Are You A Sitting Duck For A Shooting Lawsuit - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

okjoe

Moderator
Because the original thread is getting sort of long, I am taking the preemptive move of starting another. The original posting is immediately below with the link code to the original thread. So you can continue here or go their first. Whatever.

If you are a trainer, you may be a sitting duck for a wrongful death or injury lawsuit brought against you on behalf of one of your students who is injured or killed in a close quarters (CQ), armed encounter, or on behalf of a person they injure or kill.
If you are a student, you should be concerned as you may be on the same hook.

Here is why.

Almost all students are trained in and tested on traditional CQ shooting methods of applying deadly force, and almost all of those shooting methods employ the use of one or both sights when shooting. There may be exceptions, but they are rare.

On the surface, there appears to be nothing amiss. However, those methods of shooting ARE NOT used in real gunfights. PlusP has said in prior threads, that based on a review of 900+ videos of real shootouts, sighted shooting does not occur in then. He also has said that he himself has been in one or more gunfights as a LEO, so he qualifies as having been there and done that. And he has a company that specializes in the training and application of lethal force.

I believe him. I have reviewed many gunfight videos myself, all of which support his statement. I came to that conclusion about three years ago and have been beating the drum about it since then. I even filed a patent for a device that grew out that conclusion. It can assist one in shooting accurately in shootouts, and it has recently been granted.

Further, in real gunfights, four out of every five bullets shot by police, who are trained and tested on those same shooting methods, miss and may injure or kill others. The accuracy number comes from a statment made by a former training supervisor of the FBI Academy. I think he said it was less than 18 percent. Suffice it to say that real gunfight accuracy sucks.

Further yet, police casualty rates are atrocious, one dead every seven days for the last ten years, and thousands and thousands injured during that time using current shooting methods. All the dead were feloniously shot with handguns, and with handguns other than their own. That info comes from FBI UCR stats.

Lastly, DOJ stats show that the police casualties cost us taxpayers millions and millions and millions of dollars in terms of replacement costs, medical costs, disability and widows and childrens pensions, legal costs, etc.. And guess what, unless something changes, you can expect the same for the next ten years.

The statements made about the use of sighted shooting in gunfights have been disputed with honest recollections, but no one to date has presented any real evidence that refutes them.

So what does it all mean Dean? (ala The Choirboys)

Simply said, it means that current training programs do not teach methods of applying deadly force that occur in real time CQ encounters.

So in light of the above, if you are a trainer, ask your attorney and insurer if they have any injury or wrongful death liability concerns about you training people to use methods of applying deadly force that really are not used in CQ encounters in which your trainees will stand a real chance of being shot and killed.

What they should respond with is, "Say what?" And they should also look at you as if you have a screw or bolt loose somewhere. What they will probably do, is look directly at you and calmly and say in a friendly voice, "Good question. Let me check that out and get back to you. OK?"

Then ask them if they have any injury or wrongful death liability concerns about the fact that since you give your trainees the same type of training as police professionals get, and in shootouts police accuracy is less than 20 percent, if push ever comes to shove with your trainees, four out of every five of the bullets they shoot will most likely miss and may hit or kill someone other than their target.

They will probably squint a bit, and say with a smile: "You are just full of good questions today aren't you.... Let me look into that too."

Now if you are the trainee/shooter, you also should be concerned, because if you are involved in a CQ shooting and survive by some quirk of fate, it is YOU who will be sliced up and put under the microscope of a shooting investigation, or a civil trial, or criminal trail, or all three depending on whether you are lucky or unlucky enough to have shot someone.

I understand that FOP's (Fraternal Order of Police), supply their members with insurance that covers shooting defense costs for free or for a nominal fee.

How about bullseye or sight shooting schools?
How about the NRA?
And if not, why not?

Also, since this thread is about gun use, any suggestions on an alternate shooting method to employ in real CQ encounters since traditional site shooting methods are seen in real time to come up empty when the chips are down.

