Toss the timer.... Rob P. & Rob L . Worlds Colide

[Unconventional]

I agree with this but not 100%. The skills developed in the shooting games may very well cross over to the skills needed to survive a real world situation.

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds in competitions over the past year or the person who has fired a couple hundred at a target.

You got the first part right.

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds at paper targets or the person who has had thousands of rounds exchanged with real world combatants?

Fixed the second part for ya.

 

[OldMarksman]

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds at paper targets or the person who has had thousands of rounds exchanged with real world combatants?

That's meaningless.

Anyone who has "had thousands of rounds exchanged with real world combatants" has done so in military combat.

The situations, rules of engagement, and factors impinging upon the justification of the use of deadly force in that realm are not comparable in any material way to what civilians may need to face, and the skill sets are therefore not very transferable at all.

 

[Lohman446]

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds at paper targets or the person who has had thousands of rounds exchanged with real world combatants?

I don't recall the person who has exchanged thousands of rounds in real world combat being one of the choices I offered.

 

[Unconventional]

Thank you, that's precisely my point. These gentlemen have little to no experience to transfer to the real world. Just supposition.

That's not to say the training is useless.

The situations, rules of engagement, and factors impinging upon the justification of the use of deadly force in that realm are not comparable in any material way to what civilians may need to face, and the skill sets are therefore not very transferable at all.

Not true. 'Lawfare' is real and you can get hammered in court not once, but twice for failing to take these factors into consideration.

 

[seeker_two]

You got the first part right.

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds at paper targets or the person who has had thousands of rounds exchanged with real world combatants?

Fixed the second part for ya.

Good point......but, where are you going to get volunteers for your training sessions?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[OldMarksman]

Not true. 'Lawfare' is real and you can get hammered in court not once, but twice for failing to take these factors into consideration.

I have no idea what that was intended to mean in this context.

And the fact remains that experience in exchanging "thousands of rounds in real world combat" will be most untimely to have any meaningful relationship whatsoever to civilian self defense encounters.

 

[Unconventional]

I have no idea what that was intended to mean in this context.

It means that assessing the situatuon and sizing up an outcome from a legal aspect exists for both hypothetical people.

A lot of time on this forum is given to debating whether a particular use of force in self defense is justified or not. The considerations are similar for those is combat - not always, but often.

I don't intend to diminutize their training. I don't necessarily know any better than the Robs. I just know different.

I don't know how to make it any more clear.

 

[OldMarksman]

...assessing the situatuon and sizing up an outcome from a legal aspect exists for both hypothetical people.

A combat soldier has the duty to seek and destroy, when so ordered. He or she goes into as situation knowing that.

A civilian defender has no such duty or objective, and he or she does not expect to enter combat. He or she is expected to avoid danger if at all possible. The use of force will be justified if and only if avoidance fails.

I cannot see how experience in seeking, pursuing, and destroying enemies in warfare would be helpful in reacting to an unexpected ambush at close range in a parking lot.

 

[JohnKSa]

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds in competitions over the past year or the person who has fired a couple hundred at a target.

When the highly successful NYPD stakeout squads were being put together with people like Jim Cirillo, two of the twelve questions they asked were about the candidate's experience in shooting competitions.

Competition isn't the same as gunfighting, but having learned to perform at a high level under pressure in competition certainly doesn't hurt a person in a gunfight.

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds at paper targets or the person who has had thousands of rounds exchanged with real world combatants?

If one survives and learns proper lessons from many self-defense/LE type gunfights (military tactics and rules of engagement are quite different) it makes sense that they would likely have an edge over a person who is equal in all respects ("all other things being equal") but has gained all their experience from practice on the range and competition.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that there is anyone living, and possibly no one in all of history who has exchanged "thousands of rounds" in self-defense/LE type engagements.

These gentlemen have little to no experience to transfer to the real world. Just supposition.

The idea that anyone without experience can only provide "supposition" about the real world doesn't follow. I've never taken a lethal dose of strychnine, but that doesn't mean it's only "supposition" when I tell others to avoid the practice. I don't need to eat a rotten egg, or even smell one to know that eating one is a bad idea. Fortunately it is possible to acquire useful information that transfers to the real world without having to actually "eat rotten eggs".

 

[Unconventional]

For what it's worth, I don't believe that there is anyone living, and possibly no one in all of history who has exchanged "thousands of rounds" in self-defense/LE type engagements.The idea that anyone without experience can only provide "supposition" about the real world doesn't follow.

I never pigeon-holed the example to mean only self defense/LE engagements.

It's clear to me now that many folks don't understand the ROE established in various parts of the world. There is such a thing as a "bad shoot" in combat. This is not news.

It's also clear that my point - that an instructor can only suppose what a self defense situation may be like if they haven't been in one - was lost.

It's also been mistaken that in attempting to make the above points, that I was dismissing the value of skill acquired in competition.

When the highly successful NYPD stakeout squads were being put together with people like Jim Cirillo, two of the twelve questions they asked were about the candidate's experience in shooting competitions.

I find this very interesting. I would be interested to find out what the other 10 questions were. I would be surprised if there wasn't at least one question about experience in use of deadly force.

 

[FireForged]

Who is most likely to survive a gun fight all other things being equal? The person who has fired thousands of rounds in competitions over the past year or the person who has fired a couple hundred at a target.

I think that issues such as initiative ( who attacked who first), position, level of awareness and overall numbers are much more critical than anything you might bring from IDPA. Taking away a ball and bat and replacing it with a gun does not make it training or preparation for real combat.

 

[OldMarksman]

It's also clear that my point - that an instructor can only suppose what a self defense situation may be like if they haven't been in one - was lost.

Good, because it's bunk.

I never pigeon-holed the example to mean only self defense/LE engagements.

It is clear from the OP and from the video linked therein that the subject at hand relates to civilian self defense--to real-life defensive shooting.

I would be interested to find out what the other 10 questions were.

Here are all twelve:

1. Are you a competitive shooter?
2. Have you competed in major matches and placed and won awards?
3. Can you perform well under pressure or fear?
4. Are you a hunter?
5. Have you shot big game?
6. Do you like outdoor physical sports?
7. Do you collect firearms?
8. Do you reload ammo?
9. If you are over 28, are you married?
10. Do you have children?
11. Do you like people?
12. Do you attend civic affairs?
    

I would be surprised if there wasn't at least one question about experience in use of deadly force.

That would have eliminated most of the potential candidates on the force.

Keep in mind that the Stakeout Squad was not engaged in the kind of civilian defensive shooting scenarios addressed by Pincus, where one or more unexpected attackers can materialize from any position and any angle without warning.

Rather, they knowingly placed themselves in hidden positions at locations where violent criminal actions had occurred and were expected. The Stakeout Squad performed the ambushes--not parking lot criminals.

I think that issues such as initiative ( who attacked who first), position, level of awareness and overall numbers are much more critical than anything you might bring from IDPA.

I think that is Rob Pincus' basic point, if I correctly understand what you are trying to say.

Taking away a ball and bat and replacing it with a gun does not make it training or preparation for real combat.

???

 

[WVsig]

I also think the fact that in competition the "Stages" are staged. You get to look them over, plan and game them to shoot them fast. This staging the stage so you can shoot a faster time puts you in positions that you would never put yourself in if you find yourself in a defensive pistol situation. Here is another video which talks about the unrealistic shooting positions that competitions create/demand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnmEJ_b53So

Then they run the same stage in a more practical way. Their approach to this run is very different. They are shooting it from totally different mindset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZyC55jI2kk

 

[OldMarksman]

I also think the fact that in competition the "Stages" are staged. You get to look them over, plan and game them to shoot them fast. This staging the stage so you can shoot a faster time puts you in positions that you would never put yourself in if you find yourself in a defensive pistol situation.

Yes indeed!

 

[Lohman446]

The argument some are trying to make, taken to the extreme, would argue there is no purpose in training with your firearm or having familiarity with it because those things are not really central to the use of a firearm in deadly force.

Do I think the majority of what is done in shooting games translates over to self defense? No I don't. Do I think at least some of the skills in shooting games translate to self defense? Most certainly I do.

In regards to the timer issues? The timer is part of the games and likely plays too large a part in scoring for some segments. Do I think half a second is going to matter in MOST self defense scenarios? Nope. Probably not. You really should spend your limited training time honing other skills. Do I think it may matter in SOME? Yep - and if it does matter it is REALLY going to matter


In martial arts we had a group of students that would often go from point fighting to "controlled contact" where we realized the hits were going to be much harder and the risk of injury much higher. From time to time you would get a student who would be very good at point fighting who would come over to practice and his or her skills would suddenly devolve when hit. However MOST of the time the students who were really good at point fighting were also really good at "controlled contact" because the skills translated.

The skills from the gun games WILL help you in a self defense situation - at least some of the skills if the individual using them is able to carry them into the situation. Familiarity with a firearm, accuracy while moving, reloading, and speed are useful skills and the more these skills are part of muscle memory the more concentration an individual will be able to put into the mental side of surviving the conflict.

