View Single Post
Old March 8, 2008, 01:02 AM   #68
Lurper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2006
Posts: 943
Quote:
Many trainers have never even been in one gun battle or even been shot at. They teach tactics from hearsay to the less informed and not from real life experience. Case in point: 'stand and deliver', commonly known as stand and 'die', will get one killed needlessly.
Anyone that would opt for 'stand and deliver' - except in the most dire and uncompromising circumstances - is a fool. Period.
And that statement just isn't supported by the data on civilian gunfights, period. What is supported is that the person who hits their targets first wins.

Quote:
Yes, and my point was that they looked at data, maybe not the same as yours, but self defense data, and arrived at a different conclusion.
The vast majority of trainers look at law enforcement data, not civilian. As I mentioned, there is no database of civlian shootings. It is painstaking work.

Quote:
Here we have a difference of sampling between gunfights and shootings. You are referring to gunfights and so have introduced a significant bias into the interpretation to support your conclusion that it is more important to neutralize the threat instead of moving. Many gunfights NEVER become gunfights and simply remain as shootings because people didn't stand around trying to neutralize the threat. They move off the X and moved through the rest of the alphabet to safety.
Your words not mine. I simply find accounting of shooting incidents and compile the data. The only data I didn't use was when no shots were fired or animal attacks. It's a pretty broad spectrum. Fact is fact you don't have to like it, nor agree with it nor does the "mainstream", but it is what it is. Which is exactly my point: For years we as consumers have been spoon fed what certain people in the industry want to feed us and most lap it right up. The reality is (no matter how you slice it) in the vast majority of incidents where shots are fired, moving off of the X nor any other common tactic has any effect on the outcome to the degree that hitting the target first does. Certainly, don't take my word for it. Do the work yourself and you'll see. A lot of what is forwarded by the "tacticool" crowd is self-serving. How else would you propse to look at what works for civilians? Study LE gunfights? Military? The only way to know what works is to study civilian situations (and you wouldn't study situations where the CCW'er lost if you were looking for what worked). Again, tactics play little or no role in the vast majority of cases. This is primarily because the average CIVILIAN doesn't know or use them. You can argue effectiveness all you want. Again it's the efficacy that I question. The reverse implication of saying "moving off of the X will keep you alive" is "not moving off of the X will get you killed". There is no data that supports that. No matter what anyone says.
Lurper is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04351 seconds with 7 queries