The main reason you can't shot a handgun accurately

[drop bear]

There are many things that can be done on the range to improve accuracy in a shooting on the street. That is a conversation all on it's own. But as an introduction to the topic, it's important to understand that modern tactical shooting is a martial arts, but isn't being studied and practiced as some other successful martial arts are practiced.

Yeah. No kidding. If you wanted to delve In to the world of red flags for a martial art. Self defence gun would be a perfect example. From dead drills to mystical masters it ticks every box.

 

[windwalker099]

There are many things that can be done on the range to improve accuracy in a shooting on the street. That is a conversation all on it's own. But as an introduction to the topic, it's important to understand that modern tactical shooting is a martial arts, but isn't being studied and practiced as some other successful martial arts are practiced.

While true,,,it does require owning a "fire arm" in many places quite hard to come by these days, not to mention legality of shooting someone if warranted.

ret military, worked briefly as an armed driver in between high tech jobs for a company that handled bank money....The company at the time offered to pay 50% for protective vest, allowed using your own weapon which was kinda cool.....

Never did buy a vest or weapon... they used 38 Smith & Wesson, level 3 holsters



would go on later to try to work for a military security company for military bases.

Part of the interview process passing a range test, having to engage targets, reload, moving to different firing positions covered and uncovered while being timed....using a Glock 23 , prefer 9mm myself...

hit 45 out of 50 targets center mass,,,,ended up being 1 of 2 , out of 10 people trying out for the position.

They did remark my "intent" was very strong in acquiring the target and firing something I attributed to CMA practice.

 

[Jared Traveler]

While true,,,it does require owning a "fire arm" in many places quite hard to come by these days, not to mention legality of shooting someone if warranted.

ret military, worked briefly as an armed driver in between high tech jobs for a company that handled bank money....The company at the time offered to pay 50% for protective vest, allowed using your own weapon which was kinda cool.....

Never did buy a vest or weapon... they used 38 Smith & Wesson, level 3 holsters



would go on later to try to work for a military security company for military bases.

Part of the interview process passing a range test, having to engage targets, reload, moving to different firing positions covered and uncovered while being timed....using a Glock 23 , prefer 9mm myself...

hit 45 out of 50 targets center mass,,,,ended up being 1 of 2 , out of 10 people trying out for the position.

They did remark my "intent" was very strong in acquiring the target and firing something I attributed to CMA practice.

One mind, any weapon. I'm a software guy over a hardware guy. Give me a Glock, Sig, 911, cap and ball revolver, flintlock, they all work.

 

[tkdroamer]

42% of the time a cop fires their weapon, the other guy doesn’t have a gun. Sometimes they’re in cars, sometimes it’s a knife, toys, unarmed. And a significant number of them are shot while they’re fleeing not fighting.

We can talk hypotheticals but I think we need to keep it all in perspective. It seems like you have in mind a fire fight like in the movies where good guys and bad guys are shooting at each other. I don’t think that’s typical.

Honestly, I think that is a stacked stat. I am sure you know this, but stats can be massaged to result anything.
Not trying to start an argument but let's be realistic here.

 

[Steve]

Honestly, I think that is a stacked stat. I am sure you know this, but stats can be massaged to result anything.
Not trying to start an argument but let's be realistic here.

In what way do you think it’s stacked? It’s a binary stat. The other person either had a gun or didn’t.

 

[tkdroamer]

In what way do you think it’s stacked? It’s a binary stat. The other person either had a gun or didn’t.

I even question the binary stat for validity. I am all for factoring out emotional and irrelevant data, but a binary value like that means nothing. Everything of importance is in the rest of the 'values' mined from the encounters.

 

[Darren]

Unlearn what you have learned in order to learn.

 

[Steve]

I even question the binary stat for validity. I am all for factoring out emotional and irrelevant data, but a binary value like that means nothing. Everything of importance is in the rest of the 'values' mined from the encounters.

I am still unclear. Are you questioning the number? Or are you saying that whether it is accurate or not, you don’t think it’s relevant?

 

[mograph]

I even question the binary stat for validity. I am all for factoring out emotional and irrelevant data, but a binary value like that means nothing. Everything of importance is in the rest of the 'values' mined from the encounters.

