You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Psychological vs. Physiological
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
That's fair. The question becomes how do you quantify how often it does work, and that when it did work it was the only option that would have worked? The problem I see why psychological stops is that they are, from what I've seen, significantly less reliable than physiological stops. I'd obviously prefer to end a situation without causing someone harm, which is where I think avoidance and deescalation come into play. When you display a firearm if you don't get compliance you have escalated the situation. Then what?I'm not arguing that it is universally true and in fairness to my statement I don't think I made that argument.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I think that you have to have the willingness, ability, and preferably equipment to render significant physiological harm to an attacker to be prepared to defend yourself. Willingness, ability, equipment - in that order. Carrying a gun because it is certain to stop an attacker is not a good plan in my opinion but the argument that it will require physical force is also inaccurate.
But we all limit ourselves to some degree or for some reason. We are not, I hope the majority of us, wandering around in tactical body armor with high capacity carbine over our shoulder prepared to attempt to fend off a group of highly competent and determined individuals. We might try and as I have noted before if it comes down to it I'm going to be standing there with a likely empty revolver and a surprised expression looking at the Valkyries and wondering how I managed to die in combat given the relatively peaceful state of the world around me.
In the case of the convenience store robbery we can discuss what was done right and what was done wrong. In the end the concessions made by the women defending themselves were not so great as they could not overcome their attacker.
Should we be prepared to render physiological damage should it come to that? Yes we should. But we should also understand defensive handguns are actually pretty poor at rendering QUICK physiological stops. We need to have, to the best of our abilities and the concessions we make, some plan beyond the use of a handgun the same as we must have some plan in case we fail to produce a psychological stop by display of a weapon.
But we all limit ourselves to some degree or for some reason. We are not, I hope the majority of us, wandering around in tactical body armor with high capacity carbine over our shoulder prepared to attempt to fend off a group of highly competent and determined individuals. We might try and as I have noted before if it comes down to it I'm going to be standing there with a likely empty revolver and a surprised expression looking at the Valkyries and wondering how I managed to die in combat given the relatively peaceful state of the world around me.
In the case of the convenience store robbery we can discuss what was done right and what was done wrong. In the end the concessions made by the women defending themselves were not so great as they could not overcome their attacker.
Should we be prepared to render physiological damage should it come to that? Yes we should. But we should also understand defensive handguns are actually pretty poor at rendering QUICK physiological stops. We need to have, to the best of our abilities and the concessions we make, some plan beyond the use of a handgun the same as we must have some plan in case we fail to produce a psychological stop by display of a weapon.
The Gurkha Rifles in W.W. II had a philosophy about the use of their blades to remove sentrys with them making any noise. The Kukri is applied either vertically or horizontally to the sentry's head or neck respectively. Thus removing or bisecting the head entirely. Theory being that a sentry cannot cry out without his head.
It has both a psychological and physiological affect. The physiological affect is obvious. The psychological affect is primarily upon the guy who finds the missing sentry.
A blackjack or sap may have no affect of any kind. Even if you whack a BG up the side of his head, it may not affect him at all. And you need to get up close and in range of the BG grabbing you or otherwise causing you damage.
In any case, people tend to be frightened by blades more than blunt instruments because they're more familiar with what they can do.
"...criminals that do not care..." Mostly about whether or not said criminal is on drugs or not. Affects one's judgement.
It has both a psychological and physiological affect. The physiological affect is obvious. The psychological affect is primarily upon the guy who finds the missing sentry.
A blackjack or sap may have no affect of any kind. Even if you whack a BG up the side of his head, it may not affect him at all. And you need to get up close and in range of the BG grabbing you or otherwise causing you damage.
In any case, people tend to be frightened by blades more than blunt instruments because they're more familiar with what they can do.
"...criminals that do not care..." Mostly about whether or not said criminal is on drugs or not. Affects one's judgement.
Some folks suffer from what is called Blood Injury Phobia (we might have been talking about such). IIRC, maybe two percent of the population have an exaggerated stress response to a perceived injury and faint. Interestingly, it was studied most by dentists who saw it in many patients getting the needle. Might be a genetic predisposition to such, IIRC.
