T1B

mvscal wrote:
How many firefights have you been in?

CTRL-cuda wrote:Unless my math is way off

PSUFAN wrote:

CTRL-cuda wrote:Unless my math is way off

Ya think? We'll go ahead and regard that as probable.

Cuda wrote:Unless my math is way off, 7 meters (the average distance in police-related firefights) is something like 93 meters closer than 100 meters.

mvscal wrote:

Cuda wrote:No, I'm saying that a dropoff of 80% shouldn't be considered acceptable.

His point is, "What the fuck do you know about it?"

How many firefights have you been in?

IRIEFAN wrote:Naa...I think I'll stick around to watch CTRL-cupsbiggiesballs parade around with his asscheeks akimbo,

mvscal wrote:

Derron kick's mvscal ass said wrote:I have been in exactly zero.

Then keep your motherfucking dicksucker shut, dumbass.

mvscal wrote:Yes, I have not that it has any relevance to the subject since I'm not the stupid braindead fuck pontificating on what is or isn't acceptable accuracy under fire.

what is or isn't acceptable accuracy under fire.

Derron wrote: You going to answer or just post profane comments that inflate your egocentric life ??
.

Derron wrote:
Again, all controlled situations, but never allowed it to escalate.

rozy wrote:Again, aiming is a freaking luxury. The split second you take to aim with could be your last split second...

Diego in Seattle wrote:Things just took a turn for the worse for Foley....b/a of .233

BSmack wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Things just took a turn for the worse for Foley....b/a of .233

That "news report" reads like a police department press release.

Mikey wrote:I guess a b/a of .233 is now a capital offense?

rozy wrote:So what is the name of that town Foley is about to be Mayor of?

I did read that yesterday. BACK of the leg? THE LEG?

Friggin small town rent-a-cops...

Dinsdale wrote:

rozy wrote:Again, aiming is a freaking luxury. The split second you take to aim with could be your last split second...

With all due respect to your work experience...

Read that to yourself a few times, and see if you can understand how fucking stupid it sounds.

If this is indeed the attitude with cops, then the 10%(or whatever) figure makes a lot more sense, and explains why homeowners hit targets at a MUCH higher clip than these "trained professionals."

I've never been in a gunfight, but I've been in situations where they were pulled out and waving around(probably not a good commentary on some of my youthful decision making, but it is what it is). And I'll tell you one thing with 100% certainty -- if the time had come to pull the trigger, I guaranfuckingTEE you I would have hit paydirt...then again in fairness/disclosure, for one of those, I was holding a 12 gauge one of those times, which tends to increase the hit% by quite a bit. But not at any of those times did I so much as flinch.

THEN AGAIN, if those people didn't have deep-seeded fears and obvious mental inadequacies, they never would have become cops in the first place. Apologies to Rozy and Luth, but that is straight-up FACT, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

So when we discuss the relative merits of, say, sighted aiming vs. threat-focused aiming, we have to make sure we are specifying two parameters without which the discussion is meaningless (as so many of these discussions actually are): we have to specify the level of training we are assuming in the operator, and we have to specify the level of stress they will be under. The level of stress is usually proportional to the control the operator has over the situation and the level of surprise he/she is under. A well-trained SWAT officer making a entry or felony stop is both in control of the situation and is not surprised by it (in fact, they are initiating it.) Thus it will not be a surprise if such an officer remembers, for example, clearly seeing their sights if shooting erupts in such a situation. A rookie, on the other hand, placed in the same situation, could well be expected to threat-focus. Likewise, on that same SWAT entry, if things suddenly go in a direction that no-one anticipated-say a bad guy suddenly pops out of a surprise location-then, losing control and surprised, the same SWAT officer could be expected to threat-focus...

Finally, we need to avoid the conceit that because we have trained a number of people to perform a skill under stress, that that skill is "validated" as combat-worthy. The fact is that such skills are validated as useful only so long as the stress level in training is not exceeded. In an actual encounter, stress levels can go much higher than in training for several reasons, and once they do, our people will enter SNS (Sympathetic Nervous System) override where only a few hard-wired techniques will work. The reasons that stress in an actual fight can far exceed stress in the training environment include:

1. It is for real. No one really thinks they will die in training.
2. It is not under our control to a small or great degree
3. We may be out-gunned, out-classed, or out-numbered
4. It takes us by surprise

I know that there are different scientific studies explaining how it is impossible to see the sights on a pistol during an armed confrontation. Recently, AO Sight System released a document entitled "Factors Influencing Visibility of Firearm Sights During BAR" (BAR meaning body alarm reaction) in which author Dr. Edward C. Godnig claims that it is possible "to maintain visual awareness of the 'sight picture'." I, too, have found this to be the case, but it is dependent on several factors. The first is whether or not the subject in question was caught unaware and the startle response kicked in. When startled, people will respond out of fear and panic, which usually does not result in the desired outcome.

