Echo40
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2017
- Messages
- 4,062
- Reaction score
- 7,900
Here's something that's been on my mind for awhile now that I feel might make for an interesting and possibly enlightening discussion.
Within just about every single thread I've ever read on self-defense with firearms, one particularly puzzling sentiment abounds, and that's that "Psychological Stops" are a bad thing because they cannot be relied upon. Granted that in most cases this sentiment is used as little more than anecdotal evidence in caliber debates to support the user's cartridge of choice, but it often also appears in passing whenever the subject of self-defense is raised/discussed at length.
However, I have to question the logic of this sentiment on the grounds that logically-speaking, it shouldn't matter if a threat is stopped successfully, regardless if it was a Psychological Stop brought on by pain or fear or a Physiological Stop brought on by an incapacitating wound. The fight is still over, you're still alive, and isn't that the outcome we're all aiming for when it comes to self-defense?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Psychological Stops should be counted on and that everyone should switch to less-than-lethal ammunition or anything like that, merely that folks shouldn't completely poo-poo the effectiveness of a Psychological Stop.
I also acknowledge that a Psychological Stop obviously will not occur against a determined assailant because they are too motivated to be stopped by anything short of incapacitation.
Lastly, I'm aware that there are a variety of narcotics which hamper pain and fear alike.
So where am I going with all this? Well, that's were things get complicated, controversial, and will almost assuredly bring about a caliber debate, but I've learned that caliber debates are inevitable in self-defense discussions and that no attempt to prevent them ever works, so screw it, we're going there...
Alright, everyone got their torches and pitchforks ready? (i.e. fingers on the Report Button) Excellent, then let's proceed.
As previously stated, the sentiment that Psychological Stops aren't worthy of consideration and have absolutely no value or worth in self-defense mostly comes up as anecdotal evidence in caliber debates, namely among advocates of intermediate cartridges. The argument is that pistol cartridges travel at higher velocities, use larger/heavier bullets, and deliver more foot-pounds of energy are no more effective at stopping a threat than smaller/lighter bullets via delivering an incapacitating wound, and therefore any higher statistical percentages of more powerful pistol cartridges putting an end to a fight with less shots fired must be due to Psychological Stops brought on by pain or fear.
Therein lies the question, even if that's true, how is that a negative? Honestly, if you can still manage the recoil and shoot it well, then why not choose a cartridge which not only is equally capable of delivering an incapacitating wound, but also possesses a higher likelihood of getting someone to cease all hostility out of pain or fear?
In other words, even if say a .357 SIG is only more effective than a 9mm Luger because the muzzle flash/report are more intimidating, how is that a negative if you're an equally good shot? Heck, lets assume that the larger temporary stretch cavities seen in ballistics gel, while no more damaging, are more painful/unpleasant inside of an actual human body, thus making them more likely to get an attacker to stop due to the greater pain inflicted? How is that insignificant if it doesn't negatively affect your ability to shoot?
My point is, I feel that Psychological Stops are underrated, that they might have at least some merit in self-defense even if they aren't a sure thing, and that anything that has a higher probability of stopping a fight and saving your life is worthy of consideration, regardless of how repeatable the results are, so long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to defend yourself or stop the threat via incapacitation.
Since this thread is still going and folks keep arguing over the definition, I'm going to clarify even though the thread has been hopelessly derailed into folks arguing over nomenclature and definition. A Psychological Stop by definition is one in which an attacker sustains a wound which is neither incapacitating nor necessarily fatal yet results in them ceasing all hostility of their own volition for any number of reasons. Pain, fear, appreciation for the gravity of the situation, McDonald's put the McRib back on the menu, etc. Where's my official source for this description? There isn't one, because it isn't exactly a mainstream scientific term, but that's not the point. The point is that it's an existing phenomenon which is often underrated due to the fact that it's not guaranteed. Unfortunately, that discussion never got off the ground because apparently ignorance of said term made a lot of folks feel insecure so they had to nitpick it in order to feel better. Sorry about that, I honestly thought that it was self-explanatory in context, and that folks could just go with it. Rest assured, the biggest fool here was none other than myself. Merry Christmas.
Within just about every single thread I've ever read on self-defense with firearms, one particularly puzzling sentiment abounds, and that's that "Psychological Stops" are a bad thing because they cannot be relied upon. Granted that in most cases this sentiment is used as little more than anecdotal evidence in caliber debates to support the user's cartridge of choice, but it often also appears in passing whenever the subject of self-defense is raised/discussed at length.
However, I have to question the logic of this sentiment on the grounds that logically-speaking, it shouldn't matter if a threat is stopped successfully, regardless if it was a Psychological Stop brought on by pain or fear or a Physiological Stop brought on by an incapacitating wound. The fight is still over, you're still alive, and isn't that the outcome we're all aiming for when it comes to self-defense?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Psychological Stops should be counted on and that everyone should switch to less-than-lethal ammunition or anything like that, merely that folks shouldn't completely poo-poo the effectiveness of a Psychological Stop.
I also acknowledge that a Psychological Stop obviously will not occur against a determined assailant because they are too motivated to be stopped by anything short of incapacitation.
Lastly, I'm aware that there are a variety of narcotics which hamper pain and fear alike.
So where am I going with all this? Well, that's were things get complicated, controversial, and will almost assuredly bring about a caliber debate, but I've learned that caliber debates are inevitable in self-defense discussions and that no attempt to prevent them ever works, so screw it, we're going there...
Alright, everyone got their torches and pitchforks ready? (i.e. fingers on the Report Button) Excellent, then let's proceed.
As previously stated, the sentiment that Psychological Stops aren't worthy of consideration and have absolutely no value or worth in self-defense mostly comes up as anecdotal evidence in caliber debates, namely among advocates of intermediate cartridges. The argument is that pistol cartridges travel at higher velocities, use larger/heavier bullets, and deliver more foot-pounds of energy are no more effective at stopping a threat than smaller/lighter bullets via delivering an incapacitating wound, and therefore any higher statistical percentages of more powerful pistol cartridges putting an end to a fight with less shots fired must be due to Psychological Stops brought on by pain or fear.
Therein lies the question, even if that's true, how is that a negative? Honestly, if you can still manage the recoil and shoot it well, then why not choose a cartridge which not only is equally capable of delivering an incapacitating wound, but also possesses a higher likelihood of getting someone to cease all hostility out of pain or fear?
In other words, even if say a .357 SIG is only more effective than a 9mm Luger because the muzzle flash/report are more intimidating, how is that a negative if you're an equally good shot? Heck, lets assume that the larger temporary stretch cavities seen in ballistics gel, while no more damaging, are more painful/unpleasant inside of an actual human body, thus making them more likely to get an attacker to stop due to the greater pain inflicted? How is that insignificant if it doesn't negatively affect your ability to shoot?
My point is, I feel that Psychological Stops are underrated, that they might have at least some merit in self-defense even if they aren't a sure thing, and that anything that has a higher probability of stopping a fight and saving your life is worthy of consideration, regardless of how repeatable the results are, so long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to defend yourself or stop the threat via incapacitation.
Since this thread is still going and folks keep arguing over the definition, I'm going to clarify even though the thread has been hopelessly derailed into folks arguing over nomenclature and definition. A Psychological Stop by definition is one in which an attacker sustains a wound which is neither incapacitating nor necessarily fatal yet results in them ceasing all hostility of their own volition for any number of reasons. Pain, fear, appreciation for the gravity of the situation, McDonald's put the McRib back on the menu, etc. Where's my official source for this description? There isn't one, because it isn't exactly a mainstream scientific term, but that's not the point. The point is that it's an existing phenomenon which is often underrated due to the fact that it's not guaranteed. Unfortunately, that discussion never got off the ground because apparently ignorance of said term made a lot of folks feel insecure so they had to nitpick it in order to feel better. Sorry about that, I honestly thought that it was self-explanatory in context, and that folks could just go with it. Rest assured, the biggest fool here was none other than myself. Merry Christmas.
Last edited:
