An unsettling experience my friend had recently

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are plenty of shootouts, robberies, attacks done by multiple attackers, sadly most I've seen have the good guy loosing.
I can think of two small gunshops, one in Indiana the other in Kansas. Home invasions seem to always involve more than one. It's rare for media to report the type of guns and rounds expended.
I've read and seen enough to convince me to cut my risk.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
I believe your friend did well in being aware & contacting the police. This brought back a situation I found myself in probably 25 years ago. The ex-husband of a woman I was involved with decided to pursue us one night. At the time I did not carry a gun nor do I think the ex did. I did not own a cell phone either. The woman I was with persuaded me not to pull over to the side of the road to slug it out (this was what I really wanted to do). We did proceed to the nearest police station. He lost interest when he realized where we were going.

As for capacity, the carry gun I have with the least capacity carries 10 rounds of 9mm in the magazine. I usually carry a smallish pistol with a 12 round magazine. There are 9mm double stacks available that are only about 1/8" thicker than their single stack brethren. I don't think 1/8" is enough difference to justify losing the capacity.

Sometimes I carry a 1911. It is my only single stack but whatever I choose to carry there is a spare magazine on my off side (If I carry the 1911 there are 2 of them). If one is going to go to all the trouble to carry a gun it is very little more trouble to carry a spare magazine.
 
If you can't get it done with two Mozambiques and one in the tube while you tac load....................

The shooter is responsible for every round, where ever they end up.
I didn't perceive anything here that switching to a double stack would solve.

This. All I know is....You better get the first couple rounds on target because there is a good chance your opponent(s) will!
 
Posted by Ratshooter:
I was just puzzled when someone with 7 shots on board feels that they couldn't handle 2 possible attackers.
Those who have trained with competent instructors in realistic circumstances, and who know a little something about handgun wounding mechanics and human physiology, are usually among the people who would not like to take that risk.

After you shot the first one I find it hard to believe the second one would continue to press the attack unless they were highly trained operators with a set goal to achieve.
He might not--provided (1) that he recognizes timely that the shooting had been done by the defender and not by his accomplice; (2) that he immediately comprehends what has happened; (3) that he does not believe, cognitively or by default, that continuing the attack provides his best chance of survival; and (4) that escape using your car is not what he really needs to do. I would not bank on all of that.

Even running,ducking and shooting around corners it was surprising how quickly you either made what would have been a kill shot or...
You aren't trying for a "kill shot", nor can you recognize one should it happen.. You are trying to stop the assailant before he gets to you. It would be extremely naive to think that you are likely to do that with any one shot.

Here's a pretty good explanation of what it is likely to take.

Some relevant excerpts:

Let's consider how shooting someone will actually cause him to stop what he's doing.

The goal is to stop the assailant.

There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:

--psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."

--massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function

--breaking major skeletal support structures

--damaging the central nervous system.

Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.

Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.

Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.

So as a rule of thumb --

More holes are better than fewer holes.

Larger holes are better than smaller holes.

Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.

Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.

There are no magic bullets.

There are no guarantees.

It is very important to understand that those "right places" are small, and that they will be moving fast, forward and backward and up and down and left and right, and rotating around three perpendicular axes. Hitting them will be as much a matter of chance as skill, thus giving a lot of importance to multiple shots fired very quickly.
 
Ratshooter said:
Herrwalther did you catch the part in post #39 where I said I shot against other people? Even running,ducking and shooting around corners it was surprising how quickly you either made what would have been a kill shot or you yourself received what would have been a deadly hit.

Nope. But I did see in post #39 where you played Airsoft. I did that too when I was a kid. Thought I was cool because I took a few hits. The novelty went away when I discovered real firearms and was in real firefights. No amount of training or practice will prep you perfectly for real rounds missing your body by mere inches.
 
Gee, we are still discussing the worst case scenario - a gunfight - where the after action analysis shows the real tactical failure was behavioral.

Again: Guns, alcohol, politics. Fail. Obviously the participants CAN'T handle all three and the smart ones weren't followed or stalked. Those were the people in the tables around them. All taking in a Lesson Learned about Shooting Your Mouth Off.

The basis of the incident is a failure to self discipline a conversation - which is where a lot of gunplay incidents start. If the general consensus is to jump ahead and discuss the tactics of discharging firearms, there's another failure in discipline - to see the real cause and stick to that error.

When everybody is a hammer, all they see is nails. I'm taking it from the posters here the consensus is we need to carry double stack .45's in dual shoulder holsters and resolve the situation dual wielding them in a street duel?

How bout you lower the volume and keep your conversation to yourself? Being loud, insulting, and obtrusive at a bar isn't the kind of behavior those who carry concealed should employ. Ask any professional. Regardless of the results of a shoot out and trial, you can bet your knickers getting loud and abrasive while carrying a firearm will be highlighted as a major issue. The cause of the problem started at the table, not when others got dissed and started stalking people. It's the same forensics the fire marshal uses, you find the initial point where the fire was set and that's where the responsibility lies.

This was self inflicted. Don't drink, get loud, and carry guns only to wonder if you need a bigger one. Nope, what's needed here is a smaller ego and the social responsibility to keep your opinions to yourself in a bar. Of all places.
 
My experience, albeit in combat, not in street shootings, is you can expect a 90% degradation in performance in action. Plans that assume perfect performance under stress are doomed to fail.
 
Gee, we are still discussing the worst case scenario - a gunfight - where the after action analysis shows the real tactical failure was behavioral.

Again: Guns, alcohol, politics. Fail. Obviously the participants CAN'T handle all three and the smart ones weren't followed or stalked. Those were the people in the tables around them. All taking in a Lesson Learned about Shooting Your Mouth Off.

