All bravado aside. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : All bravado aside.


iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 17:11
If I'm in public and someone robs where I'm at... the gas station or a restaurant, and I'm concealed carrying, I'm not going to do anything except exactly as the criminal asks me to.

The reasons are simple.

1. Why escalate the situation by getting out my firearm, increasing my likelyhood of death as well as the other patrons? The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine. Also if I hit him firrst there's still a chance he can get a shot off.

2. I would much rather have my wallet of $40, driver's license, and bank card stolen than defend myself and pay thousands of dollars and hours in the courtroom and talking to lawyers.

DO you guys agree?

Rizzo
07-04-2011, 17:12
So why do you even carry at all? :dunno:

Ruggles
07-04-2011, 17:16
All depends on the situation. Too many variables to say for sure how I would react. Not going to shoot someone over a $5 item being stolen, but not going to let the robber decide my fate. It is not something that is just a clear cut choice that can be stated with 100% confidence IMO.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 17:22
So why do you even carry at all? :dunno:

No real reason come to think of it. I don't need to carry, but actually my greatest fear to tell you the truth is dogs.

If I'm jogging or riding my bike I like to know that I don't have to worry about a pitbull attack... I had a friend who was attacked by one.

Other than dogs I'm really not afraid of anything or feel the need to carry.

DARKSHADOW
07-04-2011, 17:25
Who is to say they won't shoot you if you do give it up. :dunno:

I'm not sure exactly what I would do, but I think I would try to hide first, and then pull out my weapon in case they do come for me.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-04-2011, 17:25
but not going to let the robber decide my fate. It is not something that is just a clear cut choice that can be stated with 100% confidence IMO.

True, no one really knows until we are in that situation.

But regarding other people controlling our fate... they do. We like to think we have control, but we really don't. Everyone whom you've ever upset or haven't upset controls your fate to a certain extent, but we know most people won't pull a gun and shoot us because we've insulted them. But is that OUR control of theirs?

Highspeedlane
07-04-2011, 17:28
I would like to think I would be 100% sure there was imminent risk of grievous bodily harm to myself or someone else before I would open fire.

If you over react, the DA (depending on the state and its political climate) is going to have a field day.

But even in a Nanny State like MA they will quickly clear you of criminal charges if it can be proven you faced a lethal threat (i.e., a thug merely leveling a firearm at you during the commission of a robbery qualifies).

bocephus549
07-04-2011, 17:34
If I'm in public and someone robs where I'm at... the gas station or a restaurant, and I'm concealed carrying, I'm not going to do anything except exactly as the criminal asks me to.

The reasons are simple.

1. Why escalate the situation by getting out my firearm, increasing my likelyhood of death as well as the other patrons? The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine. Also if I hit him firrst there's still a chance he can get a shot off.

2. I would much rather have my wallet of $40, driver's license, and bank card stolen than defend myself and pay thousands of dollars and hours in the courtroom and talking to lawyers.

DO you guys agree?

Yes I do.

Rizzo
07-04-2011, 17:36
Films, have you ever heard of the phrase "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"?

You seriously think that you'd be better off by not getting the first shot off on a gun-wielding BG than you would by meekly saying "Yes sir, here's my wallet sir, please don't shoot!" For god's sake, that's why we carry in the first place, so we don't have to worry (as much) about being mugged, shot, stabbed, killed, etc. Or at the very least to have a better chance of surviving something like that.

Too many good citizens have died with the mistaken belief that nothing bad will happen to them, that armed robberies/muggings only happen on the 6:00 news to "other people." You can believe in the inherent goodness of your fellow man if you want to; I'm not as trusting.

BailRecoveryAgent
07-04-2011, 17:42
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/Hyuuga_Kitaro/Troll-1.jpg

bobelk99
07-04-2011, 17:49
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/Hyuuga_Kitaro/Troll-1.jpg

OP probably not a troll, but:

:agree:

NeverMore1701
07-04-2011, 18:01
I remember this guy.

GlockOpsFool
07-04-2011, 18:08
I would keep my gun holstered and be a good witness until the robber points his weapon at me, then all bets are off.

gwalchmai
07-04-2011, 18:09
I live in Georgia. nuff said.

KilgoreTrout
07-04-2011, 18:21
pit bulls are srs bizness.

NeverMore1701
07-04-2011, 18:23
I would keep my gun holstered and be a good witness until the robber points his weapon at me, then all bets are off.

So you'd wait until someone trained a gun on you before you broke concealment, drew, and fired? God you must be fast!

Twisted Steel
07-04-2011, 18:26
I tend to agree. If you are in a bank, and robbers come in to rob the bank and make no indication they are going to hurt anyone, it is best to let it play out. Of course, you are going to see some really eager folks getting in on this discussion. Too many people think CCW equals LEO.


I wonder though, if you did act and the ensuing gunfight got innocents killed, if you would face charges.

NeverMore1701
07-04-2011, 18:32
I tend to agree. If you are in a bank, and robbers come in to rob the bank and make no indication they are going to hurt anyone, it is best to let it play out. Of course, you are going to see some really eager folks getting in on this discussion. Too many people think CCW equals LEO.


I wonder though, if you did act and the ensuing gunfight got innocents killed, if you would face charges.

The way I understand it in Texas, if you shoot an innocent bystander on accident, you're in trouble. If the BG hits someone while shooting at you, no problem.

As with all of these hypothetical scenarios, my answer is "it depends". Basically, were I in such a predicament, do I feel that I am in immediate danger? If not, I'll just try to stay unnoticed and gather as much information as I can. If so, even a little, I'll try to wait until they're focused on something else and then make my move. Draw and fire, move to cover, or straight up run the **** away, again it depends on the circumstances.

ray9898
07-04-2011, 18:37
Bottom line is if someone has you at gun point at personal distance your odds of drawing, presenting and defending yourself are close to zero.

I have seen quite a few robberies in my career. Of those I can think of 4 where deadly force was actually used by the robber, in those situations 3 of the victims resisted. If those 3 people had not resisted would violence have been used? Who knows.

I just know being robbed is dangerous. Trying to use force against someone who has presented and is ready to use force is really really dangerous. Sometimes sitting there and complying will get you just as dead as if you pull a gun and lose. The is no good answer and no solution that will work every time.

Bren
07-04-2011, 18:46
If I'm in public and someone robs where I'm at... the gas station or a restaurant, and I'm concealed carrying, I'm not going to do anything except exactly as the criminal asks me to.

The reasons are simple.

1. Why escalate the situation by getting out my firearm, increasing my likelyhood of death as well as the other patrons? The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine. Also if I hit him firrst there's still a chance he can get a shot off.

2. I would much rather have my wallet of $40, driver's license, and bank card stolen than defend myself and pay thousands of dollars and hours in the courtroom and talking to lawyers.

DO you guys agree?

So don't carry a gun. That's your right and we'd probably all feel safer if YOU ddn't.

Here, a guy got robbed yesterday or the day before and when he told the robber he had no money, the robber shot him anyhow (for wasting his time I guess). He's recovering at the hospital. Contrary to the liberal line, that isn't very uncommon. Other robbers shoot you first, then search for your money. Good luck with your plan.

Highspeedlane
07-04-2011, 18:46
I agree with all on the fact that you can "what if" scenarios all day and real life will be nothing like that imagined.

The most recent case of lethal self defense near where I live involved a man whose hotel room was broken into by two robbers, one armed with a pellet gun.

He stabbed both robbers to death. He was charged with manslaughter, but a grand jury failed to indict. The fact it even went as far as a grand jury was disturbing enough.

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/12004170882652/mass-double-stabbing-suspect-not-indicted/

Sam Spade
07-04-2011, 20:29
Y'all are welcome to make any decision you want for yourself, as I'll make mine. I'd hope that you make decisions off more than gunshop talk and GNG wisdom though.

Let me recommend that anyone looking to form an opinion start here: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/ and read every word written. Because the criminal world is nothing like you think.

costanza187
07-04-2011, 21:11
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/03/340x_kickass_02.jpg

This suit would be better than a gun.

cowboy1964
07-04-2011, 21:29
If you can foretell the future and know no one is going to get hurt, more power to ya.

If the BG is herding everyone into the backroom so he can most likely execute them one by one, I'm not going quietly.

hpracing007
07-04-2011, 21:59
If the guy is focused 100% on you and has a gun pointed right at you, you better hope his gun jams if you try to pull out yours.

skyboss_4evr
07-04-2011, 22:04
True, no one really knows until we are in that situation.

But regarding other people controlling our fate... they do. We like to think we have control, but we really don't. Everyone whom you've ever upset or haven't upset controls your fate to a certain extent, but we know most people won't pull a gun and shoot us because we've insulted them. But is that OUR control of theirs?

Wow. I almost threw up reading this bleeding heart dribble. You sound like a sheep.

GlockOpsFool
07-04-2011, 23:52
So you'd wait until someone trained a gun on you before you broke concealment, drew, and fired? God you must be fast!

No, I would let the scenario play out and adapt as necessary. I don't quick draw, but I would prepare for a confrontation. I meant that I'm not going to automatically draw my pistol unless I felt that the situation was going to escalate and affect my immediate safety.

quicksand
07-05-2011, 00:02
Screw that!

Shoot the SOB, take his wallet, go to his address and kill his little robber kids then burn the whole hive to the ground!

You can't be soft on these swine.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-05-2011, 01:46
Wow. I almost threw up reading this bleeding heart dribble. You sound like a sheep.

So do you control whether or not I take offense to this post, decide to look you up and hunt you down? Do you control this or do you trust that it simply will not happen?

I think as human beings we like to think we are in control, when really there is so much out of our control.

iluv2viddyfilms
07-05-2011, 01:50
If you can foretell the future and know no one is going to get hurt, more power to ya.

If the BG is herding everyone into the backroom so he can most likely execute them one by one, I'm not going quietly.

Or more than likely he's herding them into the back room because he wants them out of the way and easy to control/observe in order to commit the robbery (his objective) and once he does that will get the Hell out of dodge.

If they wanted you dead they'd just pop you were you are. WHy waste time?

emopunker2004
07-05-2011, 02:10
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/hyuuga_kitaro/troll-1.jpg
+1........

RussP
07-05-2011, 06:28
If I'm in public and someone robs where I'm at... the gas station or a restaurant, and I'm concealed carrying, I'm not going to do anything except exactly as the criminal asks me to.

The reasons are simple.

1. Why escalate the situation by getting out my firearm, increasing my likelyhood of death as well as the other patrons? The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine. Also if I hit him firrst there's still a chance he can get a shot off.

2. I would much rather have my wallet of $40, driver's license, and bank card stolen than defend myself and pay thousands of dollars and hours in the courtroom and talking to lawyers.

DO you guys agree?

No real reason come to think of it. I don't need to carry, but actually my greatest fear to tell you the truth is dogs.

If I'm jogging or riding my bike I like to know that I don't have to worry about a pitbull attack... I had a friend who was attacked by one.

Other than dogs I'm really not afraid of anything or feel the need to carry.

True, no one really knows until we are in that situation.

But regarding other people controlling our fate... they do. We like to think we have control, but we really don't. Everyone whom you've ever upset or haven't upset controls your fate to a certain extent, but we know most people won't pull a gun and shoot us because we've insulted them. But is that OUR control of theirs?

So do you control whether or not I take offense to this post, decide to look you up and hunt you down? Do you control this or do you trust that it simply will not happen?

I think as human beings we like to think we are in control, when really there is so much out of our control.

Or more than likely he's herding them into the back room because he wants them out of the way and easy to control/observe in order to commit the robbery (his objective) and once he does that will get the Hell out of dodge.

If they wanted you dead they'd just pop you were you are. WHy waste time?Reading all of that, this stood out, "Other than dogs I'm really not afraid of anything or feel the need to carry." That's pretty bold, but then, I'm not afraid of anything either. I mean, of course, afraid as in crippling paranoia, paralytic fear. I do respect the ability of others to do bad things. I constantly work on plans to negate their influence on my life.

My opinion is I am not certain your "I'm not really afraid of anything" is the same as mine. Maybe it is, hopefully it is.

If it isn't, and this is based on real people in my life in the real world, you're setting yourself up for stepping into some bad ****.

Oh, and yeah, I don't need to carry either. Lots of people don't need to carry. I've found in my personal experiences that being prepared for the unexpected has advantages.

Then there is this: "I think as human beings we like to think we are in control, when really there is so much out of our control." Doesn't that contradict your "I'm not really afraid of anything"? Maybe so, maybe not...

Steve50
07-05-2011, 07:55
so whatever control you could have, you're willing to give away (except with dogs) ?

Sam Spade
07-05-2011, 08:00
Or more than likely he's herding them into the back room because he wants them out of the way and easy to control/observe in order to commit the robbery (his objective) and once he does that will get the Hell out of dodge.

If they wanted you dead they'd just pop you were you are. WHy waste time?

You, of all the people on the thread, need to do some serious study. You're projecting your suburban whitebread morals on to people who simply don't think like you do. I suggest you begin your study with the link I provided. then start searching for analysis of what it means when the armed criminal is moving you away from the first crime scene.

You simply don't even know what you don't know.

ashecht
07-05-2011, 08:06
way too many "ifs" to allow for one right answer. I would have to judge the state of mind of the BGs. Are they fidgety, waving guns around? Or are they just looking for a smash and grab thing, and get out quickly. If they decided to start moving people into a back room, odds are they are looking to do harm, and eliminate witnesses. A snap judgement would be needed in that case, and it would depend on things such as number of BG's, what they are armed with. Obviously if shots are fired, ie warning shots, my decision has been made. They are obviously ready to use their weapons, and so will I. Distance is another factor. We all would need to make that fateful decision for ourselves if and when the situation arises. I do however think of that scenario each time I go to a gas station, convenience store, or supermarket. Situational awareness folks, know your surroundings, know who is near by. I know if I see someone walk in with their *** crack hanging out, and a hat askew, I am going to keep an eye on him. I may even move my shirt a bit, so that the handle of my gun is just a tad more accessible. Paranoid? Maybe. Safe? absolutely

Gallium
07-05-2011, 08:10
A lot of people (here, and out there) carry guns for the same reasons babies have stuffed toys. Makes em "feel" good.

'Drew

Bren
07-05-2011, 08:13
So do you control whether or not I take offense to this post, decide to look you up and hunt you down? Do you control this or do you trust that it simply will not happen?


:rofl: I think anybody familiar with your posts, wacky internet photos, etc., wouldn't be very worried about offending you, or having you "hunt them down.":rofl::rofl:

Gallium
07-05-2011, 08:22
:rofl: I think anybody familiar with your posts, wacky internet photos, etc., wouldn't be very worried about offending you, or having you "hunt them down.":rofl::rofl:


Speak for yourself sir.

I might probably DIE OF EMBARRASSMENT if someone like this showed up claiming they had beef with me.

The only way he could hard-ass up that image would be to bring another 7yr old with him as backup.

(ooh scary!)

gwalchmai
07-05-2011, 08:23
A lot of people (here, and out there) carry guns for the same reasons babies have stuffed toys. Makes em "feel" good.

'DrewIs that why you carry a gun?

Gallium
07-05-2011, 08:35
Is that why you carry a gun?


I carry a gun less days per year than I do carry a gun. Probably around 100 days a year there is a gun on my person. There are many things I carry that are way more, and far more important than carrying a gun. Situational awareness would be one of those things.


'Drew

gwalchmai
07-05-2011, 08:41
I carry a gun less days per year than I do carry a gun. Probably around 100 days a year there is a gun on my person. There are many things I carry that are way more, and far more important than carrying a gun. Situational awareness would be one of those things.Yes, but really I was more curious about why you carry a gun, based on your observation of why "a lot" of people carry guns. Do you carry a gun because it makes you "feel good"?

