The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 29, 2001, 01:57 AM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 2000
Posts: 216
I feel Special Olympics coming on....

If you don't have a gun on you, you very much less tempted to try playing hero or getting into situations that the gun gives you an excessive amount of false courage to get into.

In the few instances where I was present during the "before" phase of a shooting incident, had I had a gun on me, I may have ended up being a white chalk outline like the people who did stay. Why? Because I would have felt obligated to stay and "serve" as protection.

But not carrying a gun meant that I wouldn't have been able to serve in that capacity and thus had no reason to stay, and could excuse myself without embarassment.


Scenario 1

You're walking down the street and might miss the bus if you don't take a shortcut down a dark alley.

Do you:

A. Cut through the dark alley, not knowing who may be lurking there for whatever nefarious purposes?


B. Stay on the lighted streets amongst other people, figuring you can wait another 15 minutes for the next bus?

Scenario 2

You're walking through a ghetto area (for whatever reason) and see a group of young (pick the race) men hanging out on the street corner a block ahead of you.

Do you:

A. Walk right past the gang?


B. Move over a block so they don't see the (pick whatever makes you stand out as NOT being a local) walking alone?

If you have a gun you'd probably pick A without much hesitation (or sense).

If you don't have a gun, you'd probably pick B because you want to see the sun rise an other day.

If you don't have a gun, and you pick A, then you're a lot braver than me 'cause I'm picking B.

Lonestranger, did you used to watch the "Lone Ranger"? You know, the show where the good guy always got the drop on the bad guy, and always shot the gun out of his hand?

The show that probably gave every boy who watched it the impression that a gun was a magic talismen that banished evil by the end of every episode.


Most people who die by the gun are killed by their own family or their own hand, rather than by criminals using it against you.

And this statement doesn't mean I'm anti-gun either.

To me, as stated previously, a gun is a tool to be used for a pre-planned purpose. It is not a charm that I carry every waking moment to ward of evil.

And in what circumstances are you planning to get into a shootout over? Are you an armored car courier? Carrying gold and diamonds? A rich industrialist in a third world country? A leader of a political or religous party under death threats?

Or are you an average joe who works 40 hours a week, goes home to his suburban track home with the 30 year mortage to 2.3 children and a dog named ralph? Who has a couple thousand saved up for the kids college fund and some overdrawn credit cards?

You work in an office doing middle management type stuff for a carpet manufacturer, nothing that anyones going to be take n hostage over to pressure the owner to give up the secret to how they make the carpet have such a nice plush feel.

See where I'm going with this?

If you don't then put the gas mask and rubber gloves on before you open your mail, cause I heard there's some nasty stuff going through there now.

Now, obviously, if you're required to go into harms way, then you need to be prepared. This preparedness may include a gun. However, the presence of a firearm on your body shouldn't preclude the use of your brain and senses.

It doesn't mean you can blithely go traipsing down any dark alley, abandoned building, crowd, subway, ghetto, riot, post-apocalyptic wasteland and you get the idea, without risk.

Obviously, on a gun forum, pretty much everyone is going to be of the belief that carrying a firearm is a MUST HAVE daily thing, and I'm not going to try to dissuade you from that. It's a right as only it can be in America. Thank God for that.

What I AM trying to dissuade people from is disengaging their brains from the thought process while they have a gun in their reach.

There's too much automatic default to "grab the gun" to some of lifes problems that I see presented here on TFL.

Someone gives you the finger on the freeway: GRAB THE GUN!

Arab looking fellow looks suspicious: GRAB THE GUN!

Young guy, dressed in leather wearing a dog collar, passing you by in the parking garage reaches into his pocket: GRAB THE GUN!

Noise in the night: GRAB THE GUN!

UN leader farts: GRAB THE GUN!

Even saying such things in jest shows an attitude that, to me, is unhealthy.

I don't know how many other ways I can say the same simple idea:

Use your brain, think first, and don't reach automatically for the gun as the solution to a problem.

BTW, I really miss the show "McGyver". A good show about a guy who used his brain, instead of automatic weapons, to solve problems.

