Enos is a noted real world shooter.
I think this is where some of us kind of raise eyebrows at expert opinions. This begs the question - in real world mortal danger situations? The answer, as near as I can tell, is no. In gun games. Now before this sounds too derisive I realize that many of the skills taught in gun games are part of the skill set that is likely needed to survive a real world confrontation. I also realize that there are going to be VERY few experts in real world shootings from a civilian stand point as very few people are involved in enough to become experts. Still lets not call this a 1:1 ratio.
But Lohman there are many experts who have studied the data of real world shooting events and interviewed those involved. Are you dismissing their work? Not entirely but I am dismissing the ability to generalize their findings as much as it is done. These findings, by need of practicality, are not given to controlled environments. There is a tremendous amount of bias that goes into the relating of events from real world shootings and there is, again by nature of practicality, seldom unbiased observers. We cannot hang on the data as if it were gospel.
Its like me reading up on hitting a baseball, talking to and being taught by a bunch of hitting coaches and former hitters who have a lot more real world experience than most shooting experts, taking countless practice in the batting cages, maybe even having some "force on force" live training from practice pitchers, and then believing the skill set I have learned will translate into being in the box in the bottom of the ninth in game seven of the World Series.
Perhaps, even worse, its me attempting to parrot the lessons to someone else.
Are there skills that are important? Yes there are. In the baseball example I would be far better off than if I had not taken any advise and practice. However there is not a 1:1 correlation. Some of us, perhaps. should beg forgiveness if we don't take the word of experts as the seeming gospel others do.
A personal example. I was 18 or so at the time and had signed up to a new martial arts class that allowed moderate contact on adult sparring night. It was not my first experience in martial arts but I had wanted to change schools. I had taken a couple weeks before engaging in this particular class and felt I was well prepared for it. I was reasonably skilled, in reasonable shape, and I had practiced in point fighting against several of the people I would be participating against. So I end up squared off against Mr. Peterson. I know he has a better skill set than I do and normally wins point fighting. Still I have some chance. He has some reach advantage so I need to move in and keep this simple. As I do he takes a massively powerful right arm, folds my guard as if it is nothing, and lands a "moderate" strike to my headgear. Further attempts were just as fruitless.
I hope, should I ever need to draw a firearm, I don't find myself in the same situation because despite believing I had a chance it, from previous "force on force" exercises and classroom time, and find all my expertise only worked in games.
After all that though - getting different view points, such as those from Enos, is never a bad thing as long as one realizes the limits of the experts. Recently read the book "When violence is the answer" by Tim Larkin. Interesting perspective and pretty damning to the "stay on defense" argument.
