Training Question (edit - IPSC/IDPA competition worthwhile for training?)

[gezzer]

IMHO it depends on what you want fast competitive times or to live.

I pick LIVE

 

[kengrubb]

All anyone can do is guess at the number of defensive firearm uses where shots were not fired or shots were fired and no one was hit. There isn't ever going to be a reliable way to track those incidents.

Umm, what exactly is the relevance? The article I cited was about LE hit ratios. I daresay anytime a cop discharges his firearm, whether he hits or not, it's going to be recorded.

One also has to wonder how many of the justifiable homicides on the UCR were actual cases of a real good guy killing a real bad guy in self defense

The FBI's reporting of justifiable homicides by private citizens has been attacked by Professor Gary Kleck. If anything, it's low.
http://www.mcrkba.org/PhilLee2Weldon4.html Scroll down to the paragraph beginning "Even cases of DGUs ..."
http://www.claytoncramer.com/firing.html#T8

and how many of them were two bad guys in a disagreement that wound up in a killing?

Get real. For that to be true, that means the police are doing a woefully inadequate job of investigating one of the most serious crime scenes possible--person A shot and killed person B. You cannot seriously be suggesting that cops look at the priors of the deceased and say, "Eh, call it a public service. Next."

 

[BullfrogKen]

kengrubb said: Get real. For that to be true, that means the police are doing a woefully inadequate job of investigating one of the most serious crime scenes possible--person A shot and killed person B. You cannot seriously be suggesting that cops look at the priors of the deceased and say, "Eh, call it a public service. Next."

He might not, but I will . . .


In those few cities with triple digit homocides every year. Yes. I'll say without a doubt that some cases get less attention than others. Time is a scarce resource. Possibly the most valuable of them all. The only one that can't be replaced. . .


In cities that have less than say, a dozen homocides . . . the detectives, if they even have enough resources to devote more than one without calling for assistance from outside agencies, will be extremely zealous to solve the case.

 

[up_onus]

I dont shoot ipsc or idpa, but there seems to be a fundamental difference between that and real life....
one you shoot
the other you get shot at and shoot.

There is always the old saying "the best defense is a good offense...."

Ima guess its good both ways fast and HITS or slow and PURPOSEFUL....hopefully you get them b4 they get u!

 

[Jeff White]

kengrubb said,

The article I cited was about LE hit ratios. I daresay anytime a cop discharges his firearm, whether he hits or not, it's going to be recorded.

While I'm sure that every round fired is accounted for, there isn't anyone compliling these stats on a national or even regional level.

I've been searching through all the resources I have and contacting other police firearm instructors. I have not been able to find, nor has anyone been able to point me to any nationwide police hit ratio statistics. Everyone I've contacted seems to believe that the 12-18% hit ratio that has been discussed and referenced in print comes from the old NYPD SOP 9 report which was partially released to the public years ago. No one, not the FBI and in many cases individual departments is keeping those kinds of statistics.

I've read in a publication that LAPD Metro division had above an 80% hit ratio in actual gunfights and as soon as I can find the cite, I'll post it. So far all the information I've been able to find on police hit ratios is all anecdotal.

Get real. For that to be true, that means the police are doing a woefully inadequate job of investigating one of the most serious crime scenes possible--person A shot and killed person B. You cannot seriously be suggesting that cops look at the priors of the deceased and say, "Eh, call it a public service. Next."

No, I'm saying that criminals get in volved in justifiable homicide too. And in my experience are more likely to be involved in that type of situation because of the lifestyle they lead and the people they hang with. A self defense killing in a dispute over how much of the money from the crack you sold should go to someone else is still self defense, but it's not the same as the citizen who shoots the intruder in his home or the mugger in the parking lot. I would bet that there are more justifiable homicides from the former example then the latter.

Jeff

 

[GEM]

This is something I posted on the Insights list a few days ago. I'll do that and make some comments after.

I was shooting an IDPA match yesterday, one stage had as part three targets – in a row.

Since they were all in the open and equal distance, we were told to shoot the first guy with one, then the second guy with 2 and back to the first guy.

Of course, someone screws it up and 2 + 2s and gets a penalty. This engendered a conversation about this strategy. My friend the SO, an ex-deputy said that in reality, the guy in his sights gets two and then the next guy would get two. Since we train a lot of double taps and this is programmed in us to some extent, is it worth trying to break the program to think about the 1 + 2 and back to +1 versus 2+2? The later in total time spent may be longer.

The flip side is that as you fire two in the first guy, you give a part of a second to number two to shoot you.

Also, remembering to return to 1 could be difficult. There is a phenomenon of inhibition of return where having detected a target and moving on, it is hard to return to that earlier location for a repeat action as compared to a newer location.

On another stage, we had a complex dance of shoot this guy, move and shoot the other guy, stay still and then shoot yet another. Horrors, on the move – my Glock 19 double fed (eek!) and I had to clear it, when I got to the stand still spot – I had no idea who I shoot and did not want to retrieve from memory the shooting sequence – so I shot everybody again.

Thus, my musing on KISS – two in you and bye bye, on to the next or trying to plan a new motor program that has some contingency (it is nice that the first guy stays still when you come back to him).

Has there been some incident where we can say that the problem wasn’t solved because of 2+2 vs. the 1+2+1?


We discussed how competition is unlike the real world. My point was to discuss the problem of automatic behaviors and that fighting against them might slow one down. That was a debate. The crux of the issue for me was whether my friend's 2,2,2,2 vs. the 1,1,1,1 and then a backwards 1,1,1,1 again has really been shown to be differential in the real world rather than the theoretic. At one NTI, escaping a bank robbery, I was faced with four opponents (chose the wrong door to escape - great lesson on being alert), going 1,1,1,1 with a J frame didn't prevent me from being truly vaporized by a wave of fire - quite an ouch and blood was drawn from moi!

However, the problem with matches as training (duh-like no one thought of what I will say) is that one really has no visual cue to the effectiveness of the rounds fired in a match. Reactive targets do exist but their implementation in matches would be expensive. Leaving a standing target with a shot in a peripheral zone is not really that useful. However, sometimes you hear folks planning match strategies that go for such hits to go for time. One might argue for a reactive scoring strategy that forces you to stay in fight until all targets are judged to be reasonably neutralized. The failure to stop drills with such at the NTI or other training venues are very useful.

Also, having fixed courses of fire that you mentally rehearse leads to no problem solving for the dynamic. I've seen folks airgun a match about 10 times before shooting. Having blind stages is again a major hassle for the weekend match venue.

Most CHLs don't train and don't shoot competitions anyway. Setting up realistic matches has tons of pragmatic difficulties. However, if one could come up with cheap reactive targets and blind stages, that might be useful.

Oh - how about shooting the match with your Keltec or 642 - as that's what you really carry?

At best, all of these are compromises. If one shoots competitions for fun - then you have to be aware of the limitations. Duh - like we didn't know that either.

 

[kengrubb]

Everyone I've contacted seems to believe that the 12-18% hit ratio that has been discussed and referenced in print comes from the old NYPD SOP 9 report

According to John Farnam, as recently as 6 years ago, the hit ratio from the NYPD SOP-9 was still below 20 percent. I found references to the 2002 and 2004 SOP-9 online, but I'm given to understand it's no longer provided unless one has LE credentials. Seems that if the numbers could be deemed positive, they'd get published.

So far all the information I've been able to find on police hit ratios is all anecdotal.

Here are some more anecdotes for digestion.
http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/ForceScience/articles/117909/

A self defense killing in a dispute over how much of the money from the crack you sold should go to someone else is still self defense

Here in Washington, we call that manslaughter.

it's not the same as the citizen who shoots the intruder in his home or the mugger in the parking lot.

Given that you're an Illinois LEO, you wouldn't have any experience of folks shooting muggers in parking lots. That would involve the carrying of firearms which still isn't legal there.

I would bet that there are more justifiable homicides from the former example then the latter.

So it's guilty until proven innocent then? 3 to 4 million CCW licensees, plus the tens of millions who keep loaded guns ready at home, but far more criminals "justifiably" killing? You're reaching so far on this that you're risking falling from the ramshackle assortment of arguments cobbled together into a ladder.

 

[Jeff White]

Kengrub said;

According to John Farnam, as recently as 6 years ago, the hit ratio from the NYPD SOP-9 was still below 20 percent. I found references to the 2002 and 2004 SOP-9 online, but I'm given to understand it's no longer provided unless one has LE credentials. Seems that if the numbers could be deemed positive, they'd get published.

The fact of the matter is there are no valid nationwide statistics available. No one keeps them on a national level, and those agencies that do keep those statistics, do not report the data in any standardized way. For instance SOP 9 includes all rounds fired by an officer to include NDs, officer suicides, dispatching of animals and other instances that were not gunfights. Until there is some kind of national reporting standard we will be unable to do anything but guess at what the hit ratio is. I suggest you read this paper for a discussion of the total inadequacy of the data you're drawing your conclusions from:
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf Which happens to be the complete paper referenced in the link you posted.

As I said earlier some agencies do much better then the percentages you reference. From page 5 of Aveni's report:

An in depth 1992 review of Portland, Oregon's police shootings revealed an increase in the number of shots fired per incident from 2.6 rounds per revolver to 4.6 rounds fired from pistols. However the study seemed to isuggest that hit probablity increased with adoption of semi-auto pistols. From January 1, 1983 through January 5, 1990, Portland police reportedly struck adversaries with 24 rounds out of 67 fired (36% hit ratio). Firing semi-auto pistols from July 21, 1984 through February 7, 1992 officers struck their adversaries with 19 rounds out of 44 that were fired (43% hit ratio).

Training is what makes the difference. Baltimore County MD released data on 83 police shootings from 1989-2002 where they reported 103 hits out of 211 total shots fired for a 49% hit ratio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff White
A self defense killing in a dispute over how much of the money from the crack you sold should go to someone else is still self defense
Here in Washington, we call that manslaughter.

Really? You're telling me that in Washington state you have no right to self defense if you have a criminal record? Let me get this straight, crack dealer #1 gets into it with carck dealer #2, no drugs are involved but the dispute is over drugs. Crack dealer #1 draws a weapon during the argument and crack dealer #2 kills him, it's not self defense? So crack dealer #2 gave up his right to defend himself when he became a crack deaker? How do you differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys out there??? If you get a felony DUI is every self defense situation you get involved with for the rest of your life a manslaughter charge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff White
it's not the same as the citizen who shoots the intruder in his home or the mugger in the parking lot.
Given that you're an Illinois LEO, you wouldn't have any experience of folks shooting muggers in parking lots. That would involve the carrying of firearms which still isn't legal there.

So you're saying that people here never illegally carry firearms for self defense and sometimes actually use them? I think the statistics are on my side in this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff White
I would bet that there are more justifiable homicides from the former example then the latter.
So it's guilty until proven innocent then? 3 to 4 million CCW licensees, plus the tens of millions who keep loaded guns ready at home, but far more criminals "justifiably" killing? You're reaching so far on this that you're risking falling from the ramshackle assortment of arguments cobbled together into a ladder.

No you are the one who is misunderstanding what I am saying. The fact is, that in this nation of 300 million people, shootings of any kind are a pretty rare event. And most of the violence in our society happens in one group of people. The people who live a criminal lifestyle or hang out with those who do are much more likely to be in a violent encounter then people who don't live a criminal lifestyle or interact with those that do. The 3 to 4 million CCW holders and the tens of million homeowners who keep firearms for protection are involved in a tiny portion of all the shootings in America.

The idea that the good guys are killing the bad guys in large numbers since the advent of shall issue CCW is a myth. The average CCW holder doesn't even carry a weapon regularly and the number of permits that are renewed is always much lower then the number of permits that are issued after a state passes shall issue CCW. For most people, the risk they perceive doesn't outweigh the hassle of carrying every day. And for the most part they are right.

Jeff

 

[roo_ster]

Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Just to slip in a comment on the OP in the midst of the statistical hijacking...

I don't think anybody has said here that competition=combat. Some folks are saying that competion~training (& that's a GOOD THING) or that competition~training (& that's a BAD THING)*. Some folks say that competition has no training value whatsoever, as it is just a gun game. Is that a fair assessment?

I have had the opportunity to do both honest-to-goodness training paid for by Uncle Sam as well as some competition before and after my time spent on the taxpayers' teat.

Citizen Training & Gun Games
I guess I fall into competition~training (& that's a GOOD THING) camp. From a practical standpoint, the overwhelming majority of citizens who CCW spend a couple of hours at hte range twice a year to punch paper. Even fewer will go to the effort to gear up and compete in local IPSC/IDPA/IDSA matches. Some small sliver will get some red-meat training from an instructor.

IMO, the gun games are the CCW-ing citizen's best and most cost-effective resource to get some training that involves movement, stress, gun-handling-on-the-move, and problem-solving. Warning citizens off from this resource is not a service to them. So it ain't top-of-the-line training as found at McKenna MOUT or some of the commercial training providers? So effing what. It is more available, more do-able (time & money-wise) than McKenna MOUT site, Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, or the others. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Every once in a while, I suppose one will encounter the "I train on my own so as not to acquire bad habits from the gun games" non-LEO citizen**. A small subset of those guys will even do as they say. The majority that does most their training in fantasyland would benefit from competition.