The biggest factor during a startle response is luck. While luck will always be a factor in every confrontation, I am not convinced that we should make it a factor in our training. When statements are made such as, "I'm not going to be able to use the sights anyway, why spend training time using them?" It is almost as if we are expecting to be caught unaware and allowing luck to be the deciding factor. Clint Smith has said, "When you get up close you don't have to be good, you just have to be lucky," which is certainly true. Maybe the answer to this problem is not to be worried about whether or not to use sights, but to concentrate on being "switched on" to what is going on around you.

Without fail, the people who remember seeing or using their front sight are the ones who were prepared to engage in combat. Good examples of this are soldiers on the field of battle or SWAT cops who know going in that they are quite likely to shoot. These folks kept sights in their "cone of vision" and relied on them when a hostile target was encountered. I have also experienced this phenomenon while working narcotics for a number of years. Prior to raids and vehicle takedowns, I would visualize in my head what I planned on doing, including where my firearm would be. This position would always be some type of high ready position where the gun and its sights were within my "cone." I found that during the operation itself, that when I encountered potential hostiles, I could shift between the actions of the suspect and the location of my front sight with little problem. The big difference here is that I was "prepared" to engage in a somewhat controlled situation and not caught in startlement. Awareness is as important to gun fighting as is trigger control.

I like how a few yahoos with ZERO experience in law enforcement (or the military) claim to be experts on the matter while those of us with experience in the matter don't seem to know what the fuck we're talking about.

Derron wrote:

I was trained in law enforcement at a young age.

I had a cowboy suit for my 6th birthday, too. When I was 7, I even got caps for the gun. Lovely, shiny badge!

Besides, I liked to hit a bowl or two now and then, and that did not go well for a law enforcement career back in the day.

And I can still shoot expert...so fuck you.

Derron wrote:I was trained in law enforcement at a young age.

The phantorino wrote:

Derron wrote:

I was trained in law enforcement at a young age.

I had a cowboy suit for my 6th birthday, too. When I was 7, I even got caps for the gun. Lovely, shiny badge!

Besides, I liked to hit a bowl or two now and then, and that did not go well for a law enforcement career back in the day.

And I can still shoot expert...so fuck you.

So, some kind of pothead with a weapon, Mr. Attitude.? Might want to come off that shit for a while - especially when you're packing

sayin'

Nishlord wrote:Derron, are you Ralph Wiggum?

Nishlord wrote:

Derron wrote:I was trained in law enforcement at a young age.

I was toilet trained. I think I got the better part of the deal.

Nishlord wrote:Your cat's breath smells of cat food.

Rack Fu wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

rozy wrote:Again, aiming is a freaking luxury. The split second you take to aim with could be your last split second...

With all due respect to your work experience...

Read that to yourself a few times, and see if you can understand how fucking stupid it sounds.

If this is indeed the attitude with cops, then the 10%(or whatever) figure makes a lot more sense, and explains why homeowners hit targets at a MUCH higher clip than these "trained professionals."

I've never been in a gunfight, but I've been in situations where they were pulled out and waving around(probably not a good commentary on some of my youthful decision making, but it is what it is). And I'll tell you one thing with 100% certainty -- if the time had come to pull the trigger, I guaranfuckingTEE you I would have hit paydirt...then again in fairness/disclosure, for one of those, I was holding a 12 gauge one of those times, which tends to increase the hit% by quite a bit. But not at any of those times did I so much as flinch.

THEN AGAIN, if those people didn't have deep-seeded fears and obvious mental inadequacies, they never would have become cops in the first place. Apologies to Rozy and Luth, but that is straight-up FACT, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

Wow! Who would've thought that Dinsdale would've been a tactical law enforcement firearms expert?

I like how a few yahoos with ZERO experience in law enforcement (or the military) claim to be experts on the matter while those of us with experience in the matter don't seem to know what the fuck we're talking about.

I took this snippet from articles on policeone.com, handgunmag.com:

So when we discuss the relative merits of, say, sighted aiming vs. threat-focused aiming, we have to make sure we are specifying two parameters without which the discussion is meaningless (as so many of these discussions actually are): we have to specify the level of training we are assuming in the operator, and we have to specify the level of stress they will be under. The level of stress is usually proportional to the control the operator has over the situation and the level of surprise he/she is under. A well-trained SWAT officer making a entry or felony stop is both in control of the situation and is not surprised by it (in fact, they are initiating it.) Thus it will not be a surprise if such an officer remembers, for example, clearly seeing their sights if shooting erupts in such a situation. A rookie, on the other hand, placed in the same situation, could well be expected to threat-focus. Likewise, on that same SWAT entry, if things suddenly go in a direction that no-one anticipated-say a bad guy suddenly pops out of a surprise location-then, losing control and surprised, the same SWAT officer could be expected to threat-focus...

Finally, we need to avoid the conceit that because we have trained a number of people to perform a skill under stress, that that skill is "validated" as combat-worthy. The fact is that such skills are validated as useful only so long as the stress level in training is not exceeded. In an actual encounter, stress levels can go much higher than in training for several reasons, and once they do, our people will enter SNS (Sympathetic Nervous System) override where only a few hard-wired techniques will work. The reasons that stress in an actual fight can far exceed stress in the training environment include:

1. It is for real. No one really thinks they will die in training.
2. It is not under our control to a small or great degree
3. We may be out-gunned, out-classed, or out-numbered
4. It takes us by surprise

I know that there are different scientific studies explaining how it is impossible to see the sights on a pistol during an armed confrontation. Recently, AO Sight System released a document entitled "Factors Influencing Visibility of Firearm Sights During BAR" (BAR meaning body alarm reaction) in which author Dr. Edward C. Godnig claims that it is possible "to maintain visual awareness of the 'sight picture'." I, too, have found this to be the case, but it is dependent on several factors. The first is whether or not the subject in question was caught unaware and the startle response kicked in. When startled, people will respond out of fear and panic, which usually does not result in the desired outcome.

The biggest factor during a startle response is luck. While luck will always be a factor in every confrontation, I am not convinced that we should make it a factor in our training. When statements are made such as, "I'm not going to be able to use the sights anyway, why spend training time using them?" It is almost as if we are expecting to be caught unaware and allowing luck to be the deciding factor. Clint Smith has said, "When you get up close you don't have to be good, you just have to be lucky," which is certainly true. Maybe the answer to this problem is not to be worried about whether or not to use sights, but to concentrate on being "switched on" to what is going on around you.

Without fail, the people who remember seeing or using their front sight are the ones who were prepared to engage in combat. Good examples of this are soldiers on the field of battle or SWAT cops who know going in that they are quite likely to shoot. These folks kept sights in their "cone of vision" and relied on them when a hostile target was encountered. I have also experienced this phenomenon while working narcotics for a number of years. Prior to raids and vehicle takedowns, I would visualize in my head what I planned on doing, including where my firearm would be. This position would always be some type of high ready position where the gun and its sights were within my "cone." I found that during the operation itself, that when I encountered potential hostiles, I could shift between the actions of the suspect and the location of my front sight with little problem. The big difference here is that I was "prepared" to engage in a somewhat controlled situation and not caught in startlement. Awareness is as important to gun fighting as is trigger control.

A good read on the subject is Dr. William Lewinski's "Stress Reactions Related to Lethal Force Encounters." He's just a PhD with close to three decades of leading research on stress and reactions in deadly force encounters. He's obviously no Dinsdale, Cuda or Derron when it comes to expertise in this arena so I would take everything he has published with a grain of salt since he dismisses all of your brilliant assertions. It's a short PDF available on the web, I believe.

I know that you ignorant twats will continue to tell us all about how you would shoot Mr. Badguy right between the eyes in the heat of a gunfight so feel free to carry on. I wouldn't want to derail your one-way trip to Moronville.

Derron wrote:Speak english mother fucker....

Derron wrote:A fucking wonder you were able to be trained to shit in a toliet instead of your pants. Stupid limeys.

Cuda wrote:Cops pat themselves on the back & declare themselves heros no matter how much they fuck up. Who'd ever have thunk it?

-sin,
The Denver SWAT team who, while outfitted in body-armor from head to toe, bravely cowered behind fire trucks for several hours after the Cloumbine killers blew their own brains out.