I am not of that mind. I believe that in almost every case, when an officer is shot, it is the shooting method used, the training, or the brass that are at fault, not the officer on the street.

I believe that the police casualty rates, of about 50 police officers shot and killed each year, and 1000 to 1500 police officers shot and wounded each year, and which have been consistent for the last ten years, are atrocious.

I also believe that teaching faulty shooting methods (those that are not found to work in real armed encounters), leaves officers with nothing to use in their self defense in those situations, results in the police armed encounter accuracy rate of less than 20%, and the continuation of the atrocious casualty rates.

When I make such statements in shooting forums on the Internet, and call for scientific study of shooting methods to determine which CQB shooting methods don't work, and which one's do work in real time life and death situations, I am often met with a deaf ear, ridicule, invective, and banishment.

For example, here is part of a response I got when I asked a question about Sight Shooting which is the traditional shooting method taught and approved by the powers that be.

My question was: How come Sight Shooting never makes it into the videos of real CQ shootings?

"...that's easy to explain. Inadequately trained police officers that lack the dedication to master their sidearm are not going to perform well under stress.

You fail to understand that the majority of police officers view their sidearm in the same light that they view their radio or their baton. Its just a tool.

If you do not put the time in to master your sidearm, you will not survive a gunfight, period."

Then when I said thanks for agreeing that Sight Shooting fails in real CQB situations, I got the following right back:

"...I haven't' agreed with you in any way, shape or form. You obviously missed the point and are now trying to misconstrue something I've said...

Let me reiterate, again. The reason that you do not see Police Officers using the sights in police videos is because they are inadequately trained. Add to the fact that the majority of police officers have as much interest in their firearm as they do in their baton.

Sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't. It just something they have to carry. They qualify with their sidearm once or twice a year that's it.

So if you take an inadequately trained Police Officer that is disinterested in their firearm and then place them in a gunfight, they are not going to react appropriately under stress or if at all. They are going to panic, point their gun in the general direction of the threat, spray and pray and hope that they come out alive.

Does this mean that sight shooting does not work? No. It means that most Police Officers lack the dedication and the training in mastering the tool that one day will save their life. Muscle memory needs to be ingrained through hours upon hours of repetitious TRAINING. Only then will they react appropriately when the time comes. And they will use the sights.

Furthermore, you cannot make up for lack of dedication and laziness by soliciting your ridiculous ... technique. Your technique is a joke. Give up already..."

When I responded by saying that the question of who or what is responsible is not a closed question, but rather an open one, and could involve the gun, the method, the shooter, the trainer, the training, or the brass, I got this response.

"Again you misconstrue. This isn't an open question because there isn't such a thing as a sight shooting failure. Sights work if you use them.

The failure is the fact that most Police Officers are inadequately trained, lack the desire to train and are non-gun orientated.

Who's fault is that? The Officers. The tool that will someday save their life needs to be mastered whether they like guns or not. If the Officer does not have the desire or dedication to master such a tool, then it is entirely his/her fault.

You do not blame that failure on sight shooting, paranormal occurrences, UFOs, Bigfoot or Global Warming. You blame it on the Officer. It is his/her responsibility to train and master his/her sidearm."

His opinion is not unusual. It is shared by many in the gun world, and in all ranks, positions, and organizations.

What I did find unusual was the directness of the statements. Though I admired his forthrightness (and writing), I also believe that such thinking in regard to CQB shooting is blissfully simplistic. And in terms of real world constraints on budgets and training time, it is unrealistic to an absurd degree.

I believe that the life and death shooting method/s that are taught for use in CQ armed encounters, should be those that are proven to work in real life and death CQ situations.

..........

And P&S, as was mentioned in an e-mail I received from an editor, does work.

"...Your aimed point shooting technique is certainly interesting, but it is not an especially new one. Derringers and other pocket pistols, for example, have been depicted being shot with the middle finger as the trigger finger. In the late 70s or early 80s, Soldier of Fortune magazine ran a feature on a modified Sten gun which was best fired with the middle finger.

The British Special Operations Executive (SOE) of World War II also taught the technique. See, for instance, the following passage from the now out-of-print book "Kill Without Joy" by John Minnery (Paladin Press, 1992; originally appeared as part of the Paladin book "How to Kill, Volume I, 1973).

On page 51 of KWJ it discusses the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby: "The grip on the gun is also interesting and further backs the suspicion of Jack being a pro. He's using his middle finger to squeeze the trigger and his index finger, the normal shooter's trigger finger, is pointed right at the target. He shoots where he points.

This method is not too well known in the States but the method was SOP with wartime SOE and SIS agents of Britain."

Here is the URL to the picture of Ruby shooting Oswald: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ruby/rubyshot.JPG

If you are connected to the web, click here to see that picture

In the picture, you can see that Ruby used his middle finger to pull the trigger.

As I recall, when watching the TV news video of the shooting on the day it happened, Ruby and Oswald were three to six feet apart when Ruby shot Oswald. No bystanders were hit. Oswald died.

..........

I also believe that the training in their use should result in all students being able to employ them in real time life and death CQ situations.

And I believe that it is the responsibility of the policy makers and the brass, both police and civilian, to assure that is the case.

To think and do otherwise, is to leave police officers with no good and practical means with which to defend themselves in real life and death CQ armed encounters.

And what is true for the police, is also true for the millions and millions of citizens who have a gun for use in life and death self defense emergencies.

It is time for Police agencies, instructors, shooting organizations and shooters, to call for scientific studies to prove what does or what doesn't work, and openly share the results. The technology to do that is available.

The recent Ford/Firestone action with its recall of some 13 million Firestone Wilderness AT tires arose because of only very infrequent tire failures and resultant deaths and injuries. In a period of about three years there were about 150 deaths and several hundred injuries.

In the gun world in the last ten years, 500 police officers have been shot and killed, and 10,000 to 15,000 police officers have been shot and injured, and nothing much happens, except to find fault with those who are shot and/or killed.

Casualty data on civilians is not even available.

To go along to get along, and stay quiet and not call for or demand change in this area, is to approve the status quo of the long standing and atrocious police casualty rates, and to give credence to the dark and simplistic thinking that exists in the gun world that suppresses introspection, innovation, and advancement.