Previous Post
Next Post

RF recently sent me a link to Guest Post by Stacy Paxton on the Differences Defending against Male and Female Aggressors. I found it completely ridiculous. There’s almost nothing in the article I could let stand without challenging. Ms. Paxton’s main thesis: armed self-defenders need to have different strategies depending on the sex of the attacker. First, the source . . .

Chelsea, the woman my mother hired to train me, was a great instructor.  She was a veteran of Desert Storm.  Her civilian job (if you can call it that) was as a highly trained supervisor with a public safety department, whose members rotated positions as law enforcement officers, firefighters and paramedics every few months.  Chelsea had received advanced training in all three disciplines.  She said those skills, in conjunction with those she acquired as a military police officer, contributed greatly to her ability to train women how to protect themselves . . .

During the break, Chelsea said we’d be training on female targets next.  She said that engaging male targets was easier because all we generally had to do was punch out our arms at a more or less straight horizontal angle to put our gun on the level of a man’s chest, regardless of the range.

Chelsea proceeded to tell me that my primary target on a female attacker should be her lower pelvic region. I was horrified. I looked over to my mother, who gave me a couple of strong nods, indicating that I was indeed getting the straight scoop.  It certainly was not what I, as a teenage girl, wanted to hear.  But, there it was. And, I was learning it from two women with extensive training – and experience – in emergency medicine and defensive pistolcraft.

What follows is a justification for the “Fast Female Incapacitation Technique.” A technique that’s required because . . .

Men typically have considerably thicker bodies, with much greater bone density and muscle mass, than we do.  As a result, the same defensive hollow-point round that will stop reliably inside the chest of a male attacker is very likely to pass completely through a female attacker – with enough energy to jeopardize the life of any innocent bystander, unfortunate enough to be positioned behind the woman it initially strikes!

Again, this is due to our having less bone density and muscle mass in our pectoral (chest) and latissimus dorsi (back) musclature, which enclose our heart and lungs.

Another issue, of equal importance, is the fact that women typically have a MUCH higher tolerance for pain than the average man.  That point is critical, in and of itself, because it can enable a determined woman (with a chest wound) to continue her attack through a degree of pain that would stop most male attackers cold.

The Facebook link that inspired this post is notable by its absence. As presented at, The Fast Female Incapacitation Technique seems entirely based on shooting female attackers in the pelvis. And that’s because . . .

The uterus, which contains a significant amount of blood, is supported by complex network of arteries and other blood vessels. When perforated or ruptured, the uterus tends to convulse with intense spasms that serve to draw blood from other areas of the body and pump it out through the wound channel (among other routes). The rapid blood loss quickly creates a condition of hypovolemic shock. We’ve all heard the horror stories of women whom have bled to death, in doctor’s offices and even hospitals, when their uterus was nicked during “routine” gynecological procedures. Now, think about multiple gunshot wounds, under street conditions, and you’ll get the idea.

The ovaries act as the pain receptors in the application of FFIT shots.  We all know the various cliche’s about pains that only a woman can fully understand.  here’s childbirth. Then, there are the host of “female problems”, so excruciatingly painful that they make women want to cry, vomit and/or pass-out. These kinds of pain do not even begin to compare with what a female attacker, engaged with FFIT shots, would feel!

I think you get the picture. IMHO FFIT violates three fundamental principles that I hold in high regard when it comes to Personal Defense Training . . .

  1. Humans are humans; the major structures and behavior in the midst of a lethal attack are the same for men and women.
  2. Training efficiency is incredibly important; you should limit you number of techniques as much as possible to maximize the value of your training time.<
  3. Reliance on complex decision making in a fight should be limited; you should train to create as much consistency in your response to a lethal attack as possible.

I realize that specific extreme circumstances may require pushing aside those principles in favor of a greater good or significant urgency.

And maybe I missed something in biology class, my in-depth study of human anatomy in regard to combat and defensive skill development, the empirical evidence of how attackers are stopped by defensive shooting and/or something an ex-wife had tried to explain to me. So, I went to a panel of experts in both Firearms Training and Being Women.

Lynn Givens, Rangemaster, highlighted another section of the article:

Defensive pistol ammunition creates a fluid shock wave that radiates outward from the actual wound channel. The force of the fluid shock wave is sufficient to cause multiple ruptures of the uterus, if the bullet passes within three or four inches of it. It is this same shock wave that will transmit its energy to the nearby ovaries, which will instantly register a far higher degree of pain than even the most determined female attacker is likely to be able to withstand.

“This quote shows a complete lack of understanding of what pistol bullets do. A hit three to four inches from the uterus, or any other organ, will not damage that organ when pistol ammunition is involved. That stretching and tearing injury that is distant from the actual wound channel only occurs with high velocity rifle ammunition. The wounding mechanisms of pistol and rifle ammo are apples and oranges.

“The most common comment from people who survive the hits from pistol bullets is that they were surprised by how little pain was felt at the time. The wounds hurt much later.  The pain is felt after the adrenaline has worn off, but not at the time of injury. Extensive wound ballistics research shows that “pain” is not really a factor in most cases of rapid incapacitation by gunshot.

“The only two things that force rapid incapacitation by handgun bullets are hits to the Central Nervous System (CNS) and hits to major vascular structures like the heart, aorta, pulmonary arteries, etc. Those are in the chest, whether male or female.”

Gila Hayes, instructor at The Firearms Academy of Seattle, said agreed with the surface thesis: that we shouldn’t be mentally preparing to fight a particular gender, build, race, or other “type” of assailant. Beyond that, she found the arguments “accuracy-challenged” . . .

“One. The pelvic aiming area was very popular about 15 years ago, though I never heard it promoted for female incapacitation. It was merely suggested for breaking down skeletal structure against a mobile attacker, think rushing stab, etc. (something that was vigorously argued both pro and con) and for the high liquid content of the blood-rich organs as well as intestines, which it was thought would increase the hydrostatic shock value (also vigorously argued) and that relates to the argument in the blog.

“I have not heard experts such as Massad Ayoob promote pelvic aiming point as much as it seems I did in the past. once did. I cannot say I ever heard that its efficacy was proven one way or another. I think I’ll stick with center of mass shots, unless otherwise untenable.

“Two. The blogger’s ammo assertions are just plain odd. The light, fast hollow points (think 135 gr jhp for .45 acp; 90-110 gr jph for 9mm) will probably even fragment in tissue — let alone over-penetrate and go out the back even on a thin target. Her assertion, on the other hand, is probably absolutely correct if all ammunition is subsonic 147 gr for 9mm or Lord help us 230 gr round nose for .45. The claim that  ‘Virtually ALL self-defense ammunition is designed – from the moment of its inception – with MALE attackers in mind’ is hard for me to swallow.

“How different would it be shooting a thin male of 5′ 3” 130#–which describes people of a variety of ethnic extractions, especially if poorly nourished, as in colonial India—as it would be an “average” woman?

“Gender really doesn’t come into it, IMO, especially when the first expanding bullet is said to have been designed for small game and predates the Brits’ India Adventures. Besides, and here is the really amusing argument, are you going to have one magazine loaded for female attackers and carry another for male attackers? How will you make that work out?”

Kathy Jackson of The Cornered Cat agrees with me (and most sensible people) that having a plan is good. Having an over-complicated plan is not.

“Research has consistently shown that the more choices people must make, the more time it takes them to act (search “Hick’s Law” for one example). When your life depends on coming to a near-instant decision under extreme stress, you want to minimize the number of unnecessary choices you face — not increase them.

“That said, I would like to hear more about the history of this technique and see some research-based evidence that supports it.”

As the Brits say, that’s not bloody likely. Meanwhile, it’s important to note that yes, women can pose a lethal threat. Don’t be sexist in your situational awareness. But don’t forget that the fundamentals are fundamental because they’re fundamentally sound. Time-tested. Proven.

Whether you’re male or female facing a male or female attacker, you stray from the basics at your own peril.

Rob Pincus owns and operates ICE Training. Click here for more information.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Man, not only do I have to worry about zombies these days but now unstoppable female attackers that don’t feel pain. Hornady, are you listening?

  2. Wow…this is probably the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week. And I watched the DNC convention, so the bar is set pretty high!

    Besides, I’d like to see someone explain to the cops or a jury why the shot a woman three times in the uterus.


        • Duh. Because politics is a team sport! If I’m a Democrat, the Republicans are perpetually ignorant and only tools of the super wealthy. If I’m a Republican, the Democrats will steal all your money and make your babies gay. My team can do no wrong, and their team can do no right. Didn’t your party representatives tell you this?

          It can’t possibly be the case that each president or administration does some things that are good and some that are bad. They’re simply “retards” because they’re not my party.

        • Given that I’m registered as unaffiliated, I suppose they’re having trouble finding me. Of course, that has nothing to do with my comment on the nonsensical false dilemma you constructed regarding the other poster’s criticism of freak show that was the DNC.

        • And the reason I refer to The One as a retard isn’t that he doesn’t agree with me; it’s that he can’t string four words into a cogent sentence without help, despite allegedly being a professor of law.

        • Ahh, so *you’re* that elusive unicorn that both campaigns are salivating over. Don’t worry, I’m sure representatives from both sides will do their best to find you. My phone rings at least a half-dozen times a day, but they don’t seem to get the message that I’m somehow never home.

          And, yes, guilty as charged. It was nonsensical, although clearly it was designed to provoke.

          As for Obama’s oratory, I’m quite surprised that you feel that way. He’s generally regarded as an excellent public speaker and quick on his feet, regardless of political inclination. It’s partially what makes him so persuasive to so many people. If you feel that Obama is a “retard” because of his speaking ability, I’m dying to know what you call George W. and what you think of him.

        • Bush was Churchill compared to Obama.

          However, note that I didn’t really say anything about Obama’s speaking ability; he delivers his nonsense passably when someone else has written it for him–albeit in a ludicrous folksy cantor that rational people should find insulting. In contrast, Bush was bad at prepared remarks, but at his best when speaking plainly and unprompted. People who claimed Bush was stupid did so because they were “progressives” and therefore believe as a matter of faith that anyone not in lockstep with them is some combination of stupid or evil or both. My claim that Obama is retarded (obviously I don’t think he is actually retarded) is based on the fact that he’s simply the most confused, ignorant, dishonest president the United States have had since the abolition of slavery. The man is a buffoon, and I’m shocked every time he manages to appear publicly for a half an hour without shitting himself.

          I disagree with many Republicans about many things, but the Democrats are terrifying lunatics, and they must be stopped. So no, I wouldn’t say both parties are salivating over me.

        • As an illustration, consider your attempts at constructing straw men of the parties’ positions as they would be expressed by the other party.

          You’re right that the Democrats claim that “Republicans are perpetually ignorant and only tools of the super wealthy.” That’s any accurate recitation of how Democrats portray their adversaries. However, Republicans don’t actually claim that any significant number of Democrats want to turn babies gay (though I am able to cite “progressives” for whom that is a stated goal). It’s not really fair to portray the claim: “democrats want to take all your money” as a straw man, given that democrats increasingly refuse to recognize ownership of any property in any context.

        • “bush was Churchill…”
          I have read and heard some remarkably dumb comments before, but this is just asinine. Maybe you aren’t familiar with Bush’s wonderful “Bushisms”. You know gems like,”fool me once, Shame on-shame on you. Fool me twice… can’t get fooled again!” Or possibly that speech he gave on the flight deck with “Mission Accomplished” in the background. Perhaps I just “misunderestimate” Bush’s mastery of the English language. Say what you want about the man, but at least he accomplished his goal of “human beings and fish co-existing peacefully. I personally think his presidency is best summed up by this,”In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending on a recession.” Maybe his parents should have asked the question, ” is our children learning?” before sending him to one of the best universities in the U.S.

    • lol I am surprised you can still function!
      Just kidding..
      I actually listened on radio to most of the speeches. A few I had to turn off. Really the idea of vomiting all over my car was not a good thing.

      This article while on the surface tries to explain a difference, in reality you want to practice hitting the same area all the time. If you don’t have a gun and using hand to hand yes then some physical differences come into play. But with a firearm, a head shot is a head shot is a head shot. Major organs are usually in the same place.
      Just to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing, what if the woman had a hysterectomy? Then what?

  3. Sigh, some people… The whole point of why I train to shoot center mass, is so that I don’t have to stop and think about, that and it gives me the largest margin of error… A uterus shot? Really? If you’re going to take the time and aim?! Over a head shot? I think there’s something a bit more sinister behind this concept than simply stopping the threat.

  4. Hogwash, a C##t shot is the dumbest thing ive ever heard of. Aim center mass or if you have the skill and the range is favorable the head. Tell the cop you aimed for her girl region and see what happens…

  5. i think our training and mindset should be flexible enough to adjust our plans and tactics on the fly. i was hunting squirrels with a 22 rifle when i encountered an agressive dog pack. on another squirrel outing i got within a few feet of a black bear, again with a 22.
    adjusting to the differences in a large male attacker to a petite femal attacker should be at least on the agenda for your training. the problem with 1 size fits all is that it doesn’t. ymmv.
    ps, the bear and i reached a peaceful solution. the dogs and i didn’t. a 22 will drop a large k9 with 1 shot.

  6. So a womyn’s pain tolerance makes her heart, lungs, tits, and sternum immune to gunfire? Holy shit no wonder the turrorists hide behind womyn….they’re bulletproof! Until you hit uterus.

    F*cking stupid for so many reasons.

  7. “A hit three to four inches from the uterus, or any other organ, will not damage that organ when pistol ammunition is involved.”

    I disagree, depending on the round’s velocity and the ability of said round to dump all its kinetic energy quickly.

    “Defensive pistol ammunition creates a fluid shock wave that radiates outward from the actual wound channel. The force of the fluid shock wave is sufficient to cause multiple ruptures of the uterus, if the bullet passes within three or four inches of it.”

    I agree, again depending on the round’s velocity and the ability of said round to dump all its kinetic energy quickly.


    • With the exception of perhaps CNS tissue and bone, most human tissue is quite compressible, and will readily re-expand after quick, temporary deformation. The temporary cavitation you see in ballistic gelatin is very impressive, but does not create nearly the permanent damage you might imagine to actual tissue.

      • The damage can extend far from the surrounding tissue. It even has to do in some instances to a vascular overpressure pulse, to name just one of the effects. Read the study :). It is controversial but make sense.


        • I did, actually. And in terms of CNS tissue, I believe they’re spot on. It’s one of the reasons coup/contrecoup injuries can be so devastating.

          But with non-CNS tissue, it doesn’t seem that the rapid compression/decompression from the hydrostatic shock causes much permanent damage. They simply deform and reform without nearly as much damage as would seem intuitive.

  8. Unless she’s pregnant, her uterus is typically around the size of a small pear. If she’s post-menopausal, it’s closer to the size of an egg. How realistic is it to think you will hit that organ from distance under stress?

    And if she is pregnant (and, of course, it may not be readily visible yet), do you really want to explain to a jury why you aimed for her womb? Due to ridiculous laws written by people with no knowledge of medicine, you could also be charged with murder or attempted murder for the fetus.

  9. First of all, I’ve never bought that crap that women have a higher pain threshold than men. If women were actually tougher than men in any kind of practical manner, other than abstaining from sex, you would see them kicking ars in the NFL or UFC. Second, I’m not going to shoot a woman in the who-ha unless I miss or pull a shot low – I don’t ever want to explain that crap to a jury. Ever.

    • You seem to confuse pain tolerance with physical ability. You don’t see women in the UFC or NFL because they don’t have the same physical capabilities, such as strength and musculature, as men, not because they’re unable to withstand the pain.

      • No, in fact I am not. I’m comparing that to every woman I’ve ever seen hurt, to the pain tolerances I’ve seen amongst male Marines vs. females, and the same in LEO and general life experiences – fighting, boxing, and wrestling. I’ve seen studies that go both ways, and the vast majority of men are a whole lot tougher pound for pound than women. Perhaps that’s politically incorrect, but frankly I don’t care. Perhaps in a lab things are different, but a 150 pound man beats a 150 pound woman in a fight nine times out of 10, and fighting is painful.

        Perhaps anathesiologists adjust their dosages differently for men vs. woman. Fine. Perhaps men complain more or rate their pain differenlty on the hospital 1-10 scale. There is your pain tolerance deal. The flip side in this article is in a tactical situation such as this article, where women are nearly universally less strong than men. In fact, women are actually more likely to fight on the street than men, because they are taken less seriously when they start throwing punches. That is based upon working the streets, not in a lab.

        Regardless, some 120 pound female as pictured does not pose an overall greater threat than a 120 pound man unless she is a much more trained with whatever weapon(s) she is using, and I’m not going to intentionally target her uterus.

    • Yeah, it’s objectively untrue, as confirmed by multiple studies. It’s also not true that Asians have a higher than average pain tolerance.

      • What about redheads? They have a higher pain tolerance than a blondie ( So are we going to do nothing but head shots to gingers? (Puts ’em in the zombie category). How about a zipper technique where we start shooting at the pelvis and work our way to the noggin? Hopefully that will include every sort of color, texture and type of 2-legged threats we’d come across. Rob’s too nice to the female trainer. Bogus is bogus. If you have to secure a place in the training world with wild and outlandish claims, expect someone to call BS on you.

  10. So instead of aiming for center mass, which doesnt change with regards to sex, race, color, creed, religion, etc, they’re (she is) advising that in DGU you aim for specific regions based on sex of the attacker… Wow… So in all honesty you got a 50/50 chance of making the right decision. When split seconds count, shoot for what you know doesnt change. Unless the BG was born with his aorta on the other side of his body, you have a 100% of making the best decision by choosing to aim for center mass.
    THREAT! – *bang*…*bang*…*bang*…*bang*
    THREAT! Please hold…
    if (this.attackerSex = man) {
    myAim.position = male
    } else {
    myAim.position = female

    or whatever… dont forget dogs, cats, large game, birds, clays, paper, steel, etc etc etc…

    Center mass will always be center mass. You dont shoot an attack in the nuts to prevent him from having kids, why would you shoot a woman in the pelvis to ruine her vagina? makes no sense

    • Even if they were born with situs inversus (a mirrored organ pattern), it still makes sense to aim for center mass. The majority of the aorta runs straight down the body pretty close to the center.

  11. “As a result, the same defensive hollow-point round that will stop reliably inside the chest of a male attacker is very likely to pass completely through a female attacker – with enough energy to jeopardize the life of any innocent bystander,”

    citation please… Ithe FBI reports show nothing with regards to “injuries sustained by bystanders due to over penetration”

    not to mention she’s talking about hollow points… they loose a lot of speed as they expand. Bah…

  12. between the heart, sternum, ribs, and spine, there’s plenty enough to aim at on man or woman that will prevent over penetration…. the notion of aiming somewhere else is dumb, the heart is going to be a bigger target that the uterus in most women…. I know which one I’d rather put a bullet through if my life depended on it…. and if I miss the heart directly, there’s nothing else near the uterus that will bleed like the big fat vessels running near the heart…

    In general I think over penetration with decent self defense ammo is very rare, and I can’t imagine there’s much energy left to do damage with even if it does happen.

  13. Love how they basically pump this “Shoot here for men, shoot here for women” and then at the very end they clearly state the obvious way to shoot..

    ““The only two things that force rapid incapacitation by handgun bullets are hits to the Central Nervous System (CNS) and hits to major vascular structures like the heart, aorta, pulmonary arteries, etc. Those are in the chest, whether male or female.””
    Those are in the chest, whether male or female

    I rest my case…

  14. I’m filing this with all those “here’s how you apply first aid to a pregnant female” blocks of instruction. When I have to treat one, or one shoots at me, I will worry about it.

  15. This is more of that, “Women are tougher than men because they give birth” garbage. It’s all crap. For once I agree with Pincus.

  16. It reads like one of those ads that used to be in the back of Black Belt magazine. There’s no way this thing was intended to be taken seriously.

  17. The uterus is like a beautiful flower that is fragile and nurturing, and life-giving and through it passes the soul of every woman and blah blah blah

  18. If women have higher pain tolerances why do they so often ask for epidural injections while giving birth? Watch this video, this guy isnt screaming for a epidural and what he went thru is worse than giving birth.

    Still don’t believe me? Punch your wife in the arm, and then your best friend, see who complains about the pain, and who laughs it off and hits you back.

  19. Hunters have been downing mammals of all sizes with firearms for a couple centuries now. They seem to have it figured out mammalian kill zones pretty well through extensive trial and error.

    Any time I see these discussions I wonder why non-hunters feel the need to reinvent the wheel for a particular mammal that happens to walk on its hind legs?

  20. Yes, female anatomy does center the blood flow in the lower abdominal cavity, but…
    The previous poster’s have kicked this one square in the jewels. I do not ever want to explain why I shot a woman in the uterus. The scalding rain of shit that would result from that is the very thing that nightmares are made of.
    Not to mention the fact that while an attack is happening, the aggressor is already jacked up on adrenalin and the situation is only going to get worse until the blood pump or the control center are destroyed (heart, central nervous system). The last time I checked, those two systems converge in (wait for it) center mass. That’s right, put one ore two in the ten ring and the bad things tend to just go away. As for what stands behind the target…
    Ask the NYPD.
    Judicious marksmanship is something we all hope for, but when push comes to shove, the finer principles of man start to really shine. Principles like panic and desperation. For those zen master’s among us, perhaps this is when alternate target areas look more appealing as the target spins and the back stop starts to clear. At that point, the “zipper” is run and whatever threat was faced becomes a pile of rapidly cooling meat…
    Is there a “One size fits all” threat stopper? No. That whole situational awareness thing has a bunch of nifty little riders attached to it like collateral damage and responsibility.
    My simple words are only to impress upon the reader one basic idea: Situations are all the same in one way, they are all different. Do not try to use a cookie cutter approach to solve all of your problems.

  21. While I’m not advocating this silly technique or the idea of hydrostatic shock with handgun rounds causing significant tissue damage, I do think whatever pressure pulse there might be would be more than enough to simulate a kick to the old ‘nads. Ouch.

    Also while still advocating center mass for the main target (for the purpose of 99.9% of anticipated civilian DGUs), I am aware of a highly trained military trainer who is training civilians to include threats from armored individuals. In this case, he advocates the hips as a primary target.

  22. “is the fact that women typically have a MUCH higher tolerance for pain than the average man”

    A man commented on one of the men’s movement blogs that a woman told him no man has ever suffered more pain in any combat injury ever than a woman giving birth.

    Forget worrying about Zombies. When the Amazons and Valkyries re-awaken all men are doomed I tell you. All of us.

  23. Brain-pain for zombies, as I don’t want them getting back up.

    Center mass for unarmored BGs.

    The weakest coverage for armed BGs

  24. Center mass certainly has its place, but if you look at the actual vasculature, you will see that what you are really aiming at is the center line anywhere from the forehead to just below the belly button; shots should be aligned to the spine. The descending aorta lies on the left side of the spine at the back of the abdomen, and the vena cave (return flow) is on the other side of the spine. These two major major blood vessels split at or just below the level of the navel, sending branches down each leg, and thus both cross over the spine and each other just below the belt buckle. Aiming for the belt, or just below it, gives you a shot at rupturing both major blood vessels with a single bullet. And anything above that will likely disrupt a major vessel all the way up to the chest.

    I think that you should aim for “center of spine”. I think it is probably a rare case where the attacker is standing square to you, giving you the perfect CM shot–instead the attacker will likely be turned in one direction or another. If you hit the sternum on a target turned 45 degrees, you may just miss any significant vessel. But aim through the target to the spine intersects those structures.

    • Really? Please enlighten us with what you know of that lady’s character, history and intellect. We’ll wait.

      Or, offer her an apology and get on-topic.

  25. Ms. Paxton’s ideas are some of the silliest things I’ve ever seen, especially in the sense that they’re not backed up by logic, common sense or peer-reviewed medical research.

    In every single peer-reviewed research paper on pain perception, sensitivity and tolerance, women, across the board, are *more* sensitive to pain and are able to tolerate it *less* than men. Popular social memes aside, birth, while it can be painful, still isn’t as painful as a 2nd/3rd degree burn, nor does the pain from birth exceed or last longer than the pain during the recovery period from a 2nd/3rd degree burn. Burns are fairly common across all walks of life – you don’t have to throw a rock too far to find someone who knows a person with major burn damage. Let’s not even get into trauma that cause permanent limb damage or limb loss.

    A pelvic shot sounds good in theory, but if you want a CNS or artery hit, there’s easier places to aim for. The whole ‘hydrostatic shock’ thing is silly – short of a 20mm shell, hydrostatic shock isn’t going to do enough immediate damage to matter. People have taken embarrassing amounts of bullets and survived because they didn’t taken any CNS damage, or they got to the ER before they bled out. In some cases, damage to the brain and spinal cord didn’t disable the person permanently or even temporarily (Phineas Gage comes to mind).

    Plus, gender-based targeting sounds horrible to me, and I don’t imagine it’d run any better before a jury or judge.

  26. Apparently Ms. Paxton has never considered shooting at some of the moo cows I’ve dated. A hip shot is dicey at best and if their knockers hang low enough we’re talking 300 mag territory.

  27. 1. There is no way anyone can become an expert in policing, firefighting, and emergency medicine. Sorry, but anyone making that claim is an idiot.

    2. No female desert storm vet can lay much of a claim of special experience of using deadly force.

    3. It’s a myth that women have higher pain tolerance.

    4. If shooting in the pelvic region worked so good, hunters would have been using that technique long ago.

    This instructor is a fraud.

  28. How about this, women are only the attacker in maybe 1 in 50 DGUs why practice for something that you have such a small chance of ever seeing. Kind of like practicing for bear attacks if you live in New York City.

  29. Don’t know about pain thresholds and don’t really care, if enough blood pumps out fast enough there should be relatively little pain anyway.
    The DGU technique I practice most and which feels most natural from a holstered start is three shots as the gun comes up to target. In order of abdomen, chest, head (if possible or just double tap the chest). My first shot will almost always be at stomach level since that is the level where my weapon first presents, and allows for the quickest first shot in a close up encounter.

  30. I tried to put my rebuttal into a statement but there were to many points for my meager writing abilities. Tick marks to the rescue.

    -Hitting a target ~the size of a pear under pressure would require a cartoonish amount of focus, speed, accuracy, skill, zen, and general badassitude.
    -Even if you could reliably aim for the uterus, it’s buried under what is likely to be the second thickest and strongest region of muscle (abdominal) in a females body. Not to mention fat and clothing.
    -Assuming you could reliably aim for AND hit the uteru;
    (a) You still aren’t guaranteed a debilitating shot. “It hurts a lot.” doesn’t count. I’m comfortable in my assumption that any woman that’s going to attack my 6′ 270# self will either be armed or in an altered state of mind. Pain alone will not stop that threat.
    (b) Why the fvck would you not aim for the t-zone ( ) and instantly kill any man, woman, or man/woman?

  31. Aim for the “A” zone: Upper chest (above the stomach) or center of head (POA on tip of nose).

    Problem solved. That is how the US military and police stops assailants even with full metal jacket rounds. A woman would be no exception. A 9mm placed in the upper chest will result in dead meat.

    pelvis shots are only applicable in my opinion during close quarters combat, when a assailant is physically grabbing you, trying to wrestle your gun from you. a couple of shots in the pelvis will stop them long enough for you to widen the distance and take subsequent A zone shots. too easy.

  32. Can’t link in the supporting evidence right now as I’m posting from work but here’s my primary complaint about the “pelvic shot” theory.

    (PS. If someone would be good enough to link to the statistics in support of this it would be appreciated.)

    The idea that women have a “much higher tolerance for pain than men” is not correct. In some circumstances, specifically during child-birth studies have in fact proven that women are capable of tolerating much more pain than men are. Unfortunately in nearly every other concievable circumstance from what I remember science has shown that women are capable of tolerating significantly LESS pain than men.

    Secondly pain is not what causes an attacker to “stop” therefore determining the “stopping-power” of a round but rather damage to the heart, lungs or nervous system. Guess where all of those things happily coincide in both sexes with astounding regularity? That’s right, center mass, literally center mass where the heart lies over the spine which houses the spinal cord and the lungs are close enough that deviation to the left or right of center mass will still cause damage.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here