Self Defense Outside the Home--Priorities and Thoughts

[Kleanbore]

We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I do what has worked in several countries and numerous cities in this one.

It is not at all clear what you think it is that you "do". Simply saying that you "keep your eyes and ears open" does not provide any idea about what sights and sounds might cause you to react, and which would not. No one can evaluate every sight and sound all the time. One has to have an idea about what might indicate a potentially developing threat.

And it is of course a good idea to "think before you act" when there is time to do so, but it is prudent to have an action or two in mind.

These only address elements of mindset. What about skillset?

You have characterized the OP is "overthinking", "complex", and "convoluted", but you have not taken issue with any part of it.

What you "do" may be fine, and it may even work when the need arises, but you have not described what it is that you "do".

Nor can you reasonably assert that whatever it is has "worked". It may be that you, like many others, have never been tested.

 

[Kleanbore]

Using the mirrors on both sides also taught me to glance in the glass windows of stores.

That is an excellent idea, not only for driving, but also for walking in public and when sitting in a parked car.

I have edited the OP to inlcude that. Thanks.

 

[Jack B.]

I think Massad Ayoob's video on gas station robberies is a good starting point for anyone who shops at convenience stores. IMO.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think Massad Ayoob's video on gas station robberies is a good starting point for anyone who shops at convenience stores. IMO.

So do I.

 

[TikkaShooter]

Here's an interesting thought; it's called the Psychic staring effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_staring_effect
There are also other articles online.
There's been a variety of studies with varying results or some people feel being stared at and others don't..

 

[Trunk Monkey]

I think Massad Ayoob's video on gas station robberies is a good starting point for anyone who shops at convenience stores. IMO.

I actually quit shopping in convenience stores more as a money saving strategy than for risk avoidance. Other than gas there's nothing I can get at the Stop and Rob that I can't get cheaper at Walmart. So I quit doing convenience stores a couple of years before I started carrying or really even thinking about self defense.*

Having said all that the few times I've gone into stop and rob I've had bad luck. I stopped for gas with my wife once and she asked me to go in and get her a soda. While I was waiting to check out some random homeless guy was wandering around the store flipping his knife open and closed

There was the tweaker who I'm certain was trying to snatch my gun in a convenience store and I was standing in line at a 7-11 waiting for a gas receipt one afternoon when some Methhead walked through the door and immediately began screaming at me out of all the people in the store

I think the guy trying to take my gun was the last time I went into a convenience store, it was certainly the straw that broke the camel's back. Coincidentally I haven't had any such issues since I stopped going into the stores.

 

[Kleanbore]

There's been a variety of studies with varying results or some people feel being stared at and others don't..

Interesting stuff.

I would not rely on being able to do so or on the idea that a potential attacker would stare at me for more that a second or two. More likely, he will try very hard to appear natural, inconspicuous, and disinterested, looking around, or perhaps pretending to be reading a text, and not staring at potential victim for an extended time.

 

[Jack B.]

I actually quit shopping in convenience stores more as a money saving strategy than for risk avoidance. Other than gas there's nothing I can get at the Stop and Rob that I can't get cheaper at Walmart. So I quit doing convenience stores a couple of years before I started carrying or really even thinking about self defense.*

Having said all that the few times I've gone into stop and rob I've had bad luck. I stopped for gas with my wife once and she asked me to go in and get her a soda. While I was waiting to check out some random homeless guy was wandering around the store flipping his knife open and closed

There was the tweaker who I'm certain was trying to snatch my gun in a convenience store and I was standing in line at a 7-11 waiting for a gas receipt one afternoon when some Methhead walked through the door and immediately began screaming at me out of all the people in the store

I think the guy trying to take my gun was the last time I went into a convenience store, it was certainly the straw that broke the camel's back. Coincidentally I haven't had any such issues since I stopped going into the stores.

Sorry to hear that. Its a shame that we must avoid certain areas because they are unsafe or we feel uncomfortable in this country. I know there are places I won't venture into.

 

[Kleanbore]

I actually quit shopping in convenience stores more as a money saving strategy than for risk avoidance. Other than gas there's nothing I can get at the Stop and Rob that I can't get cheaper at Walmart.

I pay at the pump. That is where I am at risk.

I had watched this video, and I distinctly remembered Ayoob's advice to beware of the car parked facing outwards with someone at the wheel looking around, when
I observed just that.

But stupidly, I ignored the advice and entered the store, walking right into an unfolding robbery. Tense moment. Something about me caused the robber to panic and run to the getaway car.

It was not a stop and rob. It was an upscale grocery, less than one mile from the police station, with no roads leading out that would not involve stop and go traffic.

 

[TikkaShooter]

Interesting stuff.

I would not rely on being able to do so or on the idea that a potential attacker would stare at me for more that a second or two. More likely, he will try very hard to appear natural, inconspicuous, and disinterested, looking around, or perhaps pretending to be reading a text, and not staring at potential victim for an extended time.

