Microgunner
New member
???????????????? Did you fall and bump your head?
How do you react?
- Thread starter jclayto
- Start date
- Status
???????????????? Did you fall and bump your head?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I think it has more value than keyboard bravado or watching a couple of Rambo movies. Other than "gut" feel what would you propose as a way to better think these things out prior (because thinking them out when it happens might be too late)? My concern reading these posts are keyboard commandos believing they can intervene in deadly situations and come out OK because they are tough on the Internet or it looks easy on TV. But, I also believe that virtually (99.99999%)everyone who thumps his chest on these boards wouldn't do what they say they would. FoF I would hope might show them the folly of their ways.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I'm sorry to say this is unsupported BS - time and again it has been demonstrated that simulation training has led to better outcomes.
1. In VietNam, our pilots initially had trouble with the North VietNamese fighers. We introduced the FOF exercises for the pilots and our results were better.
2. The current military runs FOF exercises all the time for soldiers - do you think we would have better results in they just watched war movies and read internet commandos spiel.
3. In fire or disaster situations, the teams with simulations training and regular people with drills survived when others died. In 9/11, Morgan Stanley employees made it due to their drills, when others died.
Arguing against simulation training is ridiculous. We should just all read Guns and Ammo on stopping power and consider ourself heroes of the universe?
When someone says that they will take a shotgun blast to the chest for their wallet or thinking about discretion in starting a gun fight is a 'chick' thing, then we know that we are just taking about internet ego trips.
Microgunner
New member
Really? And you're the .00001% exception?
<moderator hat>
After 7 pages, I should probably just close the thread. Very few threads continue to be worthwhile after the first couple of pages, as tempers become frayed and the signal/noise ratio goes south.
And yet, some good points are still being made. And I hate to close down a discussion that people are enjoying or still getting some benefit from.
So... please take a deep breath, everyone. Think twice, post once. Don't be rude or inflammatory. Make your points without impugning the character or intentions of people who disagree with you.
There will be NO further personal attacks on this thread, not even mild ones. The next even mildly snarky or insulting comment will see the thread closed.
Pretty sure that even a longer thread can be saved, if everyone involved works at it. And I'd sure rather see the conversation wind down gracefully than to watch it burn out in flames.
Thanks.
</moderator hat>
pax
After 7 pages, I should probably just close the thread. Very few threads continue to be worthwhile after the first couple of pages, as tempers become frayed and the signal/noise ratio goes south.
And yet, some good points are still being made. And I hate to close down a discussion that people are enjoying or still getting some benefit from.
So... please take a deep breath, everyone. Think twice, post once. Don't be rude or inflammatory. Make your points without impugning the character or intentions of people who disagree with you.
There will be NO further personal attacks on this thread, not even mild ones. The next even mildly snarky or insulting comment will see the thread closed.
Pretty sure that even a longer thread can be saved, if everyone involved works at it. And I'd sure rather see the conversation wind down gracefully than to watch it burn out in flames.
Thanks.
</moderator hat>
pax
David Armstrong
Moderator
And with equal due respect, I most certainly did. Again, you might not agree with how it was done, but let's not say it wasn't done at all.
I have presented two assertions. One, that the Kleck statement is misleading in the way it is commonly used,; two, that fighting back can result in greater injury. The quotation I cited directly supports the 2nd issue. The 1st issue was covered by an explanation of why the common application was misleading.
I did, you still failed to check out the material, so why did we go through this little exercise in futility?
The reason it fails as a response, IMO, is that few ever do what is suggested, thus are unable to fully appreciate or fully understand what is being talked about.
How about those that do the above, but then the other party continues to deny it was done? John, I've given you two sources of information to look at that support my positions. If you don't want to look at them, fine, no skin off my nose, you don't think they apply, fine, still no skin off my nose.
I have summarized the data and told you where you could find it, to include citing a recognized source in the field. If you choose to ignore that information or decline to utilize the resources offered to you, it is not my fault. I feel no obligation to post chapters from books, entire DOJ tables, and other such items.
