Is the "scariness factor" important for an SD gun?

[MLeake]

Once again...

... there are instances where it is perfectly valid legally and tactically to draw a weapon as a deterrent, before things get to the point that shooting is the only remaining option.

Waiting until you have no choice whatever but to shoot is the sign of an idiot.

 

[raftman]

It's not about using your gun as a prop with the sole purpose of scaring away an attacker, of course one shouldn't pull a weapon unless they're actually justified in using it. But it's absolutely critical, IMO, to also be prepared to hold your fire in case it becomes unnecessary to shoot as can often happen when a gun is introduced into the equation. We carry guns to stop the threat, if a BG sees your gun, and decides to take off running, then mission accomplished, the threat has ended. In fact, this appears to how most gun-related SD situations end. It's only in a minority of cases that someone gets shot. This means, most of the time, there IS time for a BG to see the gun and give up or run away. If you think about the legal ramifications, you'll be much better off if you're both ready to shoot, and ready not to shoot, rather than just willing to shoot.

 

[AZAK]

Existential question per Mas Ayoob

I give credit to Mas Ayoob for bring this train of thought out years ago (paraphrasing):
You need the BG to answer a question for himself like, "Do you really want me to have to shoot you in the face, scum bag?" (This upon "pulling steel" on him.)

My apologies to Mr. Ayoob for not being as articulate in the retelling, you can read it yourself, In The Gravest Extreme.

He also does mention the deterrent factor of handguns in this book. All in all a very solid read when considering guns as a self defense tool. And very much directly on topic to this post, and forum in general.

 

[Patrice]

Hhmmm...just my opinion, but I think the scary factor may be psychologically more important to the self/home defender, than it is to the human that one is hoping not to shoot.--Patrice

 

[Glenn Dee]

Displaying a firearm too soon may allow your opponent to react... like shoot you first. Displaying a firearm too soon also takes away a strong tactical advantage.. SURPRISE!!!

 

[LouisianaMan]

Raftman, MLeake, Jim March. . .

I want you on my side if bad times ever come my way! Some others here, too. The poster with the sawed-off 870 "pistol" sounds like he's faced a lot of situations that he handled without automatically shooting, right? Don't know anything about him, but it sounds credible to me. In other words, it fits my idea of how real people react.

Some of the posters, however, simply don't get the original question or have decided--against all evidence, logic, and repeated explanations--that every armed confrontation is like a fast-draw scene from an old B-Western. Draw'n'shoot, all as one thought, one move, one word.

Various minor things cause me to pick up a pistol to go check out a noise or something, but I'm not going to automatically shoot anything that moves or makes a sound! In fact, every single thing I've ever checked out--EVERY ONE--proved to be something I didn't even need a gun for, period. In other words, harmless. Yes, I know I'm lucky. Yes, I know not to get complacent. But yes, I'm going to take into account that my life experiences have proved for 50 years that if I had gone into these (non-) situations with a hair trigger, that it would have been the WRONG thing to do.

If I encounter an apparently unarmed young teenager, I'm going to take some time to decide how to react, and in that brief time the potential BG has a moment to decide how HE'S going to react. Thus, Raftman's original question. . .do we think it will matter what our gun looks like as the other guy makes his decision?

Now, for those of you who go check out the noise in the darkness with your pistol holstered, awaiting your fast-draw moment because you'll never draw unless you shoot, I wish you good luck. LOTS of it, in fact. For those of you who always plan to shoot the other guy before he can have ANY POSSIBLE CHANCE of seeing your gun at all, in every case, I hope anyone who encounters you is indeed a dangerous felon who needs killing, cuz it sounds like your mind is made up.

Although my 24 years in the Army were all non-combat, I know I didn't train troops to shoot everyone who moved in the darkness or goofed by using yesterday's password. We didn't want anyone that trigger-happy around the nuclear weapons we secured. . . .

I'll close this epistle by saying that if you doubt my readiness to shoot quickly--even ruthlessly--in a situation I size up as threatening death or grievous bodily harm, you will have once again misinterpreted a post.

