Lessons from 12,000 gunfights

[jondoe297]

This right here illustrates a big problem with OC marketing and a lot of OC training.
Most people think of OC as an intermediate level of force in between verbal and physical, people who have actually use it early and often know that it's basically a physical force multiplier.
It's not something you deploy instead of going hands on, it's basically the first punch thrown.

That's pretty much what I tell people.

[Cecil Burch]

This right here illustrates a big problem with OC marketing and a lot of OC training.
Most people think of OC as an intermediate level of force in between verbal and physical, people who have actually use it early and often know that it's basically a physical force multiplier.
It's not something you deploy instead of going hands on, it's basically the first punch thrown.

OC buys you about a second to a second and a half. What you do with that time is dependent on your context in the moment. Just like Craig's description of it being "eye jab in a can", you can follow up with H2H, other tools, or make distance. Thinking it is an answer in and of itself is one of the biggest misconceptions people make. It MAY stop further action by the attacker, but it also (and much more likely) will not stop him for longer than that second. You need to be ready for how you need to fill that time gap.

Like JodyH said, there better be something in your proverbial chamber to launch after the spray is in the air.

[Lester Polfus]

I think one disconnect is that cops are using OC spray as a compliance tool, and Non-Cops are carrying it as a counter assault tool. It's important to know which context we're talking about.

We sprayed people who were resisting being handcuffed, and etc. Those people were dangerous, because they were resisting being arrested, but they weren't actively "assaulting" us, if that makes sense.

Of the three people who who actively tried to assault me (without a firearm), as in tried to hurt me via a blitz attack, rather than get away or just refused to go along with being handcuffed, one caught a cradle blow to the throat, one got teep kicked through a wall*, and the third got thrown off a porch. OC spray never in crossed my mind, wouldn't have worked, and wasn't quickly accessible enough to use as it wasn't already in my hand.

When we deployed it as a compliance tool, we had time to think about it, and pro tip: usually took the time to warn the other officers in the pig pile. So it was deployed pro-actively, rather than reactively.

* In the interest of full disclosure, if the wall had been properly constructed per building code, he likely wouldn't have gone through it.

[tanner]

Plus, that stuff takes several seconds at a minimum to take significant effect. Eye jabs are instantaneous, spray might take up to 30 seconds to soak in and cause significant pain. As a cop, it was spray and move. Let it marinate, take full effect and only then move in to control.

I got a direct eyeball hit with a stream of Freeze +P (state of the art in 1993) when I was in the academy. The pain was a crescendo, didn't come on with the full strength for a while.

[JodyH]

one got teep kicked through a wall*

Did you yell..."THIS IS SPARTA!" when you did it?

The heck with "eye poke in a can", I want "teep kick in a can".
The teep is my go to jab, (unless footing makes it risky).

[JodyH]

While there is something to be learned from 12,000 videos of untrained people shooting at each other, I think there's more to be gained for most of us from Givens data because those are trained (or at least semi-trained) people defending themselves.

I think the biggest value in the 12,000 videos isn't in what the defender does but in how the criminals setup and execute their attacks and how they react to resistance.
There's more value to the well trained person in looking for pre-assault indicators, assault methods and reactions to resistance than the fact that untrained people shoot one handed most of the time.
When I watch shootings on YouTube or LiveLeak I concentrate on what tactics the criminals use not on what some convenience store clerk who may not have ever live fired his gun does.

[octagon]

The value of 12000 gunfight info is that it shows trends much better than smaller samplings. If something works in 500 incidents but not in 5 whether trained or untrained it should be looked at further for potential value. In any search for what works and what doesn't the searcher must look at what worked and what didn't for goodguys and badguys not just one side or the other.

[JodyH]

The value of 12000 gunfight info is that it shows trends much better than smaller samplings. If something works in 500 incidents but not in 5 whether trained or untrained it should be looked at further for potential value. In any search for what works and what doesn't the searcher must look at what worked and what didn't for goodguys and badguys not just one side or the other.

I agree and disagree.
General trends in successful and unsuccessful tactics are worth noting (but are rarely something the trained person doesn't already know).
Movement, cover and getting the first hit.

Watching 500 untrained people fail because they fumbled the draw they never practiced and then missed every shot at 3Y using a crappy one handed grip, a trigger smash worthy of the Hulk and looking over the sights doesn't give the trained person any good info to work from.
It's like rolling BJJ with a brand new white belt, it reinforces the importance of fundamentals (because they don't have any and get smashed because of that) but rarely do you learn anything new from them.

[octagon]

John at ASP has covered many where police officers were involved and plenty of foreign police who probably have similar training to what a CCW permit holder may have or a Rangemaster grad who hasn't had much other training. Regardless if something works in real critical incidents it can't be excluded or ignored especially when it occurs repeatedly. The badguy that gets shot doesn't care if the person shooting him is trained or untrained, using 1 hand or 2 etc.. The danger is the already "known" factors is when they are wrong. For years there has been a push and trend in valuing night sights, weapon mounted lights, various reload techniques and using cover. If after reviewing 12000 gunfights you see a flashlight or WML was never used and never was a factor in the incidents where a loss to a goodguy occurred there is a lesson in the value or lack of use of either. When that correlates with other smaller studies it is even more clear.

Use of cover is another. If you see that badguys rarely shoot through concealment in a lot of incidents the value of using even concealment gains credibility from the consideration when comparing using what can actually stop bullets.

That much data reviewed is irrefutable for confirming or denying what is "known" so even when it seems obvious there is value. Showing what movement is common and worked is better than some instructors that teach forward and backward movement skills and drills over lateral.

It is not perfect but ignore reality at your own peril.

[JodyH]

John at ASP has covered many where police officers were involved and plenty of foreign police who probably have similar training to what a CCW permit holder may have or a Rangemaster grad who hasn't had much other training. Regardless if something works in real critical incidents it can't be excluded or ignored especially when it occurs repeatedly. The badguy that gets shot doesn't care if the person shooting him is trained or untrained, using 1 hand or 2 etc.. The danger is the already "known" factors is when they are wrong. For years there has been a push and trend in valuing night sights, weapon mounted lights, various reload techniques and using cover. If after reviewing 12000 gunfights you see a flashlight or WML was never used and never was a factor in the incidents where a loss to a goodguy occurred there is a lesson in the value or lack of use of either. When that correlates with other smaller studies it is even more clear.

Use of cover is another. If you see that badguys rarely shoot through concealment in a lot of incidents the value of using even concealment gains credibility from the consideration when comparing using what can actually stop bullets.

That much data reviewed is irrefutable for confirming or denying what is "known" so even when it seems obvious there is value. Showing what movement is common and worked is better than some instructors that teach forward and backward movement skills and drills over lateral.

It is not perfect but ignore reality at your own peril.

I consider the vast majority of LE (domestic and foreign) as well as most CCW's to be "untrained" or at best poorly trained in dynamic handgun fundamentals.

A few notes:
Night sights, WML's - If the data says they aren't needed yet you still have them on your pistol... it's a non-factor. There may not be any positives to having those things, but there aren't any negatives either.

Reload techniques - I've always considered putting a lot of effort into reload skills to be a waste of valuable training time. "The most important shot is the first hit, the most important magazine is the first one expended" has been my motto for years. Looks like my laziness when it comes to reload practice might actually be avante garde training!

Cover - Cover > concealment > wide open... it's always been that way, you take what you can get, when you can get it. And this is a great example of possibly coming to a bad conclusion based on successful outcomes. Just because a chip display worked as "cover" in a hundred gunfights doesn't mean utilizing a chip display as cover is the best or even a good tactic. A better tactic would be to use the chip display as transitionary concealment while continuing to move towards real cover.

Advancing and retreating as "movement" isn't taught by any legitimate instructors (it is however taught by many static line LE instructors, hence my lead comment that most LE are "untrained").

I'm not "ignoring reality".
What I am doing is separating the chaff from the wheat, and there's a lot of chaff when it comes to untrained people.
Like I said earlier, it's a good reminder that the fundamentals are the fundamentals for a reason. But I cannot remember ever learning some new and groundbreaking skill or tactic from watching hundreds of YouTube/LiveLeak gunfight videos.