August 25th, 2007 12:47 AM
If men followed us and made seni-threatening remarks about my wife she would probably already have her gun drawn so I might not even need to!
In Oklahoma, even we liberals like guns!
August 25th, 2007 05:52 PM
I must respectfully disagree with the statement that I've heard many times, and again here: if you need to draw, you need to shoot. I think it's somewhere over 90% of incidents where a gun is pulled end without a shot being fired. I know statistics can be bent and twisted to say anything, but this one is simple math to me--if there's a 90% chance that simply drawing will end the encounter, I'm all for it. If there's no weapon visible and 21' or more I'll stay at low-ready and/or keep my finger off the trigger for a half-second to see if I'm in the 10% zone. Weapon visible is another story. I agree with the responder who said something like, "If you draw and the BG's keep advancing, there's no question." They believe they can still take you, even though you're carrying a gun. Don't bet that they're bluffing.
August 26th, 2007 12:55 AM
I agree with sjp2452 that just because you draw your weapon doesn't mean you HAVE to shoot. You just have to be prepared to shoot.
You need the resolve that shooting is a serious option, which may be neccessary. It makes NO sense to say "If you draw your gun...you HAVE to shoot". That is not a rule I learned in any shooting or CCW class.
A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
August 26th, 2007 09:09 PM
disparity of force
Before using a 'Disparity of force' defense, it really helps if you don't outnumber them three to two.
Now, I'm not saying that either one of the ladies involved was a fair match to one of the possible BG's, but its a stretch to say that two of them were not.
This is always a tough call. But, thats part of the responsibility of carrying. Some young guy talking about them needing a 'real man' sounds to be like not much more than teenage fantasy talk. But, of course, I was not there to hear the tone.
But, seeing as there was no apparent disparity of force from what has been described, (ladies are not useless you know), and there is no weapon, then by drawing you are not making your case very strong if it goes further.
It seems so easy to 'defuse' the situation by demonstrating that you have the means to defend yourselves and that you are not worth the trouble, but that makes its own kind of trouble. This is really one of those 'you had to be there' things.
Definitely a case of play it by ear.
August 26th, 2007 11:16 PM
I have been seeing alot of these types of what-if's and under what conditions does someone draw their weapon (irregardless if the gun is fired). With the scenario given in this thread, I keep going back to what my NRA instructor told me and the conditions that are specified by law for use of deadly force. He told the class "you can't defend yourself with your gun to prevent getting your butt kicked". Obviously if you're outnumbered, that changes things. If they threaten you but don't show any weapons they have the intent and the opportunity, but not the apparent ability to cause great harm or death; then no gun. There is this big gray area pertaining to when you should draw.....if it was me, I think I would give the verbal commands to back off, etc. Then if none were heeded, I would draw. If they run, great, if they don't well I guess it gets sorted out in court. But like Fragman stated, demonstrating that you have the means to defend yourself could be more trouble. The hopeful outcome is that it diffuses the situation; the worst is that it could escalate the confrontation.
August 27th, 2007 01:02 PM
Well, since there obviously are no easy answers, I don't feel bad about running the scenario in my mind and not coming up with anything definite.
Thanks for the replies!
August 29th, 2007 12:41 PM
tell them to stay back, step between the ladies to defend their retreat, turn strong side away clear clothing hand on carry piece of choice while gaining distance, pull surefire shine in eyes and wait to see what they do.
August 29th, 2007 01:43 PM
Anytime you draw a weapon on someone, assuming that the appearance of the weapon scares them away, you need to report the incident to the police. Not only to protect yourself against the possibility that the perp reports you to the police for threating him, but, so the police have an official record of the incident to protect the public from future, possible attacks by the same perp.
September 2nd, 2007 11:24 AM
I like most of the advices, to the op, can I recommend to rent this set of videos? I think you will like it :)
September 18th, 2007 11:10 AM
I was in fear for my life officer… These are key words! In fact, they are some of THE most important words you may ever speak.
There are a number of things you could do. Avoidance, deterrence, de-escalation, and escape are what we all need to TRY and do if they are possible. If not, then do what needs to be done.
