I should have explained better. By 'effective' I mean "would it have stopped your opponent in all circumstances" not this particular situation. If I told the attackers that police are on their way and they better run, and they did, that'd been effective but would you count on that? In the same way, I'm saying firing your gun and hitting some body part of someone attacking you might be effective but not to count on that. (Obviously this will probably be more effective than bluffing but not as effective as an actual 'effective' shot)
If the gun was non-operational like the guy claims, then basically it's a case of gun vs gun-shaped object. The guy would be incapable of returning fire, which is a very different scenario than if he were armed with a proper working pistol.
I'm still in 'what if' land. The fact the other guys gun didn't work doesn't change the fact that the shots the old guy made kinda sucked and shouldn't be what shooters strive for.
A very bullshido way to put it would be if the guy did a weak reverse punch he learned in a mcdojo and it happened to hit the guy in the eye, and the guy totally crapped out and ran, does that make his dojo and the punch something he should never change?
and for the purposes of this story, his eye had a pre-existing condition that the puncher didn't know about that made him unable to retaliate after the punch.
Originally Posted by dwkfym
And then someone posted about it in bullshido and got criticized, and then in the process, an analogy was made and then a couter analogy was made.. the cycle continued until the internet reached critical mass and the universe ended, ending the debate over nothing.
Originally Posted by Permalost
But seriously, all I'm trying to say is that people should practice their self defense means more often.
Isn't that more a matter of the choice of caliber?
I think a .45acp in the ass would have a markedly different effect.
I mean he hit 3 times, yes?
I recall reading LEOs only hit around 10% under duress, so he did pretty good imo.
Nice analogy; really reaching out, but it works.
Originally Posted by dwkfym
For a 71 year old retiree, with an inferior firearm and two moving targets, he at least scored hits. Not what anyone would be striving for as a shooter, but under those circumstances, commendable. I'm just happy to know that some overzealous prosecutor isn't looking to ring the old guy up.
I was amazed how he managed to miss a full sized target, with its back turned to him, from no more than 6 feet away whilst standing still.
Don't count on it but luck is a factor in all conflicts.
Originally Posted by dwkfym
One of the guys he was firing at got two rounds in him and ran away. He sustained no injuries. I would say he was very effective.
I don't think its silly; I think its something that anyone who has a weapon in their home or carries it need to ponder. Old man was lucky here. Yes he was armed and he did fire the weapon, I know that alone increases your chances of survival, but the shots, effective in this particular case, would be considered ineffective in most others.
You're making a lot big assumptions.
Old guy was lucky because his attackers were incompetent and unprepared. With any sort of mindset, awareness and determination the old man would have been shot dead; either before he even got the weapon out, or by return fire. I don't care if the shots were lethal or not; what matters is when you fire your weapon, you need to maximize the chances that your shots would stop your opponent. That usually means hitting CNS, and if not, heart and lungs with effective ammo. Hip shot actually may not be that bad if you had ammunition powerful enough to actually cause severe damage, but in this case the perp was actually still mobile; which means if he had not chosen to run away, he would have been able to return fire or come closer.
You know what fucks up all the practice? An adrenaline dump when you come in contact. He did very well that he was able to draw and engage robbers, hit both, and they fled. That's a good thing.
Basically I'm saying, the lesson is practice more with your firearm.
Except for the three times he struck the robbers. Hell he probably wasn't try to to kill them but get them to go away which he did.
The old man did this gun stabbing thing, where he 'stabs' his gun into the target area in anticipation of recoil. It causes misses.
You are making a huge assumption especially if you never took part in a fire fight. Its great to think you will preform adequately but fear and adrenaline plays havoc on even the well trained people perform less than stellar their first time out, I know I did.
Its what lot of people who barely practice with their firearm do. I'm glad he was smart enough to get very close to his opponents and did not cause collateral damage, but its no excuse for bad marksmanship.
That being said, I was never in that sort of situation so I'm kinda playing armchair warrior here. I don't know how good my exercise of judgment would have been but I am pretty sure I'd make either more accurate shots, or more rounds fired on to the perpetrators and most likely both.
Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invincible Asia) Dark Emperor of Baji!!!
Didn't anyone ever tell him a fat man could never be a ninja
You can't practice Judo just to win a Judo Match! You practice so that no matter what happens, you can win using Judo!
The key to fighting two men at once is to be much tougher than both of them.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO