A Case For Point Shooting.

[Deaf Smith]

Back when I was diving regularly, I used to follow the accident/injury/fatality reports pretty closely. Most "accidents" and/or fatalities were deemed a result of failure to follow procedures properly. Regardless of the cause, seldom was the victim able to provide a "reason" for his departure from training ("So tell us: Why did you hold your breath and shoot to the surface from 60ft of depth?"). The bottom line is, in most hazardous endeavors, we know more about why someone sticks to their training successfully (because they get to report) than about the things that cause deviation there from.

I remember a sky diver who accidentally left his parachute aboard the aircraft on his 500th jump; we'll never know why for sure (though the new video camera with which he was playing likely had an effect).

101,

Now consider this. Most drivers have what for 'training'? Drivers ed? Are they taught say 4 hours of clock time on how to get out of skids? Are they drilled on how to keep brakes by using closed circut roads? Or any kind of real seriouis hands on training of that type? No right. They drive around town doing right turns and left turns and parking and... everything except practicing real emergencys. And we wonder why we have so many accidents on the roads.

Training matters, but as I pointed out, there are levels of training. And of course if you are trained to do the incorrect thing, or some real complacated thing, well you have better be very very well trained to pull it off.

 

[sesquipedalian101]

Back When I Was diving regularly... <*snip*>

Now Consider This. Most Drivers Have What For 'training'? Drivers Ed? <*snip*>

Dear Deaf,

I am guessing, since you mention Driver's Ed, that you figured I accidently left an "r" out of my previous post. This is not an unreasonable assumption, given that I often get my tongue wrapped around my eye-teeth and I can't see what I am saying -- much less typing. This is further compounded by my wireless keyboard -- which often drops letters when the battery is low...

If it was truly your assumption that I meant "dRiving" in my previous post, then I want to publically thank you for resisting what must have been an overwhealming urge to put away the hog leg, dig out the flame thrower, and roast me. Your civility and willingness to answer in a reasonable manner, what must have seemed an asinine post comparing firearms training to Driver's Ed, does you credit...

With that in mind, let me assure you that I meant "diving" -- as in S.C.U.B.A. Diving -- as in Open Water I, Open Water II, Underwater Search (not S&R), and various other training opportunities. All told, I spent several hundred hours "blowing bubbles" and the training was, indeed, more intense than Driver's Ed -- especially since I absolutely hate/fear water...

Regardless, thanks (seriously) for the thoughtful and courteous reply.


-101-

 

[Deaf Smith]

101,

I'm a PADI Divemaster.... the old Divemaster rateing where you had to take open water, advanced open water, rescue, deep diving, salvage diving, and assist at teaching for a 5 star instructor.

Actually I was not refering to your diving in your post, just that most training courses are not all that thorough. I did mean Drivers Ed!

I once parachuted with the 1st Abn. Brigade. We had a 1/2 day ground school where we were suspended under an A frame and did emergency exercises like what to do if things like a Mae West, Horseshoe, streemer, barberpole, etc... happened when we jumped, not to mention the proper way to open the reserve (a T-10 chute), check the canopy, etc... (funny how I remember all those things) plus jumping off the back of a moving truck to learn how to roll (I didn't even fall to the ground when I landed!)

And then we jumped the next day! Honesty if my chute had of failed I dunno if I would have remembered the right procedure for the right failure.

And that's the whole point. A little training isn't enough! Sure there will be people who get by with little or none, but the more training and higher quality training, all other factors the same, will be a big difference.

 

[threegun]

Deaf,

A little training isn't enough! Sure there will be people who get by with little or none, but the more training and higher quality training, all other factors the same, will be a big difference.

Statistics say that the vast majority of DGU's are resolved without needing to fire the gun.

Doesn't this mean that little or no training is needed to survive all but the most rare events?

 

[David Armstrong]

Doesn't this mean that little or no training is needed to survive all but the most rare events?

Most of the info I've seen shows little or no difference in survival rates in DGUs that can be based on training. Of course, that might be an artifact of the fact that most of these events don't lend themselves to requiring a high skill level to succeed.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Artifact - now that's an academic for you.

I will opine that training is important in the high intensity events. In two rampages, we see the civilian good samaritan having troubles.

Tacoma Mall - the civilian can't take a shot and is paralyzed. For some reason, he froze at the action moment (I could give an opinion as to why - probably couldn't overcome the tension/fear block on acting against another).

Tyler, TX courthouse - Good Samaritan hits the BG who goes down. Instead of hunkering down and/or approaching cautiously, he goes up to the armored BG who kills him. Bad tactics.

Either might have benefited from more intensive simulation training than they seemed to have had.

In most of the DGUs, showing the gun makes the BG go away. In most of the shots fired ones, the BG ceases action. These are probably the economically motivated crimes where the crime going awry doesn't justify the risk of harm to the BG. In the intense incident with emotionally or more motivated actors, then training is probably needed.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Statistics say that the vast majority of DGU's are resolved without needing to fire the gun.

