Will competition get LEO's or Armed Civilians killed?

[Josh Runkle]

By no means do I think competing will get you killed, however, I am one of those people that believes that the shooting aspect of a violent encounter represents about 1-5% of the encounter, and that situational awareness, recognition of a threat, appropriate decision making in response to the threat (do I run away, do I choose to fight?) and then the intestinal fortitude to "do whatever needs to be done in order to survive-law be damned", all represents the 95%+ of the encounter. I believe that people who spend time only honing one singular aspect of a life threatening encounter develop an un-proportional response, in that some under-utilized skills are at a beginners level, while other skills are at a master level, and those skills at a master level are more likely than normal to be used, whereas the skills at a beginner level are less likely to be used.

Now, obviously, one could take training in multiple areas, and that would represent the most ideal situation. However, the situational bias that results from someone being very good in one area tends to translate into a belief that they are also good at other areas, for which they are actually unprepared, but where a cognitive bias exists. IE: I believe that a dunning-Kruger type scenario exists and is fueled within SOME competitors. IE: you put them in a scenario where they don't have a gun, and they think that they will prevail just as well as if they had a firearm, because they have a knife or something, yet they have very few hours in knife training, or they answer something like, "but, I always have a gun", when the reality is that they only have a gun 90% of the time.

Not trying to knock anyone. Competition should absolutely be advocated as a training tool, and it certainly sharpens and hones many aspects of shooting. However, I am trying to "keep it real" in that portions of violent encounters exist, which shooters may be woefully unprepared for, yet, because of a Dunning-Kruger-like bias, they feel that they are as equally prepared in those other areas as they are in the "shooting skills" department.

[NETim]

By no means do I think competing will get you killed, however, I am one of those people that believes that the shooting aspect of a violent encounter represents about 1-5% of the encounter, and that situational awareness, recognition of a threat, appropriate decision making in response to the threat (do I run away, do I choose to fight?) and then the intestinal fortitude to "do whatever needs to be done in order to survive-law be damned", all represents the 95%+ of the encounter. I believe that people who spend time only honing one singular aspect of a life threatening encounter develop an un-proportional response, in that some under-utilized skills are at a beginners level, while other skills are at a master level, and those skills at a master level are more likely than normal to be used, whereas the skills at a beginner level are less likely to be used.

Now, obviously, one could take training in multiple areas, and that would represent the most ideal situation. However, the situational bias that results from someone being very good in one area tends to translate into a belief that they are also good at other areas, for which they are actually unprepared, but where a cognitive bias exists. IE: I believe that a dunning-Kruger type scenario exists and is fueled within SOME competitors. IE: you put them in a scenario where they don't have a gun, and they think that they will prevail just as well as if they had a firearm, because they have a knife or something, yet they have very few hours in knife training, or they answer something like, "but, I always have a gun", when the reality is that they only have a gun 90% of the time.

Not trying to knock anyone. Competition should absolutely be advocated as a training tool, and it certainly sharpens and hones many aspects of shooting. However, I am trying to "keep it real" in that portions of violent encounters exist, which shooters may be woefully unprepared for, yet, because of a Dunning-Kruger-like bias, they feel that they are as equally prepared in those other areas as they are in the "shooting skills" department.

😃 My Airsoft riddled body hurts just a little less after reading this. I thought I used cover well. Nothing like incoming fire from an intelligent force to open your eyes to your deficiencies.


Yes, I survived yesterday's class but not without a brutally damaged ego and the realization that I need to do some serious work.

It was humbling but that's what good training is supposed to do, isn't it?

[Lon]

The fact that I was a competitive shooter may have got me killed if I had listened to my Chief (now retired thankfully) years ago. He told me that he didn't think I needed to draw my gun as soon as other Officers in certain situations since I practiced so much and could draw so much faster than the other guys. I was so shocked I didn't really say much other than "sure Chief" (I was a rookie at the time). But I was thinking, "so I practiced enough to get a sub 1 second hit from the draw with a Safariland 070 so that I could WAIT?" Obviously I ignored him.

