How and why safety procedures fail. TDA vs Striker vs LEM spinoff

[JustOneGun]

Holstering quickly and holstering unconsciously are two very different mental procedures. One does not take much more time than the other but they can have different outcomes.

[YVK]

Are you suggesting that a person during dry fire and live fire training can't make a habit of using a procedure to holster?

I was talking in a more global sense than just holstering. For the holstering, I am suggesting that you can develop a procedure that would be safe on a subconscious level should you inadvertently slide from a conscious action into subconscious. I think that all procedures should by built on overlapping or redundant principles, just like the cardinal safety rules are. I think that this is a better way of addressing this issue.

[JustOneGun]

There is some data from the Gunsite that GJM likes to quote and some members here provided their own information. Some data suggests no difference in frequency distribution between draw vs holstering vs others, while others stated that holstering was more worrisome.

I personally don't think that it is possible to get rid of a subconscious acts when talking about something that people do frequently, regularly and repetitively. It eventually becomes inhabituated and often times subconscious. I think that most NDs are a result of disconnect between stated and agreed upon safety rules and principles vs developing a yet again inhabituated set of behaviors to support those rules.

By talking about holstering first, I did not mean to imply that it is the worst or happens the most. Because us civilians have such a low probability of holding someone at gunpoint I just started with holstering where we have the most probability of shooting ourselves.

I think the next problem is drawing. That is a bit more complex a situation because there is no simple procedure placed into habit that can solve the problem. I believe that people getting their finger on the trigger too soon can be avoided with a few training ideas. I just randomly throw them out here:
1. Don't increase speed while live firing that you haven't proven you can do without a, "Click" in dry fire.
2. New shooters can and should learn the draw in dry fire.
3. New shooters can and should learn to live fire from the #2 position from the draw. If a person is shooting at an established range they will probably have a rule against drawing anyway.
4. New shooters or established shooters using a new platform should not try to drive the wheels off the gun by going fast. Slow to start and small incremental steps in speed that maintain accuracy.
5. In number 3 above a shooter can realize the physical act of moving the pistol from the #2 position of the draw to #4 full extension is far long in space and time than moving the trigger finger from the slide to the trigger. As the draw is learned they must emphasize the trigger finger doesn't move until the end of the draw or very late in the draw.
6. As a person's draw becomes smooth, consistent and relatively fast it might be a good idea to start and time it. Before that happens it's a good idea to video tape the draw from the side. This can show if there is any bowling, fishing going from the #3 to #4 position. It also can show when the trigger finger starts to move. Starting and stopping the video can show when that finger starts to move. It will show if it is moving too soon in the draw.
7. Number 5 and 6 are also important when it comes to people running around with their finger on the trigger or trigger checking at stressful times.

[Jason M]

Interesting topic.

I do not look at my holster when I reholster, I actively scan my area at that time. It is a habit I picked up and it's stuck. I have changed little things here and there but for the most part it's unconscious and deliberate.

On or off duty, dryfire or live fire, the reholster is always the same. One thing I never do is holster a non-hot gun, in that I mean a gun that isn't cocked/able to fired/dryfired without manipulation. When I stow a gun it's always in a "cruiser safe" type setup. When I'm carrying obviously it's loaded with one in the chamber. The only difference is when I dryfire or perform maintenance the magazine is removed the protocol does not change other than that.

I never pull the trigger just to pull the trigger, like a gamer styled unload and show clear, that's burning the worst type of rep which can induce an ND in particular circumstances.

The only time I look at my holster is when I am reholstering and third attempt it becomes difficult to reholster. In that case I will actually look at what is going on, even then, I immediately look up and begin to scan around.

I refer to time spent looking at your equipment as dead time. You aren't actively discriminating threats, you arent doing anything which will keep you alive. You are just standing there looking down and away from whatever just happened. By the way if you had your gun out and burned someone down, you probably should be looking around, at the very least.

Nor do I. Can we thank the governing body that we talked about yesterday for this?

[octagon]

Here is some data on the issue. It is hard to find clear cut reasons from the data but some things that are trends are the mental focus or lack there of when handling the gun and safe handling procedures being well ingrained.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...al-discharges/ ( I used TTAG article because it more concisely breaks down the Force science Research Center article)

http://homicidecenter.org/wp-content...rief-FINAL.pdf

https://www.concealedcarry.com/safet...re-both-wrong/

Just to add some personal perspective on likeliness of NDs. My agency had 250 armed officers if you include Reserves. If each officer holstered their gun 2 times a workday (at the start and one other time say prisoner trip or interview, off duty at end of shift etc..) That is 500 times total times working 20 days a month(10,000) times 11 months worked a year(110,000) times 25 years (2,750,000) or almost 3 million times the gun is holstered. This doesn't include twice annual training,initial 2 week training or academy for each officer let alone their own dry fire and live fire practice and more frequent live fire practice. It could easily be 6 million times. Most of these people are not gun enthusiasts or highly trained and practiced. We had 3 NDs all with no injuries.
That works out to be a 1 in 2 million odds for us. It would be great if it were even better but not something I think should be taken too far to an extreme. If someone says "Its the stakes not the odds" I hope they carry a gun with a manual safety or key safety and chamber empty.

