Quote:
|
Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant.
|
I think you are underestimating or failing to recognize the importance of such information. If there is a common factor to winning shootings that is also a common factor to losing shotings all we have is a factor common to shootings. It's like distance. Most LE that lose a gunfight are closer than 10' to the perp. However, most LE that win a gunfight are closer than 10' to the perp. So what we learn is not that close distance factors into the gunfight, but that most gunfights occur within a close distance.
Having said that, here is my soapbox rant for the day: Folks, if you don't like what Lurper (or anybody else) has to say about their findings, for Pete's sake go out and do some research of your own instead of questioning the poster for his data and sources and such. That is the better way. Challenging design and methodology might be appropriate (and frequently it is flawed) but if you are unwilling to spend some time looking things up and verifying them don't expect anybody else to do it for you. Rant mode off.
Quote:
|
While everyone should be proud of their service (myself included), it bears no relevance to the topic.
|
While LE, military, and civvy roles certainly differ, I fail to see that making a difference in the movement factor for close-range shooting. Unless you are contending that the shoot/movement framework changes the chances of winning based on the fact that you are LE, military, or civvy I'm not sure I'm following you.