65 rounds and didn't even hit him!!!

[actaeon277]

You know, I'm actually kind of impressed.
You'd think the law of averages would have at least caused a stray round to hit.

 

[5shot]

This isn't a highjack. It addresses a current issue, and also explains WHY what happened, happened, and will happen again.

Why arming teachers to deter mass murder shootings, is folly.
　
Traditionally, Sight Shooting (Traditional Marksmanship), is taught to most all Police and civilians.
　
Yet, Sight Shooting is not, or can not be used in most all close quarters armed encounters, where there is the greatest chance of being shot and/or killed. And most students are not taught an effective alternative shooting method for use in close quarters self defense.
　
And even though Sight Shooting has been taught to Police and civilians for over 100 years, there is little if any photo or video evidence of it ever being used effectively in a close quarters gunfight. There should be thousands of such photos/videos, but they are rarer than hens teeth.
　
Also, the recognized Police hit rate in close quarters armed encounters is less than 20%, which means that for every five rounds shot, at least four will miss the target and go somewhere else.

In a crowed school hallway, the chance of hitting an innocent by mistake would be high.
　
Basically, handguns are difficult to shoot accurately because of their short sight radius. For example: If the sights are 2/8 in. out of correct alignment, and you are at a distance of only 15 feet, you will miss a chest sized target (11 in wide x 17 in tall) .
　
And, if the target was to turn sideways and/or move, it would be very very difficult to align the sights with the precision needed to make a hit. Practically speaking, that would be close to impossible in the likely gunfight condition of bad light, or where the sights are dark and the target is dark, or the target is moving, or when one is firing multiple times with the gun jumping and bucking in his or her hand, etc..
　
In most all close quarters armed encounters, Sight Shooting is not, or can not be used: due to 1. bad lighting, 2. other environmental conditions, 3. the close proximity of the adversary, 4. the need for the swiftest possible reaction, 5. the dynamics of the situation, 6. time constraints, and 7. the automatic and instinctive activation of our Fight or Flight response, which occurs in real life threat situations, and can result in the loss of fine motor skills that are needed to align the sights, and the loss of near vision focusing that is needed to focus on the sights.
　
For example, one of the findings of the NYPD SOP 9 study of over 6000 combat cases, was that aiming was employed in only 20% of the cases.
　
In 70% of the cases reviewed, Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.
　
In 10% of the cases, Officers could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.
　
The shooting distance in most all cases was less than 20 feet.
　
As the distance between the Officer and opponent increased beyond close proximity, and aiming ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference, to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.
　
Also, Officers with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand, which is contrary to the way most all shooters are shown on TV and the internet, and trained to shoot. Using a two handed grip makes range safety sense, but that is not reality.
　
The SOP 9 study, was published in 1981, and though dated, its findings are still relevant today.
　
Also, per Rex Applegate, "When a man is in combat, his muscles and nerves are tense, because of the excitement and danger to which he is being mentally and physically subjected. There will be no inclination to take a stance, raise the weapon, line up the sights, and squeeze the trigger when the enemy is firing or about to fire at him. The shooter will grip his weapon, exerting great pressure when he fires it."
　
And when an automatic is griped in a crush grip, the gun will twist down and around to the left, and the fall of the shot will be low and left.
　
Given the above facts, it's no wonder that armed encounter shooting accuracy is as poor as it is. And the facts make the case that arming teachers would be folly.
　
Now, there are effective alternative shooting methods, but they are not taught to most all shooters.
　
Administrative Concerns:
　
Administratively, it would present a host of problems.
　
Would teacher participants be "sworn" like other Police?
　
Would they be part of a national union of armed school teachers?
　
Would they receive liability protection like Police?
　
What qualification standard/s would they need to meet?
　
What kind of training would they receive and who would pay for it?
　
Would they be able to retire in a shorter period of time than other teachers, as is the case with Police and Fire members?
　
Very importantly, would an armed teacher be mistaken for an active shooter, and shot by Police?
　
　

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

So, deffinately some limp wristing!

But then there would have only been a few rounds fired.....

 

[phylodog]

Would teacher participants be "sworn" like other Police?
　
Why would they need to be? Police aren't the only people authorized by law to use deadly force to protect themselves or another person.

Would they be part of a national union of armed school teachers?
　
Why would they need to be? We don't need to "arm" school teachers, simply eliminate the prohibition on those who wish to carry.

Would they receive liability protection like Police?

The police get sued all the time. If you study mass shooting incidents you'll find the vast majority of the scumbags take their own lives the instant they are met with armed resistance. I'll take an armed teacher there in seconds over a police officer 2 minutes away any day of the week.
　
What qualification standard/s would they need to meet?
　
That could be determined by the schools. As you pointed out earlier though, why bother?

What kind of training would they receive and who would pay for it?
　
In Indiana there is no requirement for training to obtain a license to carry a handgun. While I believe training is essential, that is a matter which could be left up to the schools.

Would they be able to retire in a shorter period of time than other teachers, as is the case with Police and Fire members?
　
Please show me where I get to retire "early"? 32 years is required for a full pension here.

Very importantly, would an armed teacher be mistaken for an active shooter, and shot by Police?
　
Odds are that an armed teacher willing to take the fight to the bad guy would have the situation ended long before the first officer arrived. If shots aren't actively being fired the police response changes and rushing to the gunfire doesn't happen.

　

As to your point shooting arguments, I will wholeheartedly agree with you that the vast majority of anyone involved in a life or death use of firearms never sees their sights. What is relied upon and what allows people to be successful in spite of this is the use of "muscle memory". To obtain the necessary "muscle memory" one must repeat the same action over and over and over for hundreds or thousands of repetitions. To obtain that precise repetition, someone practicing needs sights which allow for correction of misalignment of the handgun while pulling the trigger. Can it be done without sights altogether? Maybe for some but it would become a horribly inefficient proposition.

Aside from another reason to blather on about point shooting I don't know what you're getting at. Arming teachers is folly apparently yet you offer no alternative solution other than taking the sights off of everyone's handguns.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/...-gun-stopped-school-shooter-daniel-greenfield

Folly?
I guess no one told this guy.

 

[actaeon277]

12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns

More people that didn't believe it was folly.

 

[actaeon277]

If a teacher has a 5 percent chance of stopping a shooting, and a gun gave them a 10 percent chance, wouldn't that be better?

 

[Trigger Time]

As to your point shooting arguments, I will wholeheartedly agree with you that the vast majority of anyone involved in a life or death use of firearms never sees their sights. What is relied upon and what allows people to be successful in spite of this is the use of "muscle memory". To obtain the necessary "muscle memory" one must repeat the same action over and over and over for hundreds or thousands of repetitions. To obtain that precise repetition, someone practicing needs sights which allow for correction of misalignment of the handgun while pulling the trigger. Can it be done without sights altogether? Maybe for some but it would become a horribly inefficient proposition.

Aside from another reason to blather on about point shooting I don't know what you're getting at. Arming teachers is folly apparently yet you offer no alternative solution other than taking the sights off of everyone's handguns.

THANK YOU and THANK YOU 5shot. I'm not very eloquent at writing things but In was saying this same thing the other day based on my personal experiences but I was blasted. Some people might have different experiences but I believe the majority of self defense civilian or military shooters never see their sights after the shooting begins.

 

[Trigger Time]

If a teacher has a 5 percent chance of stopping a shooting, and a gun gave them a 10 percent chance, wouldn't that be better?

Yes

 

[actaeon277]

As for "who would pay for their training?", I've seen a lot of trainers offer free classes to educators.
And I've seen some INGOers step up and donate ammo and such to help.

 

[Trigger Time]

As for "who would pay for their training?", I've seen a lot of trainers offer free classes to educators.
And I've seen some INGOers step up and donate ammo and such to help.

If I knew of a real teacher that wanted to take good training, to actualy carry in the classroom, I would help them out. NRA training isn't gonna be top on my list of good training.
I'm not putting money out to train someone that's just gonna be unarmed during the time they will need it the most and the whole point of training a teacher.

 

[Thor]

I'm still wanting to know where those 65 rounds ended up going...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As to your point shooting arguments, I will wholeheartedly agree with you that the vast majority of anyone involved in a life or death use of firearms never sees their sights. What is relied upon and what allows people to be successful in spite of this is the use of "muscle memory". To obtain the necessary "muscle memory" one must repeat the same action over and over and over for hundreds or thousands of repetitions. To obtain that precise repetition, someone practicing needs sights which allow for correction of misalignment of the handgun while pulling the trigger. Can it be done without sights altogether? Maybe for some but it would become a horribly inefficient proposition.

Ernest Langdon did some experimenting on just that proposition. He found he could he could make solid "A" hits at 25y (the furthest he tested) with no sights at all, but at a certain distance it actually became slower than using sights (I can't recall the exact yardage). Additionally, it all fell to poo when the target was moving, the shooter was moving, or both.

Point shooting works well at very close distances and static encounters. It works well if the bad guy will stand exactly like your "muscle memory" has trained for him to stand. It falls apart pretty quickly when people start moving and distances open up, when angles and cover enter play, etc.

 

[MinuteManMike]

Wasn't it in Times Square where the officers hit ELEVEN standers-by trying to kill a dude suiciding by cop?

 

[phylodog]

Ernest Langdon did some experimenting on just that proposition. He found he could he could make solid "A" hits at 25y (the furthest he tested) with no sights at all, but at a certain distance it actually became slower than using sights (I can't recall the exact yardage). Additionally, it all fell to poo when the target was moving, the shooter was moving, or both.

Point shooting works well at very close distances and static encounters. It works well if the bad guy will stand exactly like your "muscle memory" has trained for him to stand. It falls apart pretty quickly when people start moving and distances open up, when angles and cover enter play, etc.

We've had a few staff members ace the qual course with no sights on the gun. I've found that (in training) I'm pretty accurate during dynamic courses out to about 10 yards without using the sights much more than knowing they're there. Some would have us believe people can be trained to shoot like Taran Butler does from the hip without ever holding a pistol with sights on it, I call BS.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We've had a few staff members ace the qual course with no sights on the gun. I've found that (in training) I'm pretty accurate during dynamic courses out to about 10 yards without using the sights much more than knowing they're there. Some would have us believe people can be trained to shoot like Taran Butler does from the hip without ever holding a pistol with sights on it, I call BS.

Langdon said he could still hit, he was just slower when using the pistol with the sights removed vs with the sights as he ran the same drills. It's been too long for me to remember the specifics and I'm not near my notes, but it was significant amounts of time.

 

[Thor]

Wasn't it in Times Square where the officers hit ELEVEN standers-by trying to kill a dude suiciding by cop?

I was thinking of that episode also.