Talk:Point shooting/Archive 1

Original P&S content inclusion discussion

I am new to Wikipedia and hope I have not stepped on anyone's toes. I added a link to a synopsis of Rifle Quick Kill, and changed the word "theory" to "basis" at the start of the page.

The word "theory" is used by some in the shooting community, to discredit things that are "not traditional", and as such, "not good". It is a "code word" of sorts.

For example, since guns deal with deadly force, one would/should be reluctant to adopt a theory vs a traditional methodology since their own demise could follow from their choice.

............

The following comments I received as 5shot, have been added as a discussion note to this page, as I believe they and the responses to them, will provide sustance and support for the materials presented on Point Shooting.

..........

From Scott:

I've commented out the additions to the point shooting, pending some discussion about them--I recognize the contents as coming from the pointshooting.com website. If you are not the owner of pointshooting.com, then it's a copyright violation. If you are the owner of the materiel, then I would suggest that it's in need of cleanup to turn into a section for this article. I think the content you added as it stands is persuasive rather than neutrally informative, which is what an encylopedic article should be. The information is still in the article, it's just hidden between HTML comment tags (< followed by !-- to start the comment and -- followed by > to terminate). If you'd like to try making the entry more fitting to form, by all means do so; if not, I'll try to get to it soon and help out. scot 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott,

I am unfamiliar with this mechanism.

The pointshooting.com website is mine and all material on it is mine or it presented to the public at large with the approval and concurrence of the author is there is another. The lead in to all articles states who the author is if it is other than me.

I am an advocate of P&S and though the material may come across as persuasive, it is also fact and provable via one's own experimentation, or supported via the literature, studies and stats relative to the matter. I could footnote any questionable items.

I will also review the material over the next few days to a few weeks and see if I can make it more neutral.

I have, and like to state what is, is.

That of course does not go over well in the world of the gun which is tradition and hierarchial bound to an absurd degree given even a cursory review of video footage of gunfights and combat study results, as compared to teaching traditional shooting methods for use in close combat.

For example, there is no film or video evidence of sight shooting ever being used sucessfully as an effective shooting means to employ in close quarters self defense, though it has been is taught for such use for over 100 years.

Sight Shooting for use in close combat is a nice theory, but unfortunately it is factually unproven and just nonsense, and in my opinion, it's teaching has resulted in loss of life and injuries to thousand of police officers. The NYPD SOP 9 found no relationship between officers' range score and street shooting effectiveness. Welcome to the OZ or Alice's Wonderland.

Also, feel free to edit the material as you see fit.

Do you have an e-mail??? One of mine is: ps@pointshooting.com

- From Scott

To edit the hidden text, just edit it like you normally would, but leave the HTML comment tags in place. For example, I'll hide some text in THIS word; you can edit the page, and then see how it works. I often do this to bit of article that I'm working on, that I want to save but aren't ready for public exposure.

I do agree that point shooting is certainly a valid method, and in fact probably a superior one for defensive use. I've read the relevant shooting sections in Applegate's book, plus the stuff that Fairbairn put in "Get Tough!", and I think that shooting techniques should be chosen based on range; at contact distance, keep the gun at chest level and tucked in tight to retain it, then move to an Applegate-like shooting position, then out to a two handed Weaver or similar stance for longer range sighted fire. I'm not sure I agree with the middle finger trigger pull. For one thing, as you point out the guns just aren't made for that, but my other concern is that designing or adapting a gun in such a fashion to optimize it for the mid-range point shooting might negatively impact retention, sighted fire, reloading, and perhaps other motions.

I think that any facts you can come up with that point out the deficiencies of the "Cooper" school of aimed fire failing in high stress situations would do well in the article introduction; they are general to the argument in favor of point shooting, without applying particularly to any particular school of thought (references to journal articles and the like would be perfect).

Also, and additional methodologies of point shooting that you can document could have their own sections--I recall having run across some others online, but that was before I started contributing here.

As for the nethods you advocate, I think that the can probably be condensed down to a paragraph or two, outlining the technique and the reasoning behind it, plus a link to your website. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is "no original research", and a lot of your website is dedicated to original research--mentioning should be acceptable, but including it is probably pushing the acceptable limits.

