PDA

View Full Version : Friend shot while on the phone


tbm1305
September 15, 2006, 10:33 AM
My friend was sitting on the side porch of our house in a rocking chair talking to his girlfriend on the phone. A little after 3:30, two men came up from behind him, around the porch, and when he saw movement to his right, the men had a gun pulled pointed at his face. They demanded his phone and made him stand facing the house while one searched him and the other held him at gun point. He complied with them and they ended up shooting him anyway. They only hit him once out of 5 shots and he's about to be released from the hospital (he's been in there for a week). I left a lot of details about the story out just because I feel they really don't pertain to my question.

Let's say my friend was armed. When they were patting him for things to steal, they would have found the weapon (either in his pocket or on lower back) and taken it back to their thug projects up the street. What do you do knowing that if you do comply, they might shoot you anyway? Do you pull your gun when they walk up with theirs pulled already? Or do you wait for them to get more comfortable and then pretend you're reaching for your wallet? Very difficult situation.

I know paying attention to your surroundings and not exposing yourself to these types of situations is key, but sometimes you can be caught off-guard and possibly in higher crime areas without knowing (such as my friend's situation). I'm just wondering if you practice quick gun draws at the range (or places they're allowed) or if someone beats you to the draw, they win and you have to submit. It would be very difficult to pull a gun on someone when they have theirs pointed at you. It is also difficult knowing that a gun would be going to the criminals and you can be shot anyway even if they do get the gun. What do you feel you would have done in this situation? (not what you would have done to prevent it)

____________________
When a crime is committed, liberals blame society. Conservatives blame the criminal.

FirstFreedom
September 15, 2006, 10:37 AM
Where did this occur?

Edward429451
September 15, 2006, 10:46 AM
You can't go outside nowadays in condition white. I go outside all the time to talk on the cell phone, less noise & better reception. I pace around keeping aware of my surroundings.

john in jax
September 15, 2006, 11:02 AM
You mention he was only hit once out of 5 shots - - was it the first shot or one of the consecutive shots that hit him?

In most shootouts a lot of shots are fired, but only a few hits are recorded. IF he would have been armed and tried to fast draw on them they most certainly would have shot at him, but then he could return fire? Sometimes, even after being shot a victim (or BG) can still shoot and move - - what condition was your friend in? Could he have returned fire or was it a "one stop shot"?

azurefly
September 15, 2006, 02:00 PM
Well, the fact that they fired at all, combined with the fact that they fired FIVE times, means they were trying to murder your friend. Clearly.


Your friend would have been far across the line into justified-territory if he had shot and killed his attackers.

This event should impress upon anyone reading that there is no reason to submit to criminals because, since they are criminals, you cannot trust them to take what they want and leave you unharmed! Why would anyone trust that a person who would rob them (transgressing against them that way) would not also be willing to kill them? There IS no reason to trust the mercy of a robber.

It's too bad your friend was unarmed, unaware, and victimized. My main point is that this should be one of those cases that we learn from without having to go through the same horror ourselves. DON'T GO OUT UNARMED. DON'T GO OUT IN 'CONDITION WHITE'. It could really cost you to be so complacent, even where you think you are "safe."

-azurefly

jcoiii
September 15, 2006, 02:43 PM
Agree with not being in condition white. However, it's a hard question with two guys, one searching, one holding the gun.

I can think of some things I might try hand to hand in that situation, but I'd have to be there. I do have some training in the area of CQC/hand to hand, so I might react differently than someone else.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 15, 2006, 02:53 PM
This event must have been in the local paper. Please post the link and article for more details. Thanx.

DanV1317
September 15, 2006, 03:06 PM
If you carry, you need to train in more situations than just seeing the incident occurring and pulling your gun if you need to. You need to train for situations where you might need to use some elbow blows or your palm to the chin or whatever to create time and space to grab your gun.

Just carrying a gun doesn't mean you will be able to use it in every situation.

In that case, i would deffinately have used some hand combat to try to create space so i could draw my weapon. It's a lose/lose situation. If you have a gun they may shoot you, if you dont, they may shoot you anyway like they did to your friend. You must act.

Mikeyboy
September 15, 2006, 03:27 PM
Even if your in condition purple, some BG might still get the drop on you and have a gun pointed your head. If he look serious, and the gun definately looked real, and there was nothing hide behind or back into, your best option is to comply. If you got you wits about you and you think you can pull it off you can fake fear and compliance and smoothly draw your weapon trying to shoot him in the head. That is way I like my Kel Tec P-32 and other pocket guns. "Oh god mister , don't kill me, here take wallet" Instead of a wallet in my hand, I will be holding my p32 sideways hoping he thinks its a wallet.If I do it smoothly, I hope to be able to get one round in his face before he realizes I have a gun.

You can't pull that off with any other form of carry, but it still a huge risk. Your still better off trying to run, or just comply

Trip20
September 15, 2006, 03:32 PM
It would be very difficult to pull a gun on someone when they have theirs pointed at you.

Once you've allowed your attacker the opportunity/advantage of having their weapon trained on your person - most options from this point forth will involve a very high probability of being shot. These risks increase considerably when you have more than one assailant.

While "quick draw" drills and such are no doubt beneficial, I believe your brain is the most important tool when in this sort of situation.

Being able to think fast, create distractions, and keep your attacker(s) mind on something other than shooting you is the key to biding time until you identify the best moment to make your move – whether it be drawl & fire, making an escape, vulcan death grip...etc.

I just watched a video last evening of a postal agent who was working in a sting operation. He was purchasing credit cards from a postal worker. The transaction was to take place in the postal agent’s vehicle, which was wired for sound and video.

Once the suspect entered the front passenger seat, he handed the agent the credit cards. Looked around anxiously for just a second, and immediately pulled his pistol on the agent.

The attacker then demanded all the agent’s money. Agent complied. Attacker then advised agent he would be shot in the stomach if he did not drive the vehicle to such-and-such location.

As an aside, I've often heard you should not go with an armed person in this situation as your chances for survival greatly decrease.

So anyway, the agent did what he could to stall, distract, and otherwise stay in the parking lot until his other agents could arrive and save him. Problem was, the audio and/or video feed had broken and they didn't know the agent was in danger. So he had to dance for a pretty good while until the other agents came to his rescue.

It was a very scary situation to witness. At one point the attacker stated he would shoot through his own arm (while hiding pistol) into the agent’s stomach if he didn't start the vehicle and move on.

No cookie cutter answer in these situations. One must be able to think fast, read their assailants demeanor and body language, and act accordingly. Nothing can replace these important tools in my humble opinion.

FYI: I am no expert, these are my own opinions and hypotheses, and I could be wrong.

bartonkj
September 15, 2006, 05:02 PM
This is something that has concerned me. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you can actually use it. I recently posted a thread asking about preparedness because of situations like this: how do you react - and more importantly - how quickly can you react. I don't have the answers.

It seems like most BGs want to get in and get out quickly so they wouldn't want to shoot you - just give them what they ask for and they will leave. But I've never felt comfortable with the thought of just complying. Why should you trust a criminal. Even if they aren't in a messed up mental state (hi, crazy, etc....) just the act of robbery, etc... shows a clear disregard for standard civilized behavior. In addition - like you said - what if they find your gun? I would like to think I would do everything in my power to resist if I have a weapon at the time. So much depends on circumstances. If you are in a situation where they have already shot someone or shot at someone - clearly they are likely to shoot again and you only have something to gain by trying to stop them from continuing an unresisted offensive.

joab
September 15, 2006, 05:54 PM
It's a wonder Trip and I don't get along better.

Once you've allowed your attacker the opportunity/advantage of having their weapon trained on your person - most options from this point forth will involve a very high probability of being shot. These risks increase considerably when you have more than one assailant.At that point all you have is prayer.

Pray that they allow you to survive or make a mistake that you can use your training to capitalize on.

snolden
September 15, 2006, 06:08 PM
At the point that you have a weapon pointed at you, you need to make a decision.

Can you get off the line of fire? If so you have a very high probability of living. Create a distraction, give up the wallet or a money clip you (hopefully) have for such an occasion. Fumble it then move to the 1 or 11 o'clock and KEEP MOVING! If you can't get off the line, then hope for the best and keep thinking.

If you happen to be able to draw and fire on the assailant while you are moving, great. If not, just keep moving.

A high percentage of people (approaching 90%) live if shot with a handgun. If you move, you are likely to take a peripheral hit if anything. But just because you get shot, don't stop fighting. I have never been shot, but I hopefully will be able to use my weekly training to "get off the X" and keep moving until I have either ended or escaped the situation.

JohnKSa
September 15, 2006, 09:08 PM
It would be very difficult to pull a gun on someone when they have theirs pointed at you.These guys shot five times after they had controlled the situation and still made only one hit. That's pretty consistent with the hit rate in shootouts.

If your friend had posessed the means to resist, had reacted and fought back just a LITTLE, it seems to me that he would have stood a pretty good chance of not being hit at all.

If they can only hit one out of five times when they're shooting at an unarmed person it's hard for me to understand why you think that it would have been worse for him if he had a gun and drew it to fight back.

Trip20
September 15, 2006, 09:19 PM
...it's hard for me to understand why you think that it would have been worse for him if he had a gun and drew it to fight back.

John - I think he meant that if you were not being fired upon (i.e., assailant is busy with some other task at that moment), it would be difficult to draw your weapon and fire with out initiating fire from the assailant who arguably has the leg up on you with his weapon already drawn and likely pointed at your person.

I don't think he means that once someone starts firing at you it would be "worse" or otherwise detrimental for you to protect yourself by fighting back.

Of course I could be misunderstanding you, or the OP for that matter.

faust
September 15, 2006, 09:26 PM
Here's what happened 2 weeks ago in Baton Rouge, LA.

Pre-med student working at Olive Garden (in very *good* area of town, they don't put Olive Gardens in the ghetto). He walked outside to help a female co-worker put gas in her car. Two BG approached, demanded everything. Both victims complied *completely* and fully submitted.

