Well Defined Combat Scenarios vs. Well Structured Ones

The other day, I mentioned here the subject and term “Well-Defined Combat Scenarios” in shooting training in the context of using simulated ammo in interactive training. (Actually the subject must fit into all hand, stick, knife and gun training.) But I briefly suggested the semantics of terms like “role-playing” and “well-defined…” and how some, not all, some instructors turn these terms into epic acting requirements, when there are tons of little short interactive shooting bits and segments that can be set up and done swiftly and successfully in small “skits.” 

     I sometimes think that “properly-structured” might be a better term than “well-defined” but hell…it’s all semantics. But sometimes I still worry where the semantics lead off too. There is a difference between “well-defined” and “properly structured” to an anal retentive person. Think about it. Well -defined means to me and others a heavily stages, like a movie script –

    "Don't miss you chalk-mark on the floor! Walk to and stand there."

-as opposed to something that is well structured, so that the chaos within might still happen.

    "This is the room where this, this and this will happen, or can happen."  

 

 

     A lot of people are doing active shooter seminars these days. Some of these are on TV news lately and of course on youtube. The idea that any person can step into a seminar and do something about this scary, oddity is comforting and hopeful. I see all kinds of responses/solutions in these – the captured folks charging in and throwing books and furniture at the shooter. All jumping on the shooter, etc. Yeah! Win! Then we have the concealed carry person shooting the bad guy. Great. I see the bad guys often carrying a replica M-16, AR-15 and, or AK-47 and suited up with a helmet and pads when they charge into the seminar room. Good idea.

     But I wonder what would happen if the attacker in these seminars had a sims gun? A sims machine gun, (even gas or airsoft) and stepped into the room, and as happened frequently, and just starts shredding the seminar attendees? I think a lot of realistic devastation would occur.

     This falls along the lines of “well-defined” or at least “properly-structured” combat scenario for me- adding in the shooter, shooting. First there is the shock factor of the event happening before your eyes. Then, attendees need to know and predict of the loud explosion of each round coming from the gun. LOUD! (In a class you could run a tape on a boom box at least?) And of course, the ease and insane randomness of the death and destruction as the gunman blasts away.

     This doesn’t make for a “fun” and hopeful day for citizens looking for hope. In fact, it is a depressing day. Especially when you discover that all the well made plans and emotional chants of the instructors, all their blackboard diagrams still lead to quite a bit of bloody destruction and even failure. Sadly, there are no other practical options/solutions but the rush of the attacker, or someone in the group gets clear shots at the bad guy.

     Just a point, if inhabitants in any room or class were ambushed? Getting this fantastic, sudden military charge at the bad guy would be unlikely. If they are holed up in a room, hearing approaching gunfire, perhaps strangers and semi-strangers could be rallied by a leader. Such leadership, such rallying could be a subject in the seminar.

     I myself would never dream of a doing such an active-shooter training day without introducing the simulated ammo invasion of the room, for that “well-structured” experience.

     And as yet another aside on the subject of "well-structured," I see some of this active-shooter training done at shooting ranges, a totally abstract environment especially when outdoors. A person with a real gun and real ammo, draws, bumps and grinds through real co-attendees that are acting to flee or otherwise, to shoot at a paper target. This kind of thing often scares the hell out me. It takes one mistake, one thoughtless second, a misstep and someone in class is shot, if even in the foot. I also feel the same way when I see people at the range, all downrange and close to the row of targets, and a person kicks, elbows and strikes a martial arts kicking shield, maybe turns and pushes someone else away, then turns again, draws and shoots at a paper target. Wow! Reality training? Most real?

     I watch all this and think how someone, in a blind second makes a misstep and bang. Shoots a person. It is more than mathematically possible. The more you do it? The more all kinds of people do it? The more chance it will happen. It’s just math. (My mind wonders back to the hand grenade, rookie range)

For the rest of this articles and other articles, read Fightin' Words, click here

01 Book Cover-med

 

Share and Enjoy