- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,987
- Reaction score
- 11,136
Your second paragraph says far more than many realize or want to realize. Good post-
The unavoidable gun fight. Are you confident with your handgun choice?
- Thread starter Dump1567
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 27, 2025
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 130
No, not actually. It seems entirely wrong. Nobody can say when they will be called on to either defend themselves or others. Those of us who carry legally know that when something happens, it will happen without any chance of knowing when and where. To not care is to find yourself, or others bending to the whim of some deranged person. To not know how to use your firearm is to invite disaster. Being able to engage your target, drawing, aiming and firing a well aimed shot with practice can be accomplished in two seconds or less. Even if someone is holding a gun on you, the slightest distraction, glancing at another person or object is a prime opening to draw and fire since that is the last thing your deranged gunperson is expecting. Can they realize what is happening and respond in such a short period of time is an unanswered question. Taking the chance to end the issue is much preferable to standing there doing nothing and getting shot because you did not respond is not an option. What will the outcome be? Who knows because every encounter will be different.
Nice. Do you reload for 9x18 or is there a lot of factory ammo still available? Sorry for the questions, this is a caliber I've been interested in. Unfortunately I didn't get a Makarov in the past when they were everywhere and less than $200.
I’m not going to disagree. I’m sure you are correct.
But..the guy in the pawn shop probably thought exactly the same, and was still killed.
Your shooting would need to be sketchy to draw that kind of scrutiny from prosecutors. A good self defense shoot is always a good self defense shoot, and your ramjet or trigger shoe swap can’t change that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just read through this whole thread backwards. Never was a LEO or any other real world interacting with armed criminals. I have never watched any human being die and have never struck another person with the intention of really hurting them since age 13, the year JFK was killed on my 13th birthday. I generally don't carry any firearm and live a fairly simple and generally happy life and are fairly comfortable financially. The ten commandments still mean something to me and my respect for those here who protect and serve is profound with a couple of exceptions when I was personally assaulted when it was totally unnecessary by people in positions of power, both physically, verbally and financially, including members of my own family who robbed me and lied to my friends.
I can spot a criminal driving down the highway. The universal symptom is lack of respect for others and their right to share the same road with the one who cares not whether they live or die.
The initial post to me demonstrated one glaring flaw. The owner running away from a fight, leaving his property to be defended by the victims. Poor preparation and planning caused every injury in that incident. that same owner was complicit in two deaths.
Stupidity.
Post 121 (from memory was one of several that impressed me as worth reading). Most were not worth reading, especially the back and forth's, between people who just needed to disregard others posts and give THEIR opinions.
If I ever voluntarily walk into a pawn shop or any other high risk environment I would carry my PPKS 380, hidden from view ( I have a permit and was a range officer). I would take time to scan for potential danger using my decades of interacting with customers in my shop, even one who truthfully told me he had thought of robbing me, but decided to not do so because I had always treated him fairly. Never summoned to court in 32 years of working on cars for a living not even one summons.
Pop flew over Berlin and there were around 500 88 MM guns shooting at him. The Germans knew exactly where he would be when the projectiles were shot at his group of planes and he and his co-pilot were the two (of 16) who came back. The closest I came to real danger was running down a hot range to grab a child whose father let him run down range with 35 people shooting everything from shotguns or full auto. I didn't think I just acted, there was no time to think and that kid was my responsibility. It took me a week to recover from that single scream "Cease Fire".
I can spot a criminal driving down the highway. The universal symptom is lack of respect for others and their right to share the same road with the one who cares not whether they live or die.
The initial post to me demonstrated one glaring flaw. The owner running away from a fight, leaving his property to be defended by the victims. Poor preparation and planning caused every injury in that incident. that same owner was complicit in two deaths.
Stupidity.
Post 121 (from memory was one of several that impressed me as worth reading). Most were not worth reading, especially the back and forth's, between people who just needed to disregard others posts and give THEIR opinions.
