BP pistols and self defense

I find it disturbing that a conceal carry class is teaching bullet placement. A CC class should teach safety and when and when not to use deadly force.

I got my CC way before classes were even considered, I have set in a few with friends and these have been safety and law, not bullet placement.

I think to many people get their CC and think they need to "prevent" crime. I know more than one person like that and they have gotten in trouble and lost their guns over it.
 
My first carry license was the Indiana pink slip - pretty much only required me to go in to the police station with $20. :) That's my kind of license!

Mykeal, I'm a lawyer. I have worked as an investigator, a prosecutor and an appellate defense lawyer. I've gotten to see an enormous number of OMI reports, photographs, etc., from shootings, and have gotten to talk in detail about the shooting and the behavior of the person shot with the shooter. Working on these cases have given me a lot of insight into what seems to actually matter (shot placement, adequate penetration), and what's maybe not so important (whether a hollowpoint was used, 9 vs. .45, etc.).

I agree that there's a real problem with some people getting their license and then imagining that they're some sort of superhero, out to stop crime. (You can pretty much tell who these people are by the way that they dress. :) ) This is one of the things that I warn against (discussing the citizen's arrest cases I've worked on) when I train people. On the other hand, I think that shot-placement is a totally valid thing for an instructor to teach: it's part of making sure the students are effective and are not likely to attempt silly things ("Shoot the gun out of his hand!") that are likely to endanger others.

Regarding "combat tactical training": I don't know whether any of the rest of you actually teach in concealed carry classes (I teach the legal section sometimes, as pro bono work), or how many of you have taken various shooting classes from a variety of instructors (Suarez, Ayoob, the Gunsite folks, the TR folks, Andy Stanford, Southnarc), but it's certainly true that "shoot them to the ground" is a common meme among instructors. My point here is not arguing that this is incorrect, but rather pointing out that precise shot-placement could validly be considered to be essential - even if it's not stressed by many instructors. Mykeal, if you think it's unrealistic to ask new shooters to be able to target and hit a precise point, well, that's your opinion. But why is it wrong for an instructor to attempt to give guidance to students that might assist them in being more effective?

I was a little amazed when I read

I find it simply ridiculous that
Click to expand...

and other criticisms of a class that only one person here ever even attended. I'll bet McPhee sort of regrets having brought it up - especially since the criticism of his instructor has nothing to do with answering his question. I enjoy your posts, you guys, but you don't have enough data to declaim that the instructor is "doing his students a "grave disservice."
 
Wow. You don't have any idea what data I do or don't have, so that claim is at best specious. As a lawyer, you should know better than to claim a level of experience or knowledge for your opponent that you don't know anything about.

There are two obvious problems with a CCW instructor teaching new-to-the-subject students to 'aim' at the second button on an assailant's shirt.

1) In the heat of a life threatening situation they can't do it. They are not trained by CCW class, they're only TOLD to do it, so there is no automatic response they can count on to achieve the goal. As madcratebuilder clearly pointed out, a CCW class is about safe gun handling and knowing the law; there is NO, repeat zero, nada, zilch TRAINING in armed combat, which is what a life-threatening attack by an assailant is. In such a situation your ability to calmly and rationally act goes away - ask any combat veteran. Your rational thought is replaced by automatic responses implanted by repetitive training and practice, not the sort of thing you get in a CCW class. The result: the student CANNOT locate, identify, AIM and fire at the second button on an assailant's shirt. If he tries, he dies.

2) The plaintiff's lawyers in a wrongful death or damages suit will have a field day with anyone who is, to use their words, 'taught' to 'aim at the second button' but fails to do so accurately. After all, the shooter took a class in how to properly defend himself and he completely failed to do so, evidence therefore he was negligent throughout the entire encounter, making poor judgments and failing to act on them.

You want to know
why is it wrong for an instructor to attempt to give guidance to students that might assist them in being more effective?
Click to expand...
What's wrong is that it doesn't make them more effective. They CANNOT be expected to execute the maneuver without much, much more training and practice than what you get in a CCW class. It takes combat training and a lot of repetitive practice to achieve the level of being able to make that precise shot under extreme duress. The most that any untrained, scared out of his wits victim should be expected to do is to identify and shoot (NOT AIM) at the center of mass of an assailant. And just in case he misses, which is entirely likely, to keep shooting until the assailant is down.
 
I claim you don't have enough data by the fact that you're willing to make proclamations about a man's teaching based on a passing remark in a post.

Your speculations are silly - you're getting hung up on an absurd proposition. Again, you're demonstrating that we don't know what the man said. As a general aiming point, what was quoted in McPhee's is better than an un-defined "center of mass" that's often taught. And certainly better than the old police aiming point that was taught when I was a lad. And, how are you an expert on plaintiff's attorneys, anyway? While anything can happen in a civil suit, your knowledge of tort law (as demonstrated in your sweeping comment) seems a little weak.

Looks like you can't even admit that you might not know everything. Mykeal, I've lost a lot of respect for you. I won't be re-visiting this thread, so if anyone wants me, feel free to email me.
 
Why do you say 'non expanding round ball'?
A soft lead ball expands quite well and retains weight in most cases.
Aim as with any pistol.
 
Your bp pistol will do the job.
I have killed many deer and wild hogs with the round ball in my .50 rifle and the killing power of the round ball is phenomenal.
They made hundreds of thousands of these pistols in the Civil War for one purpose: To kill a man. They do work.

Wild Bill Hickok shot a man once at a measured 76 paces and the fellow dropped dead. He was hit right through the heart.
Wild Bill used the 1851 Colt in .36
Anything the .36 will do, the .44 will do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top