Food for Thought--Reality vs Misconceptions

[OldMarksman]

Every now and then, someone says something that reminds me of something that I once believed that later proved to be erroneous. Thinking back, at one time or another, I believed, consciously or otherwise, each of the following:

• Were I ever to be faced with a criminal attack, it would most probably unfold slowly and in such a manner that I would be able to tell what was going on--the way such incidents are portrayed for the benefit of the audience in screen fiction.
• Thus, my careful and deliberate bulls-eye practice and my acceptable target groups should prepare me well for the event.
• ...and I'll surely have time to retrieve my firearm from deep concealment, say from a pocket.
• Practice on the square range is generally representative of real defensive encounters, with the target standing still in the direction I am facing, and with my being ready to shoot.
• I really don't need to carry my firearm unless I have reason to believe that I might need it where I am going.
• Because I live in a "good neighborhood", I really do not need to be all that concerned about home defense.
• The firearm in my hand will protect me from harm as I walk around the house trying to find out what made that noise downstairs.
• I will be able to get to that gun in the bedroom timely, if it is ever needed for home defense.
• One shot would most likely end a confrontation, just as it always does in screen fiction.
• For those and other reasons, there was little practical need for a double column semiautomatic pistol for personal defense.
• My .45 would serve me much better than my 9MM; after all, Army tests and the legend of the Moros prove the point, don't they?
• The boom and blast of a magnum at the muzzle and the violence with which it hits a water jug indicate beond a doubt its capability for a "one shot stop", and there would be no need to score mulltiple hits in rapid succession.
• Because the likelihood of ever needing to use a firearm for self defense on any one day is exceedingly remote, it is reasonable to rely on one with limited capacity, and possibly poor sights and a poor trigger pull, at least most of the time.
• The firearm I carry protects me from harm by virtue of the fact that I have it with me.
  

Just a few items, all wrong of course, but at one time or other I really believed each of them. How about you?

Thanks to some training, to discussions here on TFL and on THR, and to conversations with trainers and LEO friends, I know better now.

That's not to say that I would always survive the gravest extreme.

[Onward Allusion]

I believe in Darwinism.

[Sevens]

I would not say that I believed all of them although certainly can see how many would believe many of them. And some of them can really be taken to task also -- but it would be difficult for me to do that without coming off like I'm simply attacking the entire post and the spirit behind it.

I suppose I will summarize my "counter point" this way...

Yes, there are pitfalls in defense and what many of us "think" we may know. However, sometimes it's all in how you want to look at it. In any of the points made, I wholeheartedly agree that you are NOT putting yourself in the best position by "half axing" it and just buying a handgun and carrying it around, however... this whole armed defense thing is a journey and a lifestyle and it is no small or short affair. It takes a lot in every direction -- training, mindset, practice, hardware and sorry to say... luck.

The good news is that decent hardware (which we all love!) helps, but practice helps MORE and training helps even MORE and mindset may trump all of the others but for many of us... oops, hate to say it, but simply having the hardware is a place to start.

[fastbolt]

Interesting thought.

No shortage of "Yes, No, Maybe & It Depends" to be found within your short list.

Lots of folks like the idea of simple, definitive answers for complex, dynamic and chaotic events, and like to look for "either/or" situations.

In my case, my involvement and lifelong pursuit of the martial arts helped prepare me to learn to look deeper in order to try and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Much of my younger firearms "knowledge" turned out to be no more realistic, relevant or remotely practical than most of the popularized hype promoted in the commercialized martial arts of the 60's & 70's.

Sometimes I'd just as soon forget I ever thought or believed some of the stuff I did as a teenager, and throughout my 20's (and even into my early 30's, in some instances).

Unfortunately, some folks may unwittingly put themselves into situations where they may not live to benefit from learning a cherished belief may be incorrect. Becoming a cautionary tale for others may still be within their grasp, though.

Feeling a bit introspective today, OldMarksman?

[SocialAnarchist]

To me situational awareness and then avoidance of trouble is my main defense. I am a people watcher and watching their behavior, particularly them watching who is watching them can tell plenty of what their plans and intentions are.

Yes, I do slow fire practice to ensure my ability to take good aimed shots. But I also practice rapid fire with less emphasis on sights and more emphasis on instinctive shooting and rapid reloads.