I can't wait to see what someone will say about that.
nbk2000 is offline  
Old November 29, 2001, 10:23 AM   #27
Tim Burke
Senior Member
Join Date: February 17, 1999
Posts: 551
I also called it "the story" and "rant", nowhere did I say it was a literal event.
And nowhere did I suggest that you did. My point is that you discount concerns about execution scenarios as "very rare" while presenting an alternative scenario, which I believe to be even rarer. Hasher has cited a couple of cases in which the BGs invaded a home and executed everyone. You suggest that it doesn't matter that you can't cite a case similar to your scenario, because all the various parts of it have happened separately. The likelihood of several unrelated things occurring is determined by multiplying the likelihood of each thing occurring by itself. Thus, while your scenario is possible, mathematically it is very unlikely, and this is borne out by your inability to cite a case.
I also don't recall any stories about successfully driving off 3 armed intruders who have the drop on you at a party.
Who said they had the drop on you? The original scenario said "They are now walking into your house with guns drawn." That is not the same thing.
While I don't recall any reports of defenses at parties, the party is actually immaterial to the discussion. The scenario is multiple armed assailants in an urban environment with non-combatants present. Picking 3 American Rifleman at random.
  • 10/93 - 11 episodes, none relevant.
  • 10/00 - 7 episodes, one of which involved a single BG with a shotgun, and the defender had to actually retreat to the bedroom to reach his weapon
  • 4/95 - 9 episodes. One involved 3 BGs, two armed. The defender retrieved a shotgun from his bedroom. #2- 3 robbers, one holding a gun, in a convenience store. Female clerk, male customer. Customer complies with robbers, gets shot in the chest anyway, and only then engages the BG as the BG is trying to shoot the clerk. The chest shot was stopped by a daily planner, and the shot at the clerk misfired. BG with gun gets shot, flees, and other two are held for the police. #3 - Man assaulted on Christmas Eve by two men that begin beating him with their pistols while he is bringing presents inside. They force their way into the home, knocking down the wife, but the victim accesses his gun, kills one and drives the other away. #4- 14 year old slashed on the arm in his own home, shoots BG with BB gun, and the BG flees.
Yeah, #4 doen't apply to this point, I'll mention it later. And, while I am pointing out errors in your interpretation of the original scenario...
Firstly, who the hell brings OC grenades to a neighbors house party?
The incident that prompted this was at a neighbors house. The scenario as proposed was at your house.
And since you mention statistics being're chances of being involved in a violent shootout increases dramatically if you're carrying a gun
Yes, I know. However, if being in a violent shootout becomes the best possible outcome, then you want that to be as likely as possible.
I don't see anyone suggesting that awareness and avoidance are bad things, but once the BGs are walking into your house with guns drawn, it's a little late for those two tactics. De-escalation might be an option, but you are giving the BGs the initiative. Engaging them as they come through the door may not be an unreasonable solution. They didn't come to your house looking for a fight, they came looking for victims, see #4 above. Being met with gunfire is a pretty clear indication that they aren't welcome. They might fight, but with that open door right behind them, the most likely result is that they will leave, and seek out easier prey.
To me, as stated previously, a gun is a tool to be used for a pre-planned purpose.
Sounds like a rifle to me. My handgun is a piece of emergency response equipment. My neighborhood is very bureaucratic... they won't let me make an appointment for an emergency.
You may also want to ditch the gun because if BGs are searching people
I just noticed this. Now I'm speechless.
BTW, winning the Special Olympics race doesn't make you any more retarded than you were to start.
Tim Burke is offline  
Old November 29, 2001, 10:39 AM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: March 22, 2000
Location: southern U.S.
Posts: 1,807
I don't think I'll get into a car accident today, but I'll wear my seat belt anyway.

I am a good planner, I don't walk through a bunch of gangbangas because I have a "magical amulet gun", and I didn't contemplate shooting the guy who tried to drive over me on the road, either.

Other scenarios scare me though, like even with all my planning and good judgement, and not walking through dark parking lots and such, there's some things I can't have control over, like the ex-coworker who threatened to come to work and kill my boss (and probably everybody else too). And after several months, the cops still haven't found him. Of course, maybe I should just stay home forever or find a new job in midst of this slumping economy.

Y'know, most of here on TFL don't go out seeking problems to alleviate with a gun; the problems seek out us.