If I ever voluntarily walk into a pawn shop or any other high risk environment I would carry my PPKS 380, hidden from view ( I have a permit and was a range officer). I would take time to scan for potential danger using my decades of interacting with customers in my shop, even one who truthfully told me he had thought of robbing me, but decided to not do so because I had always treated him fairly. Never summoned to court in 32 years of working on cars for a living not even one summons.
Pop flew over Berlin and there were around 500 88 MM guns shooting at him. The Germans knew exactly where he would be when the projectiles were shot at his group of planes and he and his co-pilot were the two (of 16) who came back. The closest I came to real danger was running down a hot range to grab a child whose father let him run down range with 35 people shooting everything from shotguns or full auto. I didn't think I just acted, there was no time to think and that kid was my responsibility. It took me a week to recover from that single scream "Cease Fire".
Last edited:
Based upon the rest of your reply, which I did not quote, I'm pretty sure you cannot . . .
Brother, quite frankly, we’re all total superhero magician operators in the Would-do Army.
Then reality happens, and you’re as good as luck, your training (hands-on, not “mindset” or YouTube or whatever) and your gear can be.
Having been in those situations before, there’s not a lot of room for “would” and there’s a lot of space for “did”.
If that adrenaline dump moment ever happens my glacier like reflexes will probably get my landing gear taken out.
I told Ruthie that if that happens to log on here so the enlightened can tell her what I did wrong.
I told Ruthie that if that happens to log on here so the enlightened can tell her what I did wrong.
Skyviking
Member
IIRC, the Aurora CCW "Hero" was the third of three casualties. He committed several tactical errors:
1. He ran to the sound of guns. Getting involved in third-party dust-ups is harmful to your health - both physical and financial.
2. He left cover after taking care of the problem he inserted himself into.
3. He approached the perp and relieved him of his firearm, which then got him killed by the po-lice - who coward in the sub-station and then peeked out after the guns fell silent - and then interjected themselves w/Deadly Force from a cracked-open doorway without challenging the "Suspect".
A CCW/CHL does not confer any law-enforcement powers on the holder/recipient.
Citizen's Arrest no longer exists in most jurisdictions, as per Case Law (Stare Decis), and Private Citizens are NOT Peace Officers.
There is no legal basis for a "warning shot."
That pistola is only to be used to defend oneself or an innocent third party from imminent, unavoidable, death or great bodily harm, so when the assailant(s) stop, we have to stop (keep Tennessee vs. Garner in mind).
1. He ran to the sound of guns. Getting involved in third-party dust-ups is harmful to your health - both physical and financial.
2. He left cover after taking care of the problem he inserted himself into.
3. He approached the perp and relieved him of his firearm, which then got him killed by the po-lice - who coward in the sub-station and then peeked out after the guns fell silent - and then interjected themselves w/Deadly Force from a cracked-open doorway without challenging the "Suspect".
A CCW/CHL does not confer any law-enforcement powers on the holder/recipient.
Citizen's Arrest no longer exists in most jurisdictions, as per Case Law (Stare Decis), and Private Citizens are NOT Peace Officers.
There is no legal basis for a "warning shot."
That pistola is only to be used to defend oneself or an innocent third party from imminent, unavoidable, death or great bodily harm, so when the assailant(s) stop, we have to stop (keep Tennessee vs. Garner in mind).
- Joined
- May 27, 2025
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 130
In the moment when something unexpected happens that requires you to draw your firearm there are a couple of things that will kill you. The first and most prominent is hesitation. He or She who hesitates, will lose. The next thing will be wondering what will happen during the encounter? Now is not the time to worry, now is the time to zen out and concentrate on what you are doing and do everything right so that the first shot counts, and your first shot needs to count.
While most criminals are notoriously inexperienced with handguns there is always that one who knows what they are doing or the lucky one who accidentally hits its target. Once the decision is made to draw your weapon you need to zone out and concentrate on nothing but making the shot count. I used to teach two to the chest, one to the head but don't do that anymore. One to the chest and the second shot to either the base of the neck, or to the crotch. The head is a small target and always moving, harder to hit than a high or low body shot.
Armor stops at the top of the chest leaving the neck and upper shoulders exposed. A hit in the neck will be a kill shot, and if it takes out the spine, instantly so. A shot to the crotch, which is also uncovered by most armor, gives you the testicles, as well as both thighs as targets. Femoral arteries are on the inside of each thigh, so while causing the leg to collapse which should make any shot taken go wild, the chances of hitting the testicles or femoral arteries will either disable the individual, making them wish that they took the hit in the artery or they will watch themselves bleeding out in a matter of moments. In either case, you win, they lose.
While most criminals are notoriously inexperienced with handguns there is always that one who knows what they are doing or the lucky one who accidentally hits its target. Once the decision is made to draw your weapon you need to zone out and concentrate on nothing but making the shot count. I used to teach two to the chest, one to the head but don't do that anymore. One to the chest and the second shot to either the base of the neck, or to the crotch. The head is a small target and always moving, harder to hit than a high or low body shot.
Armor stops at the top of the chest leaving the neck and upper shoulders exposed. A hit in the neck will be a kill shot, and if it takes out the spine, instantly so. A shot to the crotch, which is also uncovered by most armor, gives you the testicles, as well as both thighs as targets. Femoral arteries are on the inside of each thigh, so while causing the leg to collapse which should make any shot taken go wild, the chances of hitting the testicles or femoral arteries will either disable the individual, making them wish that they took the hit in the artery or they will watch themselves bleeding out in a matter of moments. In either case, you win, they lose.
How many times have you had to defend yourself against a violent criminal offender?
Shooting above and below vests, Kevlar or person-borne IED, is commonly taught for PSDs in conflict zones.
- Joined
- May 27, 2025
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 130
I take care to avoid situations where I might come into contact with a violent criminal offender, but these days it can happen about anywhere. As for violent offenders, there were a lot of them during two tours in Viet Nam. I never counted, but there were probably at least 50, maybe close to a hundred or more. They almost got me during TET 68, I earned the Purple Heart and several months at Fitzsimmons because I zigged when I should have zagged, but then again it's hard to outrun a machine gun.
- Joined
- May 27, 2025
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 130
In this situation there may not be a good solution, and it all depends on your situational awareness and location. The clerk had the attention of the shooter the moment that he walked into the store. The shot in the air was to intimidate anyone around, the clerk going for his gun sealed his fate, which escalated the situation. The shopper hiding was incidental, a witness. It didn't say where in the store they were. Anything said here is strictly speculation dependent upon the circumstances.
I most likely would have had my Sig P365 in a bra holster. The shooter would have scanned the store when walking in, and seeing a woman would have discounted her as a threat. While he was concentrating on murdering the clerk his attention would have been drawn away from anything else. During that time, which was probably six or more seconds I could have easily drawn the Sig from the bra holster and fired a well aimed shot at short range disabling or killing the violent criminal. One can never say for sure, but in practice I can draw from the bra holster and shoot a well aimed shot in around four seconds. Would this have been quick enough??? In any case it would have been better to try than to get shot in the head doing nothing. Best case, he would have been laying on the floor bleeding. Worst case he would have taken my Sig with him when he left.
I'm confused. One of these posts has you identifying as a female, another in a different forum has you carrying twice the ammo load of other soldiers and performing duties I thought were not available to females in the 60's. If I'm wrong, accept my apology . . .
Lew Archer
Member
(Apologies in advance for a long post--move on now if you haven't time or inclination. But if interested, read on, and thanks...)
If you remember the 1997 North Hollywood Bank of America shootout--where two heavily armed serial bandits hit the BofA with their usual MO: heavy take-over style robbery, firing rounds from a full auto rifle into the ceiling, herding the employees and customers into the safe, then gathering up their loot, all while wearing body armor, including some homemade armor worn by one of the subjects on his extremities--you can see not only another extreme example of a real life incident that would present huge dangers to anyone inside the bank, whether armed or not...but one which gives a worthwhile lesson about the value of after action review.
LAPD converged on the scene rapidly in great numbers, while the subjects were still in the bank, because patrol coppers in a passing black and white saw the bandits walking into the bank, dressed in black, ski masked, geared up---and carrying rifles.
Probable cause? Check.
Anyway, I remember an LA Times article which ran the next day with a photo of a motor officer who was situated behind the cover of an automobile. He had a six inch Smith and Wesson, .38 Special, blue steel, perhaps a Model 14, and he had it aimed in the direction of the bank robbers.
When those bandits realized the police were outside, they began a prolonged 45 minute or so gun battle with the cops, captured live on TV, as media helicopters circled overhead. Their rifles were capable of full auto fire and they fired the weapons in that mode, eventually moving out of the bank and to their car. One drove slowly down the street, while the other walked alongside, laying down fire. At the time, 911 calls led police to think there might be a third suspect, and that led to a long day of searches throughout the area, but it was just those two. They'd taken tranquilizers to calm themselves and psyched themselves up by watching the 1995 movie, "Heat", with its vivid scene depicting a shootout between LAPD and the robbery crew in that film. So, if what I describe reminds you of the film, it's no coincidence.
Like the movie's robbery crew, these two were repeat offenders. The February North Hollywood BofA robbery was the last in a long string of violent take-over BofA robberies in L.A. that had led to law enforcement nicknaming the pair the "High Incident Bandits". "High Incident" was the term local 911 dispatchers used to characterize the severity of certain incidents for responding officers.
Unlike the movie (and miraculously), though many police and citizens were wounded, none were killed. Police commandeered an armored car to rescue people. Patrol officers, in a black and white, drove into the line of fire to also rescue people. Much of this was watched by people in Los Angeles and across the country on TV, live. Several officers were later awarded Medals of Valor for their actions that day.
Anyway, the motor officer, if my memory serves me correctly, later told the press, he'd realized, "I'm in the wrong place with the wrong gun."
How did that one end? Well, the subject on foot had a rifle malfunction, threw away his rifle and drew his pistol, and was shot by police almost exactly as he committed suicide, a moment captured by news helicopters. The second subject, in a vehicle with a small arsenal of long guns, abandoned that car and carjacked a pickup truck. Arriving SWAT officers rolled up on that pickup, thinking they were about to rescue a victim--and came under heavy fire. The officers prevailed.
One officer skipped rounds from his long gun under the vehicle, striking the subject in the lower legs and disabling him. He was eventually taken in to custody and begged officers to kill him. He soon bled to death.
After that incident, LAPD reviewed their response. After action reports were made. One outcome was the introduction of the 'UPR"--the Urban Police Rifle--initially, a program to allow specially trained Sergeants to use Department approved or provided patrol carbines, of the AR type. Eventually, that program expanded to include any officer who underwent the training. This was a seminal incident leading many agencies to consider the patrol rifle, which today is as common as the buckshot loaded shotguns of LAPD's officers that day (LAPD did not generally use slugs, unless an officer had been to "slug school" and had been "certified" by that training to be competent to deploy slugs in a Department approved or issued shotgun).
A few years ago, I had the privilege of observing one of the rifle classes that LAPD developed for that purpose. First rate training. Another eventual development: medical/trauma gear for officers to be able to self treat injuries to stabilize themselves if wounded. Tourniquets, after long experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, which showed their value and proved that concerns of eventual amputation were unwarranted, are now central to the law enforcement responders' tactical and medical gear.
Anyway, another (and immediate) outcome of North Hollywood was the approval of .45 caliber handguns for those officers who completed the requisite training. At the time of the North Hollywood shootout, in the Los Angeles Police Department, .45 caliber pistols were limited to SWAT and an elite unit of detectives, the Special Investigation Section (SIS), whose mission was (and is) surveillance of armed and dangerous suspects involved in robbery, kidnapping, etc.
Caliber debates aside, shortly after North Hollywood, many officers took advantage of the policy change and purchased their own .45s, first the S&W Third Gen 4506, later the Glock 21, and later approved makes/models of the 1911 type, if they met the training requirements according to those later policy changes, which allowed for 1911s to be used by non-SWAT officers.
So, why did I go into all this? Because any major incident can and should lead a police agency to re-evaluate training and tactics and make changes based on that evaluation. Note that LAPD didn't review and say, "Hey, the way we do business is just fine, we don't need to make any changes to training, equipment, etc. All good here."
