Angry Mob Attacks Family... (This DOES happen!)

[matolman1]

I have read multiple posts here recently regarding "Carry Capacity", "Carrying or not carrying spare magazines" and "Mob Attacks."

I wanted to post this article I found today so people can see that this sort of attack, while rare, DOES happen, CAN happen and MIGHT happen...yes..even to you.

This is a logical answer to why you should carry a firearm with spare ammunition that will allow you to deal with a large group of attackers when it is your only option.

I am NOT saying that the extra ammo will help you in every instance, but I would rather have an extra 15 rounds on me in a spare magazine (totalling 31 rounds) in case I was FORCED to respond lethally to a wild gang of attackers.

You can make your own conclusions, this is simply my perspective on "Combat Mindset" and proper readiness level.

http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

[Brian Pfleuger]

Since there were NO shots fired, in fact, no guns present, I fail to see how this is evidence for anything at all. We have no way of knowing how the presence of a firearm may have changed this situation, good, bad or indifferent.

[CWPinSC]

Unless you're VERY good/fast, extra rounds won't help you. While shooting at the first attackers, the rest will gang-jump you and you'll be down. If one or more of them has guns, you're toast.

The only reasonable defense against mob violence is "situational awareness". Be aware of what's starting to happen and get out before it does.

Besides - the article stated the mob numbered "close to 50". With only 31 rounds, you're 20 attackers short of living.

[matolman1]

The fact that a mob attacked a family, violently, would call for the use of deadly force and would be considered self defense.

You have 2 options:

1) Allow your family to be viciously attacked by a mob.

You and your family can be beaten, raped, killed, kidnapped etc... The attackers have a tremendous numbers advantage on their side and you do NOT know during the attack that it will end with only punches and kicks.

For all you know, at the time of the attack, it will escalate to something of a life or death situation. As a matter of fact, you SHOULD believe that it will escalate to something worse due to the fact that you were suddenly attacked by a wild mob! Should not this be enough to justify the use of deadly force?

2) Defend your family by all means available to you, including your firearm.

Could have it ended in a different way if a firearm was used? Of course. It could have led to killing and or wounding multiple attackers. It could also have led to the firearm being taken from you and used against you. It could also have led to one of the attackers using a weapon they have against you and your family.

But, at least you have the option on you, at your disposal, to use deadly force against the mob if that mob decides to escalate the level of violence or if you feel in the immediate start of the attack that you or your families life is in immediate danger due to the mob attack.


My point is this; You either HAVE the ability to defend yourself against a group of attackers, or you do NOT have the ability.
The choice is yours to make.

This mob attack is another proof that you should prepare yourself for an attack that might go against the commonly espoused statistics. You simply never knoiw what will happen, when it will happen or how many attackers there will be. Why under prepare yourself?

Did this escalate to deadly force? No. Could it have escalated to a deadly force situation? yes, at the drop of a hat.

[buzz_knox]

Since there were NO shots fired, in fact, no guns present, I fail to see how this is evidence for anything at all. We have no way of knowing how the presence of a firearm may have changed this situation, good, bad or indifferent.

The OP seems directed more at the concept that such things never happen, and the absence of such events is used to ridicule concepts such as spare ammo, backups, etc. Since a friend of mine experienced a similar event here in Knoxville, I've never bought that argument.

[matolman1]

Unless you're VERY good/fast, extra rounds won't help you. While shooting at the first attackers, the rest will gang-jump you and you'll be down. If one or more of them has guns, you're toast.

The only reasonable defense against mob violence is "situational awareness". Be aware of what's starting to happen and get out before it does.

Besides - the article stated the mob numbered "close to 50". With only 31 rounds, you're 20 attackers short of living.

That is assuming the others wont simply scatter when shots are fired. Most people do not charge into gunfire, they run away from it. By having more ammunition on you, you have the ability to stop more threats that might come your way.

Again, this scenario, and others, have multiple assumptions and possible outcomes.

I, personally, would like to know that i have the ability to at least help to somewhat even the odds by being able to eliminate a large group of the attackers, to put them out of the fight, and to hopefully put enough fear into the others that they scatter.

Is this going to happen? I do not know. What I do know, for certain, is that I will never allow my family to be "taken" violently by anyone, mob included and I will daily carry for the worst case scenario.

[Brian Pfleuger]

My point is this; You either HAVE the ability to defend yourself against a group of attackers, or you do NOT have the ability.
The choice is yours to make.

The only thing that gives you that ability is the mind set of the mob. If they decide to attack you, gun or no, you're SOL. A gun may give YOU the option when it's one on one or one on two, when it's one on 20 or 50 the options are all on the side of the 50. If they decide you're going to die then you're going to die, even if you take 1 or 3 or 10 of them with you.

My guess would be that a gun in this situation would have been bad instead of good, but that's just a guess. The gun may have PREVENTED the attack, but since there was no warning, no SA, I would think that the most likely outcome would be that the gun would be found and used against them.

[matolman1]

The OP seems directed more at the concept that such things never happen, and the absence of such events is used to ridicule concepts such as spare ammo, backups, etc. Since a friend of mine experienced a similar event here in Knoxville, I've never bought that argument.

That is correct. I am stating that this is another example as to why you SHOULD carry for just such an event.
Since you never know what type of attack or when an attack will occur, you are better off prepared for the worst case scenario (within legal means of daily concealed carry).

[matolman1]

The only thing that gives you that ability is the mind set of the mob. If they decide to attack you, gun or no, you're SOL. A gun may give YOU the option when it's one on one or one on two, when it's one on 20 or 50 the options are all on the side of the 50. If they decide you're going to die then you're going to die, even if you take 1 or 3 or 10 of them with you.

I disagree. Things tend to change when the "victim" suddenly becomes the "aggressor."

People who feel as if they have the advantage (numbers) are suddenly taken by surprise when their gang leader is shot in the head from close range.

Just because "they" decide you are going to die does not mean that things will change once you decide that you are NOT going to die.

It is amazing to see an animal, backed against a wall, fight for his life, against seemingly insurmountable odds...

History books are filled with situations where the "underdog" kicks the crap out of the aggressors.

[TailGator]

Difficult situation re tactics. If you fire, you can certainly hope that the rest will run in fear after a couple of rounds hit their pals. But what if the gunfire enrages the mob instead of dispersing it? The estimates of the mob size ranged up to 50. Even if I could carry that much ammo without my pants falling down, I certainly could not shoot fast enough to stop all of them before they got to me and/or my family. And I rather imagine that at some point the angle of attack would endanger others, as well. I am not entirely sure that I would want to try to shoot myself out of that situation, but then I am not sure that I can come up with an alternative, either.

One other comment, and I hope it is not out of line (if judged to be so by the moderators, I will not object to it being deleted): I have to wonder why the authorities are reluctant to consider this to be a racially motivated attack when racial remarks were heard to be made and there is no other motive apparent.

[Sportdog]

You make far too much sense to post on this forum. Each and every time someone takes a stand not to be a victim the same old critics come out of left field to badger you and try to make you look like some kind of demon out for blood and guts instead of protecting yourself, your loved ones, and your property. To try and have a civil discourse without being subjected to endless sarcastic remarks by the select few makes this site a total waste. It is interesting that one of these characters posts often on another site that I also visit and his tone is very civil and professional. I believe that is because he knows that the other site will not tolerate his BS. The best way to deal with these individuals is to totally ignore them and their posts and not be drawn into an endless, mindless debate just to satisfy their ego's.

[Microgunner]

Some here seem to suggest that armed defense against an enraged mob is likely impossible. In light of this I would suggest practicing your running, climbing and begging skills. To those of us who can't run or climb worth s**t anymore, I'd suggest marksmanship and a willingness to kill to survive, even in the face of insurmountable odds. I've noticed a lot of folks seeming to think the BG has a right to survive. This thinking will get you killed.

[Wildalaska]

I wanted to post this article I found today so people can see that this sort of attack, while rare, DOES happen, CAN happen and MIGHT happen...yes..even to you.

http://www.struckbylightning.org/

"In 2008 there were 329 people struck in the USA, with 302 injured and 27 killed."

WildiamhavingasaleonlightningrodhelmetsAlaska TM

[Evan Thomas]

According to the story linked in the OP, this was a mob of teenagers, attacking with fists and feet. The outcome might have been better if Mr. Marshall, or someone else in his party, had had a gun at all, regardless of its capacity or number of extra magazines. Or, as Peetzakilla points out, it might have been worse... especially if some in the mob had been carrying as well.

What doesn't seem likely is that having 31, or 46, rounds available, as opposed to 16, would be the deciding factor here. If Mr. Marshall had pulled a gun and used it, the mob of teenagers would either have been discouraged right then and "beat feet," or they would have continued to attack, perhaps with their own (previously concealed) weapons. If a mob keeps coming in this situation, a single shooter is most likely going to be overrun no matter how much ammunition he's lugging around -- and his whole party may be at much greater risk if weapons are now involved on both sides.

There's no predicting the outcome, and there's no sure defense in this very improbable situation... So I think I won't worry about it too much.

But if I were Rachel Marshall's mom or dad, I'd be pretty proud of her for trying to defend Dad.

"In 2008 there were 329 people struck in the USA, with 302 injured and 27 killed."
WildiamhavingasaleonlightningrodhelmetsAlaska TM

saveoneformepleaseken -- v.

[TailGator]

I did not "badger," was not "sarcastic," and did not "demon"ize the OP. Neither did I say that I thought the situation was "impossible." I said it was "difficult" (an opinion which has not changed) and gave my thoughts, presented respectfully, about how the situation could develop if a weapon was introduced.

Great way to run people off and quash discussion. Thanks, Microgunner and Sportdog. If you want to comment on egos and sarcasm, start by looking in a mirror.

[zxcvbob]

If you're probably going to get killed anyway, doncha think taking a few of the bastards with you is a good thing? And you might even accidently take the fight out of the mob and survive unharmed. I don't see any down side to fighting back.

