Difference in attitude about personal defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some studies show that the criminals do practice. Some fire more rounds in a year than police do in practice. I probably have the data somewhere.

When you look at emergency actions in all kinds of disasters, it's clear that practice and stress innoculation works. For gun folks, as Pax, indicated you really need to do it, if you claim the proactive protector role.
 
I have always said that I am not a security force, a policeman or anyones bodyguard. I will not chase purse snatchers, investigate odd happenings in dark alleys or stand between two fighting men.

Its pretty easy for me to know who the badguy is and who the goodguy is when I am the one being attacked. It is not so easy to understand what is happening when others are fighting.

If I felt like a innocent persons life would be forfit right here and right this second if I fail to act... I would act. That is a whole lot of certaintly that would likely be lacking in a situation that does not directly involve me.

Would I step out in front of a bus to save a small child chasing a ball? Yes
Would I chase a man with a gun who is running away from me? No
 
Pax, I understand that. I've actually sided in your favor on that same argument as well, with a discussion in my personal life. To someone.

That still doesn't answer it for me. Why does the majority of people like us, always think if we don't get navy seal style training, our techniques are inadequate against criminals? They're countless cases of that not being true. And average joes taking them on.

I understand that they're on the offensive and we're on the defensive. The hunted if you will.

I think people who carry understand and should get a little more credit than they do. I appreciate a regular citizen that carries.

The way they're spoken off is like they're more liable to shoot themselves or something.


I'm not saying they're immaculate. Obviously that training where you pay money is better than non. But let's me realistic. They're not perfectly defenseless.
 
Realistically, a huge majority of the times when a private citizen uses a gun in self-defense, they never have to fire a single shot. Sometimes they don't even have to draw the gun, just be confident and move as if they might have a gun. That's the reality.

It's also true that the majority of people who defend themselves successfully by shooting never had any training at all.

But ...

People with training are better prepared to cope with the rare extremes than people without training. And it's the rare extremes we're talking about here: shots at a distant, moving target that is surrounded by innocents in an overwhelming, quickly-changing environment.

For example: Nick Meli did the right thing. He's a smart man and yes, a hero, for trying to save lives at the Clackamas Mall, but also for knowing and respecting his own limits. He'd be more of a hero if he could have dropped that scumbag. Perhaps he could have done so if he had known that he could go down to one knee to change the angle, making it safer to take that shot -- or if he'd had a little more well-trained confidence in his own skills. (I wasn't there, and am going solely by the interview of him that I saw on YouTube, and maybe my suggested fixes would not have worked for some reason I can't picture right now; but it's most probable that Meli didn't think to change the angle because nobody had ever taught him how to do so. Few people think creatively under that kind of stress, and I take nothing away from his courage in trying to intervene or from his wisdom in holding fire.)

Another example: in multiple interviews, the story changed several times, but I think it's safe to say that Dan McKown would almost certainly have done better during the Tacoma Mall shooting if he had the training that allowed him to know that his actions would be legal, and enough confidence in his shooting skills to use his firearm to solve that deadly situation. Again, he's a hero and I take nothing away from that. I simply say that this brave man would almost certainly have done better if he had training than he did without it.

Anyway, my point is that while most incidents can be resolved without a gun, and most incidents that require a gun can be resolved without shooting, and most incidents that require shooting don't require a very high level of skill -- but incidents that involve multiple intended victims in a crowded public area and an active killer on the loose are different. They are incredibly rare, but they do require a higher level of skill and confidence to resolve successfully. That's why, if you're the type of person who absolutely would act to intervene in a situation like this, you should seek training to give yourself that level of skill and well-placed confidence.

pax
 
Constantine said:
...Why does the majority of people like us, always think if we don't get navy seal style training, our techniques are inadequate against criminals? They're countless cases of that not being true. And average joes taking them on....
Click to expand...
As far as the "average Joe" successfully using a gun in self defense, in those cases whatever skills he had were sufficient to solve his particular problem. If his problem had been different, who can say? And we also seem to have very little data on defensive failures by private citizens, although we probably have some decent data for law enforcement.

As for how much training is enough, that needs to be up to the individual, but the basic facts are:

  • If we wind up in a violent confrontation, we can't know ahead of time what will happen and how it will happen. And thus we can't know ahead of time what we will need to be able to do to solve our problem.

  • If we find ourselves in a violent confrontation, we will respond with whatever skills we have available at the time. That might be good enough, or it might not be.

  • The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the more likely we'll be to be able to respond appropriately and effectively. The more we can do, and the better we can do it, the luckier we'll be.
 