Both were then shot, pre-med student is dead, the girl was hit in the leg. LSU is pretty shook up about this. One of my students missed class for the funeral. $10,000 reward up now, no suspects. They're still on the street.

This burns me up. Promising student killed for *no reason*. I don't see how they could have done much differently. Remember, these days the BG would just as soon kill you as leave you, even if you do everything "right".

http://wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=5386482
"After Arnold and the woman handed over everything they had, they were both shot, detectives said.

Arnold was killed. His female co-worker was shot in the leg but survived."

I used to live right up the street, and it's maybe 2 miles from my favorite shooting range. Good area, broad daylight, compliant victims. Hard working student killed for no reason. There's a lot of ****** off people.
I carry, but I am not allowed to carry on campus, where I spend 90% of my time. Thoughts?

Epyon
September 15, 2006, 09:47 PM
I'm a college student as well, and the UCF area has had a rising crime rate recently, an increase in thefts and such. Good thing my girlfriend is no longer having to stay late at night on campus to finish projects, I go with her just about wherever I can especially if it's night there, and we make sure to park our cars as close to our classes possible, I taught her to use keys as weapons, and also plan on getting pepper spray for both of us when on campus. (I don't know what campus policy is on pepper spray but I'd rather risk carrying that, than a firearm on campus.)


Epyon

JohnKSa
September 15, 2006, 10:48 PM
I don't think he means that once someone starts firing at you it would be "worse" or otherwise detrimental for you to protect yourself by fighting back.I think it's better either way.

They had the leg up and he was unarmed and they still had a hit rate of only 20%. Seems like if he immediately draws and starts shooting as soon as he realized they were holding him up (even if he's at a disadvantage) it's reasonable to assume that their hit rate would be worse.

Worse than one hit out of five is not getting shot at all.

I'm saying that this person used this example as a rationale for submitting. But given the way it turned out, it seems irrational to expect that it would have turned out worse if he put them under stress by responding with deadly force--in spite of his disadvantage.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 15, 2006, 11:46 PM
The original poster posted the link. It happened just as he said. Thanx.

He earlier asked, I'm just wondering if you practice quick gun draws at the range (or places they're allowed) or if someone beats you to the draw, they win and you have to submit.

I've been held up at gunpoint twice in my life. Once as a teenager in southern Indiana. The perps got something like $1 from me.

The second time was in Dallas. It was a lone gunman. He got $50 from me.

Neither time, even if I had been carrying, could I have drawn a weapon and fire it before the bad guy(s) pulled a trigger.

Once they get the drop, it's pretty much a done deal. At least for me it was.


It would be very difficult to pull a gun on someone when they have theirs pointed at you.

One thing not often dealt with in these scenarios, the one thing these Rambo wannabes are ignorant of, is fear. Panic freezes you up. I'm told extensive training can override stark terror, but 99 percent of the gun shooting population isn't going to have the time/resources for such training.

What do you feel you would have done in this situation?

I would have done exactly what the person in the article did. I would have complied. So would everybody else. I know we fantasize about Rambo and all, but in the above instance, when they've got the drop on you, they've got the drop on you.

tINY
September 16, 2006, 04:28 AM
As far as carrying on campus - is it state law, or school policy?

If state law, you do what you think is best, but if there are armed strongarm thugs in the area and it's only school policy, I'll take my chances with the dean. The worst they can do is kick you out of school and they don't search people on campus (so you are unlikely to get caught if you don't have to defend yourself).




-tINY

tbm1305
September 16, 2006, 11:07 AM
http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=158500

I've been busy, but here's the article to read.

____________________
When a crime is committed, liberals blame society. Conservatives blame the criminal.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 16, 2006, 01:42 PM
Thanx.

BTW, I hope your friend recovers completely and they catch the trash that did it to him.

bclark1
September 16, 2006, 02:06 PM
just for the record, you're not going to want to pass that board (libertypost) around much, if you can link the article somewhere else it might suit more. the following commentary doesn't help race relations much, especially with the race-based "survivor" starting up. scum comes in technicolor, and they all deserve swifter justice than the court system can deliver.

read the situation and hope for the best. i'd bet more people survive complying than not. if you draw and mess it up they're probably going to execute you rather than rattle off a few heading the other way. if the opening's there take it but bear in mind what you can and can't replace. the only reason i'd move up the force gradient without certainty of a violent intention would be if they were taking an interest in someone i cared about more than myself.

Model520Fan
September 19, 2006, 09:01 AM
Most situations, before they happen, involve odds. Like, what are the chances of being disarmed and shot with your own gun when, had you been unarmed and complied, you would not have been shot at all. [Simplification; there ARE other issues.] In THIS case, in hindsight, there wasn't a lot of risk - they shot him anyway. Clearly, for this case, he should have been armed, should have resisted them, and should have shot and killed both of them. That is tactical and moral, advice, of course, not legal advice. For legal advice, get off the internet and see several lawyers who specialize in that sort of question - if you want legal advice.

Cost times probabilty versus reward times probability. I don't mean the actual reward, but your valuation of the reward. For instance, if I were sitting on a jury where the issue was what a man did to keep from dying, I would reasonably expect him to put the value of his own life over almost anything, even though some other folks wouldn't really care all that much. But you have to decide for yourself what your life is worth, and I won't be on the jury.