Sure, there are folks that wont shoot competitions because of their ego's.

This. I've invited numerous Officers to the matches I shoot. Very rarely do they shoot more than one. I think a lot of it has to do with having their balls stomped in the dirt by the local IT guy or the local carpet layer.

I have always believed that shooting (and improving to above average skill levels) in USPSA matches will improve a few critical skill areas: gun handling skills, being able to quickly evaluate and reevaluate a course of fire on the run and adapting to whatever happens after the buzzer goes off.

[Jay Cunningham]

Everyone says this, but no one ever says who the bad (or not great) instructors are.

Because it's contentious and subjective and usually turns into disciples advocating for their sensei.

edited to add: It can also turn into disciples running down the political enemies of their sensei. Yes, this is how the industry works.

[olstyn]

Ben Stoeger's and Steve Anderson's books are not all that expensive and it's like having free coaching from them every time you go to the range or dry fire at home.

The only thing better would be to take a class from either of them or some other competitor of similar caliber.

Ben Stoeger actually won Production at the L2 match I mentioned. I wasn't squadded with him, so I didn't get to see him shoot, but it was interesting to be present while he was walking around on a stage and discussing how to approach it just after the lunch break.

Thanks for the reminder on the books; I've been meaning to order one of them. If anybody's got a suggestion as to which one is the best to start with for someone who's been shooting for a while but is realistically still a beginner (D-class, but occasionally manages to score higher than some C-class folks at local matches), I'm all ears.

[cclaxton]

I agree, although 95% seems exaggerated to me. I am no expert, perhaps others here can comment. It seems to me it's more like 20% physical, 20% skill, and 60% mental. Having more than one tool is kinda obvious. Otherwise, it could be excessive use of force.
Abraham Kaplan wrote: "I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding." Also known as: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." This can result in what I call the "Just shoot em" approach to any threat.

Seems to me the Use of Force Continuum should be the rule for LEO's and a guideline for civilians.

When I survey controversial shootings, the issue seems to be excessive use of force in most cases. We (and I including LEO's) can't just shoot someone because we felt threatened. There needs to be appropriate use of force, that is why I am learning Krav and always have pepper/CS available. What I need next is practicing the use of the continuum of force.
Cody

[LSP552]

Competition teaches you how to run your gun under stress, which is a great thing. When fighting for your life, you should be thinking about tactics and not about how to make your stuff work.

There is a hugh confidence level associated with KNOWING what you can do under stress.

[JV_]

Because it's contentious and subjective and usually turns into disciples advocating for their sensei.

edited to add: It can also turn into disciples running down the political enemies of their sensei. Yes, this is how the industry works.

Exactly.

I would suggest talking to people who've actually been in the class, rather than reading AARs on forums from random people. I have half a dozen friends who've taken a class where all of the public AARs are all praise, and they all thought it was a waste of money. When you dig deeper, you find it's a common problem, and most of the unsatisfied people just just less vocal or don't want the shit storm that follows if they were to bash someone's beloved trainer. And then there's the whole disappearing AAR, which only happens with bad reviews.

[rsa-otc]

Competition teaches you how to run your gun under stress, which is a great thing. When fighting for your life, you should be thinking about tactics and not about how to make your stuff work.

There is a hugh confidence level associated with KNOWING what you can do under stress.

You and I are in complete agreement on this. You only get so much attention to spend on anything. When in a gun fight your attention should be on when, at who and from where [tactics ]; not how to shoot your gun.

[shane45]

For me the question in my mind is, does the additional shooting skill acquired in competition trump the tactical mistakes you might make? When I switched from IPSC to IDPA, I was so used to standing in the open and focusing on the shooting, I rang up penalties faster than Mike Tyson in a hockey game in IDPA. It really took a while to break that habit. So it seems easy to extrapolate how easy it would be to make that mistake in a real situation. The proverbial "killed while picking up your brass" situation. What the top guys do almost seems irrelevant to me unless I can match the amount of practice and training they are able to do. I suspect that they have done so much of all of the above it allows them to switch gears accurately through all shooting events.