There is a sad movement of firearms owners who strive for the absolute minimum. “Three rounds, at three yards, in three seconds” is a popular misguided stat. Too many people think this is a standard for which to strive. What is fun about stats are the averages and the important outliers. I personally cannot predict what I might face in a deadly force encounter, but I can prepare to the best of my ability through relevant training and dedicated practice. Seeking average is a losing strategy. In what competition does average win?
Even just only focusing on and setting yourself up for the “21 foot rule” (Tueller) is a failure. Not only has it expanded to beyond 36 feet, but it is a rough guideline for optimal conditions with you being prepared to be attacked by a person with a knife or physical attack (versus an attack with a firearm). No one is always vigilant, so expand that distance even further. Consider where you go – parking lots, grocery store isles, malls – all much longer than 36 feet and it is very possible to be a victim of violence in distances greater than 36 feet.
When training to prepare for a deadly force encounter, striving for the minimum is a fail in planning. It’s not the odds, it’s the stakes. What do you lose if you are not properly prepared? Who relies on you to defend them?
The only variables under our control which we can manipulate are ourselves. So, stack the deck in your favor – practice out to 25m with handguns, use a shot timer and drills regularly, get relevant training to expand your skillsets. You are your only hope. No one is coming to save you and your firearms are not a talisman to ward off evil.
Now apply this to low light and the need to carry artificial light to identify potential threats from zero to… where you should be training.