Will competition get you killed? Police take

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with what he said (which I think I alread said) but competition is an artificial situation to begin with and I think everyone understands that. I wouldn't go so far as to say it necessarily creates bad habits. And I wouldn't say that anyone sees it as training for anything. It may be good preparation but it still isn't training.

What I would say, on the other hand, is that bad practices in training will create bad practices in "real life." I know you've probably heard about trainees being instructed to keep their brass policed up. That sort of thing. Some aspects of training situations, just like in competitions, are hard to avoid, though, without a doubt, unless you're willing to accept a high level of risk of injury. And then there's the simple fact of having to manage either a large number of competitors or a large number of trainees. I don't have any specific suggestions. It's been a long time since I had anything to do with training.

Another more basic problem is the different ideas that various instructors have. This ought to be less of a problem in a large law enforcement agency but more of one for a non-law enforcement individual who wants to increase his skill levels and takes a course from someone. Some of those folks can be awfully dogmatic, I understand.
 
There is training and there is competition. The training can be as tactical or realistic as you can make it without being a competition. I think the training should be in the nature of pass/fail, although I have no idea how you might do that. But competition introduces rules and such things and complication immediately sets in.
Click to expand...

I think training and competition can be good as long as they don't teach you habits that would be bad in a real life situation. And just shooting a lot is good as long as you don't pick up bad habits.

In real life situations whether to shoot or who to shoot is often not easy to discern. When I was going through police firearm's training, they showed us shoot/don't shoot videos that acted out actual incidents that had happened. (This was forty years ago so I don't know if they do anything like that today.) We were then graded on a pass/fail system whether we made the correct decision as a responding officer on whether to shoot and/or who to shoot.
 
IF you use your training in the competition, it is usefull to hone your skills under the minor pressure of the clock and your ego.
If you use a different skill set in competition, it may override your defensive skill set.

Or, if you can make the switch, you can have two complimentary skill sets.
 
I never understood the mentality of "your a fool to think IDPA is training". I think your a fool to not think it's training. Sure it may not be tactical training, but it is most definitely fundamental training. Police and soldiers will get different tactical training but the fundamentals will be the same.


Training - Definition
1. (n.) the process of bringing a person, etc, to an agreed standard of proficiency, etc, by practice and/or instruction
 
The article makes the point that most competitions are tactically unrealistic.
Click to expand...

I've shot a good bit of combat courses. There is one key difference I see, other than no return fire. That is that every course I have shot has been under attack and overcome. That is not the model for SD, which is defend and withdraw. I could care less if the guy walks away unscathed, as long as I do.

The again I know a lot of "Range Hero's"
 
The 'Catch-22' in my opinion is that if you are trained and conditioned to respond with force, you just might end up doing that as a autonomic response in a bad situation. Example seems to be the current movie theatre shooting in Colorado. I'm thinking if a guy stands up and draws to confront the shooter, he most likely will be dead in short order. However with lots of training and =practice that just might be the 'Knee jerk' response.
Click to expand...

For years my wife thought that my first response was always to draw my gun (her assumption was that I was conditioned to always draw on a threat) as she had never seen me in a bad situation as I avoid as much as I can with the family. Well, one evening out for dinner we were approached and accosted by a would be robber, he presented no weapon and I went H2H and put him down so fast the wife and daughter were standing there blinking.

A gun is not always the answer, it is a tool and should be a part of your strategy, but not your only strategy.

You must be thinking of PPC, or 30 year old training as well as what Hollywood portrays. As Kraig pointed out, IDPA is not like that at all.
 
Last edited:
So where does the instruction part come in?
Click to expand...
Well its practice and or instruction. It's mostly practice but instruction comes from the SO and match director. You should try it sometime. It's a lot of fun.

And where does the agreement come in, too?
Click to expand...
The agreement is rhetorical as with most training. You have guidelines to follow on each course of fire. You shoot as accurate as you can in the least amount of time possible.
 
Last edited:
I am just going to wait until technology catches up and we can run any scenarios/situation for training in a "virtual reality" (insert total recall?). Anywho, yes it is hard to predict what will happen in any firefight due to the endless possibilites, but competion would certainly do more good than harm.
 
One thing about competition, having shot today - if you don't have some active shooting experience as compared to the square range - it may temper statement how in an emergency you wll , blah, blah.
 
I have a cousin who is a world class target shooter and I would not take him into combat with me. Being a good shooter does not mean you will be good in combat and being a Navy SEAL does not make you a world class target shooter. Many of the skills used are transferable sure, others will get ya killed. They are different animals.
 
I remember reading somewhere (perhaps a link somewhere on this forum ?) about a project where experienced combat folks from Iraq and Afghanistan were asked to try out a 3-gun course. I seem to remember these were SEALs or USA Special Forces, or similar high speed low drag folks. Does anyone besides me remember this?

As I recall, these professionals did not run through the course in the same way that most competitors do... They were a bit slower, fired fewer shots, and were A LOT MORE CAREFUL about concealment and cover.

I wish I could find the link... Anyone remember this?
 
Depending on what state you live in and your district attorney's personality, it can make it harder to defend yourself if you're ever in court for a shooting-related incident. Some prosecutors would have a field day terrifying a jury with stories about how you like to "dress up an play Rambo" in your weekend IPSC hobby.
 
I was chastized for making a forum post in which I stated I had "brushed my cover back and gripped my pistol" when suddenly confronted by a man who had a revolver in his waistband (not illegal). The man was reaching for something on an upper shelf which exposed his gun and when I came into view, he dropped his hands to his waistband. Cops kill people almost daily for making this move BTW........
Click to expand...

Listen to the way your mind incorrectly perceived the situation as you being "confronted" by him. HE did not confront you. YOU surprised and confronted him.

I was sitting in a restaurant some time back, and a fellow who'd been sitting at a table next to mine got up to leave and I spotted his gun in the open for all to see. No one else did, that I could tell (IWB, black shirt, black gun) and he simply took his coat off the back of the chair, put it on and went up to the register to pay--then left.

He violated no law by his temporary open carry, and I didn't either, by removing my coat while seated and letting it drape over my gun and mag pouch.

Guess you would have jumped up and brushed back back your coat with diners stitting all around you, since being "quick to go to the gun" has served you so well.:rolleyes:

Sorry, didn't mean to get off topic. I have no doubt that the pressure of competition is a good thing, even if some of the tactics associated with certain phases of the event may be improper, or not practical in a real life situation. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Some prosecutors would have a field day terrifying a jury with stories about how you like to "dress up an play Rambo" in your weekend IPSC hobby.
Click to expand...

How would that be relevant to a good shoot?
 
In Marin County, or San Francisco County California I doubt a jury could be put together that would think there is such a thing as a 'Good shoot'. The emotional makeup of the jurors is far more important than any complicated facts.

How do you define, 'A Good Shoot' ?
 
Last edited:
Nanuk said:
Some prosecutors would have a field day terrifying a jury with stories about how you like to "dress up an play Rambo" in your weekend IPSC hobby.
Click to expand...
How would that be relevant to a good shoot?
Click to expand...
If you're on trial, there was some significant disagreement about whether it was a "good shoot." Now it won't be a "good shoot" unless the jury says that it is.

If you're unlucky enough to be in front of a jury, it helps to understand that juries can be influenced by many things. Harold Fish's jury was influenced by his use of hollow points. And this article by our own Glenn Meyer discusses studies showing the a jury could be influenced by the type of gun used.

But while some things that could have a negative influence on a jury also, like using JHP ammunition and being well trained, can increase the likelihood of a good outcome on the street. Other things, like Punisher grips on your pistol, won't help on the street and could be dicey in court. The prudent and wise person understands the difference and plans accordingly.

Personally I don't worry about things like training that could help me on the street. I'm prepared to deal with the issue. Nor do I worry about things that can't help on the street, because I just avoid them.
 
How do you define, 'A Good Shoot' ?
Click to expand...

To add to what Frank said:

First you rule out the three S's, stupid people, doing stupid things in stupid places. A genuine self defense situation is fairly easy to discern from a made up SD situation. The story(s) don't match, the evidence does not match etc.

Frequently, you are not the first victim of said bad guy. You, of course cannot totally rule out the ambitious political career of a prosecutor.

Of course I have lived in conservative middle America and will continue to so. The value system is a little different here VS the left and right coasts, that also plays a role in the perception of anything you do.
 
Nanuk said:
...A genuine self defense situation is fairly easy to discern from a made up SD situation...
Click to expand...
Really? Try telling that to --

This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.

And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

Nanuk said:
...You, of course cannot totally rule out the ambitious political career of a prosecutor...
Click to expand...
Or a prosecutor doing his job.

The prosecutor, just as any good lawyer, will use whatever is useful, within the rules, to further the interests of his client. In the case of a prosecutor, his client is the state, and his client wants a conviction.

And a prosecutor, particularly a politically ambitious one, generally won't be pursuing a case unless he thinks he can reasonably expect a conviction. Losing cases doesn't help one's career.

Nanuk said:
...Of course I have lived in conservative middle America and will continue to so. The value system is a little different here VS the left and right coasts, that also plays a role in the perception of anything you do.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the couple in Missouri, or Mark Abshire (Oklahoma), or Harold Fish (Arizona), or Larry Hickey (also Arizona).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top