Are You A Sitting Duck For A Shooting Lawsuit - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that the call for specific documented evidence *and* for better methods than the current training are reasonable.

Given that we now have egos on the line, I would humbly suggest a few moments of reflection on the importance or lack thereof of having the last word in this argument. At this point you are possibly convincing the lurkers but not your debate opponents anyway...

------------------
Oleg "cornered rat" Volk (JPFO,NRA)

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
Okjoe,

If you rule out both sighted shooting and point shooting (which most of us would define as aligning the pistol with the target without the use of sights), that doesn't leave much room for "alternate" methods, does it?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sight Shooting is all smoke and mirrors (now you see it, then you don't), and Point Shooting equals Point and Blast. So there you have it.
[/quote]

There you have it, indeed! You seem to have concluded that nothing works.

For the sake of argument, though, let's "think outside the box" and examine our full range of senses as possible aids in putting bullets on target:

1) Sight - Already dismissed.

2) Hearing - Could we design a pistol that would beep or chime when "locked onto" a target? Or perhaps it could emit a steady tone that would vary in pitch with the muzzle's movement towards the target? Either way, I don't think such an approach is practical with current technology.

3) Touch - Same concept as #2, except tactile indicators would replace the auditory ones. Same technological problems, too.

4) Smell - ??? Perhaps for a dog, but I don't think human olfactory senses are refined enough.

5) Taste - ??? See #4.

That should cover all the possibilities, unless we're going to aim with our "sixth sense" of intuition or possibly our sense of humor. :)

Should we go through a similar exercise with all the different body parts that can be used to pull the trigger? :eek:
 
Sorry Guy's,
I hope that post made sense :(

I worked until 3 a.m., then we shot until 5 a.m. We didn't shoot the entire time, we also trained room clearing in anticipation of up coming force on force training.

After all that macho adrenalin stuff and a pot of coffee I couldn't sleep.

I would like to hear from anyone who has tried this. Did I do it right?

Does anyone remember the NBA playoff game between the Bulls and the Hawks. Jordan is standing at the free throw line. He looks at one of the Hawks and says "Watch this", he closes his eyes and shoots. He made it. That is what I'm talking about. Having been there so many times, He didn't have to look. I have shot from that "posture" so many times, maybe at certain close ranges I/We don't have to "look".

Just a thought. :)
------------------
"There is a common thread between competition and combat shooting - only hits count" Keith Cunningham

[This message has been edited by FVK (edited March 24, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mooser:
although there seems to be lots of transplanted yankees.[/quote]

I resemble that remark. However, I am not a Yankee (someone visiting) nor a Damn Yankee (someone who is staying)...

I, Sir, am a Born Again Southerner! :D



------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
One of the things that I really enjoy in these type of threads is when people analyze the performance of LEO in combat. While I have a great respect for the service they provide us civilians, I know for a fact that their training in both CQB and defensive tactics is sorely lacking. Many get tiny numbers of hours annually of official training and elect NOT to pursue much outside. In the training I have taken on defensive pistol, some of the worst performers by far are the LEO's that have sought out more training on their own dime!

I think if people are looking for relevant examples of "good" training and the effects of it, shouldn't we be looking at some of the organizations that have arguably the best CQB shooters and their training regimens?

I think more like Delta Force, Seal Team Six, GSG-9, some of the SAS units, etc. While not charged with enforcing the law, that is not the central issue here...it seems like validity of training is. For instance, I believe qualification for Delta is something like room entry, two shots ea. to three bad guys w/ 3 hostages in room in under 3 seconds or so. This with no harm to any hostages. Isn't this the kind of no mistakes allowed performance we are talking about?

Just thought it seemed odd that we always mention LEO training in relation to this stuff when they constantly look to the military for their guidance.

Hmmmm...



------------------
The fox provides for himself, but God provides for the lion--R. Kipling
 
Re: real time close quarters shooting:

I advocate P&S which you all say won't work.

Well, Point Shooting doesn't work. It defaults to Point and Blast. And Sight Shooting doesn't happen. But hey I didn't do it, it's a stinking situation, but that is the way it is. Some things just stink.

Youse experts are charged with coming up with something better, not me.

FYI: An old fart who hadn't shot a gun in over forty years, put 6 out of 7 in an 11x17 inch target at 25 feet pulling the trigger as fast as he could just like you see on TV to see if P&S would work when shooting a handgun very rapidly and multiple times. Guess what? It did.

