The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Lurper · March 20, 2008, 10:54 AM

First of all there is a big difference between being unarmed and attacked and armed and attacked. Clearly the video is irrelevant. Personally, I would have charged the attacker, rather than hide behind a tree. Removing the threat is the only sure way to ensure your safety. Despite what you want to claim Sky, the argument was never move or not move and despite what you say, there is more than anecdotal evidence that shows that the most important factor in determining who wins a gunfight is who scores the first hit. That's fact, not anecdote.

Secondly, even in Evan's fine video if he was hit first, he would be far less likely to survive. At the distance his video is shot, a person skilled at pistolcraft would be able to score a hit in well under 1 second. If they already had their gun in hand, it would be far quicker. This is where the logic of your argument falls flat on its face. Your argument assumes that the good guy is going to hit in spite of the fact that he is moving and that the bad guy is not going to hit because of it. Neither is true. It has more to do with skill and luck than movement. The fact remains that if you can't hit your target, the chances of survival drop dramatically.

Here is the fact:
In more than 70% of the 400 cases I have looked at, the person who hits first prevails. Regardless of anything else. That is fact. Additionally, tactics are used in less than 10% of the cases and played no role in the outcome to any greater degree than hitting the target first did (if they played any role at all). Those are facts, they are indisutable.

Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant. Yet, I'm sure it would support the same conclusion. The bad guy won because he hit his target first. You can't surmise what works from looking at what doesn't work. It would be like taking a poll to see how many republicans are going to vote for McCain but including the results from democrats and independents. The latter two bear no relation to the survey question, therefore the data is irrelevant.

Since I have trained civilians, LE and military (over 25 years) and have BTDT more than once, I have to surmise that you use the term "legitimate" to mean those whose philosphy you believe. While classifying anyone who doesn't tow the party line as illegitimate. I put the challenge out before: show me proof that moving is more important than hitting the target. Yet you can't. Instead you choose to obfuscate the issue by trying to say I take a position that I don't and trying to attack my credibility. It's really sad that you have no other way to try to make your point. BTW, this is what I do for a living, what do you do?

March 20, 2008, 10:54 AM	#109
Lurper Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2006 Posts: 943	First of all there is a big difference between being unarmed and attacked and armed and attacked. Clearly the video is irrelevant. Personally, I would have charged the attacker, rather than hide behind a tree. Removing the threat is the only sure way to ensure your safety. Despite what you want to claim Sky, the argument was never move or not move and despite what you say, there is more than anecdotal evidence that shows that the most important factor in determining who wins a gunfight is who scores the first hit. That's fact, not anecdote. Secondly, even in Evan's fine video if he was hit first, he would be far less likely to survive. At the distance his video is shot, a person skilled at pistolcraft would be able to score a hit in well under 1 second. If they already had their gun in hand, it would be far quicker. This is where the logic of your argument falls flat on its face. Your argument assumes that the good guy is going to hit in spite of the fact that he is moving and that the bad guy is not going to hit because of it. Neither is true. It has more to do with skill and luck than movement. The fact remains that if you can't hit your target, the chances of survival drop dramatically. Here is the fact: In more than 70% of the 400 cases I have looked at, the person who hits first prevails. Regardless of anything else. That is fact. Additionally, tactics are used in less than 10% of the cases and played no role in the outcome to any greater degree than hitting the target first did (if they played any role at all). Those are facts, they are indisutable. Looking at what happens in gunfights where the good guy lost is totally irrelevant. Yet, I'm sure it would support the same conclusion. The bad guy won because he hit his target first. You can't surmise what works from looking at what doesn't work. It would be like taking a poll to see how many republicans are going to vote for McCain but including the results from democrats and independents. The latter two bear no relation to the survey question, therefore the data is irrelevant. Since I have trained civilians, LE and military (over 25 years) and have BTDT more than once, I have to surmise that you use the term "legitimate" to mean those whose philosphy you believe. While classifying anyone who doesn't tow the party line as illegitimate. I put the challenge out before: show me proof that moving is more important than hitting the target. Yet you can't. Instead you choose to obfuscate the issue by trying to say I take a position that I don't and trying to attack my credibility. It's really sad that you have no other way to try to make your point. BTW, this is what I do for a living, what do you do?