^ You're absolutely right - I have no real self-defense experience, at any range/distance. And in-truth, I'm thankful for it. I try as much as possible to minimize my threat profile and to de-escalate, so my life is a rather peaceful and peachy one.
And you're also correct in that I don't train enough - be it armed or empty hands. I am scheduled for my first handgun class of the year this weekend, but that's already three gone by, and I know that I could have hit up at least one more in the interim that just didn't work out to my schedule. So, yes, I'm definitely lacking there, too.
But by these definitions, are we able to say that anyone is training enough as to have sufficient background to offer opinions? If so, then how much training must they have - and does it matter who they train with? And towards that latter, should we say that only folks who have been engaged directly "in the fight" can offer valid opinions thereof? If that's the case, can we even take lessons from the SMEs out there who have not seen direct-action or who have never needed to use lethal force?
Everything that I've written about are considerations that are taught by SMEs in the field which I've sought instruction from, be it defensive handgun use (marksmanship or weapons manipulation), integrated combatives, or the social/psychological concerns of the predator/prey interaction. These are not sporting skills: and really, I would be completely out of my element to speak of sporting applications, as I have yet to engage in IDPA, USPSA, or other such sports.
I agree that at closer distances the "scoring matrix," if you will
- the vital zone of the threat - does enlarge considerably (or, rather, that it doesn't shrink...except that it, of-course, does
, when 3-dimensional anatomy and movement is factored into the equation: https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/targets.346/#post-5124
But what doesn't change is the fact that your shot cadence will be varied even if you are able to absolutely compensate for recoil mitigation and place successive rounds at the same POI - and that this can be measured objectively. At contact range, the need to deliver accurate, rapid, successive shots becomes even more important (the entire point behind the NSR drills that the late Pat Rogers and his disciples are so fond of), as human physiology demands either sufficient drop in blood pressure or critical CNS injury to effect cessation of muscular function. None of these demands are exceptions versus modern handgun marksmanship skills.
I respect your decision to carry as you do, Big45XD
, just as I do anyone's decisions - and I mean this most sincerely.
It's just that you noted previously what @Epeeist
wrote was "opinionated" (https://www.thearmorylife.com/forum/threads/critical-defense-or-federal-hst.91/page-2#post-974
) - but it really is not: there's objective measures that any shooter can perform which validates each and every one of those concerns.