Sorry if my comment was taken as speed vs accuracy. I was thinking more along the lines of the training based on your comments.
The accuracy of the CNS at the best speed is the perfect answer- for sure.
I was addressing my own training thoughts and why I work on speed first, then accuracy.
This country needs an enema- Blues approved sig line
Speed vs accuracy has always been a moot point to me. Just physically max out on both.
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
When I read about the success of Tom Givens' students in their real life, lethal force battles, I became convinced of the necessity of the successful shooter to utilize movement, even if it's only a side step, which is what Tom teaches. It creates that tiny bit of confusion that could make the difference.
Are the bolded groups afforded different standards because of their operating in team or pairs as well as the equipment and initiation of engagement?
What I am getting at is a SWAT,HRT or JSOC individual often if not close to most often in a team or pair setting with another armed and trained person on their side to assist in engaging the threat. If both(or all team members) can shoot to CNS hits in similar times the difference in shooting slightly slower initial shot and follow up shots is minimized greatly compared to a single defender as a lone LEO or citizen.
These groups also initiate the engagement or go into situations differently than the surprised LEO or Citizen response. Guns out,body armor, multiple people engaging the badguy for him to decide who to engage are all different from lone LEO or citizen being targeted by badguy who initiates the encounter. Not to mention concealed carry draw speed vs open carry or gun in hand the groups are more likely to start from.
[Scratches head] Are those an "internet trap" or a "reality trap"? Seems like one can't germanely discuss one without the other. IDK.
I don’t think anyone is ever going to say that pure speed is a bad thing, assuming it’s performed with the requisite level of precision. I don’t think we can ignore the old gunfighting adage that the first one to put bullet to meat has a dramatically increased likelihood of winning the encounter.
But given the altercations we’re talking about are hypothetically occurring between two (or more) human beings, an element at least as important to success is going to be recognizing you’re in a fight to begin with. It’s likely not going to be an old school showdown in the street where both parties are reacting to a beep.
Being on the law abiding, good citizen side of this equation often will mean that you’re reacting to actions that have already started. Sure being blazing fast on the square range can help stack the odds in your favor, but just as (arguably much more) important are becoming expert at being aware of your surroundings, recognizing pre-fight indicators, having some ‘distraction techniques’ up your sleeve, etc… And perhaps most importantly, having a mindset and a willingness to act immediately and exact violence.
I think “speed” in these elements needs to be weighed at least as heavily as pure shooting skill, if we’re talking about winning violent encounters.
Sorry if this is steering the discussion away from your thesis point. I'm honestly a bit unclear what it is. I guess I can take a stab... Yes, shooting someone in the face wicked fast and before they shoot you is likely to solve an immediate deadly force situation in your favor.
I think the real dangerous man, is a man willing to kill. No hesitation and moderate skill make a very dangerous adversary. A well trained shooter who is willing is someone to fear. Many LEOs are very well trained but hesitate and are reluctantly willing.