The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Jeff22 · March 14, 2008, 04:53 AM

This has been a pretty good discussion -- the following points particularly struck me as important:

"everything is situationally dependant on any number of things" --Crucible
-------------------------------------------------------------
"comparing military and LE confrontations (to self-defense situation involving a citizen) is comparing apples to oranges" --Lurper
------------------------------------------------------------
"practicing for any situation is a good idea" -- Matt Temkin
------------------------------------------------------------
"The difference between a typical civilian defender or lone LEO in a reactive situation, with his handgun, at three to fifteen feet is very different than a special teams guy in a "proactively dominant" situation, with his long gun, at thiry to ninety feet. There is simply no comparison at all. Dynamic movement at logical distances with threat focused skills are an absolutely obtainable skillset with a handgun. Being able to engage with accurate fire, with a long gun, with dynamic movement, out to thiry yards, while taking incoming from another long gun is an entirely different animal. This is why all of this is contextual and situationally dependent. This is also why it is like comparing apples to oranges. "--Roger Phillips

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force Science Institute has done several studies. One showed that in around 70% of the 400 cases studied (LE) cover was not available or the shooting happened so fast that seeking cover wasn't possible. Also conventional wisdom taught police officers to move to their left to avoid being hit while one of their studies showed that was moving into most likely direction an unskilled shooter would miss. So, just because it's mainstream doctrine doesn't mean it is correct.

Additionally, Military, Law Enforcement and Civilian shootings are three totally different situations, each having its own unique settting, requirements and solutions. If you don't accept that, you are ignoring reality." --Lurper
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I've recently attended training with John Farnam & Louis Awerbuck. Both taught to move laterally while drawing, and then to stop (or nearly stop) movement while engaging the target. I think that idea still has lots of merit, depending upon situation, but there are lots of times when lateral movement may not be possible. What happens when you're on a stairway or in a hallway? Or if you're confronted at night in an icy parking lot -- rapid movement may cause you to fall.

There is no one answer that fits all situations. It's always good to evaluate the rationale behind the options, to see what fits in a given situation, and what does not.

March 14, 2008, 04:53 AM	#101
Jeff22 Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2004 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 715	lateral movement This has been a pretty good discussion -- the following points particularly struck me as important: "everything is situationally dependant on any number of things" --Crucible ------------------------------------------------------------- "comparing military and LE confrontations (to self-defense situation involving a citizen) is comparing apples to oranges" --Lurper ------------------------------------------------------------ "practicing for any situation is a good idea" -- Matt Temkin ------------------------------------------------------------ "The difference between a typical civilian defender or lone LEO in a reactive situation, with his handgun, at three to fifteen feet is very different than a special teams guy in a "proactively dominant" situation, with his long gun, at thiry to ninety feet. There is simply no comparison at all. Dynamic movement at logical distances with threat focused skills are an absolutely obtainable skillset with a handgun. Being able to engage with accurate fire, with a long gun, with dynamic movement, out to thiry yards, while taking incoming from another long gun is an entirely different animal. This is why all of this is contextual and situationally dependent. This is also why it is like comparing apples to oranges. "--Roger Phillips ------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Force Science Institute has done several studies. One showed that in around 70% of the 400 cases studied (LE) cover was not available or the shooting happened so fast that seeking cover wasn't possible. Also conventional wisdom taught police officers to move to their left to avoid being hit while one of their studies showed that was moving into most likely direction an unskilled shooter would miss. So, just because it's mainstream doctrine doesn't mean it is correct. Additionally, Military, Law Enforcement and Civilian shootings are three totally different situations, each having its own unique settting, requirements and solutions. If you don't accept that, you are ignoring reality." --Lurper -------------------------------------------------------------------- I've recently attended training with John Farnam & Louis Awerbuck. Both taught to move laterally while drawing, and then to stop (or nearly stop) movement while engaging the target. I think that idea still has lots of merit, depending upon situation, but there are lots of times when lateral movement may not be possible. What happens when you're on a stairway or in a hallway? Or if you're confronted at night in an icy parking lot -- rapid movement may cause you to fall. There is no one answer that fits all situations. It's always good to evaluate the rationale behind the options, to see what fits in a given situation, and what does not. __________________ You can only learn from experience if you pay attention!