The very notion of competition shooting is questioned as to its effectiveness at training personnel and marksmanship instructors.
The “logic” goes something like this: If a person is skillful enough to be capable of winning contests of shooting and gun handling ability against all-comers, some factions will question if these successful results yield skill in being a better marksman or assisting in marksmanship-related training. Sort of like questioning if consistently winning basketball games indicates if a person is skillful at basketball.
This sort of nonsense always bothered me until I came to realize that this is a subtle, probably unintentional, compliment.
None of the tactical cognoscenti apply this thought process to golf, ball sports, bar room games, etc. They don’t criticize a SWAT member for indulging in billiards or golf on the weekend, but these tactitards will claim doom if the same officer chooses to participate in IPSC instead because “games’ll getcha killed.”
Indirectly, these people are acknowledging these events have merit because even those opposed to them have considered the tactical marksmanship benefits. Golf isn’t on the radar because it can not possibly offer anything of value. Play or don’t play, it doesn’t matter. It is simple, foolish entertainment, a diversion, and can never be anything else.
Shooting sports can possibly be beneficial and the naysayers prove it may have worth simply by the fact that they feel compelled to down play it. Of course, it is difficult to maintain that illusion of competence when routinely getting schooled by teenage girls, senior citizens, and white-collar civilians and other competition shooters in the area of alleged expertise, so it is better to concoct excuses for poor performance or, more likely, non-participation.
Thanks for the article…