Bad habits can get you killed

Status
Not open for further replies.
What was the story going around back then was a New York officer (trooper IIRC), who was in a gunfight, and was killed. According to the story, he had fired his revolver dry, and reloaded it, (firing twice more depending on who is telling the story), and was trying to stuff his empties into the tight uniform pants pocket when the bad guy got him.

The explanation given was that under the stress, the officer fell back on his training, and what he was trained to do at the police range was fire one cylinder, reload, and police his brass before firing again. According to the story, because of this incident, police training was changed to policing the brass after ALL shots had been fired.
Click to expand...

The border patrol, Newhall, now somebody in New York? Egads, cops were being slaughtered with brass in their pockets!

The purported changes after the NY incident is interesting because the CHP made the exact same change after Newhall, based on the rumor, where the brass in the pockets didn't happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newhall_massacre

There sure do seem to be a lot of people getting killed because of brass being stuffed in their pockets, changes in policy being made, yet actual documentary information to substantiate such claims. Heck, here is a whole thread on this. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133981

Maybe we would move away from repeating them?

Yes, you tend to fight like you train. That is indeed well known, well taught. Can't we use actual documented issues to stress the point point?
 
Double Naught Spy, you have thoroughly debunked the myth of cops getting shot while putting brass in their pockets. Heck. I feel down right safe doing it now. If I ever find myself in a gun fight, I'll start shoving brass into my pocket because nobody in the history of anybody has been shot while they were putting spent brass in their pockets.

Can't we use actual documented issues to stress the point point?
Click to expand...

Well why don't you give us some to discus?

I admitted I was wrong and I misquoted Bill Jordan but you are still beating this "empty brass" drum. Do you have some bad shooting habits you would like to share with the group?
 
The idea of training how you would fight and fight how you train is a very reasonable adage. I avoid timed regulated competition for this reason. I feel that armed self defense is a very martial skill which certainly should include practice drills but I prefer not to muddy the water by trying to practice within the context of a gun game. A person is going to do things differently when slave to a timer. They will also do things differently when performing within the context of a game as opposed to a drill where you are focused of survival tactics.
 
Last edited:
Bad habits can get you killed
Click to expand...

"Habits" and "instincts" can both get someone killed. Instincts can be insidious because some folks always seem to think "instinctual" somehow must always be a good thing.

The trick is to learn the difference between good ones and bad ones, and how the nature of either may end up being defined by situational context and circumstances.

More often than not, when I'm working with a shooter who does something weird or counterproductive during a drill or qual scenario, and I ask them about it, they usually either weren't aware they were doing it, or had no explanation for why they did it. Okay. We can work with that.

However, there's always the folks who have an explanation and are adamant to justify something that's hindering them in some significant way, and they just won't let go of trying to defend some quirk or bad habit that could easily get them killed in an actual confrontation. Their epitaph.

I've been introducing some of the younger firearms instructors to the old adage of Train like you fight, or die like you train.
 
I avoid timed regulated competition for this reason.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, very few ranges allow setting up anything like meaningful drills.
The action matches can be a very good way to do so.
If you don't want to play the game, there's no reason you can't run the courses of fire in a more useful fashion to your needs.
Betcha' there's others who attend these matches who would join you, too.
All that is probably required is to let the RO know what you have in mind.
And politely ignoring all the advice as to how to get a better score.
By avoiding matches, you might be missing opportunities to enjoy very elaborate stages that would be nearly impossible to create on your own.
 
... I avoid timed regulated competition for this reason. ...
Click to expand...

I've done a lot of study regarding "what makes the difference" in armed defensive encounters. Keep in mind that I did testing/metrology for a living (until very recently), so I am not without experience in validating use-cases, time-vs.motions studies, etc.

The only truly damaging mythology which comes out of competition is (IMHO) the "cowboy quick draw" myth ... the notion that a super-speedy, draw-to-first-shot is what will make the difference between life and death.

That notion is complete and utter hogwash, unfortunately repeated so often that it is accepted uncritically.

Aside from that (again, IMHO) the point is that competition does not really create so many "training scars" as some assume. Another way to put it is that competition does not necessarily create such problems. If someone is so bereft of sense that they think competition comprises the whole of defensive technique and tactics, that's an issue of mindset, not a fault of the game or its rules.
 
fireforged said:
I avoid timed regulated competition for this reason.
Click to expand...

