DefensiveCarry Concealed Carry Forum - View Single Post - 'Aimed Vs. Point Shooting'

AzQkr · January 7th, 2009, 05:06 PM

"Aimed Vs. Point Shooting' - Massad Ayoob"

The title is wrong to begin with, the rest of the results can't be relied on to prove anything.

What various forms of point shooting would be used is still "aimed" fire. In other words, you are still aiming the gun with threat focused skills, how could it be any other way?

Mr. Ayoob erroneously advances the idea that point shooting is not aimed fire by the very title of the article and demonstrates he either doesn't understand the difference between the two or simply made the mistake many make regarding what point shooting really is.

In keeping with the facts presented, I would believe most people had been formally trained in some form of sighted fire to some degree, while very few if any of the participants would have had any formal training in the various forms of threat focused [ point shooting ] skills thereby skewering the results and being as unscientific as one could get.

"It's not a full-up bull's-eye sight picture by any stretch, but something like using the top of the slide described here."

Using the top of a slide, if you are directly looking [ focal point ] at the slide isn't point shooting, you are still looking at the gun with direct vision. Using a peripheral vision skill and threat focused NOT directly focused on the gun in any way would be point or "instinctive" shooting.

The term point shooting or instinctive shooting was formulated some 60+ years ago and has been accepted for that long until the recent past when some have been want to redefine the terminology to suit their own needs for some reason.

The long accepted terminology stands unless the people who push their idea of the terminologies and what they want it to define are allowed to advance their idea unchallenged.

I've been formally trained in the finer aspects of instinctive/point shooting by one of the originators of an instinctive skill within that subset of shooting disciplines back some 30 years ago now, and these "new" definitions being advanced by some is not going to go unchallenged on my watch. It's a disservice to the original masters who were recognized for their ability to use these skills to say the least.

Brownie

January 7th, 2009, 05:06 PM	#8
AzQkr Distinguished Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: In the Superstitions Posts: 1,771	"Aimed Vs. Point Shooting' - Massad Ayoob" The title is wrong to begin with, the rest of the results can't be relied on to prove anything. What various forms of point shooting would be used is still "aimed" fire. In other words, you are still aiming the gun with threat focused skills, how could it be any other way? Mr. Ayoob erroneously advances the idea that point shooting is not aimed fire by the very title of the article and demonstrates he either doesn't understand the difference between the two or simply made the mistake many make regarding what point shooting really is. In keeping with the facts presented, I would believe most people had been formally trained in some form of sighted fire to some degree, while very few if any of the participants would have had any formal training in the various forms of threat focused [ point shooting ] skills thereby skewering the results and being as unscientific as one could get. "It's not a full-up bull's-eye sight picture by any stretch, but something like using the top of the slide described here." Using the top of a slide, if you are directly looking [ focal point ] at the slide isn't point shooting, you are still looking at the gun with direct vision. Using a peripheral vision skill and threat focused NOT directly focused on the gun in any way would be point or "instinctive" shooting. The term point shooting or instinctive shooting was formulated some 60+ years ago and has been accepted for that long until the recent past when some have been want to redefine the terminology to suit their own needs for some reason. The long accepted terminology stands unless the people who push their idea of the terminologies and what they want it to define are allowed to advance their idea unchallenged. I've been formally trained in the finer aspects of instinctive/point shooting by one of the originators of an instinctive skill within that subset of shooting disciplines back some 30 years ago now, and these "new" definitions being advanced by some is not going to go unchallenged on my watch. It's a disservice to the original masters who were recognized for their ability to use these skills to say the least. Brownie __________________ The mind is the limiting factor http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/index.php Last edited by AzQkr; January 7th, 2009 at 09:08 PM..