Do You Challenge? With a Gun?

I think in a situation of confronting an intruder in my house I would probably shoot first, draw my weapon, challenge, and then state commands.:) but not necessarily in that order.

I could just unleash my ferocious kitty cat, or maybe the wife.
 
Thinking about this, I remember my training in empirical methods.

Many folks claim that faced with a situation where they draw their gun, they will shoot it.

However, the criminological data do not support this and they do not point to not shooting as a high risk situation.

Kleck, Cook, and various other researchers have found an extremely high number of defensive gun uses in the USA.

Reasonable estimates range from 800,000 to 2,000,000. The studies also indicate that 90 to 95% have no shots fired and are deterrent in nature.

Thus, stating as a truism from some person or other that if you draw you have to shoot isn't supported by what happens in the real world.

Nonshooting use of guns seems quite successful.

Another point is that this series of discussions really points out the need for quality training if you are a serious student of these issues. I grant you that it can cost money. I was lucky to get funding to go to Mas' LFI-1 were he so ably discussed legal matters.

I've engaged in quite a lot of force on force from Insights, KRtraining, Steve Moses and the NTI. It teaches you that situations are amibiguous and not everything is a shoot. Paper and matches do not compare.

The current issue of SWAT has two excellent articles on FOF training.

It is clear to me now that one needs a good knowledge of circumstances and some experience with the ambiguities of actually trying civilian scenarios. Such exposure indicates that folks who simply think that if you draw you shoot, you shoot any stranger in the house, etc. really don't have an handle on the situation.
 
Another point is that this series of discussions really points out the need for quality training if you are a serious student of these issues.
Click to expand...

So true....and "quality training" is the operative phrase.
Like any product or service, some professional SD instructors are not up to the quality or the task.

As an example, below is a verbatim quote from a known working instructor:

"My gun is not coming out unless it is with intent to pull the trigger on someone because thats what is necessary to stay above ground. I do not care to attempt to de-escalate anything when the gun needs to be used as a civilian as some intimidation mentality. That process can likely get one killed IMO."

Of course, your post points out the facts and the folly of that mindset.
.
 
If there is an unknown in your home and they are there for a purpose such as repairman, cable guy, unexpecte guest etc. It is perfectly fine to draw if you do not knwo who they are. In most cases they will idintify themselves if they are there for non-BG puposes. then you can holster, apoligize and and all is well. If they come up with a weapon you're ready. You have to have a justification to shoot not just "he was in my home and i didn't know who he was."

SW
 
Mas Ayoob said <One of the defensive firearm's greatest powers is its power to deter. You don't want to throw that away>


What would you know? :D :D :D :D :D :D

Mas Ayoob a junior member of THF? Preposterous.

But as long as you are the real Mas A., I recently found your book "In the Gravest Extreme" (1982) still timely advice and counsel in the new century. As I recall you were one of the "experts" who recommended not challenging an intruder. I'd refer to my copy to make sure, but I loaned it to my sister who just got a .357 J-frame snub nose and is pursuing a cw permit.

By the time all her friends and employees get through with it, it'll wind up in Timbucktoo and I'll have to buy another copy.

Interested parties can find this valuable treatise at the used book dealer www.alibris.com online for under $10 plus shipping. Reading it will help to moderate that itchy trigger finger syndrome syptomatic of watching too many episodes of 24 and The Shield.

If you are new self defense, read it, and stop relying completely on the advice of the message board experts.
 
Mas Ayoob a junior member of THF? Preposterous.
Click to expand...
Not really. We get new members all the time. He doesn't get to start with 200 posts just because he's Mas Ayoob.
As I recall you were one of the "experts" who recommended not challenging an intruder.
Click to expand...
As I recall, he advised that it is unnecessary to challenge an intruder that poses a lethal threat, and unwise to challenge one unless you have a strong defensive position. That isn't the same thing as finding someone in your home that you don't immediately recognize.
 
lazy shades of grey...

