The main reason you can't shot a handgun accurately

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

Also well said. Several good friends of mine on active duty have said that two of the main requirements of their job were to be willing to kill and to be willing to die. That is a Commitment that most of us cannot or will not make for anyone outside our immediate family.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Sounds like meditation would help. Lose your attachments. Focus on the task, leaving self out of it.

Shooting at 1000 yards plus is exactly that. Breath, focus, alignment.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

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.

Just as an aside, being willing to die is not necessarily nihilistic, in fact, it is the epitome of selflessness to put oneself in harms way to protect others. Perspective, it’s often, the most important ingredient. The people I know with this mindset put it all on the line to protect their team mates above all else.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Just as an aside, being willing to die is not necessarily nihilistic, in fact, it is the epitome of selflessness to put oneself in harms way to protect others. Perspective, it’s often, the most important ingredient. The people I know with this mindset put it all on the line to protect their team mates above all else.

The irony is, being willing to die, is a great way to avoid confrontations. Criminals are bad at many things, but they are pretty good at looking people in the eye and determining if that person is willing to "go all the way" in a confrontation.

Usually if they see it in your eyes, they will not escalate a confrontation.

 

[Jared Traveler]

But back on topic, part of hitting the target involves making a good shoot decision. Firing a gun at another live human is a mammoth decision. The same way you don't want to rush a shot, you don't want to rush this decision.

How do you do that? Simple, prioritize making a good shoot decision over living. Because again, slowing down a touch to be sure takes exposer to risk.

The reality is, making a good shoot decision and hitting your target are largely a mental exercise or insistence on prioritizing these things over life itself, once you are in a real confrontation.

All of that time doing 3 gun and trying to go as fast as possible isn't the whole story. There is an aspect where you must do the opposite. These things are not understood by most, and are not learned on the range.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

The irony is, being willing to die, is a great way to avoid confrontations. Criminals are bad at many things, but they are pretty good at looking people in the eye and determining if that person is willing to "go all the way" in a confrontation.

Usually if they see it in your eyes, they will not escalate a confrontation.

Well I guess that depends on the quality of the criminal to some extent. I agree the average predatory criminal on the street is usually looking for an easy mark. A certain set of criminals are not necessarily intimidated so easily, you probably know who/what I mean here.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Well sort of. Cops don't have to shoot well under stress. They only have to shoot better than the guy shooting back.

And if everyone has this problem. Then inaccuracy kind of cancell's itself out.

 

[Oily Dragon]

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.

Not a gun guy myself (staff guy) but somebody showed me this scene once to explain the mental aspects of gunnys (we were chatting about firearm safety).

Found out later that scene is based on this dude.

Elmo M. Haney - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Steve]

Just as an aside, being willing to die is not necessarily nihilistic, in fact, it is the epitome of selflessness to put oneself in harms way to protect others. Perspective, it’s often, the most important ingredient. The people I know with this mindset put it all on the line to protect their team mates above all else.

For some, sure. And for a limited time, maybe. I think it takes an exceptional person to maintain a positive outlook in the face of pervasive, imminent danger for the length of a person's career without being negatively affected. So if that's a prerequisite for shooting straight, I think we may have a significant dillemma.

Living like that for years, and recruiting for that trait won't, I believe, yield the results you're looking for. What are the short- and long-term effects of believing that you are literally risking your life every day at work? We saw a lot of trauma among healthcare workers who were literally putting themselves at risk during the pandemic. We have seen the long-term effects on our veterans from 2 decades of being at war. We have seen what being exposed long term to a belief that you may die at literally any moment does to people.

I think some people can live like that for some fixed period of time, but what you guys are talking about, if taken literally, is a terrible burden for anyone to bear.

The alternative seems to be to accept that most people will not be able to fire their weapons at better than about 35% accuracy under duress... and then the question is, okay. So if that's the case, what do we do about it? Just accept that as an unavoidable truth and move on?

Well sort of. Cops don't have to shoot well under stress. They only have to shoot better than the guy shooting back.

And if everyone has this problem. Then inaccuracy kind of cancell's itself out.

If they're not under stress, then something else is leading to a problem translating success in training and certification and performance in the field.

 

[drop bear]

If they're not under stress, then something else is leading to a problem translating success in training and certification and performance in the field.

