Competitive Shooter In SD Shooting

[jmorris]

I appreciate the explanation. “Reasonable” is another word that seems like a moving target in and of itself. Probably why we see different legal decisions based on location or variations in what “reasonable” means. I suppose, as far as life and death go, a reasonable person wouldn’t expect those last few “anchor” shots to make any difference in outcome, despite what they thought about the timing of them. If “more reasonable” we’re a legal term, I’d put this guy closer than the Houston restaurant fellow…

It's important to also note that "the attacker on the ground had a firearm which means that his being on the ground was essentially meaningless in terms of whether he could pose a deadly threat or not".

Yeah, I think we went through it last time too.

The dead guy had a gun up until this point.

The Shooter even closed distance on it, so he was closer to the gun than the dying guy, when he engaged the down the street guy and moments later came back to the first one down.

 

[JohnKSa]

“Reasonable” is another word that seems like a moving target in and of itself.

That's there at least partly as a protection. The law is allowing someone after the fact to put themselves into your shoes and make a determination if what you did was reasonable given the circumstances. EVEN if what you did might appear to be illegal by the strictest interpretation of the law or when judged on facts that could not have been, or might not have been knowable at the time of the incident, they can still find your actions were reasonable and therefore legal.

But it does have the potential to cut both ways.

The dead guy had a gun up until this point.

Again, the fact is not as important as whether it would be reasonable to expect that the defender knew the gun had been dropped. Things like tunnel vision (a documented symptom that commonly occurs in life or death shootings), poor lighting (this happened at night) and having to keep track of two attackers at once would make a compelling argument for the idea that it was unreasonable for the defender to have realized that the attacker dropped his firearm and therefore it would be reasonable for him to assume that the attacker was still armed.

Now, the defender could destroy that potential protection by stating that he saw the attacker drop his firearm, and/or that he could tell the attacker was neutralized, but that he shot him again anyway and things would be very different.

 

[mljdeckard]

I think that while mindset and skillset are two different things, the vast majority of people in shooting sports do in fact have some grasp of practical application. People who are inclined to participate in these sports are typically people who are inclined to view their environment defensively. That doesn't mean they don't improve and evolve.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

One does not follow from the other.

Maybe being Brazilian was the deciding factor.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Whether or not competition gaming influenced the fight is hard to say. Does the person only do competitive shooting? Does the shooter engage in competitive war games (simunition FofF or something like IDPA)?

Regardless of the type of competition, knowing how to run a gun under pressure and hit targets are skills that can be improved upon.

So the take away is competitive shooting can aid in a realworld gunfight.

So when an untrained person who has a gun for defense but hasn't shot it manages to shoot up home invaders, the take away from that would be that being untrained can aid in a real world fight?

I am not picking on you, but the concept of the statement, which I have heard echoed elsewhere. In this case, it is based on a singular real world example. Single data points are not very indicative of much. Maybe if we had a collection of shootings by solely IPSC shooters, for example, and could compare the results against other incidents, we might see being a competitive shooter (without combat shooting training/experience) might be superior to the average person in a gun fight. Or, maybe the data don't support it. Who knows?

 

[Kleanbore]

In this case, it is based on a singular real world example. Single data points are not very indicative of much. Maybe if we had a collection of shootings by solely IPSC shooters, for example, and could compare the results against other incidents, we might see being a competitive shooter (without combat shooting training/experience) might be superior to the average person in a gun fight. Or, maybe the data don't support it. Who knows?

Good thinking.

 

[GEM]

Here's an interesting pod cast by Lee Weems interviewing Andy Stanford on competition and training. I've trained with Andy - good guy. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/competition-as-preparation/id1575361538?i=1000599326983

Takeaway, I've mentioned this before. The big games like USPSA and IDPA have benefit in good solid gun handling and targeting. The track meet, multiple rounds as fast as you can - mixed emphasis in some on accuracy vs. points harvested with poorer but quicker shots all are part of the debate.

It certainly is better to get some realistic real world training so that you can use competition to hone your handling skills.

 

[shafter]

There will always be some overlap. A competitive shooter will have solid fundamentals that may be relevant but there's going to be some dangerous muscle memory built in that is not tactically sound. For some fights it may not matter, for others it will.

The same goes for people who box, do BJJ, wrestle etc. They think they're all set to handle whatever comes their way but it isn't true. While I truly believe they're excellent skills to train it's important to remember that they are combat sports and as such there are rules. You will never be in a boxing ring and have your opponent's friend jump in, or rolling on the mats at BJJ and have your opponent pull a knife and go to work.

True violence isn't a game and you need to study it and prepare a whole variety of skills and integrate them to be prepared. Games are fun, they offer some value, but you can't get too wrapped up in them.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

When i shot Bullseye it included a Timed and Rapid Fire phase, Ed McGivern emphasized that in his "Fast and Fancy" all the aspects of slow fire shooting-sight alignment, etc-were just as critical, Charlie Askins was a champion pistol shooter, as was Bill Jordan and many others no doubt. I recall an interview with a top police firearms instructor in American Handgunner, he found many of his students didn't understand the importance of grouping, he required them to shoot at a 2x2 squarje-target pasters.