RE: data
Go back and read the early posts. There is no central bank of data on civilian shootings. Therefore, the only way to provide the source would be to provide the accounts of each shooting. If you want to find out, do it yourself. It is a gigantic undertaking. When the project is finished, the numbers will be there, so will the methodology. If you don't like it, don't read it, post counter arguments or write your own book. One of the outcomes I would like to achieve is to have a databank (for lack of a better word) of civilian shootings. I am in the process of talking to a couple of organizations to try to find a home and money for the project.
No one person has enough personal experience to say that their experience qualifies them as an expert. To assert otherwise is absurd. The only way to have enough "experience" is to look at the experience of others.
Here is a question for all:
What makes one an expert?
Quote:
Quote:
It you are a an expert like Gabe, Ayoob etc
And therein lies part of the problem. One of those trainers is an individual who has actually done lots of research in the field and truly is an expert on gunfights. The other, to be charitable, isn't.
|
Can you elaborate on that? Which is which?
Many of the so called "experts" are self-proclaimed. Some are in fact very credible, others not. This is one of the reasons I decided to look into the issue myself. Much of what we are told by some is self-serving. Much is designed to get you to buy into a mindset which feeds itself (and the "expert's" wallet) and bears little semblance to reality.
The other problem is that much of what is taught is not applicable. No matter what anyone wants to claim, military, LE and civilian confrontations are three totally different animals. What applies to one does not apply to the other,nor to the third. Additionally, the skillset to prevail in each is different.
RE: lost fights
Remember that I was looking for what happened in the confrontations where the good guy prevailed. Therefore, the fights where they didn't are immaterial. Even if you could say that in the majority of the cases where the good guy did not move, he lost. It doesn't mean anything. You cannot claim that movement or the lack thereof determined the outcome (correlation does not equal causality). What you can claim is the fact that they were hit was what determined if they won or lost. Therefore, the ability of the bad guy to hit was the determining factor. This is where the whole movement argument falls on its face. You cannot prove, nor demonstrate that movement does anything to determine the outcome. The only real causal link is being hit.
I guarantee you that if you move against me, you will still get hit. However, if you move against an average person, you MAY not. But, that begs the question: Did he miss because you moved or because of his lack of skill?
Again, for the umpteenth time: I am not arguing whether to move or not. I'm not arguing anything for that matter. I am simply pointing out that in the majority of the shootings I have looked at, the biggest determining factor of who prevails is who hits the target first.