Oh, and one more bit of info--I too use an airsoft gun for practice, specifically practicing point shooting. I've decided the cheap electric blow-backs are ideal for it--acceptable accuracy at under 20 feet, quiet, and cheap to shoot, as you can get many hundred rounds from a set of AAA batteries.

[Scott added in in his e-mail for my info.]

Hi Again Scott,

My reason for responding in this venue is because I believe that many people will have the same concerns that you have expressed, as they are "standard" concerns that I have been dealing with for the past several years in discussions about Point Shooting and in responding to questions about PS, and in particular, about P&S.

..........

Is AIMED Point Shooting or P&S new?

Back in 1954 when qualifying with my Submachine Gun, Cal.45, M3A1, I was told by a WWII Sgt to place my index finger along side the gun and to use it when aiming and shooting from the hip. I was also told to use my middle finger to pull the trigger.

Here is a link to an old pic of me with my greasegun:

http://www.pointshooting.com/grease1.jpg

..........

Also here is a portion of an e-mail I received from an editor of a book publisher some time back:

"Your aimed point shooting technique is certainly interesting, but it is not an especially new one. Derringers and other pocket pistols, for example, have been depicted being shot with the middle finger as the trigger finger. In the late 70s or early 80s, Soldier of Fortune magazine ran a feature on a modified Sten gun which was best fired with the middle finger.

The British Special Operations Executive (SOE) of World War II also taught the technique. See, for instance, the following passage from the now out-of-print book "Kill Without Joy" by John Minnery (Paladin Press, 1992; originally appeared as part of the Paladin book "How to Kill, Volume I, 1973). On page 51 of KWJ it discusses the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby: "The grip on the gun is also interesting and further backs the suspicion of Jack being a pro. He's using his middle finger to squeeze the trigger and his index finger, the normal shooter's trigger finger, is pointed right at the target. He shoots where he points.

This method is not too well known in the States but the method was SOP with wartime SOE and SIS agents of Britain."

I hope you find this information useful..."

..........

There are links to photos of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald on my site using P&S.

The photos show that P&S can be deadly effective. They are pictures taken just before and after Ruby shot Oswald using P&S.

Here is the link to the before pic: http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/dallas/photography/photography.cgi?step=View%20Slideshow&show=415&thisImage=6518

Note that Ruby is back from and off to the right of one of the oficers holding Oswald, and that his target area because of the position of the Oswald's arms and the policeman's arm, is not large. Also, they all are moving. Ruby came onto them and some off to one side. There is no time to do anything but Point & shoot.

Ruby points where he is going to shoot, and shoots where he points.

Here is the link to the just after pic: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ruby/rubyshot.JPG

In the pictures, you can see that Ruby used his middle finger to pull the trigger. His gun is way below eye level, so he is not Sight Shooting.

It was a dynamic situation with both parties moving and the available target area was both small and moving. No bystanders were hit, and Oswald died. In the video of the shooting which was aired on national TV, Ruby was well back of Oswald when he shot him. It was not a contact shot. He was the agressor so that did give him an advantage.

..........

On my site there is a digest of a paper on AIMED Point Shooting which was written by Walter J. Dorfner SSgt VSP, when he was Vice Chair of the Use of Force Committee of the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, at the Vermont Police Academy in Pittsford, VT. At that time, he also was the lead firearms instructor for the Vermont State Patrol.

Walter died in 2001.

The digest gives a detailed description of what AIMED Point Shooting or P&S is, how and why it works, and it gives his experience with it. The shooting method was not taught at the academy. However, it was presented by Walter to new VSP members.

Walter used the term Point Shooting in his paper to identify the method of shooting. I took the liberty to add the word AIMED in front of it, as the method employs the index finger to aim the gun, which is more than just Point Shooting. Point Shooting is normally understood to be shooting sans sights, or unaimed shooting.

AIMED Point Shooting however, is an oxymoron of sorts. A more technically accurate term, would be Instinctive Aimed Shooting With the Use of the Index Finger. That however, leaves me a little cold. I prefer AIMED Point Shooting, or Point & Shoot, or just P&S.

Walter had the digest published in the Vermont Trooper, and I had it published in the September 1999 issue of American Police Beat, and the 1999-2000 winter issue of Women Police.

Here is a link to the digest: http://www.pointshooting.com/pands.htm

..........

Shooting Distances:

According to the literature the effective range for a handgun is around 25 feet. That is mainly due to of the short length (around 6" or less) of the barrel of most handguns. Because of it, even a slight deviation of the barrel off of dead center will cause the bullet to be off of dead enter by a certain amount which will increase as the distance to the target increases.

It is a matter of physics.

Here is a link to a chart I put together which shows this: http://www.pointshooting.com/muzzle.htm

Also, in most instances and also according to the literature, one could/would be hard pressed to say that they fired in self defense when someone was 25 feet or farther from them. That is not to say that would always be the case, but most rooms and apartments and bedrooms are less than 25 feet from wall to wall, or say a midpoint in a room to a wall.

And then there is the amount of time needed to properly sight and shoot at a target at some distance away, which can be complicated if the target is moving, or you are, or the lighting is poor to bad, and/or your heart is pounding in your chest, or someone with murder on their mind, YOUR MURDER, is screaming and running at you, etc..

Suffice it to say that if you are ever going to be in gunfight situation, it will be, and again according to the literature, at 21 feet or less.

You will not have to worry about long range shooting.

And if you were to use P&S and point instinctively at the threat, your gun will be aimed at the threat because the gun barrel will be aligned with your finger.

The NYPD's SOP 9 study of some 6000+ police combat cases is a great source of close quarters combat data and is available on the web. The study was made during the 1970's and the data is still good.

Here is a link to an article of many of its findings and conclusions: http://www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm

Here are comments received from two police firearm instructors about it.

"GREAT,GREAT job. Thanks for the article."

"Yes, the data is accurate. Very good article."

It also has been posted to a police association web site with this lead-in: "The article below has interesting statistics and information relating to police shootouts. The studies were made by the NYPD. The results are very interesting and are important enough for review by membership of ...... and all law enforcement officers in ....... We offer you this article for your information and advise that the information contained in it be evaluated as a part of your entire firearms training program."

Finally, here is part of another e-mail.

"I wanted to take a minute to let you know that, as a firearms instructor, I am always looking for statistcal date to reinforce my beliefs on firearms training. The information provided in your article is as accurate now as it was 20 years ago. Just goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Anyway, I have printed the article and intend.....to make it a part of our academy and in house training......'

And here are some of the finding and conclusions that relate to in-home self defense. Keep in mind that NYPD officer's at that time were taught traditional Sight Shooting:

Shooting Distances

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34% 3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47% 6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

Reports on incidents involving police death revealed that the officer was alone more often than not and that he was confronted by at least two people.

The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in 75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet ... 51% 10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

Lighting Conditions

The majority of incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions. None occurred in what could be called total darkness.

It was noted that flashlights were not used as a marksmanship aid.

Also, dim light firing involves another element which is different from full light firing, muzzle flash.

Sight Alignment

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and utilizing fine sight alignment.

The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

Quick Draw

65% of the officers who had knowledge of impending danger, had their revolvers drawn and ready.

This is proper tactically for several reasons, the first being that holsters which are designed with the proper element of security in mind, do not lend themselves to quick draw. The old bromide, "Don't draw your gun and point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot" is a tactical blunder.

Positions

In 84% of the cases reviewed, the officer was in a standing or crouch position (supported and unsupported) when he fired. Strong Hand or Weak Hand

Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand.

Accurate fire from handheld weapons from a fast-moving vehicle is almost impossible, even by a highly trained officer.

Firing while running changes the situation from one where skill has a bearing into one in which the outcome depends on pure chance. It endangers the officer unnecessarily by depleting his ammunition supply, and increases the chance of shooting innocent persons who may be present.

Rapid Reloading

The average number of shots fired by individual officers in an armed confrontation was between two and three rounds. The two to three rounds per incident remained constant over the years covered by the report. It also substantiates an earlier study by the L.A.P.D. (1967) which found that 2.6 rounds per encounter were discharged.

The necessity for rapid reloading to prevent death or serious injury was not a factor in any of the cases examined.

In close range encounters, under 15 feet, it was never reported as necessary to continue the action.

Bullet Efficiency

In all of the cases investigated, one factor stood out as a proper measure of bullet efficiency. It was not the size, shape, configuration, composition, caliber, or velocity of the bullet.

Bullet placement was the cause of death or an injury that was serious enough to end the confrontation.

Hit Potential In Gun Fights

The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%.

Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were: Less than 3 yards ..... 38% 3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5% 7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%.

Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were: Less than 3 yards ..... 28% 3 yards to 7 yards .... 11% 7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%

The Disconnect Between Range Marksmanship & Combat Hitsmanship

It has been assumed that if a man can hit a target at 50 yards he can certainly do the same at three feet. That assumption is not borne out by the reports.

An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached.

To this writer's mind, the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the two. If there was a connection between range marksmanship and combat hitsmanship, one would expect the combat hit potential percentages, to be well above the dismal ones reported. That is because the shooting distance was less than 20 feet in 75 percent of the 4000 encounters studied.

..........

One reads about Spray and Pray shooting, and the NYPD SOP 9 study pointed out that instinctive or point shooting was use in over 70% of the cases.

I suggest that Point Shooting, as in, shooting sans sights or Spray and Pray was used, not Point Shooting as described in this subject area. Point Shooting is very easy to learn and maintain, but it does not happen by magic.

If you follow the directions on how to Point Shoot, it works, if you just point your gun at a target and blast away, you will miss. And you can easily prove that to yourself.

Here is a link to a picture of a SIG P220 which is a good match for P&S:

http://www.pointshooting.com/smlp220.jpg

Here are some other pistols that I know work well with it, or Which should: SIG P239, S&W 3913, KAHR K9. Walter J. Dorfner tested the method with a wide variety of small arms. A list is included in the digest of his paper on P&S.

As to using the middle or left index finger to pull the trigger, or the strength of the grip, here is a link to an article on the mechanics of shooting low and to the left which is directly associated with a "standard" grip and it's unlevel pincer made up of the thumb and middle finger, which when one is shooting rapidly with the gun jumping and bucking in your hand will result in it's being rotated down and around to the left.

http://www.pointshooting.com/lowleft.htm

And here is one about using the middle finger to pull the trigger:

http://www.pointshooting.com/mfinger.htm

And here is one about liability and grip concerns:

http://www.pointshooting.com/concerns.htm

Also using a wrist lock grip will provide you with a very strong grip that is very close to the grip achieved with the CAR system. It allows elbow smashes to be made to either side, is comfortable, allows shooting fromn the chest to full extension.

Here is a link to 5 sec. videos of the P&S method being used at the range. The first shows shooting with the wrist lock grip, and the second shows one handed shooting.

http://www.pointshooting.com/psvideo2.htm

As to which hand to shoot with, and reloading, the NYPD study found that in most all cases strong hand only shooting was done and reloading was not a factor.

Training to become a real shootist or professional level operator, is just not in the cards for most citizens due to time, money, or other constraints.

P&S is natural, fast, automatic and accurate, can be learned and maintained with little or no training, is the simpliest of shooting methods, and utilizes mainly complex or gross motor skills, and requires little cognitive driven activities which in turn leaves the brain free to concentrate on identifying and dealing with a threat.

P&S can compliment and enhance both Sight Shooting and other Point Shooting methods.

One "newer" Point Shooting method that is being adopted by some police agencies is the CAR or Center Axis Relock system.

Paul Castle who is the originator of the system, sent me his video tapes and training manual (3" binder with lots of stuff).

I watched the videos many times and read the materials many times. I then wrote up the article on the CAR system that is on my site. Paul reviewed it and approved of it as written.

I also have tried CAR at the square range but not while moving or running, and it works.

The link to the CAR article is http://www.pointshooting.com/carmag.htm

It was published in the summer 2002 issue of the Deputy Sheriff Magazine.

Paul also sent me some added info in support of the CAR system. I edited it some, and put up on my site with his approval.

Here is a link to it: http://www.pointshooting.com/newcar.htm

The added info in support of the CAR was also published in the Spring/Summer 2005 issue of the South Carolina Trooper, and also via the American Police Beat's web site in 2005.

I am posting the info now and will edit it some in the next day or two.

I should probably wait some as my back is not well. It went out a few days ago and if your's has gone out, you know what I mean. Also, my wife fell yesterday and injured her hip. I could not take her to the emergency room as I can't drive now.

So it goes.

After comments are made, I will again visit the page and make an edit of the initial info or go with whatever someone else has come up with. The full details on P&S pro and con are available on my site.

http://www.pointshooting.com

Rather than slaming traditional Point Shooting for being a faulty air bag of sorts in regard to being able to be used by run of the mill folks in a life or death close quarters situations where using a practical shooting method could be of life saving value, I won't other than saying just that.

If one can't understand that by reading about it, watching available gunfight videos, and making their own tests of PS methods at their own risk and expense, what I would say negatively won't make much difference.

Additional content

I'd like to see some selected quotes form the Reflexive Fire method put into the article, or maybe a breif description of how it compares to the previous methods. I'd also like to see the Center Axis Relock method added; I don't know much about it, so if there's anyone out there who can describe it and maybe give some example users, that would be great. scot 17:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- I am working on shortening down the official Reflexive Fire text into a concise description. I am also working on a writeup for CAR, talking to a few CAR instructors.

Layout and categorization thoughts

Is it worthwhile to group the FSA, QK, QF, and RF methods into a "US Military point shooting methods" section? Then maybe do an "Other Military methods" for the Israeli method, and and "Other" section for P&S, CAR, and others? I think more of an outline format would make the article a bit more readable. scot 17:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- It might be a good idea to include a blurb to that effect; however, each method comes from a different origin and was purchased by the US military. QK was developed by a skeet champion in Georgia, FSA is actually a category of methods devised and modified by several different person, most of whom were not Americans, and the origin of Quick Fire and Reflexive Fire is hard to determine, but is not likely to have originated within the military.

My concern was that the technique list was growing fairly long, and splitting it into categories might make it more readable. Maybe there is some other logical way of grouping things that would acheive the same goal. Any ideas? scot 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

P&S content

I think the P&S pictures should be added back in, at least the two clips from the patents. While the aiming index may not be a required part of P&S, both the Gardner and Veit patented devices do require the middle finger be used for the trigger, so I'd say they're closely enough related to be worth mention. scot 17:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- What is Wikipedia's specific policy with regards to a user posting information of a commercial benefit to themselves? I assume that the policy would be "not allowed", which is why I removed anything which I figured would be of commercial interest to that individual.

I'm not sure of the official policy, but what I've seen in practice is that commercial links are accepted if they are also informative; if they are just an attempt to push a product or service, then they will be removed. For example, an article on the Mac OS X operating system should (and does) have a link to the Apple website, in particular the MacOS X page there. A link to the Threat Focused forum, while it is (or will be) a commercial site, would probably be justifiable in that there is a significant collection of information there on the various point shooting mechanisms. A link to "Jim-Bob's Point Shootin' School", which has no information other than prices and schedules, would probably be removed pretty quickly as it is purely commercial, and not informative. Bascially, use your judgement, and if you link to a commercial website describe the informative content that you're directing the reader to. scot 19:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- OK, here's the problem: The "aiming aid" is someone's invention, and that someone sells them on his website for personal profit. Is it appropriate for that individual to be including information for his own personal financial gain in the Wiki article?

Also, I see that John has edited the article and included more of his personal opinions stated as facts. I will edit out the non-factual information.

..........

From John Veit

All info I enter is factual and can be proven by anyone. I have pictures and videos, to back what I say. For some reason RES whoever he is, is on some type of personnel vendetta and has attacked me personaly and also P&S on numerous occasions in web threads.

He also has attacked me for having my own web site which I have purchased lawfully and maintain lawfully. He "demands" that I turn it over to some other people who supposedly would do it better. With RES for some reason, it is personal not factual. I have copies of many of his posts if putting them here would benefit this discussion.

As to the CAR, if Scot would like, I will post some of the material on the CAR system from my site. there are three articles. One on the basic CAR which was developed by me after being sent Paul Castle's training materials and videos a number of years ago.

I wrote up the material, Paul approved of it as written, and it was published in a police magazine. There is another article on my site written by Paul. And there is a recent article, edited and developed my me with Paul's OK and from materials he sent to me. He approved of it as written, and it also has been published in a police magazine.

If nothing else, a link to the articles would be in order.

I don't plan to post and maintain material on the CAR, as that would just be another area in which I expect RES would come in, change things or delete things, use value laden words and cleverness to frame or shape the situation as he feels it should be. That may be his opinion, but it also may misrepresent or not be factual.

Here is the link to the basic material http://www.pointshooting.com/carmag.htm

And here is the link to the supplemental info http://www.pointshooting.com/newcar.htm

John Veit

---

From RES- John, your statements regarding me are completely and totally false. Why you must resort to personal attacks toward me is beyond me. Your behavior here is as unacceptable as your behavior on discussion forums.

I have the email saved that you sent me, (quite absurdly) threatening to sue me (using your daughter, who is apparently an attorney) and trying to cause problems for me with my job, when I made a statement on a discussion forum that "P&S" is unnatural given the anatomy of the human hand. If you really care to make issue of all of this, I will be happy to supply that email to the administration of this site.

It is inappropriate for you to attempt to use Wikipedia for your own personal financial benefit, to sell an item you've patented (the "aiming aid"). It is also inappropriate for you to make statements of opinion as fact.

As I have asked you numerous times, please stop embarassing the pointshooting community with you juvenile behavior on the discussion forums, on your website, and here. This is a venue for novices to learn, not a venue for you to try to dominate discussions which exceed your knowledge or comprehension.

---

From RES- Thanks to Fluzwup, the information on this page has been completely restored.

John, although you didn't succeed in deleting this page, it is obvious that that was your intent. This behavior is childish and must stop. This is precisely what I mean by behavior which embarasses professional pointshooters. Anyone can come to view this page and view its edit history, and see how you have been behaving, and your behavior makes all of us look bad. Please stop it.

Also, I have edited the P&S section and links section again- John, you may not use Wikipedia to advertise. You SELL a product on your website. Displaying a multitude of photos of that product and inserting the word "FREE!!!" next to the link to your site is marketing, plain and simple. Temporarily changing your advertisements to reflect that the "aiming aid" is free for the time being is also marketing. Please do not continue to attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise, as it embarasses professional pointshooters and makes the rest of us look bad.

Emotional arguments

I have reverted the blanking of this page; that is not acceptable behavior.

There are two points of view here that are clashing, and editors on each side who have an emotional stake in their views. The goal of Wikipedia is to have a neutral point of view, and to present verifiable information, not opinion or original research. The fact that there are multiple methodologies in the point shooting world should be sufficient proof to show that it is not an exact science, but rather a still evolving case of picking the right compromise between training vs. reactions to stress, speed vs. accuracy, and effectiveness of technique vs. ease of training. I would like to beleive that I don't have an emotional investment in any particular school. I have never receieved formal training in any methods, I just realized that when I'm under stress, I do focus on the target, and the sights may as well not exist. I then ran across articles about Rex Applegate's push to move police training away from "The Modern Technique", because it wasn't working (how often do you hear "over 30 rounds fired, no injuries" about police shootings?) and back to point shooting. I tracked down a copy of FMFRP 12-80 and read it, and it made an impression on me, because what Applegate was describing was what I had found--under stress, you focus on the target, and using the sights is unnatural. This was several years ago, and when I created this article the only two methods I knew about were FSA and QuickKill (which I ran across on an airgun forum).

John is in the position of underdog here; you hold the least popular view. That does not make his views invalid, I do think that they deserve a place in this article. I do not personally object to links to his website, because his website does have a significant amount of information on many different types of pointshooting. I would, however, prefer that the links be to pages with information, not to pages with commercial offers. I'm not certain about "official" policy here, but this is the practice that I have seen.