[OldMarksman]

....decent hardware.... helps, but practice helps MORE and training helps even MORE and mindset may trump all of the others but for many of us... oops, hate to say it, but simply having the hardware is a place to start.

Yes, you do have to have the hardware, and that is the place to start.

And there may well be a loop or two in the journey. I bought a firearm for concealed carry around nine years ago. Some expert advice and a really good training course made me aware that while it was better than nothing, it was by no means a really good choice for risk reduction, so I bought something else.

Another action-packed training course helped bring out the shortcomings in that one, and I replaced it, too....

Is it ideal? No! But I certainly know now that hardware is not that high on the priority list.

We continue to learn. We all hear "situational awareness" preached as the first rule of survival, and we are proud of ourselves when we convince ourselves that we are really staying alert. But Grant Cunningham and Rob Pincus point out rather convincingly that one day, some time, "situational awareness" is likely to prove insufficient.

I purposely left all of the use of force law aspects of self defense off the list.

[ShootistPRS]

Old Marksman,
You have a good vantage point on this topic. Some of that "situational awareness" stays with you once it becomes habitual. Like any one I can get distracted while walking down the street but when I walk into a shop or a restaurant I find myself looking for the exits and a place where I can have my back to a wall and see the entrance. The same thing in movie theaters. I like the back corners where I can see the entrances and the emergency exits. There is very little light in those corners so I'm a hard target with a 100% field of view. My wife likes to be in the middle of the theater for a better experience and I feel better being able to protect her so we rarely sit together. Parking lots are the worst! I keep my head swiveling around so much I must look like an owl on meth. I can't say I am always aware but I do trust my instincts enough that if I feel uneasy my radar comes on immediately.

My brother and I have trained together a lot and when we are together nobody stands a chance of getting close. Still if someone wants me dead it would only take one shot from out of my range of awareness to take me down.

[OldMarksman]

...but when I walk into a shop or a restaurant I find myself looking for the exits and a place where I can have my back to a wall and see the entrance.

I recall someone saying something along those lines to Rob Pincus--said he was always watching everything and everybody. Rob's response was that the restaurant did not have Braille menus. A few moment later he commented that one of the patrons who had just walked by from the restroom could easily have victimized Mr. Situational Awareness. And then there was the waiter....

[ShootistPRS]

Yep! the last line of my post is just as true for me as it is for everyone else. Fortunately there are few people who want me dead living around me.

[WIN71]

I signed on as a copper in 1967. I retired in 2000. 16 years a street cop and 17 years a field Sergeant. My department did not require off duty officers to carry a weapon. If you decided to carry one you could carry anything you wanted. It was not a small department when these regulations were initiated. About 5500 uniformed.
I did not like carrying on my person a weapon off duty. I always had one close by. If I knew I was going in a bad part of town for Pizza I sometimes Mexican carried a 1911. One night in 1969 a group at my house ran out of smokes. The closest store closed at 9pm. It was 8:45. I made a mad run to Ralphs.
My Colt Cobra was in the glove box of my car. I parked and headed into the automatic opening front doors. I may have had a beer or two.
There were no people standing. Situational awareness starts kicking in. About a second goes by and I figure I'm screwed. Armed Robbery. Then a employee with a white shirt and tie gets up off the floor and says " Are they gone"?
I'm opening this for honest discussion.
Go forward 50 years. I'm pushing 73. Got into an unfortunate discussing with the future ex-wife. Went to the local store and bought stuff. Pushed the little cart to my pick-up. I was parked as I should be. Some guy pulled in from the opposite direction past his normal spot. Our drivers doors were opposite directions one stall apart. I got nervous. I had to have my back to the vehicle to open my drivers door. His vehicle was loaded to the max. Trunk section was really low towards the ground. It had our State plates. It did not look like it belonged where it was. Man I thought if I can just get my door open I can grab the 469 in the door panel.
I left it at home for the first time since 1986.
I'm fat and old and should know better. I carry an old PPKS in my right front baggy pants front pocket all the time now.

[OldMarksman]

I did not mean to imply that I had held all of those precepts as hard truths, but I did labor under some of those misconceptions, and others just seemed credible, if one did not think about them very deeply.

Of course, every one of them can be debunked by objective analysis and logic, Newtonian physics, the study of human anatomy, behavioral psychology, statistical analysis, and maybe some simulation.

So, why do come people tend to accept so many of those assumptions as being realistic?

Part of it is likely screen fiction--we have all seen the bad guy blown through the saloon door onto the street when hit by a bullet from a big-bore Single Action Army revolver. Makes you want to buy one.

Part of it is probably a simple failure to run the numbers--if the bullet blasts a water jug convincingly, wouldn't we expect it to really hit the bad guy hard enough to stop him cold? No, if a bullet would "knock down" the bad guy, the gun would knock down the shooter. Basic physics.

And then there is a possible reluctance to really consider the unpleasantness of what wounding actually involves. I took a course under Massad Ayoob some years ago, and one of his recommendations, which I did not follow, was to acquire a copy of Gray's Anatomy, study it carefully, and keep it handy for reference. I think step one is to realize "ah ha, that is not a water jug". Step two is to start thinking about how one may go about damaging those little elements of important anatomy when the target in which they are hidden is moving fast.

Part of it may be faulty analysis--it is quite natural to look at the remote probability that a risk will materialize and fail to realize that should it occur, what is required to mitigate it is completely unrelated to the initial probability of occurrence. You may not have done that, but I have, and that's embarrassing, considering the amount of time I spent in risk management as a profession.

Part may be the movies that we play in our minds--uh, oh, someone is breaking in--I'd better head to the bedroom and get the shotgun. That's where simple time study can illuminate the picture.

Part may be drawing conclusions from irrelevant facts--the silhouette target at the square range at seven yards affords us time to draw, present, and get a sight picture, and time to exercise "shot placement" through marksmanship. So, let's plan that way! BUT--the most elementary application of behavioral psychology theory and logic tells us that no real bad hombre will behave that way--or even allow himself to be seen and observed as suspicious before the heat is actually on. This is where the difference between "good shooting", as Rob Pincus puts it, and effective defensive shooting comes into the picture.

Or we may just fail to consider that the perps looking for a house into which to break can get to our neighborhood from theirs and back out again by automobile.

And then there's fantasy--I have armed myself, and I am the good guy, and nothing bad ever happens to the good guy.

These things have come up so many times here and on other boards over the years that I will not hazard a guess out how many times I have heard each one.

There is no magic pill that will flush all of these out of the system, but there are some pretty good books on self defense, videos, and some posts here by some knowledgeable people. And one can get answers here. If The Best Defense is available in your area, I strongly recommend recording and watching each episode at least once.

And some really good training--think Cunningham, Pincus, Seeklander, Werner, and others--can be invaluable.

Live fire may be best, but laser simulation and Airsoft can be helpful. If you can get some FoF training, do so. My physical condition no longer allows me to consider that.

[JohnKSa]

Reality doesn't care about our expectations nor is it impressed with the brain's amazing ability to rationalize. What a person plans doesn't prevent occurrences outside of that plan from coming to pass. One's ability to rationalize doesn't change reality even if it does create an alternate "reality" in one's mind. A person's expectations can't control what happens to them, but their expectations can strongly affect how they react.

[pax]

Doesn't matter who you are or how much time you've spent training your brain -- because you are human, you're not as aware as you think you are.

Human brains are simply not wired to be 100% aware, 100% of the time. Not even just 100% of the time we're awake. And weirdly, the research shows that the more committed we are to paying attention (to one thing), the more likely we are to miss even the most blatant of other things. Follow the link in my first sentence if you don't believe it.

pax

[g.willikers]

OldMarksman,
Very interesting post.
Until we get actual training on any subject, we can't possibly know what we don't know about it.
Most of the things you mentioned would sound familiar to all of us at one time or another.
Until we learn better.
Imagination and supposition never trumps reality.
Thanks for the reminder.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

My .45 would serve me much better than my 9MM; after all, Army tests and the legend of the Moros prove the point, don't they?

I believed that one for a long time

[Sevens]

There is great merit in many of the points and in the discussion on the whole but the second bullet point is eating away at me and annoying me!