And I didn't ride the short bus to school!
Betty is offline  
Old November 29, 2001, 12:01 PM   #29
Junior Member
Join Date: October 11, 2000
Posts: 10
memory is a strange thing

didnt think anyone would respond but looked a while ago
i was not refering to the scenario but to the replies
mine would havce been i dont know what i would do, instinct would take over and guess what there is no training anyone can give you physically to do what you have to do in a stress situation, the old saying time heals all wounds is correct, i put em out of the front and moved em to a dark quiet place that only comes back when im asleep, and the dream may match the real thing then again it might not I dont want to remember, i dont have high blood pressure because of past experiences because i really dont want to dig deep but i will say one thing i must be kin to some gorrilas fighting ive seen on tv because i wet my pants every time it got to the real thing.. didnt even know it til later,,, INSTINCT!!! then very difficult to really remember for the reports that had to be made
guncoach is offline  
Old November 29, 2001, 02:47 PM   #30
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 1998
Posts: 986
nbk2000 posted:


Most people who die by the gun are killed by their own family or their own hand, rather than by criminals using it against you.

Yeah, and I dug a little deeper many years ago and learned this about those "familiar/known" killers and their victims:

1. Many were involved in some sort of mutual project of criminal activity.

2. The more "tragic" hubby-wife situations involved love triangles and revenge killings, including gay triangles (and sometimes, the spouse of one of the "threesome" (a fourth person) will have no clue what's going on!).

3. A very large proportion involve the killer AND victim getting drunk or stoned together before the killing.

Soo, friends, do you want to know MY murder-prevention strategy?

Marital fidelity, no criminal activity with even my most trusted buddy, no drugs, no booze, and PAY ATTENTION!

Among ANY country's murder statistics, you will find that very few criminal homocides (that element is important) will not have at least one of the three risk factors listed above.

BTW, after ditching the cell phone under the couch--not the cushions--see if you can place some clues about your location in any verbal exchanges that happen.

Personally, if I were carrying in this scenario, my first priority would be to remain invisible long enough to assess whether I need to get the firearm in my hand or need to give enough nominal cooperation for the goons to leave everyone unharmed.

Once/if they fire a shot, all bets are off.

And in some states, a mere citizen *might* be able to shoot a fleeing violent (causing SERIOUS injury) armed felon in the back, on the theory that such a proven threat is quite likely to harm someone else during the course of his or her retreat.

One car-jacking I am aware of was aborted by the driver showing his own handgun. The same perp robbed and killed a cabbie less than two hours later. In my book, the first driver would have been fully justified in both his actual actions, or in pre-emptively shooting the misguided carjacker. It came down to personal choices, both valid but one having bad results for the *other* guy.
Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.
Cheapo is offline  
Old November 29, 2001, 03:37 PM   #31
Matt Wallis
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2001
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 176

"Most people who die by the gun are killed by their own family or their own hand, rather than by criminals using it against you."

You're telling me that's out of _all_ shooting scenarios? Including law enforcement, slef defense, accidental shootings, etc.? Back that up, because I find that very hard to believe.

Matt Wallis is offline  
Old November 29, 2001, 07:56 PM   #32
Tim Burke
Senior Member
Join Date: February 17, 1999
Posts: 551
How timely. Here we are discussing scenarios in which there are multiple armed assailants, one armed defender, and non-combatants present in an urban environment, and this thread appears. An amazing coincidence, given how rare these are!
Tim Burke is offline  
Old November 29, 2001, 11:54 PM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 2000
Posts: 216
Taken from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2000


DEFINITION Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, is the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense, as for all other Crime Index offenses, is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. Not included in the count for this offense classification are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

Numbers aren't 100% due to rounding, and I left out such offenses as prostitution and such.

Total 12,943

Felony type total: 2,157

>Robbery 1,048
>Narcotic drug laws 572

Other than felony type total: 6,696

>Other arguments 3,475 (these don't involve drugs or love triangles), NBK2000)
>Juvenile gang killings 650
>Argument over money or property 206
>Brawl due to influence of alcohol 181
>Romantic triangle 122
>Brawl due to influence of narcotics 97

Unknown was the biggest number in eazch catagory so I had to leave it out since anyone can claim those as being whatever they like. Only those that have known cause are valid to the argument.

