Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
Nope. That's not what I'm saying. That is one amazing aspect of it though. For instance, lot of people want to shoot well, but not serious about insisting on hitting their target.
The main reason you can't shot a handgun accurately
- Thread starter Jared Traveler
- Start date
Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
Excellent question. The difference between competition shooting and shooting at live targets in self-defense is vast. Here is an example to prioritize hitting the target in self-defense requires you to expose your self to danger, even for a fraction of a second longer than making a casual shot.
To do that in a fight for your life is a huge mental game. You have to prioritize hitting your target above all else. Even above your own safety. Valuing hitting your target above living takes a very intense and radical mindset. This is what I'm talking about, regarding how important the mental aspect is.
Precision marksmanship in a fight requires being okay with dying if that is what you need to do to hit your target.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
On the range, you mean. right? I’m skeptical of the connection you’re attempting to make between the range and under stress.
Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
The connection is there.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Yeah, maybe. We don’t have a lot of data, but what data I’ve seen suggests otherwise. Actual accuracy rates of cops, both under fire and not. I appreciate your confidence, though.
Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
Again, there are very few cops who focus on the mental aspects of handgun shooting.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Perhaps those particular cops shouldn’t carry guns. Those things are dangerous in the wrong hands.
Wing Woo Gar
Grandmaster
Excellent answer. Commitment.
Wing Woo Gar
Grandmaster
I have treated three LEOs for accidental self inflicted gunshot wounds. Two of the three shot themselves in the left distal fifth metacarpal. None of these incidents occurred whilst on duty.Perhaps those particular cops shouldn’t carry guns. Those things are dangerous in the wrong hands.
Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
Being willing to die is one of the only legitimate super powers that we can obtain. It allows us to do things normal people can't.
You see, wanting to live is normal. Regardless if you surrender or fight to achieve it. Most people are acting because they want to live. This is the problem when shooting under the stress of a life and death attack. The mental aspect is prioritizing the fundamentals of marksmanship over living itself.
The irony is if you can do that, you stand a better chance of living.
tkdroamer
Purple Belt
'On the range' is a very general phrase. The average Joe or LEO can go to the range and practice static targets for accuracy and get better, in that environment. As far as I know, all departments require dynamic, TR-22 type training at least annually. In my experience, it was more like monthly.
You are moving and shooting, making mental shoot/don't shoot decisions, changing weapons, shooting standing, kneeling, and prone. Rolling/shooting, crawling/shooting, transitioning to a shooting position. It is pretty intense and definitely puts a good mental and physical stress on you.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Thanks. I’m aware and have seen examples of this kind of training.
Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
This video explains some of the mental aspects very well. Surprising for Hollywood to mostly get it right. Keeping your head, slowing down, and prioritizing hitting your target, even if it means your death.
Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
In that case the minimum requirement to becoming a police officer is being willing to die every second of the day at all times. I'm not talking about the general idea of dying on a shift, rather the idea of being comfortable dying in the next second.Perhaps those particular cops shouldn’t carry guns. Those things are dangerous in the wrong hands.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I want to be clear what I'm trying to say. I think good training can make a difference, and I know that there is some good training out there. But for some reason, the training doesn't seem to translate into accuracy rates better than about 35% in any study I've ever seen. As with most things related to police accountability, the statistics are murky, but where they have been collected, it's like 35%. This is the kind of thing that needs to be reviewed in the aggregate, because some cops only fire one bullet, and they hit what they aim at... so 100% accurate. Other cops fire 2 dozen bullets and miss every time. But overall, in study after study, in many different cities, the overall accuracy rate appears to be about 35%.
And you may be right. Perhaps the only way to improve accuracy under stress is to be willing to die every second of the day at all times. I think what we agree on is that most cops who carry guns aren't well prepared. You speak from experience, and your experience is borne out by the data.
Where I think we disagree is on the larger implications of that. Let's presume you're right. So, what would we do with that information? You seem to have a very particular idea that it must require a willingness to die. I don't believe that is a good idea at all. You will end up with a group of people, all armed with a significant amount of institutional authority, for whom life holds little value... a bunch of nihilists. I think that should actually be disqualifying from carrying a firearm. Don't get me wrong. In the short term, such as in combat, this is very common. But we're talking day to day, every day, for what might be a decades long career. I don't think many people are able to carry that kind of a load and remain healthy, happy, and of sound judgement. We have all kinds of data from 2 decades of war with our veterans who struggle after one or two 6 month deployments that makes it very clear that the kind of pressure you're suggesting be a minimum requirement for cops is very damaging.
I think a much more reasonable and effective action would be to not issue sidearms to cops by default. I don't think most cops need guns. I think that's actually part of the problem. And only arm cops who are exceedingly well trained.
Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
As is everything related to use of force, each shooting is unique, with an untold amount of variables. Hit rates alone are just one example. Maybe one officer was injured, or had just been in a physical struggle prior to shooting. One may be shooting at contact distance, while another is shooting at a suspect at a distance and behind cover. One may be a hostage shot from a stationary sniper rifle, while another shot is made by an officer with a handgun at a moving vehicle, while round are incoming at him.
But ultimately I didn't bring this topic up as a police thread. Or how to improve law enforcement training (although that was my old job). Certainly not to discuss if American cops should be disarmed! Rather to discuss the mental aspect of range marksmanship and combat marksmanship with handguns.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
The studies are all online, and in recent years, you can also find an annual use of force analysis on most departments' websites. You're filling in gaps with conjecture that are actually pretty well addressed in the studies, if you care to learn more about them. By conjecture, I don't mean that what you're sharing is unrealistic. Only that the situations are pretty well defined in the studies. It's not a free for all, though each department or study group parses the data a little differently.
Who else would it be about? Now I'm really confused. Who did you have in mind when you started the thread? I guess it never even occurred to me that you might suggest civilians who carry a gun have to be prepared for death at any second in order to shoot them accurately under stress. I think that has to be more extreme than you intend.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Hey, just for what it's worth, I don't think we should unilaterally disarm all police. I don't want to mislead anyone. What I was suggesting is that, if it's a choice between arming a bunch of well trained, well prepared nihilists or arming people who aren't well prepared, there is at least one other very reasonable, sane alternative, which is simply apply a more critical evaluation of who needs a gun to be effective in their role. And don't give guns to people who aren't prepared (mentally or technically) to carry them.
