Amazed at the ignorance

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Actually, it's aim at the center of what you can see at times. Folks will see a leg sticking out from an opponent but won't shoot it as they are waiting for the chest shot.

[F. Guffey]

Has anyone else ever run into someone who had it so wrong AND were passing on their ignorance to others?

ignorance: Not knowing.

Then I try to determine if the person telling the story is making himself look good at others expense. I have been told of 'A good shooting', I always ask if the person describing the event was there. The answer is always "No", and then I always ask if they would like to talk to someone that was there. The picture are not the same.

I am never so desperate for attention I require an audience, there are those that leave the house without learning how to act in public.

F. Guffey

[Jim567]

Actually, it's aim at the center of what you can see at times. Folks will see a leg sticking out from an opponent but won't shoot it as they are waiting for the chest shot.
__________________

EEK! One more not so obvious scenario to ponder!

I would hope I would not have that kind of tunnel vision! All my thought and practice however does NOT include targeting arms or legs. Scary.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Square range and match practice discourages such. More advanced FOF covers that. I've being in classes and exercises where we:

1. Practiced how to shoot under cars at the opponent.
2. Had the BGs or simulated BGs, expose a leg and if you didn't shoot it - you were chastized.
3. Been knocked down in the melee and faced with the opponent's big fat inner thigh, put a series of simulated rounds into it.

So, if you see the opponent's rear end sticking out, shoot it. Done that. Same idea with folks not taking a shot through concealment as they are waiting for the perfect shot.

[buckhorn_cortez]

...they are waiting for the perfect shot.

Or, perhaps a larger target that they're more confident they can hit...or, they're limited on ammunition and don't want to waste it on unknown shots.

The problem with pistol training scenarios is most of them allow you to carry as much ammunition as you want. Three, four, five, six or more magazines. You can afford to take "chance" shots with a relatively large amount of ammunition.

Run the same drills with 10 or less rounds in a single magazine and see if you want to take the same shots.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you have a chance to shoot an opponent but wait for to take a perfect shot, you give the opponent more time to shoot you.

In quality FOF, you do not have unlimited ammo. I am not talking gun games. If you can't risk take a shot from a standard mag - you need a bit more skills practice.

[James K]

Let me be clear in that I have never shot anyone or shot at anyone, and never had the need to do so. I hope I never will. I have had some decent LEO training, though.

That being said, IMHO, the biggest problem with "scenarios" is - scenarios. Folks seem to want to overthink every possible situation, usually based on something they heard about or saw in a movie or on TV. "What if the bad guy is suspended by a cable from the Golden Gate Bridge ...."

It seems to me that good general training with the duty/carry firearm and some common sense is more likely to be productive than an effort to try to have a plan to cover every possible SD situation. Also, the simple act of taking cover seems to be a no-no in some training; I have heard of some trainers who consider it "soft" to even suggest getting behind a tree, insisting that the trainee "stand up like a man and return fire."

Another point too often overlooked is that, unlike range experience, you and the "target" are not likely to be alone. If you open fire, you will risk the lives of others, possibly including your own family, either from the BG or from your own gun. Do you still blaze away with a half dozen magazines?

Jiim

[JohnKSa]

Or, perhaps a larger target that they're more confident they can hit...or, they're limited on ammunition and don't want to waste it on unknown shots.

All of this is predicated on the assumption that shooting is absolutely necessary. If it weren't then the discussion would be about criminal activity which is inconsistent with TFL's charter and rules.

Given that the discussion is about legal self-defense and therefore any shooting being done is absolutely necessary, one had better NOT be waiting on anything...

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by James K

Also, the simple act of taking cover seems to be a no-no in some training; I have heard of some trainers who consider it "soft" to even suggest getting behind a tree, insisting that the trainee "stand up like a man and return fire."

Did any of those trainers give any rational for that, other than macho platitudes? Most of my firearms training is in infantry tactics, much of which involves the proper use of cover. A lot of that training isn't really very applicable to civilian self-defense, but I've always figured that my strongly-ingrained desire to seek cover would serve me well in certain situations.

[stagpanther]

I've used running away as fast as I could--worked for me.

[jglsprings]

"What if the bad guy is suspended by a cable from the Golden Gate Bridge ...."

Ahh yes, the ISIS suspended bridge painter scenario... one of the classics.

[g.willikers]

There's some good force on force videos from First Person Defender on youtube.
And loads of stuff on the Personal Defense Network, too.
Check them out, they're free and have lots of info.
While they're no substitute for being there, they're lots better than the level of training most folks get - near zero.

[skoro]

Has anyone else ever run into someone who had it so wrong AND were passing on their ignorance to others?

I've always found it kinda amusing that the strongest opinions are usually backed up by the weakest evidence. And not just in the area of firearms.

[stagpanther]

I'm the first to admit that I mouth off a lot here--but I try to always tell folks I'm not an expert--I just like shooting a lot and have opinions based on my own experience. I suspect that is the case with most shooters everywhere. BUT--I also get the irritation of a having a sales pitch interrupted--whether by an expert or idiot--it's not a good thing.

[BlueTrain]

I've been shooting for a long time, nearly fifty years. But I'm always learning something new. I recently had an experience that gave me a different viewpoint on the subject (and no, I didn't get in a gunfight).

We had a company outing a couple of weeks ago and one of the activities, believe it or not, was skeet shooting. Any employee who cared to got to try it for about a half-dozen rounds. It was interesting to see young women who'd never so much as touched a gun before step up and break the birds, though usually not on the first shot. There were two good coaches and it was purely recreational. But it was also shooting at a moving target. When did you ever do that with a handgun?

I suggested to the coach, who was an easy-going older fellow (probably younger then me) that women make better students. The simple reason is that they listen to the instructor. He agreed.

The exercise would probably be a great confidence builder, too, for someone who'd never fired a gun before. Also, I'm of the general opinion that the so-called complexity of an automatic pistol just isn't there. Sure, it's more complicated than a revolver but did you ever try figuring out a sewing machine?

[mehavey]

The simple reason is that they listen....

This has long been known to the shooting instructor fraternity. (Ask any of them)
(Now if we could only translate to the rest of the battle)

[rightside]

Has anyone else ever run into someone who had it so wrong AND were passing on their ignorance to others?

I've always had a saying "Stupidity and Arrogance seem to always go hand in hand"
The dumber they are the more they bray about it!

[pax]

Not all experienced instructors would agree with the myth about women making better students than men.

Background: I'm in my 12th or 13th year as a professional defensive handgun instructor, and have taught classes all over the country under the "Cornered Cat" banner. You can see my training resume on my website under 'about the author'; it shows around a thousand hours of training as a student. I've also spent at least ten times that much time assisting in other people's classes over the years, because I enjoy coaching and really enjoy learning from other instructors' teaching styles. It's safe to say that I've taught a lot of people to shoot and I've watched many people learning to shoot under the instruction of others.

Here's what I think about women making better students than men:

It is not true.

This is what is true: truly new students make much faster and more impressive progress than allegedly “new” students who aren’t new to firearms at all. People who have spent a lifetime developing bad habits will need some time to erase those bad habits before they can learn good ones. This is true for both men and women. People who start with a blank slate, having never handled a firearm before, usually make very rapid or even dramatic progress under the tutelage of a competent instructor. This, also, is true for both men and women.

When we compare apples to apples—brand new shooters to other brand new shooters; novice shooters with existing bad habits to other novice shooters with existing bad habits—we see almost no difference at all between men and women in firearms classes. It is only when we conflate the two, and compare the truly novice female to the badly-taught or untaught male that we see the dramatic, measurable difference in skillsets between male and female “new” students.

Not only is the saying not true in a skillset sense, it is also not true in a “good student” sense. I have worked with both men and women who are good students, and with both men and women who are poor students. If I wanted to make a sex-based rule about this, I would say that women who have a bad attitude about learning to shoot do tend to do a slightly better job hiding that fact from the instructor than similarly-resistant male students do—and that’s about it. But pleasant outward behavior does not mean these resistant students are getting what they need.

Anyway, having spent time teaching both women-only classes and co-ed classes, it appalls me that so many people so readily dismiss their male students as being unwilling or unable to learn to shoot. It's been my experience that willing men make excellent students -- and can usually shoot just as well as women from the very beginning.

pax

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by PAX

Here's what I think about women making better students than men:
It is not true.

My take:

Here's what I think about women I teach making better students than men:
It is true.

(My wife of 50 years did say I always had good choice in women._

[stagpanther]

I don't think it's so much the sex of the student as it is what kind of thought-processor they are. I was once a flight instructor for gliding sports and the FAA's FOI test has some pretty good material in it regarding the different types of thought processing people

[osbornk]

Having trained both men and women in handling insurance claims, I find women easier to train. Men try to show they know more than they do since it is expected but women work and try harder because they are expected to fail.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Try training a couple (male / female). While they can be nice, you sometimes get the husband bent out of shape when his ideas don't fly or the female half is better. Seen that.

But it can work, I took out a nice Canadian couple and they were great. Their hobby was baking and I got a big box of pastry!

Pax is probably correct given the covariance of perceived knowledge contributing to some problems. Then one would have to separate out male assertiveness in spite of evidence.

[mehavey]

I did the covariance math where X equals male and Y equals (naturally) female.

σ(X,Y) = EExpVal[(X – EExpVal(X)]* EExpVal[(Y – EExpVal(Y)]

needless to say...
I got what mathematicians call catastrophic cancelation.

[Gary L. Griffiths]

My intention was to point out the ignorance in teaching someone to aim first shot low and let the recoil bring follow up shots up

Not necessarily bad advice. The "center mass" of an opposing threat is lower than you think. Moreover, the pelvic girdle is a lot larger and moves less than the head or even upper body in a violent encounter. I know this for sure, as I've programmed literally hundreds of simulator scenarios and the head zone always moves more than the pelvic girdle zone.

A hit in the pelvic girdle may not be an instant fight stopper, but it WILL negatively affect your opponent's ability to accurately return fire. It will certainly affect him more than a shot that goes over his head.

In combat, most shooters shoot high. Those that actually use their sights tend to see the front sight OVER the rear sight instead of properly aligned with the top of the rear sight. That's why the military went to peep sights more than a century ago. If aiming for center of chest, they may shoot over the opponent. If aiming for the pelvic girdle, they are likely to hit the chest if their shots go high.

FWIW, I also teach officers to keep their weapons low, either held behind the leg or at low ready, depending on the threat level. If they must react to a threat, bringing the weapon up is faster than bringing it down from the "Sabrina" position (held alongside head, pointed up). If the officer shoots prematurely, the bullet will go into the ground in front of the threat, possibly disrupting his attack, and possibly ricocheting and hitting him, with the recoil bringing the weapon up onto line, as opposed to bringing the weapon down to engage the threat, where an early shot will go above the opponent's head with little effect, and the recoil will throw the gun up, delaying an accurate follow-up shot.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Elkins45]

Did you know that the noise of a gun is not made by the powder gas escaping? No sir. It is caused by the air rushing back into the barrel to fill the vacuum when the bullet comes out.

That's why it doesn't make a noise when you shoot a gun in space!