44.3% of all murders are commited by people known by the victims. 13% by total strangers, and the remainder is of unknown relationship.

By discounting the unknown factor and calculating the percentages of those who's relationship to the victim is known (Family, friend, or stranger) that makes the killer known by the victim in almost 75% of murders . (I hope I did the math right, been a long time since I've done percentages).

Of family killers, the wife is the clear leader with twice as many murders then the son, the second most common killer in a family.

Justifiable Homicides

For UCR purposes, justifiable homicide is defined as, and limited to, the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, or the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen. These offenses are tabulated independently and are not included in murder counts.

Supplemental data were provided by contributing agencies for 460 justifiable homicides in 2000. According to those data, 297 felons were justifiably slain by law enforcement officers, and 163 felons were justifiably killed by private citizens. Firearms were used in all of the justifiable homicides involving law enforcement, 89.2 percent of which specifically involved a handgun. Of the justifiable homicides by private citizens, 84.0 percent involved firearms; 89.1 percent of these involved handguns. Justifiable homicides by private citizens also involved knives or cutting instruments, 9.2 percent; personal weapons, 1.8 percent; and other weapons, 4.9 percent.

As for robberies (

Street/highway 46.0%
Commercial house 13.9%
Gas or service station 2.9%
Convenience store 6.4%
Residence 12.2%
Bank 2.1%
Miscellaneous 16.5%

I have presented the numbers, and the source. I'm not going to make any commentary on what they mean since there's more than enough cowboys here willing to say what I REALLY meant for me to have to say anything.

And I'm still looking for suicides statistics that aren't state-specific or originate from any anti-gun source. You'll be seeing those shortly, unless you'd like to show your're open minded and find them first.

It should show total number of suicides via firarms of any type during 2000 or 1999, throughout the entire US and not any one state or region. We can then compare those numbers.
nbk2000 is offline  
Old November 30, 2001, 10:03 AM   #34
Tim Burke
Senior Member
Join Date: February 17, 1999
Posts: 551
Unknown was the biggest number in eazch catagory so I had to leave it out since anyone can claim those as being whatever they like. Only those that have known cause are valid to the argument.
Nice try, but there are good reasons why this slants the data toward your position.
Why do some of the shootings get listed as unknown? Well, that's obvious... it's because they don't know. Why don't they know? Could it be that, in the majority of instances, the crime is unsolved? Which murders are the hardest to solve? Those in which there is no tie between the killer and the victim. So, the killings that contradict your position get preferentially filed in the "Unknown" classification, which you then conveniently ignore.

My review of your citation shows that 12,943 is the number of murder victims for 2001, independent of weapon type. This is only peripherally related to your assertion that:
Most people who die by the gun are killed by their own family or their own hand, rather than by criminals using it against you.
Not everyone that gets killed by a gun is murder victim, and the relative likelihood of relationships may change as the weapon changes.
I don't doubt your assertion. Including suicides as "gun violence" is a favorite tactic of the anti-gun crowd, because it does skew the data so. Whether you do this deliberately or because you have been a victim of propanganda is question best left for you to answer. Be that as it may, you have not proven your point, yet.
Tim Burke is offline  
Old November 30, 2001, 01:26 PM   #35
Senior Member
Join Date: November 12, 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 1,516
Even if it was one person with a gun I wouldn't start a shootout when there is the possiblity of others getting shot.

CMichael is offline  
Old November 30, 2001, 05:02 PM   #36
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 1998
Posts: 986
I agree in general with CMichael, with the following clarification:

...where there's a strong possibility that other FRIENDLYS are likely to be SERIOUSLY HARMED in any way because of MY escalation of force.

Yeah, I'll probably even put up with a few slaps for not-so-hard slugs, depending on the frailness of the victim.

THANK YOU for publishing the more recent reports. I confess to being bored enough with them to have not bothered for a while.

Puh-leeeze don't assume that all homicides are with firearms, for crying out loud! At least this group does not lump the justifiable homicides in the stats, like the freedom-killers do.:barf:

Interesting that there's almost a 1/8 chance that any robbery will be in a residence.