Best of luck to us all, and hopefully these exercises in mental preparedness will help those who engage in them.

 

[44 AMP]

No one answer is going to fully correct for every possible situation

But the question that was asked was is the "scariness factor important for an SD gun"?

And the answer is, not at all. Capability (yours), reliability (the gun/ammo) and accuracy (yours with the gun) are the critical factors. Buying a huge stainless revolver that you are not skilled with, because you feel it would be scarier than another gun, and therefore more likely to chase off the bad guys is not as good a defense as having any gun you are skilled with.

Now if you are into big stainless revolvers for fun, and can use them competently for defense, so much the better!

Don't pick your SD gun because it looks scary or impresive. While the looks may be enough to save you, its not something you can rationally count on.

Does the visual impact of your gun have an effect? Yes. Some of the time.
Should you choose your SD gun because of what it looks like? No.

Any gun pointed at you is scary, to any rational individual. What varies is the level of the effect, and how rational your opponent is at the time.

Tiny concealment guns have the least visual effect, but they have one, none the less. But bullets, even tiny ones have a more significant effect. And...

 

[MWark]

44 AMP, critical thinking is still alive and well! You nailed it. Thank you for your post!

 

[Jim March]

Some of the posters, however, simply don't get the original question or have decided--against all evidence, logic, and repeated explanations--that every armed confrontation is like a fast-draw scene from an old B-Western. Draw'n'shoot, all as one thought, one move, one word.

Very good point.

I've reached for knives in self defense three times now. In two, speed of draw wasn't a factor.

In one, it *might* have been. I was able to put my hand on it but hold off drawing because I knew I could snap it open and bring it to ready in literally an instant. Because of that, I held off on the draw and let an extremely dicey situation de-escalate and watched the four lunatics leave.

But for the most part, fast-draw isn't an issue, not if your situational awareness is any good.

Another thing we haven't touched on yet: "borderline" situations.

You have a guy 21ft out who is acting like a total lunatic, armed with, say, a hammer, he's already committed violence with it on somebody else but you've got his victim away from him and said victim is now passed out behind you. The lunatic isn't approaching - he's yelling, waving the hammer dripping blood, but it can be argued he's not "shootable" yet. (This is exactly what I faced in the scenario described above, except there was one more lunatic with a hammer and two more unarmed.)

Knowing what I know now and being armed like I am daily in Arizona, under the same circumstances I'd haul out that funky lookin' cannon and hold it at a low ready.

In THAT instance, do I want a scary gun? (And yeah, CRAZY is scary!) I would say "absolutely". The last time I faced this, I avoided getting killed by the skin of my teeth. My hand on a 5.5" open-carry folder was *barely* enough deterrent and at that time, I had a lot less idea what to do with it. (I sought training shortly after!!!)

Rare scenario? Well yeah, in a lot of ways. But I think this sort of "standoff" situation where the goblin(s?) are right at the edge of shootable and either freaking out or taunting you can happen, and you CAN get into a situation where you can legally draw (as in, I'd just seen those jackarses try and kill somebody!) but not yet fire as they're not charging can happen.

And that's a top place where a "cannon" helps psychologically.

Then again, so does a laser.

What else...I've read TONS of reports from good guys that when a barrel is pointed at them, they tend to fixate on it. I have no reason to think goblins don't do the same thing. And statistically, gun hands get shot so much that it's obviously another aspect of that effect. And that's one reason I put an "AHH!" face right next to the muzzle...I'm genuinely surprised that's not more common. There's room on most of those funky newfangled "semi auto" things...

 

[sakeneko]

A gun alone (*any* gun) will scare most people into stopping whatever it was they were doing to threaten you or an innocent person. A larger gun or a bigger barrel will probably have even more power to intimidate, but I doubt enough that it's worth counting on. I'd rather just carry what I feel most comfortable handling and shooting, and let the intimidation factor take care of itself.

 

[evbar28]

lasers

A gun in and of itself IS the scary factor. A laser enhances the scary factor. Red means stop. The laser removes all doubt what you are holding in your hand, especially in low light conditions, and the psychological effects of the laser are real

 

[raftman]

44AMP, That seems to make a lot of sense. But supposing that you handled 2 guns equally well, and there wasn't a significant difference in the guns' performance, would you put enough stock into psychological effect to opt for the more intimidating gun?

 

[bamafan4life]

Put ur self in this situation.

Yo've just lost you'r job theres no way to pay the bills and you have a family to feed nuthing else seems to be working so you turn to stealing.


Well one day while in a house that you thought everyone was out of a red glow hits you right on the eye and blind you for a moment. then when you look down and rub your eye you notice a red dot on your heart. you look up and see a man standing in front of you with a ar-15.


Which are you ganna do?


A. try to take the gun from him and use it on him (dont forget about that red dot on your chest)

b. beg him for mercy and do what he tells you.


I'd do b personally.

 

[AZAK]

44 AMP

You state:

Does the visual impact of your gun have an effect? Yes. Some of the time.
Should you choose your SD gun because of what it looks like? No.

I fail to see the logic. You grant that it does matter, "Some of the time", yet completely dismiss appearance as a variable to be considered.

Now if in the majority of times that a gun is drawn in self-defense that gun is not fired and the situation is resolved without bloodshed, how can the physical appearance of said firearm not matter; or as you put it,

is the "scariness factor important for an SD gun"? And the answer is, not at all.

 

[Jim March]

bamafan4life: that type of criminal is actually pretty rare. They exist, don't get me wrong, but a much more common scenario is somebody screwed up on drugs or somehow feels like they have a "right" to pillage/plunder/steal/attack due to perceived "injustices".

 

[Nnobby45]

I think this thread needs to take a breath and consider this:

It's YOU Bubba sizes up as much or more than your "scary" gun.

They tell me that people who have grown up on the streets and spent time in prison get real good at sensing what people are made of.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[domininance]

living in a state where you probably have a harder time trying to defend yourself in court after the shooting, then during the actual encounter... yes the scariness factor is important, and I don't want it for a self defense weapon. The last thing i want is the District attorney trying to convince a jury that I have a "rambo" complex, clearly illustrated by the tactical nature of my weapon. no thank you!

In california if you shoot someone with a deadly weapon (such as a gun), and even aim for them in a less lethal area like a kneecap, you must still be justified in the use of deadly force to save yourself or someone else from death or serious bodily harm. or you are not justified to be shooting. that means that for me taking my gun out and pointing it at the BG is the last option and basically is only going to happen if I am shooting someone, kind of like what hot sauce said. does that mean it would take place like a western movie? no! it will be a carefully placed shot only, fired in pure self defense, and only with damn good legal justification.

its hard to say i'm going to think through all the legal ramifications of a hostile situation when i'm actually in said situation, but thats why we discuss these things and try to think about it before hand, to help us think faster and make a better decision when the bad day does come.

 

[Jim March]

In california if you shoot someone with a deadly weapon (such as a gun), and even aim for them in a less lethal area like a kneecap, you must still be justified in the use of deadly force to save yourself or someone else from death or serious bodily harm. or you are not justified to be shooting. that means that for me taking my gun out and pointing it at the BG is the last option and basically is only going to happen if I am shooting someone, kind of like what hot sauce said. does that mean it would take place like a western movie? no! it will be a carefully placed shot only, fired in pure self defense, and only with damn good legal justification.

That's true anywhere in the US.

In Alaska, it's true even when you shoot a *bear*, unless you have a hunting permit and valid bear tag...

 

[Archie]

Only visual factor is...

The intruder must recognize the defender is armed.

The firearm must be recognized as a firearm; if the intruder thinks it's a cell phone or a banana, there is no deterrent effect.

However if the intruder is a doper or drunk and a target pistol doesn't deter them, than a Broomhandle Mauser probably won't impress them, either.

 

[GeauxTide]

The Source?

One guy with no military or police experience. A songwriter?