I think it depends on the outcomes. How good are they supposed to be under stress?

 

[Steve]

I think it depends on the outcomes. How good are they supposed to be under stress?

Reasonable expectations, sure. That's one good way to look at it. In an article about accuracy rates, one police chief, in Dallas, I think, said something like (paraphrasing), "Maybe we should just get used to 50% accuracy and shoot for that."

So, I guess that's the question. Is the only option to get used to 50% (on the high end)? Or is another option to just not issue guns to the people who are bad at shooting? Or maybe it's a training issue, which I think is what the OP was getting at. Could be any or all of those things.

 

[Steve]

They only have to shoot better than the guy shooting back.

And if everyone has this problem. Then inaccuracy kind of cancell's itself out.

Just as a point of reference, since 2015, the Washington Post has tracked every instance of an officer involved shooting reported in the country. It's pretty steady at about 1000 people every year. 42% of the people shot don't have a gun.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Well sort of. Cops don't have to shoot well under stress. They only have to shoot better than the guy shooting back.

And if everyone has this problem. Then inaccuracy kind of cancell's itself out.

Keep in mind, just because the cop is firing defensively doesn't mean the criminal is. Often the criminal is (action) initiating the attack, and the officer is (reaction) in the equation. It is typically a massive advantage to be action verse reaction when it comes to shooting accuracy.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

For some, sure. And for a limited time, maybe. I think it takes an exceptional person to maintain a positive outlook in the face of pervasive, imminent danger for the length of a person's career without being negatively affected. So if that's a prerequisite for shooting straight, I think we may have a significant dillemma.

Living like that for years, and recruiting for that trait won't, I believe, yield the results you're looking for. What are the short- and long-term effects of believing that you are literally risking your life every day at work? We saw a lot of trauma among healthcare workers who were literally putting themselves at risk during the pandemic. We have seen the long-term effects on our veterans from 2 decades of being at war. We have seen what being exposed long term to a belief that you may die at literally any moment does to people.

I think some people can live like that for some fixed period of time, but what you guys are talking about, if taken literally, is a terrible burden for anyone to bear.

The alternative seems to be to accept that most people will not be able to fire their weapons at better than about 35% accuracy under duress... and then the question is, okay. So if that's the case, what do we do about it? Just accept that as an unavoidable truth and move on?

If they're not under stress, then something else is leading to a problem translating success in training and certification and performance in the field.

I agree, a fixed amount of time, like a mission. It’s a job, like many jobs there is inherently risk involved. I work in the medical industry in direct patient care (surgery/wound care/hyperbarics). I was a zookeeper. Granted, no one is shooting at me at work, but there are/were risks. Surgery is filled with stressful risks each day. The expectation is that one performs as well or better during an emergency surgery ie multiple gunshot wounds, pregnant accident victims etc. During these sometimes daily events, I could inadvertently cause harm or the death of my patients if I screw up. I could contract a deadly disease from any one of the people I work on through scalpel or hollowbore needle stick injury. I could experience a catastrophic detonation of the hyperbaric chamber during any one of the 4-6 treatments I perform in a day. I have seen many people die. As a Zookeeper, I handled dangerous animals daily( cobras, great cats, primates) I believe that most of us become somewhat inured to the stresses you speak of. Not everyone can do these things. Many of my friends have issues related to combat stresses, but just as many do not. Some only wish it never ended because they can’t get the same adrenaline high doing anything else. I could never work a desk or a computer job for the same (but obviously lesser) reasons. I don’t pretend to have all the answers here but it can’t be simplified in a one size fits all rubric. In short, it is my belief that some people can do things that others can’t and some of those people may not suffer the same effects as most.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Just as a point of reference, since 2015, the Washington Post has tracked every instance of an officer involved shooting reported in the country. It's pretty steady at about 1000 people every year. 42% of the people shot don't have a gun.

Wow that is not a great score.

