Taiwanese Confidence Drill

Taiwan drill

This was posted on Facebook.

3月30日,特勤中心一名郭姓教官,在做此相同射擊訓練時,不慎被射穿頸椎,弟兄們正為他集氣中。國安局應檢討,如海豹部隊般高難度訓練,是否該廢止?這豈是國安局所謂[槍枝走火]?

According to the description and my wife’s translation, this is the National Security Bureau in Taiwan performing a demonstration. The description says that the instructor was shot in the neck/spine. Obviously not in this video. The author compares this to Navy Seal Training and questions whether or not this should continue.

Obviously this is nothing like Navy Seal training and the Taiwanese person has no idea what he or she is talking about. However the dangers of a confidence drill, like this, are severe. Even though many of us have issues with this type of drill, it does have its use.

In the video below, it looks like they are shooting in staggered rows while side stepping in unison.

 

Edit: Everydaynodaysoff has a link for a longer news cast about the incident. It is so much worse that i could have imagined. They move in opposite directions WHILE shooting at each other.

 



Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • Pete Sheppard

    It looks more like a ‘Darwin Drill’ to me.

    • Tassiebush

      Only the most clumsy and the most cautious will be left

    • BR549

      “Darwin Drill”; I love it.

      D’oh!

      [Still laughing]

  • James

    They are so worried about safety that they carry without a round chambered but then they drill like this? Wtf? I guess it sort of makes sense because it’s so damn crowded there, but still.

    • JSmath

      Many countries’ military and police carry in this manner. Condition 3, I believe it’s referred to as. Hell, many times even US military are required to carry in this manner for various reasons.

      It makes sense for safety-less striker fired weapons, honestly.

      • Samson

        I am never one to argue about carrying chambered or not chambered for PERSONAL, defensive/CCW carry, because contrary to The Internet it really is a decision best up to each persons comfort level- but as far as PROFESSIONALS, aka police, law enforcement, etc… if you can’t trust them to carry the gun chambered, or they can’t trust themselves, they have no business carrying at all nor being a LEO. And I speak as someone who’s father was on the job at the highest levels for 34+ years- those officers who felt they should be allowed to carry without one in the chamber were basically told they needed to re-evaluate their career choices… because you can’t work the streets without a round in the chamber. As far as a person carrying for their own use, that is a different story but a LEO, if you can’t carry a loaded gun you can’t carry a loaded gun – end of story.

        • Peter (BE)

          That is a very rigid opinion you have there, based on second hand knowledge by your own admittance. High level LEO’s are not always the ones with the most street experience either. Sure you can work the streets unchambered. Lots of cops do this all over the world and in places that are not exactly peaceful either. Most of the time because of department policies. In rare circumstances it is a sensible thing to do. Optimal it is not but adequate it sure is. Why is it that carrying an unchambered pistol is looked upon like sacrilege while nobody seems to think twice about doing the same with their long gun?

          • Sulaco

            35+ years LE and anyone that insisted on carrying an empty chamber was invited to find another line of work FAST. At least in the US.

          • Peter (BE)

            Same here in the departments where chambered carry was/is policy – (about half, maybe 3/4 of them.) We are not talking about individual whims. My point is that C3 carry is a somewhat minor disadvantage. To this day thousands of cops in Europe, Asia, Latin America have to do their job this way. I find the lack of open mindedness on the subject mildly disturbing.

          • James

            Different units in forget different places will have different needs and procedures. I get that. But honestly by the time you are pulling a sidearm (in my opinion) time is up! Hell, you might not even have time to really draw so adding in useless chambering steps into the mix is bound to get people killed that otherwise might have been able to fight. If you’re a professional you should be expected to be able to safely carry condition 1 and have no problems. If you need a retention holster so be it but racking a round in the heat of the moment is not ideal.

          • Peter (BE)

            It is not a question of professionality. It is about outdated equipment and bureaucreatic department policies. You don’t really think that Taiwanese police is not professional enough to carry C1 do you? I have never heard about an officer that got killed because he was unable to ready his weapon in time. On the other hand I know of several officers who got disarmed and were able to fight back before the bad guy could bring the pistol into play. I have the idea that some US police forces expect too much from their guns. If your assailant is on top of you then your firearm may not be the best tool in the box. In any case, most semi auto pistols are prone to fail in that role, a revolver might not BTW. At contact distance a contact weapon is in order. If you patrol a crowded city, there are instances where you would never be able to fire to protect yourself because of the danger to bystanders and you better have something else to defend you with.

        • JSmath

          I have little appreciation for your implying that military personnel are not professionals, by the way; or as though all police and/law enforcement are, because the only real truth of that is that neither are completely, and no more one than the other by long.

          • Peter (BE)

            Nail on the head.

      • TXgnnr

        It is Condition 3, and was pioneered by the Israelis and is called the “modified Israeli carry”. At least that’s what Doomsday Preppers described it as.

  • Jn322

    *Insert favorite NOPE meme here*

  • Phil Hsueh

    FYI, there’s a typo in this article, it’s not Seal training, but SEAL.

    • JSmath

      A small misunderstanding.

      Recently unveiled to public knowledge, as a part of the United States Navy Marine Mammal Program (which is a real thing, if you didn’t know), the US Navy SEALs have trained an elite unit of sea lions and grey seals in the arts of combat engineering, amphibious assault, hand-to-flipper combat, and, obviously, law enforcement.

      • John H

        Seals, the aquatic type, have been trained to tag underwater mines and other underwater demolitions. Funny comment but you probably didn’t know how close to the truth you were.

        • JSmath

          I did, actually, though I’m not sure how much more it’d take for you to have realized that by reading what I wrote.

  • Bal256

    *insert James Yeager joke here*

  • Menger40

    Everybody who saw that happen is probably SO confident

  • dan citizen

    The blooper reel was better.

  • Don Ward

    Honestly, I was half expecting to see eight guys fall down dead after the first rounds were fired.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      They’re staggered several feet apart.

    • TXgnnr

      Your comment just made my day. Thanks for a hearty laugh!

      • TXgnnr

        Sorry, a hardy laugh. D’oh!

  • Grindstone50k

    “Even though many of us have issues with this type of drill, it does have its use.”

    Yes, it does have its use as a Darwin candidate producer.

  • Tassiebush

    or their continence

  • JaredN

    Moronic.

  • Dan

    taiwan went full derp. you never go full derp.

  • Yalan

    What’s the logic of a confidence drill again? Seems to me it achieves the opposite of instilling confidence since it’s so dangerous and risky.

  • tsubaka

    Nope,not a viable tactic since you’re supposed to face (and shoot) the enemy,you know?
    Also that shooting range should have cost a fortune since you can shoot in front and in both sides.

  • Alter_Ego

    IMHO, confidence drills highlight a bit of the paradox of perception of security vs real security.
    Weapons are inherently dangerous. So at first most of us say “ah, these drills are stupidly dangerous”.

    But there are some interesting questions we can ask ourselves:
    Is it possible to control our shooting to the point of being sure of not endangering the innocent?
    Yes -> these drills are perfectly welcome.
    No -> the issue would not just be about the confidence drill, but the fact that law abiding citizens citizens (either private or public workers aka soldiers and police) use weapons that they are unable to use safely even in such controlled conditions as these drills are.

    Funnily enough, these drills are acceptable to us and to Special Forces guys when done by SFs guys.
    But how come?
    Typically SFs operate in contexts where the “collateral damage” is generally more accepted than in LE situations. I wonder if being a LEO gives more rights of using deadly force without being put in danger during the training?

    But do these drills work?
    SFs do the drills, and they still can (and actually do) mistakenly hit the innocent.
    Of course, for SF operations, the risk for the innocent is typically justified by a greater potential benefit (hostage situation vs routine car check), and many factors apply, taking us OT.
    But I’d like to see some hard numbers on the effectiveness of these drills.
    I do believe that these drills work to improve the performance, and are justified both for the private citizen and the authorities.

    Concerning authorities and LEOs, they are much more likely to shoot in public than private law abiding citizens, just even because of their profession, let alone any other consideration.
    To me, the risk on these drills represents the price to pay to gain a superior authority over private citizens, and would be part of “putting his/her life on the line” if they carry on duty.
    IF the performance improves, even better.
    And, last but not least, such drills would improve the awareness that when lead flies, colleagues and innocents might easily be in the way.

    Concerning private law abiding citizens, I have mixed feelings. For sake of discussion, these drills could be made compulsory for whoever carries for self defence. But private citizens’ responsibilities are typically judged differently than LE, so they might be willing to shoot only if 100% sure of what they are doing… maybe not. I’m afraid this would be a test for the shooter’s skill that has a too high price in case of failure.

    Last trolling drop: the discussion about C3 or C1 is a bit laughable to me.
    Hearing of LEOs liking to carry in C3 but not to like a confidence drill… and C3 LEOs “discouraging” C1 LEOs… like this made any difference in good policing.
    As much as I am for US style gun rights and liberties for private citizens, I’m definitely for EU style policing.

  • ghost

    I would be squint eyed too.

  • Kivaari

    Dumb.

  • Jamie Clemons

    Well it is as close as you can get to being in a fire fight without being in one.

  • Tinklebell

    Inconfident, I shot you not…

  • mark

    The instance of the instructor being shot was not happen during their routine training. When it happened, agents were practicing to show off their skill to upcoming politician/bureaucrats visit. What a waste of resources.