g.willikers
New member
Very few people will take advantage of the practice and training, but it does exist.
From readily available games like local IDPA and USPSA, defensive training schools and training sims.
Stopping the threat
- Thread starter AL45
- Start date
From readily available games like local IDPA and USPSA, defensive training schools and training sims.
Deaf Smith
New member
That is cause handguns are not Phasers that stop instantly. You keep shooting till the threat is GONE. Either they drop like a rock, run away, or show their hands.
Just make sure you can ARTICULATE WHY you kept shooting. Like, you know, 'the guy wouldn't stop', or 'the guy kept turning that weapon toward me', etc.
Oh, and if it's a terrorist nutjob, keep A-shooting and go high or go low for they are only a non-threat to people when they are on the ground, period.
Deaf
g.willikers
New member
Unless they are shooting from the prone position.
Or still capable of pushing that button.
Sorry, just feel like being contrary today.
But it is worth thinking about.
Dusty Rivers
New member
I'm not counting
Curious to know from people that have been involved in shootings if they know how many shots they fired to stop a BG.
Half the time eye witnesses don't know what happened.
Why carry extra mags if we are afraid to use them. No matter what you do you are going to trial, probably for a hate crime. That is just the world of PC that we live in.
Leo's need to think their guns out of the holster.
If you are not a LEO and you have to think your gun out of the holster you probably shouldn't. If your survival instinct does it, then so be it.
what to hell do I know, just an opinion.
Curious to know from people that have been involved in shootings if they know how many shots they fired to stop a BG.
Half the time eye witnesses don't know what happened.
Why carry extra mags if we are afraid to use them. No matter what you do you are going to trial, probably for a hate crime. That is just the world of PC that we live in.
Leo's need to think their guns out of the holster.
If you are not a LEO and you have to think your gun out of the holster you probably shouldn't. If your survival instinct does it, then so be it.
what to hell do I know, just an opinion.
Attackers sometimes flee at the mere sight of a gun. In that case, 0 shots are the appropriate amount. Others will continue their attack until physically incapable of continuing. Some of them are mortally wounded well before they stop. In this case, it is wise to keep shooting them until they stop. There is no "proper" number of rounds here, except for "the number fired before they stopped attacking." If that is 37, so be it. If that is 2, so be it.
Personally, I'd rather risk having to pay a good lawyer a LOT of money to help convince the jury of the truth that I acted reasonably than to be dead in the street!
As to "spray and pray," don't do that. Shoot as quickly as you can accurately fire. The better trained you are, the faster you can accurately shoot (generally speaking.)
Personally, I'd rather risk having to pay a good lawyer a LOT of money to help convince the jury of the truth that I acted reasonably than to be dead in the street!
As to "spray and pray," don't do that. Shoot as quickly as you can accurately fire. The better trained you are, the faster you can accurately shoot (generally speaking.)
Old Bill Dibble
New member
May as well go ahead and hit what a "threat" is.
State laws vary.....
Throughout the United States the right to use deadly force for self defense to prevent death os serious injury is recognized universally with different limitations placed upon it depending upon what state and possibly municipality you are actually located in. Sexual assault is normally considered a serious injury.
The normal standard is reasonableness. What a reasonable person would believe in the same set of circumstances. This has been the standard for generations in the US.
Some of the protest groups such as BLM are attempting to assail this standard and have it altered in some way. Where they are going with it is not exactly clear.
A threat has three basic components:
- Intent
- Means
- Opportunity
You may not have the time to determine fully if the threat is a valid one. You may one day have to make a far reaching decision in the space of a few moments.
Intent is not always easy to determine. Someone assaulting or threatening you is most times clear. Breaking into your home is less clear but it is fairly easy to interpret as a deadly threat. Pointing a deadly weapon in your direction with gestures or verbal acknowledgment to use it is clear. Someone asking for money on the streets in an intimidating manner can be unclear. Somebody jumping into your car while you are sitting in a parking lot is unclear. Remember it is what a reasonable person would believe.
Means can vary a bit depending on who you are. If your 65 year old couch potato neighbor across the street is threatening to come to your house and beat you (the 22 year old MMA fighter) to death with his bare fists this is not reasonable to assume he has the means. A realistic toy gun may be reasonably interpreted to be deadly; if you don't know if it is real or not. A bat, knife, five pound dumbbell, car and banjo have all been used to murder people under the proper circumstances. Circumstances have to do with opportunity.
Opportunity means that the guy holding the uzi threatening to kill you in postings on your social media page is not a deadly threat at the moment. You can't run him down with car the next time you see him on the street. The guy standing 20 feet away with a 9" butcher knife is a deadly threat. He could easily kill you before you had your weapon out of the IWB holster and up and trained on him.
Once we have means, intent, and opportunity lined up then we may have a threat. Those circumstances are fluid however. Once one of the variables changes (say your attacker surrenders, loses his weapon or drives away for example) then a reassessment needs to be made. If the threat has ended then cease the use of deadly force. If the threat continues take whatever life saving measures you deem appropriate.
State laws vary.....
Throughout the United States the right to use deadly force for self defense to prevent death os serious injury is recognized universally with different limitations placed upon it depending upon what state and possibly municipality you are actually located in. Sexual assault is normally considered a serious injury.
The normal standard is reasonableness. What a reasonable person would believe in the same set of circumstances. This has been the standard for generations in the US.
Some of the protest groups such as BLM are attempting to assail this standard and have it altered in some way. Where they are going with it is not exactly clear.
A threat has three basic components:
- Intent
- Means
- Opportunity
You may not have the time to determine fully if the threat is a valid one. You may one day have to make a far reaching decision in the space of a few moments.
Intent is not always easy to determine. Someone assaulting or threatening you is most times clear. Breaking into your home is less clear but it is fairly easy to interpret as a deadly threat. Pointing a deadly weapon in your direction with gestures or verbal acknowledgment to use it is clear. Someone asking for money on the streets in an intimidating manner can be unclear. Somebody jumping into your car while you are sitting in a parking lot is unclear. Remember it is what a reasonable person would believe.
Means can vary a bit depending on who you are. If your 65 year old couch potato neighbor across the street is threatening to come to your house and beat you (the 22 year old MMA fighter) to death with his bare fists this is not reasonable to assume he has the means. A realistic toy gun may be reasonably interpreted to be deadly; if you don't know if it is real or not. A bat, knife, five pound dumbbell, car and banjo have all been used to murder people under the proper circumstances. Circumstances have to do with opportunity.
Opportunity means that the guy holding the uzi threatening to kill you in postings on your social media page is not a deadly threat at the moment. You can't run him down with car the next time you see him on the street. The guy standing 20 feet away with a 9" butcher knife is a deadly threat. He could easily kill you before you had your weapon out of the IWB holster and up and trained on him.
Once we have means, intent, and opportunity lined up then we may have a threat. Those circumstances are fluid however. Once one of the variables changes (say your attacker surrenders, loses his weapon or drives away for example) then a reassessment needs to be made. If the threat has ended then cease the use of deadly force. If the threat continues take whatever life saving measures you deem appropriate.
NorthernBlue
New member
QUOTE from "Ton"
This is on point.
Maybe I'm off base here but. . .
Deadly force is deadly force. If the situation has not escalated to the point where deadly force is immediately necessary, don't shoot.
If it has, in the legal realm, the amount of times you fire your weapon in the time span that deadly force is immediately necessary theoretically should not be a major component. I'm not aware of any legal definition for "Really, REALLY deadly force". Obviously, it can be brought up or challenged in court, just like anything. But unless you continued shooting after the threat had clearly stopped (ie attacker falls to the ground, weapon tumbles away, etc) I don't think that will be anything other than a fact that the uneducated and inexperienced will try to exploit.
"Shooting the exact number of rounds it takes to stop the threat" is alot easier said than done. As is "shot placement" when you have never been in a gunfight before.
Train and train hard, but unless you are very familiar with the physiological effects of adrenaline and extreme stress on your body, you will more than likely experience an extreme decrease in performance compared to your normal range drills. There is no way to replicate the feeling of believing you might die in the next few seconds.
You may shoot an attacker once and his brain tells him it's time to cease the attack and fall down. But unfortunately that's not something we have the luxury of knowing, and until his body can catch up to those commands, we still have to perceive him as a threat.
I would recommend to anybody interested to study the cases of real life shootings where attackers were shot multiple times and remained a threat. It will add to your training and experience, which is something that can help you justify your actions if you every found yourself in court.
Deadly force is deadly force. If the situation has not escalated to the point where deadly force is immediately necessary, don't shoot.
If it has, in the legal realm, the amount of times you fire your weapon in the time span that deadly force is immediately necessary theoretically should not be a major component. I'm not aware of any legal definition for "Really, REALLY deadly force". Obviously, it can be brought up or challenged in court, just like anything. But unless you continued shooting after the threat had clearly stopped (ie attacker falls to the ground, weapon tumbles away, etc) I don't think that will be anything other than a fact that the uneducated and inexperienced will try to exploit.
"Shooting the exact number of rounds it takes to stop the threat" is alot easier said than done. As is "shot placement" when you have never been in a gunfight before.
Train and train hard, but unless you are very familiar with the physiological effects of adrenaline and extreme stress on your body, you will more than likely experience an extreme decrease in performance compared to your normal range drills. There is no way to replicate the feeling of believing you might die in the next few seconds.
You may shoot an attacker once and his brain tells him it's time to cease the attack and fall down. But unfortunately that's not something we have the luxury of knowing, and until his body can catch up to those commands, we still have to perceive him as a threat.
I would recommend to anybody interested to study the cases of real life shootings where attackers were shot multiple times and remained a threat. It will add to your training and experience, which is something that can help you justify your actions if you every found yourself in court.
This is on point.
stonewall50
New member
Your testimony should then inform said lawyer, and the judge/jury, that you were afraid that the guy was going to keep coming at you. You have heard stories of people being shot multiple times and surviving due to drugs and adrenaline and all you had was a tiny handgun. And your educated lawyer will inform the court that there is plenty of precedent to show that every law enforcement agency trains to do the same thing: including the FBI and secret service and us marshals...shoot till the threat is gone. Especially with a handgun.
Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
OldMarksman
Staff
That's the objective.
Yep.
Have you ever heard anyone responsibly advise "pumping 10 rounds into someone"?
Yeah, but "placement" involves hitting small targets that will be concealed inside a moving three dimensional mass, and you won't have much time at all. It will be largely a matter of chance.
You would "aim slow" when someone is coming at you at around five meters per second at close range?
seeker_two
New member
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=pxykcRjNqZ4
This video pretty much answered the question for me......
This video pretty much answered the question for me......
Deaf Smith
New member
Depends on the concept of 'slow'.
Earp said, "Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything. In a gun fight... You need to take your time in a hurry."
Others have said, "Take your time, fast" or "Speed is fine, accuracy is final" (Bill Jordan.)
So it depends on what 'slow' means to a person.
Deaf
FireForged
New member
Force should be deliberate, measured and controlled. Deliberateness of action is not rocket science but having the knowledge and experience to measure force properly while maintaining emotional control usually takes training. The whole concept of self defense is important enough to take some time and spend some money to get proper training. Get Trained
OldMarksman
Staff
The "reality"?
Basis for that assertion?
I would hazard a guess he is basing that statement on published hit (miss) ratios in documented shootings.
I agree the national LEO avg is abysmal. Lack of QUALITY training time, budget constraints, no interest on the part of the officer (very few LEO's are hard core shooters).
All this adds up to about a hit ratio that is not encouraging. Ive seen stats as low as 15%
There are a couple of civilian shooting schools that have had mtpl students in gunfights and keep those stats. They are reporting MUCH higher hit ratios.
It all boils down to the training the shooter has received and how often he realistically trains for this event.
) ratios in documented shootings. I agree the national LEO avg is abysmal. Lack of QUALITY training time, budget constraints, no interest on the part of the officer (very few LEO's are hard core shooters).
All this adds up to about a hit ratio that is not encouraging. Ive seen stats as low as 15%
There are a couple of civilian shooting schools that have had mtpl students in gunfights and keep those stats. They are reporting MUCH higher hit ratios.
It all boils down to the training the shooter has received and how often he realistically trains for this event.
Double Naught Spy
New member
We tend to worry more about slick lawyers than actual threats, sometimes, I think.
OldMarksman
Staff
Regarding the difference in hit ratios between well-documented police shootings and the few documented civilian encounters, I beieve the major difference lies in the requirement for that single civilian to stop shooting when possible, and the duty of however many police officers may be involved to continue as necessary to achieve their sworn objectives.
What Old Marksman said about this was spot on. Comparing LEO shootings to civilian shootings is apples and oranges.
While I absolutely agree that a dedicated civilian shooter who trains and practices regularly is probably a better marksman than the average LEO, the fact is that civilians don't often get into gunfights where they are pulling over a car and the driver exits sprinting sideways while firing rounds back at them, or come under fire from the second story of an apartment building as they approach for a domestic violence call. LEOs returning fire in these situation are doomed to have a very low hit average, but the alternative is wait for a bullet to hit them.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
Some simple facts explain a lot:
- Police generally don't start gun fights.
- Reaction is not only slower than action but not as well organized, less directed in purpose and under greater stress. This makes fine motor skill function much more difficult.
I'd be really interested in seeing a study that accounts for the difference for when the officer is under fire returning fire or when the officer initiates the shooting. The safe money says that the hit rate improved dramatically when the officer initiates.
I'd imagine that most people don't function as well on the two way range.
- Police generally don't start gun fights.
- Reaction is not only slower than action but not as well organized, less directed in purpose and under greater stress. This makes fine motor skill function much more difficult.
I'd be really interested in seeing a study that accounts for the difference for when the officer is under fire returning fire or when the officer initiates the shooting. The safe money says that the hit rate improved dramatically when the officer initiates.
I'd imagine that most people don't function as well on the two way range.
just a few comments...
What is a threat? A threat is anyone, anything, that cause you to fear for your life or the life or another. The incident and threat will be judged by the reasonable man standard. While self defense is not a crime, it requires an affermative defense.
Anyone who's never been shot at, or been in an exchane of gunfire has any business commenting on those who have.... They have no idea. Training can ingrane good shooting and fighting habits. Thats always a good thing. Actual shootings are not often the squair ring event that most people imagine.
What is a threat? A threat is anyone, anything, that cause you to fear for your life or the life or another. The incident and threat will be judged by the reasonable man standard. While self defense is not a crime, it requires an affermative defense.
Anyone who's never been shot at, or been in an exchane of gunfire has any business commenting on those who have.... They have no idea. Training can ingrane good shooting and fighting habits. Thats always a good thing. Actual shootings are not often the squair ring event that most people imagine.