For the private individual, incidents such as the one the OP posted (and thank you for that, OP) offer real world events to consider. One way of thinking about this is to ask the question "What if?" Or, perhaps, better still, as some trainers suggest, to phrase the thought process not as a question, but a PLAN: "When____, then____".
I notice that some, including folks who cite their experience, have responded by affirming their confidence in their current set-up, skill set, etc. Others express why they wouldn't be in that situation in the first place...avoidance of at risk businesses, etc. Some complain the inquiry is not worthy of their time and thought. Ok, that's your business. Point taken. Carry on.
But, if you read the news account the OP posted and found it chilling to read, and it made you question your current approach, your competency, your planning, your thinking, your tactics, your situational awareness, your equipment...that's a good thing. It's worthwhile to, as the British say, "have a think" about an incident like this. And, it's worthwhile, in a thread like this, or other setting, to a have a conversation about it.
We can each imagine various situations, but they are just that-- "imagined"---they spring from our own minds. And, there IS value in that. Imagination IS useful, because it helps us think of possibilities that might not readily occur to us. After the September 11th terror attacks, the 9/11review committee cited the government's "failure of imagination" in its pre-attack level of preparedness. We see this again and again, after various disasters, where the pre-incident thinking by one government entity or another has been too narrow, and left agencies unprepared and caught flat footed when the unimagined crisis struck.
It is also useful to consider actual incidents, like the one the OP posted, because it gives us a unique opportunity to consider a specific and tragic event that HAPPENED. Again, I think it's a good topic for a thread like this, in a forum like this. There is, especially, an opportunity to think not just of ourselves and our gear--but the adversary.
Here, a stone killer. Consider him and what he does. He enters a business where the likelihood of armed resistance is high, opens fire to dominate the room, mortally wounds the clerk without hesitation, and then, on discovering a store patron hiding, executes that person without hesitation, without mercy, for whatever reason. And he does all this for what? To steal a few guns to sell for a little cash? And risks death, long imprisonment, etc.? His behavior, his willingness, his disregard for consequences, his petty motivation, tells you quite a lot about this particular human being and the danger such a person would present to us, whether we run, hide or fight.
This incident gives us an opportunity to not merely consider a SCENARIO--a pattern of facts-- but a pattern of behavior, by the type of individual we may face (whether armed or not) one day. Here, a person who was willing and perhaps wanting to kill, who was cold, ruthless and vicious. He's not some movie villain but a real life person who somehow reached that point from his birth however many years ago, to that horrible day. This is a person who acted without any of the normal restraints or concerns of people who aren't sociopathic.
So, for me, it's an opportunity to ask myself, honestly: How well prepared and equipped am I--mentally and physically--to deal with someone like that, in an incident like that? And, after reflection, to consider what changes could or should be made, whether to the software or the hardware. And, after all that, to actually make the indicated changes, which may involve overcoming some internal resistance to the prospect of change, for whatever reason.
Agencies think in terms of polices and practices. The after action review may lead to changes in both. Individuals can develop their own personal polices and practices, consistent with the law, of course, and sometimes do so after reviewing something awful that's happened, whether to themselves or to someone else.
In this particular case, neither victim thought their otherwise ordinary day would end the way it did.
Something to think about, as I go about my ordinary day, in my ordinary town.
If you remember the 1997 North Hollywood Bank of America shootout--where two heavily armed serial bandits hit the BofA with their usual MO: heavy take-over style robbery, firing rounds from a full auto rifle into the ceiling, herding the employees and customers into the safe, then gathering up their loot, all while wearing body armor, including some homemade armor worn by one of the subjects on his extremities--you can see not only another extreme example of a real life incident that would present huge dangers to anyone inside the bank, whether armed or not...but one which gives a worthwhile lesson about the value of after action review.
LAPD converged on the scene rapidly in great numbers, while the subjects were still in the bank, because patrol coppers in a passing black and white saw the bandits walking into the bank, dressed in black, ski masked, geared up---and carrying rifles.
Probable cause? Check.