How do you know if you're getting better or worse if you don't consider time?

Do you believe that ignoring time and leisurely shooting your target at a comfortable pace is the best answer?
 
I know that neither of these questions were directed at me specifically, but I'll humbly offer my perspective nonetheless, in the interest of spurring interesting conversation. Consider my responses to include a carefully-considered "IMHO" based upon significant study:

How do you know if you're getting better or worse if you don't consider time?
Click to expand...
Better or worse at what? The nature of the question assumes that "getting better" means that the only things of significance are those things which can be measured with a timer. This is called "falling in love with your yardstick". It's a pretty common flaw to think that something is meaningful just because it is easily measured.

Do you believe that ignoring time and leisurely shooting your target at a comfortable pace is the best answer?
Click to expand...
For my part, that question is something of a straw man. It does not necessarily follow that because one does not uses a timer religiously, it therefore means "... leisurely shooting your target at a comfortable pace ..."

Consider things that a timer cannot measure ... like WHEN you should be drawing/shooting. Training to shoot "at the beep" is training to shoot at a clearly-defined signal. Does this necessarily confer upon someone "getting better" at recognizing a threat and knowing when to shoot? Should we assume that a fast draw (with all its attendant physicality) is always the best solution ... or even close to always? Would not a covert draw be better in any case where it's practicable?

A timer can measure how quickly one completes a stage, but it can't tell you anything at all about when (or if) you should be moving from one point of cover/concealment to another. The assumption of competition that you should (always?) just go as fast as possible completely misses any such considerations. Other examples abound.

My point is not to avoid timers altogether (I use one regularly for draw practice) but rather to understand where they are useful and where they are not. The suggestion that the timer is the only tool useful for measuring "better", is fundamentally flawed when applied to defensive contexts.
 
NEWHALL

In re Newhall, it was taught to us as gospel (Brass in pocket or hand, bullet to back or back of head, cant remember), Police Academy, 1978. Made an impression on me!
 
Last edited:
Newhall was the bad example.
Bill Jordan cited a case where a Border Patrolman had a pocket full of brass after a shootout. He had managed to save his empties while exchanging fire with a smuggler armed with a rifle. I don't recall if he hit the smuggler or just suppressed his fire, but he was effective in action in spite of his "bad habit."
 
zombietactics said:
Better or worse at what?
Click to expand...

Pretty much any self defense parameter. Hits on target, time to get to cover, reloads, etc, etc, etc.

The nature of your question assumes that "getting better" cannot be measured, that your performance can be evaluated based on how that you "feel" that you're performing with no actual data.

This is called "fear of failure". It's a pretty common flaw in today's US society, as evidenced by sports like football, soccer, tennis, etc, where no one keeps score and everyone gets a trophy, no matter how badly they perform. It has cultivated a fear of inadequacy when compared to others, and sets unrealistic expectations about what is necessary to be successful in activities where performance can be easily measured.

Unfortunately, not everyone gets a trophy in a self-defense situation. There is a very high probability that there will be a "winner" and "loser", and the stakes are not a trophy but your life.

By your standards (no time parameter), my 12 year old granddaughter and her friends are equally as skilled as someone like Rob Leatham or Jerry Miculek in a self-defense situation. Any of them can empty a Glock magazine into a 6" group in the center mass of a target at 3 yards.
 
Last edited:
Bad Habits

Here are some:

Not watching the hands;
Taking a bad position;
Not maintaining your weapon in a serviceable condition;
Not maintaining proficiency with your weapon;
Not maintaining situational awareness, ignoring danger signs;
Not maintaining proper physical condition;
Tombstone courage;
Not understanding your own limitations;
Bad Attitude/No combat mindset;
Relaxing too soon;

These will get you killed much faster than any considerations of timers, reloading magazines, putting brass in your pocket, etc.
 
So very true...

Like I saw on another forum:

MINDset, SKILLset, TOOLset. In THAT ORDER.

Slow/timed fire events tend to build marksmanship skills which, with practice, builds marksmanship under extreme time constraints. No SINGLE method of practice answers ALL demands on skill-building, which is why a balanced mixture of them seems to work best (assuming one doesn't go broke from ammo costs).
 
Bad habits can get you killed
Click to expand...

Any habit can get you killed if done at the wrong time, good or bad.

Yes some habits are generally awful and some habits are generally good.

