Where does the thought that a concealed defensive weapon should be small, no optic, no light, and will only be fired using point shooting in three rounds, in three seconds, at three yards come from? It seems people let convenience and comfort dictate, thus making their carry firearm a magic talisman to ward off evil. This mindset makes anything they carry a modern day Derringer- Not overly useful other than a small niche which is out classed and out performed by most other modern options with functional sights and relevant training.
Most don’t bother with relevant training due to this silly mindset. Because who needs training at three yards? You would be surprised. At three yards means grappling and hands on distances. Combatives are some of the least understood and least trained of the self defense/firearms concepts.
The idea that some are willing to trust blind luck to hit something and hope it is within arms length is ridiculous. Maintaining a preconceived idea of how a deadly force encounter will play out is a recipe for failure. The people good at their jobs are well versed in a fluid response which is scalable and adjusts to conditions presented. I cannot predict the weather or traffic, why would I think I can predict a violent encounter? The idea is to be prepared, not to be hyper forcused into a singular response which omits potential threats.
Somehow the “Tueller Drill” is some form of reinforcement, which should be opposite. The Tueller concept WAS an attacker can close a distance of 21 feet in the time someone who is paying attention can draw a weapon and fire. That distance has since been adjusted to beyond 36 feet and that is with someone prepared to draw and who is tracking the aggressor. To me, this translates to the necessity to be able to engage from zero to the edge of your ability and have a solid grasp and ability to apply empty hand techniques as needed. How does Tueller apply to people using firearms that are not closing that gap? Most parking lots, malls, a grocery store aisles are well beyond three yards. This shows another overestimation of the person’s ability and disregard for the actual potential threats a violent aggressor can present. Armed with a firearm, the violent aggressor has the potential of living outside the death bubble of three yards the ill-prepared citizen maintains. What about those deadly force encounters outside those “more likely” events which require more rounds and greater distances?
Sure, there might be some stat saying what is more likely, but the odds of needing a deadly force solution is incredibly rare as it is. I am more likely going to need a tourniquet to use versus a firearm. Odds are greater I will encounter a car wreck or other serious injury that will need medical intervention. Why is it such a good idea to prepare for a statistical anomaly and only focus on one aspect of it versus being able to provide a well rounded skillset which is more universally applicable? If I can consistently and quickly draw and fire accurately at something 25 yards away, everything within that envelope is easily covered.
BTW, this isn’t saying anything about people’s right to carry. This is purely addressing the ignorance and lengths people go to brainwash themselves into thinking seeking almost mediocrity is acceptable.