I very much dislike seeing a needle in my arm, especially if it is removing blood, I don't watch, potential to make me weak.
In contrast, I've had cuts that required stitches (up to 50) and that view of my blood didn't bother me other than desire to make it quit bleeding.
Needle in arm may make me lightheaded, cuts, injury, are not the same. Probably just me being weird.
Should we be prepared to render physiological damage should it come to that? Yes we should. But we should also understand defensive handguns are actually pretty poor at rendering QUICK physiological stops. We need to have, to the best of our abilities and the concessions we make, some plan beyond the use of a handgun the same as we must have some plan in case we fail to produce a psychological stop by display of a weapon.
I do and don't agree with your first part. There are plenty of people that have been killed quickly with a handgun. If you disable a person's central nervous system or cause a sudden and dramatic loss of blood that person is likely going down. The issue is typically more in getting the shot placement and/or penetration to hit the critical area. While a rifle or shotgun do have significantly more power, they also come with the added advantage of more points of contact with the weapon and a greater ease to get that shot placement. There have also been people that survived multiple shots with a long gun, again because of poor shot placement. Obviously shot placement under stress isn't a given. I've been in force on force scenarios where I missed people at distances that I'd laugh at on a square range. I wasn't getting a good sight picture. But that wasn't a failing of the handgun, it was me.
I also see these two responses, psychological or physiological, as pretty different in intention. If I'm actively discharging rounds at another person it's because I'm trying to stop a threat and I've determined lethal force is potentially necessary (not that you shoot to kill, but even a single shot of a handgun can potentially kill another person so discharging a round is a serious consideration). The psychological display of a firearm is because I've determined that my adversary's motivation is not strong enough to endure a show of force. While I might go to a physiological stop if the psychological fails, the reverse isn't true for me. If I shoot someone multiple times and that person continues to be a threat I'm not now switching to scare them psychologically. Either the pain and injury resulted in compliance or it didn't. Teaching people to shoot until the threat stops isn't always easy, and is demonstrated in that convenience store shooting.
To me displaying a firearm escalates a situation dramatically. I don't think expecting compliance from such a display is a given (nor am I saying you said that either), and to an extent I've been conditioned by my training to believe that to be a strong likelihood. In that event I'd rather see someone deescalate, avoid, and escape rather than display a firearm with the assumption of compliance. If you do have to go the psychological route, as you said understand that it may need to be followed up immediately with a physiological attempt, depending on the individual.
I think we have a slight disagreement on terminology
Physiological stop: Unable to physically continue the attack due to the nature and extent of injury
Psychological stop: physically able to continue the attack but unwilling to. To me if you shoot someone and the injury does not prevent them from being able to physically continue the attack but they decide not to (due to pain, fear, whatever) its still a psychological stop. There are a lot of reasons an attacker may stop the attack when still able to physically carry it out and these would be psychological stops to me (absent the attacker succeeding and stopping because of success).
Physiological stop: Unable to physically continue the attack due to the nature and extent of injury
Psychological stop: physically able to continue the attack but unwilling to. To me if you shoot someone and the injury does not prevent them from being able to physically continue the attack but they decide not to (due to pain, fear, whatever) its still a psychological stop. There are a lot of reasons an attacker may stop the attack when still able to physically carry it out and these would be psychological stops to me (absent the attacker succeeding and stopping because of success).
I don't think I disagree with your terminology, though I didn't realize you were combining psychological and physiological attacks into the psychological attack. In your definition of a psychological stop you're allowing the notion that it might need to include an attempted physiological stop. While there is a point of assessing a situation and seeing if the assailant has changed his/her behavior, there's also a danger. If you stop too quickly or too much that allows the assailant to potentially do you harm. This is seen in the convenience store robbery. The mother and daughter both shoot the assailant and then stop, seemingly hoping that he will stop his attack (and potentially from them likely not wanting to kill someone). The assailant uses that hesitation to close the distance and become even more of a threat. Willingness to commit fully to the defense is important, which you did mention before I believe. You had also made this comment:
While true, I think there is a certain level of danger in this. The assailant took their firearm and attempted to kill them with it. Had the firearm had more capacity they could likely have died. Those concessions could have cost them their lives. While I understand I'm using "could" here a lot, it's because I really do think that trying to stop an attack by inflicting a specific amount of pain that stops motion but doesn't pose a lethal threat and then monitoring for that reaction is both very difficult and potentially unwise.
