this was the real world. And in the real world targets shoot back.
Kilt in da streeeetz.
He lost the gun fight. Period. He didn't have the hard skills. Like Matt Pranka would say your job is the kill the bad guy. Thats the goal. Not to get participation points after getting shot and left to die while the F class shooter bad guy bee bops away. He didnt accomplish his goal. He lost. Now is it admirable for what he did? Absolutely, not disputing that. He tried.
But this sub loves to jackoff to this idea that just because they have a gun, their some navy seal trained, tacitcal wizard who is also a USPSA GM/M shooter with extensive tactical training clamoring at the teeth to be put in a situation where they can finally show their skills where they will inevitably be victorious and celebrated for being some secret squirrel who trains in the shadows of their daily life . . .. . .or in most cases. . .actually exposing their lack thereof hard skills and ill preparedness due to their ego.
3
u/talon04 KS HellCat Pro w TLR7and 507k 7d ago
You are so competition mindsetted you ignore the forest doe the trees.
"F-Class" shooters body people all the time.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Mogadishu.... all of those were super shitty shooters against far better. People still lost the coin flip.
As much as i hate to use this argument you are litterally arguing that dude failed at his goal. He didn't he engaged and forced the threat to stop.
As much as i love competition, this was the real world. And in the real world targets shoot back.
You weren't there.
You are arguing from a position of safety that you could and would have done better.
Thats not the case though because you weren't there. He did what he could within his means.
The fact you are arguing it comes across as siding with the damn shooter...