The number count is not specific and that data is likely related to LEO gunfights and not civilian. There's not much out there on it and very little easily accessible to the public in either scenario. Round counts of 5 to 7 are often the number given and can either count for both shooters or just one. Most of easily available information is from the NYPD who does publish a yearly report in what is called the Intentional Discharge Report. I can't recall the exact numbers but the following is very close. About 70% fire 1 to 5 shots with 1/3 firing only one. 20% fire fire 6 to 10 and 10% firing 11 to 16. What is interesting is how in NYC the ranges can and do open up. Just over half were within 15 feet. The rest were far longer with 38% at 6 to 15yards and 9% at 16 to 25 yards. The 3/3/3 stuff is likely antiquated or just anecdotal, at least for a densely populated city like NYC and the NYPD. There's just not a lot of basis in fact for it except in one to two scenarios and that's an ambush attack or car jacking. As far as innocent bystanders, one person was killed in a multi-shot incident without the origin of the shot identified quite possibly from the perp. This would be from their 2011 report.
SCIENTIFIC AND TEST DATA VALIDATING THE ISOSCELES AND SINGLE-HAND POINT SHOOT TECHNIQUES http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static...shting.pdf?token=SkaRC5jnsBckvOynTGSkb67kmLc=
Unfortunately there are too many of the latter and too few of the former for my personal sense of comfort. Seriously, I am more concerned about "friendly fire" from a CC if an incident were to occur than from either the perp or law enforcement. Concealed carriers seem way more concerned about how many shots they can fire than if they actually hit their target. It's as if they imagine that laying down a barrage will stop incoming rounds. It doesn't work like that in real life.
I've taken CC classes in a couple different states. Sadly that one CC class is the only "formal" firearms training most have ever had, or will ever get. Some states have pretty good classes, others are a joke. The latter ones I spoke if in my last post DID seek more training. Granted I've been told my CC class is strenuous compared to others in the state, but I've only had one person I refused to grant a certificate, because I felt she would cause more of a hindrance than be helpful. I limit all my classes to 4 pupils, except CC which I limit to 8-and if there are more than 4 I'll bring in an assistant instructor. I feel it's hard to learn, and you get virtually no 1 on 1 time in a big class of like 30 people.
That's your fantasy and total BS. There's nothing to even remotely suggest that CCW holders are a danger because of friendly fire and they are at least as safe as LEO's if not more so. Bangers on the other hand have a steady stream of innocent bystanders shot. I don't know where you're getting a blanket statement about how CCW seem more concerned about how many shots they can fire. Certainly doesn't happen in my state.
Yes, small classes are way better, especially when you are dealing with what ultimately can be a matter of life or death. Way too many people want the power of a gun without the responsibility and accountability that goes along with it IMO.
Hmmm, let me see... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=435299&page=4&p=1065618133#post1065618133 #36 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=435299&page=4&p=1065618184#post1065618184 #37 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=435299&page=5&p=1065619075#post1065619075 #46 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=435299&page=6&p=1065619197#post1065619197 #51 Does that answer the question?
Where are you getting this stuff from? Geez man, there are a several people with a whole lot of experience here. Don't try to blow smoke.
I have another if you don't mind. I grew up a rifle person and rarely shot pistols. I therefore want to naturally close one eye when shooting.....anything. I have practiced enough with a pistol at this point that I'm a decent shot....with one eye closed. I've heard many places that shooting with both eyes open is best so I have been working on that, but it's a little ugly. Any pointers on how to teach a new method to a longtime rifle shooter?
The reason it is said both eye shooting is better, is because it opens up your peripheral vision. You need your periphery for making wide transitions to threat targets if the need be. However if you are shooting at one target, and precision is needed, there is nothing wrong with squinting your non dominate eye. Tha fastest way to learn both eye open shooting is to just shoot slow and deliberate with focus on keeping both eyes open. Soon you will be able to pick up the speed. I've also seen people using shooting glasses with a dark lens on the non dominate side. I've also seen people take a small piece of scotch tape and put it on the non dominate side. After while they no longer need these modifications.
Keeping both eyes open in a daylight defensive situation is good because with one eye closed you essentially cut your field if vision in half. For night/low light, especially when using a flashlight, keeping one eye closed maintains night vision in that eye. For plinking on the range keeping both eyes open maintains equal amounts of oxygen flowing to your eyes. That's where breath control comes in, on top of reducing movement, it keeps good amounts of oxygen in the body. Note; not as prevalent shooting a handgun as compared to making a 1 mile shot on a 1 MOA target. Another bad part about squinting your non dominant eye is it tires you out. Put in an 8 hour range session while squinting then try to drive home. It'd suck. Here's a little trick. Get your handgun. Safely unload and clear it. Now pick a spot on the wall to aim at, can be only a couple yards away. with our weak eye closed, press out, aim with good sight alignment& sight picture, focusing on the front sight. Open your weak eye. Did it try to take over? Most likely, from what you've stated. Keep your weak eye open, cover it with your weak hand. You can do this repeatedly AND tape over the weak eye side of your shooting glasses. You will eventually train your strong eye to maintain dominance.
Derideo_Te, I see no point to your posts, what are you trying to say. So far all I see is you saying that you're awesome, you know everything, and CCWs are dangerous. dangerous compared to what? Are you saying CCW should be illegal, require more training, or just that you're afraid of it? 21', Tueller, typical range of encounter, etc. The biggest lesson I've taken from such things is to be prepared for that close and fast encounter. Two aspects too many IMO skip over, shooting from retention and knowing when to skip the gun all together. IMO concentrating too much on shooting stances, in particular two hands with arms extended is a mistake. Training/practice of self defense shooting needs to include when and how to skip the gun and retention shooting in combination with weak hand defense. I rarely shoot at a range, certainly almost never in a typical stand in a box and shoot at paper range, I don't want those habits or to limit myself to the range rules. It's also why I keep my knife on my week side. Round count, I'm perfectly comfortable with 8. That's not to say there's any reason why having more ammo available is bad. More important to that aspect though is to always have a reload. With an auto many failures are best solved by in part by replacing the magazine, and no matter what when you get the chance you should reload, you never know what's going to happen next. My minimum loadout is 7+1 with a 10rd backup mag. Eyes, several things I'd like to add here to the already good advice. First learn what your dominant eye is, we all have one. I'm right handed but left eye dominant, it's an issue I'm constantly working on. Second realize that when you are having double vision of your gun both are correct, there's no reason to change your aim. Concentrate on one front sight and it will become clear, eventually you'll only see the one. Third one of the most valuable lessons I ever learned from martial arts training was soft focus, hard to explain, kind of stepping back in your vision and seeing it all, ignoring your focused vision and letting your peripheral be dominant. Of course it sucks for accurate shooting but is fantastic for everything from self defense to driving. We all do it automatically at times, learn to notice it and you can use it more effectively. EDIT.. Want to add IMO having a flashlight is as important as having a backup mag, even during the day. Controlling who can see is a huge aspect of self defense.
Your post caught my attention because I've been a long time shooter with scoped rifles, and pistols. I don't know quite how to explain this thing one learns by using the "other" eye to lead the aiming eye. With high power scopes, I find my little ol' target by "matching the scene". I mean, like in shooting oranges @ 200 yards with 18 or 20X magnification. The magnified eye sorta' just follows the other eye, and the target is acquired quickly. With pistols, the roles are almost the same. The "free" eye finds the target, and the aiming eye runs the sights. I hope those thoughts help you make sense of things.
I know what your talking about. I do the same thing. Kind of spot with the non dominate eye, track the scope to target with the other. Depending on how hydrated & out of breath I am; sometimes I'll slightly (just barely) squint, quickly alternate from one eye to another. But that only really comes into play when targets are spaced really far apart, like in some DM settings. T1 may be 10 degrees to the right at 450 yds, T2 may be 10 degrees left at 100 yds, etc.
Never being a cop and not currently serving in the military, I try to avoid bad areas and bad people. I hope my training would kick-in if I ever had to shoot a threat---and I would probably shoot under they were stopped---hoping most of the round stay in and on target.
Here's what my state ( Texas ) does and it's an effective course. It's now a one day course with emphasis on four things. When can I shoot or not shoot. Where can I carry or not carry. What are my legal/civil liabilities. Lastly is conflict resolution/avoidance. The shooting qualification is the same as the DPS qualifier, not especially hard but you must shoot 75%. If you can't shoot 90%, then many instructors recommend further training but cannot deny a license. It does NOT, however teach you to fight the weapon. THAT is an entirely different issue. IMHO, I think you can teach the "basics" in 8 to 12 hours. I'd also put an emphasis on at least quarterly shooting with a few basic drill as part of each refresher.
100% of all Concealed Carry permit holders should be required to carry 3rd party liability insurance IMO. That must apply nationwide. They should be required to pass situational awareness simulations at better than 90%. They should be required to pass conflict de-escalation techniques 100%. They should be made to understand that they weapon they carry is the LAST resort, not the first.
I don't think they should have to meet any of your requirements, you are creating a requirement for an issue which doesn't exist. Bad call!!
Generally a much different(harder) DA trigger, a fantastic SA trigger available for accuracy, and a hammer for safety and control while holstering. I'm not a fan of revolvers for my self defense carry but don't see the ND risk of Glocks. Just my opinion.
Constitutionally I adamantly disagree. What other right(s) should be required to have nationally recognized insurance in order to exercise said right(s)?
This guy is trolling and it not really worth the response. If you look at his profile, he's a leftist with leftist friends and organizations listed. He's probably never been close to a firearm except in his imagination.
There is nothing unconstitutional about regulating the need for insurance when it comes to endangering public safety. The right to travel freely doesn't exempt anyone from requiring insurance on their mode of transportation. The right to own a home doesn't exempt anyone from state and local regulations requiring flood insurance. The right to have a business manufacturing or selling fireworks doesn't exempt anyone from regulated insurance in case of accidents that could harm members of the public. The right to open a restaurant doesn't exempt anyone from local regulations requiring insurance for members of the public who are patrons. The 2A is not "special" in that it must be exempt from insurance regulations when it comes to public safety. There are no "special rights" in the 2A that exclude it from regulations that would be imposed on any other activity that might result in harm to others. - - - Updated - - - It is a fallacy to assume that only those on the right own and use firearms.
