This is a gross oversimplification. Insert the term "untrained people," and you start to get a more accurate picture of the interview sampling. In this idiom, we're dealing with folks who are *training* and deserve to be provided with better data than that.
Those who state that it's not possible to train to be able to use the sights are about equal parts 1) full of crap, and 2) selling their "training system," instead of being interested in training shooters to perform.
A person who trains to use his sights, really learns (doesn't game the game or go through the motions) had a high level of probability of using his sights when the time comes to do so. Even if he ends up losing enough of their mind to DESCEND to point-shooting, is likely to perform a highly accurate form of point-shooting.
A person who trains to do nothing but point-shoot...guh. The point-shooter can never rise past point-shooting, because they've been falsely told that that's the best they can ever do. Horseapples. That's precisely the sort of thing our membership refers to when "lowest common denominator" is brought up.
Our intent is encourage folks to strive to be greater than the lowest common denominator...not the least of which being because it's utterly possible to achieve. Those who say that's not possible are...well, we'll call it "incorrect," and leave it at that, just to avoid more name-calling than need be done. It's not only possible, but it's also a relatively easily acquired skill.
Bookmarks