# The main reason you can't shot a handgun accurately



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

What is the main reason you can't shoot a handgun accurately? It is simple, you aren't motivated to do it well. You don't want to shoot better bad enough.

As a former tactical firearms instructor, it is my belief that shooting handguns is approximately 80 percent mental and 20 percent technical.

Don't get me wrong, you can't fake the skill of shooting a handgun accurately. You need skill to do it, but you will not obtain and maintain the skill without a strong desire to do it well. Also under stress, hitting your target takes extreme intentionality and focus.

When it comes down to it, your average person simply doesn't make hitting the target with a handgun a high priority.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 17, 2022)

So practicing a skill makes you better?

Gosh, who'd a thunk it...


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> So practicing a skill makes you better?
> 
> Gosh, who'd a thunk it...


This is in no way the totality of what I am saying. I have seen people training and practicing without the proper focus and mentality. In fact it is extremely common.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 17, 2022)

I don't understand the difference


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

I have worked with many guys who have had tons of professional training, fired thousands and thousands of rounds. Yet only reach a certain level of expertise and never exceed it. More money, more range time, more certificates, and more training will only take you so far at being able to hit and hit under stress. Without understanding and developing the right mindset you will never be great at it.

The mental aspect plays into it deeper than many realize.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

There are a ton of branches to this topic, but I will start with two stories to begin to illustrate my point. First, as a range instructor, I use to ask students(cops) right before the qualified with their handguns what score they were going to shoot. Virtually none of them would tell me they were going to shoot a 100 percent. They would say, "I'm just happy to qualify at a 70 percent and pass." Or, "I usually quality in the high 90s." Or "Hopefully better than last time I shot." But almost none of them were even expecting to hit the target every time. The rare person who said, "I'm going to shoot 100 percent (extremely rare person) typically did every time, or came very close to it. 

Second story is when I was at an advanced SWAT school getting certified on teaching SWAT MP5s and M4s. We were doing foot work drills, learning to move at different angles, firing as a two man team, and covering each other while preforming mag changes, tactical reloads and dealing with stoppages. We were focused on those skills and some of the shooters were getting lazy with their shot placement. The instructor a former SAS guy, stopped everything. He simply stated, "Stop missing the target, it's unacceptable." The strange thing is, nobody missed after that.


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> I have worked with many guys who have had tons of professional training, fired thousands and thousands of rounds. Yet only reach a certain level of expertise and never exceed it. More money, more range time, more certificates, and more training will only take you so far at being able to hit and hit under stress. Without understanding and developing the right mindset you will never be great at it.
> 
> The mental aspect plays into it deeper than many realize.


It’s an interesting way to parse it out.  Based on studies I’ve seen with a few different police departments, no one really fires a handgun accurately under stress. It’s kind of striking.  And training didn’t seem to make much difference over time.  

To be clear, I’m not sure if that challenges or supports your point.  Could be interpreted either way, I suppose.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 17, 2022)

@Jared Traveler Are you talking about firing a handgun accurately in a stressful situation, or while at the range? You seem to be referring to both separately but making the one point.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> @Jared Traveler Are you talking about firing a handgun accurately in a stressful situation, or while at the range? You seem to be referring to both separately but making the one point.


Both...and/or.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 17, 2022)

Not everyone has that problem...





						Armed good Samaritan praised for shooting suspect in trailer-park standoff
					

A Good Samaritan with a good aim is credited with saving the life of a cop who was under fire. The gunman had already shot and killed two people in a dispute over dogs defecating on his property.




					www.khou.com
				




Old man shot the bad guy from 150 feet away, with a 357 magnum revolver. The bad guy had an assault rifle and started to return fire, and the old man shot and hit him 3 more times... thats 4 shots, 4 hits at 150 feet, 3 of the shots made while the old man was being shot at with an assault rifle.

Some people can achieve accuracy under fire with a handgun....


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Both...and/or.


Can you share some data about accuracy rates in stressful situations?


----------



## wab25 (Nov 17, 2022)

Here is a guy in WWI that that took out a bunch of Germans, by himself... Okay, he only shot 5 of them with his handgun... but they were charging him with bayonets... Does being out numbered, under fire from machine guns and having 5 guys charge you with bayonets count as stressful?









						In World War I, Alvin York captured 132 German soldiers pretty much single-handed
					

<img src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzI3NTM3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzEwODU0NH0.OSEZGeOizkfvxC…




					www.wearethemighty.com


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 17, 2022)

wab25 said:


> Not everyone has that problem...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And sometimes you get lucky.

We were at an outdoor range shooting AR's. We had targets at 100, 200, and 500 yards. A buddy was on the spotter scope and Sue was shooting. I picked up her carry gun - a Glock 26. Anyone who shoots knows that this gun is...suboptimal...for a 100 yard shot. She carries it with the short 10 round mag, because it's much easier to conceal than with her extended mags. I figured with 10 rounds, I could probably walk it in and get at least one round on paper. I also figured it would give them something to laugh about, because it really is kind of a silly thing to do with a sub-compact handgun.

I fired the first round. It was not only on paper, it was on the 7/8 line. I put the gun down and pretended it was on purpose.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 17, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> And sometimes you get lucky.
> 
> We were at an outdoor range shooting AR's. We had targets at 100, 200, and 500 yards. A buddy was on the spotter scope and Sue was shooting. I picked up her carry gun - a Glock 26. Anyone who shoots knows that this gun is...suboptimal...for a 100 yard shot. She carries it with the short 10 round mag, because it's much easier to conceal than with her extended mags. I figured with 10 rounds, I could probably walk it in and get at least one round on paper. I also figured it would give them something to laugh about, because it really is kind of a silly thing to do with a sub-compact handgun.
> 
> I fired the first round. It was not only on paper, it was on the 7/8 line. I put the gun down and pretended it was on purpose.


My buddy can hit the 8 inch gong at 200 yds every single time with his 4” Springfield XD 45. He can do a mag dump on it and get 10/10. It still amazes me.


----------



## wab25 (Nov 17, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> And sometimes you get lucky.
> 
> We were at an outdoor range shooting AR's. We had targets at 100, 200, and 500 yards. A buddy was on the spotter scope and Sue was shooting. I picked up her carry gun - a Glock 26. Anyone who shoots knows that this gun is...suboptimal...for a 100 yard shot. She carries it with the short 10 round mag, because it's much easier to conceal than with her extended mags. I figured with 10 rounds, I could probably walk it in and get at least one round on paper. I also figured it would give them something to laugh about, because it really is kind of a silly thing to do with a sub-compact handgun.
> 
> I fired the first round. It was not only on paper, it was on the 7/8 line. I put the gun down and pretended it was on purpose.


The first guy I showed, went 3 for 3, with a handgun, on a target only 150 feet away.... that was shooting at him with a rifle. The OP was talking about people who shoot great at the range, but not under pressure. A guy shooting at you with a rifle from 150 feet away should count as at least some pressure... ignoring the fact that the guy with the rifle had just killed two people and their dogs...

