As the world spins, we continue to argue over grip and sighting. I'm exhausted with the subject but let's try once more: We grip lightly because it is the human that moves not the gun. We further understand that during duress we will grip the weapon tightly but we also acknowledge that we must train for perfect in order to be "good enough" under imperfect conditions. As far as sighting, if the front sight is not crystal clear during aimed fire, the round will not go where you hope, and hope is then replacing marksmanship. Again, perfect in perfect conditions, may be good enough under duress. What does mediocre training standards get us? I want to hear from the kill-or-be-killed-I read an article-that's not the way so and so does it-crowd. How do you expect poor shooting in perfect conditions to translate into acceptable shooting under duress and possibly miserable environmental conditions? Educate me, Rambo.
Look, in the past, I understood that gun nuts were running the industry, and I knew that emotionalism and ignorance were the standards of the day. But now it seems to me that students are being taught dangerous or pointless practices simply to sell something new. Firearms mastery takes discipline and effort. Calling something "practical" does not make it so. You learn to throw a football standing upright, so that you can eventually throw it on the run or while being tackled, but it begins with mastery of the throw. Laziness disguised as "tough guy" fools only those vain and ignorant enough to think that rigorous, systematic training can be replaced with bumper sticker slogans and beer can philosophy. If you earnestly want to master handguns, behave like a serious student. Be critical of yourself and your work.
Let's put the fundamentals behind us for awhile, and in the next few weeks focus on some recent events and how they may impact legal home defense.