I wrote this for somewhere else in regards to those who scoff at high levels of shooting skill but thought it might be appreciated here:
It is hard to accept but the reality is that many of our end states are pursued indirectly and some time, almost unintentionally.
Before starting, let me clearly state that seeing a problem coming, accepting that this is coming, and preparing a response will trump almost any problem the armed citizen is likely to face. The typical predator is easily dissuaded, especially if they realize they've been spotted, and the armed citizen has an option, dare I say a preference, for flight/retreat/avoidance whenever possible. This should not be the case for on-duty law enforcement officers. Officers have a duty to seek out evil doers, confront them, and render them to the criminal justice system. Rather than being easily dissuaded, the cop is confronting a cornered animal who knows the gig is up and may be perfectly willing to enjoy a pyrrhic victory. Because the contexts vary so much, it is hard to find a lot of crossovers between the two worlds except for the presence of violent, evil people. Generally speaking, the police will almost always be handling more complex situations and will benefit from higher skill levels to help them mitigate this complexity.
With this said, I think that it is important to recognize that we pursue our desired end states indirectly, and at time, almost unintentionally. For instance, the last time you performed a skill is the most important predictor of your ability to perform it under life and death stress - we call this the recency effect. The guy/gal who pursues the one second draw stroke isn't working on it once a month. A one second draw stroke takes a lot of work to develop and almost as much work to maintain. The guy who can reliably produce a one second draw does not have a great tactic. If you're relying on your one second draw to save you, you've screwed up a lot of the pre-fight and have found yourself in a deep hole. With that said, if the only thing that will save you is a one second then you'd better have one. FWIW, I've seen a one second draw in an armed robbery scenario and it is magnificent feat. At that speed, you do not have a frame of reference for what is happening. Even if you know its coming, all you see a twitch of the shoulders and then rounds are impacting the target. Almost nobody has the proper frame of reference to process what is happening.
So suppose you don't need a one second draw, has the guy who has one wasted his time? No, because the pure volume of work needed to obtain and maintain the draw will guarantee the recency of the skill. (It will also front load it in the brain and make it more accessible under stress/strain) The guy with the ability to deliver a one second draw to an 8" circle will probably have enough skill to deliver a 1.5 second draw to a 5" circle. What the high level of skill provides is an increased certainty of delivering the skill when it is needed. Another scoffed at skill is the quick reload. Especially for the armed citizen, slide lock reloads are rare and the need to complete one in less than two seconds is sparse. But, who is more likely to successfully complete an emergency reload under stress - the guy who does it in three second in practice or the guy who does it in two seconds. Human performance science tells us that the later person is more likely to succeed. To quote Joseph Stalin - "quantity has a quality all it's own" and someone who has completed and continues to pursue a large volume of practice will have definitive advantages that can't be gained any other way.
The other reality we must face is that when you have a higher level of skill, you will keep more of that skill as the situation degrades. Again and again, I've seen people standing flat footed, shooting on a square range on full value targets. Some do it better than others but there is a consistency with their performance. When we ask these same people shoot while conforming to cover, to do so from awkward positions, to do so while moving or while the target moves, the people with the best square range skills still end up shooting the best. From a motor skills perspective, skill is skill and the more you have under ideal conditions, the more you'll have under sub-optimal conditions. To quote Gabe White - "Is there such a thing as 'too good' if you're fighting for your life?"
Way too many people assume that their mindset will be their savior. They assume that their (often over inflated) sense of mindset will grant then invulnerability without doing any actual work. Awareness can make you cognizant that trouble is afoot but it does nothing to resolve the problem itself. I'd offer that there is a strong relationship between your actual mindset and the amount of work you spend sharpening your skills. As Craig Douglas points out - aware is not a verb and neither is mindset. You can't aware yourself out of anything, you need skills to do that. These skills vary from the mechanics of shooting to making it a habit to always note the locations of exits but they all require work. If you aren't regularly "doing the work" you're fooling yourself.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by karmapolice
