Things more important than a sub-second draw....

[jlw]

The podcast is 43 minutes or so, can you say when relevant parts of the discussion are?

Yes, they start at 00:01 and end at 45:27.

That's not a smartass response. If you comment without watching/listening, your comments are based on a lack of full context.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't want to watch/listen to it, cool, but please don't pull comments out of thin air.

[JCN]

Yes, they start at 00:01 and end at 45:27.

That's not a smartass response. If you comment without watching/listening, your comments are based on a lack of full context.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't want to watch/listen to it, cool, but please don't pull comments out of thin air.

Do either you or the person you’re talking to on the podcast possess reliable sub second draws to small targets at distance?

Because if neither of you do, then what’s the point of listening to the whole conversation?

If neither of you do, I was offering to have a discussion of your salient points.

If either or both of you do, then I’ll happily listen to the whole video. Otherwise your conversation is underinformed.

That’s what I was asking.

[GJM]

Yes, they start at 00:01 and end at 45:27.

That's not a smartass response. If you comment without watching/listening, your comments are based on a lack of full context.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't want to watch/listen to it, cool, but please don't pull comments out of thin air.

My comments were directed to something JCN said, and had nothing to do with the video.

[ssb]

Edit: ignorant response to an ignorant OP. Sorry.

[JCN]

Edited the edit

[Trooper224]

In what context are you framing your question, competition or defense?

BTW, I haven't watched the video.

[GJM]

If I could ban one thing on the internet, it would be the use of “GM level skill.”

[ssb]

If you still have a hard time breaking 1.2 seconds, I am not that impressed with the instruction quality you have received to be brutally honest.

I started a thread to see if there was a discussion to be had on the utility of a sub-second draw.

To know what that context is, there’s an easy litmus test.

If someone doesn’t possess the skill they speak of, then how can they wax philosophical for 43 minutes on the merit or demerit of it.

Basically a sun-second USEFUL draw that’s accurate and fluid at distance requires GM level skill.

I’m making the assumption that the video is taking the usual stance of situational awareness is more important (judging from the video comments). So I wanted to see if he wanted a contrary opinion.

If he knows it all and possesses the skills that he’s judging, then my assumptions were erroneous.

Being a good tactical trainer usually caps out around the modern “A” level (legacy M). That’s eons away from what we are talking about here.

There are a lot of things one could say about your posts in this thread which would be brutally honest. Few of them are kind.

Neither party to the discussion you have no actual interest in discussing discounts the merits of technical skill. Neither party to that discussion would knock somebody for putting in the reps to gain a sub-second draw. Neither party to the that discussion discounts the real-world successes of agencies and individuals who have attained a high level of technical skill. They might have some comments for a person who seeks that skill to the near-exclusion of the myriad of other things which they also deem important.

[JCN]

Yes, they start at 00:01 and end at 45:27.

That's not a smartass response. If you comment without watching/listening, your comments are based on a lack of full context.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't want to watch/listen to it, cool, but please don't pull comments out of thin air.

It is kind of a smart ass response.

I’m at 3:47 and the first part is talking about revolver ammo.

Edit: ignorant response to an ignorant OP. Sorry.

In the video in question, the discussants say they’re going to talk about it to be inflammatory and upset more people.

I’ll post summary blurbs as I continue watching at double speed. But the YouTube comments summarize the points pretty well.

In what context are you framing your question, competition or defense?

Context is like the Bakersfield PD that if you develop a high level of skill during a competition with stiff time AND accuracy standards, you can use those high level skills to succeed in police work or self defense.

[JCN]

4:53

He says it inspired lots of good discussion and back and forth.

But apparently that’s all addressed in the remaining 40 minutes so there’s nothing else to discuss here I guess.