In the end the concessions made by the women defending themselves were not so great as they could not overcome their attacker.
While true, I think there is a certain level of danger in this. The assailant took their firearm and attempted to kill them with it. Had the firearm had more capacity they could likely have died. Those concessions could have cost them their lives. While I understand I'm using "could" here a lot, it's because I really do think that trying to stop an attack by inflicting a specific amount of pain that stops motion but doesn't pose a lethal threat and then monitoring for that reaction is both very difficult and potentially unwise.
Last edited:
I agree with Lohman446's definition.
And I think people greatly overestimate the effect of blood loss in the short term. It takes the loss of a great deal of blood to make someone lose consciousness. I had a surgery professor whose favorite line was "Significant bleeding is that which you can hear." A certain stop from blood loss takes from several seconds at a minimum, and without hitting a blood vessel with a very short one-word name, like "aorta," can easily take minutes if it happens at all. First the person has to lose enough blood to cause a compromise in brain function, and then the brain has to run out of reserve functional capacity, which itself takes a few seconds.
The guy in the convenience store video being discussed in another thread was said to be hospitalized, right? So it was likely a psychological stop even then - him feeling like he was in bad enough shape to quit. A physiological stop in that situation of a protracted fight would very likely have had to be fatal.
And I think people greatly overestimate the effect of blood loss in the short term. It takes the loss of a great deal of blood to make someone lose consciousness. I had a surgery professor whose favorite line was "Significant bleeding is that which you can hear." A certain stop from blood loss takes from several seconds at a minimum, and without hitting a blood vessel with a very short one-word name, like "aorta," can easily take minutes if it happens at all. First the person has to lose enough blood to cause a compromise in brain function, and then the brain has to run out of reserve functional capacity, which itself takes a few seconds.
The guy in the convenience store video being discussed in another thread was said to be hospitalized, right? So it was likely a psychological stop even then - him feeling like he was in bad enough shape to quit. A physiological stop in that situation of a protracted fight would very likely have had to be fatal.
I really do think that trying to stop an attack by inflicting a specific amount of pain that stops motion but doesn't pose a lethal threat and then monitoring for that reaction is both very difficult and potentially unwise.
To a degree. Chances are you are trained, once shooting starts, to shoot until the threat stops and then, if the threat restarts, to start shooting again. "No one" is trained to shoot until the subject is physically unable to continue the attack. Once aggressive behavior stops and compliance is gained or the attacker retreats you are not permitted to continue shooting. So we start to attempt to consider intent.
I'm shooting center of mass because that is most likely to hit and most likely to stop the aggressive actions of an attacker. Frankly I don't care if the attacker stops because he or she decides to end the attack or because he or she is physically unable to. I am not for a moment suggesting one "shoot to wound" but I am also not suggesting one is "shooting to kill"
Our discussion about psychological versus physiological stops is a matter of discussion. To me a pure QUICK physiological stop is extremely unlikely with modern defensive handguns. They are useful to discussion because it allows us to see why others prepare the way they do and the thought process behind such preparations
Last edited:
To a degree. Chances are you are trained, once shooting starts, to shoot until the threat stops and then, if the threat restarts, to start shooting again. "No one" is trained to shoot until the subject is physically unable to continue the attack. Once aggressive behavior stops and compliance is gained or the attacker retreats you are not permitted to continue shooting. So we start to attempt to consider intent.
Right, and I'm saying there are caveats to that that need consideration. It's not about shooting to wound or shooting to kill. It's about shooting to stop the threat, and whether the threat is or isn't active isn't always easy to determine. What's the difference between retreating and running to cover?
I'd also add that I personally see threat evaluation after shooting someone as a bit different than the earlier conversation about stopping a fight by just showing a firearm.
As for this:
To me a pure QUICK physiological stop is extremely unlikely with modern defensive handguns
I would agree more people are shot than die from handguns, or firearms in general. Some people die from one shot, some survive multiple. While I get your point, I'm sort of left with a, "Well, yeah", reaction. Are you presenting or arguing for some kind of alternative? If that alternative is the person will stop because of psychological factors, I think while that's definitely possible it's not guaranteed. Are we talking just displaying a firearm? Are we talking shooting said person? Multiple shots? I don't think anyone knows the level of force required to stop some random person on the street. My point this whole time is assuming anything can get you killed. You have to assess the situation and reassess as it evolves.
We may have somewhat the same conclusion we are just taking different paths to get there and perhaps different paths away from it. When I carried an NAA mini I used to make the comment that I wasn't certain five shots of .22 would do the job but a few holes in an aggressor would likely make him or her easier to deal with if the situation reached close contact distances. But the same holds true with any number of firearms.
It seems you want to stress the premise that the presence of a gun is not some magical talisman. One should not count on it to produce a quick psychological stop. Its a valid premise though I think it can be overstated as well. Still its a valid premise and we must be prepared for when simple brandishment or even assault with a firearm (the threat of using the gun not the actual use) does not work. I agree with you on the premise.
We must be prepared to actually USE the firearm in question. The distinction I am trying to make here is even the competent use of a firearm should not be depended on to create a physiological stop.
You must be prepared for what happens if you shoot and hit (or miss) an attacker and he or she does not stop. What then? What about after 5, 15, or 30 shots and the threat is still present. I think this is the point of training that many fail to consider. The gun cannot be depended on to create a physiological stop of violent action.
A Ruger SP101 for instance likely makes a very effective club though.
It seems you want to stress the premise that the presence of a gun is not some magical talisman. One should not count on it to produce a quick psychological stop. Its a valid premise though I think it can be overstated as well. Still its a valid premise and we must be prepared for when simple brandishment or even assault with a firearm (the threat of using the gun not the actual use) does not work. I agree with you on the premise.
We must be prepared to actually USE the firearm in question. The distinction I am trying to make here is even the competent use of a firearm should not be depended on to create a physiological stop.
You must be prepared for what happens if you shoot and hit (or miss) an attacker and he or she does not stop. What then? What about after 5, 15, or 30 shots and the threat is still present. I think this is the point of training that many fail to consider. The gun cannot be depended on to create a physiological stop of violent action.
A Ruger SP101 for instance likely makes a very effective club though.
The assailant took their firearm and attempted to kill them with it. Had the firearm had more capacity they could likely have died
There is a saying out there that if a violent attacker ever kills me with my firearm he will have to use it to beat me to death because it will certainly be out of ammo. Maybe there is some point where capacity beyond your capability to effectively use it becomes a cause for concern rather than comfort.
If it can't be depended on to create a physiological stop then it sure can't be depended on to create a psychological stop. At some level we do depend on it though, because otherwise it gets a bit silly. For instance, I carry with a compliment of 30 rds of 9mm. If that fails, I have a knife. If that fails, I have me. What if I'm against a BJJ champion though and my gun explodes in my hand and a tsunami strikes at the same time? At some level all of us say, "That's enough", because you can what if until the cows come home. What are the chances of needing a firearm in the first place? What are the chances that the attacker doesn't stop either physiologically or psychologically from being shot? What are the chances he or she doesn't stop after being shot and stabbed and punched and kicked? I get being prepared, I get contingencies, I'm all for people learning martial arts. At some point you're working to mitigate something with a probability that becomes extremely small and my time and money are finite and I'd be better off planning for something else.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Or I could ask if they had more capacity in the first place would they have had more opportunities to deliver a fight ending shot (psychological or physiological) before the assailant closed that distance?There is a saying out there that if a violent attacker ever kills me with my firearm he will have to use it to beat me to death because it will certainly be out of ammo. Maybe there is some point where capacity beyond your capability to effectively use it becomes a cause for concern rather than comfort.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
A lot of my self-defense focus has been on the physiological because that works regardless of the mental state of your opponent. But I’m reminded of a conversation I had with JohnKSa and Glenn Meyer after a Firearms Law CLE where John made a very observant remark on the psychological value of weapons.
I think if you're facing a sane and rational opponent there might be something to the psychological value of a weapon, but for the most part I would think that to most people a gun is a gun; point it at them and they won't be asking themselves if it's a 22 or a 44 magnum. Furthermore, I think the most likely opponent for most of us is one that isn't sane or rational. There's likely drugs or alcohol on board and that changes everything.
Or I could ask if they had more capacity in the first place would they have had more opportunities to deliver a fight ending shot (psychological or physiological) before the assailant closed that distance?
I think it much more likely that lack of ammunition becomes an issue before having too much especially in the hands of a competent individual. I just found it interesting that, in the convenience store case, the lack of ammo may have had a benefit.
Your point about the what if considerations. I think you have hit on something I like. We all make concessions. For instance I know that should a group of competent and determined individuals attack me I am unlikely to survive it so I do not prepare for having four people attack me. Really I'm just hoping, if I am ever attacked, that the individual is neither competent nor determined and runs at the first sign of resistance. Does it mean I am not prepared to escalate further? No. But if a single competent and determined individual attacks me at a time and place of his or her choosing I'm already on the wrong side of the odds.
stinkeypete
New member
Re: the convenience store video
I suddenly wonder if the criminal’s return (in the face of two handguns) might not have been influenced by the workers at the store being women that despite relative competence to defend themselves, do not project the same aura of say two huge tattooed biker dudes (who may in fact be the nicest men you would ever meet) that look downright scary.
To clarify, women can be just as lethal as men but in our society I feel women are generally considered less dangerous than men. This might be a small bit of the “psychological” aspect.
My immediate question is “what the heck was going on in that store?” From the limited footage, it appeared the women were shooting at a fleeing attacker who then initiated another attack. That’s neither here nor there- I would be shocked if anyone in that action knew exactly what was going on.
Grim stuff.
I suddenly wonder if the criminal’s return (in the face of two handguns) might not have been influenced by the workers at the store being women that despite relative competence to defend themselves, do not project the same aura of say two huge tattooed biker dudes (who may in fact be the nicest men you would ever meet) that look downright scary.
To clarify, women can be just as lethal as men but in our society I feel women are generally considered less dangerous than men. This might be a small bit of the “psychological” aspect.
My immediate question is “what the heck was going on in that store?” From the limited footage, it appeared the women were shooting at a fleeing attacker who then initiated another attack. That’s neither here nor there- I would be shocked if anyone in that action knew exactly what was going on.
Grim stuff.
I just found it interesting that, in the convenience store case, the lack of ammo may have had a benefit.
True. The world is a strange place.
Your point about the what if considerations. I think you have hit on something I like. We all make concessions.
It's the unfortunate reality. Ideally if I knew when and where someone was going to attack me, I wouldn't be there. To this day I don't know how much firearm is or isn't "enough" for carry. I know what I've chosen for myself based on what I'm willing and able to carry, but others come to different conclusions (both more and less). Are they or I "wrong"?
To bring it full circle, since we can't depend on firearms or people for either guaranteed psychological or physiological stops to be a thing, considering the possibilities and constantly reassessing the situation seem the best bet. The threat of force or the use of less-than-lethal force may or may not dissuade someone. If it does then don't kill someone unnecessarily. If it doesn't then someone carrying a firearm has to be willing to use lethal force. In that possibility, be prepared for adversaries that may not stop so easily. Alternatives like edged weapons, martial arts, etc, are a good thing to have in your pocket.
For all the talk about criminals that do not care about being endangered we seem to be ignoring something that used to be true: most encounters where a would be victim draws a firearm end without injury to the victim and without a shot being fired.
Is this no longer true?
Where did you come up with that?
A person is not by definition a criminal until he victimizes someone. You can't use deadly force to protect yourself unless justified, so how would you justify deadly force if not being attacked to the level that deadly force is the appropriate response?
I can only speak of 40 years of dealing with criminals. Maybe they are nicer where you live.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.