In my case I carry a gun because it makes me "feel good" in the sense that I have a better self defense option than cursing. Is that what you were referring to?

bustedknee
07-05-2011, 08:42
I agree.

A mature, educated, and well trained person does not want to shoot anyone, ever.

I have said many times, walk away, run, or take a beating but don't shoot anyone. It is not worth it.

However, if it comes right down to it, be well trained, well armed, and have the mindset to do the job completely.


I'm afraid the folks that think they are pseudo cops or feel they can use their gun to teach some "lowlife" a lesson will ruin it for the rest of us.

happyguy
07-05-2011, 08:55
I will use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily harm to myself or an innocent person.

I will not use it to prevent the gas station from losing $20 or the bank from losing $200,000.

I will use non-deadly force to prevent the loss of MY property. If the situation escalates I will use the degree of force necessary to ensure I go home to my family.

I can't speak for anyone else.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Gallium
07-05-2011, 09:06
Yes, but really I was more curious about why you carry a gun, based on your observation of why "a lot" of people carry guns. Do you carry a gun because it makes you "feel good"?

In my case I carry a gun because it makes me "feel good" in the sense that I have a better self defense option than cursing. Is that what you were referring to?


I have been shot at, and was once asked to perform an oral sex act on the barrel of a loaded gun stuck in my face. I carry a gun because it complements the total defensive package.

My observation on the reasons why lots of people carry guns is based on being a gun owner, range safety officer, firearms trainer, and being tangentially involved in the business of securing people and personnel.

'Drew

gwalchmai
07-05-2011, 09:17
I carry a gun because it complements the total defensive package. I think a lot of people carry a gun for that reason.

My observation on the reasons why lots of people carry guns is based on being a gun owner, range safety officer, firearms trainer, and being tangentially involved in the business of securing people and personnel.
Do you think these people you refer to are less committed to carrying then? i.e., they do not do so to complement the TDP? Perhaps more of a dilettante approach to carrying a gun?

Bill Lumberg
07-05-2011, 09:24
You're right in your reasoning, but it's not going to be pretty posting it here. If I'm in public and someone robs where I'm at... the gas station or a restaurant, and I'm concealed carrying, I'm not going to do anything except exactly as the criminal asks me to.

The reasons are simple.

1. Why escalate the situation by getting out my firearm, increasing my likelyhood of death as well as the other patrons? The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine. Also if I hit him firrst there's still a chance he can get a shot off.

2. I would much rather have my wallet of $40, driver's license, and bank card stolen than defend myself and pay thousands of dollars and hours in the courtroom and talking to lawyers.

DO you guys agree?

Gallium
07-05-2011, 11:06
I think a lot of people carry a gun for that reason.

Do you think these people you refer to are less committed to carrying then? i.e., they do not do so to complement the TDP? Perhaps more of a dilettante approach to carrying a gun?


I could give you a slew of examples from over the years. I know a guy who has attended a bunch of defensive classes, can shoot really tiny groups, carries two guns, but does not understand NY penal code on the use of deadly physical force (what actions one can act on). Another guy who has a gun with a laser, carries an extra mag, JHPs, and have never ever ever practiced pulling from the holster. Not at home or on the range.
Another guy that carries a holster where he cannot successfully reholster the gun without removing the holster from his belt.

A lady who has a gun in her purse that she cannot adequately grip. Another guy who carries a gun UNLOADED, no mag. I could go on and on. Lots of people (including some in the business of wearing a sidearm) carry a gun and think it's a talisman.

'Drew

Rakkasan
07-05-2011, 11:24
First and foremost, I will give him my wallet that has "Bad ****** ******" printed on it, then we will see where that takes us. :supergrin:

gwalchmai
07-05-2011, 11:33
First and foremost, I will give him my wallet that has "Bad ****** ******" printed on it, then we will see where that takes us. :supergrin:Best Post in Thread! :thumbsup:

gwalchmai
07-05-2011, 11:34
I could give you a slew of examples from over the years. I know a guy who has attended a bunch of defensive classes, can shoot really tiny groups, carries two guns, but does not understand NY penal code on the use of deadly physical force (what actions one can act on). Another guy who has a gun with a laser, carries an extra mag, JHPs, and have never ever ever practiced pulling from the holster. Not at home or on the range.
Another guy that carries a holster where he cannot successfully reholster the gun without removing the holster from his belt.

A lady who has a gun in her purse that she cannot adequately grip. Another guy who carries a gun UNLOADED, no mag. I could go on and on. Lots of people (including some in the business of wearing a sidearm) carry a gun and think it's a talisman.

'DrewDo you think these persons should be allowed to carry guns?

ancient_serpent
07-05-2011, 11:53
So do you control whether or not I take offense to this post, decide to look you up and hunt you down? Do you control this or do you trust that it simply will not happen?

I think as human beings we like to think we are in control, when really there is so much out of our control.

Respectfully, I disagree. Others influence can what we do or we can allow others to control our outcomes.
I think that you're looking at the situation from a passive point of view.
Ultimately we have to make decisions that will result in certain outcomes. We exert as much control as we choose to.

Gallium
07-05-2011, 12:00
Do you think these persons should be allowed to carry guns?


Why not? And why "allowed"? It is their constitutional right, despite what NY convoluted laws say.

Do you think they should be allowed to carry guns?


'Drew

gwalchmai
07-05-2011, 12:13
Why not? I know of no reason offhand. I asked because you seemed to be concerned about them.

And why "allowed"? It is their constitutional right, despite what NY convoluted laws say. While I agree with the spirit of your statement, the reality is that we are "allowed" or "disallowed" to carry based on the permitting process.

Do you think they should be allowed to carry guns?Nothing you have told me would make me think they should not exercise their 2A rights. But I'm not the guy talking about other people.

Gallium
07-05-2011, 12:54
I know of no reason offhand. I asked because you seemed to be concerned about them.

...

Nothing you have told me would make me think they should not exercise their 2A rights. But I'm not the guy talking about other people.

The below (in purple) is what I said, and I context-ed my response when you queried that my conclusion was based on my experience with some folks who carry here. My statement was fairly neutral with regards to my opinion on my concern about folks carrying. For whatever reasons, you chose to superimpose your own impressions and ran with that. For example, you might have had a case if you understood my perspective on babies carrying stuffed toys...which for the record is, I believe people should do whatever makes them happy. :)

A lot of people (here, and out there) carry guns for the same reasons babies have stuffed toys. Makes em "feel" good.

'Drew


While I agree with the spirit of your statement, the reality is that we are "allowed" or "disallowed" to carry based on the permitting process.

Prior to HR-218 I knew "A LOT" (more than 40) out of state (as in non NY) police officers who carried loaded guns into NY and NYC while not on official business. It was illegal, and on the books. I also know "a lot" (more than 50) NY based police officers who said they'd not give one flying hump if another fellow officer from outside of NY (who was also not on official duty or a FED) carried in NY, so long as they were not making asses of themselves.

I also know "a few" non NY police officers who said back in the 80s (and even today) if they came across someone carrying a gun without a permit, so long as everything else came back clean, they really didn't give two peeps.

Those are all examples where the "system" might permit or disallow something but the reality can sometimes be different. We are not "allowed" or "disallowed" from certain discreet actions because of laws. The true real constraints are a combination of the punishments, chance of detection, our mores, how we weigh and balance all of the factors, etc

...but you knew that...

'Drew

barstoolguru
07-05-2011, 13:10
Sounds like you just want to start something with a post like that....but you give up your wallet and you think it's going to end there but it doesn't. If he don't shoot you he will most likely use your credit cards and dl to go on a shopping spree before you get a chance to report them. On top of that they know where you live and everything about you. What makes you think they will not come by for a visit?

barstoolguru
07-05-2011, 13:21
I have been shot at, and was once asked to perform an oral sex act on the barrel of a loaded gun stuck in my face. I carry a gun because it complements the total defensive package.

My observation on the reasons why lots of people carry guns is based on being a gun owner, range safety officer, firearms trainer, and being tangentially involved in the business of securing people and personnel.

'Drew

so was it good for you........... the oral? It Must have been to only to carry 100 days out of a year. My brother was held up and stabbed in jersey and for that reason I carry a gun 365. At least if it happens to me I will not stand there and question why I didn't carry that day

schaibaa
07-05-2011, 13:34
Respectfully, I disagree. Others influence can what we do or we can allow others to control our outcomes.
I think that you're looking at the situation from a passive point of view.
Ultimately we have to make decisions that will result in certain outcomes. We exert as much control as we choose to.

For some reason we as humans tend to look at things in absolutes. There definitely are instances where we are not in control of what does or does not happen to us. I'm sure the children near Fukushima or Hiroshima would argue that they were not in control of their exposure to radiation.

There are random crimes and non-criminal events that can and do happen.. In an absolute sense, it's quite clear that there are events that we have no control over. Certainly we don't control if we get some form of cancer. Even heart disease - there are adults that lead the healthiest lifestyle possible and die of a heart attack in their 40's. Birth defects, some forms of diabetes, etc.

We can influence things that happen in our lives, but we do not have absolute control. The victims of Columbine, 911, etc had no control over their deaths.

schaibaa
07-05-2011, 13:38
so was it good for you........... the oral? It Must have been to only to carry 100 days out of a year. My brother was held up and stabbed in jersey and for that reason I carry a gun 365. At least if it happens to me I will not stand there and question why I didn't carry that day

Carrying a gun is most likely a false sense of security. Not saying you shouldn't carry, but the chances of you being able to draw and present your weapon at knife-point is pretty slim. By the time it got to the robbery stage you're already f'd. In every situation avoidance is your best survival tactic. Once you've avoided the initial conflict your sidearm may be useful but simply carrying a gun doesn't do much for you. It's like 10-15% of your overall plan.

If someone is able to draw down on you before you're able to react, your pistol is useless until you can get space/cover/etc.

tackdr1ver
07-05-2011, 13:42
So why do you even carry at all? :dunno:


To protect himself and family. Not to step in and play super hero. The OP is spot-on, it is better to try and keep the situation from escalating. Use of a firearm is a last resort.

beforeobamabans
07-05-2011, 13:55
Two things after reading through all of this:

1. There's a reason a lot of us carry at 4:00 (right over the wallet).
2. No one has yet used the most important word in the law when it comes to acting in self-defense. That word is "imminent".

Gallium
07-05-2011, 14:12
so was it good for you........... the oral? It Must have been to only to carry 100 days out of a year. My brother was held up and stabbed in jersey and for that reason I carry a gun 365. At least if it happens to me I will not stand there and question why I didn't carry that day

Before I was able to perform the act another police officer smashed me in the gut with the stock of his M16 and told me they were gonna kill me right there if I didn't tell them where the "stuff" was. I was about 17-18 at the time.


Could it possibly be that I carry a gun 100 or so days a year because I am in places for 200+ days where I am not allowed to carry?

:cool: Do you think I just pick 100 days at a whim as to when I'm gonna carry? :tongueout:

gwalchmai
07-05-2011, 14:23
The below (in purple) is what I said, and I context-ed my response when you queried that my conclusion was based on my experience with some folks who carry here. My statement was fairly neutral with regards to my opinion on my concern about folks carrying. For whatever reasons, you chose to superimpose your own impressions and ran with that. No, I didn't. I simply asked about your statement. If it makes you uncomfortable to expand on it you don't have to. It was just a question. No need to get all defensive about it.

For example, you might have had a case if you understood my perspective on babies carrying stuffed toys...which for the record is, I believe people should do whatever makes them happy. :)A case? You're not on trial here, Drew. I was just curious about your statement. It sounded like you were trivializing other people's decisions, so I thought I'd let you explain. Really, I wasn't trying to make you uncomfortable. Peace out.

Gallium
07-05-2011, 18:01
No, I didn't. I simply asked about your statement. If it makes you uncomfortable to expand on it you don't have to. It was just a question. No need to get all defensive about it.

So I'll ask you again...where am I getting defensive? I am calmly responding to your questions and pointing out where you are misguided. :)
Might I suggest you are reading into things that don't exist.


A case? You're not on trial here, Drew. I was just curious about your statement. It sounded like you were trivializing other people's decisions, so I thought I'd let you explain. Really, I wasn't trying to make you uncomfortable. Peace out.


Case=argument, not case= trial. Again, if you don't understand what I have said, it's far better to ask for clarification than it is to run off on your own imaginative tangent. Your questions do not make me uncomfortable. If anything I find your repeated attempts to arrive at your own conclusions of what I am saying...amusing. So far no one else has cared to go down the road you are on. What does that tell you? :cool:

'Drew

gwalchmai
07-05-2011, 18:06
So I'll ask you again...where am I getting defensive? I am calmly responding to your questions and pointing out where you are misguided. :)
Might I suggest you are reading into things that don't exist.You may, but I don't think that's what's going on. Your responses just seemed defensive is all.

Case=argument, not case= trial. Again, if you don't understand what I have said, it's far better to ask for clarification than it is to run off on your own imaginative tangent.I think I did ask. I asked several questions, in fact.

Your questions do not make me uncomfortable. If anything I find your repeated attempts to arrive at your own conclusions of what I am saying...amusing. So far no one else has cared to go down the road you are on. What does that tell you? :cool: Um, that they aren't interested, maybe? What road do you think I'm on? What conclusions have I attempted to arrive at?

FireForged
07-05-2011, 22:35
I CCw and its not really my plan to confront criminals if I would otherwise be safe staying out of it. but I dont really agree with your quote below:

The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine


I think its a roll of the dice either way. You cant apply common sense to an already irrational event. A person who is willing to risk a prison sentance over the contents of a cash register has already demonstrated that they are not using rational thinking or care about consquence.

TACC GLOCK
07-05-2011, 22:42
I CCw and its not really my plan to confront criminals if I would otherwise be safe staying out of it. but I dont really agree with your quote below:



I think its a roll of the dice either way. You cant apply common sense to an already irrational event. A person who is willing to risk a prison sentance over the contents of a cash register has already demonstrated that they are not using rational thinking or care about consquence.


Exactly, if you are going to use this logic then why carry, unless I am mistaken you probably will not be drawing your weapon unless someone has already drewdown on you.

furioso2112
07-05-2011, 22:58
keep your old wallet, buy one cheap, get an old one at a garage sale or something. Put some old cards or fake cards and a couple bucks in it. decoy wallet. Then the decision is even easier. Not only would I not draw (presuming there was no reason to draw other than a person trying to steal my decoy wallet), I'd hope he bothered to get my wallet.

Imagine being in court, if all went 'safely' afterwards, guy gets caught, charged. Yes, your honor, that man stole a fake wallet with $3 and some old ID in it, which had my identifying information removed. Total value, $5, including the $2 wallet from a garage sale.

If any person is in danger, or it is more dangerous for me to start shooting before I get out my decoy wallet (I imagine plenty of scenarios where e getting out my wallet, then dropping it, or maybe feigning getting my wallet while I drew) would be a better situation to be in than not having it).

ancient_serpent
07-06-2011, 01:31
For some reason we as humans tend to look at things in absolutes. There definitely are instances where we are not in control of what does or does not happen to us. I'm sure the children near Fukushima or Hiroshima would argue that they were not in control of their exposure to radiation.

There are random crimes and non-criminal events that can and do happen.. In an absolute sense, it's quite clear that there are events that we have no control over. Certainly we don't control if we get some form of cancer. Even heart disease - there are adults that lead the healthiest lifestyle possible and die of a heart attack in their 40's. Birth defects, some forms of diabetes, etc.

We can influence things that happen in our lives, but we do not have absolute control. The victims of Columbine, 911, etc had no control over their deaths.

