[mjoy64]

Lurper...

I am trying to reconcile these statements:

It's far more important to hit your target than it is to move off of the X.

It's also better to shoot then move than it is to try to shoot while moving.

I feel like I need to restate that I am not saying it is the only thing. Just the most important thing. Nor am I arguing move -v- don't move. What I am saying is that there is no evidence to suggest that anything else plays as big a role as hitting first. What I have issue with vis-a-vis movement is the
implication that somehow it is more important than scoring the first hit or that it somehow guarantees survival. Neither is true.

All these statements made by you and it would seem to me backtracking and revisionist.

I'll ask specifically. What is the most important thing to do to get the first hit? This is important as it is a high indicator of surviving an armed encounter based on your statistics.

You have specifically lessened the importance of "moving of the X notion" as people do not shoot most accurately when moving (even for at-one-time world class shooter). So... you seem to specifically state that "stand and deliver" will have a greater chance of improving your chances of survival and in a later breath state you don't speak one way or the other, just that you must deliver the first hit.

Observing one statistic is not proof. I could research and generate any number of correlated statistics that have no affect on the outcome. Please make a case for "stand and deliver" over "moving of the X". You clearly believe that shooting and then moving is more effective. Make the case for why that is so beyond a single statistic. I could make any number of (incorrect) arguments based on a single statistic.