Firearms Training a Sobering Lesson

[RamboLiberal]

When I was the Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and we had a police-action shooting I would often be asked why the police officer didn't shoot the weapon out of the assailants' hand, or just wound them in the arm or leg, rather than shooting to kill. I would have to point out that real life was not like the movies.

In a situation involving the exchange of gunfire with a criminal suspect, police officers generally hit their target only 20 percent of the time. The most critical decision a law enforcement officer makes is whether to shoot. When the decision is made to shoot, police are trained to shoot to kill, because even that is very difficult to do.

Given how difficult this is for law enforcement officers, who are regularly trained and tested, it seems clear that it is also very difficult for private individuals. And more guns, in more inexperienced hands, are likely to make tense situations worse. Just ask Phillip Van Cleave, an experienced gun owner, how hard it is to have a successful outcome.

Van Cleave is the President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun organization that takes some positions with which I strongly disagree. But Van Cleave recently posted an account that I found very insightful, a cautionary tale about how hard it is to succeed at being a "hero." His honest account deserves to be widely read.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/firearms-training-a-sober_b_684663.html

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/07/philip-van-cleave/practical-firearms-training-at-pft-%E2%80%93-pt-3-%E2%80%93-clearing-a-room/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[east texas lib]

2. Your worst performance on the shooting range will be better than your best when it's for real...

Bank on it.

[one-eyed fat man]

3. Force on Force training

The Army has been using techniques like this for a quarter century. One of the earliest was MILES, Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System. Essentially a sophisticated version of laser tag it uses coded lasers and sensors to arm everyone and everything from an individual soldier to tanks, helicopters, missile launchers. It was training like that at Fort Irwin that produced the Army that swept through the Western Desert in 1991.

Similar tools were and are used to train for the urban fight in Iraq. Or the mountain war in Afghanistan. One thing that this training will always show you is just how easy it is to get yourself killed.

Clearing buildings is an especially risky business. The valid point made is that absent a compelling reason to enter a building, it's best to to leave that job to others, lots of others, with plenty of practice. Even then, the fact remains sometimes its better to be lucky than good.

I do take issue with Mr Helmke's characterization of concealed carry holders 'wantng to be heroes.'

[Callisto32]

4. Most police qualification courses I have read about (admittedly few) seem like they require...

only basic proficiency.

The "trained and tested" stuff really doesn't mean all that much from a marksmanship perspective, at least.

[onehandle]

5. Guns make you Dirty Harry. I read it on the Internets. nt

[benEzra]

9. .44 magnums in shoulder holsters make you Dirty Harry.

Twin Heckler & Koch USP's in thigh holsters make you Lara Croft.

[Euromutt]

11. Got a link?

Because I tried Googling a couple of different phrases, all variations to the effect that "guns make you Dirty Harry" and came up empty-handed.

Though on that topic, I do have a link for you: http://www.bullshido.org/Arnold%27s_Law

As an internet forum discussion on gun control grows longer, the probability of a gun control proponent implying or asserting that a participating gun owner harbors fantasies of being a motion picture character approaches 1.

A corollary to this law suggests that any gun control/prohibition proponent to invoke this law gets automatically excluded from the rest of the discussion.

Yes, I am the person who proposed that particular variation on Godwin's Law, but that's because I perceived a need for it.

[PavePusher]

6. Also note that Helmke had his conclusion 180-degrees away from reality...

The person defending themselves from an intruder (the guy sequestered in his room) won.

Go. Figure.

[spin]

7. K&R (n/t)

[Douva]

8. The Brady Campaign’s Paul Helmke Doesn’t Know Which Side He’s On

Here my rebuttal to Mr. Helmke's editorial: http://www.campuscarry.com/2010/08/17/the-brady-campaign%E2%80%99s-paul-helmke-doesn%E2%80%99t-know-which-side-he%E2%80%99s-on/#content

[Euromutt]

10. I think you were too charitable

Oh sure, Helmke may be charming, but as Gavin de Becker put it in The Gift of Fear, it helps to think of "charm" as a verb, not a character trait; don't think "this person is charming," but think "this person is trying to charm me."

As far as Helmke being delusional rather than dishonest, maybe; "gun-aversive dyslexia" (a term I borrow from this article http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html) is far from uncommon. However, to maintain such a delusion over time, in the face of repeated exposure to evidence that assertions that one has made are incorrect, requires some measure of bad faith. At least, I can't see how anyone can honestly be that closed-minded.

[Bold Lib]

13. Thanks for the link, and welcome to DU

[benEzra]

12. It's a bit ironic that his conclusion is inverted 180 degrees from his source.

Mr. Van Cleave points out, correctly, that being a lone-guy with a gun attempting to go into a building and take out ensconced armed defenders is a losing proposition. Mr. Helmke then extrapolates from this that ensconced armed defenders have no chance against a lone gunman entering their building and coming to kill them, which turns Mr. Van Cleave's article on its head.

Mr. Helmke does make some good points about not trying to be a hero or knight-errant, but I don't think he understood what Mr. Van Cleave was saying at all.