Here is information that addresses that concern.

With AIMED Point Shooting or P&S, you can quickly and accurately acquire a target, and if you have the time and are able to use the sights, you still can use them.

As such, with the use of P&S, there should be fewer legal actions flowing from shootings.

P&S provides for fast, automatic, and accurate target acquisition and shooting, in good light or bad, in most any circumstance or conditions, when shooting multiple times, while moving, and even if you can't use the sights.

It is an enhancement to current survival shooting methods.

USE OF THE SIGHTS

Sights are not used about 75% of the time in real close quarters life and death situations. The affects of what is called the Fight or Flight response, keep them from being used.

This reality is becoming more accepted over time with the publication of car-cam videos of real shootings, and studies such as the NYPD SOP 9, but the road is long and progress is slow.

The main scientific reason Sight Shooting is not used, is because its use is dependent on fine motor skills for aiming and shooting, and their use in turn, is dependant on having a normal to moderate heart rate.

In a real life threat situation, an immediate increase in the heart rate (BPM), can be expected to occur.

And if it exceeds 130 beats per minute, fine motor skills will be lost to use, as the physical ability to use them zeros out at about 130 beats per minute.

The following is from a summary in a chapter of Bruce K. Siddle's book Sharpening the Warriors Edge, and addresses the heart rate increase.

"....it is reasonable to expect any survival situation to increase the student's heart rate beyond 145 beats per minute...."

To me, that explains why Sight Shooting does not make it into the videos of close quarters survival shooting situations.

It does not dispute the use of Sight Shooting, just statements that one will be able to use Sight Shooting in a CQ life threat situation.

The statement about the heart rate that is quoted above, is from a chapter in Sharpening the Warriors Edge that discusses which stance is better to use: the Weaver which is achieved mainly through the use of complex motor skills, or the Isosceles which is achieved mainly through the use of gross motor skills.

In the chapter, reference is made to a study by Weinberg and Hunt (1973), in which they found that "motor skills dominated by large muscle groups which have minimal fine motor control and very little decision making or cognitive complexity, were not affected by high levels of stress."

The discussion did not focus on the heart rate and its affect on the ability to use fine motor skills. The heart rate was mentioned as support for the second part of the statement which reads in full: "Since it is reasonable to expect any survival situation to increase the student's heart rate beyond 145 beats per minute, all survival training should be based on gross motor skills whenever possible."

To me that statement makes a very good case for Point Shooting and in particular for AIMED Point Shooting or P&S.

For better or worse, the fact is that Sight Shooting is just not applicable for use in real close quarters survival shooting situations.

With an increase in the heart rate, fine hand and eye coordination skills which are critical to the use of Sight Shooting, are lost to use. There may be exceptions, but they will not be the rule.

Further, the inability to focus on the sights (to use our near vision), in a life threat situation, is another effect of the Fight or Flight response. Again, there may be exceptions, but they will be exceptions and not the rule.

..........

Lastly, the following is from the 1989 Department of Justice FBI paper titled: Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness. The paper deals with bullet effectiveness, and this paragraph from it, adds a good measure of reality to any discussion of accuracy and liability.

"An issue that must be addressed is the fear of over penetration widely expressed on the part of law enforcement. The concern that a bullet would pass through the body of a subject and injure an innocent bystander is clearly exaggerated. Any review of law enforcement shootings will reveal that the great majority of shots fired by officers do not hit any subjects at all. It should be obvious that the relatively few shots that do hit a subject are not somehow more dangerous to bystanders than the shots that miss the subject entirely."