Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deaf Smith
The point is that it is NOT AN AVERAGE. Not even good science....
|
In other words, you don't have a point that's relevant to the discussion.
The point of the Tueller study is that someone 7 yards away with a contact weapon can be a credible threat because he can reach someone in a time that's comparable to the time it would take a reasonable proficient defender to deploy and fire, with reasonable accuracy, a gun that's holstered at the start of the exercise. The value of that information is that it can help someone assess his danger zone and consider and implement possible ways to reduce the danger.
In
his article Tueller says that the time window, based on his observations, was about one and one-half seconds.
You obliquely suggested in post 49 that the time window was not useful unless the group of persons performing the drill was appropriately divers:
Quote:
...So they used old arthritic people? Obese people? Short legged? Pygmies? Or just police recruits?
Just what kind of pool of 'volunteers' did they use?...
|
But as I pointed out, repetition of the drill with a diverse sample doesn't change things by much. The "take home" message of the Tueller drill remains the same:
- If someone armed with a contact weapon and manifesting an intention to immediately attack you is about 7 yards away (and there are no obstacles in his way), and you're standing there with your gun in your holster, you are in imminent danger.
- You need to do something right away. What you do will depend on the exact situation. Is cover immediately available? Can you put obstacles between yourself and the assailant? Can you increase distance? Draw your gun and be ready?
But all of that applies whether it will take the assailant 1.4 seconds or 1.7 seconds to be on top of you.
So ply with yout averages, means, and standard deviations. None of that really means anything with regard to the practical applications of the lessons of the Tueller drill.