Again, this is why I usually decline to join in these silly "prove it" contests. Evidence is asked for, but when given it is rejected. Sources are questioned, but when identified they are not looked at. It is almost always a complete waste of time.
David Armstrong
Moderator
Got to disagree. While there may be an argument on just how far to take the results of good FoF, there isn't (or shouldn't be) any argument that FoF does provide a good source of information on whether or not things can be done and the possible outcomes of those things. Like any other testing and training environment it is limited, but just because it is limited doesn't mean it should be ignored or rejected out of hand. It's just one more bit of knowledge to toss into the mix.
Glenn, you,re missing the point. It's not a question of training value. It is a question of saying that because someone dies every single time they intervene in FoF, you can use those results to support the argument that if you intervene you will die. That is unsupported BS. Training undoubtedly results in better performance, but it would be like a fighter pilot saying that because he shoots down every opponent in the simulator, he will win every engagement. Then, taking it a step further and saying that becuase he is a USAF pilot that every USAF pilot will win every engagement because he did.
You base your decisions on several factors. But FoF cannot and is not a predictor of outcome that is relevant to anyone other than the actors involved. Again, you can look at what has happened historically and base your decision on that. But there are still too many variables to say that you will live or die if you intervene. TG, you focus on two words (gut feeling) out of an entire list of things I said one could base their decision on and ignored the rest. Sorry, but my gut feeling is usually correct. So while you may not trust yours, I trust mine. I also trust my advanced skill level to have more of an impact on the outcome than a table of results from someone else's FoF training.
Sure there is and it's a valid argument. How many times have you heard someone talk about losing against someone who already has their gun out? Yet, in real life, people prevail all of the time under those circumstances. How many times in FoF training is the bad guy told to be scared and run away when bullets start flying? Another valid point that was brought to my attention was mutual death. How often in FoF do you hear of mutual death occurring? Yet it very rarely ever occurs in real life. You can't simulate the reaction of the actors to being shot at or shot. You can't simulate what effect the different states of mind will have on the outcome. About the only valid data it gives you is how the actors would fare if in a similar situation against an opponent of similar skill. But, you can't correlate that to the likely outcome for everyone.
David Armstrong
Moderator
I don't agree with the first sentence (I think there are many other valid data oints one can get), but I do strongly agree with the second, and I think it is a good point. We often fixate on how a particular person did or how a particular person does in a situation, and that then becomes the default for what will be always be done, and that is a bad way to view things.
I'm not getting that from Glenn, or others. I see it more as a "FoF has shown that this action has a high potential for death or serious injury to the person who chooses it, and one should understand that fact when deciding to act." Would you agree with that phrasing?
I'm sure you've presented many more than that. However I'm only interested in ONE of your assertions and I've quoted the paragraph in which you've made it at least 3 times, probably more. Your implication at this point that there's any confusion about what assertion I'm talking about is blatantly disengenuous.
I asked you for the data you used to arrive at your assertion. Here is the only thing you've provided.David Armstrong said:
Your initial statement indicates that you know of data controlled for the factor of whether or not the BG is armed with a gun. You will note that your "supporting evidence" makes absolutely no mention of whether the BG is armed with a gun or not.David Armstrong said:
Therefore you have provided no data to support the assertion that I have repeatedly asked you to support. The only "supporting evidence" you've provided makes absolutely no mention of the main point of the paragraph I keep quoting.
You haven't even established that you know of any data that is actually relevant to the claims you made in the paragraph I keep quoting. Doing so would be a very good place for you to start.
dabigguns357
New member
I can't resist telling of another choice that we have,instead of watching to bad guys rob the waffle house and or you.You don't have to shoot up the place or die trying,simply don't go there.The food aint that great nor is it worth getting a gun waved in anyones general direction.Stay home and make your own waffles.I'm sure it will be a lot cheaper in the long run,no tipping, lawyer fees,loss of job,family or better yet your own life.Also if you find a hair in your food you will know it is yours.