As for removal of statements whose veracity is disputed; any statements made on Wikipedia should be verifiable by readily available, reputable external sources. When a claim is made "X is Y", and there is dispute over the reliability of that statement, then it is probably best to say that "Z claims that X is Y". This makes clear the source of the disputed claim "X is Y", and should keep others from objecting to the veracity of the statement. Of course, if you state "Z claims that X is Y" then that should also be verifiable. Again, John is in the position of being a person who has done original research, so maybe that does put a bit more of a burden of proof on him. He does, however, have a patent, and since that is in essence a publication, I think that referring to that patent as the basis for statements made in the article would be acceptable. I think everyone should read Wikipedia:Verifiability, but here's the short version:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

And I would challenge John to point to statements in other sections that he considers opinion stated as fact--he's not the only one under a burden to prove their statements. While I don't have an emotional investment in any particular type of point shooting, I do have some investment in this article, as I created it and wrote the original content. I can't claim ownership of it, anything that goes into Wikipeida is owned by the community, not the creator, but I do have an attachment to the article and would like to see it grow into a good, complete article that everyone can be satisfied with. scot 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

---

From RES- Scot, thanks for returning all of this information.

This is not "emotional" for me, it is professional. I have been training and teaching pointshooting methods for nearly 20 years. Wikipedia should be about those with genuine knowledge of a matter giving information (and citing it). You've done a very good job of this, and I have added information along the same lines.

I have severe disdain for someone attempting to use a venue like this for his personal financial gain, as John is doing (see "P&S content", above).

His conduct is, as it has been for the last few years, completely juvenile and unacceptable. He serves only as an embarassment to this particular field of knowledge. His conduct on this forum demonstrates this (making wild accusations about me, "blanking the page", etc.).

A couple of notes on editing for talk pages. First, putting a colon at the beginning of a paragraph will indent it in one level, like this paragraph; two colons does two levels, etc. This makes it a bit easier to track long discussions. Second, using four "~" characters in a row will insert a signature and timestamp, like this: scot 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You and John appear to be going back and forth on the P&S content. I'm about to head to lunch right now, and I'm going to take a stab at merging the two versions into something that hopefully you can both agree on. I know you two have argued a lot in the past, and I do want to thank both of you for working with me on this despite your disagreement. scot 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- Cool, I'll give those a try.

As far as the article goes, that would be fantastic. Here are my concerns:

1) It doesn't contain any opinions ("fast", "natural", "accurate" are opinions, not statements of fact);

2) It doesn't contain a sales pitch, marketing, or sales draw (including "FREE!" to get people to his site is a sales draw). His site is, among other things, an advertisement to sell his invention. He may temporarily alter the site so as to give the aids away for free, but that will only be temporary, and he'll change it back as soon as he thinks none of us are watching anymore;

3) It doesn't dominate the focus of the page (more photos than every other section, the only section with color photos, lengthier than the other major sections, etc.). Remember, it is an alternate means of operating a weapon, which has been altered to be used in a pointshooting-like manner. As such, the genuine pointshooting methods should recieve the major focus, and P&S should be distinguished from other pointshooting methods because of it.

Incidentally, I'm still working on expanding reflexive fire, adding fistfire, quick point, and shooting pool, and possibly CAR as well if we can get Castle's credentials sorted out before posting them.

4) All sources are cited independently. This is one of John's significant problems- all of his source materials are synopses that he has written, which means the accuracy of them is questionable. If he's going to mention Walter Dorfner, for example, he should produce Dorfner's writing, from an internet source other than his (John's) own website. The statement "I have it in a book and I wrote a synopsis of it for the website" isn't independently verifiable.

As long as those four things are addressed, I'm completely satisfied with whatever is put up.Roundeyesamurai 17:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Merged versions

OK, I've added my merger of the two versions. I think I've addressed 1 and 2 above fairly well. As for #4, I didn't mention Dorfner specifically, I just put the coining of "Point & Shoot" in the 1950s. If we can come up with a good source showing Dorfner using the term, that would be great, I can credit it to him and nail down the date with more precision. As for references to the other P&S stuff, I think it can all be gleaned from the patent descriptions (I should probalby link to the US Patent Office's entries).

As for #3, I took out the 1942 patent because it seemed redundant. The 1902 patent shows use with a revolver, the 1908 with a shotgun, and the 2000 patent with a semi-automatic, so I think those are all relevant.

Comments? scot 19:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES: OK, I have some questions regarding the P&S entry:

1) "...term coined in the 1950s..." cite?

