Crowded areas

[OldMarksman]

And yet people use firearms successfully to defend themselves over a million times each year. It's really not as hard as some like to imply if those numbers are real.

How might that pertain to the scenario being discussed here?

 

[TailGator]

Lohman 446: Giving you your premise still makes the argument that training or, better yet experience, is vital. The "adrenaline will make the difference" is often used by people who forgo proper training and preparation as if it is some magical thing.

Frank Etin: While adrenalin can help focus, it won't impart skills that you lack. All the adrenalin in town won't help you play an oboe if you're a drummer.

I agree entirely. Neither, however, does adrenalin destroy training as some claim (certainly not either of you) if training and practice was intense enough. Rather than arguing against training, my point is to argue that we should train thoroughly enough that our epinephrine is at worst neutral, and may be an enhancement in the way it was perpetuated by evolution. Sorry that I failed to complete my thought earlier.

 

[Snyper]

How might that pertain to the scenario being discussed here?

Some are implying it takes some incredible level of "skill" to use a firearm to defend one's self, when many people do it daily with positive results.

That means either everyone is more skilled that others think, or it's not as hard as some make it out to be.

The first five responses in the thread explained things very well.
The solution to the problem stated in the OP is just common sense.
Post #28 stated that quite well also:

This kind of situation evolves by the second,and there are infinite possibilities of situation and people involved. Even a square and perfect presentation with an almost guaranteed lethal hit to the bad guy presents a potential pass through that could kill an infant. Risks of killing innocents are huge, risk of innocents dying because of the attacker may be worse.

I'm not sure whether any discussion could prepare a person for that shot.

 

[Jim567]

It seems all the local instances of people defending themselves successfully with firearms -
None were extensively trained.
I was raised up with firearms, belong to and frequent a gun club and was an army infantryman.
Reading some of these posts I feel like I am unqualified to defend myself with a firearm.

 

[briandg]

Quick question here. Are the numbers, in fact, real? Do those include only times when civilian, ordinary people actually use their firearms, or does it also count the many times when the guy in the house wags his gun at an intruder? It's curious.

 

[briandg]

Frank points out that adrenaline can't enhance skills but can sharpen focus. I rephrase that as tunnel vision.

Gator said that intense trading can create a situation in which adrenaline has minimal effect on performance, but I believe that there's no way that training can provide the experience and"wisdom" needed to react in even a very small number of scenarios without error.

We often lambast cops, calling them incompetent when events don't play out properly, but be honest. Haven't we all seen events that went south with even very skilled officers? A trained sweat sniper missed a shot from less than 100 yards, under no real pressure at all. Training isn't enough to overcome chaos and confusion, and that's the only guaranteed factor you have in a shooting.

Snyper said it well, that maybe it's not so hard after all, and he's right. Almost any boob walking this earth can carry and use a defensive weapon, and can successfully bring out a gun and shoot. I guess that most of the time this will be successful, as crimes involving a bad guy with massed human shields or masses of people for a backstop are probably unusual.

So, just to point out the obvious. Humans are like, seriously totally defective. Most of us can drive, because we practice, or "train intensively", but how can we then explain the dead possums every few hundred yards? How do we explain that the well trained drivers in the country are involved in well over a million accidents involving deer that cost billions of dollars? People can drive well enough to stop in intersections, right? Oops, never mind. A million times a year, people fail to properly react in sudden, stressful events.

So, really, what this entire discussion should be summarized with, will th average (a really hard thing to define) carrier, presented with a sudden life or death situation react perfectly, or even adequately? We don't have to go into detailed scenarios, The answer is simple. Help no. Not a chance. Running even a skilled shooter through a simulation is going to be a brain shattering revelation.

Except for a tiny few, we are at a very fundamental level, incompetent. Fortunately, scenarios are rarely difficult, it seems, we can see that by all of the muggings and attacks, and other violent crimes that are stopped.

I'm one of the people who sees the difficulty of successfully carrying a weapon and defending oneself. It's never like Indiana jones or Bruce Willis.

But, that's it. I carry a gun, and with a little luck, I'm never going to be in a situation that I can't win. I don't know if I could stand and watch as a guy with a knife drops a couple people. It turned out okay, I guess that some people might say that. he didn't kill the whole car full of people and the cops got him. I might have killed an entire troop of brownie scouts before he stabbed me in the heart with a stolen umbrella.

Chaos owns me. I've driven less than 150,000 miles, and I've killed two deer, and a number of dogs.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Adrenaline will reduce your fine motor skills, But it does not reduce you to the level of a falling down sloppy drunk like some seem to imply.

It's not going to take your normally tight groups on paper and opening them up by a few feet.