Let me know if my trolley is off its track on this. I am sure you will.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Here is the click-on link to the original thread.
[Link to invalid post]

Edited 08:15 PST

[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 19, 2000).]
 
respectfully: you assume that any person involved in a "gunfight" will go on automatic and not use thier sights. i submit that with the proper real world stress fire training, you can and will use at least your front sight, and you can and will hit with a percentage higher than average law enforcement officers. most of my shooting friends practice more often and under more realistic situations than LEO's. certainly competion shooters in action shooting sports will be as difficult to "out shoot" as a seasoned competion martial artists are hard to beat in street fights. to those that compete as well as practice, shooting/fighting/defense become second nature, not theory. a cool head and a thinking mind is yor greatest advantage. a quote from ole Elmer Keith is on my mind much of the time i am shooting under stress. "The man that can keep his wits about him and aims carefully when the situation has gone bad and lead is flying will usually win the fight." quote is from "Hell I was There." i think the title says it all.

------------------
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
Let he that hath no sword sell his garment and buy one.--And they said. Lord here are two swords. And he said unto them. That is not enough. Luke 22-36,38
They all hold swords, being expert in war: every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night. Song of Solomon 3-8
 
i submit that with the proper real world stress fire training, you can and will use at least your front sight,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stress fire? Nice buzzwords. Sorry, a real life shooting is NOT stress. Stress is a late mortgage payment. We are talking FRIGHT and the rules change when we cross that line as we all will. With a 92% miss rate I think that theory falls pretty flat unless the 8% of hits are with that theory. We keep down playing the impact of the brain in these situations vs confusing a physical response. With most shootings at 10-11 feet and the lack of lighting I don't think the theory holds up. And science is clear on it. You can not train out of weapon threat focus. You have two choices on that one. A firearms instructor or a full blown PHD or better. Your choice, I know mine.
Kinda like the guy who said he saw Pam Anderson naked and admired her toe nail polish.
 
Darrell-
Evidently you missed my questions in part one. I'll try again.

Of your 900 shooting videos, what does your research show of the training these men received? Were none of them point shooters? If so, what were their miss rates? If not, are we to conclude that point shooters don't miss?

You propagate a statistical fallacy when you draw conclusions about two subgroups by attributing all the negative results only to one....you prove no point whatsoever, other than the fact that the data has yet to be analyzed in a critical manner.
Rich
 
> So you found a study or scientific support that range scores or bulk of training increases survivability. Please fill us in.<

That study would be called History. First we had handguns w/o sights and people squaring off against each other one on one shooting one shot. Sometimes they were hit. Then we moved into revolvers w/sights and had high noon shootouts (not like TV/movies these were full-blown firefights). Bullets missing a lot and the better shooters taking their time and used their sights. Next we get into this century with the FBI setting the standard with their "Fighting Stance" method. Hits were problematic still (but using your concept hits should have been high). Then along came a group of Military/Law Enforcement individuals that put together the S/W Pistol League trying to find a better way. Stances were worked on and Aimed fire was found to work best. This then evolved into the Modern Technique. So yes... there are "studies" out there... they have been going on since the handgun was invented. And you propose to return to the beginning?


> Also you say "practice" but fail to note what kind and how much. <

Practice of your Techniques, under simulated conditions (shortness of breath, High Pulse, Under Time, Against another that is also competing to "beat" you). As to how much that depends on the individual and what he can afford both in time/funds and how much he wants to perfect/improve his skill.

> Stress fire? Nice buzzwords. <

So is "buzzwords" (ie a buzzword) for trying to dispel things. ;)

> We are talking FRIGHT and the rules change when we cross that line as we all will. <

(Fright -> buzzword alert!) No... You’re talking FRIGHT. Lets call it what it really is called in a life/death situation. A few things happen (physically) when faced with this type situation but the brain has two choices Flight or Fight. I think you are confusing Flight with Fright. There is a difference. Even in a Fight mode you can still be frightened.

> We keep down playing the impact of the brain in these situations vs confusing a physical response.<

Exactly. The impact of the brain and the individuals (buzz word alert -> )MINDSET in reaction to what is happening to put him in a dangerous situation.

> Please explain the DOJ study showing a HIT rate of 91% by thugs who have little or no training.

I submit the following (and I hope I explain it so that you and others don't get the wrong concept). Those that practice (whatever technique) also have a side effect of becoming mentally prepared to use those skills. This is one of the reasons that the recognized firearm schools also teach proper mindset... (Buzzword alert -> The Warrior Mindset). Could it be that those that practice are better prepared physically & mentally in a L/D Situation and revert to their practice of techniques in the Fight mode. While those that don't practice techniques revert to physicals skills of techniques they don't have in the Flight mode.