Learn the good ones and learn when to use them.

Deaf
 
... Pretty much any self defense parameter. Hits on target, time to get to cover, reloads, etc, etc, etc. ...
Click to expand...

I have already acknowledged that some important things can be measured with a timer. I also noted several parameters which in no way can be measured by a timer. There are many more. However, you've avoided any discussion (or even acknowledgement) of them. This appears to validate my assertions regarding those valuing only what can be easily measured.

... The nature of your question assumes that "getting better" cannot be measured, that your performance can be evaluated based on how that you "feel" that you're performing with no actual data. ...
Click to expand...

Except that I said nothing which can be rationally construed as such, by anyone with a basic grasp of the English language. Copying the form of my post in your response is a clever rhetorical trick, but it only really works if you respond to something I actually wrote.

That pretty much sums up the rest of text regarding sports and "everyone gets a trophy", etc. I said no such thing, so responding to something I never wrote in the first place isn't my responsibility. Please go have that conversation with someone who thinks that way.

... By your standards (no time parameter) ...
Click to expand...

Case in point ... you can stop right there. Not only did I never suggest that nothing should timed, I specifically noted that I use a timer myself for draw practice. I don't why you would so boldly assert something so obviously untrue.

For absolute clarity: Timers can measure some very meaningful things, and they cannot measure some other very meaningful things, regarding defensive contexts. A problem arises when someone cannot acknowledge this simple fact.
 
Last edited:
You know guys, arguing about the usefulness of timers can be distracting from putting some priorities into perspective.

Timers can help determine winners of sporting competitions. (As can accuracy. ;) )

I look at it this way ...

Timers on drill/qual ranges can be used to help set performance standards. Teaching and assessment tools.

Now, let's think about it another way.

If I "time" an expected and desirable response by someone being trained in the martial arts ... let's say, performing a basic block and punch, or a counter punch ... how does that in any way tell me how well the person is going to "perform" under actual fighting conditions? How fast is the "attacker" going to be? Is the student's response even going to be appropriate within the given situation? Will the student accurately & effectively place their defensive blow? Does the student have the will to try and use their skills when it's for real?

Timers are fine, as teaching & assessment tools ... and for competition ... but it might not be prudent to limit our understanding of what their use means when it comes to all aspects of training for defensive application of martial skills and tactics.

Put simply, beating the clock isn't the same thing as beating an opponent.

Habits? Pretty much just a pattern of behavior that's become practiced and followed until it's done more or less as an involuntary action.

Whether or not it's appropriate is another issue.

Whether or not it's effectively employed ... and yes, meaning in time ... is something else.

Context and Relevance.

Subsets of mindset & skillset, don't you think? ;)
 
How do you know if you're getting better or worse if you don't consider time?

Do you believe that ignoring time and leisurely shooting your target at a comfortable pace is the best answer?
Click to expand...

I usually avoid answering questions that elude to something I never said or do not believe but since Zombietactics has made an effort continue the conversation, I guess I should as well.

In my laymans opinion there are many elements to armed self defense and "time" is only part of the skill based element. I will concede that although slow and deliberate has merit in some circumstance... most people are not trying to get slower. All that being said, I am not really inclined to believe that absolute speed is the singular deciding factor in many self defense related conflicts. In comp its a huge factor and many competitors fall victim to seeing every judgment through that filter. Lighting fast split times does not necessarily mean a person is a competent defender. In the most general sense, armed defending is a partnership between Mindset, Tactics, Strategics, Skill and Gear.

How do I know if I am better? I consider myself better when my training, knowledge and experience is substantially increased. I dont base it on any one thing.

Do I believe that leisurely shooting targets at a comfortable pace is best? As an introduction to firearms.. sure. As training.. No
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, very few ranges allow setting up anything like meaningful drills.
The action matches can be a very good way to do so.
If you don't want to play the game, there's no reason you can't run the courses of fire in a more useful fashion to your needs.
Betcha' there's others who attend these matches who would join you, too.
All that is probably required is to let the RO know what you have in mind.
And politely ignoring all the advice as to how to get a better score.
By avoiding matches, you might be missing opportunities to enjoy very elaborate stages that would be nearly impossible to create on your own.
Click to expand...

I agree that if the game context is eliminated and a person can run the course with a different mindset.. I think it could certainly be a benefit toward good practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top