Psychological Stops are grossly underrated.

[Wise_A]

Wasn't this a made up term to clarify some data? The stuff I've seen on psychological stops all seems to connect back to the Greg Ellifritz/Buckeye Firearms article linked above.



From his definition, to be a psychological stop, doesn't the person...

1) have to actually have been hit by a bullet, not just see the display of a gun.
2) have an injury that isn't physically incapacitating.
3) gives up.

Since it's a made up term, can't it mean pretty anything anyone wants it to?

My 2 cents. YMMV.

No--it's very narrowly defined. There's no physiological reason the attacker stopped--no broken pelvis, function nervous system, has enough blood, etc. And yet they decided on their own.

It's actually somewhat useful from the other side, as well. For instance, it's quite common for a victim to give up after sustaining a relatively minor, entirely survivable injury.

The OP In channeling Ellifritz seems to imply that caliber and type of gun makes a difference. Having stopped bad people with .38's, 9mm's, .223's, and 12 gauge shotguns at various times suggests they didn't know what kind of gun was being pointed at them but stopped regardless.

I'd agree. I think the determination of the victim is more important--how often has "command voice" saved the day?--and frankly, selecting a decent handgun is dead-simple these days.

I've never had to draw a heater in anger, but I've sure used body language and forceful vocalization!

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

. . .

The concept as usually discussed addresses the idea of a person responding in a certain way to being shot, based on subconscious or unconscious factors. I have never heard this referred to as a "psychological stop." Essentially it is something that is not quantifiable or predictable and for the most part independent of the nature of the wound, caliber choice, etc.

. . .

Anyway, I cannot see how this concept would ever affect one's choice of defensive weapon or caliber.

It is not at all clear to me that what some folks think are "psychological stops" are independent of caliber choice, or, to fit better what I am writing about, cartridge choice. I don't know whether any studies of this have been done, but I rather doubt it. At one time, I thought that "psychological stops" might have accounted for some of the numbers coming out of the analyses by M&S. However, once I noticed disappearing results in their magazine articles, I started looking more closely at their SELECTION of data, as did many others. Nobody should take their conclusions seriously, but I believe that their honest desire to look at results may have been partly motivated by an attempt to include such stops, regardless of the physical explanation.

IMO, if a particular cartridge were found more effective by reason of such stops (a finding which will probably never happen), it would certainly be useful to know about it. I just don't believe that we will ever be able to make such a determination, for various practical reasons.

 

[Ziggy2525]

No--it's very narrowly defined.
...

Where? Seriously. Just with the posts in this thread, there are people with extensive field and academic LEO backgrounds that either have never heard the term or they know the term, but don't agree on a definition.

 

[BB57]

A few comments in no particular order.

1) The error I see in some of the discussion above is that people are mistaking correlation for causation. Alternatively some folks are ignoring that correlation because it cannot be shown to be causative, while overlooking the reality that, statistically, about half of all "stops" that occur are not due to physical incapacitation.

2) Half is still a really big fraction, one that tells you that half the time a self defense shoot occurs, it really doesn't matter what handgun cartridge or load you are using.

3) That's on top of defensive gun uses where the gun isn't even fired. The percentage of defensive gun uses where the gun isn't even fired is estimated to be in the 90%-93% range.

4) The vast majority of armed citizens who conceal carry never draw a gun. I've relied on a gun three times in 34 years, but two of those were work related, both in situations where and armed citizen wouldn't be in the first place. Neither resulted in shots fired. The third was an attempted mugging at knife point that ended when I turned, noticed the attacker in the final stages of his approach, and reached for my handgun. The combination of no longer having the element of surprise and seeing me begin to draw a concealed handgun deterred the attack.

5) Putting this all together, handing cartridge choice matters in:
a) that very rare instance when an armed citizen actually needs to rely on a handgun for defensive purposes; AND
b) in just 7% to 10% of those rare events when a defensive handgun actually has to be fired; AND
c) in just half of the instances when the handgun is fired in just 7% to 10% of those very rare instances where it is needed at all.

6) More to the point, handgun cartridge choice does not matter in:
a) 90% to 93% of the instances when a handgun is used for self defense purposes (where it is never fired); and
b) in about half of the 7% to 10% of the defensive uses (where it is fired) any cartridge will stop the assault due to a psychological stop (for whatever reason).

----

I book marked this several years ago. It addresses some of the short falls of the Marshall and Sanow data and he makes some good points without overstating the case.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

I'll argue, based on the data, that having a handgun on your person is far more important than having a handgun in one of the more popular rounds that are believed to be more likely to stop an attack. I'd much rather have someone carry a gun they will carry all the time, than have a larger handgun they don't carry all the time. I'd also much prefer someone have a handgun in a smaller caliber that they not only are willing to carry all the time but also shoot well, rather than carrying a small handgun that they are willing to carry all the time, in a larger cartridge that they do not shoot well. In that small percentage of defensive gun uses where the handgun is fired, whether it's a physical incapacitation or a psychological stop, it's the hits that matter.

----

As an aside, my bachelors degree was in Criminology with a double major in Psychology and my masters degrees are in Mental Health Counseling and Vocational Rehabilitation counseling.

Based on my experience, it's common to have a group of academics, professors, or experts in a room who cannot decide on a basic definition. It's also common to have academics or professors or experts who choose to isolate themselves and pretty much ignore anything that does not conform to their personal beliefs. You'll see that in politics as well.

Worse, you'll also see it in the courtroom when the prosecution or the defense goes shopping for an "expert" witness who will give the desired opinion and/or worse, overstate what the evidence actually indicates or the degree of certainty involved. The FBI is currently standing with both feet in a steaming pile of excrement with evidence of FBI hair analysis experts doing exactly that - and training local experts to do the same thing. The number of unjust convictions based on that tainted testimony is enormous and some of them have been executed. That will have negative impacts on expert testimony for years.

Take "experts" with a large grain of salt and apply your own critical thinking, observation and logic to what they say.

 

[Justin T]

I'll argue, based on the data, that having a handgun on your person is far more important than having a handgun in one of the more popular rounds that are believed to be more likely to stop an attack. I'd much rather have someone carry a gun they will carry all the time, than have a larger handgun they don't carry all the time. I'd also much prefer someone have a handgun in a smaller caliber that they not only are willing to carry all the time but also shoot well, rather than carrying a small handgun that they are willing to carry all the time, in a larger cartridge that they do not shoot well. In that small percentage of defensive gun uses where the handgun is fired, whether it's a physical incapacitation or a psychological stop, it's the hits that matter.

----


Take "experts" with a large grain of salt and apply your own critical thinking, observation and logic to what they say.

Please don't think I am cherry picking your post-I read it all and your observations and conclusions are reasonable and easy to understand.

It seems to me, however, that the two sentiments I pulled out of your message say it all.

 

[Wise_A]

Where? Seriously. Just with the posts in this thread, there are people with extensive field and academic LEO backgrounds that either have never heard the term or they know the term, but don't agree on a definition.

So, because some people don't seem to understand it, it must be wrong or ill-defined?

I will continue unti the threat stops, for whatever reason. Thererfore, a psychological stop probably won't be a factor, unless the criminal immediately surrenders.

There's actually a semi-neat drill for this. At the start command, draw and fire on a target, number of rounds undetermined. The instructor, at a random point, will point a red laser at the target. The shooter's objective is to not fire after the red dot appears.

The point is to actually see the target through the sights, and slow down so that one isn't blindly dumping magazines. Legally, this is preferable. In terms of prevailing, it may also be handy to conserve one's ammunition so that one is not standing around holding an empty gun while Attacker #2 walks up and brains one with a tire iron.

 

[Ziggy2525]

So, because some people don't seem to understand it, it must be wrong or ill-defined?
...

It doesn't have anything to with understanding. You said it's narrowly defined. I asked you where is the definition of psychological stop narrowly defined at. If it's narrowly defined, there has to be a source that narrowly defines it so people can understand or misunderstand it.

I don't think that source exists. It's a colloquial term. No formal definition exists. People have it mean what they want.

 

[BB57]

So, because some people don't seem to understand it, it must be wrong or ill-defined?



There's actually a semi-neat drill for this. At the start command, draw and fire on a target, number of rounds undetermined. The instructor, at a random point, will point a red laser at the target. The shooter's objective is to not fire after the red dot appears.

The point is to actually see the target through the sights, and slow down so that one isn't blindly dumping magazines. Legally, this is preferable. In terms of prevailing, it may also be handy to conserve one's ammunition so that one is not standing around holding an empty gun while Attacker #2 walks up and brains one with a tire iron.

Properly done a failure to stop drill involves a controlled pair to the toros, followed by an aimed shot to the head. But properly doing it also involves assessing over the front sight blade whether the target is still there for that third shot, or is already going down.

That's where this kind of drill also really shines - ensuring the student is actually assessing the need for the third shot rather than shooting as quickly as he or she can.

You can do it with double taps, controlled pairs, etc to ensure the student is actively assessing and is not just focused on speed.

 

[ladder13]

I have a head ache.

I'm about to OD on Tylenol.

 

[BB57]

Please don't think I am cherry picking your post-I read it all and your observations and conclusions are reasonable and easy to understand.

It seems to me, however, that the two sentiments I pulled out of your message say it all.

I will defend anyone's right to have an opinion that differs from mine.

Whether or not it's a valid opinion however will depend on whether or not they objectively sought and then considered the available data, the context and the relevance of that data. The same goes for expert opinions. If that opinion is based on properly interpreted data and is relevant to the circumstances and situation, I'll consider it.

In other words, I have no respect for the ideas and comments of people who spout rote learned statements, with little or no understanding, and based only on authoritarian learning.

I do however have a great deal of respect for people who can think critically and who filter what they hear or observe through the lenses of logic, the scientific method, and, when appropriate, philosophy.

 

[Rule3]

I'm about to OD on Tylenol.

I need some Pepto Bismol as it is getting pretty deep and nauseating in here

 

[dockmurgw]

I need some Pepto Bismol as it is getting pretty deep and nauseating in here

I normally stay clear of this part of the forum, I just don't operate at this level of intensity. This ones got me thinking of selling all my guns but my deer rifle and taking up golf.

 

[Smoke]

I normally stay clear of this part of the forum, I just don't operate at this level of intensity. This ones got me thinking of selling all my guns but my deer rifle and taking up golf.

My favorite part of this sub forum is the things I read about it on other forums

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Properly done a failure to stop drill involves a controlled pair to the toros, followed by an aimed shot to the head. But properly doing it also involves assessing over the front sight blade whether the target is still there for that third shot, or is already going down.

That's where this kind of drill also really shines - ensuring the student is actually assessing the need for the third shot rather than shooting as quickly as he or she can.

You can do it with double taps, controlled pairs, etc to ensure the student is actively assessing and is not just focused on speed.

It seems to me that a righteous defender should shoot to the head for the third shot WITHOUT evaluating, as long as the assailant is still standing. If the assailant is actually incapacitated, why is he still standing? Furthermore, can the righteous defender make a competent evaluation without compromising his or others' safety, while waiting for the assailant to fall, or display definitive signs of death or tactical incapacitation? How long does it take an MD to determine death? These are not issues that should be carefully evaluated in the middle of a gunfight.

 

[ContinentalOp]

It seems to me that a righteous defender should shoot to the head for the third shot WITHOUT evaluating, as long as the assailant is still standing.