A lot of it is situational. If you are with your wife, children, nieces, nephews, etc., who cannot protect themselves, then this changes things as opposed to being by yourself. You now have to worry about protecting others and escaping with all of them may not be an option. However, verbally challenging the assailants and drawing attention to the situation if possible is good. Of course, you may not have time to verbally challenge them if they close the distance quickly. You do what you feel needs to be done in order to stay alive.
September 18th, 2007 11:12 AM
Of course, I forgot to mention that if you have less lethal options available, ideally you would want to use them IF possible. With multiple assailants, using less lethal may not keep you alive!
September 18th, 2007 12:28 PM
I've been in some situations, read of many more.
First, what kind of shoes are the females wearing?
Ankle-breaker high heels? Flip-flops? Do they have ANY kind of training, or combat mindset? I have seen some women who are good in a fight, but mostly, they are useless, worse than useless, since they are high value targets.
If you are alone, about the only prize available is your wallet, and the thrill of beating you, or killing you. If you are with two females, and you go down, I think you can count on them being transported to a secondary crime scene for some rape. Once raped, they are only witnesses, and what do you think badguys do with witnesses in a remote location?
But What if the BGs are not making "veiled threats"?
Most of the situations I've had, the BG either says nothing at all, or says something friendly or innocuous.
Maybe something unintelligible so that you get suckered int leaning forward, still in condition white, and you say, "pardon me, sir?"
All this NEVER happens outside the "magic" 21 ft distance. NOTHING overt happens before they position themselves to 10 ft or even 6 ft.
When you got two males who are obviously acting in concert, flanking you, and co-ordinating their movements, you'd BETTER not be thinking about some NRA class, considering all the legalistic particulars of "I don't see a knife yet, maybe they just want to beat the tar out of me, that's OK, then."
You are confronted by TWO males? count yourself lucky. 4-5 is real possible.
The assumptions of those admonishments of when not to use your gun, are the kind of stuff which when it comes to a real fight for your life will GET YOU KILLED.
They are made by people who've never been in a fight, and the intended warnee is a dim-witted 22 year old who blunders into bar fights over stupid disputes over loose women.
The problem is not so much recognizing trouble, as not talking yourself out of ACTING on what you know.
If you wait for them to make the first camera-obvious move, they'll win and they will kill you.
September 18th, 2007 09:18 PM
I've been reading this thread with interest. Many thought-provoking and informative posts, thanks to all.
The last response, by TravisABQ, has brought up something that doesn't seem to be mentioned nearly enough in tactics threads. In my mind, it is without doubt the most seemingly unsolvable problem to beset the good guy in any hostile encounter. Here it is, in Travis' words:
Ah, yes. The issue of DISTANCE. In the few unfriendly interactions I've had with people over the years, it has never failed to be an important factor. Those with hostile intentions have an infuriating proclivity for getting too close , too fast. I'm speaking of the prelude to the actual confrontation, when the aggressor moves right into your personal body space, either while telegraphing his intentions or not. He could just be asking for the time or a smoke, or in more clear-cut situations, making threats and "getting in your face" (this being done as he's moving, quickly enough that by the time you realize what's happening he's right next to you). But either way, there's NO ROOM TO MOVE! Sometimes, there's so little space between you and him that you have to look sharply down to see what his hands are doing. Naturally, it gets way worse if there is more than one aggressor.
All this NEVER happens outside the "magic" 21 ft distance. NOTHING overt happens before they position themselves to 10 ft or even 6 ft.
I've never been able to come up with a satisfactory solution to this problem. I really believe that it's insurmountable, because many times there is no justification for taking a defensive posture while the potential BG is still a "comfortable" distance away. Once he has let you know, through body language or verbally, that he means you harm, he's in a superb position to inflict it before you can possible draw a weapon. I know that this is where unarmed defensive skills come in, but no matter how good you are, a man right next to you with a knife in his hand can do serious damage in the blink of any eye, particularly if he's so close that it's difficult to see his hands.
So what is one to do, yell "Stop, don't come any closer" any time a stranger strolls toward you? Though technically an option, it is extremely impractical and would just about halt many necessary daily interactions. It seems that most or all of the distance-maintaining strategies you could adopt would be so assertive/aggressive as to perhaps precipitate or encourage hostility, rather than diffuse or avoid it.
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but I think it has relevance in a broad sense to what is being discussed.
November 8th, 2007 01:52 PM
The problem with these type of "hypothetical" scenarios is that there are too many situational variables that need be considered and that can only be executed when a specific incident does in fact go down in real life. It is, however, easier to respond to the responsive replies. In that arena I can't help but to disagree with Jonsey's above statement.
Originally Posted by jonesy_26
Anyone who thinks an aggressive, determined unarmed Hostile has intent and opportunity "but no ability" to cause great harm or death has never personally witnessed or been involved in a real-life, down & dirty, nasty, no-holds-barred all-out street-fight.
Let's "Get Real": A single well-aimed punch or kick can destroy an eyeball, rupture kidneys or spleen, crush a windpipe, splinter a rib and lacerate the aorta, shatter kneecaps, or fracture the relatively thin temple region of the skull causing a subdural brain hematoma and coma or death. A single punch could k**** a defender down or out, causing him to land head-first and spill his brains out of a severely-fractured skull all over the street or sidewalk.
And let's not forget that the damage any unarmed hostile can do with their bare hands, knees, elbows or shod feet is always and everywhere dependent upon the pre-existing physical condition and medical infirmities that may exist in the intended victim-defender.
I do not disagree with Jonesy's overall generalized thoughts. I realize that many States have differences in the Statutory definitions and parameters re justified utilization of self-defensive deadly force. But I do think Jonsey is perhaps (inadvertently?) over-simplifying and being a little too "blanket" or "carte blanche" by (seemingly) inferring that armed SD against an unarmed attacker is never justifiable.
I think in the long run it boils down to Reasonableness. For example, if you simply k**** down an elderly osteoporosis-prone female in her mid-70s or so, chances are very high she'll likely fracture a hip requiring surgical intervention and being bedridden prone for several weeks to months before recuperative physical therapy can even commence. In which case a very common consequential result is contracting pneumonia from being bedridden prone flat on her back, with a buildup of lung fluids, and dying from pneumonia.
I have it a little bit simpler since I reside in a relatively gun-liberal, "stand my ground" state. Even so, in any state, and in any situation, the key essence is to know the applicable laws intimatately, and act in accordance with the law and what you sincerely and REASONABLY believe to be appropriate, lawful response.
As in, a jury of 12 of your peers would agree that your actions were the actions of a reasonably intelligent, prudent and discerning person, given ANY and ALL of the pertinent facts and circumstances which were there and then present as the occurrence and encounter unfolded.
Whenever we strap on that SD firearm and walk out of our castles, if we do not also strap on and carry intimate knowledge of the pertinent laws and the degree of maturity and self-discipline that that goes along with the responsibility we've elected to undertake, then we are a recipe for disaster just waiting to happen. To ourselves, or another. I forget who it was that said it so can't lend due credit, but it boils down to:
"Every encounter you have involves a man with a gun. The man is you, and the gun is yours. Therefore, conduct yourself accordingly, and appropriately".
I think these forum discussions are fantastic - because they give members reasons to think and perhaps even refine their thinking. But some of these "hypothetical scenarios" and some of the questions posed therein make me shudder. I think that every person who is CCW licensed should obtain a complete verbatiom copy of the residency-state Penal Law Codes and Statutes that govern firearms and study it. If "gray areas" are detected, then consultation with the best source is indicated - a firearms-law-knowledgeable attorney who has no agenda or desire or function other than to adequately and accurately counsel the lawful gunowner concerning any questions thay may have.
Knowledge is power. In this case, a good working knowledge of the Law itself equates to the power to stay alive as well as keep your butt out of jail so you can continue enjoying your "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". JMHO.
November 16th, 2007 06:51 PM
Hard question to answer since there are so many differant laws dealing with this.
Les Baer 45
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
By sw angel in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: January 31st, 2011, 02:45 PM
By Mikey in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 29th, 2008, 09:27 AM
By airpowers in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: May 10th, 2008, 11:57 PM
By PapaScout in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: April 21st, 2006, 02:17 PM
Search tags for this page
fear no weapon visible
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors