1960s Police Training Video: How to Win A Gunfight

[Catskillkid]

1960s Police Gunfighting Video Shows How Much Training Has Changed

Interesting video. So, current LEs, what has changed since this video was made?

 

[Glenn B]

That was amusing. There was some good info in there and a some outdated tactics if you can call them tactics. I am thinking that might have been made in the early or mid 70s but just a hunch on my part.

 

[Glenn B]

I am curious to know why the author of the small accompanying article stated that you will not see modern departments teaching point shooting. That seems quite an odd statement to make since point shooting is quite effective.

 

[Glenn B]

The best way to win a gunfight is to not get in one

With all due respect that is, in my opinion, oxymoronic bombast. While avoidance of life threatening situations is the best thing to do if possible, the thing is an armed attack cannot always be avoided and you may find yourself in the middle of such a setting with little to zero hope of avoidance. Regardless, avoidance of a gunfight (or other armed encounter) is not winning that fight - it is avoidance. There is a big difference between getting into a fight and avoiding one successfully. They are not the same thing and avoidance is not always an option, unless by avoidance you me surrendering yourself to the mercy of an armed assailant. Yes, instead of fighting I, or anyone, could merely give up and that would quite truthfully be avoiding a fight but when at the mercy of an armed assailant doing so might also get me killed if he was a merciless SOB. So, I would almost definitely choose to fight if I found myself in the middle of such an unavoidable incident and I believed there was a chance I could be successful.

By the way, sometimes armed encounters are unavoidable. In such cases as a home invasion, school shooting, other violent break-in, armed robbery attempt, mugging, attempted rape, a terrorist driving a car into a crowd jumping out and stabbing people, or other situations wherein someone is suddenly thrust into mayhem - and escape is either impractical or obviously unsafe - the best policy is to be armed, trained and ready & willing to defend yourself and others. The truth is, there sometimes is no way to avoid fighting for your life in a gunfight or other armed encounter. That is if you want to survive and don't believe in putting yourself at the mercy of your assailant.While situational awareness will go a long way toward avoiding danger, it is not always practical, safe or even possible to avoid a life threatening situation when someone is dead set on harming you or others. There are countless numbers of such incidents to learn from throughout recent history. In such situations, fighting for your life and the lives of others is often the best option.

Please tell me, how would these have been avoidable, in any practical manner, for those victims involved:

6 MEN SHOOT 2 AND ROB 75 IN A RESTAURANT

1991 Sacramento hostage crisis - Wikipedia

Massacre at Virginia Tech leaves 32 dead - Apr 16, 2007 - HISTORY.com

In each of these scenarios - all avoidable if you live in a shell or unavoidable within any sense of practicality for people who want to live normal lives - an armed individual or armed individuals may have well made the difference and lives may have been saved. The usually untold story is that, in at least one of those scenarios - that of the Sea crest Diner - there was reportedly an armed individual among the victims who could have fought back but chose to avoid doing so. Of course, the armed individual avoided a gunfight but certainly did not win - except maybe if you consider merely surviving to be winning. Some people were violently victimized and severely injured, quite possibly as a result of him choosing not to fight. Now that person has to live with the knowledge that he quite possibly could have prevented all that and al that followed had he gotten into a gunfight instead of avoiding one. That is second guessing but not on my part because you pretty much can rest assured that person, reportedly a police officer, has been second guessing himself ever since, or at least did so for many years, if he has any conscience at all.

This article reports on the aftermath of the chaos at the Sea Crest Diner:

Prison Release Recalls Horror In L.I. Diner; 1982 Rampage Led to Law Raising Felony Penalties

Had I been there and armed, I do not know that I would have been able to live with myself had I failed to engage the bad guys in an attempt to protect others there. Sure, I could have engaged and things might have gotten worse but then again maybe I would have won because of my training, my willingness, and the element of surprise. I am pretty certain, no matter the outcome, I would have been better able to live with the results had I at least tried to stop them. I think that would be true of most folks who choose to be armed. I also understand though that the decision to fight or not has to be made by the person who is there living through it. Reportedly, the officer who decided not to take action believed it would have been too risky to attempt to engage the bad guys. I cannot second guess him, I can only prepare myself for what options I might have in a similar situation while knowing that avoidance is not always going to be the best option.

Here is another recent example of a pretty much unavoidable armed encounter:

Somali student behind car, knife attack at Ohio State University that injured 11

Think about what would have taken place had a campus police officer not been there. Think about it along the lines of an armed student or armed professor was there - should any of them have avoided the fight? Whether it was a knife (as in this case), a car (also as in this case), a gun, a club, a Molotov cocktail or any other weapon - the thing is sometimes it is best to engage and to actually win the fight instead of avoiding it.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[1911guy]

@Glenn B You jumped and castigated postguns for a legitimate quip. Obviously he meant not to aggravate a situation like getting out of your car when some dunce has road rage or similar situations. Your diatribe explains why we carry. He in no way implied one should not carry to avoid a gun fight. Get a grip, man!

 

[Phauxtoe]

Sweet,
Love the cars!

 

[Glenn B]

@Glenn B You jumped and castigated postguns for a legitimate quip. Obviously he meant not to aggravate a situation like getting out of your car when some dunce has road rage or similar situations. Your diatribe explains why we carry. He in no way implied one should not carry to avoid a gun fight. Get a grip, man!

Is that obviously what he meant because it obviously it is not what he said. What he said was an over generalization about winning a gunfight that was obviously self contradictory. That you think I am castigating anyone is off the mark. What I was and am saying is that if you or anyone thinks avoidance is the best way to go about winning a gun fight, then so be it for you. It is not fine by me, for me, to think that way, train that way or prepare myself for acting that way in general.

I thought I explained myself without leaving it open to misinterpretation but apparently you misinterpreted my words. So let me explain it again, in much briefer terms: I indeed do believe avoidance is good up to a point. I also believe engaging with a proper mindset can help you win a fight if you must get into one and sometimes that 'must' is all up to you s with the officer in the Sea Crest Diner). All my instincts, training and willingness are to be a winner and not to be someone, who in general, believes while avoidance can be the best thing, it most definitely is not always the best thing. In addition, while you may see a "quip" (a clever or witty remark or comment) as legitimate as it regards surviving and winning an armed encounter, I think it means little and think that a mindset dependent upon such quips can be counterproductive to surviving such an encounter. I expressed myself in that regard and explained why I believe avoidance is often not possible, impractical and even dangerous at times and went on to express what I believed may be necessary if avoidance fails or is not possible to achieve. Was my reply castigation, no it was not as I did not severely criticize or reprimand anyone. Was it a diatribe, no it was not, there absolutely was no bitterness or sharply abusive attack of anyone in anything I said. Was what I wrote meant to be straightforward and detailed, and possibly of educational value to whoever read it, yes it was. In fact, it was an attempt to give another view point, certainly in much more detail because I do not think that quips are all that effective when sharing knowledge about self defense. I am very serious on the subject, because the subject is about saving lives. So I wrote that as I did to let people know that maybe it is not always best for them to run away or shove their heads in the sand to save their lives and or the lives of others but the decision has to be their own whichever way they decide. Sometimes, in my own opinion, the best thing to do is get involved in the actual fight with the mindset of coming out the winner.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[Cooolone]

The best way to win a gunfight is to not get in one

Then why carry or own at all? Just curious... Of course de-escalation is a valued tool, and you should of course do all within your power to prevent violence, but it's not always up to you. This applies as well to unarmed combat...

That said, I agree, point shooting, or instinctive shooting is a most valuable and effective shooting technique. Just ask those who applied it in combat, Nuff said!

 

[1911guy]

I'm not going to get into one of those endless arguments. I still think you misinterpret. But I'll agree to disagree.

 

[Shadow2]

Just watched the Video, one thing I noticed worth mentioning, if useing a revolver, don't dump the empties into your hands, not the muscle memory you want to teach the body. drop those bitches on the deck and sweep them up later.

old school LEO mentioned this too me, apparently cops who where shot where found with cases in there pockets because the police ranges wanted to keep things tidy.

 

[Catskillkid]

Just watched the Video, one thing I noticed worth mentioning, if useing a revolver, don't dump the empties into your hands, not the muscle memory you want to teach the body. drop those bitches on the deck and sweep them up later.

old school LEO mentioned this too me, apparently cops who where shot where found with cases in there pockets because the police ranges wanted to keep things tidy.

I find myself doing that too. I'm a little OCD when it comes to neatness, even in my backyard range. Even with my semi-autos I often spend time cleaning up brass in-between magazines. I'd like to think it wouldn't happen but I could see how during a gunfight somebody would want to stop what they're doing and pick up shell casings. Things like that become automatic over time.

 

[Blimey]

Good God look at the size of the cop's walkie at the beginning.

 

[Podmonkey]

I agree that de-escalation is an often over looked skill among us CCWers. Doesn't require us not being prepared to use deadly force if necessary either.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

I am certain that video was filmed in the early 1970's. The vehicles appear to be at least a 1972 Dodge and a 1974 Ford LTD.