The guy was 4 for 4 on an active shooter, from 150 feet away with a handgun... with the shooter returning fire with a rifle. I call that accurate under pressure.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> Can you share some data about accuracy rates in stressful situations?


I am not a big statistics guy. But I will say that I believe all handguns are underpowered and to win consistently you should be dedicated to extreme close range accuracy under stress. Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.

And considering that, you are making the same mistakes accuracy wise at 3 feet, that you are making at 30 yards. It just isn't as noticable. So if you can stack rounds at 3 feet, you will shoot well at 30 yards. If you can't stack rounds at 3 feet, if you are even a little sloppy because you can get away with it up close, you will probably be sloppy aiming in a close range self-defense shooting.

In simple terms I'm saying that your low and left shot in the kill zone at 5 yards, will probably be a low and left shot to the right arm in a fight, or a complete miss. So dedicated yourself to perfect shooting at all times.

In simpler terms, just because you hit a lung or heart on a paper target and got it in the kill zone does not mean you hit where you were aiming. Center mass should be dead center of where you are aiming.

I have shot many qualifications scoring 100 percent and was very unhappy with my shooting.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> It’s an interesting way to parse it out.  Based on studies I’ve seen with a few different police departments, no one really fires a handgun accurately under stress. It’s kind of striking.  And training didn’t seem to make much difference over time.
> 
> To be clear, I’m not sure if that challenges or supports your point.  Could be interpreted either way, I suppose.


Hitting accurately understand stress can and does happen. I have seen it go both ways. What you are extremely unlikely to do is perform way better under stress than you do on the range. But range performance alone is not the indicator of what you will do under stress.

If you want to hit under stress, this topic is an important topic to explore.


----------



## skribs (Nov 17, 2022)

So the secret is you just need to want it?  Then why'd I waste so much time practicing!


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 17, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Hitting accurately understand stress can and does happen. I have seen it go both ways. What you are extremely unlikely to do is perform way better under stress than you do on the range. But range performance alone is not the indicator of what you will do under stress.
> 
> If you want to hit under stress, this topic is an important topic to explore.


How do you feel a 3 gun competition shooter will do when compared to the average range shooter?


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Hitting accurately understand stress can and does happen. I have seen it go both ways. What you are extremely unlikely to do is perform way better under stress than you do on the range. But range performance alone is not the indicator of what you will do under stress.
> 
> If you want to hit under stress, this topic is an important topic to explore.


No disagreement from me.  I am a data guy. At least, when it comes to determining whether the training is translating to performance.  I don’t see how you can evaluate training without data.  I think it’s surprising how often what we believe to be true doesn’t hold up when objectively evaluated. 

 So, for example, I think you’re correct, but may be surprised at the difference in performance is between the range and under stress.  If 70% is the minimum to pass, and accuracy in the field is closer to 25%, that to me is notable.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

skribs said:


> So the secret is you just need to want it?  Then why'd I waste so much time practicing!


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.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> How do you feel a 3 gun competition shooter will do when compared to the average range shooter?


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 (Nov 17, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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.


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 (Nov 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> On the range, you mean.  right?   I’m skeptical of the connection you’re attempting to make between the range and under stress.


The connection is there.


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> The connection is there.


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 (Nov 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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.


Again, there are very few cops who focus on the mental aspects of handgun shooting.


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Again, there are very few cops who focus on the mental aspects of handgun shooting.


Perhaps those particular cops shouldn’t carry guns.  Those things are dangerous in the wrong hands.  😅


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 17, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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.


Excellent answer. Commitment.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 17, 2022)

Steve said:


> Perhaps those particular cops shouldn’t carry guns.  Those things are dangerous in the wrong hands.  😅


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.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 17, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Excellent answer. Commitment.


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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> On the range, you mean.  right?   I’m skeptical of the connection you’re attempting to make between the range and under stress.


'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.


----------



## Gyakuto (Nov 18, 2022)

This author is a marksman. He thinks it’s in your head.


----------



## Steve (Nov 18, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> '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.


Thanks.  I’m aware and have seen examples of this kind of training.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 18, 2022)

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.


----------



## mograph (Nov 18, 2022)

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


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> Perhaps those particular cops shouldn’t carry guns.  Those things are dangerous in the wrong hands.  😅


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.


----------



## Steve (Nov 18, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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.


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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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%.


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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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.


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.  



Jared Traveler said:


> 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.


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 (Nov 18, 2022)

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.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 18, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

mograph said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> 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?


drop bear said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

drop bear said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

drop bear said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

drop bear said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Wow that is not a great score.


Score?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> I am not a big statistics guy. But I will say that I believe all handguns are underpowered and to win consistently you should be dedicated to extreme close range accuracy under stress. Shot placement, shot placement, shot placement.
> 
> And considering that, you are making the same mistakes accuracy wise at 3 feet, that you are making at 30 yards. It just isn't as noticable. So if you can stack rounds at 3 feet, you will shoot well at 30 yards. If you can't stack rounds at 3 feet, if you are even a little sloppy because you can get away with it up close, you will probably be sloppy aiming in a close range self-defense shooting.
> 
> ...






I Image it was either High Accuracy and Low Precision or Low Accuracy and High Precision


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> '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.


Not Challenging, just curious if you could list some of the departments. 

In Michigan, outside of the SWAT and or Active Response Teams, I do not know that Monthly is a requirement. And moving and rolling is not for the average township and smaller towns and cities.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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.


I would use the large silhouette shrunk down to fit an average page and then make photo copies. 
Put up a few *usually three across and two high * and then work on targeting the correct chart and the correct area at range. 

Caveat: I have never considered myself well trained / expert / or anyone with skill . I do listen to those who are, and I do practice. 

So at the range would be happy with a shot I made and I would say no it was not where I wanted it. 
So I would work on why and try to repeat and correct. 

Note: Not just go shoot 20-50 bullets and call it a day and be happy. I would go and practice something I was working on and correcting. 
Each one of these things might take a few box 100 that day. then dealing with Fatigue and seeing how that affects one. I mean I am never ten to twelve hours into a work shift an hour from home and 15-16 hours since a bad night of sleep. *Sarcasm* 
So to me that mattered. 




Jared Traveler said:


> 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.


No Comment - as I have not been under stress with a firearm. 
Empty handed, with a knife , with improvised weapons against multiple opponents and with or with out weapons. 

And to your in the eye comment. 
I have criminals (Gang members) walk away as they see it. 
Stand there and mean the following: "I have Blue Cross Blue Shield, I hope you have good insurance as well"
Meaning people are going down with me. I know I am going to get hurt , and I have accepted it, yet I am also letting them know they will be going with me. 
It puts hesitation into those who are not 100% committed. 

* See other thread currently discussing Chimps and my post there. I called for Police assistance as I looked into his eyes and I knew there was no one home. Either multiple people would be required or complete taking them out would be required. I was not committed that that day and time. *


----------



## Argus (Nov 18, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> 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.


I'm trying very hard to imagine how that would happen.
Were they practicing some drill where you fend off an attacker with the left hand and draw the gun?
Why would the left hand be in front of the muzzle?


----------



## tkdroamer (Nov 19, 2022)

Rich Parsons said:


> Not Challenging, just curious if you could list some of the departments.
> 
> In Michigan, outside of the SWAT and or Active Response Teams, I do not know that Monthly is a requirement. And moving and rolling is not for the average township and smaller towns and cities.


My experience has been with TN (Dickson, Davidson, Williamson), KY (Logan, Warren, Allen, Monroe), MS (Marshall, Bishop, Alcorn, and AL (Jackson, Madison, Huntsville. All these counties worked together in a task force.
As I said, not all departments have the requirement more than once annually and augment with range practice.


----------



## mograph (Nov 19, 2022)

Rich Parsons said:


> View attachment 29335
> I Image it was either High Accuracy and Low Precision or Low Accuracy and High Precision


Point taken, but statistically speaking, the top left target's accuracy isn't bad. The mean of the hits should be farther off-center.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2022)

mograph said:


> Point taken, but statistically speaking, the top left target's accuracy isn't bad. The mean of the hits should be farther off-center.


 One has got to love data


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 19, 2022)

Rich Parsons said:


> One has got to love data


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 19, 2022)

Argus said:


> I'm trying very hard to imagine how that would happen.
> Were they practicing some drill where you fend off an attacker with the left hand and draw the gun?
> Why would the left hand be in front of the muzzle?


Think about removing the slide. Say there is a round in the chamber. Then to put the slide back on to the receiver with your left hand. Then to finish that procedure you must pull the trigger. Imagine where your left pinkie finger might be ( if you are sloppy and failing the first rule of firearm handling). Boom! You got it. Best part is one claimed he was cleaning it while on the toilet.  I’m not sure I believe that part. That means they failed to clear the weapon before disassembly.  Its so dumb they shouldn’t be allowed a service weapon. I have seen some even more moronic gunshot injuries, I only mentioned these because of the thread topic.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 19, 2022)

Steve said:


> Score?


Well yeah, it’s kind of a score on accuracy right?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 19, 2022)

Argus said:


> I'm trying very hard to imagine how that would happen.
> Were they practicing some drill where you fend off an attacker with the left hand and draw the gun?
> Why would the left hand be in front of the muzzle?


Carelessness. 

Some people do a press check to see if there's a round in the chamber. On modern guns, it is generally unnecessary, because chambered round indicators exist. And since some states have made them mandatory, you get them everywhere, because there's no reason to design and build two versions of the same handgun.

Field stripping. Glocks and their clones are field stripped by ejecting the magazine, racking the slide to remove any round in the chamber, closing the slide and then dry firing the weapon to relieve the pressure on the striker. Then pull down on the slide release and you're done.

Done carelessly, either of these could result in a right handed person shooting themselves in the tip of the pinky.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 20, 2022)

drop bear said:


> 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.


Only if they're in a vacuum with their 'opponents'. If you've got A and B shooting at each other, and they've only got like 50% accuracy that cancels out. But if there's C, D, E and F there, just by chance and they were near B when sudden shooting started, A having 50% inaccuracy can be a pretty big issue.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Only if they're in a vacuum with their 'opponents'. If you've got A and B shooting at each other, and they've only got like 50% accuracy that cancels out. But if there's C, D, E and F there, just by chance and they were near B when sudden shooting started, A having 50% inaccuracy can be a pretty big issue.



I still don't think that is fixed by accuracy. If they have more guys in better positions. I don't believe you can shoot your way out very effectively. I get that more accuracy is better than less.

But I don't get how you are solving these problems with more accuracy.


----------



## tkdroamer (Nov 20, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Only if they're in a vacuum with their 'opponents'. If you've got A and B shooting at each other, and they've only got like 50% accuracy that cancels out. But if there's C, D, E and F there, just by chance and they were near B when sudden shooting started, A having 50% inaccuracy can be a pretty big issue.


This could increase the 50% probability by a factor 4. I would take those odds.


----------



## Darren (Nov 20, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> What is the main reason you can't shoot a handgun accurately? It is simple, you aren't motivated to do it well. You don't want to shoot better bad enough.
> 
> As a former tactical firearms instructor, it is my belief that shooting handguns is approximately 80 percent mental and 20 percent technical.
> 
> ...


Would think the weight of a handgun is the key, because of the weight it will have a tendency to drop down as well as the recoil of the gun being shot. Using the hand as a base would give you better control of the weapon as well as using both hands to grip the handle of the weapon.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 20, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Carelessness.
> 
> Some people do a press check to see if there's a round in the chamber. On modern guns, it is generally unnecessary, because chambered round indicators exist. And since some states have made them mandatory, you get them everywhere, because there's no reason to design and build two versions of the same handgun.
> 
> ...


You got it.


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Only if they're in a vacuum with their 'opponents'. If you've got A and B shooting at each other, and they've only got like 50% accuracy that cancels out. But if there's C, D, E and F there, just by chance and they were near B when sudden shooting started, A having 50% inaccuracy can be a pretty big issue.


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.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2022)

Ok. So how do we fix the mindset issue?

Something like airsoft where people can grow confident with resisted gun fights?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 20, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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.


I was going based off drop bears statement about shooting better than the guy shooting back.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 20, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Ok. So how do we fix the mindset issue?
> 
> Something like airsoft where people can grow confident with resisted gun fights?


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.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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 (Nov 20, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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 (Nov 20, 2022)

windwalker099 said:


> 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.....🤔
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Unlearn what you have learned in order to learn.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

mograph said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

mograph said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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.



Jared Traveler said:


> 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.  



Jared Traveler said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


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


Meaningless to whom?


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> 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.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


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


It's possible.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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.


If they might need a gun, that means they need a gun. Because you can't know which officers will need a gun to perform their duties and which ones will not. Can we agree on that?


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


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


Calm down, big boy.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> If they might need a gun, that means they need a gun. Because you can't know which officers will need a gun to perform their duties and which ones will not. Can we agree on that?


Okay.  Sorry.  To be more specific.  I believe SOME cops need guns SOMETIMES to do SOME portion of their assigned tasks.  The devil is in the details, but if we can't agree that SOME cops don't need guns, then yes, I don't think we agree on this.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> Okay.  Sorry.  To be more specific.  I believe SOME cops need guns SOMETIMES to do SOME portion of their assigned tasks.  The devil is in the details, but if we can't agree that SOME cops don't need guns, then yes, I don't think we agree on this.


Honestly Steve, and I hope this can be said in a way that isn't going to come off rude, but, if you don't think working cops need guns, you can't begin to understand the problem, or the real solutions. You can not understand how to interpret the statistics or what to do with the numbers you are looking at.

Because you are not living in reality. The reality being there is no way for an officer to know when or if they will need a gun, or what type of situations they will find themselves in when they need it.

Every cop needs to be armed, trained and prepared for a gunfight, regardless of what type of shooting they actually find themselves in, or if they ever need to fire their gun at all. There is no crystal ball to predict these SOMETIMES. Human aggression is unpredictable and cops need tools and training to be prepared for that, regardless if it happens or not.