The basis of the incident is a failure to self discipline a conversation - which is where a lot of gunplay incidents start. If the general consensus is to jump ahead and discuss the tactics of discharging firearms, there's another failure in discipline - to see the real cause and stick to that error.

When everybody is a hammer, all they see is nails. I'm taking it from the posters here the consensus is we need to carry double stack .45's in dual shoulder holsters and resolve the situation dual wielding them in a street duel?

How bout you lower the volume and keep your conversation to yourself? Being loud, insulting, and obtrusive at a bar isn't the kind of behavior those who carry concealed should employ. Ask any professional. Regardless of the results of a shoot out and trial, you can bet your knickers getting loud and abrasive while carrying a firearm will be highlighted as a major issue. The cause of the problem started at the table, not when others got dissed and started stalking people. It's the same forensics the fire marshal uses, you find the initial point where the fire was set and that's where the responsibility lies.

This was self inflicted. Don't drink, get loud, and carry guns only to wonder if you need a bigger one. Nope, what's needed here is a smaller ego and the social responsibility to keep your opinions to yourself in a bar. Of all places.


What, exactly, was said that constitutes "shooting your mouth off"?
 
Originally posted by Warp:

What, exactly, was said that constitutes "shooting your mouth off"?

Here's what the OP posted:

When my friend and his wife left the restaurant, the two strangers were hanging around in the parking lot and when my friend left in his car, the two strangers got in their respective cars and proceeded to follow them. My friend noticed, and made several arbitrary, abrupt turns with the two cars still following. At this point he told his wife to call 911, and he proceeded to return to the restaurant parking lot, where he was met by three sheriff's cars. The two cars following him, seeing him returning to the restaurant, left the area.

I don't see one word in there that suggests an exchange of words between the parties, let alone an example of "shooting your mouth off."
 
Here's what the OP posted:



I don't see one word in there that suggests an exchange of words between the parties, let alone an example of "shooting your mouth off."

I'm sure that Tirod is referring to something inside of the building before leaving, but I don't recall reading anything about that fits the "shooting your mouth off" description, so I am wondering what that is meant to refer to.
 
What, exactly, was said that constitutes "shooting your mouth off"?
Said friend was at a restaurant lounge with his wife, visiting with some friends. The conversation got around to politics, and of course everyone has an opinion. During this discussion, two strangers sitting nearby apparently disagreed with the general tone of the discussion and proceeded to chime in but my friend and his friends ignored them, and the two strangers left.

This part. They were loud enough that the two guys not only heard plainly, but felt the tone of the conversation allowed them to join in.
 
This part. They were loud enough that the two guys not only heard plainly, but felt the tone of the conversation allowed them to join in.

Conjecture on both counts. The OP didn't give enough information to draw either conclusion.
 
This part. They were loud enough that the two guys not only heard plainly, but felt the tone of the conversation allowed them to join in.

I think it is incredibly unfair to proclaim that the person(s) in question "shot off their mouth" simply because people nearby were able to overhear their conversation.
 
I think your friend's car was the most valuable tool in the scenario, even if he has been carrying a full-capacity handgun.
 
I'm with Tirod on this. Makes you wonder just what the heck was said that started it all. The root cause is kinda glossed over. Maybe it was something innocuous, maybe not. Walking softly is just as important, probably more so, than carrying a big stick.
 
If you are threatened in a public place call 911.
If you leave a public place/business and someone is waiting for you in the Parking Lot, go back inside. Call 911
If someone is obviously following your car drive to a Police Station. Call 911
If the car following yours is driving aggressively call 911 and drive to the Police Station.
If you have to shoot, shoot. If you have to drive, drive. Don't try both at the same time.
Be a good witness and if you have a passenger have them write down pertinent information.
That will get you out of 90% of any problems.
 
@ cmdc

Your friend was acting very sharp and showed perfect situational awareness.

That is THE first part of any S/D training.

But even though I might envy his choice of a vehicle,that was a good lesson in what NOT to drive.

Besides that vehicle is easier to follow as its not that common [ I know there are a few ].

And a cell phone pointing at their car might make them retreat as well as might capture their plate # !.

The rule of checking if you being followed is,make 3 left turns ---- car still there, your being followed.

At that point GET AWAY and to as safe a location with CAMERAS as possible.

Mall shopping lots are a general place to find lots of cameras ,BUT only if the stores are opened.
 
We're getting close to the attitude of the punks who killed Michael Jackson's father -- it was all Michael's fault, they said. "If he hadn't a give him all that money, we wouldn't a had to rob him."
 
Kookla said:
I'm with Tirod on this. Makes you wonder just what the heck was said that started it all. The root cause is kinda glossed over. Maybe it was something innocuous, maybe not. Walking softly is just as important, probably more so, than carrying a big stick.

Personally I would lump that in as situational awareness. Just because most people here carry firearms on a regular basis, we should not go out looking for trouble because we *think* we are prepared. Part of avoiding a bad situation is avoiding bad places. Another part of staying out of trouble is keeping a modest filter between the brain and mouth.
 
Personally I would lump that in as situational awareness. Just because most people here carry firearms on a regular basis, we should not go out looking for trouble because we *think* we are prepared. Part of avoiding a bad situation is avoiding bad places. Another part of staying out of trouble is keeping a modest filter between the brain and mouth.

How did the person in question go out looking for trouble?
 
We're getting close to the attitude of the punks who killed Michael Jackson's father -- it was all Michael's fault, they said. "If he hadn't a give him all that money, we wouldn't a had to rob him."

I think you mean Jordan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top