Distance shooting is a necessary task to sharpen.

[FireForged]

well, if you do not care to specify.. its ok(dont). I remain skeptical that the sentiment exists if you cannot point to it.

As far as consensus goes: conventional wisdom does seep into a persons psyche ( if a person knows of it to begin with). What you know, no matter if you learned it or experienced it, does contribute to your overall option and thoughts on a particular subject matter. I am speaking of people who are not laymen.

Stats change over time, people change, society changes and they way things are done.. changes. All that said, stats are but one component (of many) and I do not think anyone is suggesting otherwise. Stats do not drive the train, the totality of what a person knows, drives the train. Much of that will be related to what you have learned from others(plural), in the field of study. Conventional consensus + errant facts and circumstances+ personal experience.

I'm not sure about the consensus aspect of decision making.

you may want to google "consensus decision making".

[TunnelRat]

I don't think one person's definition of "worship" is necessarily the same as someone else's. I would agree that distance shooting, especially bullseye, doesn't see the same affection it once did. But I haven't met anyone that I would say "worships" an arbitrary line at 3 yards. If I had to pick a line I'd actually draw it at 7 yards. That is by far the most common distance I see practiced both at private and public ranges locally. I don't think most people who simply own a firearm and shoot would even know what 3-3-3 means.

Some people seem to buck at the mention of statistics, as if the existence of those statistics are some kind of commentary on their personal choices. Statistics are numbers that involve a degree of interpretation. Numbers don't care about our feelings. They just are. People can argue about "cooking" numbers, but to an extent that comes off to me as a lazy argument to get rid of the inconvenient truth. I'm not immune from doing it myself. The trick is to not let our own personal biases ignore information just because.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[J.G. Terry]

Reply: Two great post. Seriously. I gotta point this out. That the termed "cooked" means cherry picking information or outright distortions.

Look at the consensus on videos from the 1930's on shooting techniques and equipment. That was a consensus.

Folks if you challenge what I say, or anybody says, it up to you to prove the error not me. It's hard for me to believe you have not seen the devotion to 3 yards.

I do not have access to the bell shaped curve. You can see all sorts of data can be "cooked." Here comes a flip on the mention of statics. It's a messy way to present a bias as "fact." So far nobody has been accused of being an Ostrich. No name calling

What if somebody proposed long range as being able to keep shots in the 8 ring on a B27 target at fifteen yards. Would that work for a compromise? Can you make a consensus decision on what may become a life and death situation? Has this decision been discussed in this thread?

On this topic, do any of us have any rock solid information? Much of the convenient truth is a bias wrapped in happy crap. Let me give you a clue. One half, with rough edges, is trying to deal with stuff from Cloud Cuckoo land on the other side. Your job is to figure who is who. How many times have you seen a reference to statistics without citing the source? Thanks again.

[TunnelRat]

No it's generally up to the person making the claim to prove it. Proving a universal negative (which in this case would be that no one "worships" 3 yards) is a practical impossibility, and frankly isn't an honest discussion.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

Folks if you challenge what I say, or anybody says, it up to you to prove the error not me. It's hard for me to believe you have not seen the devotion to 3 yards.

As TunnelRat has already pointed out, the responsibility for documenting/proving an assertion falls on the party making the questionable assertion.

It may be difficult for you to believe, but my first exposure to the so-called 3-3-3 "rule" has been this discussion thread. I've been around guns for 70 or so years, and seriously interested in self-defense firearms use for a couple of decades. I think if there was any sort of institutional devotion to 3 yards as a magical distance, I would have encountered it before now.

Originally Posted by J.G. Terry

How many times have you seen a reference to statistics without citing the source?

Isn't that what you are doing by insisting that there is an overwhelming consensus on 3-3-3 without providing anything to support your assertion?

[J.G. Terry]

OK, you challenge me on shot range focus. In your other threads is there extensive discussion to long range shooting? How many times is the need for longer range shooting grudgingly acknowledged. What is the purpose of this thread?

What kind of handguns are usually illustrated in these threads. What is the long range potential of these handguns? Are these small automatics introduced with great fanfare? As a civilian do I need to pick a handgun based on police information?

How many carry permit classes shot a the closer range? Does this focus have to do with the inability to shoot at twenty five yards? How about the purpose of this thread?

Is shooting at twenty-five yards have in real use at 3 yards. Post dealing with Big Box isles ignored. What about my point about local church chapels? What is the purpose of this thread? Your turn.


Major points please. Oh, how about not nit-picking and quoting out of context. How often do you shoot at twenty-five yards..

[FireForged]

OK, you challenge me on the focus on short range focus. In your other threads is there extensive discussion to long range shooting. How many times is the need for longer range shooting grudgingly acknowledged. What is the purpose of this thread?

What kind of handguns are usually illustrated in these threads. What is the long range potential of these handguns? Are these small automatics introduced with great fanfare? As a civilian do I need to pick a handgun based on police information?

How many carry permit classes shot a the closer range? Does this focus have to do with the inability to shoot at twenty five yards? How about the purpose of this thread?

Is shooting at twenty-five yards have in real use at 3 yards. Post dealing with Big Box isles ignored. What about my point about local church chapels? What is the purpose of this thread? Your turn.

Major points please. Oh, how about not nit-picking and quoting out of context. How often do you shoot at twenty-five yards..

I have read all of that 3 times and still remain perplexed. I will simply give you the road so that the discussion may progress. Getting into complex explanation over basic and near universal concepts seems rather unproductive.

[J.G. Terry]

FireForged: Basic Universal Concepts. Concepts? I will not make snarky remarks about road kill. Seriously, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I will suggest "conventional wisdom" rather than "concepts." Let me give you an example. What happened to the 7 yard rule? That was a "concept."

Added: My favorite,"...the enigmatic vicissitudes of life."

[Tactical Jackalope]

I had the honor of having Mr. Jack Wilson respond to me. I had asked him if he had cocked his hammer for the single action shot, or if he took it in double action.

He responded. He said he took the shot in double action.

[peterg7]

^ any chance you asked distance? I’ve seen 25 yards thrown out a lot but thought it was only 50’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tactical Jackalope]

I did not ask distance. I may do so later. Don't want to bother him too much with those questions.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

One of the other factors I have heard about the distance debate we are discussing involves the legal side of things.

I have heard in classes and on this forum statements along the lines of: "If a BG is that far away you should seek cover or run away"

This may be part of the reliance on the "3 yard" standard. If someone is 25 yards away from me in the open I am unlikely to try and trade shots with them. He is unlikely to hit me, especially if I'm moving and I am unlikely to hit him either. Since I am financially and criminally liable for every round I fire, I would opt to bug out vice shoot it out at distance. I think the up close standard might come from normal DGU circumstances. The old saw; do you plan for the worst scenario or the most likely. As part of a church security team might be wise to train for longer distance.

[FireForged]

This may be part of the reliance on the "3 yard" standard.

what 3 yard standard?

I keep seeing a whole lot of anecdotes in this thread which are not followed by any cite or reference. If you are talking about something which is [not] common knowledge, please reference its origin. Is this a standard you use or perhaps, believe in? I am just trying to figure out where it comes from. Who's standard is it?

I completely understand 3-3-3 but have never seen it used as a standard of training or suggestion that training be limited to these parameters.

If a BG is that far away you should seek cover or run away

Speaking only for myself, I do not subscribe to all the hubbub over distance. I simply apply the "jeopardy" standard. ( ability - opportunity- jeopardy ). Firearms are DISTANCE weapons that fire an incredibly fast moving projectile. I don't worry so much about absolute distance unless we are talking about OBVIOUSLY mitigating for the particular danger.

It goes without saying that any law which may apply to these circumstances easily overcomes my person opinion on the matter. Always follow the law.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by FireForged

what 3 yard standard?

I think it comes from two places that I know of. First are police/government studies that indicate the majority of DGUs occur within 3 yards and in low light. I'll look for some links. Also, 3 yards=21 feet. I think that comes from the Tueller Drill. FWIW I think LEOs used to practice at that distance as well.

One time in another life, I was working a staff job in the Pentagon (ugh) and we were asked to find our why an Artillery Battery had six guns. IFRC the answer had something to do with horses. I have read also that the widths of many vehicles equate to the width of a Roman Chariot.

So, I think that is where that comes from

Originally Posted by FireForged

I simply apply the "jeopardy" standard. ( ability - opportunity- jeopardy ).

Me too. I think that's why many of the classes I have taken advise you to run away from distance threats.

[FireForged]

I think it comes from two places that I know of. First are police/government studies that indicate the majority of DGUs occur within 3 yards and in low light. I'll look for some links. Also, 3 yards=21 feet. I think that comes from the Tueller Drill. FWIW I think LEOs used to practice at that distance as well.

how is any of that a standard of training? A standard is typically the whole of a curricula relating to a specific subject matter. The tueller drill is a "drill", its not some sort of suggested limitation( as I see it).

For instance.. there is a standard of training regarding "tactical driving". Its much more than one maneuver, minor concept or related skill. Many parts to make a whole. Many drills, many concepts and many related skills.

It is important to understand the statistical parameters such as 3-3-3 and to have an answer for such things but it doesn't mean that there isn't a larger picture. My continued point is that 3-3-3 ( to my knowledge) is not hailed as some sort of all encompassing benchmark for adequate training. Distances from contact to 25 yards is the near universal standard. Some Military elements are said to train out to 33 yards( which is not much difference). Drills are just drills..and 3 yards is not the universe in which self defense skills are corralled. 3 yards is but one small orbit of a much larger universe.

If the suggesting is that someone or some organization supports the idea of a reliance on a 3 yard universe, I politely disagree. I may certainly be wrong but I have never seen or heard of it.

[peterg7]

Ah 3 yards is 9’ 21’ is 7 yards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

ah yes but I knew what he was referring to. I simply believe that there are many benchmarks within the 0-25 yard standard. The ability to answer a danger at 3 yards or 7 yards or whatever, is simply a box to be checked. There is lots of training to be had within 25 yards and I am obviously a proponent of the 25 yards threshold( as a standard). Its not that I do not believe in potentially shooting beyond that distance but as far as training goes, I think 25 yards is healthy.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by FireForged

how is any of that a standard of training?

Not sure we disagree. I train to what I think I will reasonably face. Most ranges I shot at don't have 25 yard distance. If a BG is 25 yards away from me I will seek to evade and not engage or if the situation demands it then close the distance hopefully outside his LOS. That is what I have decided to do personally. IN the military we trained to the threat and to a standard that those we supported required. I think that is how standards are deduced.

Sorry for the typo, I mean't 7 yards not three.

As I posted earlier, the Church Security had already pegged this guy as a squirrel and IMO treated him too lightly. Someone should have been closer, hand on gun and outside his LOS. Had the one security guy who was killed been outside the LOS, his agonizingly slow draw would not have mattered. He could have killed the BG.

[J.G. Terry]

Thanks for reopening the thread. I see how badly I missed the mark. Will do better next time-I hope. Take care and be safe.

[FireForged]

As I posted earlier, the Church Security had already pegged this guy as a squirrel and IMO treated him too lightly. Someone should have been closer, hand on gun and outside his LOS. Had the one security guy who was killed been outside the LOS, his agonizingly slow draw would not have mattered. He could have killed the BG.

Yes, we do agree.

I am sure we both also agree that the idea is not to beat up on the defenders who ultimately saved many from harm. I certainly do not want my comments to seem as if they come from a desire to disparage the security team. That is truly not my intent.

That's said, I feel that the greatest advancement regarding "protection" in this type of situation could have been to address the problem more assertively and identify the broader threat much earlier. This is where I feel the discussion should be.. not some sort of consideration over distance shooting. Mitigation seems to be devoid of every thread I have seen on this subject. Concealing a shotgun should be rather difficult if someone were intentionally trying to assess you ( up close) for such a potential. Its odd to me that the discussions seem to be centered around something akin to IDPA imperatives and not how best to protect people from harm. Marksmanship is rarely the problem. General marksmanship is typically the easiest hurdle to jump.

I learned long ago that failures generally boil down to 4 things. A process failure, a training failure, a policy failure or individual (person) failure. It can certainly be the result of other issues but these are the top 4. I do not know how these men were trained so I wont speculate about this being a training issue. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that its not a training issue. Given that elimination, there may be a process problem which allowed this to unfold in the way that it did. I cant know for certain based on just the tid-bit of info that we have seen but for the purpose of debate, I will offer that.. its possible. Process and Policy often go hand in hand and I would be curious to know how they might be doing things differently, if at all.

Again, I am not blaming the good-guys. Sometimes bad things are going to happen but if we are to make an effort to prevent similar attacks in the future, we have to examine the particulars under a rather critical microscope.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Since they didn't address the problem more assertively, it became about distance shooting which ultimately stopped the mass shooting. Which is the point of this thread. Some that Jack said he has trained extensively for given his lifestyle.

I think we should do another thread on how to assertively stop someone from entering where we don't want them to be or at the very least how to plan to handle it if it should arise as anticipated.

[FireForged]

it became about distance shooting which ultimately stopped the mass shooting.

I disagree..I do not think that it was ever about distance shooting.

As I said in my very first post in this thread:

Judging from the number of pews it looks to be about 36-46 feet. So we are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-16 yards.

Now that we have come to a complete circle regarding this whole thing about distance shooting.. I will have to politely exit the discussion. I just do not have the energy to keep up with it. Good luck to all .. safe travels.

[JohnKSa]

As I posted earlier, the Church Security had already pegged this guy as a squirrel and IMO treated him too lightly. Someone should have been closer, hand on gun and outside his LOS. Had the one security guy who was killed been outside the LOS, his agonizingly slow draw would not have mattered. He could have killed the BG.

The problem is that (catchy quotes notwithstanding) you can't really have a plan to kill everyone you meet and you certainly can't start acting on those plans (e.g. keeping an armed person with a hand on their gun close to anyone acting squirrelly) unless things really obviously start to go wrong.

The vast majority of the time (well over 99% of the time) keeping an eye on the squirrel and letting them know you're keeping an eye on them is all that's required.

I'm not saying to ignore the possibility that more may be required--that needs to remain an option, but not one that is actually acted on until the person goes well past the acting squirrelly threshold.

Maybe when this guy got up in the middle of the service the 2nd time, that should have broken the threshold and taken the security posture of the team to the next level--I don't know, I've only seen the last few minutes of the video.

[TunnelRat]

To add my own thoughts to what John said, if you're so concerned about a person that you're at the point of dedicating a person to having a hand constantly on pistol ready to draw (and again there needs to be some threatening action imo to warrant actually drawing, not just standing or looking squirrelly), shouldn't calling the police and reporting someone for trespassing be part of the equation? This is a private establishment that while open to the public can certainly have its access restricted. If you're that concerned about this person, certainly you don't want them on the property. Standing ready to quick draw and execute the guy, whether or not it's warranted, seems to me to ignore other options. Obviously police take time to respond and you may well have to resort to intervention by your own forces anyway, but I think it should be part of the thought process.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

The problem is that (catchy quotes notwithstanding) you can't really have a plan to kill everyone you meet and you certainly can't start acting on those plans (e.g. keeping an armed person with a hand on their gun close to anyone acting squirrelly) unless things really obviously start to go wrong.

If following the basic edicts of protection, one might suggest that you act more assertively in such a circumstance. That is why you take meaningful steps to qualify or disqualify any sort of trepidation you may have about a person, persons or any developing circumstance which may impact life-safety. We are not talking about everybody.. we are talking about one obviously odd element within the congregation. It is why so many security operations focus on proactive methods as opposed to purely reactive methods. You don't have to walk around with your hand on your gun but you do have to take meaningful actions to mitigate the potential for bad things to happen. Dealing with "squirrely" people is not anything new and neither is the idea that a oddly dressed person who is reportedly wearing a fake beard and behaving strange, might be up to (no good). Such a person or circumstance may require a more discriminating review. It would truly be hard to conceal a shotgun if someone is actually giving you a hard look. Think about how difficult it would be to conceal a shotgun while sitting at a pew, standing and moving around the sanctuary. This guy did not seem like some sort of skilled covert operative or something.