In fact thinking otherwise directly contributes to the problem, not any solution. Because it leads to further mental and physical unpreparedness.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Honestly Steve, and I hope this can be said in a way that isn't going to come off rude, but, if you don't think working cops need guns, you can't begin to understand the problem, or the real solutions. You can not understand how to interpret the statistics or what to do with the numbers you are looking at.
> 
> Because you are not living in reality. The reality being there is no way for an officer to know when or if they will need a gun, or what type of situations they will find themselves in when they need it.
> 
> ...


I think it might be possible that guns are so much a part of the culture that cops (and you as some kind of either former or current cop) cannot envision a manner in which to do their job without them.  And that's the challenge we have.  Guns are all wrapped up in what it means to be a cop, the identify of it, and the feelings of fear and lack of preparedness that accompany even the thought of being without them.  

There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of people who have very dangerous jobs where they interact routinely with people who may or may not be dangerous, where they could easily use the same argument you are using to justify carrying a sidearm at all times.  And they don't.  

To be clear, if this were a conversation about "tools" that may or may not include a sidearm, this could be a very different conversation.  Also, just fyi, if you start off qualifying your statement by saying you hope it's not rude, it's probably pretty rude.  It's okay, though.  I have a thick skin.  

@Dirty Dog , FYI, of course people who don't have guns can be dangerous, and also, I never suggested having a gun is the only way to "be armed."  I'm sorry I reacted to your snarkiness in kind.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think it might be possible that guns are so much a part of the culture that cops (and you as some kind of either former or current cop) cannot envision a manner in which to do their job without them.  And that's the challenge we have.  Guns are all wrapped up in what it means to be a cop, the identify of it, and the feelings of fear and lack of preparedness that accompany even the thought of being without them.
> 
> There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of people who have very dangerous jobs where they interact routinely with people who may or may not be dangerous, where they could easily use the same argument you are using to justify carrying a sidearm at all times.  And they don't.
> 
> ...



Well in that case I'm glad I didn't actually say something rude.

Again, your welcome to your opinion, but there is a reality to police work that you are unwilling or unable to comprehend. Those other professions all call the police when they need help. And yes some of them have dangerous jobs, that doesn't eliminate or minimize the very real danger to cops. Sending a police officer in America out to do their without a firearm on their person at all times is irresponsible, and foolish. That's not debatable by anyone who understands the realities of a police officers duties and responsibilities in America.

It also calls into question your ability to understand and interpret the data regarding police shootings without bias. Because nothing about the data suggests an officer shouldn't be armed and prepared for a violent attack. In fact everything points to the need for an officer to be armed and prepared.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Well in that case I'm glad I didn't actually say something rude.


  We all say rude things sometimes.  I forgive you. I was curt with @Dirty Dog, and admitted it.


Jared Traveler said:


> Again, your welcome to your opinion, but there is a reality to police work that you are unwilling or unable to comprehend. Those other professions all call the police when they need help. And yes some of them have dangerous jobs, that doesn't eliminate or minimize the very real danger to cops. Sending a police officer in America out to do their without a firearm on their person at all times is irresponsible, and foolish. That's not debatable by anyone who understands the realities of a police officers duties and responsibilities in America.


I know my opinions seem pretty naive to you.  I get it.  When you've lived a lifetime never questioning that a sidearm is a tool you have to carry in order to do your job, I don't expect you to be open to any opinion to the contrary.  I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything.

Also, to be sure, I think cops have a very dangerous job and should be given the tools they need to do their job safely and competently. I think the hang up we have is that you believe a gun is something without which cops are unsafe and unable to competently execute their jobs.  I believe it's possible, and there is evidence to support this, that in some situations, a gun can actually make cops less safe, along with the public they serve.  You provided one good example, yourself, when someone tries to take a cops gun away, that's a big problem.  I can easily understand how that could take a bad situation and make it worse.


Jared Traveler said:


> It also calls into question your ability to understand and interpret the data regarding police shootings without bias. Because nothing about the data suggests an officer shouldn't be armed and prepared for a violent attack. In fact everything points to the need for an officer to be armed and prepared.



There isn't any such thing as "without bias", and I try very hard to speak plainly.  And when you suggest I have a bias without acknowledging your own, I literally snorted.  I mean, you are nothing if not biased on this topic.  More concerning is that you don't seem to recognize that.

But now you're starting to speak my language.  What do you mean by "everything points"?  Everything is a pretty bold claim.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> We all say rude things sometimes.  I forgive you. I was curt with @Dirty Dog, and admitted it.
> 
> I know my opinions seem pretty naive to you.  I get it.  When you've lived a lifetime never questioning that a sidearm is a tool you have to carry in order to do your job, I don't expect you to be open to any opinion to the contrary.  I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything.
> 
> ...


This is not the case, I certainly have bias like everyone, but not to the point that I can't match 20+ years of law enforcement and more accurately than most conceive what that might look like without a firearm.

In fact I have traveled to 19 counties to date, all without a firearm. Some of them active war zones, or during times of riots and instability. I'm very experienced more than your average person is in operating in very dangerous environments without a gun. And also willing to beyond what most anyone would be comfortable with.

The reality is, you believe my bias blinds me to what's possible. But the fact is, I'm right. I'm not right about everything, but I am about this. It's not sane or responsible to send cops out to do their basic duties in America without a weapon.


----------



## tkdroamer (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> 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


I am not arguing whether the numbers are credible. I would aver that 'credible' can be very, very questionable at best. Using that data for your discussion argument is parallel to finding and using a stat on how many EMS workers get hurt every year by assisting injured or sick people. I am certain there are some big statistical number(s) out there. But unless you are looking to get into that line of work, do they really matter? They are both essential personnel.


----------



## tkdroamer (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Honestly Steve, and I hope this can be said in a way that isn't going to come off rude, but, if you don't think working cops need guns, you can't begin to understand the problem, or the real solutions. You can not understand how to interpret the statistics or what to do with the numbers you are looking at.
> 
> Because you are not living in reality. The reality being there is no way for an officer to know when or if they will need a gun, or what type of situations they will find themselves in when they need it.
> 
> ...


You said that so much better than I ever could have.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> This is not the case, I certainly have bias like everyone, but not to the point that I can't match 20+ years of law enforcement and more accurately than most conceive what that might look like without a firearm.
> 
> In fact I have traveled to 19 counties to date, all without a firearm. Some of them active war zones, or during times of riots and instability. I'm very experienced more than your average person is in operating in very dangerous environments without a gun. And also willing to beyond what most anyone would be comfortable with.
> 
> The reality is, you believe my bias blinds me to what's possible. But the fact is, I'm right. I'm not right about everything, but I am about this. It's not sane or responsible to send cops out to do their basic duties in America without a weapon.


I think you have a valuable perspective.  But respectfully, I don’t think you are right.  I also think you are a short step from the ad hominem stage of the discussion where it becomes about me and not the topic at hand.  Suffice to say that so far, beyond your insistence that it’s true, there is nothing to suggest 100% of cops carrying a firearm 100% of the time is good for either cops or the public they serve.  

you guys are at the point where you are crying bias and attacking the messenger and not the message.  I’m good letting it drop and I appreciate the interesting discussion.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think you have a valuable perspective.  But respectfully, I don’t think you are right.  I also think you are a short step from the ad hominem stage of the discussion where it becomes about me and not the topic at hand.  Suffice to say that so far, beyond your insistence that it’s true, there is nothing to suggest 100% of cops carrying a firearm 100% of the time is good for either cops or the public they serve.
> 
> you guys are at the point where you are crying bias and attacking the messenger and not the message.  I’m good letting it drop and I appreciate the interesting discussion.


Because the topic has to address your personal bias to continue in the pursuit of real meaningful conversation verse fairytales.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Because the topic has to address your personal bias to continue in the pursuit of real meaningful conversation verse fairytales.


Ad hominem it is then.  That was quick.  😬


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> Ad hominem it is then.  That was quick.  😬


Don't make this about me Steve.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> The reality is, you believe my bias blinds me


That's kind of his point.  It just did.

Anybody claiming to have "reality" down is suspect.

Everyone has their biases, which cloud perception.  Please don't make me spout ancient scripture about this...it's true primae facie, like Royce Gracie.

And then you went on about "fact", but reality, fact, and bias are different things.  To tie it together, facts are independent of your biased perceptions of reality.

So just as friendly advice, avoid stating "facts" that are your own biased opinion, and never, ever claim to know what reality is when you're describing your own personal experience.  Just say "IMHO" and not "I've been in 19 countries...".  That just reeks of pride and authority.  We're all equals here.

Probably why your missing Steve's friendly attempt at communion, and why you'll get angry at me posting this.  Or not, maybe that's just my perception.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> That's kind of his point.
> 
> Anybody claiming to have "reality" down is suspect.
> 
> ...


The implication was my bias towards feeling like I need a gun was clouding my judgement on what is possible. Having 20+ years of armed law enforcement experience, plus traveling and working in 19 counties without one significantly debunks that accusations. Take it how you want, it's extremely relevant info for me to bring up.

With that said, I apologize if that came off wrong, it wasn't my intention. Although I'm sure I do suffer from pride from time to time. So I will check my heat on this matter. Genuinely thank you!

But yes, I maintain their is a reality to conflict and violence that I do understand from personal experience.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Don't make this about me Steve.


I’m glad we can still laugh. Here I’ll try one more time. 

Why didn’t you carry a weapon in all of those 19 countries?  Was it always a personal choice of yours to leave the gun at home after an evaluation of the threat?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> The implication was my bias towards feeling like I need a gun was clouding my judgement on what is possible. Having 20+ years of armed law enforcement experience, plus traveling and working in 19 counties without one significantly debunks that accusations. Take it how you want, it's extremely relevant info for me to bring up.
> 
> With that said, I apologize if that came off wrong, it wasn't my intention. Although I'm sure I do suffer from pride from time to time. So I will check my heat on this matter. Genuinely thank you!
> 
> But yes, I maintain their is a reality to conflict and violence that I do understand from personal experience.


Sure dude.

Armed cops also have a terrible track record of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and paranoia, and beat, shoot, arrest, and kill people all the time, and a lot are innocent.

It's stressful all around, and on both ends.

Oh and suicide.  Cops are at the top of the list, sadly.

There's a lot to consider if you really want to stab at "reality".  In fact some people believe it's futile to try, and better off listening to others and constantly re-evaluating your views.  E Pluribus Unum.

I dominated a big cop on the mats once.  We both learned something.  I think he was humbled, but I know I was.  I felt terrible, at his defeated face.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Steve said:


> I’m glad we can still laugh. Here I’ll try one more time.
> 
> Why didn’t you carry a weapon in all of those 19 countries?  Was it always a personal choice of yours to leave the gun at home after an evaluation of the threat?


It's because one, I am there on a different mission, without the duties and responsibilities of law enforcement. Also, I'm rarely legal to carry weapons in those countries. Also, living isn't my highest priority, so I'm willing to take risks to accomplish certain an objects. Not working in law enforcement there I can mitigate threats in different ways, that I can't do as a police officer.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Sure dude.
> 
> Armed cops also have a terrible track record of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and paranoia, and beat, shoot, arrest, and kill people all the time, and a lot are innocent.
> 
> ...


You realize you just criticized me for prideful statements and are now bragging about dominating a cop on the mat. 

I also have thoughts on PTSD and suicide related to police work. Which I don't suffer from. But that's another topic.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> You realize you just criticized me for prideful statements and are now bragging about dominating a cop on the mat.
> 
> I also have thoughts on PTSD and suicide related to police work. Which I don't suffer from. But that's another topic.


I just told you how bad I felt for the cop, dude.  That was just sincerity, it wasn't bragging.  I was humbled by the experience, not emboldened.  He looked like he was imagining him getting far worse from a non-friendly.  It stuck with me.

Bragging would be like saying I could dominate you on the mat, which I never would, even if I thought I could.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 21, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I just told you how bad I felt for the cop, dude.  That was just sincerity, it wasn't bragging.
> 
> Bragging would be like saying I could dominate you on the mat, which I never would, even if I thought I could.


Okay. It's certainly easy to miss read motives.


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Okay. It's certainly easy to miss read motives.


That’s for sure.


----------



## tkdroamer (Nov 22, 2022)

Steve said:


> I think you have a valuable perspective.  But respectfully, I don’t think you are right.  I also think you are a short step from the ad hominem stage of the discussion where it becomes about me and not the topic at hand.  Suffice to say that so far, beyond your insistence that it’s true, there is nothing to suggest 100% of cops carrying a firearm 100% of the time is good for either cops or the public they serve.
> 
> you guys are at the point where you are crying bias and attacking the messenger and not the message.  I’m good letting it drop and I appreciate the interesting discussion.


It seems you have been knocked off your pedestal and feel your only argumentative recourse is to use the lame ad hominem cop-out (no pun intended). 

History is the best proof of the need for police to be armed 100% of the time. It would serve you well to do a little unbiased study.  

At no time in the thread has attacked you. Instead, they have done exactly what you advocated, which is debating the topic. Remember, discussion is a two-way street.


----------



## mograph (Nov 22, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> History is the best proof of the need for police to be armed 100% of the time.


In which jurisdictions?


----------



## Steve (Nov 22, 2022)

tkdroamer said:


> It seems you have been knocked off your pedestal and feel your only argumentative recourse is to use the lame ad hominem cop-out (no pun intended).



Hey man. I'm on no pedestal and wouldn't want to be.  You think I'm being argumentative, but that's really not my intention.  The sum total of what seems to be getting you heated is I suggested that not all cops need guns all the time.   I shared that in answer to a direct question from @Jared Traveler.   If I had to guess, you're reading a lot more into that statement above than is intended.   I am not anti-gun nor am I anti-cop, and I tried to be really clear earlier that it could be that 99% of cops need guns 99% of the time, or it could be 100% need guns 50% of the time... but if it's zero sum, all or nothing, we're just going to need to agree to disagree.




tkdroamer said:


> History is the best proof of the need for police to be armed 100% of the time. It would serve you well to do a little unbiased study.



