During a pre-interview for a televised gun rights show-down, a researcher asked me “What do you do if someone’s already got a gun pointed at you?” It’s the same gun control idea as it ever was: if you can’t use a firearm for self-defense successfully why should you have one? I know: that’s seven kinds of stupid. In the interests of time, let’s cut to the quick. If you’re behind the curve in a self-defense situation—if you’re out-drawn, out-gunned, out-maneuvered and out of options—panic! Hear me out . . .
According to the wikipedia hive mind, “panic is a sudden sensation of fear which is so strong as to dominate or prevent reason and logical thinking, replacing it with overwhelming feelings of anxiety and frantic agitation consistent with an animalistic fight-or-flight reaction.”
In other words, panic means doing something really dumb really quickly. Think cornered baboon attacking a leopard. Like every other animal behavior, panic exists because of natural selection. If it didn’t confer an evolutionary advantage animals wouldn’t panic.
In the example above, the Pittsburgh store clerk facing an armed aggressor didn’t exhibit the normal behavior for people in his situation. He didn’t cower or capitulate. He grabbed the bad guy’s gun and then grabbed the perp’s head and slammed it into the counter. And won the day.
I’ll bet you dollars to donuts the store clerk has no recollection whatsoever of the moment of truth. He doesn’t know what “made” him attack. Suffused with adrenalin, faced with a life or death situation, he didn’t act. He reacted. He attacked.
An armed defender facing a lethal threat shouldn’t rule out the possibility of attacking his or her attacker. Yes, that’s another way of recommending speed, surprise and violence of action as a viable self-defense strategy—with a difference. I’m saying that it might be best to “allow” yourself to panic.
I know: an armed self-defender should get off the X, conserve ammo, look for cover and concealment, slow down, aim, etc. But there are times when the situation is desperately dire. At that point, you might not have the time or ability to think your way out of trouble. It might be best to simply surrender yourself to balls-out fear and aggression and let loose the dogs of war.
How will you know? Who knows? But whatever you do, don’t get stuck in a psychological loop of “I shouldn’t be afraid. Why am I afraid? I shouldn’t be afraid.” As Susan Jeffers said, feel the fear and do it anyway. Even if that means letting the fear tell you what to do.
As always, good luck with that.
Isn’t The New Republic the same magazine that allowed Stephen Glass to publish article after article of investigative reporting without fact checking any of them? Dozens of articles came entirely from Glass’s imagination–articles about places and events he’d never been to and interviews with people who didn’t exist. There was a movie made about it called Shattered Glass.
I feel bad for the firefighter. He was probably just a CCW trying to buy a pack of smokes or pick up a moon pie and a pint of milk. Liberal weirdo store clerk by chance glimpsed his concealed carry and went into panicked baboon mode. Then told everyone he was trying to rob the store.
Whaa?
This video is proof you don’t need a gun for protection. If the store owner had a gun he would probably be dead right now. Also, the police couldn’t have traced the firearm back to the criminal if it wasn’t registered. That’s why we also need universal registration.
/sarc
He dropped his gun at the scene and “police were able to trace the gun right back to him.” How’s that again?
Fingerprints and/or DNA?
There will still be a big logo at the start/finish line
A crusty, if not downright unpleasant, old geezer I have professional acquaintance with spent 32 years riding around in Chicago Police Department cars. He was in a fair number of gunfights and responded to many more.
He loves handguns and has perhaps thousands, but will say, if asked: “The only gun I’ve ever seen work every time was a 12 gauge with buck.”
That said, for handguns, once placement is right, the bullet design seems to have emerged as the second-most important factor the defender might have some control over. Two other friends with three decades of copper experience apiece and have been to plenty of gunfights, live and aftermath. Both absolutely insist on Gold Dots and prefer .45s when possible.
That’s all the information available to me with which I have any faith.
This guy was a rank amateur. But then if someone is waving a gun in your face he probably is a rank amateur too. Best not to put the gun in reach of the clerk when committing armed robbery.
It’s really, really easy to come away with the impression that a shooting was ACTIVELY BEING ENCOURAGED.
Do I believe such nonsense? YES.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
100
Perhaps the “lockdown” at URI was exemplary and by the book.
Time for a new book.
I never heard anyone say, “things looked grim, but then I panicked and things got better.” But I can state from person experience that rage is a most excellent fuel.
It amazes me how many bitch and cry about the reciprocating charging handle on the SCAR but say nothing about the AK or M14.
Hell, even with those two later guns, you cannot even switch sides.
Stop running. Eventually these gun control nut jobs will be at your door. Stand and fight in place.
Many cases of DGU where the perp had his gun out first, only for the good guy to draw and fire first.
Tsk tsk. That would be : “Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war.”
I actually agree with Tex (and I never do)
If your 40 “doesnt have enough stopping power”, then you need to reach for your shotgun or your patrol rifle. Simple.
If 40 doesnt cut it, 10mm, 45, 357 sig or any other wunder caliber out there sure as hell wont.