Gun Games vs Red Meat Training
The "competition~training (& that's a BAD THING)" argument boils down to "gun-games train poor behaviors," given my understanding of what is written in this vein.

Is the following a fair list of poor behaviors?
1. Waiting for an audible signal to begin
2. Poor use of cover & concleament
3. Clearing & holstering a weapon when visible threats neutralized
4. Shooting X number of rounds and then stopping before threat is neutralized
5. Advancing on numerous adversaries without backup or a whole team of allied room-clearers

What other poor behaviors have any of y'all noted that you suspect were caused by gun games?

I can see the point, but I think it is a bit overblown. The circumstances & dissimilarities between a gun game and what a citizen is likely to encounter are great enough to tell the venues apart. My gun gaming previous to working for Uncle Sam never caused my to choke or push Georgia while on Uncle Sam's payroll***. Nobody had to trip a buzzer to get me going (though most times in training we were the aggressors and listened to start cues from our team leader). I did not worry about fault lines, and I can not recall clearing a room and then neutering my weapon without thought.

[One could argue that training (to pursue policy objectives for Uncle Sam by alternate means) reinforced poor behaviors or behaviors not optimal for civilian citizen CCW. The liklihood I will advance on threats or kick down doors & clear unfamiliar rooms are remote, now that I am a civilian.]

I think that only a very small group of well-trained folk would find competition detrimental or a hinderance to dealing with a shooting situation. Almost all of these folk have their trainng paid for by the taxpayers.


* I am using the tilda (~) to mean "is similar to"

** Most LEOs would benefit, too. Those who get lots of training (the tiny minority) thought their dept may not benefit.

*** Not to worry. I pushed Georgia on lots of other occasions.

 

[GEM]

Is the following a fair list of poor behaviors?
1. Waiting for an audible signal to begin
2. Poor use of cover & concleament
3. Clearing & holstering a weapon when visible threats neutralized
4. Shooting X number of rounds and then stopping before threat is neutralized
5. Advancing on numerous adversaries without backup or a whole team of allied room-clearers

Excellent point! Here's my take on some.

1. That's because time is a part of scoring. You need a signal to start.
2. Untrained participants and unrealistic props, need to make time for scoring works against carefully use of cover.
3. You do have to put the gun away sometime - it is also the hot range argument. Clubs basically don't trust folks off the street to wander around hot. I saw a dude awhile behind the line, playing with a gun and the RO had to have a talk with him. Having a loaded gun increases the risk. High end courses go hot.
4. Scoring for time and not having a realistic way to indicate neutralization with inexpensive props.
5. We like to shoot and again - do you want to team shoot with untrained team members? That's a way to become swiss cheese.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Some reasons why gun games are games, and their limitations, which preclude them from being considered proper practice:

• Games occur on square ranges
• The decision to shoot has already been made - its not possible to "win" a stage by not shooting
• zero target interaction

Since these occur on square ranges, no attacks happen from the 90 or 180. Nor is the Practitioner permitted to move in such a fashion that he can stack or re-orient to such threats.

GEM can attest to this - Glenn, when outside of the NTI, have you ever encountered an IPSC or other type of target that you had a conversation with? When have you ever seen a competition stage, outside the NTI, where it was possible to "win" a stage by not firing a single round.

The vital part of seeing a developing attack unfold, reacting to it, and making the decision to shoot, or not, or do something else, is entirely eliminated in competitive shooting events. Once the decision to shoot is made, then our actions at that point are fairly elementary.

What we often see is a complete inability to read a situation, react to it, influence it, and know when its time to shoot, to simply shut up and do it. Or, the converse, the gun is the only way they have to solve a problem. It comes out quick, before its needed, and often when it might not have been at all.

Additionally, gun games teach see gun = shoot. There is no identification made beyond, is it armed? We are training to shoot each other.


I've got several other reasons, but these are among the top of my list for the limitations gun games have as a training tool. Trigger time is good. And as I said earlier, if one can approach the games for what they are, keep his head about him, and his ego and desire to win out, then they have some value.

 

[Bix]

Some reasons why gun games are games, and their limitations, which preclude them from being considered proper practice:

Games occur on square ranges
The decision to shoot has already been made - its not possible to "win" a stage by not shooting
zero target interaction

Ken - does this mean that spending time running dot drills is precluded from being considered proper practice? Dot drills fit your listed criteria, as would many other marksmanship drills.

I think competition can be used as a larger-scale dot drill, if the practicioner is careful. Remember, 'competition' is not necessarily 'scenario-based competition'. Am I doing myself a disservice if I get out and work a plate rack once a month to hone specific marksmanship skillsets? What if that plate rack happens to be a stage in a steel match? Does is suddenly become detrimental? I don't think it does. In fact, I think the added pressure and (generally) high standards of the competitive atmosphere are beneficial.

Folks who approach scenario-based competitions as training are missing the boat, to be sure. But folks who invest the time and money into proper formal training, and augment that training by occassional competition are not lost souls, IMHO. Particularly when we strip the competition completely of tactics and approach it as simply a marksmanship exercise with some time pressue --which is exactly what something like a steel plate match is.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Bix said: Ken - does this mean that spending time running dot drills is precluded from being considered proper practice?

Bix, That's simply facetious.

I believe I expressed myself clearly enough. The only way you can construe what I said to mean anything approaching such a statement is to take my words completely out of context and ignore the rest of my message.

 

[Bix]

I mistook the gist of your post, Ken. Rereading it, we seem to have a similar opinion - my apologies.

 

[junyo]

Some form of gaming/training to build weapons handling skills and automatic response macros is obviously beneficial, almost every warrior society builds games around combat disciplines. The problem is, no game is a perfect simulator of all aspects of combat. To Shacklemenot's point mindset is the determiner of whether those games are valuable or not. Key is self awareness of the fact that you are gaming, and that some of the stuff you're doing could get you killed in "real the world" and varying your training so that you've practiced proper techniques in as many aspects as possible, so that your brain has a template to work from for a given problem. it's easy to say "Bring more mags" however you better have a scenerio in your head for an Out Of Bullets Error, because it can happen.

There are some things that demand reflexive training. You alluded to gunhandling skills and I agree. But there are also reactions to certain stimuli that need to be trained reflexively. In the Army we called them immediate action drills. You need to have some immediate action drills for the street too. You need to carefully assure that they meet all the legal and moral requirements for self defense where you are at, but you may not prevail if you're not prepared to act immediately when receiving the stimulus to fight.

Like the martial art of battojutsu, the art of drawing and striking in a single motion. You train for the fastest way, once under threat, of getting the sword clear of the sheath and immediately engaging the attacker. Kendo can make you proficient with the macro skills of using a katana, but it's a whole other set of skills and practice that teach you and build the mindset to defend against an unexpected attack.

 

[kengrubb]

For instance SOP 9 includes all rounds fired by an officer to include NDs, officer suicides, dispatching of animals and other instances that were not gunfights.

Umm, yeah, that was among the points John Farnam made. Here's the link again in case you didn't go there.
http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2000/20Dec00.html
For years, we were all told SOP-9 established the "average" number of rounds fired by an MOS during a lethal encounter was two to three. We later learned that figure was incorrect and was actually the result of sloppy statistical analysis. Naive statisticians simply took the total of all rounds fired outside of the firing range and divided it by the total number of shooting "Incidents." Unhappily, "incidents" included accidents and suicides!

A more careful analysis of the data (which included only intentional shootings) revealed the actual figure to be very close to six rounds.
...
When autoloaders (mostly Glocks, with an occasional S&W and Beretta) came into the NYPD system, we all expected that figure (six) to go up into the teens, fully expecting officers to continue to fire every round they have. The latest data has shown our expectations to be incorrect!

The new "average" number of rounds fired is eight. Subsequent data may alter that number, but that is what we have now. What jumps out at me is that, after eight rounds are fired, the parties separate or accommodate to the point where additional shooting is not necessary, at least in the short term, even though the officer is fully capable of firing more rounds. NYPD shooting accuracy has improved steadily, but the average hit percentage is still below twenty, so, out of eight rounds fired, only one or two are likely to impact anywhere on the suspect. In most cases, hit or not, the suspect disengages and runs away.

You're telling me that in Washington state you have no right to self defense if you have a criminal record?

That isn't what I said, and you know that. You started with a silly assertion, and now you've changed the scenario.

You stated, "A self defense killing in a dispute over how much of the money from the crack you sold should go to someone else is still self defense".

You seriously want me to believe that killing someone in a dispute over money or drugs, rather than fear of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent, is justifiable homicide? If so, I think the crack dealers can look to you for having consumed the missing product.

Crack dealer #1 draws a weapon during the argument and crack dealer #2 kills him, it's not self defense? So crack dealer #2 gave up his right to defend himself when he became a crack dealer?

So what makes 'em a crack dealer if they don't have any drugs on them? They just look like a crack dealer? Is that from measuring the distance between their eyes or a call to the Psychic Friends Hotline?

But, let's seriously entertain the very far fetched possibility you are suggesting constitutes the majority of justifiable homicides by private citizens.

Out there somewhere is a person with no felony convictions, or misdemeanor convictions that would preclude them from getting a CCW license, who has a CCW and who is actively dealing crack and just has not yet been convicted, and while carrying a concealed handgun with their CCW license and no drugs gets into a deadly force shooting.

If you find this person, I suggest playing their SSN in the state lottery because it's a 1 in a million shot and you might as well strike while lady luck is with you.

So you're saying that people here never illegally carry firearms for self defense and sometimes actually use them? I think the statistics are on my side in this one.

You expect me to believe that Illinois LE, even factoring out Chicago PD, simply look the other way in the aftermath of a deadly force shooting, even though the person who shot was illegally carrying a handgun? Yeah, sure. Don't you know all good fairy tales begin, "Once upon a time ..."

The idea that the good guys are killing the bad guys in large numbers since the advent of shall issue CCW is a myth.

I'm not sure about the "advent of shall issue", but that date is well before Florida and 1987. A few hundred killed a year, but not thousands.

The average CCW holder doesn't even carry a weapon regularly

Certainly not all, but it's an unsubstantiated guess on your part, with no data to support your statement, to say it's the average.

the number of permits that are renewed is always much lower then the number of permits that are issued after a state passes shall issue CCW.

Untrue. I had not found a single state with falling numbers until Washington this year. In state licensees fell from 230,496 to 229,006 in 2006. Likely the Californitization factor.

For most people, the risk they perceive doesn't outweigh the hassle of carrying every day.

Failing to kill someone doesn't make having a gun not worth the risk. That might be the B.S. they feed you in Illinois, but it don't wash elsewhere.

I gather you're one of those LEOs who knows best that cops and the military are the only ones professional enough to carry a gun.

 

[BullfrogKen]

kengrubb said: I gather you're one of those LEOs who knows best that cops and the military are the only ones professional enough to carry a gun.

I know Jeff. That's ridiculous and incendiary.

Ken, if you have something personal with Jeff, take it off line.


This thread has been hi-jacked far enough. Let's respect the original poster's question, discuss that, and try not to stray too far off topic with the discussion. Anyone is welcome to start a new thread to discuss loosely related topics more effectively.

 

[Jeff White]

Kengrubb said;

The new "average" number of rounds fired is eight. Subsequent data may alter that number, but that is what we have now.

The breakdown of gunfight statististics from SOP-9 does NOT show a new average of 8. It is 5.2 rounds averaged over the 10 year period from 1990 to 2000. The highest year was 2000 with an average of 6.9 rounds fired per engagement. The data is from here:
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf which is the actual report referenced in the Police Magazine article you referred to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff White
You're telling me that in Washington state you have no right to self defense if you have a criminal record?
That isn't what I said, and you know that. You started with a silly assertion, and now you've changed the scenario.

You stated, "A self defense killing in a dispute over how much of the money from the crack you sold should go to someone else is still self defense".

And I stand by that. Even the late LTC Cooper has stated many times that most shootings are done among members of a certain social staus in our society. I believe he once said that it was an unspeakable truth about the violence in our society was perpetrated by people who we'd most likely be better off without.

A self defense shooting is a self defense shooting unless it occurs in during the comission of a crime.

You seriously want me to believe that killing someone in a dispute over money or drugs, rather than fear of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent, is justifiable homicide?

If there are no money or drugs present, but ultimately the dispute was over drugs or money, a person who is attacked has the right to defend himself. The reason for the dispute is immaterial to the act of self defense unless it occurred in the commission of a crime.

So what makes 'em a crack dealer if they don't have any drugs on them? They just look like a crack dealer? Is that from measuring the distance between their eyes or a call to the Psychic Friends Hotline?

No we don't need the Psychic Friend's Hotline. We have a neat little thing called the NCIC criminal history data base. And it usually comes out during the investigation what the dispute was over.

Out there somewhere is a person with no felony convictions, or misdemeanor convictions that would preclude them from getting a CCW license, who has a CCW and who is actively dealing crack and just has not yet been convicted, and while carrying a concealed handgun with their CCW license and no drugs gets into a deadly force shooting.

Tomorrow I post links to some examples. A CCW permit is not in any way shape or form a guarantee that a subject is a fine upstanding citizen. It's merely an indicator that he might be.

As far as I know, no one is keeping any statistics of how many CCW holders get involved in gunfights. The majority of self defense shootings that occur do not happen to CCW holders.

You expect me to believe that Illinois LE, even factoring out Chicago PD, simply look the other way in the aftermath of a deadly force shooting, even though the person who shot was illegally carrying a handgun? Yeah, sure. Don't you know all good fairy tales begin, "Once upon a time ..."

Then there must be an awful lot of fairy tales posted on THR because I've seen many threads, including many from Illinois cases where a private citizen gets into a defensive shooting in violation of various gun laws and ultimately is not charged with anything.

Once again, if the act of self defense is legal, the tool used to defend yourself is immaterial to the basic issue of self defense. There person may be charged with the firearm violation, but it's not an issue to shoot itself if the shoot is good.

I'm not sure about the "advent of shall issue", but that date is well before Florida and 1987. A few hundred killed a year, but not thousands.

Let's see some hard numbers. Ball's in your court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff White
The average CCW holder doesn't even carry a weapon regularly
Certainly not all, but it's an unsubstantiated guess on your part, with no data to support your statement, to say it's the average.

Once again, I'll be back later with figures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff White
the number of permits that are renewed is always much lower then the number of permits that are issued after a state passes shall issue CCW.
Untrue. I had not found a single state with falling numbers until Washington this year. In state licensees fell from 230,496 to 229,006 in 2006. Likely the Californitization factor.

I'll be back later with figures. Informal polling on if CCW holders actually carry all the time here at THR and there is always a significant number who say they don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff White
For most people, the risk they perceive doesn't outweigh the hassle of carrying every day.
Failing to kill someone doesn't make having a gun not worth the risk. That might be the B.S. they feed you in Illinois, but it don't wash elsewhere.

They feed it to the whole world right here at THR why don't you run a search on threads here, in General and Handgus and see how many people own up to not carrying all the time.. You have to make some serious lifestyle sacrfices in order to carry everywhere. Most people aren't willing to do that. Heck the percentage of police officers who regularly carry off duty is quite low. Many don't even if their department mandates it. Too many people giving up fashionable dress and having to deal with the proliferation of metal detectors in modern society is just too much of a hassle for lots of people.

Jeff

 

[kengrubb]

Even the late LTC Cooper has stated many times that most shootings are done among members of a certain social staus in our society.

Shootings and self defense shootings are not the same, but you seem to imply it's only the criminals who get into self defense shootings.

We have a neat little thing called the NCIC criminal history data base. And it usually comes out during the investigation what the dispute was over.

If they have a felony record, then they won't have a CCW.

Tomorrow I post links to some examples. A CCW permit is not in any way shape or form a guarantee that a subject is a fine upstanding citizen. It's merely an indicator that he might be.

One can certainly find a handful of examples of CCW holders who break the law after they are issued a license, and there have been a few convictions for violent crimes up to and including manslaughter and murder. But those are rare anomalies and not representative of the group.

The Brady crowd have been attempting to sell the nonsense that CCW holders are a threat and a danger by publishing arrest numbers. William Sturdevant of the Texas Concealed Handgun Instructor Association put that myth to rest when folks were selling the B.S. that Texas CHL holders were a threat by examining the arrest rates.

http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm
A comparison was made with the arrest data for the entire Texas population for the same time period, showing that, on average: male Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than male Texans with a CHL; and female Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.5 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than female Texans with a CHL.

Simply put, CHL holders in Texas engage in behavior that leads to arrest far less frequently than does the general population. You should wish that the general population were as well behaved as CHL holders.

Let's see some hard numbers. Ball's in your court.

On what? That there are a few hundred self defense killings a year? That's easy. FBI UCR, but as Kleck's work suggests, citing the not so gun friendly Time magazine, there's likely a lot more than what the FBI reports.

Or are you doubting the start of shall issue? Well, Washington got it's first carry law in 1935, and the law was rewritten in 1961 to it's current form. In Vermont, the Rosenthal decision which in effect sanctified "Vermont Carry" was 1903. Indiana's carry law is supposed to date back to the late 1800s according to a post I read on packing.org

Once again, I'll be back later with figures.

Figures to back up any claim as to what percent of CCW licensees carry "regularly", whatever "regularly" means, appear by your own admission to be the equivalent of running a flag up a pole and seeing who will salute.

