ability.
That mindset is the most important of those three.
That I'd rather go down a dark alley with a fit fighter with the proper mindset, excellent hand to hand skill and adequate firearms skill sets than a good shooter without the rest.
That the thread has much to offer to folks who aren't familiar with such concepts.
 
"If you are an armed citizen, have you ever qualified?"

Not exactly. But for the first two years after my first gun purchase I shot 2-3 times a week, lot's and lot's of rounds fired, at my local indoor range. Double taps, retention positions, weak hand and presenting from a holster, no actual force on force or anything though.

At a job orientation last year the facilitator asked for a show of hands from everyone who owned a gun. (I kept mine down) then made a joke about being afraid of some of the people who put their hands up. She went on to explain the hospital's no weapons policy, and stated that only their armed security guards were allowed to carry guns. "They have the necessary training - they have to specially qualify twice a year." Most shooting enthusiasts get a lot more practice than that, and could easily smoke a guard who qualifies twice a year... Law abiding gun owners are probably closer to the frequent, informally practicing criminal in terms of training than they are to the qualifying professional. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
 
Note those bad guys hadn't likely qualified ever, either. Qualification is a process in training and evaluation cycle, the purpose of which is to document minimum standards, not an end result.
 
Isn't this the article you were talking about?

New findings from FBI about cop attackers and their weapons

New findings on how offenders train with, carry and deploy the weapons they use to attack police officers have emerged in a just-published, 5-year study by the FBI.

Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be cop killers:

  • Show signs of being armed that officers miss;
  • Have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;
  • Practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;
  • Have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. “If you hesitate,” one told the study’s researchers, “you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street….”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Familiarity

Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing “most of the time.” Gang members especially started young. Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% “regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year,” the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and “street corners in known drug-trafficking areas.” One spoke of being motivated to improve his gun skills by his belief that officers “go to the range two, three times a week [and] practice arms so they can hit anything.”

In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this “may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills,” the study says. The offender quoted above about his practice motivation, for example, fired 12 rounds at an officer, striking him 3 times. The officer fired 7 rounds, all misses.

More than 40% of the offenders had been involved in actual shooting confrontations before they feloniously assaulted an officer. Ten of these “street combat veterans,” all from “inner-city, drug-trafficking environments,” had taken part in 5 or more “criminal firefight experiences” in their lifetime. One reported that he was 14 when he was first shot on the street, “about 18 before a cop shot me.” Another said getting shot was a pivotal experience “because I made up my mind no one was gonna shoot me again.” Again in contrast, only 8 of the 50 LEO victims had participated in a prior shooting; 1 had been involved in 2 previously, another in 3. Seven of the 8 had killed offenders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shooting Style

Twenty-six of the offenders [about 60%], including all of the street combat veterans, “claimed to be instinctive shooters, pointing and firing the weapon without consciously aligning the sights,” the study says.

“They practice getting the gun out and using it,” Davis explained. “They shoot for effect.” Or as one of the offenders put it: “[W]e’re not working with no marksmanship….We just putting it in your direction, you know….It don’t matter…as long as it’s gonna hit you…if it’s up at your head or your chest, down at your legs, whatever….Once I squeeze and you fall, then…if I want to execute you, then I could go from there.”
 
Like any other kind of training you'll get out of force on force what you put into it. If you're one to game, make excuses, whine, etc. then you won't get much benefit. There is a big difference between welting up your friends in the back yard & working structured drills &/or scenarios with resisting high-quality opponents.

As for the report, I'll buy into it. If for no other reason than it makes me believe that I need to train harder & more often. If my real life encounter happens to be with some unmotivated, unskilled amateur I'll gladly take it. If not, & I end up with a real tough dude(s) then I need to be able to step up mentally, tactically, physically, & with enough skill to ensure I go home & see my family.
 
Duke of Doubt said:
But I will relate that I have engaged in combat. And for whatever reason rooted in my peculiar personality, I tend to get offended (I do not offend easily) not by any attempt to simulate combat, but by efforts to sell the "combat experience" via games to children and immature adults.

I agree with the above and frankly agree with most of what you have said.

Take martial arts for instance, they have been made into "sports" therefore they are governed by a point system / rule system and the teaching at 99% of dojo's have this training ingrained into their students. What is my point? The entire IDEA of this kind of training is that there ARE NO RULES, you either SURVIVE or you are DOA...

Gun fights TYPICALLY work like this.

You either have a chance to draw a gun or you do not. If you do not than you are most likely dead or robbed or whatever, but the event is ended.

You draw your weapon and fire either hitting the assailant or not in which case he escapes. Police HAVE to give chase, so the cretins they are chasing set an ambush. The other option is the perp hits you...

See a picture here? This isn't spaghetti western / 24. These losers are ambushing cops and citizens. Hard to win gun fights in cases like this. Most accounts of citizens winning gunfights involve some sort of duplicity on the part of the citizen i.e. faking sickness / cooperation / etc and drawing their weapon.

Police don't really have that option.

EDIT -

One more thing I would like to say. Training is evolution. Look at all of the older systems that we actually laugh out loud about today that they were even taught. How do you know it doesn't work until the system literally gets shot down on a consistent basis.

How many bodies were stacked up before the simple rule to find cover was fleshed out?

I believe in training, as long as we all realize that reality will be horrifically real and different than the most "tactical" training session. Honestly, that is the beauty of it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top