See problem solved now who's up for eggs and waffles.
See problem solved now who's up for eggs and waffles.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I don't think you will find any of my posts on this forum with any chest thumping. The 99.999% refers to those folks.
No I read them all. The gut feeling is the most spurious. I just read a post eleswhere where a man who lived out in the country came home and saw several men with rifles walking around his house. His "gut feeling" said they were bad guys but they turned out to be innocent hunters some of whom he knew.
Sorry, but I doubt your intuition is much better.
You list skill level as one of your predictors. What do you mean by that? Just marksmanship? You have read a lot of books? What training would you recommend that is better than FoF? I haven't read that yet.
OK up to now Blackwater
F on F training is an other arrow in the quiver of training, with common sense scenarios, can help in promoting reaction to stimulus, also show how fast people in good physical condition can move.
But if you have been in violent encounters, and did OK, should give you a better idea of how you will perform in an other one. One thing I can say, thinking is too slow! For instance a hand moving quickly towards your face, should elicit an instant response, an unbidden response! If you have to think do I move my feet, lift my right arm, or left! You are too late!
On the way to Blackwaters facility, a friend and I decided to stop at a Waffle House, the couple near were I live are nice and clean, foods good, but not places I go to a lot, 4 times a year? This was 2AM, saw the sign, headed off the I 95.
The place was dirty, full of wannabe gangsters, lots of gold chains, a local PD vehicle outside, every place that you could place a cup or plate, had several! Every one was smoking, the table we picked was in a corner, to the right of the door, the corner facing us had your Pay Duty Officer installed in it.
We stacked the plates and cups on the counter, I wiped the table with a napkin, a few, threw them in the big garbage container right on the floor, the overflowing tin foil ashtray went in there as well.
The off duty walked over, retrieved the tin foil 1p ash tray, shook it, and put it back on the table "These cost money" we both just looked at him, what's to say? He looked back, then went outside, my buddy said he has called for back up! We left. We have cut Waffle Houses off our list of stops.
F on F training is an other arrow in the quiver of training, with common sense scenarios, can help in promoting reaction to stimulus, also show how fast people in good physical condition can move.
But if you have been in violent encounters, and did OK, should give you a better idea of how you will perform in an other one. One thing I can say, thinking is too slow! For instance a hand moving quickly towards your face, should elicit an instant response, an unbidden response! If you have to think do I move my feet, lift my right arm, or left! You are too late!
On the way to Blackwaters facility, a friend and I decided to stop at a Waffle House, the couple near were I live are nice and clean, foods good, but not places I go to a lot, 4 times a year? This was 2AM, saw the sign, headed off the I 95.
The place was dirty, full of wannabe gangsters, lots of gold chains, a local PD vehicle outside, every place that you could place a cup or plate, had several! Every one was smoking, the table we picked was in a corner, to the right of the door, the corner facing us had your Pay Duty Officer installed in it.
We stacked the plates and cups on the counter, I wiped the table with a napkin, a few, threw them in the big garbage container right on the floor, the overflowing tin foil ashtray went in there as well.
The off duty walked over, retrieved the tin foil 1p ash tray, shook it, and put it back on the table "These cost money" we both just looked at him, what's to say? He looked back, then went outside, my buddy said he has called for back up! We left. We have cut Waffle Houses off our list of stops.
We went to an IDPA Match, bloody cold, nice facility, 50 cal going off all the time, CQB indoor facility for stages.. Bloody cold, saw the vehicles they make, mine proof?
Our GPS crapped out before we got there-Blocked? Call to 911, the Cops saw us on there Sat Nav, re Cell chip, guided us in, cool.
Our GPS crapped out before we got there-Blocked? Call to 911, the Cops saw us on there Sat Nav, re Cell chip, guided us in, cool.
David Armstrong
Moderator
I can only call it like I see it, John. You seem to be confusing the assertions and arguing that supporting evidence for one is irrelevant because it doesn't support the other.
