65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another

[Dr Mordrid]

Refresher, meaning supervised range time & drills. What's clueless about that?

[cjolley]

How much daily training do you think it took that seal to deliberately shoot BinLaden's wife in the leg in the heat of battle.
Here is a clue: It wasn't once a year.

[Dr Mordrid]

You do realize that most cops also recertify yearly, maybe biannually? Here's a pretty standard handgun requirement for such a recertification (Texas) -

(c) The minimum standards for the annual firearms proficiency course of fire shall be:

(1) handguns - a minimum of 50 rounds, including at least five rounds of duty ammunition, fired at ranges from point-blank to at least 15 yards with at least 20 rounds at or beyond seven yards, including at least one timed reload;

and most cops I know might squeeze off 50-100 rounds every week or so at a range. To most licensees I know that's a warmup - I might do 200 a session.

As for the SEALs comment - c'mon, very few train half of what they do and you know it. Impossible comparison.

[VJ]

Shooting a still target at a firing range is one thing, shooting moving targets when you are being attacked quite another...

In the situation of the 65-year old, my guess is that if you are under attack, you try everything to defend yourself or to scare off the attacker. The guy carried a gun, shot it in the general direction of the attacker, and the attacker got killed. I don't think he did any particular aiming in the "heat" of the moment.
So the question should not be: "is it justifiable to kill the attacker", but rather "was the use use of the gun as a defense mechanism justified". And probably to Doc's surprise, I would lean just towards the "yes" for this situation: he witnessed the guys attacking other people (no chance of mis-interpretation). The danger IMO of using a gun though is that it has a higher chance of causing collateral damage: miss the target and you might kill some innocent bystander.

[Dr Mordrid]

But no other defensive tool has enough physiological impact to reliably take down large or strong attackers in one attempt, or enough use opportunities to counter 3+ attackers (Tasers only have 1-2 shots, stun guns let hem get too close.)

Our major area range has still and moving targets, and the one we have a family membership for has 3D outdoor targets with multiple barrier and position setups you have to maneuver through.

[VJ]

But no other defensive tool has enough physiological impact to reliably take down large or strong attackers in one attempt, or enough use opportunities to counter 3+ attackers (Tasers only have 1-2 shots, stun guns let hem get too close.)

This does not even matter: you use whatever means to defend your self. You would not start to analyze the situation for a few minutes first. You just go with instinct about what the best course of action is.

Our major area range has still and moving targets, and the one we have a family membership for has 3D outdoor targets with multiple barrier and position setups you have to maneuver through.

But you have to admit that not everybody will use such infrastructure on a regular basis. There are many stupid people. Everywhere.

[Dr Mordrid]

The trick is to do the defensive tool analysis beforehand, not that the answers aren't pretty obvious. As for facilities, they're out there and even in very rurals like the SW desert a lot can be done using improvisation. Helped a friend do that outside of San Angelo. As for people, those who are dedicated enough to go through the training without washing out (and they can) are way better than you think. The last person any perp would ever want to run afowl of is my daughter

[Technoid]

Yet another story from the Frank Castle doctrine

IMHO the "victims" were clearly asking for it (yeah victims of acute brain rot)!

Anyway its yet another sign that the situation in the US is deteriorating.

[cjolley]

You do realize that most cops also recertify yearly, maybe biannually?

Like I said much earlier, look up shootouts on youtube.
In the real world it is just much more difficult to do and much more legally risky than you seem to be willing to admit.


And here is what you said you could do:

example: I'm walking a city street and witness a rape in an alley. I pull my SIG .40...

2) I have an open head shot and nail him in the act.

You think you can pull off a head shot from 20-40 feet away with the perp inches from the victim.
With a pistol!
It's just fantasy land.

[Dr Mordrid]

I've been in a firefight, survived, and know the issues. Been there, done that.

My original comment was "2) I have an open head shot and nail him in the act." That assumes having sufficient clearance from the victim and being close enough to make the shot. At 7+ meters these pistols can pretty much do nickel size groups, so the limitations are indeed mine. A situational call.

[Jammrock]

How much daily training do you think it took that seal to deliberately shoot BinLaden's wife in the leg in the heat of battle.
Here is a clue: It wasn't once a year.

So...what you're saying is you want everyone who has a carry permit to have Navy SEAL level gun training?

[Dr Mordrid]

So...what you're saying is you want everyone who has a carry permit to have Navy SEAL level gun training?

That's what it sounds like, doesn't it? Never mind that some of the best shots I know were never in the military.

[cjolley]

What I'm saying is that I want people who carry guns around to be realistic about the capabilities of their weapons, themselves, and the law.

Here's what Doc sounds like to me:
Parent - "Look both ways before before you cross the street."
5 yo - "Why? If a car comes I can just jump out of the way."

Just WAY too glib and blithe about the subject.
To the seal question. Yes, if one is going to convince themselves that they have the skillz of a seal then they should do the training. Not once a month or once a year on a target range.

So Doc, in that firefight, how many shots were hits?
The way you talk there could be no such thing as a fire fight because every shot would fly inerrantly to it's target.

PS And Doc, how exactly could a rapist be "in the act" and be far enough away from the victim to shoot? And if they aren't in the act then you may have executed someone for simple assault. You could do hard time for that.
It's that kind of glossing over of details that bothers me.

[Dr Mordrid]

What I'm saying is that I want people who carry guns around to be realistic about the capabilities of their weapons, themselves, and the law.

Covered. I know my capabilities and ability to focus in stressful/dangerous situations. You don't, but presume to.

Just WAY too glib and blithe about the subject.

Not glib - confident based on experience.

So Doc, in that firefight, how many shots were hits?

Distance: 15m
Him: 0% (0/1)
Me: 100% (2/2 - both center of mass)

PS And Doc, how exactly could a rapist be "in the act" and be far enough away from the victim to shoot?

You know as well as I do that you don't have to lay on top of a woman, the attacker can leverage her legs and most just go passive hoping they won't be further injured. Also, a high percentage of rapes are done with the woman on their stomach and the attacker straddleing them & entering either option from behind. Both can present a relatively vertical target relative to the victim. Judgement call of course.

[cjolley]

OK then, fire away.
We are 1000 miles out of range, so I'm not sure why I cared.