Don Foreman wrote:

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:43:33 GMT, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:04:53 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Two guys shot in the leg, one in the foot and one that fled after
being shot with a shotgun? Seems like those who would have guns
for defense would be more skilled with them.

Yeah, it does seem that way. But Life gets in the way, and most
honest gun owners who aren't also gun fanatics do not get to the
practice range nearly as often as they should. The only reason that
the Cops do is because they have the time scheduled.

Even after that, I know of no place where a regular civilian can
easily go to get some realistic simulator or "Hogan's Alley" live-fire
range training - and every Pawnshop and Convenience Store employee
across the country needs to do something like that at least once a
year, and get to a practice range and run through 50 rounds or so
roughly every three months.

To be really effective with any weapon you have to get practice in
while you've got your adrenaline up, and force yourself to make those
"Shoot or No Shoot" decisions under realistic pressure. Last I heard,
most urban police departments don't want to see you at their gun range
unless you carry a badge.

Failing that, if both sides haven't practiced recently you can have
a gun battle with 20, 30, or more shots fired - and the combatants
missing each other totally, or one party only getting winged.

When the crook is holding the weapon sideways 'Gangsta Style',
that's a pretty good clue that they have no real experience. The
safest place to hide in that case would be behind the target - he
ain't gonna get a round anywhere near it except through sheer luck.

-- Bruce --

I don't see why a civilian should need "Hogan's Alley" training.
Civilians are not cops, HRT or Delta Force. Civilians can and
must have a tactical plan for their homes so they'll know where the
friendlies, i.e. others in the household including children, are and
aren't. Not where they should be, where they actually are and
aren't when you're squeezing to pop a cap.

Engaging in gunfights is not something civilians do, by definition.
One who entertains the idea of engaging in gunfights is not a
civilian.

It doesn't matter how an assailant hold his weapon, crosswise or
upside down. Once a weapon is in evidence then a civilian is free
to deliver stopping fire to center of mass if he or she has the
proficiency to do so. Doing that will surely be very costly, so the
alternative of not doing it must be clearly unacceptable and worth the
cost to avoid imminent harm.

Gunfights are for cops and soldiers, not civilians.

That is not to say that a civilian should not be proficient. If I
were to be an armed civilian, I would think that 50 rounds every 3
months would be far short of sufficient. I'd opine that one should
spend as much on ammo and training as on first cost of a handgun, at
least 500 rounds for openers. I'd think that ability to deliver 12
round of rapid fire into center of mass at 21 feet would be minimal
proficiency for stopping an attack upon a civilian.

I'd also note that while military experience may be useful for
safety training and some tactical matters, training as a civilian
is essential because the rules of engagement are very different and
vary significantly with location.

My opinion, YMMV.

For what ever it might be worth, Don, I throughly agree.

Richard