You know of course that this is not a new controversy and that writers were stating (or overstating) their opinions 70 years ago on this very subject. Their backgrounds were not necessarily that dissimiliar either. It was just that they saw things differently for one reason or another. But compared to some of today's writers, they don't seem quite as dogmatic as they do now.
On the one hand, some believed you had to be a really good pistol shot, although they were usually referring to revolvers, before you could move on to more advanced shooting. Ironically, the more advanced shooting as they referred to it often meant some form of point shooting.
But on the other hand, some believed that competitive handgun shooting was detrimental to combat shooting. It wasn't that they thought bullseye shooting was bad, merely that it didn't contribute to combat shooting. Their idea of training had a pass/fail basis and no other scoring system. However, to be fair, the different crowds had different people in mind, too. The former did not picture large numbers of pistol packers being run through a training course while the latter almost saw it no other way. It should be of no surprise that their approach to training was different. It should also be mentioned that the products of the latter theory of training were also more likely to actually engage in gunfights.
At the same time it should also be mentioned that many of the better known gunwriters who actually carried a badge, many of whom were in the U.S. Border Patrol, also were competitive handgun shooters. We also assume they had some actual gunfighting experiences but they tended not to write about such things.
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.