Additionally, as is well know, most LEO (with the exception of CERT/Etc) don't practice except for yearly qualifications. So when they get into a situation they are not prepared physically nor metally. They are in a flight mode, thinking this can't be happening to them, and as trained will try to get out of the situation to call backup or start fumbling around trying to get off any kind of shots.

While this is happening the thugs are in a full Fight mode being totally focused on removing the threat (LEO) so that they won't lose their freedom/life. Look at the Miami FBI Shootout (and this is by NO means a shot of those brave individuals)... who was in the Offensive Mode who was Defensive? Look at the LA Bank Shootout... same question.

All parties involved were well trained and well practiced. The thugs took the Offensive Fight mode and unfortunately were better gunned then the FBI. The FBI still had to retreat (to reload) which I'm sure had a powerful mental effect. In LA the only reason the Thugs finally lost was because of overwhelming forces.

Sooooooo the bottom line in my opinion (and to keep this post from going into the gigabit range) is that whatever technique you choose you must practice it and practice it. Sighted fire is more accurate then unsighted. And Mindset is everything.

Mr. P, you and I have disagreed on this subject before. You know my thoughts/where I stand on this technique/subject and I, likewise, yours. I will try not to debate this in the future with you and use up band width as (and I know you'll agree with me on this) we both have better things to do.


------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
When Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald with just one shot, he did the right thing in terms of close quarters shooting, and he also did the one thing that gives the BG's the upper hand initially. He used his middle finger on the trigger so we can assume he used the P&S method that I have been flapping my gums about, and he acted rather than reacted. The picture is on my web page. To see it click here http://members.aol.com/okjoe/ruby.htm

I also would like to thank all of you have put up posts here. It helps in learning about what really happens in close quarters shooting, and how to deal with hard case instructor and shooter types who have particular mind sets that are honestly and firmly held. I think you hard cases out their will change your thinking and come to accept the new fangled ideas because you want what is best for you and your families, and you also don't want to end up in bankrupty court. Life, love, and money are good incentives for taking action.

And the lawsuits have already begun.
 
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Neat thing about the middle finger-- it's the strongest digit that we have, besides the thumb.

<LI>Also of interest: the two weakest fingers: ring and pinky.


<LI>Of further interest: common user-caused-pistol malfunction is "limp wrist syndrome"; not holding firmly enough to one's pistol.

<LI>Current pistol design is for pistols to be held in-line with the wrist and forearm by the hand with the thumb, middle, and ring fingers, with the little finger providing some minor stability.

<LI>Another good reason to have a good grip on one's pistol is for weapon retention in C.Q.C. This is one reason why many experts prefer an intermediate-length barrel to a long barrel for self-defense pistols; longer barrels give your opponent more handle to lever the piece from your hand, should it be grabbed. This should never happen? Agreed. But you should never allow yourself to have to have to resort to deadly force, either. Plans fail.</UL>
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Pluspinc said:
"> Please explain the DOJ study showing a HIT rate of 91% by thugs who have little or no training."[/quote]

I already did, a few threads back: Thugs START fights. They DECIDE to shoot. They are NOT shooting "back." They are simply shooting. If you were to pick up your pistol, walk out to your porch, and shoot your dog, you'd be using the same skill level as most thugs do to attain that much-vaunted "91%."

[finger circling in air] Whoopee!

Shooting BACK is harder.

Shooting back and WINNING is even harder.


===========================

All that tape watching must have shown that, out of what? 900 videos? the cops shot first about... HOW OFTEN? Pretty rarely. And every dadgummed time, they shot in panicked retalliation to a perceived threat of the life or limb of themselves or another.

Meanwhile, the badguy typically pulls out his gat and plugs the officer. It's much, much easier when it's a liquor store or convenience store or ATM robbery or carjacking. In most of these, there're flash burns on the victims. Why in the world are we then including bad guys in our discussion of technique? In most of those situations, technique is NOT an ISSUE! Simple willingness and prior intent to kill another human being is.

To beat someone with such willingness and prior intent, we must employ good technique, well-practiced.
 
OKjoe,
I'm unclear as to how a point blank suprise assassination is relevant to defensive shooting. I will reiterate that I believe anyone in the same scenario will score a 91%+ hit ratio. That said, it proves little.
 