Anyway, I remember an LA Times article which ran the next day with a photo of a motor officer who was situated behind the cover of an automobile. He had a six inch Smith and Wesson, .38 Special, blue steel, perhaps a Model 14, and he had it aimed in the direction of the bank robbers.
When those bandits realized the police were outside, they began a prolonged 45 minute or so gun battle with the cops, captured live on TV, as media helicopters circled overhead. Their rifles were capable of full auto fire and they fired the weapons in that mode, eventually moving out of the bank and to their car. One drove slowly down the street, while the other walked alongside, laying down fire. At the time, 911 calls led police to think there might be a third suspect, and that led to a long day of searches throughout the area, but it was just those two. They'd taken tranquilizers to calm themselves and psyched themselves up by watching the 1995 movie, "Heat", with its vivid scene depicting a shootout between LAPD and the robbery crew in that film. So, if what I describe reminds you of the film, it's no coincidence.
Like the movie's robbery crew, these two were repeat offenders. The February North Hollywood BofA robbery was the last in a long string of violent take-over BofA robberies in L.A. that had led to law enforcement nicknaming the pair the "High Incident Bandits". "High Incident" was the term local 911 dispatchers used to characterize the severity of certain incidents for responding officers.
Unlike the movie (and miraculously), though many police and citizens were wounded, none were killed. Police commandeered an armored car to rescue people. Patrol officers, in a black and white, drove into the line of fire to also rescue people. Much of this was watched by people in Los Angeles and across the country on TV, live. Several officers were later awarded Medals of Valor for their actions that day.
Anyway, the motor officer, if my memory serves me correctly, later told the press, he'd realized, "I'm in the wrong place with the wrong gun."
How did that one end? Well, the subject on foot had a rifle malfunction, threw away his rifle and drew his pistol, and was shot by police almost exactly as he committed suicide, a moment captured by news helicopters. The second subject, in a vehicle with a small arsenal of long guns, abandoned that car and carjacked a pickup truck. Arriving SWAT officers rolled up on that pickup, thinking they were about to rescue a victim--and came under heavy fire. The officers prevailed.
One officer skipped rounds from his long gun under the vehicle, striking the subject in the lower legs and disabling him. He was eventually taken in to custody and begged officers to kill him. He soon bled to death.
After that incident, LAPD reviewed their response. After action reports were made. One outcome was the introduction of the 'UPR"--the Urban Police Rifle--initially, a program to allow specially trained Sergeants to use Department approved or provided patrol carbines, of the AR type. Eventually, that program expanded to include any officer who underwent the training. This was a seminal incident leading many agencies to consider the patrol rifle, which today is as common as the buckshot loaded shotguns of LAPD's officers that day (LAPD did not generally use slugs, unless an officer had been to "slug school" and had been "certified" by that training to be competent to deploy slugs in a Department approved or issued shotgun).
A few years ago, I had the privilege of observing one of the rifle classes that LAPD developed for that purpose. First rate training. Another eventual development: medical/trauma gear for officers to be able to self treat injuries to stabilize themselves if wounded. Tourniquets, after long experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, which showed their value and proved that concerns of eventual amputation were unwarranted, are now central to the law enforcement responders' tactical and medical gear.
Anyway, another (and immediate) outcome of North Hollywood was the approval of .45 caliber handguns for those officers who completed the requisite training. At the time of the North Hollywood shootout, in the Los Angeles Police Department, .45 caliber pistols were limited to SWAT and an elite unit of detectives, the Special Investigation Section (SIS), whose mission was (and is) surveillance of armed and dangerous suspects involved in robbery, kidnapping, etc.
Caliber debates aside, shortly after North Hollywood, many officers took advantage of the policy change and purchased their own .45s, first the S&W Third Gen 4506, later the Glock 21, and later approved makes/models of the 1911 type, if they met the training requirements according to those later policy changes, which allowed for 1911s to be used by non-SWAT officers.
So, why did I go into all this? Because any major incident can and should lead a police agency to re-evaluate training and tactics and make changes based on that evaluation. Note that LAPD didn't review and say, "Hey, the way we do business is just fine, we don't need to make any changes to training, equipment, etc. All good here."
For the private individual, incidents such as the one the OP posted (and thank you for that, OP) offer real world events to consider. One way of thinking about this is to ask the question "What if?" Or, perhaps, better still, as some trainers suggest, to phrase the thought process not as a question, but a PLAN: "When____, then____".
I notice that some, including folks who cite their experience, have responded by affirming their confidence in their current set-up, skill set, etc. Others express why they wouldn't be in that situation in the first place...avoidance of at risk businesses, etc. Some complain the inquiry is not worthy of their time and thought. Ok, that's your business. Point taken. Carry on.
But, if you read the news account the OP posted and found it chilling to read, and it made you question your current approach, your competency, your planning, your thinking, your tactics, your situational awareness, your equipment...that's a good thing. It's worthwhile to, as the British say, "have a think" about an incident like this. And, it's worthwhile, in a thread like this, or other setting, to a have a conversation about it.
We can each imagine various situations, but they are just that-- "imagined"---they spring from our own minds. And, there IS value in that. Imagination IS useful, because it helps us think of possibilities that might not readily occur to us. After the September 11th terror attacks, the 9/11review committee cited the government's "failure of imagination" in its pre-attack level of preparedness. We see this again and again, after various disasters, where the pre-incident thinking by one government entity or another has been too narrow, and left agencies unprepared and caught flat footed when the unimagined crisis struck.
It is also useful to consider actual incidents, like the one the OP posted, because it gives us a unique opportunity to consider a specific and tragic event that HAPPENED. Again, I think it's a good topic for a thread like this, in a forum like this. There is, especially, an opportunity to think not just of ourselves and our gear--but the adversary.
Here, a stone killer. Consider him and what he does. He enters a business where the likelihood of armed resistance is high, opens fire to dominate the room, mortally wounds the clerk without hesitation, and then, on discovering a store patron hiding, executes that person without hesitation, without mercy, for whatever reason. And he does all this for what? To steal a few guns to sell for a little cash? And risks death, long imprisonment, etc.? His behavior, his willingness, his disregard for consequences, his petty motivation, tells you quite a lot about this particular human being and the danger such a person would present to us, whether we run, hide or fight.
This incident gives us an opportunity to not merely consider a SCENARIO--a pattern of facts-- but a pattern of behavior, by the type of individual we may face (whether armed or not) one day. Here, a person who was willing and perhaps wanting to kill, who was cold, ruthless and vicious. He's not some movie villain but a real life person who somehow reached that point from his birth however many years ago, to that horrible day. This is a person who acted without any of the normal restraints or concerns of people who aren't sociopathic.
So, for me, it's an opportunity to ask myself, honestly: How well prepared and equipped am I--mentally and physically--to deal with someone like that, in an incident like that? And, after reflection, to consider what changes could or should be made, whether to the software or the hardware. And, after all that, to actually make the indicated changes, which may involve overcoming some internal resistance to the prospect of change, for whatever reason.
Agencies think in terms of polices and practices. The after action review may lead to changes in both. Individuals can develop their own personal polices and practices, consistent with the law, of course, and sometimes do so after reviewing something awful that's happened, whether to themselves or to someone else.
In this particular case, neither victim thought their otherwise ordinary day would end the way it did.
Something to think about, as I go about my ordinary day, in my ordinary town.
Last edited:
I think blind eyes were turned to nurses packing heat in Vietnam.
I’m honestly somewhat concerned about armored assailants in groups kicking in doors and/or grabbing people from the street. That’s a no-win scenario for most CCW as they’re already armed, but if they start grabbing at people like me and mine I don’t know if there’s a reason not to fight either. I do know handgun rounds won’t do most plates, so I’m thinking aim high or low depending on opportunities and hope for the best???
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,987
- Reaction score
- 11,136
Don't get consumed and eaten up with gunfighting "what if" dreams. Be prepared, sleep well, and enjoy life. Don't worry about "plates". Probably not good for one's anxiety level anyway, but that won't bother the hardcore concealed carry hobbyists; those who are faddishly "situationally aware" rather than observant.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
