Realistic Training: The Difference Between Life Or Death, Freedom Or Incarceration.

Without the training, you’re better off not only avoiding dangerous situations, but guns altogether.

Training in a shooting simulator. Source

It’s been a while since I did a post dedicated just to prepping. It may come as a surprise, but this is the kind of piece I enjoy writing the most. Because prepping is practical, there’s not a lot of deep thinking involved, even as there’s most definitely critical thinking involved. Less deep thinking required means prepping is an easier, less exhausting topic to write about. Most important, I feel like I’m actually contributing something instead of just pointing out all the things wrong in the world. Being able to give practical advice to others is a rewarding experience, so I walk away from writing prepping-related pieces feeling better about myself and the world than I do any other topic.

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to utilize a shooting simulator. It was the practical half of a course I attended focused on using force in defense of self and others. The shooting simulator isn’t an arcade game; though it can be scaled and implemented to be an entertaining experience, it’s also meant to be a deadly serious exercise in delivering deadly serious lessons on the reality of violence. They’re primarily used to train law enforcement, creating scenarios which need to be approached as they would be in real life, using replica guns which cannot fire live rounds, but look, feel, and operate like the real thing.

Here’s a video from 2020 showing Anaheim Police Department, in the wake of the summer’s Floyd uprising, inviting citizens to participate in the simulator to get a sense of what the streets are like from the perspective of a police officer:

For a more detailed rundown of what technology is utilized and how it works, check out this and this.

As in the video, the shooting simulator has become a way for the public, policymakers, the utterly obstinate media, and even social justice activists to witness what real world violence looks like. The reaction is near-universal: participants walk away humbled, expressing greater empathy for law enforcement than before. For all the talk of the need for “better training” following a controversial police shooting, better training in practice serves as a wake-up call to how dangerous the world can be, along with the necessity of violence to protect self and others.

Despite not being a Black Lives Matter supporter myself, even I was taken aback by what it’s really like. Let’s discuss the lessons I learned.

When They Say “Split-Second Decision,” That’s No Exaggeration.

In one of the simulated encounters I was tasked with confronting, it ended with me getting shot and killed. The whole incident lasted only around a minute, if that. How did it happen?

First, I happened upon a suspicious individual at a workplace after-hours. He claimed to be an employee picking up something he’d left behind. He seemed surprised to see me, which isn’t suspicious in it of itself, but he also seemed like his mind was hastily coming up with any excuse to justify his presence. During most of the encounter, he had his hands out in front of him, holding the item he claimed to have returned for. All of a sudden, one of his hands came to rest on a front pocket, while claiming he was going to show me his employee ID.

At that moment, an alarm bell rang inside my head. One of the things we were taught in class is to always watch the hands of a suspect. I properly recognized, in my head, that I needed to be on red alert at this point, ready to draw my weapon. My own hand came to a rest against my pistol, but I didn’t draw. I didn’t think I saw a threat that would justify it.

Then, the suspect reached into his back pocket. As he did, I began to draw, but it was too late - by the time I was at the ready, he’d already unleashed a shot, which struck me. I managed to squeeze off three rounds, two of which found the target, so I can take some solace that I took him down with me (at least, I hope I did). Then again, I’m dead, so I won’t be around to care that he’s dead, too.

Again, the entire encounter lasted maybe a minute, likely less. But from the moment the suspect’s hand moved to his front pocket to when he drew a gun and fired at me, that lasted, at most, five seconds. Once more, probably less. As for when he drew the gun and the moment I recognized a gun was in his hand, less than a second.

Less than a second to decide whether I needed to draw my own weapon and fire at another human being, likely to take his life. The implication of the scenario is that I should’ve drawn my weapon the moment he began moving his hands around. At least, I managed to tell him to keep his hands where I could see him, but he was unresponsive. Remember, the other guy wants to get away. The term “de-escalation” is thrown around as a magic word, but the fact is, if someone is determined to commit a crime and escape, there’s no de-escalation possible, beyond overwhelming force.

Would I have been justified in drawing my weapon on him in response to him moving his hands around and being unresponsive to my dictate to keep his hands where I could see them? In hindsight, yes. And that right there is the demon inherent in self-defense - the question raised in turn is whether I would’ve been justified in drawing my firearm based on the movement of his hands alone. As the answer often is in self-defense, it depends.

Someone moving their hands around in it of itself isn’t threatening behavior. Context matters. If the suspect was being belligerent, then the movement of their hands would be more concerning. But in my scenario, the suspect wasn’t belligerent. Drawing my gun on him so quickly could prove problematic if it turned out he posed no threat in the end.

I should point out - I was not playing the role of a cop in this scenario. I was a security guard. Security guards have only as much authority as regular citizens, it’s just that they have an employer who is, up to a point, willing to backstop the ramifications of their actions. Otherwise, any action they take must be made only with regards to defense of self and others.

I could go on and on here, but the point is, it really does come down to a decision made in a split-second. Even watching police officer bodycam footage doesn’t suffice in conveying how little time you have to make a potentially fatal choice. It’s one thing to be an observer, it’s another to be the one forced to make that choice. In that tiny space of time, you need to observe, orient, decide, and act, then do it all over again.

Remember that the next time everyone loses their mind over a police shooting.

You’re Going To Be Scared. Don’t Be Ashamed.

The first thing that struck me was how nervous I felt. A point I make often is how we can talk all day about how we’d behave in a potentially dangerous encounter, but nothing serves as a substitute for being in that moment, with adrenaline surging through your veins. We’re talking about “fight-or-flight”, the body’s autonomic physiological reaction to sensing danger. You have no control over when it kicks in. When it does, the effect can be overwhelming.

I wasn’t the first participant, yet just bearing witness to a scenario as a spectator, watching an actor on a projected screen becoming highly agitated and yelling, was enough to get the adrenaline coursing through my veins. If this is how it feels when you’re watching a recorded, scripted performance from a third-person perspective, imagine what it’s like when you’re involved for real.

Eventually, the adrenaline “surge” subsided to a more manageable flow and my nerves calmed down. As the experience went along, the nervousness faded, even as it remained. It’s amazing how you know the scenario isn’t real, yet your body reacts as though it is. There’s something to be said about realistic training, but also about how reflexive fight-or-flight truly is. Once triggered, it cannot be turned off; it has to fade on its own. You can hasten the process by simply recognizing and accepting that it’s happening, a technique backed by science.

From Psychology Today:

Worrying about your fight-or-flight response while it is happening might send more signals to the brain that you are in danger, with the result of increasing or prolonging the response. This can be seen in the case of panic attacks, where people think that their panic attack will harm them, and as a result, the attack continues. Perhaps counterintuitively, acceptance of the sensations of the fight-or-flight response as normal can go a long way towards reducing them (Levitt et al., 2004).

That and training. As I stated a few sentences ago, the longer the session went on, the less nervous I became. But you can’t take these courses all the time and nobody wants to train by placing themselves in potentially dangerous situations. We’re trying to avoid danger, after all. So the importance of leading healthy lifestyles comes into the picture. This includes having healthy social lives. If you’re someone who has difficulty relating with people, that fight-or-flight response may not only trigger more easily, but it may make you difficult for others to interact with or even cause you to behave in counter-productive ways.

There’s a difference between having your guard up and being on a permanent state of “condition red.” For most, being constantly at a heightened state of alert is exhausting. Anyone who’s always on edge is going to be easily-triggered or more likely to become reclusive. This isn’t good for your mental health. You don’t need to be friends with everyone, you don’t need to be personable - I’m not - but you need to be able to have gainful, normal, interactions with other humans. It’s a survival technique.

You Can Do It All Correctly. You May Still End Up Shooting Someone.

I use the term “correctly” loosely because there’s no such thing, not really. As I said once before, the question of what’s permissible in the course of self-defense depends on the unique circumstances of the moment. More important, the correct action is the one which leads to the resolution of a situation without violence. But it’s not entirely up to us to decide which situations end non-violently.

I recall reading someone remarking that having journalists and politicians run through a shooting simulator proves nothing because they’re not “trained” like cops. Because cops ought to be better-trained, they should also be held to a higher standard than someone who isn’t. This observation fails on two points.

First, the purpose of having journalists and politicians run through these simulations is so they have a better understanding of what these situations are like in the real world. So much of what people think they know about violence is based on falsehoods; these simulations are a step towards correcting them. Journalists bestow upon themselves the duty of informing the public; how can they do so accurately if they have no understanding of what violence in the real world is like? Meanwhile, politicians craft policy dictating when and how force can be utilized in defense of self or others. How can they craft sound, reality-based policy without knowing what dangerous situations are actually like?

Second, better training may reduce “unnecessary” shootings, but they can also increase the number of justifiable shootings. Training isn’t about teaching cops to shoot less, not necessarily. It’s more about getting cops to understand when shooting a suspect may be the only option and when it may not be as ideal to do so. When a shooting does occur, it’s not only judged on the hard, objective facts, but also whether the shooter would’ve and should’ve known any mitigating facts which could’ve undermined the case for using deadly force. A big reason why seemingly outrageous shootings often end up being declared justified is because cops can only react to the specific scenario and the specific set of facts presented to them at the time of the shooting. A similar principle applies to citizens and security guards, though to a far lesser degree.

Realistic training is a must. But it needs to be understood what realistic training is meant to achieve. Training doesn’t create superpowers, nor does it turn someone into Jackie Chan. Humans aren’t automatons who can be programmed, either. Otherwise, it’d be called “programming,” not “training.” We don’t want our cops “dumping” their magazines full of bullets at the slightest hint of a threat, but we also don’t want them to be unwilling to use violence at all to handle a problem. It’s a tough balance to strike, unfortunately.

You’re Not A Badass. Quit Acting Like One If You Do.

The shooting simulator is a humbling experience and it’s meant to be. It’s a way to expose yourself to lethal situations without physically putting any skin in the game. After every scenario, the instructor will evaluate your performance and even open it up to observers to do the same. Yes, it can be a fun experience, but you also should approach it with an open mind, a thick skin, and allow yourself to be criticized.

The objective of these exercises isn’t to “win.” Again, the only “right” answer is the one that leads to a non-violent outcome. But we don’t have control of the actions of others, only our own. The most important lesson to learn is what’s appropriate to do in that particular moment in time. What’s appropriate can change on a second-by-second basis. Even when it appears as though an encounter might turn physical, your brain is still the most important weapon you have. Sensory overload is a real thing; if you cannot process lots of data at once, the chance of committing a fatal error is much higher.

If you are, in the words of Active Self Protection’s John Correia, a sane, sober, moral, prudent person, your focus will naturally be on surviving the encounter, not teaching anyone a lesson. Personally, I think we should be able to teach miscreants lessons in the name of social order, but we’re not talking about someone being disorderly, either. We’re talking about serious threats to life and well-being. If someone wants to harm or kill you, they will. Even someone smaller and weaker than you can become a serious threat if the intent is there.

The answer is to carry yourself with confidence, but not arrogance. Treat everyone with dignity and respect, for we have no idea who we’re dealing with. Don’t bully people or back them into a corner. Not only is it wrong, you may not get the outcome you sought. There have been cases where a defendant was convicted of manslaughter or murder for what would’ve otherwise been a case of justifiable homicide because they instigated the deadly encounter. There have also been cases where it worked out the other way, but either way, it’s not up to you to decide whether your own actions were justified.

True toughness is about avoiding frivolous confrontations that serve no purpose except boosting one’s ego and damaging another’s. True toughness is about prevailing when your life or well-being is on the line. Or better yet, avoiding such an awful encounter altogether.

Don’t Overthink Your Way Into A Fatal Encounter

When it comes to self-defense, it’s all too easy to fall into the “what-if?” trap. What if he starts running after me? What he has a knife and a gun? What if I can’t call 911? The point is that self-defense is about what’s happened and, more important, what’s happening. What might happen is largely irrelevant. If it’s not occurring or at least imminent at the moment, it cannot be used to justify the use of any level of force against another person.

Go back to the scenario I discussed earlier where I was shot and killed. If I drew my gun and fired the moment I saw the suspicious individual, justifying use of deadly force on the grounds that only someone up to no good would’ve been present after-hours, I’d be in major trouble, even if they ended up finding a gun on him. If I drew my gun and fired the moment he moved his hand to his front pocket, claiming he was reaching for a gun, I’d be in trouble still. Yes, he did have a gun. But at the moment he placed his hand on his front pocket, he wasn’t reaching for it. I may be able to justify drawing my weapon in response to him moving his hands around, but I can’t pull the trigger because he might be going for his firearm, fixing to shoot me. He has to actually be doing so, something which can only be evidenced by him actually drawing a gun.

The lines can seem blurry, but only because everything happens so quickly. Recognizing what it looks like when the situation is changing is the value of realistic training. Without the training, you end up falling back on the “what-ifs”, eventually talking yourself into doing something ill-advised in response to a threat that exists only inside your head. Without the training, you’re better off not only avoiding dangerous situations, but guns altogether.

As with prepping in general, self-defense is a practical matter. Apply common sense and address the situation as it presents itself. Don’t let your imagination get the best of you.

How Realistic Is Your Training?

Shooting simulators aren’t always easy to find. Many of them are available almost exclusively to law enforcement, with those open to the public simply not as ubiquitous as live-fire ranges. If you manage to find one in your area, however, I strongly urge you to attend. Yes, they’re expensive, but they make great group outings or even parties. If you have people in your social circle who are gun-shy, shooting simulators are a perfect way to introduce them to the craft without exposing them to live fire. While their greatest value is the realistic training they provide, they can also be fun, while teaching some important lessons in the end.

If nothing else, shooting simulators will dampen your enthusiasm for seeking opportunities to exercise your Second Amendment rights. It’ll also throw cold water on the idea “everyone needs to arm up,” which is as bad a proposition as suggesting all the guns be taken away. Owning, carrying, and employing firearms is a tremendous responsibility, one most of us are probably unfit for. The shooting simulator is a great way to find out who’s actually up to a responsibility entailing such serious consequences. For those who already own or carry firearms, shooting simulators are a way to test your readiness in a safe environment. It’s as important as hitting the live-fire range, if you ask me.

Have any of you participated in a shooting simulator? Are there any near where you live? Have any of you been involved in a life-threatening encounter before? Share your experiences, if you have them, in the comments section.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!