Ooooh, that's pretty interesting.  I have done, and am open to reading more.  How about this?  If you care to share some unbiased history with me, I will read it with interest.  AND, what history I've read suggests otherwise, but as you say, maybe I've only ever found the biased history.  Shoot it to me in DM or post it here.  Either way, I will read it.



tkdroamer said:


> At no time in the thread has attacked you. Instead, they have done exactly what you advocated, which is debating the topic. Remember, discussion is a two-way street.


You're coming across as a little attacky right now.  But maybe that's me.  Are we discussing or are you upset?  If you're upset, let's call it a day and let it go.  I'm fine with that.  And if you think you and Jared "won" the argument, that's fine with me, too.  He thinks I'm living in a fairy tale.  Okay.  It's a data driven fairy tale, at least.


----------



## mograph (Nov 22, 2022)

Steve said:


> data driven fairy tale


Dibs on the band name.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 22, 2022)

I'll go out on a limb and say history does not show cops need guns 100% of the time.  Traffic cops, parking cops, desk job cops, all kinds of cops. SWAT, beat cops in cities with lots of illegal guns (which is not even most cities globally), highway troopers, sure you had me at hello.

100% of anything though?  That's a bold claim!  What percentage of cops are involved in violent encounters each year?  Can't be that high even in America. Somebody find that number because it'll be more telling than all these random 99s, 100s etc.

And in some towns, being a cop is a kind of religion, and a scary one that.  Whole history of local police departments abusing the civil rights of many groups...minorities, gay people, immigrants.  "Protect and serve", remember?  Doesn't always work out that way, largely due to cops with egos, grudges, bias, prejudice, paranoia, or just plain fear.

Once people fear the police, the police have lost the public trust.  The "Blue Wall of Silence" isn't fantasy....talk about data driven.  Google Frank Serpico.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 22, 2022)

The reality is you are sending cops into


Oily Dragon said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say history does not show cops need guns 100% of the time.  Traffic cops, parking cops, desk job cops, all kinds of cops. SWAT, beat cops in cities with lots of illegal guns (which is not even most cities globally), highway troopers, sure you had me at hello.
> 
> That's a bold claim!  What percentage of cops are involved in violent encounters each year?  Can't be that high even in America. Somebody find that number because it'll be more telling than all these random 99s, 100s etc.
> 
> ...


Based on the totality of this post, its clear there is a lot of baggage here. I hope objective reasoning regarding this subject can still occur. Giving the benefit of doubt, I will continue engaging regarding the actual subject.

Any traffic cop, or desk cop or parking cop (if those actually exist) who have the duties and responsibilities of responding to a violent felony in their presence, absolutely need to be armed at all times. That would include any working cop that is actually a real police officer.

Cops are paid partially to resolve violent felonies and make arrests on people who are violent criminals. That can happen at any time during a shift regardless of your assignment.

No amount of personal animosity anyone has on this forum doesn't change the reality that cops need to be armed.


----------



## Steve (Nov 22, 2022)

To try and pull this back to the topic, the OP suggests that prioritizing living over hitting the target can lead to inaccuracy.  The reason cops got brought up at all is because there are some accuracy statistics available, and they aren't great.  OP suggested that few cops prioritize hitting the target over survival.  

So far so good.  My opinion is that people who aren't well prepared to carry a weapon probably shouldn't carry one.  So, the question is, if people... cops or anyone else... are not well prepared to hit the target, however that is defined, are they competent to carry that weapon?  If someone isn't well trained with a sword, we hear around here often that they shouldn't train with a live blade.  Is this synonymous with that?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say history does not show cops need guns 100% of the time.  Traffic cops, parking cops, desk job cops, all kinds of cops. SWAT, beat cops in cities with lots of illegal guns (which is not even most cities globally), highway troopers, sure you had me at hello.


Really? My mother and two of her brothers were Highway Patrol. My uncle pulled a fellow over to tell him he had a burned out tail light. Turned out he also had a felony warrant of some kind. When my uncle got out of his patrol car, the fellow leaned out his window and shot him. Fortunately it wasn't center mass. My uncle returned fire and killed him.
I'm awfully glad our Highway Patrol disagrees with your suggestion that they be disarmed. Because my uncle is a nice guy. 

One of our sons and one of out Son in Laws are with the local PD. Our son was involved in the pursuit of a guy with a murder warrant. That led to him grabbing a shot gun. I'm really glad those cops weren't disarmed. Both our kids are nice guys.


Oily Dragon said:


> 100% of anything though?  That's a bold claim!  What percentage of cops are involved in violent encounters each year?


Unless you know a way to predict which cops those will be, and when, it is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 22, 2022)

Steve said:


> To try and pull this back to the topic, the OP suggests that prioritizing living over hitting the target can lead to inaccuracy.  The reason cops got brought up at all is because there are some accuracy statistics available, and they aren't great.  OP suggested that few cops prioritize hitting the target over survival.
> 
> So far so good.  My opinion is that people who aren't well prepared to carry a weapon probably shouldn't carry one.  So, the question is, if people... cops or anyone else... are not well prepared to hit the target, however that is defined, are they competent to carry that weapon?  If someone isn't well trained with a sword, we hear around here often that they shouldn't train with a live blade.  Is this synonymous with that?


You are still trying to asses if cops should be armed, that's not a reasonable starting point to even begin to ask the right questions. I repeat, this is an obstacle to having a meaningful conversation, based on addressing the problem and real solutions.

Of course they should be armed! The real question is, what constitutes being armed and prepared?

My original post was never intended to discuss or even dream of how to turn every cop into a lethal expert at firing under stress. That is as unrealistic as expecting cops to stay safe without weapons.

I was analyzing how a highly motivated and dedicated individual could significantly increase their accuracy under stress. You can not mass produce this, because to reach a high level takes personal motivation and mental dedication(as discussed in my original post).

We could discuss ways to improve firearms training for cops. However expecting everyone to be experts at shooting under high stress is beyond unrealistic. Also advocating for disarming them because they aren't Delta level experts is an irresponsible and unrealistic idea.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 22, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> You are still trying to asses if cops should be armed, that's not a reasonable starting point to even begin to ask the right questions. I repeat, this is an obstacle to having a meaningful conversation, based on addressing the problem and real solutions.
> 
> Of course they should be armed! The real question is, what constitutes being armed and prepared?


I got a different question from his, not should they be armed (though from the earlier posts that's obviously his question). The question that came to my mind is-should the be cops? If someone is unable to shoot accurately under stress, if we assume that they need to be armed for their job, should they have that job? Or should they be denied, and people that can fire under stress be chosen instead.

Or alternatively, should there be a division for people that don't need cops. So you could split the police departments into different roles/responsibilities, and have 'desk jockeys' that have lost their ability to shoot/can't shoot under stress for whatever reason, so don't have a gun, but are also not expected to be involved in the apprehension of violent criminals.