Thus, my careful and deliberate bulls-eye practice and my acceptable target groups should prepare me well for the event.

Okay, I understand the point-- being a well-practiced slow fire bullseye shooter will NOT transform me in to the high-speed, low drag operator that can slay an entire volley of attackers and in fact... habitual "slow, refined, aimed fire" is quite the opposite skill needed, typically in a defense situation.

I can accept the idea but it just comes across (perhaps simply to me...?) as too harsh -- like the many years of disciplined slow accuracy work has no merit-- or worse, is BAD training for a defensive situation.

I can't agree with that, honestly. Accurate, deliberate and highly skilled shooting should pay off in ANY kind of shooting, assuming you don't fall in to the trap of thinking you have "ten shots in ten minutes..."

It just seems (again, to me) to be kind of harsh and lowers the value in quality, skilled slow fire shooting.

[fastbolt]

It just seems (again, to me) to be kind of harsh and lowers the value in quality, skilled slow fire shooting.

Well, there's harsh ... and then there's realistic and pragmatic. I rather doubt he intended it to be taken quite so personally.

Anyway ...

I've seen some very highly skilled folks who competed and did quite well in different sport shooting venues, but who didn't fare nearly so well the first few times they were exposed to a different type of shooting environment. They could do well if they could take their time and weren't distracted by thinking about shooting at a person, or unexpected loud noises occurring next to them, or having to shoot more quickly than they were comfortable normally doing. (Or, drawing from a holster, believe it or not.)

There's something to be said for the careful, deliberate driver who always drives slowly while maneuvering their car in and out of traffic, always careful not to rush themselves when preparing for lane changes, turns and other driving conditions. Doesn't mean they're prepared to operate an emergency vehicle around other drivers, or drive in a race, where they're going to likely find themselves outside of their comfort zone.

If someone is concerned that their carefully developed "range skills" may be less "well rounded" for more practical defensive purpose than they'd always assumed, one way to get more of an insight might be to find a local IDPA event and qualify to participate.

One of the first things to perhaps realize is that getting the handgun from a practical holster, into safe use and operation, in a requisite timely manner, may be something not normally experienced and practiced on a target/leisure range, and not nearly as easy as may have been assumed.

My use of the word "assume" was deliberate, BTW.

It's not the skills that may be called into question. It's any particular shooter being able to access and employ their skills, in a completely different environment and under conditions involving more duress than a timer and counting holes on a bulls-eye target.

Some folks might turn out to be a steely eyed missile man. Others might discovered that the full expression isn't "Flight or Fight", but is "Freeze, Flight, or Fight", as they freeze for just long enough to render their carefully honed skills moot.

Sure, skills and abilities developed for one purpose can often be applied to another purpose ... depending on the person possessing the skills and abilities, and if they can successfully apply them to new and different situations and conditions.

I remember that the years of shooting skills and abilities I'd acquired before I became a LE firearms instructor was something of which I was proud, and something which I realized was all well and good ... right up to the point where I realized I needed to learn new ways to apply them, correct a number of bad habits I hadn't realized I'd learned, and even learn some new things.

[K_Mac]

An excellent list OldMarksman. Plenty of points for interesting discussion.

The idea that being a good bullseye shooter didn't really prepare me for a typical self-defense situation was one I once resisted. While being a good bullseye shot is a great thing, it doesn't make me qualified to react properly in most self-defense encounters. Once I realized how little I knew, I began the ongoing process of learning the countless skills needed.

I was reminded recently that my situational awareness is not always as good as I like to think. I live in a small rural community. While violent crime is very rare in my little piece of heaven, I always carry around my home or neighborhood. Four legged preditors are a higher risk than two legged, but police help may be 45 minutes away. I take pride in being situationally aware. As it turns out, more pride than justified it seems! I was recently walking my attack Chihuahua late in the evening on the edge of town. I always wear a headlamp and carry a good light because it is very dark in many spots. A neighbor walked up to within a few feet of us before me or my "watch" dog saw or heard him. I was startled so much I would have had no chance of preventing a physical attack. We had a good laugh, but it was a good reminder I may not be as good as I'd like.

[OldMarksman]

Okay, I understand the point-- being a well-practiced slow fire bullseye shooter will NOT transform me in to the high-speed, low drag operator that can slay an entire volley of attackers...