It is about balancing risk and odds not all one or the other. Quality gun and equipment with proper training and safe practices is where I balance my odds and stakes. YMMV

[JustOneGun]

Here is some data on the issue. It is hard to find clear cut reasons from the data but some things that are trends are the mental focus or lack there of when handling the gun and safe handling procedures being well ingrained.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...al-discharges/ ( I used TTAG article because it more concisely breaks down the Force science Research Center article)

http://homicidecenter.org/wp-content...rief-FINAL.pdf

https://www.concealedcarry.com/safet...re-both-wrong/

Just to add some personal perspective on likeliness of NDs. My agency had 250 armed officers if you include Reserves. If each officer holstered their gun 2 times a workday (at the start and one other time say prisoner trip or interview, off duty at end of shift etc..) That is 500 times total times working 20 days a month(10,000) times 11 months worked a year(110,000) times 25 years (2,750,000) or almost 3 million times the gun is holstered. This doesn't include twice annual training,initial 2 week training or academy for each officer let alone their own dry fire and live fire practice and more frequent live fire practice. It could easily be 6 million times. Most of these people are not gun enthusiasts or highly trained and practiced. We had 3 NDs all with no injuries.
That works out to be a 1 in 2 million odds for us. It would be great if it were even better but not something I think should be taken too far to an extreme. If someone says "Its the stakes not the odds" I hope they carry a gun with a manual safety or key safety and chamber empty.

It is about balancing risk and odds not all one or the other. Quality gun and equipment with proper training and safe practices is where I balance my odds and stakes. YMMV

This line of thought is why I disagree with many command staff and chiefs of police. If we take your premise, why do police carry guns at all? Why do civilians? The answer to these questions and yours is the same.

Without knowing it your training staff orders training that incorporates these ideas that we speak of. Yes, some departments and civilians do it better than others. But not worrying about ND's will, over time, cause the training to change without thought for the ND's. That in and of itself will cause more ND's to happen. So the idea is to order training, both dry fire and live. to avoid on the range, place good procedures and ultimately to make those three ND's go down to zero.

So a Chief must take into account if I ask them to buy a new gun or training device to stop those three ND's. That's just business. But by thinking about the problems I can order the training that I'm going to conduct anyway. That change is designed to be a win, win. We are doing it in a way that is safe on the range. Gives the student good procedures that will translate to real life shootings and ultimately make us safer.

[Mitch]

Hypothetical question here, mostly aimed at Voodooman or any other LEOs...

If I were in a shooting and the police showed up, it seems to me that I'd be better off dropping the gun than reholstering in a hurry under a great deal of stress. Am I off base here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[STI]

Hypothetical question here, mostly aimed at Voodooman or any other LEOs...

If I were in a shooting and the police showed up, it seems to me that I'd be better off dropping the gun than reholstering in a hurry under a great deal of stress. Am I off base here?

Very curious as I believed that a civilian would do best with the weapon reholstered before LE arrived.

[octagon]

Justonegun I am not sure what you are trying to say or if you agree with my opinion or not.

I am not saying or suggesting that NDs not be looked at carefully,determined how and why they occurred or addressed to prevent future NDs. I am only saying that the risk mitigation must be kept in perspective. If there is a reasonable way to reduce 3 NDs out of 6 million holstering to zero great I'm for it. If the cost is prohibitive than I bet the chief of any agency will say the benefit does not outweigh the risk. If the 3 NDs at our agency resulted in death of an innocent, or suspect unnecessarily or injury or death of an officer that would change the perspective and alter the cost/benefit ratio every chief and every person must balance for their situation.

Too often people will take a statement or example and change it to an all or nothing point of view. That skews the discussion and is a unfair characterization of a persons stand on an issue. I almost never use the words "always" or "never" or "100% of the time" because there are always exceptions. However I think we do a great disservice to improving the understanding of an issue being discussed if we move a discussion to the far right or far left of where reality is.

I most often use "Balance" "perspective" "context" and "In my opinion" or "in my experience" to clarify my stance or what I post to avoid sounding dogmatic, or like I am offering inflexible stance.

[Mitch]

Just to clarify my question a little, I agree. I'd rather have the gun holstered. But if I have to choose between holstering in a hurry so I don't get shot and dropping the gun, I think I'd rather drop the gun than risk shooting myself to keep someone else from shooting me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk