Good Ol' Boy
Member
This goes against the narrative that competition shooting plays no bearing on real world skills IMHO.
That's not a narrative amongst anyone worth listening to. What's in the video? Can't open it without a Youtube account.This goes against the narrative that competition shooting plays no bearing on real world skills IMHO.
Anything to be learned from it?
One does not follow from the other.The "hero" in the vid takes out two robbers, and he happens to be a competitive shooter.
So the take away is competitive shooting can aid in a realworld gunfight.
It's the same one that we argued about back in August. It's from active self protection it's the guy in Brazil who takes on two guys shoots one turns and shoots the other one and then turns back around and shoots the first one two or three more times while he's laying on the ground. Danny picks up the first guy's gun and re-engages the second guyWhat narrative?
Can't open it. What does it say?
It's the same video we discussed here a few months back where a competitive shooter in Brazil gets in a gunfight in an ally. A search should bring up the thread.
If the training becomes too formalized, the same thing over and over again, then it can breed bad habits. "Games" vs. training.
It's the same video we discussed here a few months back where a competitive shooter in Brazil gets in a gunfight in an ally. A search should bring up the thread.
You brought that up on another thread about a week ago. I provided an answer there and it was nothing as simple as "time". The issue there was that the guy couldn't carefully assess the one guy on the ground because he was forced to keep track of a second armed attacker who was essentially behind him when he faced the person on the ground.
JohnKSa said:
In the specific case you are referring to where you quoted me, 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 threat or not. A person with a gun doesn't automatically stop being a threat simply because they fall to the ground. If the defender reasonably believes they are still a threat or are continuing a crime that justifies deadly force then deadly force is still justified.
In addition, in the situation you describe, the defender was dealing with two attackers that were widely separated, to the point he had to essentially turn his back on one to see the other. He didn't have time to stand there carefully assessing the guy on the ground, he had to deal with both threats at once. This probably resulted in his shooting the guy on the ground more than would have been absolutely necessary had he been able to focus all his attention on just that one attacker, but there was no reasonable alternative given the circumstances.
I am not aware of any such articles, but the idea seems worthy of its own discussion and thread.There are plenty of articles suggesting slower split times for law enforcement and SD in order to evaluate outcomes.
Also has come up in other threads. It’s the one where I bring up the “time” component and still haven’t wrapped my head around it.
Time is only ONE of the components. You have to accept that there are other contributing factors before it's going to make sense to you.It’s the one where I bring up the “time” component and still haven’t wrapped my head around it.