Is felony type (2,000+) those that are known to be co-perpetrators of crimes whose partners turn on them, or what? I don't remember the definitions.

-quote--Other than felony type total: 6,696

*so, felony type includes the following, totaling 4731?:

>Other arguments 3,475 (these don't involve drugs or love triangles), NBK2000)
>Juvenile gang killings 650, etc.

*and so forth, the reported "other than felony" plus listed felony types add up to 11427, plus 460 justifiable homicides still equals 11887, so there are perhaps some errors in here attributable to rounding??? Each number entry appeared precise, unlike how percentages go.

1. If you're talking murder, DON'T INCLUDE JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDES.

2. Don't mix numbers from one breakdown with those from another.

Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.
Cheapo is offline  
Old December 1, 2001, 01:04 AM   #37
Senior Member
Join Date: October 13, 2000
Posts: 216
Felony Types:

Motor vehicle theft
Prostitution and commercialized vice
Other sex offenses
Narcotic drug laws

Other than felony type total:

Romantic triangle
Child killed by babysitter
Brawl due to influence of alcohol
Brawl due to influence of narcotics
Argument over money or property
Other arguments
Gangland killings
Juvenile gang killings
Institutional killings
Sniper attack

For why the numbers aren't exact, please follow the provided link to the report.

Burke, you're assuming that most or all of the unsolved cases are by strangers. NOT neccesarily true. If you read the report, they don't count cases with no convicted killer in the "family, friend, stranger" catagory.

That means that the police may know who did it, but for whatever reason, they haven't been arrested, tried, and convicted. Those cases get into the Unknown Catagory.

And, being charitable, I'll give you a more than fair assumption that the "Unknown" catagory is evenly split between strangers and FFS.

That still leaves the majority of killings by Family and Friends.

Yes, not all homicides are commited with firearms. BUT, more than 2/3rds is. The ratio of killings using firearms as compared to the next most common non-firearm weapons is 3 to 1 or more. And the overwhelming majority of those are with handguns.


Handguns are likely to be on your person or within easy reach (trunk, next room, whatever) and are fairly cheap. Rifles and shotguns are less easily concealed and transported so they're less likely to be kept within immediate reach.

If (not YOU, of course, but some other person who doesn't show any self-restraint) gets pissed off during an argument and has a gun on him, it may go:

You: Less Filling!

Him: Tastes Great!

You: Less Filling!

Him: BANG!

You: thud...

Him: Tastes GREAT!

Yes, it's a dramatization, but people have been shot dead over equally stupid things. And if someone has to drive home to get their gun, they'll probably come to their senses by the time they get there and realize just how stupid the whole argument was.

And the stats show you're much more likely to be killed in an argument with someone you know than by a party crashing robber.

Firearms add a psychological distance that greatly increases the likelyhood of a conflict turning lethal. It's much easier for a person to point and pull the trigger, than to stab a knife into you while feeling your heart beating through the handle and feel your hot breath blowing in their face.

Read "On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Dave Grossman. You'll learn some interesting things.

And I am neither a brain-washed victim of anti-gun propaganda, nor an anti myself. I'm just a person who hates seeing stupid things being done with guns. Stupidity is fuel for the anti's fires.

Why did I include suicides? Well, if you have a gun convieniently on hand, would you be more likely to kill yourself on impulse (presuming you're deeply depressed already) knowing it'd be quick and painless? Or might you hesitate if you knew you'd be choking for 10 minutes while hanging? Or all the other slow and painful ways of killing yourself. Firearms provide an easy out on a whim. People who really want to die will do it regardless, but you'd probably be more likely to hesitate, not having a firearm, which would give you time to possibly change your mind.

And suicide is murder, self-murder. I guess I should assume that you're a godless aetheist by your statement? Because under christian and catholic beliefs, suicide is considered self-murder, the same as killing another. RH.

I'm enjoying this lively discussion anyways, regardless of the red herrings. It's nice to have stimulating discourse with people who aren't mindless drones who spout the party line. Regardless of whether that party is HCI or the NRA.

Anyways, I'm off to buy the medals. Who want's one?
nbk2000 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12120 seconds with 9 queries