Questioning the validity of the stat is different from saying that it has no meaning. A stat might be completely valid, but meaningless because it is missing other information needed to create meaning.

 

[Steve]

Questioning the validity of the stat is different from saying that it has no meaning. A stat might be completely valid, but meaningless because it is missing other information needed to create meaning.

Exactly. We might disagree that the information is valuable, but that's different from suggesting that it's invalid.

And for what it's worth, I think it's very relevant to this particular discussion. I may be mistaken, but the impression I have is that folks are drawing conclusions from an idea that "under stress" is synonymous with "under fire" and that just isn't the case. We know from the data that 42% of fatal officer involved shootings didn't have a gun. And 44% were fleeing.

So, in a thread about the impact "stress" has on a cop, and the suggestion that a willingness to die is essential to shooting well "under stress", it's relevant to consider what that stress actually is. And to be a little diligent when it comes to drawing sweeping conclusions from only part of the picture.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Exactly. We might disagree that the information is valuable, but that's different from suggesting that it's invalid.

And for what it's worth, I think it's very relevant to this particular discussion. I may be mistaken, but the impression I have is that folks are drawing conclusions from an idea that "under stress" is synonymous with "under fire" and that just isn't the case. We know from the data that 42% of fatal officer involved shootings didn't have a gun. And 44% were fleeing.

So, in a thread about the impact "stress" has on a cop, and the suggestion that a willingness to die is essential to shooting well "under stress", it's relevant to consider what that stress actually is. And to be a little diligent when it comes to drawing sweeping conclusions from only part of the picture.

Lots of factors here. More than is apparent to most. There is nothing simple about examining use of force incidents. One thing you certainly can not do is assume that because a suspect didn't have a gun, that the officer wasn't in fear of losing his life.

At a minimal 100 percent of all police shootings involve a gun. Even if it is the weapon carried by the officer. I have had someone try to disarm me of my service weapon before. Many police shootings are over an officer retaining his weapon.

Aside from that, I'm not implying that being willing to die is THE component to hitting the target. Rather that a strong focus and desire to hit your target accurately at all times is the key. This includes but is not limited to exposing yourself to more risk at time. That risk may come from a bullet, a knife, a hammer, a vehicle or whatever the threat is.

However the key isn't completely being willing to die. Rather it is ultimately prioritizing hitting above all else. Hitting a moving target even on a moving target(difficult shot) fleeing takes the same level of focus to hit, as does shooting back in a gun fight.

The officers gun and bullet doesn't know if the suspect is shooting back or not. This is actually good news, because that means you can learn part of what you need to learn mindset wise on the range.

 

[tkdroamer]

Questioning the validity of the stat is different from saying that it has no meaning. A stat might be completely valid, but meaningless because it is missing other information needed to create meaning.

Taking a (meaningless) stat and using it to push a false agenda is an all too often created rabbit trail.

 

[tkdroamer]

I am still unclear. Are you questioning the number? Or are you saying that whether it is accurate or not, you don’t think it’s relevant?

Both

 

[Steve]

Lots of factors here. More than is apparent to most. There is nothing simple about examining use of force incidents. One thing you certainly can not do is assume that because a suspect didn't have a gun, that the officer wasn't in fear of losing his life.

Yes. This gets to the heart of it. I'm suggesting that folks remember the complexity here. The "stress" that you are suggesting leads to inaccuracy is not just folks shooting at each other like in a cop drama. In almost half the cases, the other person is literally fleeing, and in almost half the cases, the other person does not have a gun. We can dig more into the data to look at overlap in those two situations.

But to your point, I'm not advocating that we look for simple answers. Quite the opposite. You said that the way to fire your weapon accurately "under stress" is to internalize your imminent mortality. And you say above that fear of losing his life is a reason a cop might shoot someone who isn't armed. These two statements seem internally inconsistent.

At a minimal 100 percent of all police shootings involve a gun. Even if it is the weapon carried by the officer. I have had someone try to disarm me of my service weapon before. Many police shootings are over an officer retaining his weapon.

Not exactly the topic of this thread, but I did mention earlier that there are a lot of good reasons for some (most?) cops to not carry guns. This is another good one.