Hopefully +P will post again and confirm this. I'd bet that a large number of those videos show officers reacting to agressive or furtive movement by the BG. Movements or gestures that led them to believe that they were about to be shot at. Does the Diallo case ring a bell? Turns out he was reaching for his wallet, but how were they to know?

Dismissing the BG's hit rate as due mostly to ambushes is irresponsible. Let's remember, car cams don't roll tape 24/7! They are activated by the officer prior to leaving the safety of the cruiser for some activity.

Businesses, OTOH, are normally set up in this manner. A man who was clerking at a stop-and-rob in my town was forced to shoot his armed assailant. He drew from strong side concealment, thrust the gun out isoceles style, crouched/hunched down markedly, and fired twice(ALRIGHT-double tapped). He scored one upper shoulder hit and one fairly well COM. The 10mm Silvertips did their job well.

What's the point? He was well versed in the Modern technique, from hanging with LEO's as friends for years. I know this because he was later hired by my agency, and I watched him qualify! Yet, when it hit the oscillator for him, those "instincts" OK & +P are talking about took over. In all fairness, I do NOT know how many hours/days/weeks he practiced his techniques. The point is, a good shooter (on the range) did something else entirely when it was for real. ???
 
Didn't say it was. It just shows that P&S is effective. 1 bullet, 1 kill. Will it work in a real time shootout, beats me?

It is instinctive, and based on what I have seen in videos (no sight shooting ever used), and based on what I have read about what the FBI says what happens (less than 20% hits), what would I have to lose?

nada

Here is a brief on P&S. It is in the public domain so anyone can use it at their own risk.

P&S is AIMED shooting that utilizes the natural and instinctive tool that we all have that allows us to aim fast, automatically, and accurately at stuff, people, or whatever. That tool is our index finger. It can be used to aim a gun fast, automatically, and accurately at night or day and with little or no training.

To P&S, you place your index finger along the side of a gun, point it at a target, and pull the trigger with your middle or left index finger.

Just point and pull. No more, no less. It's a no brainer, any bozo can use it, and it works because the gun barrel becomes a slave to the index finger. It can be used in instinctive situations. It is not new, but it is not well known in the gun world as a survival shooting method.

More info on it and articles on it that have been published in the The Backup, American Police Beat, Southern Lawman Magazine, WomenPolice, POLICE and the IACP journal, are on my web page http://members.aol.com/okjoe/ps.htm

Now because this thread was not to rehash and rehash what youse have already said and not proved many times over, how about some constructive inputs or have we already reached perfection in close quarters shooting methods. And if so what is it, or what are they, and how come there are so many dead and injured cops every year?

If you come up with something new, a ready and waiting platform is available for testing it. Current car cams can easily and readily serve as that testing platform. They can provide feedback on what works and what doesn't in real time close quarters armed encounters.

All that is needed is a few good ideas from a few good men, and a few volunter agencies that should be very willing to participate, since there is little to lose and much to gain by doing so.

Training staffs, once they get through their chagrin and embarassment of the moment, can be charged with implementing the changes.

That will not be soon enough however, for those who are going to be shot or shot and killed before needed remidies are found, tested, and come on line.

BONK

The ball is now in your court.

Edited 16:15 PST

[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 20, 2000).]
 
To P&S, you place your index finger along the side of a gun, point it at a target, and pull the trigger with your middle or left index finger. Just point and pull. No more, no less.

I just tried repeatedly pointing my finger at things, and then sighting down said finger to see what it was actually pointing at. Result? Invariably off target.

(Anyone got a pistol with a laser that can be used to test this a with actual hardware? Point pistol, activate laser, note error?)
 
Here is what one party who works in a Sherrif's Department said about P&S:

I have shot using the P&S method. I have had varied results.

I shot 700 rounds using the method with my S&W 4506.

100 at 1 yard (quick draw...shoot from the hip)

100 at 3 yards double tap technique

100 at 5 yards 3 rounds in 5 seconds

100 at 7 yards 3 rounds in 5 seconds

100 at 10 yards

100 at 15 yards

100 at 25 yards

From 10 yards and under, I found that it was extremely accurate... and to be honest... how many gun fights will you get into at more than that?

At the 15 yard mark, I had trouble keeping the target, until I canted the weapon to the left (I'm a righty shooter)... gangster style... but not as much cant... maybe 45 degrees.

At the 25 yard mark, I had trouble hitting the target. I can see the potential for this technique, but I guess I must practice it at long range to become extremely accurate.

I think I would be a great idea to have this technique taught at the police academies and also have the gun manufacturers create a grip with the guide built in... but maybe not as wide off the grip. Maybe a 1/4 inch off the gun... just using it as support anyway.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Don't care if you use P&S or not, if you single shoot, double tap, or tripple tap, or dump your gun, or don't shoot, or whatever.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Got any ideas for improvement yourself?

You can make a difference, but you have to try.

Edited 19:15 pst

[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 20, 2000).]
 
What's the point? He was well versed in the Modern technique, from hanging with LEO's
as friends for years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You claim you didn't know what his backgroud was besides HANGING. Maybe we should do that now. As for HIS performance, bit was pristine, but so are MANY where the shooter had NO experience and the haunting 91% hit rate by thugs stand unless we assume they have been "hanging."
The "one time school" isn't very valid. I know a cop who killed TWO with one shot from his Remington 870 at a measured 52 yards. Should we call that normal and now switch all our training to reflect his case? He had bead sights so we now can claim he did all of this with training. As in guns as in women, they are not predictable for the most part.
Look at HUNDREDS of cases and then form an opinion. To do otherwise is pretty risky in the real world.
As for the finger not being accurate, I haven't pointed at someone and said "come here," and the guy off in the distance to the right said, " who me?" If the finger is loaded at normal shooting ranges it would be very deadly. I've had enough of them pushed into my chest over the years to figure that out.
 
OkJoe: >>P&S is AIMED shooting .....<<

Still trying to follow. Is "aimed" different from "sighted"?

This is still unclear, after many megabytes of discussion. Seems this "system" might not be as "simple" as claimed.
 
Well what can I say to add to this enlightening discussion? Not much in the way of new info, just my take on what a Joe Blow considers decent training for CQ sits. and panick accuracy. And lets be honest here folks, "panick" can be a very accurate discriptor for CQ when it arrives.

So far, God willing, I have been blessed with not being acosted with this L/D situation and cannot speak to what I would/will do if ever the need arises. With that said, I would consider the previous posts as "advice" only and take from it what I think will work for me.

My personal CQC practice regimine includes what used to be called "Instinct Shooting" at the less than 10yds scale and move towards "sited aim" out past the 10yd dictum. This seems to have worked well for me even when changing between my .44 Special S+W mod 25-2 snubby to my 9mm auto high cap pt-92. I've taken several Combat courses given by a retired Texas Constable friend of mine who has several good layouts and mixes of situational challenges. My hits stay constant at around 77% even on the move. Now as I said before, I've never been in any firefights so lighten up if you're gearing towards hammertime. I have been fired upon, but never had the opportunity to return fire. Drive by's can be such a pain! No hits on me.

My elongated point herin is this: As many arguments can be made for or against the past,current or proposed institutions WRT CQC as the ever popular debate between which is better, Wheelgun or auto loader. Personal preferance and practice, practice,practice, practice, practice ad infinitem, is key to hit %'s. Testing oneself in different CQ senarios is also key. Preaching to the choir is also one of my character flaws so please forgive me if I bore some of you.

Upon crossover to deciding to be the "Killer Ape" instead of the pacifist dominated (victim) I chose to take up the tool that liberates and have met the ramifications of legalities in my mind and accepted them. Onus on my part is to be as accurate as is humanly possible WRT my personal expertise and let the chips fall where they may. God forbid I should ever have to snuff out a BG. I will though, and I have made that conscious decision also. Now I have to find someone to take this used soapbox off my hands.

Any buyers?
 
We are talking CLOSE QUARTERS. We are not talking Point and Shoot, and we are not talking Sighted or Bullseye shooting, because they don't happen in close quarters shootouts. What does happen is POINT the gun and BLAST.

You are supposed to come up with some better shooting methods. If you can't you will be taking the side of those who want to ban handguns, as handgun shooting methods are about on a par with hand grenades when it comes to close quarters shootout accuracy, and hand grenades are baned. How is this for a headline "Shooters demand that guns be baned. ---- Story follows."

If there are any NRA members out their, feel free to run this by the NRA training staffs. Since I take it that the NRA is supposed to be interested in their members welfare, and that the NRA does provide shooting training for close quarters, does the NRA have any suggestions for new methods, and does the NRA have any proof that what they teach actually works?

Now before you get all hot and bothered about gun banning, I am gun neutral. I am for more deadly guns as they will be safer for the user and those not involved in a confrontation.

That's why I am on this P&S kick.

P&S is AIMED instinctive shooting that does not employ the gun sights for aiming but still works, and as such is applicable to close quarters shooting.

Let's consider the legal side of using it for a bit.

One or more of you have said that if I tried to defend the use of P&S in a courtroom, the lawyer for the other side would make mincemeat out of me, or something like that.

Well, here is a way to prove to any jury, in any court, that P&S works as advertised.

First, get a bunch of laser pointers. Now use scotch tape and attach one of them to an index finger of each jury member. I am sure you can find some laser pointers that can be attached that way and which also have an on/off button that can be worked with a finger of the other hand.

Tell the jurors to imagine that the laser device is a gun barrel against which they have just placed their index finger for the purpose of accurately aiming it. Tell them to keep their index finger straight and curl the middle, ring, and little fingers back against their palm.

Next, tell them to use their other hand to help grasp and support the "gun" that they have just made, and to imagine that the on/off button of the laser is the trigger. Tell them to place one of their fingers of the supporting hand on the trigger, but don't pull it.

Now dim the lights of the courtroom, and tell them to point their finger at some object or person that is fairly close to them in the courtroom, and press the on an/off button. Tell them to just point their finger and pull the trigger. Say "all you have to do is point and pull, point and pull, point and pull."

After bit, end the experiment and collect the devices.

Then, depending on whether or not you want a conviction or an aquital, tell them:

If you got a hit you must convict!

or,

If you got a hit you must aquit!

I rest my case.

I have thought about getting a laser pointer and trying that, but I haven't. I used a gun, so I know that P&S works as advertised.

BONK...

Edited 1:40 AM PST

[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 22, 2000).]
 
I am an NRA Certified Pistol and Personal Defense Instructor. I am also an NRA member.
So - to answer the above post - let me state this:
I do not train anyone in point shooting. In fact, I have spent many hours retraing fellows that had learned point shooting.

What you and +P dont seem to get is that you cant miss fast enough to win a gun fight.
This crap about using the middle finger for the trigger? No... works fine for cap guns. But real guns, for sighted and effective fire - you use your real trigger finger because while it may not be stronger - it doesnt need to be... It is more sensitive. Why is that important? Try braking with your left foot. See how smooth you are coming to a stop. The left foot is fine for the Clutch - but breaking quite often needs more skill. Your right foot is used for breaking, it is trained for it and is more sensitive to the road feel - letting you brake smoothly under more tricky situations. What You and +P are saying is that you just need to mash the brake down hard each time... If your in a canyon raod squirting through the curves at warp factor 10 and suddenly mash the brake when you needed to ease it with some delicate touches - you'll end up going backwards off the road and out over a chasm... You just lost control and died.
 
What you and +P dont seem to get is that you cant miss fast enough to win a gun fight.
This crap about using the middle finger for the trigger (George)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have NEVER suggested using the middle finger except for road related communications. C'mon George you are reaching and getting disoriented here. I have NEVER responded to ONE post Joe has made that I can recall. In fact I have avoided doing so. If you can find otherwise let me know.
++++++++++++++
I am an NRA Certified Pistol and Personal Defense Instructor. I am also an NRA member.
(George)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What does this have to do with anything. You spent a day or two in a classroom. Such credentials are pretty slim for a foundation for an argument. But if it shakes your malt.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(George rambles on)..If your in a canyon raod squirting through the curves at warp factor 10 and suddenly mash the brake when you needed to ease it with some delicate touches - you'll end up going backwards off the road and out over a chasm... You just lost control and died.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well you got from self-defense to automobiles. Not bad for the hour of day. If you think anyone does "delicate touches" at warp factor 10 I got news for you. You just proved my points very well. You seem like the type that would brag they got Pam Anderson into bed and counted strokes. You know, "those delicate touches." Nice try guy.
You also seem to think the MASAAD are all morons. You should shoot with one and see what happens. Don't bet money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top