No training, no brain, just Point & Pull, Point & Pull, Point & Pull. Guess what again? I shall now call it Point & Pull, or PP for short. Besides a smile or a smirk, it may get someone's attention. Ooops. Sorry. I must be mistaken, because I have been told by the experts that it is a dumb idea that won't work.

Well dear experts, what will???

Edited 15:07


[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 24, 2000).]
 
Current shooting methods are not getting the job done.

From what I can gather, it's primarly due to lack of practice. Regardless of the system, if you don't practice it and internalize it and make it automatic, it won't happen.

The references to 900 shooting videos "proving" that sighted shooting doesn't work were never backed up with any statistics on what the shooter learned and how often he practiced. We're still waiting for something more meaningful than "I watched 900 videos and got the impression that sighted shooting doesn't work".

Your occasional anecdotes of old fogies making it happen on the first try in 30 years (or whatever other singular stories you relate) don't help the issue. Each one is easily countered with similar examples that P&S doesn't work. What we need from the P&S side is meaningful studies noting what method was used, what method was taught, frequency of training, ambushing vs. panicked, etc. etc. etc. Anecdotes and insults won't help us reach a conclusion.

Sorry. I must be mistaken, because I have been told by the experts that it is a dumb idea that won't work.
Well dear experts, what will???

The almost unanimous answer from the sighted-fire side is PRACTICE. If the student does not practice, then no technique will work well.

You can't validly claim that 900 videos shows that sighted fire doesn't work if 850+ of those shooters practiced less than 6 times a year. It's not the technique's fault if the practitioner didn't practice.

If the student practices either technique enough, then he can become entirely skilled and adequate in that technique. I'm sure there are people who can well out-shoot me with P&S.

Sure one may forget what one learned even with practice. Will it really make much difference which technique is forgotten? Both must be learned.


Once PRACTICE is taken to an adequate level (and statstical studies are done to verify that practice makes perfect) then the question of what to practice may be examined.

Let's compare the techniques:

Sighted shooting
- Hold handgun as handgun was designed to be held
- Hold handgun with strongest grip with one finger free for the trigger
- Point gun
- Get positive feedback regarding direction of barrel
- Use feedback loop to iteratively correct for accuracy error
- Pull trigger

Point & Shoot
- Hold gun in way not designed for
- - Note that this grip on a revolver may result in serious finger damage (possible amputation)
- Hold gun with weakest fingers, leaving strongest fingers to not exert much force
- Point gun
- No feedback as to accuracy of direction
- No correcting for error as error is not noted
- Pull trigger

Well, right off the bat P&S has more problems than sighted firing. When planning on things to go wrong, one does not intentionally start closer to that state.

How can each go wrong?
Sighted fire: failure to check sights (i.e.: barrel direction) fails to detect mis-aiming.
Point & Shoot: failure to check barrel direction fails to detect mis-aiming...but that's what we were doing in the best case, right?

Enough of bashing P&S. Most people here deem it an inherently error-prone system and can articulate why, while the few supporters refuse to address the point that people do not necessarily point where they think they do, especially under stress.

To return to the final question:
Well dear experts, what will???

Any working system must have some kind of feedback loop that allows for detection and correction of aiming errors. If you don't, then stress/fear/etc. will induce and magnify errors without the shooter detecting and correcting for them.

The main complaint from +P and okjoe is the observation that under stress/fear/whateveritis, people fail to complete that feedback loop and think with their spinal cord instead of their brain, a legitimate concern. To hit the target, the hand must point the gun at the target seen by the eye. Well, I hate to break it to some of you but: hand-eye coordination goes to pot in those situations, and without feedback and correction, the system is broken and won't work reliably.

The only other solution is a mechanical one: put the feedback loop in a machine. I think we can all agree that solution won't work either.

If you really want to promote something other than sighted fire, you'll have to change the requirements for tools used. Perhaps one could build a gun suitable for P&S: an appropriately-shaped groove for the pointing finger (designed to protect the finger from revolver's sideways discharge or auto's slide motion), second & third finger grip (for strength, pinky trigger (weakest finger), recognize that two-finger grip is simply weaker than three, and add a laser for some hope of feedback. Goofy looking gun, but best chance for P&S to work.

I'd recommend using the tool as it was designed to be used, and practice until the motions are so automatic that they will stay present under stress/fear/etc. Sighted fire will help train the body to do the accurate motion such that it will likely repeat proper motion & direction even without the feedback loop (like an orchestra that can give a performance without the conductor).

+P & okjoe, you don't seem to have articulated the actual problem well. 900 videos may show that something is wrong, but you haven't proven that it is sighted firing instead of PRACTICE.
 