For the record I don't participate in gun games. That many people handing that many firearms that often puts me in situation I don't want to be in. "What can go wrong eventually will go wrong given a large enough sample" type concern. Still to deny that the skills, at least some of them, one is honing in those competitions could be useful in self defense seems to me to be an argument that locks face validity.

EDIT: make a list of skills needed to survive an armed encounter that required lethal force. While the skills honed in the gun games may not make the top of the list they cannot be entirely left off the list either.

 

[FireForged]

I also think the fact that in competition the "Stages" are staged. You get to look them over, plan and game them to shoot them fast. This staging the stage so you can shoot a faster time puts you in positions that you would never put yourself in if you find yourself in a defensive pistol situation.

sure... its a dance, not combat training.

 

[FireForged]

Are you a competitive shooter?
Have you competed in major matches and placed and won awards?
Can you perform well under pressure or fear?
Are you a hunter?
Have you shot big game?
Do you like outdoor physical sports?
Do you collect firearms?
Do you reload ammo?
If you are over 28, are you married?
Do you have children?
Do you like people?
Do you attend civic affairs?

these are the questions asked of those wishing to be on a surveillance team? are you kidding me?

 

[Unconventional]

Good, because it's bunk.

If they don't know, what else can they do but suppose? They can run endless scenarios, thought experiments, wax philosophical, and read the accounts of others, but they won't know for themselves. Is there a third option aside from either knowing something or supposing? If that's the hill you want to die on, by all means.

It is clear from the OP and from the video linked therein that the subject at hand relates to civilian self defense--to real-life defensive shooting.

That's great. The fact remains that I never classified my comments to solely self defense/LE experience.

That would have eliminated most of the potential candidates on the force.

Gholly, dude. You're taking everything I post to the most extreme. You know for a fact that if a candidate hadn't had an encounter with use of deadly force that they simply wouldn't be considered? (If that had been a question) If there was a question that was "have you had an encounter in which you discharged your firearm", and a candidate answered "No", it doesn't necessarily follow that the candidate is now absolutely barred from further consideration. I can only imagine that the answers the candidate gave would influence the assessor's selection, not necessarily decide it for him.

On a different note, I appreciate that you posted those questions for me.

Also, I think the basic misunderstanding we may be having is that I believe that an instructor will be much more worth his words if he has experience. I'm not saying that training is a pointless endeavor. Not at all.

I'm saying that the training of the instructor should be taken with some skepticism - not that one shouldn't train.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay read the article. I call "BOGUS."

They performed a test, like they were trying to do something scientific or conclusive, but nothing could be further from the trust, but they wrote an article, which I assume was really the ultimate goal.

The sample was too small. The test was unrealistically limited to a particular type of singular real world situation. There was only a fraction of a second different in their times which may or may not be replicable in the same way, but we will never know because only one test was performed. The conclusion drawn to lose the timer invalidates the test because it was a timer that was used to validate which shooter won.

 

[OldMarksman]

Just to clarify--the candidates for the NYPD Stakeout Squad (which incidentally, was not a "surveillance team") were New York City police officers. Their work experience was known to the Department.

Jim Cirillo was charged with the responsibility of selecting and leading the team. It was his responsibility to choose from the candidates. It seems that he was quite successful at that.

The duties of the team differed very significantly from what a civilian defender would be expected to do. However, some of the attributes that would support success on that team would be helpful in self defense.

Of the ones mentioned in the interview questions, performance under pressure would be foremost, along with the aspects of firearms skills that the questions about competition might bring out.

The OP pointed out the differences between running around with a timer shooting at targets known in advance, and dealing with completely unexpected threats materializing from different angles. That's important to the civilian defender.

The Stakeout Squad did neither of those things.

They located themselves behind cover and concealment and awaited the entry, through doors, of criminals whose arrival was considered likely. They did not move around, and they did not work as individuals. They were very heavily armed.

The matter of whether real real world experience is sufficient or even very helpful, either to the defender or to the instructor, has been discussed here at great length over the years. The fact is, there are far too many variables that will never manifest themselves in even a large number of incidents. The same thing manifests itself in air combat. The development of sufficient numbers of strategies and the development of sufficient skills simply does not and cannot occur in real combat. For that reason, simulation and real FoF flight training is used.

When it comes to defensive firearms training and skills development, far, far more can be taught, experienced, evaluated, and learned in several days in FoF simulation in a shoot house or parking lots than any one person will ever see in a lifetime. And it is possible to separate out the effects of random chance.