Aside from that, I'm not implying that being willing to die is THE component to hitting the target. Rather that a strong focus and desire to hit your target accurately at all times is the key. This includes but is not limited to exposing yourself to more risk at time. That risk may come from a bullet, a knife, a hammer, a vehicle or whatever the threat is.

However the key isn't completely being willing to die. Rather it is ultimately prioritizing hitting above all else. Hitting a moving target even on a moving target(difficult shot) fleeing takes the same level of focus to hit, as does shooting back in a gun fight.

The officers gun and bullet doesn't know if the suspect is shooting back or not. This is actually good news, because that means you can learn part of what you need to learn mindset wise on the range.

There are a lot of presumptions in there, but I'll take your word that it's as difficult to shoot someone running away as it is to shoot someone who is shooting back at you.

 

[Steve]

Taking a (meaningless) stat and using it to push a false agenda is an all too often created rabbit trail.

Meaningless to whom?

 

[Steve]

Both

The Washington Post maintains the database. The data is available for free, no pay wall, and it's updated regularly. I encourage you to look it up yourself. You're skeptical of information you haven't taken the time to review yourself. That's a bad idea. I think the numbers are credible. This is just simple numbers that are either accurate or not. If I said that the elementary school near you has 312 students, and 45% of them are Hispanic, it's either correct or incorrect. This is like that.

Whether they are relevant or important is debatable, which is why we talk about things. I don't think that's a rabbit hole. I think the word is "discussion." We're talking about the main reason you can't shoot a handgun accurately. The OP says it's because you aren't willing to prioritize hitting the target over your own life. A lot to unpack there. The societal implications of all of that are pretty interesting to me. I read this thread and think, let's presume the OP is correct. Is that a healthy mindset for regular people? What about cops, whom the OP used as an example and the basis for his theory? How does his theory mesh with what data we have?

Not saying that's interesting to anyone else. But it's what I'm interested in

 

[Jared Traveler]

Yes. This gets to the heart of it. I'm suggesting that folks remember the complexity here. The "stress" that you are suggesting leads to inaccuracy is not just folks shooting at each other like in a cop drama. In almost half the cases, the other person is literally fleeing, and in almost half the cases, the other person does not have a gun. We can dig more into the data to look at overlap in those two situations.

But to your point, I'm not advocating that we look for simple answers. Quite the opposite. You said that the way to fire your weapon accurately "under stress" is to internalize your imminent mortality. And you say above that fear of losing his life is a reason a cop might shoot someone who isn't armed. These two statements seem internally inconsistent.



Not exactly the topic of this thread, but I did mention earlier that there are a lot of good reasons for some (most?) cops to not carry guns. This is another good one.



There are a lot of presumptions in there, but I'll take your word that it's as difficult to shoot someone running away as it is to shoot someone who is shooting back at you.

Can we agree on something? A police officer might need a gun to fulfill his duties and responsibilities to affect a legal arrest against an armed criminal, and or to protect himself or a member of the public in America?

Because it sounds like you don't believe that?

 

[Jared Traveler]

And you say above that fear of losing his life is a reason a cop might shoot someone who isn't armed. These two statements seem internally inconsistent.

These statements couldn't be more congruent. I genuinely think you completely missed what I'm saying.

 

[Dirty Dog]

And you say above that fear of losing his life is a reason a cop might shoot someone who isn't armed. These two statements seem internally inconsistent.

You think unarmed people aren't dangerous? Or that a gun is the only thing that counts as being armed?

 

[Steve]

Can we agree on something? A police officer might need a gun to fulfill his duties and responsibilities to affect a legal arrest against an armed criminal, and or to protect himself or a member of the public in America?

Because it sounds like you don't believe that?

LOL. I think we agree on many things.

I'd say, might need a gun in some situations is a good start, because it suggests that you would agree a cop might not need a gun.

There's a lot of room in there for agreement, but it's intentionally vague for two reasons. First, to answer your question thoroughly would probably be deemed overtly political. Second is, I think to get to that discussion, extreme positions like none or all have to be acknowledged as unconstructive. It's not zero-sum, but that's the way it's often portrayed.