You made some very good points; I agree with much of what you wrote. I think it boils down to semantics: I believe we control as much as we choose to; situtations will occur and we choose our actions. I think your point is that certain situations or circumstances are the control.
Am I right?

schaibaa
07-06-2011, 07:08
You made some very good points; I agree with much of what you wrote. I think it boils down to semantics: I believe we control as much as we choose to; situtations will occur and we choose our actions. I think your point is that certain situations or circumstances are the control.
Am I right?

Yup, and if someone simply decides to shoot you in the head as you walk out of the grocery it's unlikely any amount of training, situational awareness, etc will matter.

RustyDaleShackleford
07-06-2011, 07:29
Of course nobody--me included--would want to shoot anybody over a cash register at a restaurant being emptied, or $20 being taken from somebody's wallet.

BUT

If there's a robbery going on around me, it's probably with a deadly weapon, and the presence and threat of that weapon being used against an innocent person--including me--is what would make the use of my handgun justified in my opinion.

redbaron007
07-06-2011, 07:45
Interesting dialog gw & drew.


As for the OP post, too many variables to make a clean cut answer to your comments.

I am afraid of some things, e.g. lighting while running or riding my bike, wading into a stream while in a flash flood situation, going fishing in a 24' boat during a hurricane in gulf, etc. However, I minimize that threat by using some common sense practices.

As for carrying; carrying is another option/tool in a situation.



:wavey:

red

Bren
07-06-2011, 07:45
If there's a robbery going on around me, it's probably with a deadly weapon, and the presence and threat of that weapon being used against an innocent person--including me--is what would make the use of my handgun justified in my opinion.

And in the law's opinion. However, we are arguing with iluv2viddyfilms - if the choice of screen name isn't enough, this is the guy who is arguing that his interpretation of the second amendment is superior to the U.S. Supreme Court's, not to mention thousands of other people with law degrees.

This is the guy who didn't even let it cross his mind that he is claiming he would be safer if he didn't draw his gun unless the criminal with gun in hand actually decides to shoot him - he didn't say how he was going to pull that off, but maybe he saw it in a movie.

I am being charitable - he may be arguing (and for all practical purposes, he is) that it's better to be killed than to shoot somebody.

Bren
07-06-2011, 07:47
Yup, and if someone simply decides to shoot you in the head as you walk out of the grocery it's unlikely any amount of training, situational awareness, etc will matter.

Then you don't really understand what situational awareness means, do you?

schaibaa
07-06-2011, 09:01
I'm sure the victims of the DC sniper died because they lack situational awareness.

EDITED FOR KID GLOVES

BailRecoveryAgent
07-06-2011, 09:54
And in the law's opinion. However, we are arguing with iluv2viddyfilms - if the choice of screen name isn't enough, this is the guy who is arguing that his interpretation of the second amendment is superior to the U.S. Supreme Court's, not to mention thousands of other people with law degrees.

This is the guy who didn't even let it cross his mind that he is claiming he would be safer if he didn't draw his gun unless the criminal with gun in hand actually decides to shoot him - he didn't say how he was going to pull that off, but maybe he saw it in a movie.

I am being charitable - he may be arguing (and for all practical purposes, he is) that it's better to be killed than to shoot somebody.

Yep, iluv2viddyfilms has also said that people on this board that carry guns live in a "conservative wet dream" and fantasize about killing people, that anyone who carries with a round chambered is foolish, and now he can't understand why he is entitled to own guns.

If it wasn't for comedic value, ignore button would be used on several people around here.

RussP
07-06-2011, 10:39
I'm sure the victims of the DC sniper died because they lack situational awareness.

EDITED FOR KID GLOVESWhere were you, schaibaa, those three weeks in October, 2002?

Mayhem like Me
07-06-2011, 12:49
OP probably not a troll, but:

:agree:

he troll !!!

Mayhem like Me
07-06-2011, 12:51
so was it good for you........... the oral? It Must have been to only to carry 100 days out of a year. My brother was held up and stabbed in jersey and for that reason I carry a gun 365. At least if it happens to me I will not stand there and question why I didn't carry that day

wow you are seriously messed up!

beatcop
07-06-2011, 15:16
Deadly force is too dynamic....the situation may take 2 seconds or 2 minutes. The guys that reply with absolutes....well, I wish them good luck.

Train the brain as well as the weapon system.

FireForged
07-06-2011, 17:04
Then you don't really understand what situational awareness means, do you?

I agree with Bren. If you are paying attention, you stand a very good chance of detecting the possbility of attack. It even has a name, its called "The moment of recognition" theory.

schaibaa
07-06-2011, 17:06
Where were you, schaibaa, those three weeks in October, 2002?

What does this have to do with situational awareness?

carloglock19
07-06-2011, 17:27
Good thread!

RussP
07-06-2011, 19:03
What does this have to do with situational awareness?Why did you make that comment? Expand on that thought.

schaibaa
07-06-2011, 19:18
Why did you make that comment? Expand on that thought.

I'm not sure why it's not clear. The conversation is about how much control we have of our own well-being. Ancient_serpent and I were discussing scenarios in which we really have limited control and influence. Nobody is in absolute control of their situation. Bren made a rude comment about me not knowing what situational awareness is - I made an equally rude post describing a scenario where situational awareness has no impact on anything - you gave me an infraction and then started talking about seemingly irrelevant stuff.

Hope that clears it up.

schaibaa
07-06-2011, 19:22
I agree with Bren. If you are paying attention, you stand a very good chance of detecting the possbility of attack. It even has a name, its called "The moment of recognition" theory.

Well 'a very good chance' may be true for most situations - but that's a far cry from absolute control of your situation. That's the point - the DC sniper is actually a very good example of a situation that isn't 'most situations' - hence the reason I brought it up.

ancient_serpent
07-08-2011, 00:56
Then you don't really understand what situational awareness means, do you?

I was kinda thinking the same thing...:whistling:

I hope it doesn't come across as rude, I certainly don't mean it like that. But I do think we can at least control ourselves, and exert control up to a point in any given.
We exert an amount of control for random violence by our training and weapon carry.
We exert an amount of control for traffic collisions by carrying a medical kit in our cars.
I hope that helps explain my position.

Bren
07-08-2011, 05:19
I'm sure the victims of the DC sniper died because they lack situational awareness.

EDITED FOR KID GLOVES

I agree that there are rare occasions of a well hidden sniper/ambush, where situational awareness would not tell you the attack is about to happen - here it is most often a shot from a mountainside in the dark. However, that kind of attack from a stranger is virtually unhread of - we know about the DC sniper because it was very unusual, not because a lot of people are killed that way.

I have expressed the opinon, in training law enforcement, that there are only 2 ways a police officer gets killed: a hidden sniper, or failing to do what he was trained, how he was trained.

In short, about 99.999% of civilian attacks/murders could easily be prevented with situational awareness and rational reaction.

schaibaa
07-08-2011, 07:15
I agree that there are rare occasions of a well hidden sniper/ambush, where situational awareness would not tell you the attack is about to happen - here it is most often a shot from a mountainside in the dark. However, that kind of attack from a stranger is virtually unhread of - we know about the DC sniper because it was very unusual, not because a lot of people are killed that way.

I have expressed the opinon, in training law enforcement, that there are only 2 ways a police officer gets killed: a hidden sniper, or failing to do what he was trained, how he was trained.

In short, about 99.999% of civilian attacks/murders could easily be prevented with situational awareness and rational reaction.

It is rare.. which is what I said initially.

There was a cop near Rabbi that was ambushed as a possible gang initiation when he stopped at a stop light... it does happen.

The whole thing is we don't have absolute control of anything except ourselves.

redbaron007
07-08-2011, 08:23
It is rare.. which is what I said initially.

There was a cop near Rabbi that was ambushed as a possible gang initiation when he stopped at a stop light... it does happen.

The whole thing is we don't have absolute control of anything except ourselves.


In reading Bren's past posts, I don't think he adovcated we have absolute control. However, IMHO, he was pointing out that people can take more control of their situations/surroundings just by being more observant to where and what is going on around them.

:wavey:

red

schaibaa
07-08-2011, 09:29
In reading Bren's past posts, I don't think he adovcated we have absolute control. However, IMHO, he was pointing out that people can take more control of their situations/surroundings just by being more observant to where and what is going on around them.

:wavey:

red

It's the context.

He says 'maybe I don't understand what situational awareness' means when I say that in rare cases, no amount of situational awareness can save your ass.

It's not what Bren was saying, it's that he was rudely (as usual) insulting me and not following the conversation. This is the post I was replying to:

You made some very good points; I agree with much of what you wrote. I think it boils down to semantics: I believe we control as much as we choose to; situtations will occur and we choose our actions. I think your point is that certain situations or circumstances are the control.
Am I right?

David Armstrong
07-08-2011, 10:41
Ahhh, take a long vacation, come back, nothing changes. Too many folks around here seem to think that shooting is a first response rather than a last choice, that everything always work out for the best when they act, and that the research and data on incidents don't matter. Very few robberies lead to the BG shooting anyone, and those that do result in a shooting are overwhelmingly the result of non-compliance. Always struck me as sort of strange the number of folks that want to turn a simple armed robbery into a full scale gunfight for no really pressing reason. Shoot someone if you have to, not because you can. YMMV.

BailRecoveryAgent
07-08-2011, 11:09
Ahhh, take a long vacation, come back, nothing changes. Too many folks around here seem to think that shooting is a first response rather than a last choice, that everything always work out for the best when they act, and that the research and data on incidents don't matter. Very few robberies lead to the BG shooting anyone, and those that do result in a shooting are overwhelmingly the result of non-compliance. Always struck me as sort of strange the number of folks that want to turn a simple armed robbery into a full scale gunfight for no really pressing reason. Shoot someone if you have to, not because you can. YMMV.

Just to play devils advocate here, how is one to know that an incident is a simple armed robbery, and that full compliance will lead to everyone going home safe? I realize very few robberies end in a shooting and I'm not trying to argue statistics, but how do you determine when they will and won't shoot the people they are robbing after they've gave up the goods?

I don't think one should hedge their bets on statistics, but rather should evaluate the situation as a whole before determining how little or how much to get involved.

schaibaa
07-08-2011, 12:33
I don't think one should hedge their bets on statistics, but rather should evaluate the situation as a whole before determining how little or how much to get involved.

You're not really playing devils advocate, you're arguing semantics.

As David said, shoot when you have to, not when you can. If the situation as a whole determins you need to shoot, then do it - but as you evaluate the situation you need to factor in that the probability of getting shot in an armed robbery without resistance is low.

wesley g
07-08-2011, 13:44
As a long time lurker I read these forums almost daily and just wish to add as far as turning over your wallet without further ado, that would be a death sentence for me and others in my situation.

First thing the bad guy would see is the badge in the wallet, now he's forced into ending it. I don't want to take any action that would increase my risk or any others, but to turn over the wallet to him is the end as far as I'm concerned. Just another take on this hypothetical situation.

gwalchmai
07-08-2011, 13:48
As a long time lurker I read these forums almost daily and just wish to add as far as turning over your wallet without further ado, that would be a death sentence for me and others in my situation.

First thing the bad guy would see is the badge in the wallet, now he's forced into ending it. I don't want to take any action that would increase my risk or any others, but to turn over the wallet to him is the end as far as I'm concerned. Just another take on this hypothetical situation.I feel the same way about being herded into the back room / walk-in freezer...

Palouse
07-08-2011, 13:54
A what-if scenario based on an actual robbery over at G&A. Complying doesn't always work out so well.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/07/05/tactical-scenario-robbery-gone-bad/

redbaron007
07-08-2011, 14:04
I don't think one should hedge their bets on statistics, but rather should evaluate the situation as a whole before determining how little or how much to get involved.

You're not really playing devils advocate, you're arguing semantics.

As David said, shoot when you have to, not when you can. If the situation as a whole determins you need to shoot, then do it - but as you evaluate the situation you need to factor in that the probability of getting shot in an armed robbery without resistance is low.

IMO, I'm not sure trying to recall the odds/statistics will help in a volatile situation. Way too many variables involved to set there and think, 'in all robberies, there is a 15% chance of me getting injured from the BG, so I should resolve myself to do nothing but comply.'

Each situation is going to be different, requiring one to be aware of their surroundings and digesting the actions of everyone involved.

:wavey:

red

iluv2viddyfilms
07-08-2011, 20:24
Well 'a very good chance' may be true for most situations - but that's a far cry from absolute control of your situation. That's the point - the DC sniper is actually a very good example of a situation that isn't 'most situations' - hence the reason I brought it up.

I forget what they called it but it's the same principal as "theory of recognition" that they taught us in CCW. If a person is going to carry, they must always be in a ready state.

There were three or four levels.

1. Completely oblivious - the most common - i.e. chick texting on her phone not knowing a man is behind her ready to snatch her purse.

2. Aware - Aware of surroundings, but not at all on guard.

3. On Guard - Aware and ready for something unexpected to happen and to take action.

4. Alert - Alerted and identified a potential threat, hand and mind ready to reach for weapon or to back away from target whichever is more plausible to eliminate self from harm.

It was something like this. They say if you carry you must always be aware.

bobelk99
07-08-2011, 20:35
3. On Guard - Aware and ready for something unexpected to happen and to take action.

4. Alert - Alerted and identified a potential threat, hand and mind ready to reach for weapon or to back away from target whichever is more plausible to eliminate self from harm.

They say if you carry you must always be aware.

"They" is a lot of other people.

Best to create a mindset of your own to maintain an awareness at all times.

To me awareness is always a goal, similar to developing muscle memory to speed weapon loading and clearance of malfunctions.

I have lost two dear ones to hostile fire, and do not take the awareness issue lightly.

beatcop
07-08-2011, 21:46
I don't think one should hedge their bets on statistics, but rather should evaluate the situation as a whole before determining how little or how much to get involved.

This and the a little bit of the statistics to lull you into believing you'll survive.^

Further, the problem is that some of us are perceived as being overconfident or just plain wrong in our belief that we can evaluate the actions of a crook and make a prediction as to the outcome (violence).

To try to standardize or cosolidate the "tells" that indicate imminent violence is tricky at best...you may only have 2 or 3 seconds to run the ooda loop. By that time the threat may have left or you may be dead. I can respect the fact that some guys want to get the momentum going and initiate fire like a "react to ambush" drill, but I think a quick eval is in order.


If the crook is under the influence that may be an indicator of the possibility of irrational behavior (inhibitions lessened, cloudy decision making)

Too much eye contact from the victim, a feeling of being ID'd, feelings that you are disrespecting him, judging him, etc. Crook verbalizes this....bad

herding, kneeling, restraint...could be prelude to shooting...or not. Not worth finding out.

larry_minn
07-08-2011, 23:18
So why do you even carry at all? :dunno:\

I don't carry to provide security for stores, banks, gas stations. I also am not a Paid LEO. (I.E. its NOT MY JOB.) Even more so. The Police, legal system, Media, my family do NOT WANT me to take action in any little situation.

RussP
07-09-2011, 06:46
You're not really playing devils advocate, you're arguing semantics.And you are misstating what David said.As David said, shoot when you have to, not when you can.He actually said,Shoot someone if you have to, not because you can. YMMV.And David adds a qualifier, "YMMV", as in what is good and right for one person may be deadly wrong for another. David, please correct me if I am wrong.If the situation as a whole determins you need to shoot, then do it - but as you evaluate the situation you need to factor in that the probability of getting shot in an armed robbery without resistance is low.What weight should one give that probability factor when weighing the totality of circumstances, schaibaa? What else should one factor in?

RussP
07-09-2011, 08:15
I'm sure the victims of the DC sniper died because they lack situational awareness.Where were you, schaibaa, those three weeks in October, 2002?What does this have to do with situational awareness?Why did you make that comment? Expand on that thought.I'm not sure why it's not clear. The conversation is about how much control we have of our own well-being. Ancient_serpent and I were discussing scenarios in which we really have limited control and influence. Nobody is in absolute control of their situation.Some of us were actually in those areas. We lived through those weeks. We have a frame of reference about lifestyle changes we made and the decision making processes involved in those changes, many directly related to situational awareness.

Just wanted to know if you personally were in any of the affected areas.

I'll take from your non-response, you were nowhere near.Well 'a very good chance' may be true for most situations - but that's a far cry from absolute control of your situation. That's the point - the DC sniper is actually a very good example of a situation that isn't 'most situations' - hence the reason I brought it up.I agree that there are rare occasions of a well hidden sniper/ambush, where situational awareness would not tell you the attack is about to happen - here it is most often a shot from a mountainside in the dark. However, that kind of attack from a stranger is virtually unhread of - we know about the DC sniper because it was very unusual, not because a lot of people are killed that way.

I have expressed the opinon, in training law enforcement, that there are only 2 ways a police officer gets killed: a hidden sniper, or failing to do what he was trained, how he was trained.

In short, about 99.999% of civilian attacks/murders could easily be prevented with situational awareness and rational reaction.It is rare.. which is what I said initially.

There was a cop near Rabbi that was ambushed as a possible gang initiation when he stopped at a stop light... it does happen.

The whole thing is we don't have absolute control of anything except ourselves.The DC snipers were indeed unique from the beginning. There were no visuals on the shooter, random targets, random settings, random times. How do you defend yourself under those conditions?

Situational awareness? Awareness of what? When? Where? Everything all the time anywhere?

This is the event that caused me to get my carry permit. I worked late one night and had to get gas. I stopped at my usual place and I drove around the perimeter of the gas station twice looking for anything unusual, not normal for the area. I pumped the minimum fuel to get home. all the time scanning the area. What would I have done had I see something suspicious? Call 911, yes. Take cover, yes. Respond to incoming, d'oh, with what?

It was all about situational awareness, beginning with staying out of situations more likely, based on news reports, to be where one would be in the most danger.

Did situational awareness, or the lack thereof, contribute to the deaths of 10 people? I say no, no matter how vigilant, it would have made no difference under those circumstances. People did alter their lifestyles attempting to gain a bit of control over their vulnerability. I did.

The DC sniper case is an extreme example of where one could not have exercised any adequate amount of control to change the outcome.

wesley g
07-10-2011, 15:46
Just wanted to add from my post #94 that in regards to assessing the situation when a perp is holding a weapon on a victim, as far as guessing whether he'll use it or not if you comply with his demands, I have interviewed maybe a hundred witnesses and a certain number of victims of these scum bags, and the only thing in common is that no one felt they could predict what the perp would do before it ended by his actions.

If I'm faced with the gun in my face I'm gonna assume its going to go bad, comply with him or not, and I'm going to do what I can based on this individual situation to end it for him. Obviously that's a dangerous and unpredictable outcome.

1smoothredneck
07-10-2011, 19:20
I would keep my gun holstered and be a good witness until the robber points his weapon at me, then all bets are off.
This.

Spiffums
07-10-2011, 19:38
I am not a mind reader so I have no way to know if the robber is just going to take my money and run or if he is going to take my money, my watch and then my life so no one can pick him out of a line up. I didn't make this choice.... the criminal do when he/she embarked on his course of action.

Walk Soft
07-10-2011, 19:47
If you can foretell the future and know no one is going to get hurt, more power to ya.

If the BG is herding everyone into the backroom so he can most likely execute them one by one, I'm not going quietly.


That actually happened here a few years back.A robber herded three into a walk-in cooler.Fired a sawed-off into it and killed one of my longtime friend's sister.

schaibaa
07-10-2011, 20:35
And you are misstating what David said.He actually said,And David adds a qualifier, "YMMV", as in what is good and right for one person may be deadly wrong for another. David, please correct me if I am wrong.What weight should one give that probability factor when weighing the totality of circumstances, schaibaa? What else should one factor in?


Russ, I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for me. I have no interest in arguing the difference between those two statements. You tend to want to look at minor insignificant details related to semantics - not worth my time.

Gallium
07-10-2011, 20:54
I am from Jamaica. Chances are, if someone puts a gun on you there to rob you, they are almost certainly going to attempt testing the ballistics of the rounds in their gun, using your body as the backstop.

Can you imagine??? And not having the decency to at least give you eye and ear protection? :faint:


Apparently crime is regional, and while crooks in Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Columbia and Jamaica will shoot you if you blink more than 3x in 5 seconds, criminals in the USA are far more constrained. So someone pointing a gun at you, or at people within your immediate vicinity should not cause too much consternation. :faint:

There is a medium between playing hero, and making the atmosphere for criminal enterprise inhospitable. People who point guns illegally at other people should be violently reminded why it's a bad idea.

People who get guns pointed at them illegally should do whatever they can in their power, and consistent with their abilities to resist these actions.

Hey, that's just one theory. :)


'Drew

FlyboyLDB
07-10-2011, 21:35
If I'm in public and someone robs where I'm at... the gas station or a restaurant, and I'm concealed carrying, I'm not going to do anything except exactly as the criminal asks me to.

The reasons are simple.

1. Why escalate the situation by getting out my firearm, increasing my likelyhood of death as well as the other patrons? The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine. Also if I hit him firrst there's still a chance he can get a shot off.

2. I would much rather have my wallet of $40, driver's license, and bank card stolen than defend myself and pay thousands of dollars and hours in the courtroom and talking to lawyers.

DO you guys agree?

To me this is absurd thinking. #1 objective should be to get you and yours (loved ones\friends) out of the situation without harm. If that means not playing the hero and taking out a BG or two, then that is the option I am taking. If there is no retreat or escape option, then it is up for grabs. If BG has gun drawn on me, then I am complying. Gun drawn on someone else, I am drawing my gun - prepared to shoot at the first opportunity. I have to assume BG has the worst intentions. If one is close enough to be certain of placement - two to the head should do the trick - otherwise it is COM and hope for the best. For me retreat\escape is option #1 for many reasons.

David Armstrong
07-10-2011, 23:27
Just to play devils advocate here, how is one to know that an incident is a simple armed robbery, and that full compliance will lead to everyone going home safe? I realize very few robberies end in a shooting and I'm not trying to argue statistics, but how do you determine when they will and won't shoot the people they are robbing after they've gave up the goods?
You don't, just like you don't know if starting a gunfight will make things worse or not. I tend to suggest that one learn the dynamics of situations and use the most common scenario as the default and work from there, rather than use the least likely outcome as the default and base decisions on that.
I don't think one should hedge their bets on statistics, but rather should evaluate the situation as a whole before determining how little or how much to get involved.
No disagreement, IMO, the question becomes what and how to evaluate the situation.

David Armstrong
07-10-2011, 23:35
And David adds a qualifier, "YMMV", as in what is good and right for one person may be deadly wrong for another. David, please correct me if I am wrong.
No, you are correct. Your own abilities, your own level of confidence, your own risk tolerance, heck, even your own choice of firearm can all play into what the individual sees as the point at which they feel they need to act. My point is that whatever that point is it should be near the end of the options and resorted to reluctantly, not at the first choice.

David Armstrong
07-10-2011, 23:40
Russ, I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for me. I have no interest in arguing the difference between those two statements. You tend to want to look at minor insignificant details related to semantics - not worth my time.
I'm not Russ, but since you did misstate my position, I do think the difference between what I said and what you claimed I said, while subtle, is important and not minor semantics.

David Armstrong
07-10-2011, 23:48
If I'm faced with the gun in my face I'm gonna assume its going to go bad, comply with him or not, and I'm going to do what I can based on this individual situation to end it for him. Obviously that's a dangerous and unpredictable outcome.
Why assume it is going to go bad? All the data indicates that it is far more likely NOT to go bad than to go bad. And most of that data shows that the only reason it goes bad in most situations like that is because the victim does not comply. Why not assume it will go like most robberies and end without any significant harm rather than do something that practically guarantees it getting worse? You can always escalate if your assumption is wrong and things go bad.

DustyJacket
07-11-2011, 01:56
I like to have options available.

I took a tip from one of Masad Ayoob's books years ago and improved on it and made a throw-down wallet with obsolete credit cards, gift cards, and drivers license from another state and $20.

If I can toss the wallet away from me that gives me options.

That may be the end of the situation, or if the dude makes me feel he is gointo kill me no matter what, then the wallet should distract him enough that I can draw and shoot.

Or I can show the wallet but then toss it in his face and do whatever I must.

Or something else.

Every situation is different.

RussP
07-11-2011, 05:16
What weight should one give that probability factor when weighing the totality of circumstances, schaibaa? What else should one factor in?Russ, I'm not sure...You didn't answer the questions. Is it because you've not thought them out?

RussP
07-11-2011, 05:44
And you are misstating what David said. He actually said...Russ, I'm not sure why you have such a hard-on for me. I have no interest in arguing the difference between those two statements. You tend to want to look at minor insignificant details related to semantics - not worth my time.When another's or your own life is at stake, there are no "insignificant details related to semantics". You'd probably never know if someone is killed because they read your misstatement, your false interpretation of what David said. Your cavalier, "not worth my time," tells me and others that you just don't give a **** what impact your words have on others.David adds a qualifier, "YMMV", as in what is good and right for one person may be deadly wrong for another. David, please correct me if I am wrong.No, you are correct. Your own abilities, your own level of confidence, your own risk tolerance, heck, even your own choice of firearm can all play into what the individual sees as the point at which they feel they need to act. My point is that whatever that point is it should be near the end of the options and resorted to reluctantly, not at the first choice.It's all about those individual, personal decisions we must make when carrying for self defense.I have no interest in arguing the difference between those two statements. You tend to want to look at minor insignificant details related to semantics - not worth my time.I'm not Russ, but since you did misstate my position, I do think the difference between what I said and what you claimed I said, while subtle, is important and not minor semantics.schaibaa, there are people on GT who choose their words carefully when posting. Sometimes, some of us change their words slightly seeking clarification. But when, like you did, a member completely misstates another member's position, I'll call them out, especially when the misstatement, misinterpretation could influence someone into dangerous behavior.

FlyboyLDB
07-11-2011, 10:06
Why assume it is going to go bad? All the data indicates that it is far more likely NOT to go bad than to go bad. And most of that data shows that the only reason it goes bad in most situations like that is because the victim does not comply. Why not assume it will go like most robberies and end without any significant harm rather than do something that practically guarantees it getting worse? You can always escalate if your assumption is wrong and things go bad.

I think we have to assume the worse from the BG. As I stated before, retreat\escape for you and yours - or me & mine - is always option #1. Outside of escaping\retreating - then we have to look at how a LEO has been trained - assume this LEO is off duty or plain clothes. Would they draw their weapon if the BG's gun was not directly pointed at them? I would say yes, to be prepared for what comes next. Would they take a shot if the opportunity presented itself? Again I say yes. I know we are not LEOs and we are not there to protect the public, but if escape\retreat is not possible, then a good outcome except for perp(s) has been defaulted to the opposing forces - which is anyone carrying at that point. I am not waiting to see if this situation lives up to prior stats and the BG leaves without firing a shot. Plenty of BGs do unload on their victims regardless of how the victim complied.

schaibaa
07-11-2011, 11:40
Sometimes, some of us change their words slightly seeking clarification. But when, like you did, a member completely misstates another member's position, I'll call them out, especially when the misstatement, misinterpretation could influence someone into dangerous behavior.

Holy crap russ get off of your high horse. It wasn't completely misstating. This is the internet without inflection, body language, etc. English words have tons of different meanings based upon context, geography, local dialects, etc.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill and it's ridiculous. You habitually disect the tiniest things and write 200 words about it. Seriously, get real. You've still yet to explain your hard-on for me. Even David said the difference is subtle. My whole point was shooting should not be a first option. I could say the sky is blue and you'd have something to say about it. For real, get a freakin life. I'm sure you'll rack up another 7 posts responding to this one.

David Armstrong
07-11-2011, 11:52
I think we have to assume the worse from the BG.
Actually we don't assume the worst, and there is no reason to assume anything close to the worse from the BG. We don't do that with anything else in life.
As I stated before, retreat\escape for you and yours - or me & mine - is always option #1.
And I would disagree. Option #1 should be whatever reduces the danger and loss to you and yours. Sometimes that might be retreat/escape, sometimes it might be something else.
Outside of escaping\retreating - then we have to look at how a LEO has been trained - assume this LEO is off duty or plain clothes. Would they draw their weapon if the BG's gun was not directly pointed at them? I would say yes, to be prepared for what comes next. Would they take a shot if the opportunity presented itself? Again I say yes.
First, why do we have to look at how a LEO has been trained, as that is of limited use given that most are not LEOs. Second, most LEO agencies recommend not to draw the gun, not to take the shot, etc. Most advise stay quiet, be a good witness, etc. Pulling a gun and shooting is generally recommended as the last resort for a LEO in such a situation.
I know we are not LEOs and we are not there to protect the public, but if escape\retreat is not possible, then a good outcome except for perp(s) has been defaulted to the opposing forces - which is anyone carrying at that point. I am not waiting to see if this situation lives up to prior stats and the BG leaves without firing a shot. Plenty of BGs do unload on their victims regardless of how the victim complied.
So your suggestion is to do something that is virtually guaranteed to increase the risk and danger to everyone rather than try to reduce it. Sorry, I find that line of reasoning to be more than a little problematic. There is a reason virtually every LE organization, security group, retail association and others all suggest compliance except as a last resort.

David Armstrong
07-11-2011, 11:59
Even David said the difference is subtle.
Yes, I said the difference is subtle, but I also pointed out that subtle difference was very important, so please3 don't down-play it. There is a very subtle difference between not being pregnant and just being pregnant by one day, but that difference is very important.

RussP
07-11-2011, 12:01
Holy crap russ get off of your high horse. It wasn't completely misstating. This is the internet without inflection, body language, etc. English words have tons of different meanings based upon context, geography, local dialects, etc.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill and it's ridiculous. You habitually disect the tiniest things and write 200 words about it. Seriously, get real. You've still yet to explain your hard-on for me. Even David said the difference is subtle. My whole point was shooting should not be a first option. I could say the sky is blue and you'd have something to say about it. For real, get a freakin life. I'm sure you'll rack up another 7 posts responding to this one.No, I'll make just one to say thank you. You did an extremely fine job of confirming what I said, plus some.

schaibaa
07-11-2011, 12:04
Yes, I said the difference is subtle, but I also pointed out that subtle difference was very important, so please3 don't down-play it. There is a very subtle difference between not being pregnant and just being pregnant by one day, but that difference is very important.

It's an insignificant difference to me. You are just misinterpreting what I said, and you have some sort of Russ allegiance. In fairness I should have chosen a different word but 20 posts on it is insane.

FlyboyLDB
07-11-2011, 12:28
Actually we don't assume the worst, and there is no reason to assume anything close to the worse from the BG. We don't do that with anything else in life.

And I would disagree. Option #1 should be whatever reduces the danger and loss to you and yours. Sometimes that might be retreat/escape, sometimes it might be something else.

First, why do we have to look at how a LEO has been trained, as that is of limited use given that most are not LEOs. Second, most LEO agencies recommend not to draw the gun, not to take the shot, etc. Most advise stay quiet, be a good witness, etc. Pulling a gun and shooting is generally recommended as the last resort for a LEO in such a situation.

So your suggestion is to do something that is virtually guaranteed to increase the risk and danger to everyone rather than try to reduce it. Sorry, I find that line of reasoning to be more than a little problematic. There is a reason virtually every LE organization, security group, retail association and others all suggest compliance except as a last resort.

Not assuming the worst? Why have health, life, home owners, auto insurance?

Sure law enforcement is going to tell you not to draw. A majority of those agencies would prefer no one carried but law enforcement. So those statements do not fly. I am not saying take the shot 100% of the time, but have weapon in hand to take the opportunity if presented with it. Again, retreat\escape is my first option. Then I am taking it to the next level by drawing my firearm if the option exist (no BG drawing down on me), if BG turns and runs - great, if not then I may not have any other options. I am not going to wait for the BG's decision to vacate or start shooting.

And back to my what would a trained off duty LEO do? I know they would not be trained to escape\retreat like I would. But my question has to do with safety at that point. Assuming no one can retreat, would the LEO draw his\her weapon in case it becomes needed? I know they do not want harm bystanders, and neither do I. But at that point, I have to have my weapon in my hand if BG shoots - at anyone. Once my weapon is in my hand, and I do not see the BG exiting stage left or right - then the BG has just escalated to another level - regardless of if he pointed his weapon at me or not - he already pointed at someone. That signals the worst possible situation to me. To each their own.

David Armstrong
07-11-2011, 14:56
It's an insignificant difference to me.
That is fine for you, but it is not your statement that is being discussed.
You are just misinterpreting what I said, and you have some sort of Russ allegiance.
I haven't interpreted what you have said, I have pointed out that your interpretation of what I said is not what I said. As for allegiance to Russ, you probably just caused him to fall on the floor laughing after all the disagreements and arguments we have had!
In fairness I should have chosen a different word but 20 posts on it is insane.
In fairness you shouldn't choose anything. If you are going to claim somebody has said something you should post what the person has actually said and not make up stuff they said. Words do matter.

RussP
07-11-2011, 15:12
As for allegiance to Russ, you probably just caused him to fall on the floor laughing after all the disagreements and arguments we have had!Oh hell yes I did!!!!!!! I was going to make the same comment, but elected to give you the privilege.:cool:

David Armstrong
07-11-2011, 15:16
Not assuming the worst? Why have health, life, home owners, auto insurance?
To mitigate and reduce risks. It has nothing to do with assuming the worst. Heck, if you are assuming the worst then you shouldn't have any of that stuff as you would logically have to assume that the insurance would not cover whatever loss you had.
Sure law enforcement is going to tell you not to draw. A majority of those agencies would prefer no one carried but law enforcement. So those statements do not fly.
It is not just LE that says that, and I doubt that you can prove that a majority of agencies would prefer no one carry but LE. So your statements do not fly.
I am not saying take the shot 100% of the time, but have weapon in hand to take the opportunity if presented with it.
If that realistically gives the best chance to reduce loss, sure. But if it doesn't you shouldn't. Again, just because there is an opportunity to do something doesn't mean that it is a good idea to do it. Remember that if you do take the shot there is a vey high likelihood that it will NOT physically incapacitate the BG.
Again, retreat\escape is my first option.
Again, for me it is an option. Whether it is my first option or not will depend on the situation.
And back to my what would a trained off duty LEO do? I know they would not be trained to escape\retreat like I would.
You seem to know a lot of things that don't seem to agree with the facts. Why do you think that your escape/retreat training would be different than an off duty LEO?
But my question has to do with safety at that point. Assuming no one can retreat, would the LEO draw his\her weapon in case it becomes needed?
Not just for that, no. You don't draw just in case, you draw because there is a need and that seems to be the best response. If you draw you now have a visible gun in the situation that might alert the BG, any of his backup BGs (hadn't thought about them, huh?), armed or unarmed civilians, etc. Again, IME the standard for off-duty action in an armed robbery is not to do anything to make it worse, just be a good witness unless there is something unusual that indicates you need to act.
I know they do not want harm bystanders, and neither do I. But at that point, I have to have my weapon in my hand if BG shoots - at anyone.
Why? Are you suddenly a steely-eyed dealer of death charged with righting the wrongs of an unjust society? Not to say that might not be a reasonable response, but there is no "I have to have" in there at all.
Once my weapon is in my hand, and I do not see the BG exiting stage left or right - then the BG has just escalated to another level - regardless of if he pointed his weapon at me or not - he already pointed at someone. That signals the worst possible situation to me. To each their own.
So again, your suggestion is to do something that is virtually guaranteed to increase the risk and danger to everyone rather than try to reduce it. Like you said, to each their own.

Deaf Smith
07-11-2011, 18:15
There are so many variables as to what goes down in a robbery one cannot just say 'if they do A, I'll do B, and if they do C, I'll do D as the so-called 'stats' say this is the safest bet.

Why?

When a robbery goes down you have so many factors such as the age of the attackers, their demeanor, if they are wearing mask (or not), weaponry, dispositions, time of day or night, other people present, what you are packing, your skills, your mindset, their skills, their mindset, etc.... that 'stats' just don't take that into account. Yes they don't take all of that (and more) into account.

Instead you will have to make the decision based on what you feel is about to happen and if deadly force is your best bet or not in THAT situation, not some 'stats'. That decision will be based on your experiences, education, skill set, heritage, upbringing, etc.. Not some 'stat'.

But whatever you decide keep in mind the situation may change drastically in just a few seconds so keep your eyes and ears open and be ready for any opportunity that may come (and that includes running away.)

Tom Givens of Rangemaster has had 56 students in gunfights. The ONLY two to fail failed because they didn't bring their gun. So I guess the 'stats' didn't hold so well with them.

Deaf

BailRecoveryAgent
07-11-2011, 23:41
and you have some sort of Russ allegiance.

You must have missed out on a few threads where Russ and David have lengthy disagreements while remaining civil, but just in case...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v302/Syrila/Funnies/original-5.jpg

RussP
07-12-2011, 07:01
You must have missed out on a few threads where Russ and David have lengthy disagreements while remaining civil, but just in case...Great image!

Oh, heck, joining in Aug 2010 you're too new to know about all the really good threads...:rofl:

BailRecoveryAgent
07-12-2011, 09:02
Great image!

Oh, heck, joining in Aug 2010 you're too new to know about all the really good threads...:rofl:

I was a long time lurker. Yes, I remember a few of the good ones of years past.

David Armstrong
07-12-2011, 15:38
When a robbery goes down you have so many factors such as the age of the attackers, their demeanor, if they are wearing mask (or not), weaponry, dispositions, time of day or night, other people present, what you are packing, your skills, your mindset, their skills, their mindset, etc.... that 'stats' just don't take that into account. Yes they don't take all of that (and more) into account.
Actually there has been so much research on armed robberies, particularly of things like convenience stores, that we do have data on many, if not most, of those factors, and when known they can be taken into account. But that misses the point, which is that one does not need to know ALL the variables to make decisions based on the common variables and the stats relating to them. One doesn't have to know what color a car is painted in order to develop information about damage that car suffers in the typical collision, for example. You (and others) continually make that error. Just because one doesn't know everything about every person in every incident doesn't mean one cannot develop useful knowledge about most people in most incidents and the likelihood of various actions and results.
Instead you will have to make the decision based on what you feel is about to happen and if deadly force is your best bet or not in THAT situation, not some 'stats'. That decision will be based on your experiences, education, skill set, heritage, upbringing, etc.. Not some 'stat'.
As has been pointed out to you before that decision making process is based on stats. The only issue is if you want to make the decision based on good stats or bad.
Tom Givens of Rangemaster has had 56 students in gunfights. The ONLY two to fail failed because they didn't bring their gun. So I guess the 'stats' didn't hold so well with them.
I'd suggest the stats held very well for them. If you get in a gunfight without a gun there is a strong likelihood is that you will fail to win the gunfight. :dunno:

Deaf Smith
07-12-2011, 17:26
Actually there has been so much research on armed robberies, particularly of things like convenience stores, that we do have data on many, if not most, of those factors, and when known they can be taken into account. But that misses the point, which is that one does not need to know ALL the variables to make decisions based on the common variables and the stats relating to them. One doesn't have to know what color a car is painted in order to develop information about damage that car suffers in the typical collision, for example. You (and others) continually make that error. Just because one doesn't know everything about every person in every incident doesn't mean one cannot develop useful knowledge about most people in most incidents and the likelihood of various actions and results.

So these 'stats' show such as the robbers demeanor, if they are wearing mask (or not), weaponry, dispositions, time of day or night, other people present, what you are packing, your skills, your mindset, their skills, their mindset, etc.... ??

Do they david?

Developing useful knowledge is one thing, using stats to dictate what you are going to do is another.


As has been pointed out to you before that decision making process is based on stats. The only issue is if you want to make the decision based on good stats or bad.

It's based on far more than stats (if those involved read them.) Experience, inborn traits such as fight or flight, suggestions from others, books, videos, etc.. lots of people never read stats david.


I'd suggest the stats held very well for them. If you get in a gunfight without a gun there is a strong likelihood is that you will fail to win the gunfight. :dunno:

You suggest? They shot it out with the bad guys david. They didn't keep quite like you suggest.

Or are you saying the 'stats' say to engage them?

Deaf

David Armstrong
07-12-2011, 21:18
So these 'stats' show such as the robbers demeanor, if they are wearing mask (or not), weaponry, dispositions, time of day or night, other people present, what you are packing, your skills, your mindset, their skills, their mindset, etc.... ??

Do they david?
As pointed out, and you apparently were unable to understand, "there has been so much research on armed robberies, particularly of things like convenience stores, that we do have data on many, if not most, of those factors, and when known they can be taken into account.
Developing useful knowledge is one thing, using stats to dictate what you are going to do is another.
You have to base your decision on something. Might as well base it something with a base in reality rather than just make stuff up, IMO.
It's based on far more than stats (if those involved read them.) Experience, inborn traits such as fight or flight, suggestions from others, books, videos, etc.. lots of people never read stats david.
As pointed out, we've had this discussion already, and again it is apparent that you have not been able to understand the issue. Let us quote from the ever-wise degoodman, who addressed this very issue in a post to you a while back:
It may be arguing minutae, but every time we take action based on an observation with an expectation of the outcome, we are engaging in our own little game of probability and statistics. The outcomes tend to be better when we make the right assumptions and consider the right factors when we play this game. Doing that is a result of research, training and experience that allows you to rapidly select what matters and cull what doesn't from your observations when you play your own little game of roll the dice. You get EVERYTHING from the stats.
You suggest? They shot it out with the bad guys david. They didn't keep quite like you suggest. Or are you saying the 'stats' say to engage them?
Actually, deaf, you have no idea if they kept quiet or not. In fact, you know very little about those situations, I'd bet. In fact, I'd bet you don't even know how many of them are the result of a typical armed robbery. So no, deaf, I'm suggesting about the only thing we know from that info is that getting into a gunfight without a gun is not a particularly good idea, and that you are likely to lose if you do. As for the other 54 we can't really address them in this context as we don't know what the situation was for them. And for the record I do not suggest you keep quite. I suggest that in any situation you figure out what minimizes your loss. In most robberies that involves compliance rather than resistance. Please do not attribute positions to me that I do not have.

jdavionic
07-13-2011, 16:49
If I'm in public and someone robs where I'm at... the gas station or a restaurant, and I'm concealed carrying, I'm not going to do anything except exactly as the criminal asks me to.

The reasons are simple.

1. Why escalate the situation by getting out my firearm, increasing my likelyhood of death as well as the other patrons? The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine. Also if I hit him firrst there's still a chance he can get a shot off.

2. I would much rather have my wallet of $40, driver's license, and bank card stolen than defend myself and pay thousands of dollars and hours in the courtroom and talking to lawyers.

DO you guys agree?

Compliance is not guarantee of safety. How I would react depends on too many variables of the specific situation.

Deaf Smith
07-13-2011, 18:03
As pointed out, and you apparently were unable to understand, "there has been so much research on armed robberies, particularly of things like convenience stores, that we do have data on many, if not most, of those factors, and when known they can be taken into account.

Bull david. Show these stats you claim have all the factors.



It may be arguing minutae, but every time we take action based on an observation with an expectation of the outcome, we are engaging in our own little game of probability and statistics. The outcomes tend to be better when we make the right assumptions and consider the right factors when we play this game. Doing that is a result of research, training and experience that allows you to rapidly select what matters and cull what doesn't from your observations when you play your own little game of roll the dice. You get EVERYTHING from the stats.

Apparently david for all your book education you don't know what a stat is. There is no mean, median, standard deviation, level of confidence, etc.. in training or experience. When you get on top of a roof and judge if you can jump down there is no 10 out of 12 tries or 95 percent level of confidence. You simply judge if you might get hurt and decide if it's worth the risk. Now on the other hand if 5 other people jumped first and 2 broke their legs you then have some idea of the true risk.

david experience is NOT A STATISTIC! Got that? Don't confuse the two.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statistic


Actually, deaf, you have no idea if they kept quiet or not. In fact, you know very little about those situations, I'd bet. In fact, I'd bet you don't even know how many of them are the result of a typical armed robbery. So no, deaf, I'm suggesting about the only thing we know from that info is that getting into a gunfight without a gun is not a particularly good idea, and that you are likely to lose if you do. As for the other 54 we can't really address them in this context as we don't know what the situation was for them. And for the record I do not suggest you keep quite. I suggest that in any situation you figure out what minimizes your loss. In most robberies that involves compliance rather than resistance. Please do not attribute positions to me that I do not have.

I've been in several of Given's classes david. I no doubt know alot more about it than you do. He presents the cases of 10 in powerpoint. He has talked about others to.

Sadly you have no clue about that, right?

Compliance is not guarantee of safety. How I would react depends on too many variables of the specific situation.

Exactly!


Deaf

David Armstrong
07-15-2011, 13:20
Bull david. Show these stats you claim have all the factors.
deaf, just because you make stuff up doesn't mean I said it. For the third time, because you still seem unable or unwilling to understand what I said, "there has been so much research on armed robberies, particularly of things like convenience stores, that we do have data on many, if not most, of those factors, and when known they can be taken into account."
Just because you cannot understand the basics of stats and how to use them doesn't mean it is bull. As for much of the info I've posted it many times and you still haven't looked at it, so why waste my time trying to educate you any more?
Apparently david for all your book education you don't know what a stat is. There is no mean, median, standard deviation, level of confidence, etc.. in training or experience.
Actually, deaf, it is you who does not know what statistics are, as you keep trying to restrict it to one vary narrow segment of the field. Here is a very simple but inclusive definition: "Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, and interpretation of data." That may include measurements like mean, median, and mode but it is not restricted to that. In fact, many statistics do not even provide those specific measurements. For example, an athletes performance stats. Some may be expressed as mean, median and mode, others may be expressed as cumulative or comparative issues. Often mean, median and mode are not even knwn but one can still use statistical reasoning to develop a likelihood of events.
When you get on top of a roof and judge if you can jump down there is no 10 out of 12 tries or 95 percent level of confidence. You simply judge if you might get hurt and decide if it's worth the risk.
And how do you judge that? You take what knowledge you have about gravity, your physical condition, how you will land, etc and develop a likelihood of success that you then can use to decide if you will jump or not.
Now on the other hand if 5 other people jumped first and 2 broke their legs you then have some idea of the true risk.
Not much of an idea if that is all the info you have.
david experience is NOT A STATISTIC! Got that? Don't confuse the two.
Don't make things up and then claim I have said them to confuse the issue. I have not said experience is a statistic. Experience is one factor that figures into your decision-making process. Again, every time we take action based on an observation with an expectation of the outcome, we are engaging in our own little game of probability and statistics.
I've been in several of Given's classes david. I no doubt know alot more about it than you do. He presents the cases of 10 in powerpoint. He has talked about others to.
Sadly you have no clue about that, right?
OK, show us what you learned. Tell us the total number of Tom's students that have been involved in the typical armed robbery situation that we are discussing in this thread and how many of them were in a gunfight because if it? Sadly, you have no clue about that, right? Exactly!

Deaf Smith
07-15-2011, 17:42
deaf, just because you make stuff up doesn't mean I said it. For the third time, because you still seem unable or unwilling to understand what I said, "there has been so much research on armed robberies, particularly of things like convenience stores, that we do have data on many, if not most, of those factors, and when known they can be taken into account."
Just because you cannot understand the basics of stats and how to use them doesn't mean it is bull. As for much of the info I've posted it many times and you still haven't looked at it, so why waste my time trying to educate you any more?

So there is so much research but you can't name 'em, right? Sounds like you make stuff up.



OK, show us what you learned. Tell us the total number of Tom's students that have been involved in the typical armed robbery situation that we are discussing in this thread and how many of them were in a gunfight because if it? Sadly, you have no clue about that, right? Exactly!

And it's obvious you have no clue as to what Tom says or teaches. Do you even know how may students Tom has taught? Or WHY he only has 10 of the cases in his power point presentation? Don't know why, do you david? See I do.

And unlike you, Tom does not say the best thing to do is go along with the robbers.

Deaf

David Armstrong
07-15-2011, 18:00
So there is so much research but you can't name 'em, right? Sounds like you make stuff up.
Yes, it probably does, given that you clearly still haven't looked at the literature, although it has been provided many times. Here, have another shot at some of it. I know you won't, but let's stop this dishonesty about the lack of data available:
Lance K. Stell. 2004. “The Production of Criminal Violence in America : Is Strict Gun Control the Solution?” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Spring.
See also
Richard T. Wright and Scott H. Decker, “Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture.” 1997.
Jack Katz, “Seductions of Crime.” 1988
Jody Miller, “Up It Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 1998.
Rosemary J. Erickson and Arnie Stenseth. “Crimes of Convenience.” 1996
Wright and Decker, Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. 1997.
Zimring and Hawkins, Crime is not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. 1997.
Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. 1997.
There is plenty more when you get through that. Just let me know.
And it's obvious you have no clue as to what Tom says or teaches. Do you even know how may students Tom has taught? Or WHY he only has 10 of the cases in his power point presentation? Don't know why, do you david? See I do.
Yet you cannot even answer a very simple question about the material. I do know why that is, deaf.:rofl:
Let's try again:
Tell us the total number of Tom's students that have been involved in the typical armed robbery situation that we are discussing in this thread and how many of them were in a gunfight because if it?
And unlike you, Tom does not say the best thing to do is go along with the robbers.
Again, it would be nice if you would deal with what is said instead of making things up, as I do not say the best thing to do is go along with the robbers. That is the problem discussing things in a rational and logical manner with you, deaf, you just completely ignore things you disagree with and then make up stuff to support your view. Sad.

Deaf Smith
07-16-2011, 18:34
Again, it would be nice if you would deal with what is said instead of making things up, as I do not say the best thing to do is go along with the robbers. That is the problem discussing things in a rational and logical manner with you, deaf, you just completely ignore things you disagree with and then make up stuff to support your view. Sad.

Actually you said alot of it in post 114 of this thread and post 120.

#114
Why assume it is going to go bad? All the data indicates that it is far more likely NOT to go bad than to go bad. And most of that data shows that the only reason it goes bad in most situations like that is because the victim does not comply. Why not assume it will go like most robberies and end without any significant harm rather than do something that practically guarantees it getting worse? You can always escalate if your assumption is wrong and things go bad.

#120

So your suggestion is to do something that is virtually guaranteed to increase the risk and danger to everyone rather than try to reduce it. Sorry, I find that line of reasoning to be more than a little problematic. There is a reason virtually every LE organization, security group, retail association and others all suggest compliance except as a last resort.

david, don't give us this bs all over again as for your 'references'.

You posted this same crud back in May 2009 (and got you locked off TFL I think.)

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3509508

Plus you really think Tom gets calls from EVERY student that is in any type of confrontation wither a gun is fired or not? No doubt many didn't fire a weapon and didn't call him or fired and didn't call him.

And he told us several that he did find out were advised by their lawyers to say nothing.

He has trained many thousands david. You may spend time with books but he spends time where it counts.

Deaf

David Armstrong
07-16-2011, 23:05
Actually you said alot of it in post 114 of this thread and post 120.
Then you should be able to address what was posted there instead of making stuff up and claiming I said it.
david, don't give us this bs all over again as for your 'references'.
You posted this same crud back in May 2009 (and got you locked off TFL I think.)
OK, so you now admit that I have provided the information before and you've just been to lazy to look it up, just like I said. Thank you.
Plus you really think Tom gets calls from EVERY student that is in any type of confrontation wither a gun is fired or not? No doubt many didn't fire a weapon and didn't call him or fired and didn't call him.
No, I don't think that, and that is my point. You can't use those few reports as indicative of much without knowing how many others did not work out that way. Again, your weakness in understanding how to do research and use stats shows.
He has trained many thousands david. You may spend time with books but he spends time where it counts.
Ummm, deaf, you seem to forget that in addition to the books I still spend time training others, and have been doing so for over 30 years now. Maybe if you would spend a little time with books this stuff wouldn't be so mysterious and confusing for you.

beatcop
07-17-2011, 18:19
Tom Givens of Rangemaster has had 56 students in gunfights.

Off track, but what does this mean? He taught a tactics course to these folks, a security guard firearms course or he just covers NRA Basic pistol? 56 people is an extremely high number.

beatcop
07-17-2011, 18:34
This stuff is too scenario driven:

-are you the victim?
-are you in a store that's being robbed?
-home invasion robbery?

You can go on and on....from my experience responding to gas station, drug store, & man on man robberies and a few home invasions, one clerk got killed out of many dozens of incidents...that's it, no customers, no bystanders. That's based on the culture of my area though. If drug dealing is involved, the chance of shooting violence really goes up.

I think all can agree that an increase in training will result in better decision making when the shtf. Perching here with no reality based training is of minimal benefit.

Misty02
07-17-2011, 18:36
If I'm in public and someone robs where I'm at... the gas station or a restaurant, and I'm concealed carrying, I'm not going to do anything except exactly as the criminal asks me to.

The reasons are simple.

1. Why escalate the situation by getting out my firearm, increasing my likelyhood of death as well as the other patrons? The criminal is much more likely to not use his gun if I don't use mine. Also if I hit him firrst there's still a chance he can get a shot off.

2. I would much rather have my wallet of $40, driver's license, and bank card stolen than defend myself and pay thousands of dollars and hours in the courtroom and talking to lawyers.

DO you guys agree?

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/07/05/tactical-scenario-robbery-gone-bad/ (http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/07/05/tactical-scenario-robbery-gone-bad/)

Among the possibilities:

1. The armed robbers get what they want and leave without hurting anyone,
2. The armed robbers donít get what they want and shoot others,
3. The armed robbers get what they want and shoot others regardless.

Reality:

You donít get to find out which of the possible scenarios above you are in until it is all finished and youíre somewhere else telling the story.

You have to assess each situation you are in and react in the way most likely to ensure your survival. Some bad signs include being asked to lie on the floor face down, being asked to go to another room, etc. You could end up dead if do something, you could end up dead if you do nothing. Carrying just gives you another choice; unfortunately itís not a crystal ball.

How do you know that the criminal in your scenario will not shoot you regardless of compliance?

.
.

SCmasterblaster
07-17-2011, 18:42
No real reason come to think of it. I don't need to carry, but actually my greatest fear to tell you the truth is dogs.

If I'm jogging or riding my bike I like to know that I don't have to worry about a pitbull attack... I had a friend who was attacked by one.

Other than dogs I'm really not afraid of anything or feel the need to carry.

The only time that I ever had to draw my G17 was against a snarling pit bull a few inches from my face. I didn't shoot because the dog's car window was not down far enough to let it reach my throat.

I have been carrying my G17 for CCW since 1993. I have no problem with shooting a human, as long as I feel that my life is threatened, or the life of an innocent person near me.

That is what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Misty02
07-17-2011, 20:40
A what-if scenario based on an actual robbery over at G&A. Complying doesn't always work out so well.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/07/05/tactical-scenario-robbery-gone-bad/

And I still havenít developed the discipline to read through a thread before posting. You had it covered already. :embarassed: There is a multitude of those where there was full compliance from all involved (althought this one wasn't quite it, it was the most recent one I read through).

.

Ellie89
07-18-2011, 07:26
Reading all of that, this stood out, "Other than dogs I'm really not afraid of anything or feel the need to carry." That's pretty bold, but then, I'm not afraid of anything either. I mean, of course, afraid as in crippling paranoia, paralytic fear. I do respect the ability of others to do bad things. I constantly work on plans to negate their influence on my life.

My opinion is I am not certain your "I'm not really afraid of anything" is the same as mine. Maybe it is, hopefully it is.

If it isn't, and this is based on real people in my life in the real world, you're setting yourself up for stepping into some bad ****.

Oh, and yeah, I don't need to carry either. Lots of people don't need to carry. I've found in my personal experiences that being prepared for the unexpected has advantages.

Then there is this: "I think as human beings we like to think we are in control, when really there is so much out of our control." Doesn't that contradict your "I'm not really afraid of anything"? Maybe so, maybe not...
This...

I never felt the need to carry a gun until I moved to Atlanta. I spent most of my life in the rural south, where things like murders and carjackings were rare, and few of them were random.

Here, though, you can get shot and killed while walking across the parking lot in broad daylight. Is it likely? No, of course not. I don't leave my house/school/work constantly in fear of being shot, mugged, or raped, but I do realize now that it could happen. I made the decision that carrying a weapon (and knowing how to use it) might help my chance of survival in a sticky situation. I can't control what other people do, but I can control what I do and how I react to what other people do! I very much agree with "I do respect the ability of others to do bad things."

I'll probably never have to use my Glock except for practice and matches--but I don't want to take a chance on being in a situation where a gun could save my life and not have one. That's why a lot of people carry, I believe. :winkie:

David Armstrong
07-18-2011, 10:12
Off track, but what does this mean? He taught a tactics course to these folks, a security guard firearms course or he just covers NRA Basic pistol? 56 people is an extremely high number.
Exactly. Without more detail it means little to nothing as we don't know anything other than a number and have no way to relate that number to anything. Heck, I've probably had hundreds of students in gunfights, but that is a result of teaching firearms in the military. No need to discuss it much since it has no relationship to what we discuss here.

I think all can agree that an increase in training will result in better decision making when the shtf.
Right. We all will make a decision based on what we think the outcome will be. The more we know and understand the better that decision-making will be.

David Armstrong
07-18-2011, 10:18
How do you know that the criminal in your scenario will not shoot you regardless of compliance?
You don't, just like you don't know if your fighting back will stop the incident, or if it will get somebody hurt, or it will make things worse, or anything else. That is where one falls back on understanding and research and stats and all those things that we use to help us decide how likely or unlikely a particular outcome will be. We do it all the time in everything else we do, but for some reason some folks want to deny they use the same process for DGU incidents. We almost never "know", we almost always "think".
And I still haven’t developed the discipline to read through a thread before posting. You had it covered already. There is a multitude of those where there was full compliance from all involved (although this one wasn't quite it, it was the most recent one I read through).
Sure, there will always be those situations that don't fit the norm. Heck, the title of the article points that out...a robbery GONE BAD. Sort of indicates they realize that scenario is not at all normal. There will be exceptions to the rule, but we don't usually use the exceptions to define the best action. It would be sort of like claiming you should not use a seat belt when driving because there are some incidents where having the seat belt fastened led to a person getting killed.

Misty02
07-18-2011, 10:56
You don't, just like you don't know if your fighting back will stop the incident, or if it will get somebody hurt, or it will make things worse, or anything else. That is where one falls back on understanding and research and stats and all those things that we use to help us decide how likely or unlikely a particular outcome will be. We do it all the time in everything else we do, but for some reason some folks want to deny they use the same process for DGU incidents. We almost never "know", we almost always "think".

Sure, there will always be those situations that don't fit the norm. Heck, the title of the article points that out...a robbery GONE BAD. Sort of indicates they realize that scenario is not at all normal. There will be exceptions to the rule, but we don't usually use the exceptions to define the best action. It would be sort of like claiming you should not use a seat belt when driving because there are some incidents where having the seat belt fastened led to a person getting killed.

You didn't quote my entire post thus what I believe were the important parts (for me) were not carried forward. My comment was geared toward a post that implied he would always comply with the orders of a criminal. I have a feeling that even you would have a problem with dealing in such absolutes.


http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/07/05/tactical-scenario-robbery-gone-bad/ (http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/07/05/tactical-scenario-robbery-gone-bad/)

Among the possibilities:

1. The armed robbers get what they want and leave without hurting anyone,
2. The armed robbers donít get what they want and shoot others,
3. The armed robbers get what they want and shoot others regardless.

Reality:

You donít get to find out which of the possible scenarios above you are in until it is all finished and youíre somewhere else telling the story.

You have to assess each situation you are in and react in the way most likely to ensure your survival. Some bad signs include being asked to lie on the floor face down, being asked to go to another room, etc. You could end up dead if do something, you could end up dead if you do nothing. Carrying just gives you another choice; unfortunately itís not a crystal ball.

How do you know that the criminal in your scenario will not shoot you regardless of compliance?

David Armstrong
07-18-2011, 11:20
You didn't quote my entire post thus what I believe were the important parts (for me) were not carried forward.
Didn't mean to short-change you, wanted instead to emphasize that specific issue within your post.
My comment was geared toward a post that implied he would always comply with the orders of a criminal. I have a feeling that even you would have a problem with dealing in such absolutes.
Agreed. There are no absolutes, IMO. There are likelihoods, there are probabilities, there is normal. Those things allow us to develop default positions. But the default is a starting position, not the only position.

Misty02
07-18-2011, 11:30
Didn't mean to short-change you, wanted instead to emphasize that specific issue within your post.

Agreed. There are no absolutes, IMO. There are likelihoods, there are probabilities, there is normal. Those things allow us to develop default positions. But the default is a starting position, not the only position.

Much better! I'm a happy camper now! :supergrin:

.

Deaf Smith
07-18-2011, 19:33
Off track, but what does this mean? He taught a tactics course to these folks, a security guard firearms course or he just covers NRA Basic pistol? 56 people is an extremely high number.

He teaches many courses.

http://www.rangemaster.com/

And Memphis has a very high crime rate.

Deaf

Deaf Smith
07-18-2011, 19:42
Then you should be able to address what was posted there instead of making stuff up and claiming I said it.

Forgot the other post you did, didn't you david?


OK, so you now admit that I have provided the information before and you've just been to lazy to look it up, just like I said. Thank you.

And got kicked off the board for the BS info... over two years ago.


No, I don't think that, and that is my point. You can't use those few reports as indicative of much without knowing how many others did not work out that way. Again, your weakness in understanding how to do research and use stats shows.

Few?


Ummm, deaf, you seem to forget that in addition to the books I still spend time training others, and have been doing so for over 30 years now. Maybe if you would spend a little time with books this stuff wouldn't be so mysterious and confusing for you.


hahaha, yea david, sure. Do you include all the people in the classrooms a the local U.?

And BTW, sure enough some of the shootings that Given's students were involved in were in the very types discussed in this thread.

Deaf

wolf19r
07-18-2011, 19:49
I like the idea of being armed 99.99% of the time. Thus why I bought a new auto stryker. When asked why I needed said knife I said because its pointy and sharp and my save my said butt. Its always good to have a plan B cause sometimes it might become your plan A in an emergency.
But you do what you feel the most comfortable with. If you don't see a good end do what you feel is most necessary to help you and yours.

purrrfect 10
07-18-2011, 20:19
Y'all are welcome to make any decision you want for yourself, as I'll make mine. I'd hope that you make decisions off more than gunshop talk and GNG wisdom though.

Let me recommend that anyone looking to form an opinion start here: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/ and read every word written. Because the criminal world is nothing like you think.


Great site thank you.

beatcop
07-18-2011, 20:36
He teaches many courses.

http://www.rangemaster.com/

And Memphis has a very high crime rate.

Deaf

Ok, but you know what I'm saying. DA already pointed it out, if you're saying this guy taught some "refuse to be a victim" class to 5000 people and his tactics are superior, than fine, but more than likely he has instructed a bunch of people and some have been involved in some shootings...sorry 56 is just too high for me to believe.

You are right, if you merely bet your life on the stats you'd probably be doing yourself a disservice. You should keep the brain thinking and make some observations, the caveman instincts should be listened to, they are often tuned into things that can't be quantified with words.

The tough part is trying to impart what appears to be common sense, based on personal experience, to folks who have a warrior mindset. They don't want to hear about sitting tight, they want to strike out using the old speed, surprise, & violence of action. The problem is that some have no real skill, no experience or no tactics. They have convinced themselves that the mere possession of a gun means they are fully mission capable....uh, no.

You want to test your metal, get some simunitions and some shooters and run through a few of these waffle house scenarios. Seriously, one full speed run and let's see what happens. There will be no victory in a 3 on 1 fight.

I'm in favor of an informed decision, not a hard yes or no. The problem is that while you're behind the curve running your own OODA loop, the bad guy is setting the scene. If it is a kill-all situation, you may not realize it in time.

Misty02
07-19-2011, 04:46
Great site thank you.

There are a couple of broken links in that site, purrrfect 10, donít get discouraged and read through all the others. After you read a particular page, go back and read through the links in the body of that page as well. It is among the best Iíve found to date.

It will help you tune your situational awareness, things to look for, posture and attitude during the interview process, etc. To me, the most important skill in a fight is the ability to avoid/prevent one. I believe this website does a good job in teaching you to recognize the factors that would assist toward that goal.

Then read through the adrenal response and other pages dealing with during and after a fight. Iíve had training that stimulates the various senses to the point where confusion and exhaustion is created; obviously, none has achieved the level where Iím in actual fear for my life. Iíve only been able to read about that part, hopefully knowing what can happen will help a little if Iím able to recognize what is going on at the time. Perhaps that will also help me work through it.

,

Misty02
07-19-2011, 05:38
Ok, but you know what I'm saying. DA already pointed it out, if you're saying this guy taught some "refuse to be a victim" class to 5000 people and his tactics are superior, than fine, but more than likely he has instructed a bunch of people and some have been involved in some shootings...sorry 56 is just too high for me to believe.

You are right, if you merely bet your life on the stats you'd probably be doing yourself a disservice. You should keep the brain thinking and make some observations, the caveman instincts should be listened to, they are often tuned into things that can't be quantified with words.

The tough part is trying to impart what appears to be common sense, based on personal experience, to folks who have a warrior mindset. They don't want to hear about sitting tight, they want to strike out using the old speed, surprise, & violence of action. The problem is that some have no real skill, no experience or no tactics. They have convinced themselves that the mere possession of a gun means they are fully mission capable....uh, no.

You want to test your metal, get some simunitions and some shooters and run through a few of these waffle house scenarios. Seriously, one full speed run and let's see what happens. There will be no victory in a 3 on 1 fight.

I'm in favor of an informed decision, not a hard yes or no. The problem is that while you're behind the curve running your own OODA loop, the bad guy is setting the scene. If it is a kill-all situation, you may not realize it in time.

My personal opinion is that betting your life on statistics could be deadly. That of course doesn’t mean you don’t use them at all. As David mentioned (yes, I’m agreeing with you on this one :) ) they are the base to work from, the remainder is observance of your actual situation. If your reaction is based solely on statistics, you’re likely to become one yourself. I will never favor statistics over gut instinct.

Settings for me include, in this particular order:
- Flee the scene and call 911
- Hide and call 911
- Fight for my life if I’m left with no choice but to do so

For me, the above would be my choices even if I was 20 years old and in perfect shape. Being a bit of a realist I have to realize that I’m a middle aged woman with little to none combat training and not in the best of shape. Possession of firearm as a tool for SD is a good equalizer against the physical abilities of a young male but my skill level with that tool may likely not be sufficient to equalize those differences.

I’ve run through scenarios where my 26 and 22 year old boys, one of which is a very agile and fast body builder, are the attackers. BTW we do these as a game with the cheapy airsofts and eye protection; they still hurt a tad but won’t cause any permanent injuries (use thick clothing to minimize bruising). My discovery was that I would likely do rather well to attacks initiated at a distance (I’m a decent shot even without the use of sights). Once they closed that distance I was in serious trouble with only strategy and deceit working in my favor.

There is hesitation on my part to agree with your comment that there will be no victory in a 3 on 1 fight. Mostly because you would first need to define what you would classify as victory. Assume for a second that I’m out with one of my sons and two of my grandkids. Our planning for that kind of situation where a fight cannot be avoided takes logic into account (it has taken me a while to make them see the logic on that one). They are stronger and faster thus it is their job to carry those kids and run to safety while protecting them until they reach it. I will continue to train for that fight as my physical abilities diminish. While it is true that I’ll likely be shot or killed in the process victory (for me) consists of ensuring the survival of my kids and grandkids.

Victory, if I’m alone has one definition; if I’m with my family, the definition changes. We need to train and practice for both with an awareness that regardless of how rough we play and train it will not be even remotely close to the real thing.

Applying what I’ve learned so far to a store robbery where the robber is concentrated on the cashier and wants the money. My tactic on that one, depending on the circumstances and where I am, would be to flee to safety and call 911. If I can’t flee, at least hide. If I can’t hide, let it go through to the point where I can assess if more than money is being sought by the robber. If their attention is turned to the customers move slowly so I’m not the first customer they come in contact with and observe some more. If they ask customer to lie on the floor face down, they’ve changed the dynamics to where I may need to find the opportunity to react. No part of my reaction to the situation is written on stone but there are certain orders from the attacker I have pre-determined I will not comply with, even if that means I risk greater danger of being shot or killed.

This, of course, is just my personal opinion. That and $1.07 will buy you a coffee at McDonalds. :supergrin:

.

RussP
07-19-2011, 06:10
My personal opinion is that betting your life on statistics could be deadly. That of course doesnít mean you donít use them at all. As David mentioned (yes, Iím agreeing with you on this one :) ) they are the base to work from, the remainder is observance of your actual situation. If your reaction is based solely on statistics, youíre likely to become one yourself. I will never favor statistics over gut instinct....

This, of course, is just my personal opinion...

.It is also my opinion. My opinion is based on personal experiences that illustrated statistics also include the exceptions which could cost you your life.

Misty02
07-19-2011, 08:34
It is also my opinion. My opinion is based on personal experiences that illustrated statistics also include the exceptions which could cost you your life.

ThatÖ. heavy duty prayerÖ. and all hopes that Murphy is working hard for the other guy and not me. :)

.

David Armstrong
07-19-2011, 09:40
Forgot the other post you did, didn't you david?
Haven't forgot a thing, deaf. The fact that you can read what I actually wrote and then claim that is what you wrote is rather telling.
And got kicked off the board for the BS info... over two years ago.
Once again your imagination conflicts with reality.
Few?
Yes, few. Particularly few as it seems you are unable to tell us how many of them actually involved anything even remotely close to what we are discussing here.
hahaha, yea david, sure. Do you include all the people in the classrooms a the local U.?
If it is a firearms and/or tactics class, sure.
And BTW, sure enough some of the shootings that Given's students were involved in were in the very types discussed in this thread.
Still waiting for some actual numbers from you, or some semblance of proof other than your rather questionable claims.

David Armstrong
07-19-2011, 09:48
My personal opinion is that betting your life on statistics could be deadly. That of course doesn’t mean you don’t use them at all. As David mentioned (yes, I’m agreeing with you on this one :) ) they are the base to work from, the remainder is observance of your actual situation. If your reaction is based solely on statistics, you’re likely to become one yourself. I will never favor statistics over gut instinct.
I think what many miss is that gut instinct is also based on statistics, just not in any formal manner. Again, as degoodman said on another thread much like this, "every time we take action based on an observation with an expectation of the outcome, we are engaging in our own little game of probability and statistics." You bet your life on statistics every day. You are working with statistics when you drive your car, when you buy food to eat, when you take a bath, when you decide what clothes to wear, and so on. Pretty much any time we make a decision along the lines of "What should I do" we use stats. The only real question becomes how well do we understand what the options are all about. We determine what our goal is, we look at the options available to us, we determine how likely each option is to reach that goal. How much of our time we spend to make that decision and how in-depth we analyze the options becomes very situational, of course.

srkr
07-19-2011, 14:09
I tend to agree. If you are in a bank, and robbers come in to rob the bank and make no indication they are going to hurt anyone, it is best to let it play out. Of course, you are going to see some really eager folks getting in on this discussion. Too many people think CCW equals LEO.


I wonder though, if you did act and the ensuing gunfight got innocents killed, if you would face charges.

I was in a bank when it was robbed, last year. Next in line. Guy in front of me passed a note. Never even knew it was happening until the teller started screamin,,,,after the guy left. No gun was displayed. Just a note.

Shane

jdavionic
07-19-2011, 15:46
ThatÖ. heavy duty prayerÖ. and all hopes that Murphy is working hard for the other guy and not me. :)

.

Having endured and obviously survived various situations over my life, I can say that being prepared certainly helped in those cases where I was prepared, and I depended more heavily on luck when I was not prepared. After experiencing both, I'd much rather work to eliminate that dependency on luck :supergrin:

Misty02
07-19-2011, 15:59
I think what many miss is that gut instinct is also based on statistics, just not in any formal manner. Again, as degoodman said on another thread much like this, "every time we take action based on an observation with an expectation of the outcome, we are engaging in our own little game of probability and statistics." You bet your life on statistics every day. You are working with statistics when you drive your car, when you buy food to eat, when you take a bath, when you decide what clothes to wear, and so on. Pretty much any time we make a decision along the lines of "What should I do" we use stats. The only real question becomes how well do we understand what the options are all about. We determine what our goal is, we look at the options available to us, we determine how likely each option is to reach that goal. How much of our time we spend to make that decision and how in-depth we analyze the options becomes very situational, of course.

You know what? I had not looked at it that way. While I donít subscribe to using statistics as a sole decision making tool, I was referring to statistical results collected by others (often skewed to reflect the desired results) which includes data from different people from different places with different life styles. You are correct. I do use personal/family statistics which includes data that Iíve collected through years, subconsciously done to reach very specific goals.

You are succeeding in altering my opinion slightly (very slightly though). :supergrin:

.

Misty02
07-19-2011, 16:06
Having endured and obviously survived various situations over my life, I can say that being prepared certainly helped in those cases where I was prepared, and I depended more heavily on luck when I was not prepared. After experiencing both, I'd much rather work to eliminate that dependency on luck :supergrin:

Iím terribly greedy, jdavionic. :) I do my best to be prepared, I train, read even more than the prior two. I like to observe, analyze and study the possibility of other outcomes by testing different actions (under controlled conditions to minimize possible negative results). I still want, on top of it all, to have luck on my side. The luck part I cannot influence thus the continuous work on the others.

.

jdavionic
07-19-2011, 16:32
Iím terribly greedy, jdavionic. :)
And you should be greedy when it comes to wanting to be as prepared as you can reasonably be and help reduce the likelihood of being a victim.

Not sure if you've ever watched the Bio series called "I Survived". What strikes me in so many cases is there is often a failure of the victim to recognize that there are bad people in the world who will prey on those that they believe are vulnerable. I cannot recall an episode where a non-LE person was well trained and well prepared, but targeted as a victim. Sure, LE people are put in harm's way as part of their job and unfortunately we read too often where they are killed in the line of duty. However I'm talking about Joe or Jolene Citizen that has learned to avoid situations, has developed situational awareness, has learned how to defend themself, and has practiced hard to develop those skills. It can obviously still happen...but you improve your odds tremendously by being prepared.

Misty02
07-19-2011, 18:59
And you should be greedy when it comes to wanting to be as prepared as you can reasonably be and help reduce the likelihood of being a victim.

Not sure if you've ever watched the Bio series called "I Survived". What strikes me in so many cases is there is often a failure of the victim to recognize that there are bad people in the world who will prey on those that they believe are vulnerable. I cannot recall an episode where a non-LE person was well trained and well prepared, but targeted as a victim. Sure, LE people are put in harm's way as part of their job and unfortunately we read too often where they are killed in the line of duty. However I'm talking about Joe or Jolene Citizen that has learned to avoid situations, has developed situational awareness, has learned how to defend themself, and has practiced hard to develop those skills. It can obviously still happen...but you improve your odds tremendously by being prepared.

I did not see the episode, but it sounds interesting. Is it in any way related to these episodes? http://www.spike.com/full-episodes/435sbj/surviving-disaster-hijack-season-1-ep-101 (http://www.spike.com/full-episodes/435sbj/surviving-disaster-hijack-season-1-ep-101)

I havenít gotten around to watching the other episodes, but I will soon.

Iím actually more interested in learning to effectively avoid dangerous situations. For those where avoidance is not practical, then to learn to recognize the signs early enough to minimize the danger. Last (but not least) to learn as much as possible to increase our odds of survival if we have no choice but to be active participants in the conflict. I started way too late in life on all this so Iíll be perpetually behind the 8 ball.


****
Never mind, I found it! http://www.biography.com/isurvived/episode.jsp Iíll set a bookmarked reminder to watch those once Iím finished with Surviving Disasters. Thank you for letting me know about these. :)

.

jdavionic
07-19-2011, 19:41
I havenít gotten around to watching the other episodes, but I will soon.
I really enjoy the shows. It's always better to learn from someone else's mistakes and or learn from someone else how they survived certain situations. Usually each episode contains 3 real stories told by the actual survivors. At least 1 of the 3 is some type of victim of a violent crime. Others are a variety of survival situations that people have endured - plane crash, boating accident, lost in the woods, attacked by a bear...

Iím actually more interested in learning to effectively avoid dangerous situations. For those where avoidance is not practical, then to learn to recognize the signs early enough to minimize the danger. Last (but not least) to learn as much as possible to increase our odds of survival if we have no choice but to be active participants in the conflict. I started way too late in life on all this so Iíll be perpetually behind the 8 ball.
Never too late to start and you're never too old to learn. I'm an older member of GT. I am constantly working to improve skills, knowledge, etc. My parents, who are in the mid 70s, just started carrying in the past couple of years. They are learning too. Funny thing is though, we grew up in S FL and they have always been very 'street smart'. They have avoided many situations by being aware of their surroundings.

I believe that's your first line of defense...avoidance and situational awareness. Sure, you want to be prepared for situations if they happen. But it's much easier to survive if you don't get into a situation to begin with. I also think there's a lot of truth to the saying 'if you look like prey, you stand a good chance of becoming prey.'

I am constantly working on the 'avoidance and situational awareness' advice to my daughters, especially my oldest daughter (17). She's a tough kid, good athlete, and a pretty girl. Unfortunately her self confidence is also a fault. She has that teenage sense of invincibility that I thought only boys possessed at that age. I'm constantly reminding her 'don't go to that ATM', 'check the backseat of the car before getting in', 'look around the parking lot and note where people are'.....

My youngest daughter is quite ruthless though. I suspect I'll need to tell her 'honey, you can't gut a guy for looking at you wrong' :rofl:

dogchild
07-19-2011, 19:46
No, you are correct. Your own abilities, your own level of confidence, your own risk tolerance, heck, even your own choice of firearm can all play into what the individual sees as the point at which they feel they need to act. My point is that whatever that point is it should be near the end of the options and resorted to reluctantly, not at the first choice.

I read your article ,The Thinking Gun Fighter and found them very informitive, I plan to send them to my son and friends.
Thank you for sharing them

David Armstrong
07-19-2011, 22:29
I read your article ,The Thinking Gun Fighter and found them very informitive, I plan to send them to my son and friends.
Thank you for sharing them
Thank you, glad you found them of some help. I hope to get a couple of new ones up later this summer.

David Armstrong
07-19-2011, 22:34
You know what? I had not looked at it that way. While I donít subscribe to using statistics as a sole decision making tool, I was referring to statistical results collected by others (often skewed to reflect the desired results) which includes data from different people from different places with different life styles. You are correct. I do use personal/family statistics which includes data that Iíve collected through years, subconsciously done to reach very specific goals.
Many haven't looked at it that way, which is what creates some of the problems in discussing the issue. Lots of folks have a very narrow, formal view of statistics and analysis, and it is usually based on only one small segment of a very big field of using research and stats. They don't realize that less formal and personal data collection and analysis also is being used, and in some instances can be more important than the formal stuff.
You are succeeding in altering my opinion slightly (very slightly though). :supergrin:
.
The longest journey starts with but one small step.:wavey:

crsuribe
07-19-2011, 22:53
I would shoot everybody just in case then pay for my groceries, get on my horse and storm out of the place while whistling this old tune I used to like when I was a boy.

Deaf Smith
07-20-2011, 16:22
Ok, but you know what I'm saying. DA already pointed it out, if you're saying this guy taught some "refuse to be a victim" class to 5000 people and his tactics are superior, than fine, but more than likely he has instructed a bunch of people and some have been involved in some shootings...sorry 56 is just too high for me to believe.

'refuse to be a victim'? No beatcop, he teaches:

Level I - Basic Personal Protection Course
Level II - Tactical Pistol
Level III - Advanced Tactics & Skills
Level IV - Special Pistol
Level V - Professional Pistol
1911 Operator's Course
Defensive Revolver
Back-Up Gun (BUG) Course
Instructor Certification Course
Defensive Shotgun
Defensive Shotgun - Level 2
Urban Defense Carbine Course
OC Certification Course
Low Light Skills
Vehicle Defense (Anti-Carjacking) Course
Combative Pistol
Combative Pistol II
Dynamic Marksmanship, Two-Day Format
Dynamic Marksmanship, Three-Day Format

See this IS he 'day job'. Got that?

Plus he and SouthNarc get together for classes (I've been in multiple classes from both of 'em.)


Deaf

beatcop
07-20-2011, 18:05
refuse to be a victim?

Ok, then...quite a course list. Got it.

I've been to a couple classes myself, just mentioning that most don't address hold-up tactics....2 police academies and they didn't mention it either. Maybe I'm just missing the good stuff?

The point was that mere attendance at a particular course doesn't mean that a guy's doctrine is sound, or even taught in each class...did they react as trained or react based on the scenario?

Not to beat the stat, but the post academy for the whole state has trained at least 90% of the cops in my State....I don't think they have shot 50+ bad guys in 20 years of actively looking for crooks 24/7...just saying.

Misty02
07-20-2011, 18:57
Among the many things addressed in the last class I attended was hostage negotiations. All the disclaimers were provided as not something to be tried unless you are home alone with a loved one and the BG, you can tell he is going to kill someone and there is basically try or die for you both.

For this class our target was a silhouette with the colors inverted. The outside was black, the inside white with the skeleton outline inside it.

The class included engaging the BG in conversation as you approached; we were allowed to develop our own negotiating tactic. Desired shot placement was mouth to neck, hopefully for a hit to the spinal column. Timing was when the BG was about to respond, recognize thought in process and the starting movements of the lips. Movement was to be accomplished (in rough terrain with minor obstacles) in the fashion taught to prevent trip and fall but without looking down. The instructor was screaming and yelling out instructions, there were other distractions created as well. Obviously, none elevated the tension to fear of losing oneís life or that of a loved one. One of those few cases where you shoot only once, when you hit your indented target theyíll be going down with your loved one. My shot placement on that one was exactly between the two front teeth. This was a short exercise in the 8 hour class. Although it was an awesome exercise, none of us left the class wanting to ever give it a try.

I donít know what weíll be doing in the next class with the exception of a simulated car jack. There will be shooting from inside the car toward both the driverís side and the passenger side; then exercises of using the vehicle for cover/concealment and engaging targets that are further away. Among the things theyíll cover will be drawing and firing from inside a vehicle without muzzling yourself. From what I saw it appears that the first target is close at about 3 feet from the driverís door with multiple others at various distances, the furthest possibly 20+ yards away. Some to be shot from a distance, others we would have to navigate toward.

Those classes are a ton of fun and I hope that I never, ever, get to put to practice a single thing Iíve learned there.

My first option will always remain retreat, but if I have no choice but to fight I would like to have as many of the odds stacked in my favor as possible. (Someone please white out this last sentence in Davidís monitor)

beatcop
07-20-2011, 20:19
Misty, sounds interesting...can you name the training facility?

fyi, I always heard the medulla oblongata was better....bigger target. Rifle guys try to engage a "t" formed connecting eyes and nose.

Deaf Smith
07-20-2011, 20:48
Ok, then...quite a course list. Got it.

I've been to a couple classes myself, just mentioning that most don't address hold-up tactics....2 police academies and they didn't mention it either. Maybe I'm just missing the good stuff?

The point was that mere attendance at a particular course doesn't mean that a guy's doctrine is sound, or even taught in each class...did they react as trained or react based on the scenario?

Not to beat the stat, but the post academy for the whole state has trained at least 90% of the cops in my State....I don't think they have shot 50+ bad guys in 20 years of actively looking for crooks 24/7...just saying.

Tom Givens,Chief Instructor

Before coming to Rangemaster full time in 1996, Tom completed a 25 year career in law enforcement and specialised security work.
For over twenty years Tom's duties have included firearms instruction, and he has trained law enforcement officers at the local, state, and federal level; foreign government agents; and military personnel including members of the 20th Special Forces Group.

Tom's education, training, and experience in this field includes:

Graduate, FBI Police Firearms Instructor School, FBI certified Firearms Instructor
Graduate, NRA Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor Development School
Graduate, NRA Law Enforcement Tactical Shooting Instructor School
Certified Handgun Instructor, Tennessee
Graduate, U.S. Army Instructor School

Graduate, (Expert Certificate) Gunsite Training Center API 499
Graduate, Advanced Tactical Pistol, Tactical Explosives Entry School
Attended numerous other schools and seminars across the U.S.
Author of five published textbooks, including Fighting Smarter.
Author of over one hundred published magazine articles in S.W.A.T. Magazine,
Combat Handguns Magazine, and others

Participant/Presenter at the National Tactical Invitational(NTI) 2004, 2005, 2006
Former Class A IPSC Competitor
I.P.S.C. Tennessee/Mississippi Section Champion, 1977, 1978
IDPA Master classification, Enhanced Service Pistol Division
IDPA Master classification, Custom Defensive Pistol Division
1998 Tennessee IDPA State Champion
1999 Mississippi IDPA State Champion
Former Member IDPA Board of Directors

Certified Expert Witness on Firearms, and Police Firearms Training, in both state and federal courts

Member of these professional associations:
National Rifle Association
Police Marksman Association (Life Member)
American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers
American Society for Industrial Security
International Wound Ballistics Association

Has made hundreds of arrests, including numerous armed felons
Has successfully used a handgun to defend himself and others against armed criminals

Plus John Hearne teaches there:

John has been a Federal law enforcement officer with the National Park Service since 1992.

He serves as a firearms instructor, tactics instructor, armorer, and field training officer for that agency. John's education, experience, and training include:

Graduate, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) - Firearms Instructor
Training Program (Distinguished Weapons Expert)
Graduate, Federal Bureau of Investigation Police Firearms Instructor School - FBI
certified Firearms Instructor
Graduate, NRA Law Enforcement Tactical Shooting Instructor School
Graduate, Rangemaster Basic Personal Protection Instructor Course
Graduate, Simunitionsģ Scenario and Safety Course
Mississippi POST Certified Instructor

Recognized as a Top Practitioner at the 2006 National Tactical Invitational
Participant/Presenter at the National Tactical Invitational (NTI) 2005, 2006, 2007
Match Champion, 2004 Rangemaster Tactical Conference/Match
High Lawman, 2002 Rangemaster Tactical Conference/Match

Gunsite- 250C (Expert Certificate) and 223
Thunder Ranch- Handgun I, II, and III and Urban Rifle I and II
Front Sight- 4-Day Defensive Handgun (Distinguished Graduate), 2-Day
Tactical Handgun (Distinguished Graduate)
Larry Vickers/Vickers Tactical - Handgun 1
Louis Awerbuck/Yavapai Firearms- Tactical Carbine
Scottie Reitz/ITTS- SWAT Combat Course
Pat Rogers/EAG Tactical- Combative Carbine
Randy Cain/Cumberland Tactics- Tactical Handgun 101
Jeff Gonzales/Trident Concepts- Combative Handgun
Chuck Taylor/ASAA- Advanced Tactical Handgun
Jim Higginbotham/Rangemaster- Dynamic Marksmanship
Chuck Habermehl/CQB, Inc.- Groundfighting/Officer Survival
Dane Burns/Rangemaster- Basic Hand to Hand Skills

John is an instructor in Level II-V and Off-Site Handgun courses.

Several others are also part of Tom's staff.

Deaf

Misty02
07-20-2011, 20:57
Misty, sounds interesting...can you name the training facility?

fyi, I always heard the medulla oblongata was better....bigger target. Rifle guys try to engage a "t" formed connecting eyes and nose.

Itís this one: http://www.floridafirearmstraining.com/ (http://www.floridafirearmstraining.com/)

I havenít taken the rifle or shotgun classes yet. I want to take all the pistol classes first, including the ones that take place at night with low visibility. Iím afraid I have a long way to go still. Once I take them all, I will go back and take the pistol ones all over. I'm also considering the H2H one with airsoft. That one is close and personal with bruising almost guaranteed, it's also 2-8 hour days. That last night, in lieu of a hotel I might need a hospital bed. :supergrin:

Part of the next class will include:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNhRyDziJFU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNhRyDziJFU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNqqzJOKhyI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNqqzJOKhyI)

The targets he used for that class are completely different than the ones we used in our last one.

The instructor is great and patient; he is blessed with a great ability to pass on what he knows on to those in the class. Students have different skill levels, yet you leave feeling the class was tailored specifically for you. I would say that about half the class is one on one with the main instructor. I went with one of my kids to the last one. Obviously, he moved much faster through each exercise than I did, the bottom line is that I was better after the class than before it.

I donít know the other exercises that will be included this time, what I do know is that it will be lots of fun and Iíll learn a few more things. I also know that I will not be worth a penny the following day and even my hair will be sore! :)

.

beatcop
07-20-2011, 21:44
Tom Givens,Chief Instructor

Before coming to Rangemaster.......

Looks like he has a basis of knowlege. I did find a newsletter that documented a "student" involved shooting with the #51 on it, so there's some kind of tracking going on.

Not trying to dig at him specifically, but the creds people post are impressive to the layman, not so much when you have actually accomplished some of them yourself. I'm interested in talking to folks with operational experience...what works in the field, etc. Sometimes you get some good training events in the course of normal duty, but that depends on the optempo of your PD. I don't really care about the guys block on explosive entry if he's never done it...you know what I mean?

If someone has never pointed a gun at someone or actually been to a robbery scene, caught a robber, etc...you get "carry issues" advice. A couple folks posting here can be googled up and have a pretty good resumee...a few even make sense.

beatcop
07-20-2011, 21:56
Itís this one: http://www.floridafirearmstraining.com/ (http://www.floridafirearmstraining.com/)

[Part of the next class will include:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNhRyDziJFU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNhRyDziJFU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNqqzJOKhyI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNqqzJOKhyI)



vid 1- nice to do anything with a vehicle, but when it's a nice car, you don't fire as fast or through the glass...that was a "slow" fire excercise.

Vid 2- He's getting there, but picking up dropped mags? Do not put partially consumed mag back into mag pouch with full ones.

perfect practice makes perfect...

Misty02
07-21-2011, 05:11
vid 1- nice to do anything with a vehicle, but when it's a nice car, you don't fire as fast or through the glass...that was a "slow" fire excercise.

Vid 2- He's getting there, but picking up dropped mags? Do not put partially consumed mag back into mag pouch with full ones.

perfect practice makes perfect...

That part about it being a new car concerned me too. I will have to make very sure I donít put a bullet through it. I think I would be more at ease with an old clunker that didnít work, but oh well. To be honest, Iíve not yet mastered rapid fire and trigger reset. It is not something I can easily practice when I go to the range (not allowed) and I have not been disciplined to practice it as much at home with dry firing. Actually, it is my fault as I have been invited to a private range where I can do it all and Iíve only gone once.

I canít comment on the mag change on that one. Last time we had both changes of mags; the regular one when you run dry, drop and change and the tactical one you do when there is a break in the fight you get a fresh mag and save the other. I wonít know until our class which was the one involved for this particular exercise.

I can tell you that unfortunately Iíll be going slower than the guys in those videos. Still, my objective is to be better when I leave each of those classes, performing better than when I got there. At first I measured my performance against that of others and quickly became disappointed, I had to remind myself that some have had decades of practice, Iíve yet to reach my third year with no previous firearm handling.

Like I said, I still have a long way to go!


.

happyguy
07-21-2011, 06:40
Ok, then...quite a course list. Got it.

I've been to a couple classes myself, just mentioning that most don't address hold-up tactics....2 police academies and they didn't mention it either. Maybe I'm just missing the good stuff?

The point was that mere attendance at a particular course doesn't mean that a guy's doctrine is sound, or even taught in each class...did they react as trained or react based on the scenario?

Not to beat the stat, but the post academy for the whole state has trained at least 90% of the cops in my State....I don't think they have shot 50+ bad guys in 20 years of actively looking for crooks 24/7...just saying.

Tom Givens knows what he's doing.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

David Armstrong
07-21-2011, 07:04
My first option will always remain retreat, but if I have no choice but to fight I would like to have as many of the odds stacked in my favor as possible. (Someone please white out this last sentence in David’s monitor)

Too late! I already saw it. Welcome to the wonderful world of stats and probabilities!:supergrin:

HexHead
07-21-2011, 07:09
I carry a gun because it gives me options depending on the circumstances.

David Armstrong
07-21-2011, 07:19
Looks like he has a basis of knowledge. I did find a newsletter that documented a "student" involved shooting with the #51 on it, so there's some kind of tracking going on.
Tom's been around for quite while and knows his stuff.
Not trying to dig at him specifically, but the creds people post are impressive to the layman, not so much when you have actually accomplished some of them yourself.
Good point. The cred's posted by deaf for Tom and Frank are actually fairly similar to mine and a number of others as far as training, and are about what I would expect from any major trainer in the field today doing broad, generalized firearms training.
I'm interested in talking to folks with operational experience...what works in the field, etc. Sometimes you get some good training events in the course of normal duty, but that depends on the optempo of your PD. I don't really care about the guys block on explosive entry if he's never done it...you know what I mean?
Don't neglect the value of learning from studies and research. While it doesn't give a practitioner base it still can give a lot of useful information for the field. I had a lot of my field experience before some of the more specialized training, and regularly during training I found myself thinking "Boy, I sure wish I would have known that when I had to ....."
If someone has never pointed a gun at someone or actually been to a robbery scene, caught a robber, etc...you get "carry issues" advice. A couple folks posting here can be googled up and have a pretty good resumee...a few even make sense.
To add to that when you get the same type of advice, over and over, from multiple different sources with that experience and good resumes, there is probably a pretty good reason they are all saying the same thing.