El-Presidente (Shooting Stage/Level - Is it applicable in Real Life".

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the inability to think analytically - I couldn't agree with you more. If you train a good response, you won't have to think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gabe: PLEASE. We must think to do anything. We must process information. That processing has a limit. You shoud learn what it is and then put the training within that very narrow limit. The mind has a speed. In fact we claim rightfully that in a shooting things go into slow motion. That is true. The mind in a state of FRIGHT will slow down, NOT speed up the processing of information. It is like having your PC trying to multi-task a lot of things at once. Your PC loses efficiency and that happens with the human brain.
The mind slows down to search the long term memory of a FEW items (5-7 + or - 2, see G. Millers work on "chunking.") and you totally leave out memory blocking chemistry that fights to block memory as it should.
Man comes from a neanderthal outlook on self-defense. The mind switches to a total ECONOMY mode to survive. It blanks out and blocks access to things such as morals, laws and other issues. Once it decides to survive we go along for the ride like it or not.
It responds with what it knows best and guns is not part of that fabric.
That is why we must REDUCE the amount of information we need in the actual shooting and INCREASE the information we have available on how to prevent a shooting. We have the horse on the wrong end of the cart.
 
Gentlemen,

This could go on forever. My "theories" (stuff that's worked worked repeatedly for me and my associates) are well documented in my books. Several articles are also available (free) in my newsletter that illustrate my points.

Remember, if you train to the average, you will be average.

Gabe Suarez
HALO Group http://www.thehalogroup.com
 
I'll try one more time, but as Gabe said, this could go on forever.

Video's only tell the tale of what was observed from a particular point of view. They are in no way complete. Do video's lie. Absolutely. Do they tell the truth. Absolutely, from a particular point of view (vantage point if you like). Video's say nothing of someone's level of training, or exactly what was going on inside a person's head. They only reveal observed behavior from one angle.

That doesn't mean that they are worthless, it just means that they have to be kept in perspective, because they tell a limited tale. A hundred videos of LCD shooters only means that one hundred LCD shooters look like crap on video. Same for the photos. Has anyone ever seen video of a shooter doing what he should do. They are out there, but not very common. Why? Because well-trained shooters are not that common. How common is a well trained shooter in any police force, or in the Army?

Working in Military Law Enforcement, I can honestly say that most of the shooter's I've seen and trained were and are very poor. I've seen guys shoot expert on the range and fall apart at the FATS machine, forgetting to swipe the safeties off and putting "rounds" all over the target. My experience was that I never remembered taking the safety off. Why? It was a conditioned part of the presentation. Police and Military firearms training teaches soldiers to qualify at the range, not shoot other human beings. So if a shooter has only been taught to qualify, how can they be expected to perform against a living human being. If you want to take it a step futher, everyone get's nervous in front of the camera :)

As shooters we only have two choices. Get the best training we can, mentally condition ourselves, and employ proper tactics and technique. Or say the hell with it, I'm going to screw it all up anyways, why bother.

So what is your point PlusP? Do we train or not. Do you have the only magical method of firearms training?

So nothing works smoothly in combat. Hell, nothing ever works smoothly during Field Training Exercises, either. While at SRT school, my team got out of order, and I had to call back for a Flash-Bang (simulated, of course), Oops. Our link up procedures with the second team got confused, but everything worked out. You may not get a perfect sight picture during a shooting either, or you may jerk your first round. Gabe has seen the elephant, even if he won't toot his own horn. I bet if we asked him, he would say it didn't go as smooth as he would have liked. That's life. We deal with it. We train so that when it happens, we are as prepared as possible to deal with it, and so that when the unexpected happens, we have enough knowledge and experience to come up with a solution, even if it's on the fly.

Like the origin of the Mozambique technique. One of Lt. Col. Cooper's students put two rounds in a bad guy, was startled when the BG didn't go down, so he tried to put a round in his head. He missed, hitting said scum in the throat, but effectively getting the job done. Now there's an example of a highly trained operator, doing what he was trained to do, then improvising the rest. As Clint Eastwood said, (before he woosed out with that Bridges of Madison County Crap), "You improvise, you adapt, you overcome."

If we keep telling ourselves we will fail, guess what?

Videos of sorry shooters are nothing more than that, and they have no evidentiary value in this discussion. Everyone here is already agreed that most shooters aren't sufficiently trained, so what else would we expect. Now if we said that all police academy training was good, high speed training, then maybe the argument would have merit, however, nobody has said that. Forty hours of firearms instruction decreases a departments liability, and hopefully helps you not kill yourself, or someone else negligently.

Oh and I wasn't questioning your integrity earlier PlusP, (when I made the comment about a "hook") I only meant to imply that from my perspective, you are taking one issue in firearms training, and making it the focus of everything discussed, without mentioning a better way.

Remember, psychology is theoretical. Very little can be proved and what can be is open to interpretation. No answer is definitive, and definitive answers are constantly revised. That's how psychologists keep jobs.

OK, I've rambled long enough.
Chuck
 
Gabe, you've hit it on the head! We're aware here of your rep, as YOU train to the Nth degree. We can assume that you're at the highest level, and we know that academy training and yearly "qualifications" are at the lowest. The definitions of mean, median, and mode aside; wouldn't you agree that the VAST majority of cops are at the lowest possible level of "average"? If you had your way, those personnel would be continuously striving to YOUR level, and that is surely a laudable goal. It is not realistic however.

I would not presume to question results you've experienced due to your level of committed training. But, you are well aware of the budget/time constraints imposed upon training cadre. With that in mind, don't you feel more could be done to help the average cops that don't share your committment? Those cops that are most likely to fall victim to fright or startle response? Those cops that are the VAST majority of the thin blue line out there? THOSE are whom plusp refers to, not you, or the SOCOM types. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top