Tunnel vision, possible, even likely, your vision may also turn greyish or redish tint.
you also may not hear the shot or it will sound muffled, even in confined spaces.
you probably will not feel the recoil of the gun.

If you wanna train with a increased heart rate, it's not a perfect simulation but try running in place, pump thighs as high as you can.. then shoot.
It'll give you a little taste of heart rate but not so much the Adrenaline dump, nothing like fighting for your life (real or perceived) will match that.

If you can't hit a man size target at say 10-15 feet, adrenaline or not.. you probably can't safely deploy a gun in defense in any situation, crowded or not.

A Lot of people talk about the scenario from the perspective of using deadly force on someone ranting on the train.

That's a bit ridiculous, I'd imagine nearly everyone here has enough self control to not deploy a gun in that situation.
Verbal threats are not physical threats.

I prefer to focus on the victims perspective, at some point this man had a knife in his hand and that knife went into 3 men.
At that point there is zero doubt they're entitled to self defense with deadly force, I would hope we can all agree on that much.

The only question to be answered is should you use a gun in that in that situation to defend your self?

 

[Frank Ettin]

....at some point this man had a knife in his hand and that knife went into 3 men. At that point there is zero doubt they're entitled to self defense with deadly force, I would hope we can all agree on that much....

Not so fast.

Would you have known enough about what happened to be certain that the man with the knife was the initial aggressor? Or would it have been possible, based on what you were seeing at the time, that he was first attacked by those three men and was legitimately defending himself?

In the incident which is the subject of this we know that the former is the case. But we know that in hindsight. We know that only because what happened in now understood, after the fact. What would a person present have seen and understood about what was happening as it happened in front of him.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Honestly don't think anyone actually reads my posts.

I prefer to focus on the victims perspective

Just to be clear I AM VIEWING IT THRU THE EYES OF A DEAD MAN.
So ya Im pretty sure I know who killed me.

Besides that the train car is how big? this guy was loud apparently.. I think it would have had most of the cars attention.. but like I said Im viewing it as if im one of the victims, Not some random person 2 cars over with a itchy nose that comes running to find out what the hub bub is about.

So again as a dead man, let's give me the benefit of knowing what happen from start to finish.

Lets be clear here.. We are basing the entire discussion on what we believe to be facts..
And what are those facts?

Facts, As "I" Know them.
1. man is berating 2 girls
2. 3 men speak up for the girls (what was said exactly I don't know)
3. Irate man turns attention to 3 men, stabs all 3, 2 die.
4. man is confronted by police with knife in hand, at some point he gives up and is arrested.

anyone else know this to be reported any differently?

Technically they have not proven anything in court yet.. but let's assume what we've heard reported is reasonably close to what happen for the sake of discussion.


P.S On second thought lets explore the possibility that the 3 men caused the conflict in the first place.. The suspect has a knife and is going to stab you.
The suspect is going to claim self defense based on disparity of force.. 3-on-1 justifying a weapon against 3 unarmed men.

As one of the LAW ABIDING men about to die you say in your head.. "oh shucks I started this whole thing.. I guess I can't do anything but get stabbed to death at this point.. oh well.. it's been a good life.." and wait to be stuck like a pig.

If it's me.. Im going to stop you whether I am later found to be on the wrong side of the law or not is irrelevant at that moment in time.

If it's me or you, It's gonna be you every single time if I can help it, Even if im in the wrong, Even if I KNOW I am in the wrong, It's gonna be you.

Self Preservation.. It's a hell of a thing, It trumps words on paper somewhere every single time.

 

[OldMarksman]

P..S On second thought lets explore the possibility that the 3 men caused the conflict in the first place.. The suspect has a knife and is going to stab you.
The suspect is going to claim self defense based on disparity of force.. 3-on-1 justifying a weapon against 3 unarmed men.

It's not at all clear where you are going with this.

As one of the LAW ABIDING men about to die you say in your head "....

Why would you characterize the finial aggressors as "law abiding"?

If it's me or you, It's gonna be you every single time if I can help it, Even if im in the wrong, Even if I KNOW I am in the wrong, It's gonna be you.

What does that tell us that is pertinent here?

 

[JoeSixpack]

Cause Frank was playing devils advocate.

I just pointing out that in the end it's irrelevant.
does not matter who is right, who is wrong.. no one is going to stand there and be killed even if they was in the wrong.

"law abiding" was to illustrate the absurdity that even if the suspect with the knife was somehow in the right no one is going to legally analyze the situation and decided to allow them selves to be killed because they realize they're in the wrong.

If we strip the discussion down to the wires here's the real question as I see it.
A man is about to stab you do death on a commuter train.. you have a gun.. do you use it?

Or if you prefer we can modify the question as
A man is about to stab another man to death on a commuter train, do you intervention?

That's really all we're talking about here.

 

[OldMarksman]

I just pointing out that in the end it's irrelevant.
does not matter who is right, who is wrong.. no one is going to stand there and be killed even if they was in the wrong.

Whether a homicide is excusable or not would seem very relevant and very important, always.

 

[Snyper]

Not so fast.

Would you have known enough about what happened to be certain that the man with the knife was the initial aggressor? Or would it have been possible, based on what you were seeing at the time, that he was first attacked by those three men and was legitimately defending himself?

Anyone standing close by would have seen the entire event.
You can "what if" things to death when it's easier to be realistic.

In the incident which is the subject of this we know that the former is the case. But we know that in hindsight. We know that only because what happened in now understood, after the fact.

What would a person present have seen and understood about what was happening as it happened in front of him.

What we know makes no difference.
What matters is what someone present would have known.

People are quite capable of understanding what they see and hear.
The ones who were stabbed knew what was happening and who was the aggressor. Other witnesses corroborated their stories. They didn't need someone to explain it to them.

 

[shafter]

A man is about to stab another man to death on a commuter train, do you intervention?

Who do you shoot? Can we tell that the guy with the knife isn't acting in self defense from three men who might have knives or other weapons we can't see from where we are? I have a significant amount of experience riding on trains and for the most part they're very noisy and depending on the time of day you're going to have a bunch of people standing on both ends of the car packed in like sardines. You might be aware of a disturbance but unless you're right on top of it good luck figuring out what it's about. Disturbances and oddballs shouting things are not uncommon.

The only time I use deadly force is when I know for absolute sure what it's about. If you intervene with other people's fights you run the risk of making a bad mistake. When the knife comes at you things become a lot clearer.

 

[Snyper]

We often lambast cops, calling them incompetent when events don't play out properly, but be honest. Haven't we all seen events that went south with even very skilled officers?

I remember seeing a female officer shoot a man wielding a hammer on a crowded NY street, taking him down without hitting anyone else.

I have no reason to think her abilities surpass those of anyone else.

 

[jdc1244]

A man is about to stab you to death on a commuter train… you have a gun… do you use it?

A man is about to stab another man to death on a commuter train, do you intervene?

False dilemma fallacy – the issue isn’t subject to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.

Again, citizens have the right to carry firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ – not to be a ‘hero’ or to ‘save the day’ or to otherwise come to the defense of others.

Indeed, disaster usually follows when someone attempts to be the ‘good guy with a gun.'

 

[K_Mac]

Indeed, disaster usually follows when someone attempts to be the ‘good guy with a gun.'

I have no reason to think her abilities surpass those of anyone else.

These statements kind of frame the discussion, but I don't think either of them accurately accurately assess the issues involved. That disaster is the "usual" result of a good guy using a gun is nonsense. That a random NYC police officer is no better or worse than all the rest of us is also a stretch. The decision to come to the aid of others can only be made based on an honest assessment and understanding of the situation. Denying that there are risks involved or that a good​ guy with a gun can make a positive difference tries to give simple answers to a complex question imo.

 

[JoeSixpack]

Who do you shoot? Can we tell that the guy with the knife isn't acting in self defense from three men who might have knives or other weapons we can't see from where we are? I have a significant amount of experience riding on trains and for the most part they're very noisy and depending on the time of day you're going to have a bunch of people standing on both ends of the car packed in like sardines. You might be aware of a disturbance but unless you're right on top of it good luck figuring out what it's about. Disturbances and oddballs shouting things are not uncommon.

If im too far away to hear whats going on, and Im too far away to see these hidden weapons they might have.. then I suppose maybe Im too far away to be taking a shot in the first place.

The only time I use deadly force is when I know for absolute sure what it's about. If you intervene with other people's fights you run the risk of making a bad mistake. When the knife comes at you things become a lot clearer.

Ah.. only time YOU use deadly force.. you sound like a man with experience.. Could you share some of your deadly force situations with us?

AH when it comes at you.. Ok that's fine I put my self in the shoes of one of the victims and I think that's where the crux of the discussion should be anyway.

False dilemma fallacy – the issue isn’t subject to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.

Is it now? This thread started as a hypothetical discussion of the Oregon train incident, we know the outcome.

The fundamental question (in my eyes) boils down to

A man is about to stab you do death on a commuter train.. you have a gun.. do you use it?

And this is a false dilemma? really?
Someone is about to stab you, and you still can't make up your mind?

Does it even matter what context this is in? Even if YOU somehow provoked the attack or otherwise are in the wrong.. you're gonna allow someone to stab you?
Maybe im being unfair, I said would you use a "gun" in that situation, Maybe you're a ninja master and are going to disarm the man with your bare hands.. and If so I applaud you sir.. I certainly am not a ninja master, I am however reasonably competent with a pistol and that's what I would use if I had it.

Tell you what, take as many words as you need to fully answer such a question.
But there is no ambiguity here, If you do nothing you will die.. well I suppose that's not right.. 1 out of 3 did survive maybe you'll get lucky.

Again, citizens have the right to carry firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ – not to be a ‘hero’ or to ‘save the day’ or to otherwise come to the defense of others.

Actually in my state I can intervene when ever I want.. it's called defense of other.. as long as the person im defending would have been lawful to use deadly force I can do so in their place.
If this was not so you would not be able to defend anyone but your self.. sorry wife and kids, sorry AZ trooper who was recently rescued by a private citizen (not the first time that's happen btw), you're on your own!

Then there is also the Citizens Arrest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest_in_the_United_States

Granted you do not have the same protections law enforcement has if you make a mistake, Im not suggesting people go patrol to make arrests.. and Im not suggesting you get involve in situations you don't know the circumstances of.

I would never suggest you put your family in harms way, They are your first priority, and I likewise would not suggest you enter a situation where you have no hope of helping (suicide mission)

But im kinda sick of people who act like if you even suggest being a decent human being by looking out for your fellow man you're some how a wannabe cop, vigilante, or have some sort of HERO complex.

I'll tell you a story, some years back I heard a disturbance.
I Looked out my front window and witnessed a crowd of 5 people 2 of which was whipping the ever loving crap out of my neighbor.
Even when he was on the ground they did not let up.

I called the police.. they never came.. finally the crowd got bored and left.
I called again and said forget the cops just send an ambulance, oh no we can't send an ambulance someone reported a fight in the area and we're waiting on police to secure.. finally about an hour later an ambulance shows up.. lucky my neighbor had no serious injuries just some welts resembling shoe prints on his face and a few cuts that needs stitches.

I felt like an absolute dick for sitting in my living room watching it unfold.
The police say "be the good witness"

I later found out the beat him up because he called their land lord on them for selling drugs out of the house they was renting.

When did trying to be a good person become such a vice?
I swear it reminds me of that old quote.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Indeed, disaster usually follows when someone attempts to be the ‘good guy with a gun.'

Rly? and how often does this happen? what about just being the "good guy" ya know without the gun.. how's that working for the 2 killed and 1 wounded?

Meh come to think of it I do remember that shooting in NY some years back where police fired like 50 rounds and most of which hit innocent bystanders, and then there was that other case they shot at a hi-jacked car of a suspect that robbed a bank and struck the baby in the back seat, can't remember if the mother was hit or not.

ya you might be on to something with this "good guys with guns" thing.

There are no guarantees, even inaction is a decision that only you can decide and will have to live with.

I have no hard statistics to point to but I believe most outcomes are going to be for the better not the worse.

 

[briandg]

Buddha once sat before a wall and became enlightened. I'd trust Buddha on a shoot or no shoot SIM course over anyone else.

Teach a man to use a gun, teach him how to fight, then try to equip him with every possible worry about the details of a situation, and no matter who it is, that person's thoughts are going to shut down and p process poorly, and mistakes are coming to be made because of missing or incorrect information. General feng shue, who wrote the classic book "Zen and the art of kicking butts" called this the fog of war.

I promise to live in the moment, to be o like Buddha, to react thoughtfully and wisely, dispassionately. To act only on my own observations and understanding, and only if action cannot be avoided. I promise to use only as much force as necessary, and I promise to avoid collateral damage.

For fifty years now, I have practiced with the flute of bodhimrah, which can strike every person within 100 feet into a peaceful slumber. When I master the flute in the next thirty years or so I will set down my guns, take up my flute, and begin a pilgrimage. I will crisscross the United States, putting people to sleep wherever they are, at the first sign of violence.

Then I will pick their pockets. Being a pilgrim for peace doesn't pay for room, board, and my blood pressure meds.

This all presumes that I'm not going to be rotting in maximum security for shooting the villain at dinner theater when he swept me with his prop gun.

 

[Snyper]

. The decision to come to the aid of others can only be made based on an honest assessment and understanding of the situation. Denying that there are risks involved or that a good​ guy with a gun can make a positive difference tries to give simple answers to a complex question imo.

That's what I've said all along.
It can't be decided by a group that wasn't there that seem to think their way is the only way.

That a random NYC police officer is no better or worse than all the rest of us is also a stretch.

Why would it be a stretch?

She's only human, and she was able to fire several shots in a crowded situation and only hit one person.

I've shot with LEO's since I was about 10 years old, and they are all just people.