Shooting and Fighting Aren't The Same...

ewww. Suarez... Would u elaborate what the points you felt were accurate? I refuse to go to any of his websites. He's a bit to off for my tastes.
 
No thanks. There are plenty of other papers from other professionals I'd prefer to read. The concept that gunfighting and recreational shooting or even defensive shooting practice being very different isnt a novel or rare concept I've read about it from others Ayoob and such and would be willing to debate or agree with the topics you seem to agree with if you'd choose to share them.

Suarez & co. is to different for me I'd probably get along with JY before them and thats saying quite a bit. ;)

Just from life experience i'd say most don't factor in the stress of combat assuming their skills in combat will be equal to their skills on the range.
 
That's was a good read, sounds very logical and straight forward. I'm no expert but the way I see it is target shooting is about achieving perfection where as when fighting you don't have to be perfect just good enough to hit what your aiming at and faster than the BG. Practicing shooting at targets is good but if that's all you know how to when it comes to a fight your screwed. You can't just stand in one place and expect your target to be still whilst you pop a cap in it.
 
I never heard of Suarez before, and just read through a few of his posts. Seemed like pretty reasonable stuff.

What's the issue with him? Not to stir the pot. Just curious.

David
 
Shooting is a subset of fighting.

Imagine a large circle, call it 'fighting'. Bisecting it is several smaller circles. One is 'shooting', another 'tactics', still another 'techniques', another 'tools', and so on.

Some of the 'shooting' circle is inside the 'fighting' circle, as is the others. And some of the other circles bisect each other (that is they overlap.)

Quite a bit of one's shooting techniques can be adapted to fighting as fighting is a rather broad subject from static defense to fluid offense to surprise attack to ambush to close quarters to.... Well you see a rather broad and deep subject.

Same with tools, techniques, tactics, and strategy.

Even bullseye slowfire can be used in fighting in the right circumstances.

What the author is trying to do is simply what is to be learned for those who do not want to master the subject (nothing wrong with that... not everyone has the time to train often and intensely.)

Deaf
 
What's the issue with him?
Click to expand...
That depends on who you talk to. He's opinionated and not bashful about it. Hes had a bit of a sketchy past, according to some, but thats up to you to decide if theres anything to it, and if it bothers you.

Personally, I try to look into and learn as much as I can about as much as I can, and adapt to my needs, what I find useful to me. So far, I think his philosophy is more in line with mine with many things. Less BS and more substance.

But thats me. I have a pretty broad experience with a lot of different things, and Im not bashful or embarrassed about learning from "everyone", if I feel they have something to offer.

Trying new things, and proving them right or wrong for you, also helps keep things fresh. If you feel youve learned all you need to, and stop learning, you stagnate. Stagnation isnt a good thing.

Shooting is a subset of fighting.
Click to expand...
It is, but Ive seen quite a few who seem to think that simply because they stuff a pistol in their belt or pocket, they have everything covered, and theres no need to bother with the rest of the package. Much of the point of the article above.
 
If you want to discuss the article - fine. Someone summarize the major points.

Next if you want to discuss the personality of its author, we don't care. Don't do that.

Google can bring that up if you are interested.

Hint for future posts.
 
It's probably not so much a measurable percentage as a "word of thumb", but several experienced, BTDT types in military and LE circles (Paul Howe comes to mind) have offered the opinion that shooting is no more than "10% of the problem".

That notion was an affront to my sensibilities when I first learned of it. I have since come to believe that it is true, and that the actual percentage is quite a bit smaller.
 
Yes. There are people who stuff a gun in their belt and think they have everything covered. On the other side there are people who learn some tactics, shoot only when forced to, no other practice, and they think they are good to go. Mark
 
Ya...I just wish I had access to the FBI's shoot houses & firing ranges, that I helped survey construct in 2001, down at Quantico, Virginia.
 
From the article:
The fighter will .... and then quickly develop a plan. Failing that, he’ll move forward with speed, aggressiveness and violence of action, shoot them to the ground, and carry on from there.
Click to expand...

"The fighter" may do that, but if a citizen does that, both the video and witness testimony would likely be damaging to his claim of justified self defense.
 
Shooting is only one part of handling a situation that may require shooting. The will to actually pull the trigger on a person might be the most important. There are plenty of cases where a person who has never fired a weapon have used one to successfully defend themselves. I wouldn't advise someone to bet their life on it. Mark
 
"The fighter" may do that, but if a citizen does that, both the video and witness testimony would likely be damaging to his claim of justified self defense.
Click to expand...
Self defense is self defense, and once you start to defend yourself, there is nothing defensive about it. It should be nothing but pure aggression against those who would do you harm. Thinking anything but that in the instant, will likely get you killed.
 
lots of practice

A very different shooting discipline but I think Kim Rohde the Olympic skeet shooter described it the best, she says you have to practice until shooting is as natural as walking. You get up to walk across the room you don't think stand up and then think now left right left right you just do it you have to practice shooting until you can just do it with out going down the list of all you have to do. But then she seems to be able to afford more ammo to practice with than I can
bb
 
Posted by AK103K:
Self defense is self defense, and once you start to defend yourself, there is nothing defensive about it. It should be nothing but pure aggression against those who would do you harm.
Click to expand...
Self defense is the use of necessary force to prevent yourself or someone else from being seriously injured, if you have not provoked an altercation or have attempted to withdraw, and if you do not use more force than was reasonably necessary at any time.

"Necessary" in that context means two things: that you have no other means to protect yourself, and that you have done what was safely possible to avoid having to use force.

The problem is that it will likely be very difficult for an actor who did in fact "move forward with speed" to successfully counter accusations that he had not met those requirements.

That is covered extremely well in this book. It is a very long read, but it is worth it.
 
Personally, I try to look into and learn as much as I can about as much as I can, and adapt to my needs, what I find useful to me. So far, I think his philosophy is more in line with mine with many things. Less BS and more substance.
Click to expand...

This is all you need to know: "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck"

Adapt from there......;)
 
I think of force is also dictated by the laws of the state your in. If I'm not mistaken some states require you to only use when there is no alternative while some allow you to stand your ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top