Good luck.

tydephan
September 19, 2006, 09:45 AM
If I were armed, as I usually am, and this scenario occurred to me, I would have a hard time turning over my gun to someone that is holding me at gunpoint.

If they were searching me, there is no doubt they would find the gun and take it, leaving them with two guns and me none. Trusting the bad guy with your life is generally not a good idea, IMHO.

So I would de-escalate the situation if at all possible. If held at gunpoint, and being searched, I would attempt a defensive manuever while trying to pull my weapon while looking for cover. In this situation, probability dictates that I will indeed be shot. But punks with guns generally don't practice at the range, so probability also dictates the wound would not be a show-stopper and that I might have an opportunity for a quality shot.

It's all speculation of course. But there is no way I turn over my gun. If I subscribed to the "comply" camp, I would not carry a weapon.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 19, 2006, 01:00 PM
If I were armed, as I usually am, and this scenario occurred to me, I would have a hard time turning over my gun to someone that is holding me at gunpoint.


You've obviously never had someone holding a gun on you at arm's length. You have no choice. Yes, you have a hard time. I had a hard time turning over my money.

But you do what you're told.

tydephan
September 19, 2006, 01:35 PM
I do not accept that you must comply. If that is the way you think, you should not carry a weapon as you are just aiding the BG by giving it up. And giving away money is drastically different than handing over something like a firearm they can use to execute you.

Perhaps it is just personal preference and choice. I have never been robbed at gun point. And I pray that the situation never arises to where I must use a firearm for self-defense. But I will not relinquish my firearm.

Should LEO's also comply when a BG confronts them with a weapon or threat?

As I said, I suppose it is simply a difference in mentality. No single thought more correct than the other.

Edward429451
September 19, 2006, 02:45 PM
I don't agree with you must comply either. It's situational I think. I wonder why the LEO's are not trained to give up their weapons? They must know something. I agree that it's prolly foolishness to draw on a drawn gun, but you could bolt. (some) criminals are not there to shoot you, just get some easy cash from one who's been condititoned to be passive. If you bolt they may walk away. If they do shoot, its 50/50 that they will even hit you. If you zig zag, you may cut that down even more. Be a hard target to hit.

Full compliance would not be a good idea because it leaves you at their mercy and no chance if they want to shoot you. If you at least run, you have a chance (plus still keep cash/weapon/etc.)

YMMV.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 19, 2006, 03:53 PM
If that is the way you think, you should not carry a weapon as you are just aiding the BG by giving it up

You're twisting the argument. We're not talking about carrying a weapon and having time to present lethal force. Don't twist my words.

I'm talking about somebody getting the drop on you, sticking a loaded gun in your face, and telling you to give him your gun. And he's going to watch every move you make.

And you're going to tell me you're going to pull your piece, bring it into play, and neutralize the threat before the perp can pull the trigger?

You're dreaming.

tydephan
September 19, 2006, 03:56 PM
LOL. Ok dude. You're right. Always submitting is the proper play.

Rusty Stud
September 19, 2006, 06:25 PM
heres what i would do (im the expert of my own actions)
1) dont let them sneak up on you
2) run when you see the gun
3) shoot while you run to cover
4) dont give them the gun, they will kill you with your own weapon
(thats an embarassing way to die)

every situation's different but i dont want to be at their "mercy" know what i mean?

JohnKSa
September 19, 2006, 07:31 PM
I'm talking about somebody getting the drop on you, sticking a loaded gun in your face, and telling you to give him your gun. And he's going to watch every move you make.

And you're going to tell me you're going to pull your piece, bring it into play, and neutralize the threat before the perp can pull the trigger?In this case the person submitted and was still shot.

If you could guarantee that submission would result in your remaining uninjured, then it's a different story. As it is, submitting comes with the real possibility of being shot anyway.

Statistically, your best chance of remaining uninjured is to resist with a firearm.

Temper that with the fact that it's not possible to determine in advance exactly what strategy will be useful in a given situation.

I'm certainly not saying that you should always pull a firearm and start blazing away, but I'm also not saying that you should always submit when someone gets the jump on you with a gun.

Bud Helms
September 19, 2006, 07:38 PM
PinnedAndRecessed said: You've obviously never had someone holding a gun on you at arm's length. You have no choice. Yes, you have a hard time. I had a hard time turning over my money.

But you do what you're told.

You do what's right. I have never related this story on TFL before now. In the little fishing village of Niceville, Florida, in the year 1976, another American citizen, male, confronted me with a handgun. He demanded everything I had in my pockets. There were two accomplices, one man, one woman, who stood by and watched. They were about 35-40 feet distant, behind him and within my sight. The goblin walked up to me face-to-face and presented. Made his demand. I slowly reached around behind my strong side, under a light jacket and presented to him. I made a demand, "Lower your weapon." He did. Accomplices moved closer. I maintained. They stopped. Alpha Goblin withdrew. Accomplices withdrew. I let them go. Next time, who knows?

