Defensive Shooting Statistics

[David Armstrong]

It is a rare but not impossible situation to face a rampage shooter. The length of our hallways, leading to a target rich classroom, from my office is about 50 yards. IIRC, an AF MP took down a rampage shooter with an M9 at 75 yards. So, does the average distance based on mostly property crime distance aid me in thinking about a work place nutso scenario?

I think that is the key, Glenn. Are you only concerned with the work place nutso scenario? We all have limited resources, some more limited than others. Do we best expend those resources preparing for the rare but not impossible situation, or do we best expend those resources preparing for the far more likely possibility? And how do we determine what is rare and what is likely without understanding the data available to us? As an example, for a long time we taught our police officers to be pretty good, but slow, shots at 25 yards, but didn't spend much in teaching them to fight fast and furious at close range. Once we started really looking at what went on in those fights, we began to change the focus of the training. Certainly it would be nice if we could all spend 40 hours a week on the range with unlimited free ammo being trained by top instructors, but since we can't how do we decide what to devote our resources to without a good understanding of what we are likely (and unlikely) to face? Of course, whether it really matters much in the long run or not is a different question<G>!

 

[Capt. Charlie]

Nobody asked for your "factual statement". That is the job of the board staff.

The job of the board staff is to keep things civil and on topic. This is neither. Let's keep this on topic and keep the urination competitions over credentials out of it, OK?

 

[TINCUP AL]

This is a good discussion. David and Glenn, I would have to say that I agree with you both. There are an unlimited amount of variables to any situation, and it would serve anyone good to practice all that you can on those variables. It is still good to know what the "average situation" is like ( if there is such a thing ) but I think you get what I mean. We teach our students what the statistics say the averages are, but we have them train for all possible scenarios, as the possibilities are endless as you well know. I am all ears for more info. Please continue on.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree TCAl - the crucial principle is to understand the various situations and plan for reasonable contingencies.

I agree with David that we have to train for what is modal and that past bullseye oriented training did not. There are quite a few studies showing that modern FOF training for what Dave discusses has dramatically improved performance. One thing that was neat about the NTI was that they threw all kinds of stuff at you. From up close to a surprise guy up hill 150 yards away.

I had a simple point which was that folks used the average as an exclusive statistical viewpoint but you two have it nailed.

Discussions like this aid in the evolution of professional and civilian training. Personally, I'm trying to be eclectic in what I do. Luckily I have some time and motivation to do such. For example, I've been shooting some steel lately as it has some longer range pistol targets.

Ah - I just like trigger time.