Interesting Thread
It's strange the twists that a thread can take...from a simple video on putting two shots through cardboard quickly and accurately, to quasi-religious debates over shooting systems, to the relative risks of exposing somewhat advanced shooting techniques and combat mindset to the Armed Citizen, and finally discussions regarding some of the most essential mental aspects to achieving the highest competency with a firearm.
Lurper's video on Double Tap's was entertaining to watch. The hits looked good at that distance, and the careful observer would note is solid preparation before each pair.
Over the years, I've found the debate between hammers/dt's/controlled pairs as well as the Point Shooting vs. Rapid Sighted Fire to be much about semantics of terminology. In the end, most of the practicioners are doing essentially the same thing, picking out a target and putting fire onto that spot as rapidly and accurately as they can. Depending on how their brain translates what they are doing and what they communicate they are doing...you would think it was the difference between night and day, but there is generally more common ground between the top instructors and shooters than differences in substance. It's their perspective and communication approach which will be different. Some messages will resonate better with some audiences. In the end, the consumer of the information needs to be able to internalize it and apply it successfully.
Deferring forum politics for the moment, Ankeny nailed it when describing unconscious skill with the foul weather skid illustration. Just because something occurs instinctively, doesn't mean it wasn't done intentionally. It also doesn't follow that an instinctive (subconscious mind initiated) act cannot be controlled. I think one individual put forward the hypothesis of "predetermined commitment" being a prerequisite for high speed transitions. While unstoppable commitment certainly can come into play if someone chooses to go that route (which is perhaps a legitmate point of concern for the mod's when somewhat advanced concepts are posted in an open forum), I would contend that it shouldn't be. I regularly engage in what I call "hyper-speed" drills, where I push my limits of speed, more to speed up my brain than to post "bragging rights times" on any forum. By speeding up my brain, I can also speed up my reactions to instinctively STOP an activity that has been initiated subconsciously as prudently as I can consciously, perhaps moreso because the instinct to STOP is hardwired as opposed to the lag that conscious thought would require. I like to call it my "kill switch" which says I never go so fast and aggressively that God forbid someone's pet, or worse their child ended up downrange when I was running a scenario...I couldn't react appropriately to that circumstance.
Regarding some of the "forum politics", I understand the concerns. We live in a litigous society, and I don't think anyone would argue that telling the police, prosecutor, jury, "I wasn't thinking, I was acting subconsciously" has some inherent risks.
However, I find this statement the most disturbing.
If you fail to see the differences between training the military and police from training Armed Citizens, then I suggest you limit offering your instruction to those groups.
Free Societies have evolved a value system which places Armed Professionals in a different class than Armed Citizens. To the brave men at Lexington & Concord, and those that would eventually lead them by pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, this is an unfortunate development. I contend they didn't see the nuances the same way as many do today.
I continue to be disturbed that a site that would take for it's motto an ancient phrase which translated literally means "Come & Take Them" (a phrase of righteous indignation and defiance), is becoming more and more "litigation aware". The ownership and administration of this site certainly is well within their rights to carefully scrutinize posted content within their virtual space. However, consumers of this resource need to carefully consider what all this means to them.
The Armed Citizen in my humble opinion should be looking for every opportunity to expand their survival skills. Their lives, and those whom they protect are every bit as important as the Armed Professional. I see the ethical Armed Professional as my brother or sister in arms, not my protector, not my keeper.
I'm grateful that this kind of dialogue can still occur at THR, and I hope that some day the suits from the Trial Lawyer's Association don't succed in stifling it altogether.
Safe Shooting,
CZ52'