1) FOIA all of the campus police and admin records
2) Cross check to the description above
3) Prepare written statement indicating and corroborating timeline above – name names, incl. the chilling professor
4) Submit to Fox News and copy all members of the Senate
5) Hold press conference
6) Demand resignation of school president and head of police force
7) pop some popcorn and enjoy the show
We recently had active shooter training at our local college, also a gun-free zone.
There are signs posted in every classroom with details about what do do in different emergency situations.
As at URI above, faculty and students are told to hunker down in the classroom until officially told to leave, and to lock and barricade the doors.
The problem with the doors is they ALL open outward (making them difficult to barricade) , and faculty do NOT have keys to the classroom doors (other than labs and security areas).
The campus police chief said that he was opposed to the bill going through the statehouse in Austin that would allow those with a CHL to carry concealed on campus. he said that his small police force was trained to engage any armed threat. The problem is that if faculty, staff, and students had a CHL, the officers may hesitate to shoot which would be dangerous to the officers’ safety. If they shoot too fast, they may kill or wound innocent faculty, staff, or students. Better that only the police are armed. He seemed blissfully unaware that we are in a victim rich environment, legally deprived of our basic right of self defense.
If the CHL holders were armed, any incident would likely be brought to a close much faster.
Why would a college campus with armed CHL holders be anny different than a shopping mall with CHL holders?
You know, I am still for background checks, even (a never going to happen) universal background check where in no record of the gun or that a sale even happened would be required (sort of like a cashier looking at your DL to check your age). And then I also believe that only certain specific violent crimes should carry a prohibition, and such would be part of conditions of parole, or else part of the sentence itself. Rather than the overly broad “any offense that could carry a sentence over a year”
But I am starting to to to the view that background checks are wrong, not because there aren’t people who shouldn’t be prohibited, but because the people who have not lost their rights through grave offenses should not be treated as criminals. A man is released on parole. He is required to retain his residence, stay within the state of New York (and seek permission to change residence or visit outside state). He is barred from associating with other members of the gang he belonged to. All of this may be very reasonable. Being on parole means he is still serving his time in a way, and so his freedoms are still forfeited by his grave actions.
But we do not enforce such laws by making everyone leaving NY state demonstrate that they are not on parole, nor do we stop random groups of people to make sure they are not prohibited from associating. Why? Because people have rights to travel, of free association. The criminal alone has forfeited such rights. To make the lawabiding have to demonstrate that they haven’t forfeited a right is backwards. Both because the burden is placed indiscriminately on all, though only a few have warranted restriction, and because it treats the exception as the rule. Most people have not raped, or robbed, etc.
So, instead, it is far more reasonable to allow the free exchange of goods here, no hinderance in purchasing, but, just as a parolee who violates his conditions by heading out of state gets sent back to prison, with additional time, someone who has truly done a grave crime, and violates his firearm prohibition, should be punished severely (with the normal caveats- e.g., in California the courts have ruled that a felon may possess a gun in the case of immediate and imminent threat to himself or others. cf. People v. King- and with the ability to restore such rights, either partially or completely- if the crime committed was so bad as to mean that should never happen, then why isn’t he still in prison as a danger to society?)
Why stop at having the parents of dead kids shill for gun control? I’m surprised Obama hasn’t had their bodies stuffed and mounted in little coffins in the WH briefing room. If we are going to use the corpses of children to advance a political cause why not go balls out. Obama could even get his Hollywood pals to rig some animatronics or CGI effects so they could “speak beyond the grave” on the need for a totally unrelated gun control bill. Hell, they could even have them “pop up” out of their coffins like the Crypt Keeper in Tales From the Crypt. Or how about they could get in a pyschic and “channel” their dead kids to speak on the need for more gun control…
Look, I understand (even condone) letting victims of crimes speak for/against gun control measures. Hell, our side even had women rape victims. But the shameless exploitation of human tragedy to further a political agenda is absolutely sickening. I don’t blame these parents a bit. They are understandably upset and looking for damn near any form of solace in their grief. I completely blame Obama and company for shameless exploitation.
Boy, I’ll tell ya, there isn’t a Dan Quayle face-palm pic to found anywhere.
Don’t they usually have…I mean, isn’t there somebody, at the White House, whose job it is to make sure people like Biden don’t make total idiots of themselves – on the record? Not only to Americans, but to the rest of the whole damn planet, Janet? Mother Mary and Joseph, will somebody muzzle this twit? We’re the only proven lethal, nuclear capable military on the planet, and we’re advertizing to the world that the guy who’s a heartbeat from the Big Chair, is dumber than a box of wax loads. How could that possibly be a wise thing to do? I think we’re way beyond a face palm here.
I put lead on steel consistently with my SLR-101S.. at 300 yards.. with iron sights.. with a round capable of stopping someone in thier tracks.. and I’ve never had a single failure, ever, with any AK. ever…… certainly worth the ~$1k for a battle proven rifle. ARs have thier advantages, but they come in the form of a squadron.