Accuracy is a function of distance. The closer you are to a target, the easier it is to be accurate. So, if you’re facing an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, and you want to perforate the perp, the closer you are, the more likely your rounds will hit home. (Not to mention the speed, surprise and violence of action factor). That’s the way our resident war hero Jon Wayne Taylor rolls. But JWT’s soldiering embedded that habit deep in his subconscious mind. I think I’d consider that possibility in a defensive gun use, but who knows? How about you? Could you/would you move towards a threat?
Home Personal Defense DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Move Towards A Threat?
Pithy and on point.
“The sub closed the distance before the torpedo could arm itself.” – Bart Mancuso
“So that’s it?”
Unless you’re moving out of cover/concealment against a foe armed with a firearm… Yeah… Get up close and personal. Chances are, you’re going to be there at the start anyway, but it never hurts to make sure. I use IDPA cardboard for advance and shoot drills.
That being said, avoid the “Come at me Bro” drill.
You guys running towards the threat don’t shoot us guys running away from the threat. Please.
I would move toward the threat only under two scenarios. If the only way out is through the threat or if I was in a situation where I had to defend someone. Otherwise, the best self preservation strategy is to seek cover or withdraw.
There is a better solution to the accuracy problem. Carry a gun with a decent sight radius and longer barrel so you can increase accuracy at any distance. Junk the pistol for your primary carry and carry biggest gun you can properly conceal. If you tell me you can’t carry at least a compact sized pistol you are wearing the wrong clothes.
I think people who carry pocket pistols fundamentally agree with Sheriff Pelto. The don’t expect ever to use it which is a reasonable assumption until it isn’t.
Should read “junk the pocket pistol””
Suggestion: fix the editing process so you always go back and fix things.
Apples and oranges. Unbridled aggression in a soldier is a good thing. For a citizen it becomes more problematic. Distance is your friend when the bad guy has a handgun. And most criminals carry handguns.
You may actually be increasing the bad guys chances of inflicting damage on you by assualting towards the threat.
“Unbridled aggression in a soldier is a good thing.”
Controlled agression is a good thing. In the military forward movement is supported by supporting fire, unlikely in a civilian vs criminal encounter. And drawing on a drawn gun a no-no. I would comply and wait for a distraction or create one…peeing on myself, anal leakage and the antigunner self defense mantra of throwing up.
Now that General Petraeus has his jammies on with the Mark and Gabby show perhaps he can chime in on how to handle the baddies. Also keep in mind the Sunni “awaking” was Petraeus handing out billions in cash.
I’ve got these amazing fire sticks. They make things I point it at scream and bleed. AT DISTANCE.
Since I actually have moved toward a threat, I’ll have to say yes, I could. Whether I would depends on the (tactical) situation.
Exactly. In combat your mission is (generally) to remove the threat because it is not otherwise going to go away. The soldier’s job is to find the threat, move towards it and eliminate it. If he does not then the enemy is very likely to move towards him and eliminate him.
In a non-military scenario your job is to not get shot. Unless you are convinced the threat will not end unless it is decisively eliminated or that the threat will harm others after you leave the point is NOT to move in close and ensure the kill, it is to take only that action which is necessary to “stop the threat”, which may often include making him duck for cover while you in-ass the AO. If he/she is killed dead in the process, benefit.
Lots of prosecutors interpret the law in the same way. They may prosecute you if you advance and shoot, unless you can prove a compelling reason for doing so such as preventing the perpetrator from harming someone else.
Only if i have to.
Took me some time as a civvy to get out of the mindset, practice and muscle memory of “seek out and close with”. Become an expert instead at avoiding trouble, being aware of your surroundings and providing first aid. Distance is time, and time is better decisions. Unless I’m cornered or one of my loved ones is in peril, I’m not getting combative. I am not my brothers keeper. Any entertainment of the other always leads my mind to my becoming considered a threat by other well meaning citizens or responding law enforcement. Keep it holstered and be moving in the other direction. To each their own.
And let’s not forget that if you don’t live in a SYG state moving toward the threat when you have a way out may land you in legal jeopardy.
Just cause you could, don’t mean you should. Circumstances dictate tactics.
No…. You are better at shooting than the bad guy. Why would you ever brake cover and move towards him? It only makes it easier for him to shoot you…… If you are the good guy, then time and distance are your friend, because more good guys will come running to your aid……. The only time you should brake cover in a gun fight is if you absolutely need to use yourself to “drive a wedge” between the threat and an innocent person (i.e. wife,kids, etc).
I suppose there are some scenarios where it would be advantageous to advance on a threat … although I will admit that I am having trouble imagining them.
At any rate, advancing on the threat can be beneficial for two reasons:
(1) It messes with the attacker’s head and keeps him/her mentally off-balance.
(2) It reduces the amount of time the attacker has to decide what to do or to compensate for any failures like a jammed firearm.
Having said all that, commenter Bollocks Troy makes a good point that armed observers could misconstrue your advance as an attack and come after you.
Someone quoted Jimmy Hoffa saying “Run from a knife. Run towards a gun.”
And we all know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. No, wait, we don’t.
In a self defense scenario, the first imperative isn’t to shoot the BG. That’s a tactic. The imperative is to avoid getting shot by the BG. That’s the mission.
When YOU are the target, and the BG is the shooter, the closer you are to him, the easier it is for him to shoot you. Besides, I’m likely a better shot than the BG, so distance is my friend — unless it’s his rifle against my handgun. Then, yes, I need to get close.
“The closer you are to a target, the easier it is to be accurate.” That’s a pretty good rule of thumb, but it isn’t true only for outgoing. It’s also true for incoming.
“And what direction were you moving when you fired?”
“Backwards. That’s usually the way I go when I’m backing away.”
“True Grit”. Nice.
What Ralph said. Advance if me and mine need it…
One of the first things I learned in ROTC is that nobody can outrun a bullet.
I was taught in ROTC and at IOBC that the proper response to a near ambush is to CHARGE THROUGH IT, with as much force and violence as you can bring to bear.
An attack against your person pretty much defines “near ambush”.
I may get shot, but it won’t be in the back, and it for damned sure won’t be in the back of the head while on my knees, execution style.
You will 100% die in an L shaped near ambush if you go to cover. You will 99% die in a near ambush if you charge through it and may make life difficult for them by inflicting casualties.
There is a 90% percent chance that you will survive an armed encounter in the USA if bullets start flying and you freeze up. 98% survival rate if you go to cover. And almost 100% if you go to cover and return fire…..
Apples and oranges my friend.
“I was taught in ROTC and at IOBC that the proper response to a near ambush is to CHARGE THROUGH IT”
Of course. Because the military needs cannon fodder, and you’re it.
I stopped believing anything that the military said when they tried to ship my friends home from Vietnam in cardboard coffins.
Move sideways. Most attackers can adapt to the forward/backward motion but sideways is a lot harder to hit, Practice shooting while moving sideways. It could save your life.
I will say that years ago when I used to play paintball, charging at the right time was a very successful strategy…most of the time. Every now and then, it was disastrous. But the stakes there were only wounded pride.
As a former military officer, I have always liked the saying, “When the enemy is in range, so are you.”
If I can get away, behind cover or at an angle, that is my first choice. But of course, it depends on the situation. You can’t make a general rule. You may have to stand and shoot or shoot and move. I won’t rule out advancing, but I think it would be my last choice of strategies.
If your ever in that situation, u should care not about potential legal implications. Survive the fight is priority numero uno. I’ll take judged by 12 any day than carried by six. Do what it takes to survive and let the chips fall where they may afterward
Roll for initiative.
It all depends. Most people are lousy shots. Closing with a shooter makes their job easier.
I train at short distances, but I also train at longer distance with my handgun. I can do 25 yard center of mass shots with my Taurus TCP. With my XDM or Glock, it’s 50 yards. Unless the shooter has a rifle or trains a lot, their return fire will likely miss.
FYI, Army doctrine for tanks is to remain at stand-off distance beyond the effective range of your enemy.
MOVING TOWARDS THE THREAT provides the same “closer shot advantage” to both parties. Bad idea. Your violence of action movement may suprise the threat but will not stop it.
Engage AND MOVE TO ADVANTAGE: cover (protection/patrial protection while returning fire), egress to exit: cover your six, fight your way to secondary weapons in house, vehicle, dropped by others.
The mentality of fighting through a ambush is fine when you have a squad or platoon that charges the direction of fire since you are in a kill zone when SHTF. Hopefully you and or a few of the bobbing targets will get through and route the attack. One on on not a good idea as you will be the primary and only target focused upon.
I recommend Mr. Taylor try his recommended tactic in single simunitions foe on foe with with the who and when suprise factor initiated by the sim threat. Please post video result.