Getting a copy of the material I cited for you and reading it would be a very good place for you to start. When you have done so, let me know. Until then, your constant arguing that I have not done something that I have done is rather hollow. When you have read the material, get back with me and we'll discuss it.
To date the only quote you've provided doesn't even establish that your source is relevant since the quote doesn't even so much as mention the factor of whether the BG is armed or not. Even we were to ignore the burden of proof issue (and I have no intention of ignoring it) it's ludicrous to suggest that I go off and read a book when you haven't even established its relevance.
Nope, I'm only interested in your supporting the SINGLE assertion that I have asked you about repeatedly (i.e. Data controlled for the factor of a BG armed with a gun shows that my statement based on Kleck's study is misleading.). The other assertion you have tried to introduce as a red herring is of no interest to me.
How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread starts to believe that you don't really have the data? Don't you see that if you keep this up that people will start to believe that you contradicted my statement based purely on your own opinion but pretended to have data in order to add credence to your assertion?
F on F/Role playing?
The FBI in Quantico have a Hogans Alley, not for live fire Al La Clint Eastwood, but typical arrest scenarios, based on actual procedures taught.
The whole area was made up of real buildings, the taps worked, the toilets flushed, all lights and light switches worked, but the most amazing part of the classes, real role players, paid actors! Who acted like real criminals, the one I got to watch, twice, different agents, same role players.
Motel room, Man and Woman, stealing Truck load of TVs. Female, white, around 25 YOA, good looking, well dressed, .25 pistol in side pocket of pants.
Set up outside, discussion on arrest warrant, Interstate trafficking of stolen goods. Polite knock, and off it started, the role players were terrific, the young agents quite competent, one was tasked to watch the woman (this Agent was an ex Cop) never took his eyes off her, her request to use the bathroom! "Sorry ma rm, we have no female agent with us at this time"
He went in handcuffs, she stayed, timed out. Every body joined in the critique, very well done, pucker factor? around 500! If she had accessed the pistol, they lost! Everybody dressed the part. No not force on force, but could have turned into one! The Motel had a Bedroom, and an Office.
Very impressive, very real. Good reactions on the part of all involved.
The FBI in Quantico have a Hogans Alley, not for live fire Al La Clint Eastwood, but typical arrest scenarios, based on actual procedures taught.
The whole area was made up of real buildings, the taps worked, the toilets flushed, all lights and light switches worked, but the most amazing part of the classes, real role players, paid actors! Who acted like real criminals, the one I got to watch, twice, different agents, same role players.
Motel room, Man and Woman, stealing Truck load of TVs. Female, white, around 25 YOA, good looking, well dressed, .25 pistol in side pocket of pants.
Set up outside, discussion on arrest warrant, Interstate trafficking of stolen goods. Polite knock, and off it started, the role players were terrific, the young agents quite competent, one was tasked to watch the woman (this Agent was an ex Cop) never took his eyes off her, her request to use the bathroom! "Sorry ma rm, we have no female agent with us at this time"
He went in handcuffs, she stayed, timed out. Every body joined in the critique, very well done, pucker factor? around 500! If she had accessed the pistol, they lost! Everybody dressed the part. No not force on force, but could have turned into one! The Motel had a Bedroom, and an Office.
Very impressive, very real. Good reactions on the part of all involved.
David Armstrong
Moderator
But the material the quote is from does address that, as you would know if you would stop arguing about what the stuff says and go read it to find out what is said. Sorry, John, but I'm not going to post 10 pages of material here. Just not going to happen.
OK, John, if you want to believe that GGs with guns fighting unarmed BGs is just as dangerous as GGs with guns fighting BGs with guns, go right ahead. I don't think too many others will follow along, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead. I really don't care. While we are at it, you did not properly source the Kleck material, so I suppose you have not met your own burden of proof.
How long do you think you can string this out before everyone reading this thread notices that you have not gone and checked out the information provided to you?
Perhaps if you'd read the info I directed you to we could discuss it, instead of whether or not I have provided the info.
Last edited:
- Status