I'll be back later with figures. Informal polling on if CCW holders actually carry all the time here at THR and there is always a significant number who say they don't.

Stop trying to change what you said. You claimed RENEWALS of CCWs were always lower, and that's untrue. Florida, Texas, Arizona, Utah, North Carolina, Ohio, Louisiana and Minnesota have their numbers online. Some other states will give out a number if you ask, but they don't publish it online.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Are you guys willing to start a new thread on this side discussion? I'm happy to debate it. In fact, I'll join in and contribute with some points to consider. But I want to keep this one about GoRon's original question -

What is your guys/gals opinion on training? Should it be strictly tactically sound or do the "games" have their place for those that take guns seriously?

I think we contributors still want discuss his original topic some more yet, but its getting diverted.


Thanks. And I know Jeff has the power to separate the relevant portions of your posts, Ken, so that they carry over and aren't lost.

 

[Jeff White]

This discussion doesn't belong in S&T, I'm going to finish it by PM.

Jeff

 

[GoRon]

Thanks for all the great feedback folks. A lot of great perspectives that have helped crystallize the pros and cons in my mind.

No harm no foul on the side discussion, rather interesting also.

 

[Tim Burke]

Well, if we are going back to the GoRon's question, I do have some opinions on that. I think some good points have been made, although some of them may have been missed in all the commotion. I'll limit my remarks on competition to IDPA/IPSC style matches, since that was the focus of the OP.
Mindset
This is probably where most of the concern over the negative effects of competition arise. There are so many things that are done in the competition format that would be wrong in the street that it is hard to list them all. Some have already been addressed. There is little target ID, if any. Gun=shoot, or, in IPSC, beige=shoot. Scoring by time penalizes the careful use of tactics or cover. Frequently you are forced to stand flat footed and shoot in place. Most of the time you fire 2 shots, and move on. There is no assessment of effect; there are no on demand failure drills, although there may be some on command. You walk through the course of fire before you shoot it, and you unload at the end of the course of fire.
I have heard of a case where a skilled IPSC shooter walked into a convenience store during an armed robbery, and the solo robber swung his firearm toward him. The competition shooter drew and fired 2 shots to the torso A-zone of the robber before the robber could fire. Competition is good! Then the competition shooter reholstered, and was standing there with a perfectly good holstered gun when the robber shot him, killing him. Competition is bad! Apocryphal? I don't know. I've seen enough stupid things done with guns that were an unintended result of a lot of repetitions that I know it could happen.
Some of the problems can be addressed. No one says you can't scan at the end of the stage. No one says you can't tac-load your weapon at the end of the stage- it doesn't even effect your score if you care about those things, because you are off the clock. You still have to unload and show clear, but you should always do that deliberately, and never reflexively. If there is a house clearing stage at a local match, I've skipped the walk-through, and shot it as a surprise stage using correct tactics. It plays hell with your score... oh well. If it isn't a house clearing, I shoot it using game tactics, provided they aren't stupid.
As for target ID, I set up an IDPA surprise stage one time where the shooter moved down a long hall- the first room had a realistic picture of a gun velcroed to the target. The next 3 rooms had a plain target with huge empty hands painted on them. The last room had a realistic picture of a small cell phone velcroed on the target, and a bunch of pasters in the -0 zone. If the shooter didn't shoot him, the RO would borrow his weapon, and fire 2 quick shots into the berm. Everyone that was counting shots got surprised. I wanted to do it without any shoot targets, but was overruled. You don't see that type of stage often, though.
Gun handling
I think reflexive gun handling is something that you see in competition shooters. Certainly anyone that does enough repetitions under stress will develop gun handling skills, but it is hard to motivate people to do the work. Competition seems to motivate them. However, not all competition gun handling skills are useful. Ammo management in a match is very different from in the street. Reflexive unloading has been addressed. The draw stroke from the match holster may be very different from your carry holster.
One thing I do like about experienced competition shooter's gun handling is they are usually good about Rule 3. However, Rule 2 in a match is handled very differently from Rule 2 on the street.
Marksmanship
While competition is good at teaching marksmanship, there are a lot more static targets at a match than at a gunfight. If you can't hit the static targets you probably won't hit the moving ones, but it doesn't follow that if you can hit the static targets you can hit the moving ones.

 

[possum]

while cover is a great thing to have at your disposal.
Sometimes Violence of action dosen't call for the use of it.

 

[Barbara]

Off topic now, but I'm giving a bump for Blackhawk's ACTs reference. Good stuff.