Shooting out in the open without cover, shooting standing still and not reloading from cover can get you killed in a gunfight.
Stop being stupid, I beg you.
So... what data are you operating from? In general, I agree that standing out in the wide open receiving gun fire while you fiddle fuck with your handgun is not the brightest of ideas. But - how many
documented gunfights involving civilians can you demonstrate that actually involve a reload mid-fight?
I only know of one representative data set of civilian involved shootings out there, and that's one compiled by Tom Givens. I'm not going to lay out his bona fides here - you can Google that yourself. Tom maintains a data set of shootings that have involved his students through the years. I'll provide a couple older links at the bottom, when Tom had about 60-65 documented gun fights - if memory serves, he's now over 80. I've spoken to Tom personally about this data set, and it's compelling to attend a lecture or training where he discusses it.
That data demonstrates the following concepts, among others:
- over 90% of the shootings occurred at distances closer than a car length (closer than 7 yards), but a couple happen at distances as far as 25y
- it takes, on average, 4-5 rounds to stop a threat (ranging from 1 to 11 in the data - and no, the case with 11 was not spray and pray, it was at very close range, and our "good guy" emptied his gun center of chest on the bad guy before the bad guy could react - so it might've actually taken fewer rounds to stop the guy)
- the average engagement was over in less than 3 seconds
- 50% of the shootings involve a single bad guy; the other 50% involve 2 or more
- the predominance of them occurred in a parking lot
- many (the majority, IIRC) occur under artificial light at night, but are bright enough to not require a flash light
- generally speaking, and to paraphrase Tom talking about it, "he who hits firstest with the mostest, wins"
- only 2 students lost their gun fight - and in both cases, they showed up to the gunfight without a gun
- only one student required a reload to complete the fight - and this happened during a
long pause after he eliminated the initial threat (IIRC, it was a biker gang situation - he eliminated one or two of them, did an admin reload (ie, not mid-fight), and then later, more of the gang rolled up on their bikes and had to be engaged)
What we can draw from that looks like this... your ability to win the fight as a civilian is predicated on you being able to put 4-5 rounds into an 8 inch circle on a target about 7 yards away as quickly as possible. (an 8-inch circle is approximately the size of a human vital zone - the height of the sternum and width of the nipples, essentially). You're not going to reload under pressure, especially if you show up with a "multiple bad guy gun" (ie, something that holds 8 or more rounds). You are likely to not have time to seek cover, due to the distances involved and likely obstacles (cars, etc), but you should if you can. You are, however, much more likely to make accurate fire if you shoot flat footed, and much less likely to trip over random articles in the environment while you're moving a direction you're not looking.
A stupid person spends a large amount of time training for unlikely scenarios. A smart person leverages the data and spends the bulk of their time training for the predominant scenarios he might find himself in.
So... any IPSC/USPSA shooter hanging out here want to tell me what common drill the most likely scenario looks like? That's right. It's a Bill Drill... at closer than typical Bill Drill range. The bulk of the rest of the scenarios (greater than 90%) start to look like other common competition situations.
Tom's data convinced me to start carrying a full size duty gun instead of a sub-compact (either revolver or auto). Beyond that, once the problem becomes a shooting problem, Tom's data shows that the guy with the best shooting skills wins, every damn time. Last I spoke with him (it's been a few years), Tom was a proponent of competition shooting to better hone your shooting skills under pressure.
Finally, I don't speak for Tom... at all. None of the above should be construed as his gospel. This is my take away. I don't think Tom would disagree (at least, not on the major points) - and I don't think most people that've spent time looking at Tom's data would disagree, either. Anyone interested in employing any firearm for self defense would do well to seek him out for some training. Here's the links I mentioned above:
An absolutely incredible article on the possibilities of not being prepared at the worst time!
blog.shooting-performance.com
Mas, I recall you mentioning that students of Tom Givens never lost a gunfight IF they were carrying their gun. Linked is a summary of this study of the 65 students of Tom involved in gunfights. The summary states that the three of the 65 students not carrying their guns were killed. I am sure...
www.glocktalk.com
And two articles Tom wrote for American Handgunner (by 2017, he was up to 70 fights in the database):
Are We Training Wrong? The holy grail of firearms trainers and students has been to know what really happens in an armed citizen gunfight. Not in a law enforce
americanhandgunner.com
When I first started training people as a side-line job in 1975, you could count on one hand the people who made a living providing defensive firearms training — outside of government and police academies.
americanhandgunner.com