Doesn't this mean that little or no training is needed to survive all but the most rare events?

threegun,

Vast majority of incidences don't have shootings. I've even held on guy at gunpoint for the cops, and I didn't shoot him. Just the sight of the gun was enough to make him freeze, no fancy tactics, speed loading, moving off the X, etc...

But, when such as the Miami shootout happens, yea training matters. You think uncle joe with his Taurus .38 is going to do fine against such as Matix and Platt?

You thing Cirillo, if he had not of had the training he had, he could have enguged three BGs at once and hit all three?

Just the last few days a good man in Lufkin Texas was killed defending his girlfriend who was the manager of Catfish King. BG shot the woman in the ankle and Labrozzi, the good guy, drew against a gun. He wounded the BG and the BG, Womack, who is now looking at capital murder.

Would more training have helped? Might, might not. But it takes a very well trained person to out draw a leveled gun. Fast and well trained.

 

[matthew temkin]

So what are the lesson learned from this incident?
According to the magazine article:

1) Accept the possibility that you may be shot.

2) Be prepared--prepare and train for the worst case scenario.
Make sure the training puts you under pressure so you can react under real life stress.

3) Be vigilant.
Be aware of your surroundings, if you see something irregular, like being followed by a car, then be suspicious, raise your level of vigilance and take action.

4) Never give up.

5) Have something to live for.


Good points, but the author leaves out a lot of the "how to--nuts and bolts" of how to accomplish the above.

 

[sesquipedalian101]

I'm a PADI Divemaster.... the old Divemaster rateing where you had to take open water, advanced open water, rescue, deep diving, salvage diving, and assist at teaching for a 5 star instructor.

Hey, I'm a NAUI guy myself (note to the firearms-types here: If you think "sighted" versus "pointed" shooting generates controversy, just listen in on a PADI versus NAUI discussion )

When I certified OWI, there was a "controversy" raging about whether or not to still require "buddy breathing" drills -- after all, "everybody" was now packing an octopus, right?

The instructor I had still required multiple hours of buddy breathing practice because "When your buddy needs air, you always know where one regulator is." Later, after reading the afformentioned accident reports, I realized that the octopus often gets dragged through the muck and gunk and may be of questionable operability when needed; so, I started velcroing it in the middle of the "golden triangle" (for you firearm types, that's the CoM location you are taught to aim at). Eventually, I sprung for a SpareAir (tm) to put there as well, figuring it would do me more good should I ever be the one needing the assist (and, that I could also just hand it to my buddy and not have s/he trying to breathe off my tank while in panic mode).

So, your comments about training are not lost on me... I am also not above going beyond training when I see obvious deficiencies (it was a year or more after I started the "velcro it in place" routine that I saw a "NAUI News" article advising that practice; by then many of the people with whom I dived regularly had started doing it as well.)

I have the same basic philosopy with firearms. Training is great! Going beyond training when something is "obviously deficient" is only prudent...

My original point, however, is that post-incident analysis of how training affects performance in life and death situation (both in diving and w/firearms) sometimes has "missing data."

In the Texas case you cite, for example, do we know if Labrozzi was insufficiently and/or poorly trained? Do we know if he knew he would probably die, but read the situation as "we're going to die anyway" and I might be able to save my GF? Do we know if he was excellently trained but something "psychological" or some "physiological" (ever have an arthritic joint "lock up" on you?) happened to interfere? My original point was that, in such cases, the data from one important source (in this case, Labrozzi) may be "missing."

One needs to be careful of generalizations based on such data, particularly if such generalizations start with "Never" or "Always."


-101-

 

[Deaf Smith]

101,

What we do know is Labrozzi is dead, and thus his training may well have not been enough (or he would not have died, right?) Training includes much more than just shooting, like awareness of the situation so you can see it coming, situational positioning, minimizing exposure, etc...)

I have a few friends in Lufkin and I'll see what I can find out about how much, if any, training he had.

BTW, spare air is the way to go as far as I'm conserned. I never liked the octopus all that much. And spare air can be used for other things (like getting out of a smoke filled room.)

Every time before I go diving I throw the rig, BC Vest and all, in a pool and check everything out. I hate renting equipment at unknown shops.

Did you know fire fighters tanks are mostly fiberglass? At were I work I'm on the ERT team (it's hazmat.. I actually had one employee ask me if it was the bomb squad!) We have such tanks. Real light weight yet over 45 min of air. Catch is they have a very definate shelf life a steel or aluminum tank doesn't. But they are way much lighter than our tanks.

 

[Deaf Smith]

From what I've found out so far, according to a Lufkin PD 'friend', Labrozzi had just had the Basic CHL, nothing else. And being a CHL instructor, I can tell you the qualification is NOT a defensive test of skills.