Do what you're told? Sheep talk. But understand what it is that you do. If you are not prepared to have your ticket punched, don't carry.

Many here post what they would do, if ... etc.

Train and think. Humans are the only animal on this planet that can decide what they will do in a given situation before it happens and then do it.

How do I say this? So many here have found a life on the internet. I hardly ever post in this forum. I'll say it this way: don't discount the animal inside you. The body can actually train the mind. But mindset is first. Be human. And be steadfast.

I am no gunfighter, I am just a human, a man, and I don't speak goblinese.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 19, 2006, 09:06 PM
Always submitting is the proper play.


There you go, twisting the argument again.

I didn't say always submit. Bud posted that he resisted and won. But I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that Bud had trained for that possibility.

Sure, if you train for that, and are mentally ready for it, you might be able to pull it off.

But most of us aren't going to have any training other than the ridiculous classes we took for our CCL. And if a bad guy pulls a gun on that kind of mentality, the bad guy is going to get what he wants. You're going to freeze. You're going to think about how you're not ready to die. You're going to think about how you should have lived a better life. You're going to think about your children.

The last thing you're going to do is pull a John Rambo.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 19, 2006, 09:09 PM
BTW, in my experience of being held up twice, the perps wanted to maintain a distance between me and them. Had I been carrying, they never would have known it. They only wanted my money.

Some of the posters talked as if the perp is going to frisk them and then find the gun. I suspect that the vast majority of cases are like mine. I suspect that the vast majority of cases, the perp with the gun never actually touches the victim.

snolden
September 19, 2006, 09:12 PM
thank you Bud for bringing up the difference between sheep and sheep dogs.

Run through various scenarios ahead of time,

My personal time to pull my weapon and gamble my life is if I am about to become a prisoner or hostage or my family is in immediate danger. At that point I plan ahead to go for broke. I stack the odds in my favor by continously training.

XavierBreath
September 19, 2006, 09:32 PM
They are close enough to me for me to hand over my phone, right? That is important.

The number one rule of gun fighting is not "have a gun".

The number one rule of gunfighting is don't get shot.

If they are that close to me, I am going after their gun. It will be easier to get than my own, and by getting their gun, I have disarmed them. I will get my hands on it and if it is a semi-auto, throw it out of battery and cause a jam. If it is a revolver, I will be all over the cylinder. I will break fingers off their hands if I have to, but I will gain control of that gun. I will take the struggle to the ground if I have to, and kill if I have to, but I will control that gun.

Some may say it cannot be done, but action does beat reaction. There is a reason that law enforcement keeps their distance once they draw their gun.

I am not some super-ninja. I am simply a dad and a husband who wants to keep living. I am not so naive as to think I can gain a criminal's goodwill and not be killed simply by complying with their demands. They want a cell phone and some cash. I want my life. The best way to preserve my life is to gain control of the gun pointed at me.

tydephan
September 20, 2006, 08:56 AM
Original Poster:
Let's say my friend was armed. When they were patting him for things to steal, they would have found the weapon (either in his pocket or on lower back) and taken it back to their thug projects up the street.
The original poster proposed the "patting down" scenario, which is probably the reason so many "posters talked as if the perp is going to frisk them and then find the gun."

I don't know the statistics of "arms length robbery" vs. "frisk robbery." In my mind, this is beyond the scope of the argument, or "twisting," as you call it.

Pin:
You've obviously never had someone holding a gun on you at arm's length. You have no choice. Yes, you have a hard time. I had a hard time turning over my money.

But you do what you're told.
There you go, twisting the argument again.

I didn't say always submit.
Sounds to me like you are dealing in an absolute, which last time I checked equals "always." But maybe that's just me twisting again.

Furthermore, you have made two or three references in this forum to John Rambo and those that want to imitate him. Do you think everyone who has a gun and would stand up for themselves fantasizes about being Stallone? You presume a lot about people. You even presumed that I had no training.

This forum is certainly not a great scientific sample, however it has already yielded two different REAL stories about people who complied and were shot. It also yielded Bud's story about "defense" that worked out positively for him.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 20, 2006, 09:52 AM
Didn't mean to offend. I was speaking in generalities.

I made an exception for those who have had training that targets the original poster's scenario. That probably represents a fraction of a percent of all citizens who carry concealed.

Probably 99.8% of all who CC have had no training beyond the impotent CCW classes we're required to take. That percentage will freeze. They'll be so afraid they'll be lucky if they don't wet their pants.

Yet many of them will post on an internet gun forum and detail how they will neutralize the threat with their bare hands, if necessary.

That's nonsense. That's Rambo.

If we try to do what Bud did we're just going to see a complete state of death.

Have you had such training? Would you describe specifically what training you had?

tydephan
September 20, 2006, 10:15 AM
I was also speaking in generalities with several of my comments, including:
Me:
If that is the way you think, you should not carry a weapon ...
These words did not translate properly. I certainly was not stating that YOU directly should never carry. I sincerely apologize if they came off as abrupt. I am truly sorry that you have been victimized and glad that no harm was done to you. It seems also that you really weren't hurt financially, so you are very lucky.

I do not feel as though I must defend myself by listing accomplishments. I will, however, tell you that while my first name is indeed John, my last name is not McClain or Rambo.

No one has ever said I resemble Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan. I'm not as cool as Clint Eastwood and not as nimble as a ninja.

I never claimed that I would disarm with my bare hands or shoot beams out of my eyes that instantly melt the BG's gun. My posts have revolved around the general idea that giving up my gun to the bad guy, who is already threatening my life with a gun, is only going to help him. This idealogy is based on common sense, not ninja training.

I'm a young father who will do whatever it takes to return home to his children. You assume that the assailant will not fire. I was raised in a home with 2 law enforcement officers. I always assume the worst in bad guys instead of the best.

You ask for proof from everyone, but throw out broad-based generalities like:
Pin:
Probably 99.8% of all who CC have had no training beyond the impotent CCW classes we're required to take.

These are only my beliefs. You have your beliefs. No big deal.

I'm interested in seeing this thread continue, so I think a truce is probably in order.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 20, 2006, 12:12 PM
Now, for all who will read this, let me say my statements pertain to those who suddenly find a gun aimed at their head and a crook says, "give me your money." He's watching you intently. He's pumped. His eyes are wild. He's as twitchy as a cat in a rocking chair convention. Unless you have training otherwise, you're going to do what you're told.

You said,
You even presumed that I had no training.


That statement implies you have, in fact, received specialized training. I'm merely interested in the type of training that enables one to neutralize such threats as we're discussing.

I never claimed that I would disarm with my bare hands

No, and I never said you did. (That was hyperbole, btw.) I see a common theme among many posters on this, and numerous other, forums, viz., they seem to presume that the mere possession of a weapon is going to give them superhuman powers.

My posts have revolved around the general idea that giving up my gun to the bad guy, who is already threatening my life with a gun, is only going to help him.

And I said that unless you have some truly specialized training, if this guy has the drop on you, there's not a thing you can do about it. Panic will set in.

I also said that all the perp wants is the money. (99.9% of the time, anyway.) He's not going to get close enough to threaten himself. He's just as anxious to get out of there as you are for him to leave. As soon as throw him your wallet, money, whatever, he's gone. There's no reason for him to even know you've got a gun.


This idealogy is based on common sense, not ninja training.


Unless you have specialized training, there is no common sense in this scenario. Fear dominates.

BTW, we're not at war. This is dialogue. A discussion. It's the Socratic method. We examine an argument by questioning it; picking it to pieces. If it stands, it must be truth.

tydephan
September 20, 2006, 12:35 PM
Pin,

Good thoughts. I see your point of view and acknowledge your strategy.

pax
September 20, 2006, 01:10 PM
But most of us aren't going to have any training other than the ridiculous classes we took for our CCL.
Unless you have specialized training, ...
And I said that unless you have some truly specialized training, ...
I'm merely interested in the type of training that enables one to neutralize such threats as we're discussing.
PAR ~

If your mindset is such that you believe you cannot effectively fight back without training, then

Get. Some. Training.

I can disarm you with my bare hands, if you are brandishing a gun within arm's reach of me. And I can do it whether you are expecting it or not. Barring the most damnable kind of bad luck, I can do it more quickly than you can shoot me, even if you are expecting it, because action beats reaction every time, and because I have trained with Code Eagle guns to prove that point to my own satisfaction. Unless something horribly unexpected happens, I can get a gun away from a determined individual who expects it, before he can shoot me; the disarm process might result in him shooting a bystander, but he won't get me. I can do it even though you are probably bigger, stronger, younger, and in better shape than I am.

None of this is bragging. It is simply a statement of what I know I can do. I know I can do it because I have practiced doing it. I haven't done it in real life and I hope to God I never have to. But I can do it. I can do it, and I know I can do it, because I have training.

The training wasn't terribly expensive, didn't take excessively long, and has only required that I practice from time to time so my super-secret ninja skills stay fresh. I can disarm you with my bare hands even though I am a middle-aged, out-of-shape housewife and you are probably a strong young man. I can do it because I know how.

Get some training.

pax

PinnedAndRecessed
September 20, 2006, 01:30 PM
I can disarm you with my bare hands, if you are brandishing a gun within arm's reach of me.

I never said the perp was within arm's reach. The two times I was held up, they were not within arm's reach. But they were definitely cocked, locked, and ready to rock.

If I ever pull a gun on you (unlikely, at best), rest assured I will not be within arm's reach. Nor will the vast majority of stick-up men be within arm's reach.

I haven't done it in real life and I hope to God I never have to.

Ditto. What my experience has taught me is to stay out of places/neighborhoods where I have no business being.

We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

pax
September 20, 2006, 01:49 PM
PAR ~

Don't be too sure that your experience would be normative across the board. Some possible exceptions:

There may be a difference in how men attack women vs how they attack other men. When my little sister was robbed and nearly raped in a parking garage (saved by the intervention of strangers) the robber got right up close to her, grabbed her from behind, jammed something into her lower back -- told her it was a gun & probably was. My take on it is there's no such thing as a completed rape attempt that does not involve the perpetrator getting within arm's reach of the intended victim. Not that all attacks against women are rapes or rape attempts! Not by any means; my point is only that it may be more likely that an attacker gets within arm's reach of me than of you.