(Unless you are defending a stronghold, after 6 or 8 shots, either the mob will retreat or you will be overrun -- more ammo is always better, but not necessarily that much better.)

[matolman1]

I wanted to post this article I found today so people can see that this sort of attack, while rare, DOES happen, CAN happen and MIGHT happen...yes..even to you.

http://www.struckbylightning.org/

"In 2008 there were 329 people struck in the USA, with 302 injured and 27 killed."

WildiamhavingasaleonlightningrodhelmetsAlaska TM

And in this, sir, you prove my point.

I do not walk out to an open field during a lightning storm. This is one way to AVOID become a lightning victim. Just because the stats are low for lightning strikes, I won't walk out to the open field because there is a possibiltiy that I will be struck by lightning. This is called common sense prevention.

The same common sense prevention can be applied to daily carry and combat mindset. You prepare yourself for the eventuality that Mr. murphy will show up at the worst time and you will need every ounce of strength (mental and physical) as well as a proper load out of weapon/s and ammunition to get you through a worst case scenario attack against you or your loved ones.

Both examples are a form of prevention by NOT doing something foolish Case 1, not walking into the field and Case 2, not "under" preparing yourself.

I know you were attempting to show how absurd some arguments are for preparing yourself against low statistic events, but you actually did a fine job proving my point. Thanks!

[Brian Pfleuger]

I disagree. Things tend to change when the "victim" suddenly becomes the "aggressor."

Yep, they tend to change, but what if they don't? Or what if the "change" is for the worse instead of the better? What if the beating turned into a one on six gunfight instead?

I'm not saying you shouldn't use a gun against a mob. I'm not saying you wouldn't be successful. I'm saying there's a big difference between a gun and a magic wand. It's not a "Presto!" device, some sort of "Get Out of Trouble Free" card. It's not even guaranteed to make the event go your way.

We can't just say "See, now, if he only had a gun...."

If he only had a gun he might be dead, he might not be dead, someone else might be dead, it might have turned into a shoot out, it might not have, he might have been saying "Thank God I had a gun.", He might have been saying "Damn it! I shouldn't have drawn my gun!"

[Wildalaska]

I know you were attempting to show how absurd some arguments are for preparing yourself against low statistic events, but you actually did a fine job proving my point. Thanks!

Your welcome. My lightning rod helmets look great indoors

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...26713&src=news

The odds of a law abiding citizen getting attacked by an angry mob are probably the same as getting hit by lightning in your kitchen...

But thats OK, hey after all each side has their agenda..its just a shame that some gun lovers play as fast and loose with the truth as does the ones I would expect would have to lie to win hearts and minds....

WildandthatscomingfromatargetAlaska ™

[Mike Irwin]

ONLY 31 rounds?

But what if you're attacked by more than 31 people? What do you do then? Don't you care enough about your life to carry at least 300 rounds of ammo???????

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by peetzakiller

...there's a big difference between a gun and a magic wand. It's not a "Presto!" device, some sort of "Get Out of Trouble Free" card. It's not even guaranteed to make the event go your way.

Peetza, this is blasphemy. They'll revoke your gunwoobie license.

[Microgunner]

I'm saying there's a big difference between a gun and a magic wand. It's not a "Presto!" device, some sort of "Get Out of Trouble Free" card. It's not even guaranteed to make the event go your way.

Sounds like you've already resolved yourself to die. Me? Not so much.

ONLY 31 rounds?
But what if you're attacked by more than 31 people? What do you do then? Don't you care enough about your life to carry at least 300 rounds of ammo???????

That's right. I draw the line at 31.

[matolman1]

Since you don't know for certain if your house will ever burn down, is the proper course of action to not have fire insurance?

Simply because you do not know what the outcome of a specific situation might be does not mean you should stick your head in the proverbial sand and HOPE that the outcome will be one where you did not need proper prevention in the first place.

When I go out on patrol in Israel, I dont carry one magazine in my M4 and leave all of my other gear on base since the odds are I won't need to use more than 29 rounds, or stun grenades, or my helmet or any other peice of gear.
Rather, I load up to full combat load, each time, every time because this builds discipline, instills confidence and keeps my combat mindset in check. To do anything else is simply stupid.

You can also apply this path to the civillian world. Be prepared for the worst case scenario. Buy fire insurance. Walk tall and carry a large stick. Discipline yourself to be prepared for multiple worst case scenarios. You simply cannot go wrong with this mindset.

[matolman1]

NEVER delude yourself into thinking that "Hey, it's never happened to me, so it never will happen! I'm the golden boy!"

Mr. Irwin, I find your comment to be ironic since your signature line above seems to say the opposite of your sarcastic comment regarding carrying 31 rounds rather than "300."

ONLY 31 rounds?

But what if you're attacked by more than 31 people? What do you do then? Don't you care enough about your life to carry at least 300 rounds of ammo???????

[zxcvbob]

There's a diminishing return to having more ammo. You'll have to decide for yourself where the line is, and unless you can predict the future there's not enough information available to make the decision. So you do your own risk assessment, prepare the best you can, and quit worrying about it. (prepared for an unknown risk *and* quit worrying is a hard combination)