Considerations
Marine Corps infantry doctrine calls for 'assaulting the ambush'. The only possible chance for survival in an ambush is to attack the ambushers. This has been shown to disrupt the ambush and break the attack.
However, outside a combat zone this may not be the best course of action. I can see where moving toward an attacker and firing rapidly in the direction of the attacker may not be the best course of action in a shopping mall during the Christmas shopping season.
I have long held tactics must be fluid and adaptable to the current situation. While I was a Border 'Troll in a rather desolate area of Southern California, I could do things I cannot do now working inside at Los Angeles International Airport.
Mr. Matthew Temkin asks the very valid question:
Police have a lousy hit rate (and that is correct) for two reasons.
Reason number one is departments look at training as a budget item. Firearm qualification and training are done in a fashion to get most of the troops 'qualified' for lawsuit purposes while spending as little money as possible. That's just a fact of life for taxpayer funded organizations. Troops at the range are not on the job.
Reason number two is most law enforcement people are not shooters and look at firearms as a required evil at best. Most lawmen (women) will never fire their weapons except at the range and most simply don't take lethal self-defense seriously. (The lawmen who attend this forum are the exception, I should think.)
No hobbyist falls into reason number two; most work seriously at overcoming reason number one. The fact is, non-police firearms owners have a much better over all 'score' for shooting villains - and the proper villain - than police in general.
My own theory of gunfighting is this: Stay alert for coming problems. Anticipate what can happen and from where an attack may come. Be competent with one's equipment.
Marine Corps infantry doctrine calls for 'assaulting the ambush'. The only possible chance for survival in an ambush is to attack the ambushers. This has been shown to disrupt the ambush and break the attack.
However, outside a combat zone this may not be the best course of action. I can see where moving toward an attacker and firing rapidly in the direction of the attacker may not be the best course of action in a shopping mall during the Christmas shopping season.
I have long held tactics must be fluid and adaptable to the current situation. While I was a Border 'Troll in a rather desolate area of Southern California, I could do things I cannot do now working inside at Los Angeles International Airport.
Mr. Matthew Temkin asks the very valid question:
The only possible answer is "Shoot quickly and don't miss."
Police have a lousy hit rate (and that is correct) for two reasons.
Reason number one is departments look at training as a budget item. Firearm qualification and training are done in a fashion to get most of the troops 'qualified' for lawsuit purposes while spending as little money as possible. That's just a fact of life for taxpayer funded organizations. Troops at the range are not on the job.
Reason number two is most law enforcement people are not shooters and look at firearms as a required evil at best. Most lawmen (women) will never fire their weapons except at the range and most simply don't take lethal self-defense seriously. (The lawmen who attend this forum are the exception, I should think.)
No hobbyist falls into reason number two; most work seriously at overcoming reason number one. The fact is, non-police firearms owners have a much better over all 'score' for shooting villains - and the proper villain - than police in general.
My own theory of gunfighting is this: Stay alert for coming problems. Anticipate what can happen and from where an attack may come. Be competent with one's equipment.
