Will is More Important than Skill

[Fred Fuller]

Mr. Mindset here, with a short article from the web that might be of some interest.

And on the face of it, I pretty well agree. Mindset IS the most important factor in effective self defense as far as I'm concerned. But different people arrive at a proper mindset through different paths, and we need to recognize that. Some people start out with a correct mindset. Some people arrive at a proper mindset later, through a more circuitous path. Specifically, they have to find out that they CAN safely and effectively fire a pistol, that they CAN hit what they shoot at, and that things will indeed happen to the targets that they hit.

Mr. Markel here is talking about training LEOs. I've never trained LEOs. The relatively few people I have helped train in defensive shooting have all been plain old citizens like me. Not soldiers, not cops. Just plain old people. No doubt that has influenced my perception to some degree.

What I have found in my limited experience is that some people don't really get around to a proper mindset until they discover that they actually can master a defensive firearm. Once that becomes clear to them, it is as if a life-long burden of fear and self-doubt falls away with the realization that they CAN defend themselves if forced to do so. It is a fascinating metamorphosis to see.

In some cases, it seems to me, it is Skill that engenders Will- and not the other way around.

Give Mr. Markel a read and see what you think about all this.
==========

http://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/self-defense-training-will-is-more-important-than-skill/
Self-Defense Training: Will is More Important than Skill
Self-Defense Tips
by Student of the Gun on May 10, 2012
submitted by: Paul Markel

 

[Loosedhorse]

Generally speaking, the ability to do something well requires the proper knowledge, skill and attitude. Proper knowledge and skills for SD may take quite a while to acccumulate--but the proper atttitude can be acquired much more quickly.

I recently mentioned that my "attitude" in SD is to be decisive and indomitable. So I agree with Mr. Markel's concept of will, and its importance.

Skill and knowledge are very, very important--unless unaccompanied by the right attitude. Then, they are worthless.

 

[GunnerShotz]

"But different people arrive at a proper mindset through different paths, and we need to recognize that."

Thank you most sincerely Fred. These "mindset" vs "skillset" topics are way too often undervalued IMHO. No self proclaimed expertise here, really What I Do know is that we All learn most effectively through experience. What is perceived as a successful outcome, in any given event, will reinforce the behavior and actions that achieved the 'desired' result.

"What is perceived"? What is desired? What is neccessary? ... then, What is trained and reinforced? The choice ("will") must be made first, but experience (practice) carries out the decision. I truly believe they go hand in hand. Ultimately, "Practice makes perfect" as I was always taught.... or, as my own daughter most accurately pointed out to me not very long ago: Practice makes better!

 

[Doghandler]

Well, wielding weapons has been considered amongst the fine arts since the dawn of history. Gun mastery is passe if one knows what it means to wield a weapon in the first place.

Good guys or bad guys is a matter of debate. Confidence and luck wins the day.

 

[bikerdoc]

No discusion of will or mindset is complete without talking about situation awarerness. Reading the room, seing the situation, follow your gut, are all precursors to implementing mindset.
And of course there is the old " Dont go to stupid places, with stupid people, who do stupid things," a sort of will or mindset in its own right.

 

[Hangingrock]

“In a fight for your life, expect nothing to work and be prepared to do something else if you wish to prevail. Like bullets, we have known for centuries that the person who will win in conflict is not the one with the most gadgets or training: it is the more ruthless who will go to extremes to prevail. Unfortunately ruthlessness is seldom seen as reasonable in the eyes of the protected public. Good luck”

Excerpt quoted from an article written by Dave Spaulding titled: An Amped-Up Attacker Is An Officer’s Worst Nightmare in the June/ July 2012 issue of G&A Handguns.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well....

The Japanese in WW2 were real big on willpower and determination overcoming the lowly GIs. They had this 'indomitable spirit' thing.

But a combination of BARS and Garands tended to show will power alone might not be the ticket.

So keep that in mind. Yes having the will to do is very important but you can have all the will-to-do you want and still die.

So have a strong will, but also a strong right.

Deaf

 

[FMF Doc]

I like the concept, and to an extent I agree, especially in other fields. For example, in SERE school they teach you that the most important factor in survival is the will to live. You can be the best trapper, tracker, have the stomach of a goat, make fire and weapons from sticks and stones and be able to find water from rocks, but without the will to survive you will likely die. In self-defense, however, I still believe that skill is paramount in defense hand gunning. That is not to say that mindset doesn't play a critical role, and doesn't have a significant impact on the outcome. But I have seen too many adamantly determined individuals fall to a well placed shot. Just ask the Taliban.

 

[Plan2Live]

I have to agree with the premise of the article. I won't hijack the thread but can tell you that a close acquaintance of mine was a street cop back in the late 80's. Super nice guy but way too timid. Today there is a plaque on the side of the building a few feet from where he died. From the bad guy's confession, although he didn't phrase it that scuccinctly, it all came down to who had the greater will to carry through with that engagment. Even though the officer had the advantage for several seconds, he simply lacked the will to engage. This thread and this account strikes a chord with me.

 

[browningguy]

I think the premis of the article is extremely misleading. Skill and will are not mutually exclusive, the article seems to me to be one of those pieces written just to keep the authors name circulating.

A skilled opponent with the will to win will beat an unskilled opponent almost every time. Sure, someone will get lucky once in a while but that won't be the norm.

 

[Loosedhorse]

A skilled opponent with the will to win will beat an unskilled opponent almost every time.

Sure, but we've perhaps seen even more often that the more committted contender, the one who "wants it more", can prevail over the more skilled--or even more powerful--but less focused contender. The ol' "It ain't the size of the dog in a fight..."

I coach youth sports, and in many cases it seems to me the only real chance the more skilled but more tentative contender has is if the ref calls his fired-up opponent for committing a foul. No ref at a gunfight.

 

[Teachu2]

In this case, the officer lacked the willingness to take a life, and sacrificed his own. If he qualified, he had enough skill to hit the target - and enough ammo to miss a few times and at least distract the opponent. The best shot not taken is always bested by lots of lesser shots...

Many times in my life, people have asked me to advise them on what gun to get for HD. I always reply "Are you mentally prepared to take the life of an intruder?". The majority are not, and I advise them not to provide guns to the criminal element, and run the risk of being killed with their own gun. If they answer without hesitation "If some @#$% breaks into my house, knows I'm there, and sticks around anyway, I assume they mean me harm and will shoot to kill! ", then we can start exploring guns...

 

[jbkebert]

I coach youth sports, and in many cases it seems to me the only real chance the more skilled but more tentative contender has is if the ref calls his fired-up opponent for committing a foul. No ref at a gunfight.

In a lot of ways I look at it like wrestling. Not the crap you see on TV but middle school, high school and college. I have watched countless matchess throughout the years. I have seen some very gifted kids in the sport who know all the moves. Then I have seen kids who were rough around the edges and not as smooth. I can tell you with probably 95% accuracy when the two step on the mat and shake hands who will win the match before the whistle blows.

Its amazing to watch the look on the faces of some of the kids who know all the moves and that have been training since they were in kindergarten. To see the reaction of being put on there back by some kid that doesn't have the training but is just plain hungry for it. I imagine that most SD scenerios play out the same way.

 

[Jeff White]

I have personal knowledge of two incidents that happened here in the last 30 days where there was a defensive use of firearms and the homeowner did not have the will to shoot to stop.

http://www.wjbdradio.com/index.php?f=news_single&id=33171

In the first instance a potential home invader was shot in the thigh by a home owner. The home owner was trying to fire a warning shot into the ground and hit the criminal in the thigh with a 9mm fmj. The round went completely through missing the femoral artery and the bone. The homeowner was fortunate in that the wound was enough to run the criminal off. He was captured by police scaling a fence during a foot chase. Given the difference in the ages of the criminal and the homeowner the criminal could very easily have harmed the homeowner and family had he decided to fight instead of flee. He refused treatment at the ER and walked into the jail under his own power. It was over an hour after he was shot before he hurt bad enough to consent to go to the hospital for treatment.

In the other incident the son of the owner of a vacant house shot an intruder in the forearm:

http://www.wjbdradio.com/index.php?f=news_single&id=33208

And now it's going to the grand jury:

http://www.wjbdradio.com/index.php?f=news_single&id=33228

I won't post any details other then what is in the press until both of these cases have been through the courts.

The point here is that while both homeowners had the will to shoot, they did not have the will to shoot to stop. And in the second case it might be critical to his claim that it was necessary to shoot at all.

 

[we are not amused]

What I took from the article, was that the officer was not prepared to kill someone. It wasn't lack of skill, but the fear or reluctance to kill someone, that resulted in the officers death. In other words he may have been too "civilized". Many people often hesitate when pulling the trigger in a life or death situation. We have all been taught that all killing is wrong, and not the difference between justified killing and murder. And then there is that "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", silliness. All of our judicial laws and society tend to frown on the use of violence to defend one's self, starting in school, where defending yourself against even a witnessed attack will get you suspended from school. (I know, it happened to me 40 years ago, and things have only gotten worse since)

Many people have had it so ingrained upon them to not take a life, that it is very difficult for them to shoot to kill. This is reinforced by many malicious prosecutors and other politicians of bad intent,who denounce any and all self defense as unjustified and criminal. We don't have it too bad in most of the U. S., with certain exceptions, but try and defend your self in Great Britain, and you are likelier to end up in prison than your attacker. It is a problem, as we don't want to engage in the mindset that all situations require violence. The mindset to use violence can result in the unjustifiable use of violence, such as shooting at the slightest provocation. Neither mindset is acceptable, but it often seems that one adopts one or the other when judging the actions of others.

Training on when to use force, and under what conditions is the only solution, but it is very difficult to teach when and how under realistic conditions, and it still depends upon judgment calls that will be reviewed by other people, this may well inhibit someone for fear of making a mistake, after all what good is it to shoot someone in self defense, right or wrong,if other people disagree with your assessment of the situation. This will lead to hesitation, which only training can overcome. Training not only to properly evaluate the situation, but to give you the confidence in your ability to have done so, and your ability to carry out your response.

Personally, I think the "Will" to use violence is your confidence in that you are doing the "right thing". That comes from proper training, not in just the technique of using violence, but when to use it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

...it is very difficult for them to shoot to kill.

Perhaps, again, that is therefore another good reason to train them to shoot to stop the attack, not to kill the attacker.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I think it is a balance of both. I used to corner several Mixed Martial Arts fighters and there was one guy who would just not take instruction. He was really high strung and was able to get by on sheer determination and aggression for a while. When he got in the cage with someone who really knew how to fight all the heart in the world did not do him any good. He just could not get mad enough to get out of an arm bar and got really hurt as a result.

 

[coalman]

Will is great. Skill is too. And, a cool head helps a lot. But, luck and circumstance play more a part than many like to think IMO.

 

[Teachu2]

Back in 1974 (I was just turning 15) my family moved into a new home, and the next-door neighbor was a fascinating guy by the name of Karl Hettinger. Karl was the LAPD officer who "survived" the event later depicted by Joseph Wambaugh in the book and movie The Onion Field.
Karl and I shared an interest in motorcycles and became friends. His oldest daughter was a close friend with my step-sister, and we were generally just neighborly.
Neither of us ever brought up the onion field, until I was in college and told him of my desire to pursue a career in LE. Karl gave me a glimpse of the torment he'd lived through and with, and tried to help me understand the context of his and Officer Ian Campbell's decisions that led them to disaster. He helped me understand the changing culture in regards to the safety of LEOs, and the necessity to train to take decisive action instead of pacification. That discussion (or lecture) resulted in some sleepless nights, but also changed my mindset forever. That served me well through my short, but eventful, LE career. To this day, I believe I am mentally prepared to use any available force to defend my life and the lives of others.
Just as an added irony, when I lived in the dorms at Sac State (on the LE majors' floor) one of my neighbors was Lori Campbell, the daughter of Officer Ian Campbell - who died that night in the onion field.

 

[Teachu2]

Perhaps, again, that is therefore another good reason to train them to shoot to stop the attack, not to kill the attacker.

The surest way (and often the ONLY way) to stop an attack is to end the attacker's life.

When someone attacks a LEO, they are expressing both a complete disdain for society and authority, and a willingness or desire to die. They chose to attack a LEO, which is not a rational choice.

Using deadly force in an attempt to avoid deadly results is a fool's errand. Every shot should be as deadly as the shooter can deliver, and delivery should continue until the subject is unable to continue to fight, period.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The surest way (and often the ONLY way) to stop an attack is to end the attacker's life.

So, if you shoot once, don't kill the attacker, but he stops his attack...do you keep shooting until he's dead?

No, of course not. And that clarifies that the goal is shoot to stop, not shoot to kill.

All the other stuff about "disdain for society" is immaterial.

delivery should continue until the subject is unable to continue to fight, period.

So, if you shoot once and the shooter gives up voluntarily, but is still able to continue the fight--keep shooting?

You may want to choose your words more carefully, unless that's actually what you mean.

 

[Jeff White]

If you carry the means of administering deadly force to defend yourself, you must be aware that deadly force is just that. If you are not mentally and emotionally prepared to deal with the death of someone you shoot then you have no business carrying a gun.

The time to think about those things is not when you are faced with having to shoot.

One needs to possess both the will and the skill to have a reasonable chance of prevailing in a fight. Even with the will and the skill to fight, you still have to contend with luck or chance, however you care to refer to it. There are no sure things. You can do everything right and still die.

 

[Teachu2]

You may want to choose your words more carefully, unless that's actually what you mean.

My words, TAKEN IN CONTEXT, were EXACTLY what I mean.

We're not talking about petty criminals here. We're talking about LEO who are being attacked for being LEOs. That's not a rational act, and disregarding the disdain for society and authority inherent in such an act is downright foolish. The OP's case in point is an example.