Ever watched video from real life convenience store robberies? Again, maybe not normative across the board, but interesting in that the vast majority of armed robbers apparently like to get right in the clerk's face, jabbing the gun at eye level for emphasis. A disarm would be very, very tempting in such a situation ... if you knew how. And necessary, if your instincts told you the attacker was going to kill you anyway.

When sis & her boyfriend (same sister, poor girl. Lived in L.A. during her college years) were robbed at gunpoint as they walked to the car after dinner out one night, the attacker did just the same thing as in those convenience store videos: he jabbed the gun right at their faces for emphasis when he told them to give him their money. Maybe he'd have tried it from further away if he'd been robbing the boyfriend alone, but from the way she told the tale I think the BG wanted to be close enough to grab their money directly from them. Not sure -- but it happened.

Anyway. If you think you would be so helpless that you'd have no choice but to let the BG kill you if he was so inclined if you didn't have training, then you ought to get some training.

pax

PinnedAndRecessed
September 20, 2006, 02:18 PM
Some possible exceptions:

Yeah, anything's possible.


My take on it is there's no such thing as a completed rape attempt that does not involve the perpetrator getting within arm's reach of the intended victim.


I'm not talking about rape, or attempted rape.


Ever watched video from real life convenience store robberies?


Again, I'm not talking about convenience store robberies.


the vast majority of armed robbers apparently like to get right in the clerk's face


We would have to see videos of all convenience store robberies in order to draw such a conclusion.


he jabbed the gun right at their faces for emphasis when he told them to give him their money.


Again, that could be, by your own admission, an isolated event. We cannot draw a conclusion based upon an exception, other than the fact that it is an exception.


If you think you would be so helpless that you'd have no choice but to let the BG kill you if he was so inclined if you didn't have training, then you ought to get some training.


Again, in my experience, the bad guy is not at arm's length. He is pumped. He is charged. If he's going to kill you, there's nothing you can do about it. Would I fight back?

Sitting here at my computer, I'll say, yes. I'll step in front of Mother Theresa and my wife and my children and shield them while simultaneously drawing my Glock 17 with 30 round magazine and immediately start double tapping. I'll absorb the bad guy's bullets so as to protect the innocents, sacrificing my own life and taking his in the process.

And they'll make long misty speeches at my funeral.

Or, in real life, maybe not.

You've never been there. You don't know for sure how you'd respond.

pax
September 20, 2006, 02:31 PM
PAR ~

Okay.

Plan to give up and die, then.

pax

PinnedAndRecessed
September 20, 2006, 02:57 PM
Plan to give up and die, then.


That's dismissive and is not a solution.

Earlier I said I prefer the Socratic method and mean no offense. All that separates us from morons is our ability to reason.

You have a different agenda? I'm all ears.

You recommend training. That's fine. I already exempted that (infinitesimally small) group of people. (Even though that group still does not know what they would do in that scenario.)

My remarks were directed at the original poster. The original post was very general directed to the general population. It is that demographic to which I address my comments. And that group will freeze in fear 99% of the time.

This fact is why law enforcement agencies and the military repeatedly train their people. They train them how to react in every conceivable situation. And then they train some more, until it becomes second nature.

The reason is that when a crisis arises, the human mind is no longer able to process rationally. I can sit at my computer and contemplate these issues and say, "Yeah, I'll draw before I turn over my weapon."

But when it happens I might not even remember that I have a gun. That's what fear does.

So that's why our LEOs and special heroes in the military train to the point of redundancy, viz., so that their training will kick in when crisis arises.

I'll go one step further. Just because you've had some training might not be all that valuable. Otherwise the above referenced specialists would not repeat it so often.

However, back to our discussion. The original poster was asking a general question re the general population. And the fact is that the vast majority of the general population will never receive any such training.

Therefore, my conclusions are correct.

Or are they?

pax
September 20, 2006, 03:56 PM
That's dismissive and is not a solution.

I agree. But it was your solution.

I just used fewer words to state it.

pax

PinnedAndRecessed
September 20, 2006, 04:06 PM
No, that's not at all what I said.

However, I just looked at your web link. Re your references to Christianity, it's obvious you are preparing to die. It's not always a bad thing.

Glockoma
September 20, 2006, 04:08 PM
The student who posted about potentially getting pepper spray for protection while on campus should perhaps look into carrying a nice folding knife that can be opened with one hand. Knife carry legality varies, but even here in Kalifornistan I can (and do) carry a folder, and it was legal to have it on campus.

Some hiking or tactical pants have long narrow pockets on the thigh ideal for a knife. At bad-breath distance, a knife is excellent to have. I don't see myself carrying a spray, save to repel mosquitos.

ChowYunFat
September 20, 2006, 06:08 PM
http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/reada...?ArtNum=158500

I've been busy, but here's the article to read.

Interestingly racist opinions. Do most of the members here agree with them?

PinnedAndRecessed
September 20, 2006, 06:33 PM
I couldn't get your link to work. Here's the link provided by the original poster:

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=158500

I'm not sure I know what you're saying.

pax
September 20, 2006, 06:38 PM
:barf: What a nasty site.

PAR, try reading the whole page.

pax

Trip20
September 20, 2006, 06:49 PM
Is that what an unmoderated forum looks like? :confused: :eek:

Makes me all warm and fuzzy when I think of TFL and THR.

JohnKSa
September 20, 2006, 10:46 PM
PinnedAndRecessed,

It's entirely possible that you reacted perfectly to the situations that you found yourself in. It's also possible that you could have done things differently and still remained uninjured.

I get the distinct feeling that you are under the impression that by acknowledging that there are other possible and reasonable courses of action you would also be admitting that you were wrong or cowardly for taking the approach that you did.

That's not the case, and furthermore you are unfairly limiting and directing the discussion by taking that stance.

PinnedAndRecessed
September 21, 2006, 12:08 AM
I get the distinct feeling that you are under the impression that by acknowledging that there are other possible and reasonable courses of action you would also be admitting that you were wrong or cowardly for taking the approach that you did.


I entertain no such thought.

Gun at your head. You will do what you're told.

The only exception is if you have trained for the eventuality.

99.9% of gun owners train for no such eventuality.

They will do what they're told.


That's not the case, and furthermore you are unfairly limiting and directing the discussion by taking that stance.

You are wrong. It is the case.

I assume you must be one of the legions of self-defense experts with extensive combat and martial arts training. You and your sensei have doubtless theorized countless hours as to neutralizing the attack.

But until you have implemented your theories in real world events, they remain nothing but theories. In fact, not even theories. Mere hypotheses.

Therefore, if you have not actually used such training, you cannot prove your argument.

And any argument without proof is useless.

XavierBreath
September 21, 2006, 05:12 AM
Your assumption that a criminal will not take your life after you comply with his demands is also nothing but theory.

Bud Helms
September 21, 2006, 06:01 AM
P&R said, among other things: ... if you have not actually used such training, you cannot prove your argument.

And any argument without proof is useless. For most of us, this is not the case. We may present evidence in several ways to support a given position. That evidence is not required to be proof.

also: ... until you have implemented your theories in real world events, they remain nothing but theories. In fact, not even theories. Mere hypotheses. This is supposed to discredit the argument of the other side? Your argument may also be considered a hypothesis.

I'm going to shut this thread down for half a day to give everyone a chance to read and catch up with the positions and arguments made here. And maybe for some of us to read our own posts and consider what's been said.

JohnKSa
September 21, 2006, 11:03 PM
You are wrong. It is the case.Umm... It IS the case that "you are under the impression that by acknowledging that there are other possible and reasonable courses of action you would also be admitting that you were wrong or cowardly for taking the approach that you did"?

Either you are not "entertaining such thoughts", or "it's not the case"--but it can't be both. I assume you must be one of the legions of self-defense experts with extensive combat and martial arts training. You and your sensei have doubtless theorized countless hours as to neutralizing the attack.Not even close. I don't claim to be an expert at anything, I've never had a sensei, and the only thing even approaching martial arts/combat training that I've taken is a year or so of foil fencing. :DGun at your head. You will do what you're told.

The only exception is if you have trained for the eventuality.

99.9% of gun owners train for no such eventuality.

They will do what they're told.This is your theory, with the only proof offered being your actions in a similar incident. It is an incorrect theory, if only because it is stated without qualifications. There is no way you or anyone else can accurately predict the actions of ALL untrained gun owners with 100% accuracy.

Furthermore, EVEN IF it WERE true, what a person WILL do is not necessarily what a person SHOULD do.

Lastly, proof and implementation are two different things. It's nice to have both, but they can each exist without the other.

Your comments/theories/suggestions seem to be quite clearly centered around defending the way you reacted in your personal experiences. I'm not saying you reacted incorrectly, just that what you did is not the only reasonable course of action.

In addition, I'm saying that it appears that you are so wrapped up in protecting the personal investment you have made (by living through the experiences you were put through and by sharing them publicly) that you are passionately defending your actions at the cost of allowing this debate to continue in a constructive fashion. I think that more evidence of this (should anyone want it) is this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=222863) that you posted on THR. The fact that you immediately started a thread on another forum but this time with a question carefully stacked to get the responses you clearly want seems to be an attempt to reassure yourself that you did the right thing. I'll tell you right now that you did the right thing! You're here and you're uninjured--clearly your approach was best for YOU in the PARTICULAR situation(s) you found yourself in.

But I am not saying that was the ONLY right approach you could have taken nor am I saying that it's always the right approach for any other situation that resembles your experience. There are just too many variables to make statements like that.

Everyone will not react the way you did.
Everyone's situation will not be exactly the same as yours.
Everyone's mindset will not mirror yours.
Other actions can have positive outcomes.
Other actions can be reasonable.
People can follow your example and still be injured, shot or killed.

None of those things are even debatable, and yet you become hostile when they are suggested.

Take a step back and understand that your two experiences do NOT define the entire world of gun owners/carriers--not even those who do not have "extensive combat/martial arts training". ;)