Knowing what you're shooting at...is very very very very very important.
Stuff like 'challenging' gets lazily taught...and it's understandable to an extent...because there are so many different scenarios. The main thing is to understand the intended purpose of 'challenging' - it is to identify the target
and to take take command of the situation. "Who goes there?!" is the classic challenge...and in a home defense situation I like 'Who are You and Why are you HERE?!' a lot better than 'Freeze!' or some more offensive threatening statement. Afterall, I am also trying to identify the target! Anytime a gun is drawn the situation has been escalated to the hilt of do or die. My inclination is to not draw a gun unless I intend to shoot it...and to not shoot it unless I intend to kill! So what do I do when there's a stranger in my house and I'm scared? Well, there's lots of scenarios ie. is it daytime with the door open or nightime and more shocking! Is it in an apartment complex or an isolated house waaaay out in the boonies ? Luckily my Dobies usually resolve all these problems for me!!!!! I feel sorry for the 'stranger' in my house! He's going to be greeted by a few curious Dobie diplomats who will do the challenging for me! Yep! For you see 'guns' are limited - and no matter what technique there is - it boils down to human interaction and judgement calls. Oh , before drawing a gun and challenging...you might duck out of sight, do some observing and call 9/11 ! The gun is the very last resort! Once you pull out the gun you're pretty much stuck with it! :cool:
 
We all seem to subscribe to the mantra of "the mere presence of firearm, even if not fired, can be a great deterrrent to crime" or whatever the NRA slogan is.

I believe it, and I think most people on this forum live it.

Obviously, commom sense and the situation reign supreme.

I am the "good guy" regardless of whether or not the stranger is the cable guy or the dreaded someone else; having the option to shoot, or not shoot, is our greatest advantage.

Your day in court might vary from mine, depending upon your state's laws and the prevailing social/political composition of the jury.

Take the appropriate action or inaction accordingly. Be advised, this could include moving (to Arizona:D ).
 
Let's not pop the corks yet...

Perhaps we should reserve judgement on just who 'Mas Ayoob' is until TFL staff can verify this person AS Mr. Massad Ayoob?

Anyone can take a reputable name and use it as their own to lend credibility to statements we might otherwise disregard.

I'm sure that such a notable personality as Mr. Ayoob would get a posted greeting/welcoming/announcement here by TFL staff.
 
Folks,
I've read all of your posts with great interest. I would like to mention something that is closely related to this thread. I just read an interesting study (I'll get the details Monday of who conducted it and when), but it had some very interesting findings. The bottom line is that a study of actual incidents of both life threatening and non-life threatening situations by law enforcement officers (local, state and federal, but I think mostly local) disclosed that the higher the escalation of the situation the worse the police officer's commands became. In other words, when an officer was directing a bad guy to stop, drop to his knees, place his hands behind his head, etc., the commands were short, clear, direct and very specific. When the situation was an officer confronting someone with a firearm, the commands were usually vague, indecisive, not specific and unclear. For example, in one situation, a police officer was confronted by a bad buy with a firearm. He kept telling the bad guy that "I don't want to have to kill you." The end result was that the bad guy did not drop the firearm and the police officer had to shoot him. The folks conducting the study were very surprised at this.

I just scanned the study at work (I'm a LEO), but I'll get more details tomorrow and relay them to you folks if y'all are interested. The study surprised me too because we are taught to give very specific commands in small increments. Thought you folks might find this interesting in light of this thread.
 
A few points...

rbk2000: I got the same warm welcome anybody gets when they start posting here, but none of us gets a tickertape parade. The beauty of the forum is that it's an egalitarian arena where we all start with the same pile of chips. Tim Burke was right on that. I'm a "newbie" to the gun message boards.

Tim Burke: You nailed it. The hypothetical in my book was an armed intruder in the house, and then and now I would probably dispense with the challenge in that situation.

The concern with this thread is treating ANY unknown person in the home as a bought and paid for bad guy. If someone wants to start a thread on the theme of "have you ever found a stranger in your home and it turned out there was a good explanation," you might be surprised at the results.

The "home as castle" principle does not allow us to have a dungeon in the basement or perform executions there. There are times to challenge, and times to shoot, but the time to shoot will be determined by the presence of an obvious threat over and above mere presence.
 
welcome to TFL

Wow, the neighborhood has just improved. Welcome to TFL, Mas Ayoob! :)

I had to chuckle at some of the posts in this thread. If I was as willing to draw as some of y'all, neither of my younger children would have any friends left. Either I'd have shot 'em by now or else their parents would have forbidden them to come over to that crazy lady's house who draws down on teenagers in her living room.

If you live alone and you do not have a landlord (who might be in your house fixing a leak that's flooding the apartment downstairs) and you have all your layers of security on when you leave, and when you get home you find somebody in your living room, THEN you might have reason to draw without challenge. But take any of those parameters away and there might very well be somebody in your living room you don't know when you get home. And I don't think you want to be "drawing down" on them thinking you can get away with an apology later.

I have walked in to find very oddly dressed young men and women in my house before, the whole goth-and-baggy-pant thing, and my response is a pleasant but firm "who are you and why are you here?" The answer is always that they're there as guests of my youngest son. Had I drawn and even shown my gun, never mind pointing it at them, I don't somehow think an apology would have been enough. I expect their parents wouldn't have settled for that.

Challenging before shooting is a good idea, seems to me...

Springmom
 
Capt Charlie said:
...escalates force based on an established use of force continuum...
Click to expand...

And THAT is what I think is missing from 90% of these conversations and hypotheticals. :)

I wonder - how many instructors out there actually teach Escalation of Force as a guiding concept?
A common theme that I read is a lack of a solid grasp on the force continuum - one only applies force in degrees appropriate to the level of threat, and only then just enough to de-escalate the situation. Sometimes that means someone gets shot, more often it means that someone does not.

I often see two camps form on issues like this, those who say "Shoot first, ask later", and those who say "Don't draw until the last possible second"...
I'm pretty sure the answer lies somewhere in the gray area between the two.

Besides, has anyone said that you're going to get in trouble for drawing down on someone but not shooting, unless you're just brandishing the weapon, of course. DRAWdoes not equal SHOOT :)
As other people have noted, bringing a handgun into any situation before it is warranted simply escalates the entire process, so really it comes down to acceptable levels of risk for each individual. If you point your weapon at someone, I should hope that the situation has already deteriorated to the point where that was your only option.

In answer to the original question: Of course you challenge! And maybe you do it with your gun halfway out of the holster, just to be safe :)
 
Last edited:
All of the above said, it should be said, with the exception of some cities and neighborhoods, almost never is there a call for pulling a weapon. It's just life in general that usually resolves itself. There is a great deal more paranoia evidenced on gun message boards than is warranted in general society. With the noted exceptions.

Still, I talked with two LEO's last week, both from your basic Small Town, USA and they both said the same thing, "You just never know".

But as Mr. Ayood noted in his book, you don't want to go there if you can possibly avoid it.
 
When my father in law was still alive he suffered from dementia. Since my mother in law had a key to the house it would have been possible for him to get in my house. In fact he got in the car a couple of times and drove over before the sun came up. It would have been something that would have been almost impossible to live with If I had followed the philosophy of just shoot and killed or injured my father in law.

While its great to have a sidearm to defend yourself, its even a greater responsibility to make sure you use it right. Our instructors for the CHL Course were deputies for a local sheriffs departments we went over the continnum of force as CPT Charlie described as well as escalation and descalation. They were well experinced law enforcment officers who have never had to shoot another person even when thay have had to draw thier weapons.
 
Back in the old days, when a Russian Cossack had drawn his saber in anticipation of combat and subsequently had not used it for its intended purpose, he would lightly run the blade across the back of his wrist--just enough to draw blood--before resheathing it. Perhaps those of us who feel that drawing must be followed by shooting would be open to employing that old Cossack custom. ;)
 
I Laugh...

...when I read people say that if you draw your defensive weapon, you must start shooting! "Don't draw unless you intend to start shooting". Thankfully, I have never been in that situation, but as a few others have said, use your common sense!
I think it makes more sense to say "don't draw unless you are prepared to start shooting".
If a situation appears life-threatening, I would not hesitate to draw my weapon. If I can then back away or somehow avoid shooting, then that's what I'm going to do.
Should you issue a warning or command? Depends on the situation! If you see an unknown person in your home with a sawed-off shotgun in the middle of the night...that would be different than an unknown person in your home at noon wearing a toolbelt...wouldn't it? C'mon!
I can think of nothing good coming from a shot fired in a defensive situation, other than living to tell about it. That's reason enough to be prepared, though.

Jim
 
I think the key to remember here is that one should follow a force continuum. Confronting a perceived threat, eliminating that threat and resolving the situation is not a series of separated actions, but a continuum of action, which can be followed or ceased at any point along the continuum.

I challenge while drawing my weapon. As I raised 4 children, and helped raise several others, the threat was usually eliminated before the weapon came to point on the perceived threat. If the answer to my challenge was not appropriately answered, either verbally or by body language/posture, the weapon continued to come on target. If the perceived threat was not eliminated by the coming on target, I fired. I reached the firing stage once. I disarmed and restrained more than once. I stopped in the act of drawing many times and went directly to resolving of the situation by counseling the strange person and the youngster who invited the stranger into my home about how to behave while in my home.

My kids learned early in life that it was very easy to sneak out of the house at night. They learned at the same time that they had better make a LOT of noise when returning.

Pops
 
pickpocket said:
I wonder - how many instructors out there actually teach Escalation of Force as a guiding concept?
Click to expand...

Well, Mas Ayoob for one.

BTW, I don't know just how much time a webmaster is supposed to spend confirming that each poster using a well-known name is who he says he is, but quite a few of us have a basis on which to judge authenticity by what is posted. Having taken LFI-1, -2, and -3, I certainly think that the poster "Mas Ayoob" sounds like the real Mas Ayoob. Of course, that raises the question of who I am to testify.

Who will vouch for me as the real Model520Fan?
 
Last edited:
The whip that instructs!

At my school, (www.gunsite.com) we teach that security is not only a way of thinking, but of life.

This encompasses all aspects of your being; physical, mental, and virtual.

While guns can protect your physical body, your virtual online 'body' may be vulnerable to hijacking in the form of impersonation. This is most commonly done by goblins in the form of identity theft.

But this can take other forms too, such as destruction of your reputation by posting scurrilous comments, using your name, in online discussion groups.

Just as you are required to provide proof-of-identity for certain purposes when your physical body is presented to others who don't already know you, so too do you need to have proof-of-identity when presenting your virtual body to others who don't already know you online.

This is where PGP comes in.

By creating a PGP key, and providing both the public key and key signature at a site that others already know belongs to you, you can PROVE that 'you are you' by signing your messages using your private PGP key.

Others who don't already know you (virtually), can then verify that the message being posted by 'you' (M.A.), really ARE from 'you' (M.A.), and not from someone pretending to be M.A. for whatever reason.

This also demonstrates that someone highly skilled in one medium can be woefully lacking in another.

An excellent tutorial to PGP can be found here.

Model520Fan is not a name that has a valuable real-world reputation attached to it, built over 20+ years, that can be damaged and sued, as 'Massad Ayoob' does.

If this was a physics forum, and someone calling themselves 'Stephen Hawkings' started posting here, it'd matter. 'Quark520fan' would not.

One doesn't matter, the other does.

So, yes, in any forum, regardless of subject matter, staff SHOULD take an interest in verifying that someone using the name of a noted authority/expert/celebrity in the subject matter, really IS who they are claiming to be by using such a name.

AOX (ROT-13 signature)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top