[zombietactics]

... it would seem obvious to me that if a defender cannot or does not access and present and fire his firearm quickly enough to stop a violent ambush, that would decide the outcome. ...

I am not aware of anyone, aside from a few outliers, who can outdraw a gun which is already drawn. This is adequately proven from countless dashcam and security videos.

The point there being that simply outdrawing the "ambusher" (especially if it's an ambush) isn't a solution. Typically such an incident will start with a gun in your face and perhaps even being fired ... that's your first cue to do something. In such cases, you'll have your gun out late in the game, no matter what your draw time is.

That's not an argument for being slow or giving everyone with a 3-second draw time a trophy (lol), it's just forming a logical context for coming up with a rational solution to the problem. Certainly, being able to draw quickly is important. It's just not the one all-inclusive solution, or even the most important part of the solution.

Even if we look at some kind of "duel", where both participants receive a cue at the same time, it doesn't change things much.

Let’s take one thing we know for certain: pistol rounds do not instantly physically incapacitate someone, unless it’s a direct hit to the brain or upper spine. Even direct hits to the heart, which completely destroy the function of the organ, will typically leave the wounded person with somewhere around a dozen seconds to keep doing whatever they were doing beforehand. It’s often the case that people shot several times don’t even know they've been shot. There are plenty of verified cases of people soaking up dozens of rounds before they finally succumb.

So suppose we have that duel ... the perfect case for a faster draw being the determiner of who "wins". Two men hate each other so much that they have agreed to a pistol duel. On a given day, they line up at 15 yards and agree to draw and start shooting upon the beep of a competition timer. The timer beeps, they draw and fire, and the entire event is recorded by multiple high-resolution cameras.

The record shows that one man draws to first shot in a blisteringly-fast .96 of a second and delivers a total of 4 perfect A Zone hits in 1.5 seconds. The second draws much slower. It takes him 1.5 seconds for that first shot, and he is only able to manage 3 hits (having fired 4 times), in 2.5 seconds.

In the world of movies and TV (and the minds of some who just can’t get past the programming) the faster guy is the “winner”. He drew quicker, shot faster, more accurately, and was able to shoot the other guy 4 times before he was able to fire even once. In this media-fantasy-inspired narrative, it’s likely the second guy didn't even get off a shot … he flipped over backwards under the withering fire of the “victor”, and is lying on the ground dead or in agony. The “hero” tips his hat, mounts his horse and rides off into the sunset.

This is where we have to cue that record-scratch sound effect and slap ourselves back to reality. In the real world, there is nothing about shooting someone 4 times in 1.5 seconds which prevents them from shooting back. They may be affected (it might even be part of the reason for the second guy shooting so poorly) … but they can still shoot. Those 4 A Zone hits are likely to be fatal if not treated quickly, but so are those 3 C-Zone hits. Frankly, there are plenty of spots in the B, C, and D Zones (or “worse)” which are plenty ugly: subclavian, carotid, brachial and femoral arteries are all famously “killing wounds”, yet squarely outside of the A Zone.

Contrary to the world of movie/TV fantasy, nobody “wins” this duel. This is the classic definition of a “tactical tie”. Both men are going to hospital, and perhaps the morgue. Believing otherwise is to turn off our brains in favor of comforting hallucinations.

Now consider that none of us will ever be in that perfect duel ... we start after someone else has already taken violent action or has posed a threat.

The point of this is not to dissuade the achievement of faster draws, lower split times and scoring better hits. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where faster-and-more-accurate does not convey some advantage. The illustration shows the results of a fight, not a standard for training purposes. Even in the example given, I’d much rather be the faster guy than the slower guy … who wouldn't?

The point is that there is a value to superlative skill, but raw drawing/shooting skill alone (in isolation) is not the determiner of success in conflict. This truth is as old as the Biblical adage:

“... the race is not always won by the swiftest, the battle is not always won by the strongest; prosperity does not always belong to those who are the wisest, wealth does not always belong to those who are the most discerning, nor does success always come to those with the most knowledge--for time and chance may overcome them all.”

There are countless videos showing defenders in situations where a gun is already in the hands of the attacker from the outset. There is no outdrawing an opponent who has already drawn, and might be already shooting.

So where does this leaves us? Should we avoid all attempts to get faster? I hope I've been clear enough that this is not my opinion. A skill untrained can never be a skill deployed. As such, we should all strive to continuously improve.

What we should take away from this is that many of the skills we practice are practiced in isolation, away from the context in which they will be used. It’s like we are training for a race with no other cars on the track, and impressing ourselves with our awesome lap times. We’re playing chess with only our pieces on the board. The range session or pistol match focus on only one part of the defensive equation: putting the hurt on our opponent. We gain skill at shooting, but seldom practice not getting shot.

I submit that this second part - not getting shot (or hurt) - is the actual goal of self-defense training. We want to remain unhurt and alive. Most of what we practice only partly addresses that goal. Shooting someone might stop them … but it might not, and probably won’t do so quickly.

Since that’s the case, and a wounded assailant can keep shooting for many seconds (far more than is required to empty a magazine with carefully-placed shots) maybe should we look into this more carefully. I’d offer that - in the order of important things - learning to not get shot takes precedence over learning to shoot.

This is why there is a difference between doing laps on an empty track vs. racing against other cars. One skill is related to the other, but does not comprise the whole of the matter. This is why very skilled, Grand-Master Class competitors like Mike Seeklander, teach a different class for competition than for defense.

Ron Avery (who can draw and shoot REALLY fast), demonstrates something here of interest: CLICK HERE

How, then, could it be a "very limited element"?

Asked and answered. For my part, I'd remove the word "very", and be doubly sure to note that it is limited, but very important nonetheless. Those are not mutually exclusive notions, and we can learn to walk and chew gum at the same time, lol.