Shootings like this will continue to rise as long as the economy is bad and people are unsure about the future. Still the chances that you will be involved in one is less likely then getting stuck by lightening.

I read on here from someone "know your carry gun like your tongue knows your teeth". I found this to be very accurate and succinct advice. I don't recall who said it but credit to them or whoever they took it from.

You never know what will go down in a situation but you can know what you are capable of. Training gives us the knowledge and confidence to push ourselves to the limits of our capabilities. Also take your physical and mental health very seriously as the heart attack and stroke will kill most of us so don't let it take you to soon.

Even more importantly pass on your knowledge to your kids and grand kids. Neighbor kids with parental permission. I think we all share the feeling that they will need it.
 
DAYMAN

I guess I'm in the "get to cover" camp. I'm not saying there's no situation where I would intervene to help someone out, but my primary concern is being able to protect my wife and kids. I carry a gun to protect my family - nothing more, nothing less, and I absolutely see using it as a last resort.

If we're out in public and shots are fired I'd grab the kids and run away. If we can't, the plan would be to get between the guns and the kids and hope all the training pays off.
If I was out alone, things might be different, but as those of you with small kids can probably attest, I'm never alone. Trips in to town are far too exciting for them to not ask to come, and time with my kids is too precious for me to say no.

Same goes at home - my first concern in the case of a break in would be to make sure everyone's safe, then call the police (~1/2hr response time for the inept sheriffs deputy, and close to an hour for the state police out here), then I'd probably try to pry the dogs off whatever poor soul decided to ignore the barking and break in anyway.

If someone else was hurt because I was busy protecting my family I wouldn't have to "live with myself"; I'd be living with my children.

I'm certainly aware that lots of you out there feel very differently about your role, but I'm okay with that. So how 'bout I try not to consider you guys "trigger-happy", or "cocksure", and you not consider me "selfish" or "untrained". We all walk our own path.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t agree with you more...

AS head of family our duty is to them first and foremost, and to those that are placed in our care at the time. Seek cover/defendable position, find exit take it.

However expecting my gun to be the last resort is not for me, my
Sub-conscious mind will tend to make that choice for me. Some refer to it as instinct, or muscle memory.

I'd like to add..

The biggest enemy for the untrained and even the "trained" is the flood of adrenal stress hormones. The primary tool to help you get through it is to make yourself properly breath.. Oxygen and proper respiration calms the mind and body. And if your wounded it will help you cope and help prolong your survival as you await EMS.

Furthermore...

You need to become aggressive and you need to project it forward from you, it provides an edge and can instantly turn the initiative of the battle to your favor.

Lastly..

As many have said in this thread.. You owe it to your family and self to have ample trigger time at the range. Training is battle winning. Seek it out, and work at it on your own.

On static targets you need to be keeping them inside the 9/10ring or you’re not doing it right.

We are trained to shoot COM. but I challenge you to also learn to hit high upon the thoracic tree straight up the chin and to the brain pan. This is in case he has a vest on.

Another area you should be targeting is the groin.. In case he has a vest, the head is covered and he is lacking a groin plate. Shoot a bad guy in his junk it will avert his attention, allowing you follow up more stopping shots. A groin shot is very traumatizing. You have 2 major arteries, 2 ball sockets, the pelvic ring, a coccyx and yards of intestines to strike.
 
Thank you pax, Frank Ettin, and Jason. I was just trying to understand where that way of thinking came from and why. Really appreciate the crisp and clear responses.
 
I am sorry, but the only bearing I could see the economy having on the types of shootings we are discussing would be if we were to have an economic boom, and suddenly put much more funding into mental health care.

Columbine, Aurora, Tucson, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Clackamas - none of these were by poor or indigent people. These atrocities were committed by people who were known to families or co-workers as having mental health issues prior to their crimes.

In those cases where proper diagnoses had not been made, there were plenty of warning signs.

This is not about the economy. That may drive robbery rates, or suicide rates, but it does not drive this type of crime.
 
Let me first point out, I have never shot any one, came close a couple of times, but the situations resolved peacefully, or at least, without gunfire.

Reading responses, that target shots fired in error, good guy hits, etc, below.

Having been in altercations, violent ones, I have on a couple of occasions, attacked an innocent party! Fluid changes in a street, or inside a public place, Club or Bar, or just entering a Restaurant.

Some one moving, stepping one way or the other, could get them hit! Feet fists, a weapon (not a firearm) under the stress of personal combat.