My fault; I was confusing dates. Looks like it should be 1990s. Still trying to track down more info on Dorfner's and/or John's publications, looks like I might have to e-mail the magazines since I can't find the original articles online.

2) Cite for the "two-handed P&S method"?

John's patent description is so far the only reference I've seen to that.

Also, the statement about "questioning the ability to hold the gun steady" isn't the primary objection. The primary objection is the fact that it is an alternate method of operating the firearm, which has been adapted for use as a non-sighted-fire aiming method. Thus, including it as a pointshooting method is highly questionable.Roundeyesamurai 01:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My point of view here is that you first have to define what you mean by "point shooting", and then see how it fits with that definition. So far the most striking difference I've seen to traditional methods of shooting is that of focus; with sights, the focus is on the front sight, whereas with all the point shooting methods the focus is on the target. As far as "alternate methods" go, would you consider CAR an alternate method because the gun is held canted 45 degrees? Get a gun with the right ejection angle, and you could even cause a malfunction that way by dropping an ejected round back into the open slide (a long shot, but I've seen it done on a Beretta .22 that ejected straight up). In fact, by federal law, a handgun is designed to be fired with one hand, which would make all 2 hand methods "alternate methods". The one black-and-white, clear-cut difference I see between point shooting and other methods is the focus. scot 03:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES- Correct: pointshooting is best defined as methods of aligning the weapon to the target which rely upon a target focus, rather than focus on an aiming device (sight(s), laser dot, etc.).

The problem that exists with P&S is that the index finger alignment and the use of the middle finger to depress the trigger are two distinct concepts. What defines P&S is the middle finger on the trigger- hence, it is an alternate method of operating the trigger. If the defining characteristic were the index finger alignment, then it would be applicable with any digit of the hand- one could use the index finger to align, and then place the same index finger on the trigger, or one could use it with a rifle by pointing with the index finger of the hand on the forearm, or one could grip the pistol (such as a pocket automatic) with the pinky and depress the trigger with the ring finger, and point with the index and middle fingers in a Bill Clinton-type gesture. For that matter, one could hold the pistol upside-down in the hand, using the index finger to point and the little finger to depress the trigger.

Likewise, if the defining characteristic were pointing with any digit, then thumbs-forward competition shooters (who grip the pistol with both thumbs pointing forward, parallel to the bore) would be said to be "P&S'ing".

Since that is obviously not what John is proposing (and indeed, none of these would present a need or use for John's product, the "aiming aid"), then the defining characteristic- the thing which makes it distinctly its own method, distinguishable from any other method- is the use of the middle finger to depress the trigger. Because of this, it is an alternate method of operating the weapon, which can be adapted for use in (roughly) aligning the weapon to the target.

An analogy: Many shooting schools teach their students to perform speed reloads by keeping the muzzle of the weapon downrange and on the target, while turning the butt inward to allow the other hand to reload. Since the weapon is pointed to the target while this transpires, with the intent of being able to land hits as soon as possible once the reload is complete, a person could come along and proclaim that it is a pointshooting method because the weapon is pointed (as much as possible) directly to the target while reloading.

Obviously, however, the reload and the pointing of the weapon are two distinct functions which coincide. Likewise, depressing the trigger with the middle finger and "pointing" with the index finger are distinct functions which coincide. Roundeyesamurai 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

John Veit's continued deletion of material

--- John Veit's original content removed by John Veit. Hopefully others' comments are still as they were. Background, rationales, articles published in Police publications and other venues, test results plus videos and pictures relating to Point Shooting and self defense,.... are available free of charge at www.pointshooting.com. Thank you Wikipedia for your information on this subject area. ---

From RES: And I have put it back. John, you blanked this page once already and were told not to do it again, so now you went and blanked all of your own material and left ours. Stop playing sour grapes just because you can't dominate the discussion or use Wikipedia as a marketing tool.Roundeyesamurai 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we can find a middle ground. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines sets up the policy for archiving old discussions to keep the talk pages from getting too cluttered. The information is still there (which it would be, in the history, anyway) but it's out of the way. If there's no objection I'll archive the first section and any other issues I think have been resolved. scot 17:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

From RES: Archiving sounds cool, go for it. Roundeyesamurai 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)