Not that one should invest much in such a skill...

...and in fact... habitual "slow, refined, aimed fire" is quite the opposite skill needed, typically in a defense situation.

Yes, and "typically" is the key word. For a hostage rescue situation, or to neutralize someone at a longer range who is shooting at people, greater precision has its value. But for a typical defensive encounter, no.

-- like the many years of disciplined slow accuracy work has no merit-- or worse, is BAD training for a defensive situation.

One will not find disciplined slow accuracy work very useful at all in a typical defensive situation, and if that's all that one knows how to do, one lacks a key skill.

Accurate, deliberate and highly skilled shooting should pay off in ANY kind of shooting, assuming you don't fall in to the trap of thinking you have "ten shots in ten minutes..."

The discussion goes to the balance of speed and precision. If an encounter occurs at twelve feet, the attacker is moving fast, and it takes two to four hits to effect a physical stop, accurate and deliberate shooting would be as valuable as altitude above a pilot or flight deck behind him.

Again, "my careful and deliberate bulls-eye practice and my acceptable target groups should prepare me well for the event" is a misconception that could prove very serious. And it is a widely held misconception.

I had been shooting handguns for decades, concentrating primarily on placement and group size, when I attended my first advanced defensive pistol shooting course. When I tried my hand at an El Presidente drill, in which rapidity of hits is the paramount objective, I found that I just wasn't very good.

They did not even use paper targets with scoring areas. Audible hits on steel plates told the score.

It took me the better part of a day to gain any proficiency at all.

And I learned something. But not all that much.

I then attended a training session that involved drawing and firing at targets in different and unexpected locations--different angles an different distances, not known to the the shooter until the target was mentioned and the signal to draw was given.

MUCH different from precision target shooting, and the skills from the latter were really not beneficial or transferrable.

The necessary balance of speed and precision is situation dependent.

In developing the layered skills necessary for that exercise, we first shot at some little rectangles. The instructor would observe "you are shooting too slowly" if the precision were greater than necessary, and "you are shooting too rapidly" if it were insufficient.

[JohnKSa]

It just seems (again, to me) to be kind of harsh and lowers the value in quality, skilled slow fire shooting.

There's certainly value in quality, skilled slow fire shooting. It's as valuable as any other hobby skill and even more so because it does have some limited value in terms of a self-defense skill.

If slow fire shooting is what you like doing and you're not interested in shooting more rapidly then this isn't telling you that what you're doing is worthless or that you should stop doing it.

But it is important for you to understand that if you're doing slow fire shooting with the goal of becoming a proficient self-defense shooter, you're not making the best use of your range time.

It's not so much about what you are doing as it is about you understanding the value of what you are doing.

It's fine to pick a plan that you find easy or fun to implement. After all, most people probably don't have any structured plan at all for dealing with violent crime. Your simple plan, even with all of its flaws, puts you ahead of the game compared to most. So set up your plan based on what you can do and what you will do. So far this is what most of us will do anyway. But here is the critical difference. Don't let yourself rationalize your way into believing that your plan is better than it is. Don't fall into the trap of convincing yourself that the things you don't plan for are such remote probabilities that you don't need to even consider them. Don't get so confident in your plan that you are surprised into inaction when confronted by something outside the plan's structure.

[fastbolt]

In developing the layered skills necessary for that exercise, we first shot at some little rectangles. The instructor would observe "you are shooting too slowly" if the precision were greater than necessary, and "you are shooting too rapidly" if it were insufficient.

This is one of those things that an experienced, skilled, all around capable shooter starts to recognize for themselves.

It's right up there with learning self realization of whether you're dawdling or rushing on that first "cold" shot.

[OldMarksman]

I strongly recommend reading the post linked by JohnKSa in his note above.

[OldMarksman]

My "simple plan, such as it is, is to try to not be surprised and ambushed, by avoiding walking close to corners, dumpsters, vans, pickups, and so on. It is to go elsewhere immediately at the first sign of trouble. Avoidance comes first.

Should things appear to be going downhill, I would hope to not assume that a person who has first drawn my attention necessarily constitutes the entire threat by himself--there may well be more than one.

And I would still try to get somewhere safe.

On at least one occasion I failed to do those things. Like a donkey heading to the feed trough, I walked right into what was obviously a robbery about to happen.

My first action after looking around and assessing the situation was to move quickly to a place where I would not endanger others moving into the foreground or in the background if I ended up having to shoot. My next thought was "backstop".

I knew that at least one accomplice was waiting in a car outside. I was worried about whether there were others.

I did not have to draw--the would-be robber noticed my movement, panicked, dropped what he had in his hands, and ran from the store. Luckily, there was no other accomplice inside.

Things never got to the shooting stage.

Why didn't I just high-tail it out of the store? Judgment call. Might have been poor judgment. My car was close to what I had learned to be the getaway car.

Gotta tell ya, that was just about as scary as anything I had ever experienced. I could not give a description of either participant, or of the car. Heck, I could barely talk.

That store environment was about as far from the square range as you can imagine.

Some time later I did change from pocket holster carry to OWB, after comparing draw times.

[jmf552]

There is very little black and white, right and wrong in any of this. It is all personal preference and how we each perceive risk and risk mitigation. And I make clear distinctions between LEO experiences and non-LEOs. LEOs have a duty to intentionally go in harm's way and are expected to stay in the fight. As a private citizen, my first priority is to get away from the danger, not take it on. So my defense priority is for the close range ambush that I can't immediately get away from.

I remember an article by a Vietnam vet gun writer years ago where a reader challenged him on his choice of carrying a snubby. He was asked what would he really want to have if he got into a real gunfight. He said, "An M-60 with a full belt of ammo and walkie-talkie that I could use to call in artillery. But that isn't practical and I am no longer at war."

Grant Cunningham says words to the effect, "A platoon of N. Korean paratroopers could land in your front yard. But it's not very likely." The point he goes on to make is, almost everyone has a limited amount of training time and limitations on concealment. It does not follow that preparing for the worst automatically prepares you for the likely. He recommends prioritizing your training and equipment for the likely, and once you have that nailed down, if you have more resources, prepare for the N. Koreans.

I see people preparing on the range training to get into all out gunfights with multiple armed aggressors, spraying and praying 15 round mags with two-handed holds and practicing 25-yard headshots. That's great, but does that train you for an ambush at arms distance or less? Because that is the more likely scenario. If I am jumped at close range, I would rather have some basic H2H skills that allow me to get to my snubby than anything else I can think of.

I hear this argument all the time, "You should prepare for the worst case." I don't disagree, but the worst may not be movie-style gunfight. It is more likely to be a close range ambush. I don't see that being trained much. So people are preparing for something that could happen, but is not likely, at the expense of preparing for what is likely.

Also consider that as EDC'ers of any kind, we are in a small minority in society. Anyone with any gun who has SA, training and the will to shoot when necessary is in the 95+ percentile of being ready. The people on this site are more similar than we are different.

[OldMarksman]

I see people preparing on the range training to get into all out gunfights with multiple armed aggressors, spraying and praying 15 round mags with two-handed holds and practicing 25-yard headshots.

And shooting slowly at seven yards.

That's great, but does that train you for an ambush at arms distance or less? Because that is the more likely scenario.

That is one scenario, but with any luck a defender will be acting before that and will be shooting at a distance somewhat greater than two arms lengths, even if he has to move fast to maintain that distance.

But the point is well taken that that kind of practice is not very useful for preparing a defender for an ambush at close range.

If I am jumped at close range, I would rather have some basic H2H skills that allow me to get to my snubby than anything else I can think of.

If it gets to H2H, it is really serious. Avoiding the edged weapon, maintaining control of the weapon...

Better to try to keep things just a bit farther away, to create some additional distance fast.

A snubby is better than nothing, and I think having one as a back-up is a great idea, but for primary carry, I prefer something else.

It is more likely to be a close range ambush. I don't see that being trained much.

One sees few people preparing for it--they have gotten the 21 foot marker into their heads, and, they practice shooting at targets that far out.

But really good defensive training, such as that offered by Rob Pincus, Grant Cunningham, and others in the PDN group does, address the close range ambush.

So people are preparing for something that could happen, but is not likely, at the expense of preparing for what is likely.

Exactly.