(Sorry, I forgot to mention I was brought up in a Pub, my Dad ran one, me in same Pub from birth till 26 YOA, and I worked as a Bouncer in Liverpool U.K. for 5 years)

I am trained in street fighting (just did a lot of it) and you can misinterpret a persons intent, and kick or punch them (two solutions) but as a third party in a fluid weapons, firearms, incident, there is no saying sorry, and helping them off the floor!

So it is a wait and see, protect your loved ones, first! Kind of deal. But in an attack against you! Do not hesitate, attack right back, if this involves your CCW, you have be competent with that pistol, in my case, I carry the same Glock 19, that I shoot in IDPA matches. IDPA does not a gunfighter make, but I know were the gun shoots, at many different distances, and I have yet to have a malfunction, of any nature with it. So as many have said, you had better know how to run your gun, from concealed.

Lots of bad stuff happens after midnight! Not to us, we go to bed prior to that witching hour! Glock and Surefire close by, house phone, Cell phone on that same bed side table.

Walk and talk softly, but carry a big stick (or a gun!)
 
I don't believe anyone should be eager to shoot a person regardless of the situation. Only when absolutely necessary such as imminent loss of life, etc...
 
Smit,

Do not confuse preparedness for eagerness. Only a fool is eager for combat.

Victorious warriors win first then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war and then seek to win.

Sun Tzu
 
About skill:

The most common self-defense usage is quite close up - it's mugger be gone or some BG close in your house.

I have somewhere a study that shows the unskilled are reasonably accurate close up but when the distance gets longer, beyond 15 feet or so, the unskilled drammatically deteriorate in effectiveness.

Similarly, Karl Rehn did a test of skilled and unskilled with pocket guns and found the former had about a 40% useful hit rate as compared to the skilled.

The mall rampage, school shooting - is a high stress and perhaps longer distance scenario. Thus, it is at the extreme end of the intensity distribution. The modal or average civilan gun fight doesn't speak to the extremes.

This isn't even mentioning the needed automaticity for clearing, reloading, drawing, getting a good sight picture, etc. that might be needed for a stress filled longer distance shot.

We have a natural aversion to killing an innocent even for the greater good. Thus, if you contemplate intervention or SD in a crowded venue - I will opine that you have a moral obligation to obtain reasonable skills. Blaze away in your own home given that penetration is controlled. In public - that's a different moral circumstance.
 
I agree with Dwight 55. I carry to protect my self and my family. CCWs are available to most people, I'd suggest they get one, get some training and then to be responsible for themsevles. I'll dial 911, I'll be as good a witness as possible, but I'm not going to risk going to jail for them.
 
I have no illusions about carrying a handgun and going up against a man with a rifle or shotgun.

I would feel terrible if advising anyone to take action and then they accidentally wounded or killed an innocent or innocents and/or in stopping or trying to stop the bad guy they themselves were wounded or killed.

I would feel terrible if advising anyone not to take action and they did not act and an innocent or innocents were allowed to be murdered.

Blood on our hands works both ways.
 
PH/CIB ~

The disclaimer I put up on my website years ago has long been my guiding principle in what I will or won't advise people to do. It works like this:

Cornered Cat website said:
Disclaimer: The author of this site assumes that you are an adult human being capable of making your own choices and taking responsibility for same. If you are not an adult, or are not capable of taking responsibility for your own choices, STOP. Do not read anything else on this site. The author has made a reasonable, good-faith effort to assure that the articles herein are accurate and contain good advice, but hereby advises the reader that the author is a normal human being who makes the normal number of human mistakes. Deal with it. If it sounds stupid to you, don't do it. The author accepts absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for anything you might say or do as a result of reading any material on this site. Live your own life.
Click to expand...

My credo as an instructor:

Do your homework, real research, before giving anyone else any advice.

Do your homework, real research, before taking anyone else's advice.

Be a grownup... ;)

No blood on my hands, and none on yours either.

pax
 
Before I retired as a Veteran’s Rep. I talked to many returning Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. After I retired as a concerned Citizen, I talked to many returning Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of those Veterans told me they were in contact many days and weeks and months at a time from I.E.D.s and/or incoming fire.

As you stare into the darkness with your eyes and ears with Death possibly only inches away on your night defensive position or listening post or ambush, and you Thank God that you survived the day and you pray to God that you survive the night, you realize with first light you will do it again, and again, and again, and there are only three ways you are going home, by being killed in action, by being severely wounded in action, or when your Tour of Duty is over.

Our Military is all Volunteers and it sometimes seems ironic that we sacrifice our Bravest and our Best for the Freedoms, Liberty and Lifestyle we all enjoy, especially for those who in their own self absorbed self interest would never lift a finger to help anyone else.

It is interesting to see the responses on this forum from folks who have never made contact, let alone served a Tour of Duty with multiple contacts over and over again, many have valid reasons for not taking action, getting their loved ones to safety, not wanting to accidentally wound or kill an innocent bystander, not wanting to be wounded or killed themselves.

If we all get to the point that we only look out for ourselves, we as a People and a Nation are history.
 
PH/CIB,

You are correct, but how do you change a brain washed public, that believe doing nothing will keep them safe? That is what the media, and LE teach. Leave it to the Police? Just be a good witness. What is the saying? "I carry a gun, because a Cop is to heavy"

That message is every where. The NRA wants an armed person in every School.
They are getting laughed at! "Guns are the problem, not more guns?"

We have a disconnected general public, they are living in a dream world.
My time in the Brit Military, was between wars/Police? in Korea, etc.

So I did not serve in a combat zone, lucky I guess, but after the Royal Signals, came marriage, two children, two jobs, 53 hour weeks, week in and week out.

Thirty year's in England, three in Australia, thirty five in Canada, and 9 in the US of A, I became a Citizen in 2011.

Twenty five of those years in Canada, I had my own Weapon Training Business, and tried to pass on the ability to deploy a weapon (Police/Military/Security) to engage a close up threat, 10m to zero.

All from Duty Holsters, all incorporating reloads from the belt.

Five hundred students a year, for twenty of those years.

I taught aggression! Instant fight, or give up! Someone, or more than one, stuck a shotgun in your face, and asked you for the money sacks, you gave them up, someone shot at you, you shot back.

For sixteen of those years, I rented out my range to the El Al and Consulate armed Officers of those establishments. This ended when I left Canada in 2003, so I feel I am not giving away to much, 9 years later!

The Police teach head for cover, the Israelis teach draw, crouch, and shoot.

The difference? Philosophical, one, return fire when I am safe (more or less) the other, an elegant shrug of the shoulders, "You hit better when you are standing still"

Skill at arms? Yes, to some degree, but instant aggression? That is what you need in a fight. Thinking is too slow.

In the situations we see today? You also might need to hit a small target at extended ranges, for that you A/ have to know how to shoot, and B/ know were your EDCW hits!

A for instance on marksmanship, going to your vehicle, late at night, you have just escorted your Bar staff to their cars, you are heading for your own car, with the cash! "BANG/BANG two bullet holes in your fender, a flash of light from the corner of the wall, a window is hit. Well lit parking lot.

Distance, 20m, a white sneaker is protruding from the wall! Six inches in front of that shoe, and up to the shoe? Is your target area. Front sight and press. Has it happened, every thing we can imagine, it has happened, somewhere, sometime.

So Lady's and Gentlemen, yes you need rapid deployment of your EDC Pistol, not to much attention to sights, a lot of time you are looking over the slide.

But for the chance you might need the ability to hit very accurately, you need to know how to do that, as well!
 
PH/CIB said:
If we all get to the point that we only look out for ourselves, we as a People and a Nation are history.
Click to expand...

PH/CIB ~

Thank you for your service.

You're quite right; many of us who teach ordinary people how to defend themselves in an ordinary civilian environment have not served in the military, and do not have a military mindset. That's not a bad thing, because the military mindset does not translate well to civilian life and civilian laws.

Personally, I've never shot anyone and hope to God I never do. That's my mindset. It would be a terrible mindset for a soldier or Marine, but it's an excellent one for an ordinary person. While a warrior might be eager for a fight -- and should be! -- I'm not a warrior. I am a middle-aged woman with a bad back and people who depend on me. I am quite prepared to protect myself, my loved ones, and the people immediately around me. I have the skills to take down a criminal at any realistic handgun distance, and can perform those skills cold and on demand under every type of pressure where I've been able to test them. I'm confident in my skills, but I'm not eager for a fight. If a fight comes to me anyway, I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and the people I love. To the extent that it does not interfere with protecting my loved ones, I will protect the people immediately around me. But I won't rush to the sound of the guns; that's not my job. It's yours, and I honor you for it.

As Goethe observed and I think you would agree, when each person "sweeps in front of his own door," and takes care of his or her own responsibilities, the whole world will be clean.

Reading your post, I think maybe you want to say that each of us should sweep in front of our neighbors' doors as well as our own. That's admirable for those who have been sworn to perform that service. But not all of us have. So we're saying that we'll sweep in front of our own doors. We'll protect ourselves, our loved ones, and the people immediately around us.

If everyone did, the world would be a better place.

pax

Let everyone sweep in front of his own door and the whole world will be clean. – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top