Controlling a situation without use of deadly force is the goal of every good LEO. Sometimes that can't happen, due to factors beyond the LEO's control. There are people out there who don't have a high regard for other people, their rights, the law, LEOs, or the other folks they are dominating through force. If the situation is such that deadly force is justified and necessary, then use deadly force. If the situation does not make deadly force justified and necessary, then use non-lethal force. If you are using a gun with real bullets, that's deadly force! If you shoot at someone, you'd better be trying to kill them. If they throw down their weapon and surrender, the situation no longer justifies deadly force - and you missed, because you used deadly force ineffectively. You'd better remember that, and be ready to state such when you are on the stand - 'cuz you will be, with first a defense lawyer trying to win sympathy from a jury for his poor client who you SHOT before he could surrender, then from a civil attorney trying to show that you used excessive force since obviously his client didn't need to die to stop attacking you....
The decision to use deadly force is based on the circumstances at the time - if those circumstances change, the decision must be reconsidered. When a LEO fires a gun, he's already committed to the use of deadly force. The use of deadly force by LEOs should be deadly. Anything else is a failure - either a failure to use "non-lethal" non-deadly force, or a failure to effectively use deadly force.
Most LEOs are trained to fire two rounds center mass, then one to the head, as rapidly as possible. There isn't enough time to process the reaction of the target or determine if the target is deciding to surrender. In my experience, those three shots - placed accurately - will end the attack.
In the real world, some bad guys get lucky. They run across a cop that values their life more than they value the cop's, and hesitates too long. The less lucky ones get a cop who fails to accurately use deadly force, and they get another chance to comply. I vowed long ago never to shoot someone who didn't need shootin', and to train as well as I could to make every shot count if I did have to shoot. I have long been a civilian, but my philosophy has not changed - if I shoot someone intentionally, I intend to kill them ('cuz it's the only option left).

 

[Loosedhorse]

My words, TAKEN IN CONTEXT, were EXACTLY what I mean.

Then don't get mad at me, live with them. Just as I live with mine.

We're not talking about petty criminals here.

The type of criminal doesn't matter, unless you've decided to take into account a person's "worth" as part of the decision that he should die.

That's not part of my calculus. The only thing that matters to me if I shoot were to someone is that he is, at that moment, trying to kill me or mine, and I have no other choice. Doesn't matter to me if he's a saint or someone with "disdain for society and authority"--even though you seem to consider that a big factor (having mentioned it twice now) when you decide to kill someone.

BTW--if the decision to shoot (anyone? Nope: Just a LEO, I guess) is not a "rational choice" (you've said that twice, too), then if the attacker somehow miraculously survives your shooting them, will you testify they were insane at the time they shot at you? Or do you just figure that "irrationality" should also be a big factor in deciding to kill someone?

There isn't enough time to process the reaction of the target or determine if the target is deciding to surrender.

Well, let's hope there are no witnesses to your shooting, then. Because if the guy you started shooting at drops his weapon, raises his hands, and shouts "DON'T SHOOT" and you keep shooting, well, witnesses may not support your contention that you had no time to notice that while you lined up your third shot.

I guess I think that the circumstances of various SD scenarios could be different, even if others feel they should be treated all the same.

if I shoot someone intentionally, I intend to kill them ('cuz it's the only option left).

And if I ever shoot someone, it'll be because I intend to stop them from killing me or mine, and I had no other, safer option. If you have a concern that my "attitude" is not going to allow me to survive a SD confrontation, well, I appreciate your concern, but I'm fine, thanks.

I guess we know where we stand now.

 

[Teachu2]

Not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. I just have a narrower view of the use of deadly force than many people express. I believe that any time I decide to apply deadly force, the circumstances dictate that there is an immediate, viable threat to life that cannot reasonably be expected to end without deadly force. Deadly force must be applied with the intent to end an assailant's life - if that is not my intent, I shouldn't be using deadly force.

The type of criminal absolutely matters. If I catch someone stealing my tools, and they continue to do so after I've confronted them, deadly force is not justified. Best I can do is call them foul names and try to get a good description. If, however, they pick up one of those tools and rush at me in what I percieve to be a threatening manner, they have crossed that line - and the result will probably be fatal. If the first shot ends the threat, that ends the shooting - but if they survive, it's their good fortune and my poor shot.

As I read back over your posts, trying to understand your point of view, I think we actually have a lot of common ground. If I replace "shoot to stop" with "shoot until they stop", then I agree with what you started out with - so maybe we're arguing semantics here. I interpret "shoot to stop" in the same vein as "shoot to wound" and "warning shot" - and that may be a misinterpretation of your intended meaning.

With me, if the post-shooting interview includes the question "How could you be sure that you'd be able to shoot the gun out of his hand?" my answer was "It was an accident - I was going for center mass!"