 

[Steve]

I agree, a fixed amount of time, like a mission. It’s a job, like many jobs there is inherently risk involved. I work in the medical industry in direct patient care (surgery/wound care/hyperbarics). I was a zookeeper. Granted, no one is shooting at me at work, but there are/were risks. Surgery is filled with stressful risks each day. The expectation is that one performs as well or better during an emergency surgery ie multiple gunshot wounds, pregnant accident victims etc. During these sometimes daily events, I could inadvertently cause harm or the death of my patients if I screw up. I could contract a deadly disease from any one of the people I work on through scalpel or hollowbore needle stick injury. I could experience a catastrophic detonation of the hyperbaric chamber during any one of the 4-6 treatments I perform in a day. I have seen many people die. As a Zookeeper, I handled dangerous animals daily( cobras, great cats, primates) I believe that most of us become somewhat inured to the stresses you speak of. Not everyone can do these things. Many of my friends have issues related to combat stresses, but just as many do not. Some only wish it never ended because they can’t get the same adrenaline high doing anything else. I could never work a desk or a computer job for the same (but obviously lesser) reasons. I don’t pretend to have all the answers here but it can’t be simplified in a one size fits all rubric. In short, it is my belief that some people can do things that others can’t and some of those people may not suffer the same effects as most.

Sensible precautions make a big difference. And to be clear, a lot of people have dangerous jobs where the consequences of failure may be dire. But it's the difference between working in a hospital and working in a hospital during the pandemic with inadequate protective gear and a fundamental belief that you will eventually contract the virus that you see killing people every day in your ward.

I worked with munitions in the military, moving literally hundreds of thousands of lbs of high explosives hither and yon. I have worked in offices where we've been the victim of bomb threats. I've been personally threatened, verbally more times than you can even imagine, and physically, more than i would like. But outside of a realistic and reasonable caution, I have never thought as I dressed for work that today might be the day I get taken out by a deranged person with a vendetta. I can't even imagine the psychological toll of carrying that around, much less forcing myself to do so because it might make me better at one element of my job.

There is a distinction to be drawn between that and a fundamental acceptance that your life is at risk every second of the day, which is what @Jared Traveler said is necessary to shoot accurately under stress. As I said earlier, he may have been writing hyperbole, but if he meant it literally, that's alarming. Acute situations are unsustainable long term for most people. So, when you say one must accept that kind of pervasive danger in order to shoot your weapon accurately in a stressful situation, there is a lot to think about. More than just, "Oh, I guess that's the way it is, then."

 

[Steve]

Wow that is not a great score.

Score?

 

[drop bear]

Just as a point of reference, since 2015, the Washington Post has tracked every instance of an officer involved shooting reported in the country. It's pretty steady at about 1000 people every year. 42% of the people shot don't have a gun.

They shot a dude over here recently with a knife.

And hit cars and shops and basically everything other than the guy with the knife.

They did get him eventually though.

 

[drop bear]

Keep in mind, just because the cop is firing defensively doesn't mean the criminal is. Often the criminal is (action) initiating the attack, and the officer is (reaction) in the equation. It is typically a massive advantage to be action verse reaction when it comes to shooting accuracy.

That is a different equation though. Shooting accurately isn't really a solution to being ambushed.

 

[drop bear]

Sensible precautions make a big difference. And to be clear, a lot of people have dangerous jobs where the consequences of failure may be dire. But it's the difference between working in a hospital and working in a hospital during the pandemic with inadequate protective gear and a fundamental belief that you will eventually contract the virus that you see killing people every day in your ward.

I worked with munitions in the military, moving literally hundreds of thousands of lbs of high explosives hither and yon. I have worked in offices where we've been the victim of bomb threats. I've been personally threatened, verbally more times than you can even imagine, and physically, more than i would like. But outside of a realistic and reasonable caution, I have never thought as I dressed for work that today might be the day I get taken out by a deranged person with a vendetta. I can't even imagine the psychological toll of carrying that around, much less forcing myself to do so because it might make me better at one element of my job.

There is a distinction to be drawn between that and a fundamental acceptance that your life is at risk every second of the day, which is what @Jared Traveler said is necessary to shoot accurately under stress. As I said earlier, he may have been writing hyperbole, but if he meant it literally, that's alarming. Acute situations are unsustainable long term for most people. So, when you say one must accept that kind of pervasive danger in order to shoot your weapon accurately in a stressful situation, there is a lot to think about. More than just, "Oh, I guess that's the way it is, then."

I don't think that is an uncommon idea. Just an uncommon example.