You're right:
"The technique the instructor explained was firing very quick shots in the arc of the gun being brought up, AS IT IS BEING RAISED, say at 30 degrees, 60 degrees and 90 (the usual shot point); the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body, second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit, the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center. The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker. In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway. Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause. (Not the point of the technique to monitor this, but who knows.)
In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak.
If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person. (A revolver might be more problematic this way.)"
---
"...the first would be quite low, might even ricochet off the sidewalk but perhaps into his body..."
Might as in might not. Perhaps as in perhaps not.
"...second also low but a possible leg/low-groin hit..."
Possibly as in possibly not.
"...the last though very quickly following might well get a hit somewhere in center."
Might well as in might not.
You're right. I don't know where we're getting the idea that the intent and advice is to accept missing. If the instructor in question, or you've, poorly described zippering, so be it. I have no problem with zippering, be it with sights or not. But it seems he's described and you have stated what he meant, which can't really be dismissed much better than Jordan did decades ago. (See above.)
And, I fail to see how shooting twice anywhere before the third shot is faster than just shooting that third shot as your first. Same start position, same draw, same arc of movement... But with the dynamics of shooting added. It isn't faster. It cannot be. As fast? Maybe; unlikely, but possible.
"The hope is the phyisical -or if even none hit - just psychological reaction to such an overwhelmingly quick opening- fusillade will cause a pause of shock in the attacker."
The hope seems to be justifying a plan to miss with wishful thinking at best. What about the not so insignificant number of times where there physical and psychological reactions are absent? Then what?
"In the pause you now have a breath to more carefully get control of the situation and aim for other shots, at about the same time your normally would be firing your first shot anyway."
What pause. Oh, the assumed one. What about when there isn't one? What then?
"Perhaps the threat falls wounded or runs in the slight pause."
There's that perhaps again... Again, what about when the assailant deviats from the script? Then what?
"In other words, you're shooting "before your first shot", so to speak."
Who was it that said you cannot miss fast enough to win a gun fight?
"If it doesn't work, you're no worse off than you would have been save for the 3 less shots, but in a semi-A., at least, you have quite a few left for one person."
If it doesn't work you've wasted time and ammunition, perhaps (Doh! There it is again! Lots of mights, maybes, perhapses and ifs... Too many to be taken seriously.) shot and killed others besides your intended target, and might not be in a position to use whatever rounds you have left in a more traditional manner.
But they, thanks for bringing it to the attention of folks who might not have heard of it before. It is always nice to see and/or talk about what is going on the community at large.