This all seems to be irrelevent (as you point out in the middle of your post) to your initial idea though, and should probably tend back to the topic and away from politics.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 22, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I got a different question from his, not should they be armed (though from the earlier posts that's obviously his question. The question that came to my mind is-should the be cops? If someone is unable to shoot accurately under stress, if we assume that they need to be armed for their job, should they have that job? Or should they be denied, and people that can fire under stress be chosen instead.
> 
> Or alternatively, should there be a division for people that don't need cops. So you could split the police departments into different roles/responsibilities, and have 'desk jockeys' that have lost their ability to shoot/can't shoot under stress for whatever reason, so don't have a gun, but are also not expected to be involved in the apprehension of violent criminals.
> 
> This all seems to be irrelevent (as you point out in the middle of your post) to your initial idea though, and should probably tend back to the topic and away from politics.


There are a lot of people who think it's impossible to expect anyone to predictably shoot a handgun well under that kind of stress.

It's a minority of instructors and trainers who are even significantly raising expectations in this area.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 22, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> There are a lot of people who think it's impossible to expect anyone to predictably shoot a handgun well under that kind of stress.


Fair. But there could be a determination of what's considered 'well' or 'well enough'.

And also, getting back to your first post, if it's a mental thing, how do we increase that? There's a very similar idea in basketball-they call it confidence. When someone's confidence is up, their shooting percentage skyrockets, and slumps happen/continue when their confidence goes down-they take less shots, and their shots don't go in as often. I imagine something similar happens with pitchers and quarterbacks. 

So it might be a good idea to look at how an athlete improves their mentality and see if it can be replicated in training people to shoot.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 22, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> And also, getting back to your first post, if it's a mental thing, how do we increase that? There's a very similar idea in basketball-they call it confidence. When someone's confidence is up, their shooting percentage skyrockets, and slumps happen/continue when their confidence goes down-they take less shots, and their shots don't go in as often. I imagine something similar happens with pitchers and quarterbacks.
> 
> So it might be a good idea to look at how an athlete improves their mentality and see if it can be replicated in training people to shoot.


Great question!!!! And again, lots of things that could be said. But it start with developing the 20 percent of the skill in marksmanship. Being predictably highly accurate under no stress. How do you do that? That's a deep subject, but in simple terms you develop a personal, repeatable process.

Confidence comes from repeating your personal exact process of accurately firing the weapon. If you have a bad shot, no problem, you know the process works, so start over and focus on your next shot.

Most "experienced" shooters haven't developed their process to the right degree of awareness and repeatability. They think they under the 20 percent, but don't understand it well enough to be consistent and have repeatability precision.

Why haven't they? It goes back to the 80 percent mental. They are satisfied with mediocre shooting, or any number of reasons. They aren't motivated enough to learn how to hit the target every time. Back to the original reason they ultimately miss. It starts on the range.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 22, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Why haven't they? It goes back to the 80 percent mental. They are satisfied with mediocre shooting, or any number of reasons. They aren't motivated enough to learn how to hit the target every time. Back to the original reason they ultimately miss. It starts on the range.


So if that's right (not doubting you), sounds like higher standards, or more time with a trainer that pushes them would be needed. Like when a team requires you to run a faster sprint to make the team-you learn to get faster, or going to the gym and having someone push you to lift more, rather than be okay with maintenance mode.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 22, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So if that's right (not doubting you), sounds like higher standards, or more time with a trainer that pushes you would be needed. Like when a team requires you to run a faster sprint to make the team-you learn to get faster, or going to the gym and having someone push you to lift more, rather than be okay with maintenance mode.


That's an important part of the equation, but not the whole picture. Certainly I have seen some departments who focus more on the fundamentals, and have a budget to pay officers for extra range time, ammunition and instruction. And they do better in shootings. But if it's not mandatory or you aren't being paid, most cops are either too busy working off duty jobs to make enough money to get buy, or are wanting to spend time with their family.

Training time and money is always difficult to get approved. Even when it does, cops need to be trained on such a wide variety of skills that shooting skills administratively get low priority. Because again, they look at the numbers and think:
1. Out officers are already passing the 70 percent minimum score on their qualifications
2. Many of them will not be involved in shootings
3. Ammo is expensive
4. There are only so many training hours
5. They have maybe 1 firearms instructor for every 100 officers (potentially)
6. Sending more officers to become experienced trainers is very expensive in both time and money (most officers can't get a day off approved let alone weeks of firearms instructor training approved).

At the end of the day it's government, and in an environment where many cities are cutting the police budgets.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 22, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm awfully glad our Highway Patrol disagrees with your suggestion that they be disarmed. Because my uncle is a nice guy.


You didn't follow my post dude.  You missed where I said SWAT, highway patrol, city cops, fine if they face daily danger arm them appropriately (the status quo).  Responding to 911 and non emergency calls, sure.  But policing is a spectrum and that requires more thought than just guns/no guns.



Dirty Dog said:


> One of our sons and one of out Son in Laws are with the local PD. Our son was involved in the pursuit of a guy with a murder warrant. That led to him grabbing a shot gun. I'm really glad those cops weren't disarmed. Both our kids are nice guys.
> 
> Unless you know a way to predict which cops those will be, and when, it is completely irrelevant.



The context of this discussion is lethal firearms.

100% of cops need lethal firearms?  I don't think anyone can show data that supports that.

And cops in the US right now suffer a terrible reputation for using military hardware against peaceful protesters.  And even against non peaceful protesters, that's a problem.

Listen you want to share personal anecdotes, I know a 10 year old kid who hates cops now because of seeing them kill and beat innocent people on YouTube.  Is that all in her head?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 22, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> No amount of personal animosity anyone has on this forum doesn't change the reality that cops need to be armed.


Dude, nobody here has expressed any animosity towards police.  That's your bias again.  Dirty Dog also jumped the gun, pun intended, on that...

Armed with _firearms_?  100% of scenarios? 

Gotta say, I've seen some sports riots where it was a very good thing thing the mounted officers weren't carrying shotguns or rifles.  The horses were plenty.

Remember Katrina when the National Guard went in to quell the public, and they were training machine guns on whole crowds?  Do you know what he said to those troops called in to police the crisis zone?  He made them put down the heavy guns.

Like all false dualities, 100% firearms and 0 are equally stupid.  We developed non lethal weapons for exactly those reasons.

Gonna let you dudes get back on topic but I think I made my points pretty solid and objectively.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Armed with _firearms_?  100% of scenarios?
> 
> Gotta say, I've seen some sports riots where it was a very good thing thing the mounted officers weren't carrying shotguns or rifles.  The horses were plenty.
> 
> ...


Not wanting to have a long gun in your hand, but retaining a handgun in your hip is a tactical decisions that has zero to do with disarming police officers.

I have unslung my long gun and grounded it many times during SWAT operations to clear a small bathroom, cover a difficult angle walking backwards up stairs or clearing an attic. None of that leads credence to disarming the police. 

Your above statements don't contribute to a reason why cops don't need to have a weapon on them at all times. 

I understand you think cops have certain assignments that make it less likely to need a firearm, but you are not grasping that cops also have to respond to ANY law enforcement emergency, while preforming those other duties.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 22, 2022)

mograph said:


> Dibs on the band name.


Great it won't affect my band name of Data Driven Fairy Tail


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 22, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> Not wanting to have a long gun in your hand, but retaining a handgun in your hip is a tactical decisions that has zero to do with disarming police officers.
> 
> I have unslung my long gun and grounded it many times during SWAT operations to clear a small bathroom, cover a difficult angle walking backwards up stairs or clearing an attic. None of that leads credence to disarming the police.
> 
> ...


SO, Rapport.

Nobody here seems to have animosity towards cops, or thinks cops shouldn't be armed.  Speak up now...

But there's no data available to show 100% of cops need guns (lots of cops don't get guns after all), but definitely a lot of evidence they need more training and mental health support.  Especially training with guns so they don't shoot innocent people, or fail to not shoot not innocent people AKA suspects.  First rules of gun safety man.

Fair enough?  I re read your 1st post before I wrote this.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> SO, Rapport.
> 
> Nobody here seems to have animosity towards cops, or thinks cops shouldn't be armed.  Speak up now...
> 
> ...


I'm always an advocate of more training. No argument their. That costs a lot of money and you would have to hire a lot more cops if they will be off the streets no answering calls for service doing a lot more training.

Regarding disarming cops, that's not a reasonable thing to do, no matter how many times it's suggested.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 22, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> I'm always an advocate of more training. No argument their. That costs a lot of money and you would have to hire a lot more cops if they will be off the streets no answering calls for service doing a lot more training.
> 
> Regarding disarming cops, that's not a reasonable thing to do, no matter how many times it's suggested.


You must know I'm carefully trying to avoid politics here.  Haven't named a single movement, flag, or hashtag. 

But you know, there's a great Queensryche song about this exact problem, completely with a real statistical reference on funding law enforcement, right before the guitar solo.

Spend more money on _each individual cop_?  I can dig that.  Spend it on pre-employment screening too.  Did I mention I love Frank Serpico?


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> You must know I'm carefully trying to avoid politics here.  Haven't named a single movement, flag, or hashtag.
> 
> But you know, there's a great Queensryche song about this exact problem, completely with a real statistical reference on funding law enforcement, right before the guitar solo.
> 
> Spend more money on _each individual cop_?  I can dig that.  Spend it on pre-employment screening too.  Did I mention I love Frank Serpico?


I don't watch music videos if that is what that is? I'm definitely not interested in politics. More training, I'm all about it.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 22, 2022)

Jared Traveler said:


> I don't watch music videos of that is what that is? I'm definitely not interested in politics. More training, I'm all about it.


Music soothes the savage beast.

You'll love it, it's all about the crack epidemic, lack of funding police, and military overspending.


----------



## mograph (Nov 22, 2022)

Here's why jurisdiction matters: a study of arming policemen in four locations.

Manchester, England
Toronto, Canada
Auckland, New Zealand
Brisbane, Australia
(I assume you guys are only talking about the US, which is an outlier.)



			https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2019.0020#B43


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 22, 2022)

mograph said:


> Here's why jurisdiction matters: a study of arming policemen in Great Britain.
> (I assume you guys are only talking about the US, which is an outlier.)
> 
> 
> ...


Well I am, for sure.

But I've been to Mighty Britain, too.


----------



## mograph (Nov 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Well I am, for sure.
> 
> But I've been to Mighty Britain, too.


I updated the post to include the other locations under study.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say history does not show cops need guns 100% of the time.  Traffic cops, parking cops, desk job cops, all kinds of cops. SWAT, beat cops in cities with lots of illegal guns (which is not even most cities globally), highway troopers, sure you had me at hello.
> 
> 100% of anything though?  That's a bold claim!  What percentage of cops are involved in violent encounters each year?  Can't be that high even in America. Somebody find that number because it'll be more telling than all these random 99s, 100s etc.
> 
> ...





Rich Parsons said:


> Great it won't affect my band name of Data Driven Fairy Tail


Tail? Or Tale? Im good with either.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 22, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Tail? Or Tale? Im good with either.


Sorry @Oily Dragon, that was an unintentional quote of your post.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 22, 2022)

Rich Parsons said:


> Great it won't affect my band name of Data Driven Fairy Tail


🤣


----------



## drop bear (Nov 22, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> SO, Rapport.
> 
> Nobody here seems to have animosity towards cops, or thinks cops shouldn't be armed.  Speak up now...
> 
> ...



How are we determining cops need/dont need guns from the data. 

I get that they probably don't use them that much. 

I get that they miss a bit.

And I get that they shoot people who may not need to be shot  

But not everyone falls off their bike and 100% need helmets.


----------



## Steve (Nov 23, 2022)

drop bear said:


> How are we determining cops need/dont need guns from the data.
> 
> I get that they probably don't use them that much.
> 
> ...


Just to address this, you raise a really good point.  The evaluation would be whether, on a macro level, the cure is worse than the disease.  And to be clear, it might be.  Maybe, in spite of some evidence to the contrary, it's actually a net benefit to society to arm all cops all the time.  That's the meat of the discussion, hopefully based on some kind of objective data.

But if you ask a cop whether he needs a gun, of course he's going to say yes.  To expect otherwise is unrealistic.


----------



## Jared Traveler (Nov 23, 2022)

If our highest priority is more efficiency and accuracy, that's actually easy to improve. It could be drastically improved almost overnight, by mandating officers carried a more efficient weapon that is easier to shoot, and have it on their person most of the time.

But there are always tradeoffs to everything.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 27, 2022)

Instead of MartialTalk, I propose we change the name to 'You're Doing It Wrong'.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 27, 2022)

i could not help but post this after @Bill Mattocks post.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 27, 2022)

Sorry for the poor quality.


----------



## Steve (Nov 28, 2022)

Wing Woo Gar said:


> i could not help but post this after @Bill Mattocks post.


I like that a lot.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar (Nov 28, 2022)

Steve said:


> I like that a lot.


Sifu Woo was a very funny guy.


----------



## Hanshi (Nov 29, 2022)

Practice, regular practice, is mandatory as is determination and attitude.  Back when I could see a pistol sight I was a master class shot and taught this skill at the police academy.  But I've always loved guns and loved shooting them.  Interest and firearm familiarity are necessary to become a good shot.  Women were much easier to teach because they LISTENED and followed direction.  But one does have to at least like guns and and not be afraid of them.


----------



## mograph (Nov 29, 2022)

Hanshi said:


> But one does have to at least like guns and and not be afraid of them.


I'm not sure that one needs to _like_ guns in order to not be afraid of them. There are a lot of tools that I use that I don't feel one way or the other about (no attachments), but I still use them.

(But yeah, I get that _disliking_ them is not necessarily a path to mastery.)


----------



## Steve (Nov 29, 2022)

mograph said:


> I'm not sure that one needs to _like_ guns in order to not be afraid of them. There are a lot of tools that I use that I don't feel one way or the other about (no attachments), but I still use them.
> 
> (But yeah, I get that _disliking_ them is not necessarily a path to mastery.)


Agreed.


----------