Properly done a failure to stop drill involves a controlled pair to the toros, followed by an aimed shot to the head. But properly doing it also involves assessing over the front sight blade whether the target is still there for that third shot, or is already going down.

You two are saying the same thing.

 

[Wise_A]

It doesn't have anything to with understanding. You said it's narrowly defined. I asked you where is the definition of psychological stop narrowly defined at. If it's narrowly defined, there has to be a source that narrowly defines it so people can understand or misunderstand it.

I don't think that source exists. It's a colloquial term. No formal definition exists. People have it mean what they want.

Hang on, lemme just bust out my "Big Dictionary of Gun Terms"

It's a narrow, specific thing. If you are having trouble understanding what it is, then ask. If you just want to cause trouble, I recommend the kids' table (ARforum).

If the assailant is actually incapacitated, why is he still standing?

Couple things.

(1) Because he's raising his hands, turning around, and yelling "Stop, I give up!".

(2) Expert witnesses have frequently been called upon to explain the "extra couple hits", or the occasional "behind the midline" shot. But it's better to not need them.

(3) It's typical for juries to understand the "extra couple hits" in the heat of the moment--but there's a ton of people that just dump every round they have when doing what they call "training".

(4) It doesn't take a lot of slowing down to do. But there's a ton of just trash shooters that think something magical happens when you push from .3 to .25-second splits.

My favorite part of this sub forum is the things I read about it on other forums

There's a ton of garbage these days, I don't know why I bother participating anymore (and I've cut way back). Quality threads are almost nonexistent, and even when someone posits something worth discussing, it degenerates into this tripe.

PS, with the exception of pistolforum and maybe a couple of the Reddits, I don't know of any forums that aren't dumpster fires.

 

[BC38]

I'm sorry Wise_A, but at the risk of getting a ding, I can't help but note that the tone of a lot of your "wise" responses contribute to and/or provoke the lack of civility you seem to be lamenting.

I don't know if that tone is intentional, or if it is just due to a lack of awareness - because we often can't "hear" how we are coming across. But either way, there it is.

Remember, whenever one points a finger there are three more pointing back.

 

[BB57]

It seems to me that a righteous defender should shoot to the head for the third shot WITHOUT evaluating, as long as the assailant is still standing. If the assailant is actually incapacitated, why is he still standing? Furthermore, can the righteous defender make a competent evaluation without compromising his or others' safety, while waiting for the assailant to fall, or display definitive signs of death or tactical incapacitation? How long does it take an MD to determine death? These are not issues that should be carefully evaluated in the middle of a gunfight.

Don't overthink it. What you are assessing is whether the assailant is still standing or is in fact already going down, or surrendering, or fleeing.

What that assessment is preventing is an incapacitated or otherwise neutralized assailant continuing to be shot once he or she is no longer a threat.

You're shooting to stop the threat, and once the threat is gone, you need to stop shooting.

.../

/....

(4) It doesn't take a lot of slowing down to do. But there's a ton of just trash shooters that think something magical happens when you push from .3 to .25-second splits.

Exactly. We're talking about maybe a 1/10th of a second looking over the front sight blade to assess the need for the shot / next shot. As opposed to just mag dumping until the slide locks back.

 

[Wise_A]

I'm sorry Wise_A, but at the risk of getting a ding, I can't help but note that the tone of a lot of your "wise" responses contribute to and/or provoke the lack of civility you seem to be lamenting.

I'm not lamenting a lack of civility.

I'm lamenting trashposts.

Forums overly constrained by civility drown in muck. We don't even have a downvote system.

I don't care if someone is right or wrong, or disagrees, so long as they at least make an effort to post something worthwhile.

 

[BC38]

I'm not lamenting a lack of civility.

I'm lamenting trashposts.

Forums overly constrained by civility drown in muck. We don't even have a downvote system.

"Forums overly constrained by civility" - is that what you were talking about when you said all the other forums are dumpster fires?

Seems like a misuse of a narrow, specifically defined term to me