Current shooting methods are not getting the job done.

From what I can gather, it's primarly due to lack of practice. Regardless of the system, if you don't practice it and internalize it and make it automatic, it won't happen.

The references to 900 shooting videos "proving" that sighted shooting doesn't work were never backed up with any statistics on what the shooter learned and how often he practiced. We're still waiting for something more meaningful than "I watched 900 videos and got the impression that sighted shooting doesn't work".

Your occasional anecdotes of old fogies making it happen on the first try in 30 years (or whatever other singular stories you relate) don't help the issue. Each one is easily countered with similar examples that P&S doesn't work. What we need from the P&S side is meaningful studies noting what method was used, what method was taught, frequency of training, ambushing vs. panicked, etc. etc. etc. Anecdotes and insults won't help us reach a conclusion.

Sorry. I must be mistaken, because I have been told by the experts that it is a dumb idea that won't work.
Well dear experts, what will???

The almost unanimous answer from the sighted-fire side is PRACTICE. If the student does not practice, then no technique will work well.

You can't validly claim that 900 videos shows that sighted fire doesn't work if 850+ of those shooters practiced less than 6 times a year. It's not the technique's fault if the practitioner didn't practice.

If the student practices either technique enough, then he can become entirely skilled and adequate in that technique. I'm sure there are people who can well out-shoot me with P&S.

Sure one may forget what one learned even with practice. Will it really make much difference which technique is forgotten? Both must be learned.


Once PRACTICE is taken to an adequate level (and statstical studies are done to verify that practice makes perfect) then the question of what to practice may be examined.

Let's compare the techniques:

Sighted shooting
- Hold handgun as handgun was designed to be held
- Hold handgun with strongest grip with one finger free for the trigger
- Point gun
- Get positive feedback regarding direction of barrel
- Use feedback loop to iteratively correct for accuracy error
- Pull trigger

Point & Shoot
- Hold gun in way not designed for
- - Note that this grip on a revolver may result in serious finger damage (possible amputation)
- Hold gun with weakest fingers, leaving strongest fingers to not exert much force
- Point gun
- No feedback as to accuracy of direction
- No correcting for error as error is not noted
- Pull trigger

Well, right off the bat P&S has more problems than sighted firing. When planning on things to go wrong, one does not intentionally start closer to that state.

How can each go wrong?
Sighted fire: failure to check sights (i.e.: barrel direction) fails to detect mis-aiming.
Point & Shoot: failure to check barrel direction fails to detect mis-aiming...but that's what we were doing in the best case, right?

Enough of bashing P&S. Most people here deem it an inherently error-prone system and can articulate why, while the few supporters refuse to address the point that people do not necessarily point where they think they do, especially under stress.

To return to the final question:
Well dear experts, what will???

Any working system must have some kind of feedback loop that allows for detection and correction of aiming errors. If you don't, then stress/fear/etc. will induce and magnify errors without the shooter detecting and correcting for them.

The main complaint from +P and okjoe is the observation that under stress/fear/whateveritis, people fail to complete that feedback loop and think with their spinal cord instead of their brain, a legitimate concern. To hit the target, the hand must point the gun at the target seen by the eye. Well, I hate to break it to some of you but: hand-eye coordination goes to pot in those situations, and without feedback and correction, the system is broken and won't work reliably.

The only other solution is a mechanical one: put the feedback loop in a machine. I think we can all agree that solution won't work either.

If you really want to promote something other than sighted fire, you'll have to change the requirements for tools used. Perhaps one could build a gun suitable for P&S: an appropriately-shaped groove for the pointing finger (designed to protect the finger from revolver's sideways discharge or auto's slide motion), second & third finger grip (for strength, pinky trigger (weakest finger), recognize that two-finger grip is simply weaker than three, and add a laser for some hope of feedback. Goofy looking gun, but best chance for P&S to work.

I'd recommend using the tool as it was designed to be used, and practice until the motions are so automatic that they will stay present under stress/fear/etc. Sighted fire will help train the body to do the accurate motion such that it will likely repeat proper motion & direction even without the feedback loop (like an orchestra that can give a performance without the conductor).

+P & okjoe, you don't seem to have articulated the actual problem well. 900 videos may show that something is wrong, but you haven't proven that it is sighted firing instead of PRACTICE.
 
Current shooting methods are not getting the job done.

From what I can gather, it's primarly due to lack of practice. Regardless of the system, if you don't practice it and internalize it and make it automatic, it won't happen.

The references to 900 shooting videos "proving" that sighted shooting doesn't work were never backed up with any statistics on what the shooter learned and how often he practiced. We're still waiting for something more meaningful than "I watched 900 videos and got the impression that sighted shooting doesn't work".

Your occasional anecdotes of old fogies making it happen on the first try in 30 years (or whatever other singular stories you relate) don't help the issue. Each one is easily countered with similar examples that P&S doesn't work. What we need from the P&S side is meaningful studies noting what method was used, what method was taught, frequency of training, ambushing vs. panicked, etc. etc. etc. Anecdotes and insults won't help us reach a conclusion.

Sorry. I must be mistaken, because I have been told by the experts that it is a dumb idea that won't work.
Well dear experts, what will???

The almost unanimous answer from the sighted-fire side is PRACTICE. If the student does not practice, then no technique will work well.

You can't validly claim that 900 videos shows that sighted fire doesn't work if 850+ of those shooters practiced less than 6 times a year. It's not the technique's fault if the practitioner didn't practice.

If the student practices either technique enough, then he can become entirely skilled and adequate in that technique. I'm sure there are people who can well out-shoot me with P&S.

Sure one may forget what one learned even with practice. Will it really make much difference which technique is forgotten? Both must be learned.


Once PRACTICE is taken to an adequate level (and statstical studies are done to verify that practice makes perfect) then the question of what to practice may be examined.

Let's compare the techniques:

Sighted shooting
- Hold handgun as handgun was designed to be held
- Hold handgun with strongest grip with one finger free for the trigger
- Point gun
- Get positive feedback regarding direction of barrel
- Use feedback loop to iteratively correct for accuracy error
- Pull trigger

Point & Shoot
- Hold gun in way not designed for
- - Note that this grip on a revolver may result in serious finger damage (possible amputation)
- Hold gun with weakest fingers, leaving strongest fingers to not exert much force
- Point gun
- No feedback as to accuracy of direction
- No correcting for error as error is not noted
- Pull trigger

Well, right off the bat P&S has more problems than sighted firing. When planning on things to go wrong, one does not intentionally start closer to that state.

How can each go wrong?
Sighted fire: failure to check sights (i.e.: barrel direction) fails to detect mis-aiming.
Point & Shoot: failure to check barrel direction fails to detect mis-aiming...but that's what we were doing in the best case, right?

Enough of bashing P&S. Most people here deem it an inherently error-prone system and can articulate why, while the few supporters refuse to address the point that people do not necessarily point where they think they do, especially under stress.

To return to the final question:
Well dear experts, what will???

Any working system must have some kind of feedback loop that allows for detection and correction of aiming errors. If you don't, then stress/fear/etc. will induce and magnify errors without the shooter detecting and correcting for them.

The main complaint from +P and okjoe is the observation that under stress/fear/whateveritis, people fail to complete that feedback loop and think with their spinal cord instead of their brain, a legitimate concern. To hit the target, the hand must point the gun at the target seen by the eye. Well, I hate to break it to some of you but: hand-eye coordination goes to pot in those situations, and without feedback and correction, the system is broken and won't work reliably.

The only other solution is a mechanical one: put the feedback loop in a machine. I think we can all agree that solution won't work either.

If you really want to promote something other than sighted fire, you'll have to change the requirements for tools used. Perhaps one could build a gun suitable for P&S: an appropriately-shaped groove for the pointing finger (designed to protect the finger from revolver's sideways discharge or auto's slide motion), second & third finger grip (for strength, pinky trigger (weakest finger), recognize that two-finger grip is simply weaker than three, and add a laser for some hope of feedback. Goofy looking gun, but best chance for P&S to work.

I'd recommend using the tool as it was designed to be used, and practice until the motions are so automatic that they will stay present under stress/fear/etc. Sighted fire will help train the body to do the accurate motion such that it will likely repeat proper motion & direction even without the feedback loop (like an orchestra that can give a performance without the conductor).

+P & okjoe, you don't seem to have articulated the actual problem well. 900 videos may show that something is wrong, but you haven't proven that it is sighted firing instead of PRACTICE.
 
Current shooting methods are not getting the job done.

From what I can gather, it's primarly due to lack of practice. Regardless of the system, if you don't practice it and internalize it and make it automatic, it won't happen.

The references to 900 shooting videos "proving" that sighted shooting doesn't work were never backed up with any statistics on what the shooter learned and how often he practiced. We're still waiting for something more meaningful than "I watched 900 videos and got the impression that sighted shooting doesn't work".

Your occasional anecdotes of old fogies making it happen on the first try in 30 years (or whatever other singular stories you relate) don't help the issue. Each one is easily countered with similar examples that P&S doesn't work. What we need from the P&S side is meaningful studies noting what method was used, what method was taught, frequency of training, ambushing vs. panicked, etc. etc. etc. Anecdotes and insults won't help us reach a conclusion.

Sorry. I must be mistaken, because I have been told by the experts that it is a dumb idea that won't work.
Well dear experts, what will???

The almost unanimous answer from the sighted-fire side is PRACTICE. If the student does not practice, then no technique will work well.

You can't validly claim that 900 videos shows that sighted fire doesn't work if 850+ of those shooters practiced less than 6 times a year. It's not the technique's fault if the practitioner didn't practice.

If the student practices either technique enough, then he can become entirely skilled and adequate in that technique. I'm sure there are people who can well out-shoot me with P&S.

Sure one may forget what one learned even with practice. Will it really make much difference which technique is forgotten? Both must be learned.


Once PRACTICE is taken to an adequate level (and statstical studies are done to verify that practice makes perfect) then the question of what to practice may be examined.

Let's compare the techniques:

Sighted shooting
- Hold handgun as handgun was designed to be held
- Hold handgun with strongest grip with one finger free for the trigger
- Point gun
- Get positive feedback regarding direction of barrel
- Use feedback loop to iteratively correct for accuracy error
- Pull trigger

Point & Shoot
- Hold gun in way not designed for
- - Note that this grip on a revolver may result in serious finger damage (possible amputation)
- Hold gun with weakest fingers, leaving strongest fingers to not exert much force
- Point gun
- No feedback as to accuracy of direction
- No correcting for error as error is not noted
- Pull trigger

Well, right off the bat P&S has more problems than sighted firing. When planning on things to go wrong, one does not intentionally start closer to that state.

How can each go wrong?
Sighted fire: failure to check sights (i.e.: barrel direction) fails to detect mis-aiming.
Point & Shoot: failure to check barrel direction fails to detect mis-aiming...but that's what we were doing in the best case, right?

Enough of bashing P&S. Most people here deem it an inherently error-prone system and can articulate why, while the few supporters refuse to address the point that people do not necessarily point where they think they do, especially under stress.

To return to the final question:
Well dear experts, what will???

Any working system must have some kind of feedback loop that allows for detection and correction of aiming errors. If you don't, then stress/fear/etc. will induce and magnify errors without the shooter detecting and correcting for them.

The main complaint from +P and okjoe is the observation that under stress/fear/whateveritis, people fail to complete that feedback loop and think with their spinal cord instead of their brain, a legitimate concern. To hit the target, the hand must point the gun at the target seen by the eye. Well, I hate to break it to some of you but: hand-eye coordination goes to pot in those situations, and without feedback and correction, the system is broken and won't work reliably.

The only other solution is a mechanical one: put the feedback loop in a machine. I think we can all agree that solution won't work either.

If you really want to promote something other than sighted fire, you'll have to change the requirements for tools used. Perhaps one could build a gun suitable for P&S: an appropriately-shaped groove for the pointing finger (designed to protect the finger from revolver's sideways discharge or auto's slide motion), second & third finger grip (for strength, pinky trigger (weakest finger), recognize that two-finger grip is simply weaker than three, and add a laser for some hope of feedback. Goofy looking gun, but best chance for P&S to work.

I'd recommend using the tool as it was designed to be used, and practice until the motions are so automatic that they will stay present under stress/fear/etc. Sighted fire will help train the body to do the accurate motion such that it will likely repeat proper motion & direction even without the feedback loop (like an orchestra that can give a performance without the conductor).

+P & okjoe, you don't seem to have articulated the actual problem well. 900 videos may show that something is wrong, but you haven't proven that it is sighted firing instead of PRACTICE.
 
Let's see now, if we had 900+ plane crashes, the response would be don't worry, be happy, run a study, gather data, don't stop, just train, blame the pilots, don't bother me I'm busy doing important stuff.

Sound like BarBar in real time to me. Let's form a committee, prepare a report, discuss it, rehash it, and redo it, send it to a sub committee, that's what we should do.

Well, I don't want to be disrespectful, but it's OK to take your heads out of the sand and open your eyes. Nothing will happen to you.

Then look around. Police are being killed, and shot, at high rates and that has been going on for years and years, and like a train on a track, it's going to go on unless something is done.

That's all. Why does that seem to be so hard to figure out???

Edited 18:09


[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 24, 2000).]
 
114K is more than enough for the 3rd and final go round of this topic. I think it's been done about to death. Thanks all for your input.
Rich Lucibella
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top