It is interesting stuff; that is why I posted it...

Same as any male who was single once; I can testify that most women notice.....

 

[Jeb Stuart]

A**jerks with cell phones are one of the most dangerous threats to our society in existence. If you use a cell phone while driving, you are a jerk, and have no business even carrying a gun. And if you are a A-jerk that use's one on a firearm range, you should not own a gun period. And yet I see so many Youtube, so called PRO's doing this all the time. Keep you phone off the range. People say you should not drink and drive, and of course do not drink while shooting or that alcohol and gun powder do not mix. Well firearms and Cell phones do not mix.


Below is a video of the typical shooter that we see all the time and are so common these days. These are typical of so many millions of people now purchasing firearms.
Nothing more disgusting than to see someone at the range doing a selfie. Or three or four friends at one booth and thinking everything is just a joke and cell phones every where.

 

[Kleanbore]

A**jerks with cell phones are one of the most dangerous threats to our society in existence.

Yes, and as implied in the OP, they are easy victims of violence.

 

[.38 Special]

One thing that I have only recently begun to work on - and that no gun trainer, over the past 30 years, has ever mentioned in my presence - is how to produce a weapon during physical combat. The results of this training are eye-opening and depressing.

The typical exercise is this: you stand in a room with a bunch of other people. Whatever weapons you usually carry are in their accustomed places. They are trainers, of course. You are to behave as you normally would in public - hopefully that means alert, but not ready for immediate combat. If you normally are looking at your phone or slouching around with your hands in your pockets, then be honest with yourself and do that in training too.

People in the room are milling about. Some might approach you to ask the time or beg for change. You know that eventually one of these folks is going to assault you, but if you get aggressive with someone before it is "go time" the instructor will call you out, so you can't flash weapons at everyone who walks by, or leap into fighting stance when someone asks you where the bus stop is.

Sooner or later someone goes for you. They might produce a knife or gun, or they might grab your throat from behind, or they might just walk up and slap you. You have to decide the appropriate - and legal - course of action, whether it be shouted commands, hand-to-hand, or producing a weapon. The last is surprisingly difficult under the stress of even simulated combat, and almost everyone discovers that going for a weapon first is rarely the best course. Trying to draw while being choked or punched or while rolling around on the mat is rarely effective and often counter productive, and I am shocked at the number of weapons that get fumbled, dropped, or simply taken away during the course of a fight. Most of us have discovered that the first recourse needs to be effective hand-to-hand, if not to win the fight, then to at least buy space and time to get to your weapon.

The short version is that I feel almost shortchanged by decades of firearm instruction, nearly all of which assumed the gun would be in your hand when the fight started. Even things like IDPA, where reality is stressed, still don't - and really cannot - train students when and how to produce a weapon in a real-world situation. Thirty years of firearm training made me feel completely capable in a fight, and that feeling was completely undone by five minutes in the gym.

 

[labnoti]

Most defensive handgun techniques taught in training classes are indeed based on the idea that you will be able to draw freely without incumbrance, and even assume a "stance." This isn't necessarily wrong. It does neglect the "rolling around on the ground" type of combat that can happen, but a lot of people that will train with a handgun, will not, or cannot roll around on the ground voluntarily in training. That doesn't make them hopelessly unprepared for violence. Even the "most likely" cause of violence for many people is violent intimidation -- such as an armed robbery, mugging, carjacking, or "hold up." In these cases, the attacker does not want to roll around on the ground. They don't even want to contact the victim at all, they just want money or other valuables.

Violent intimidation does not always present a good opportunity for a defender to use a firearm to stop it. The firearm is not a panacea for it, but other types of violence like terrorism, psychopathic killers, assassinations are much less likely scenarios for most people. What may not be so uncommon would be some kind of bar or street fight, brawl, or other provoked attack. When a person has violent enemies and they've given them cause to attack, the attack may come unexpectedly, at an unexpected time from an unexpected source, in an unexpected place. They may very well find themselves on the receiving end of a "prison yard rush," slammed up against a wall, attacked from behind or "jumped" by multiple attackers. For a person involved in drugs, gangs, prostitution, gambling, racketeering or other vice, these kind of attacks might be more likely. They are also likely for anyone who does not leave to avoid fights, but provokes attacks and stays (like bar fights). For the typical middle-aged attendee of defensive handgun training classes, these would be "worst case" or "outlier" events. Given a limited amount of time and resources, they are better off preparing for the "most likely" case such as opportunistic violent intimidation, home invasion, and car jacking.

 

[Kleanbore]

One thing that I have only recently begun to work on - and that no gun trainer, over the past 30 years, has ever mentioned in my presence - is how to produce a weapon during physical combat.

Such training is available, for guns, blades, canes, and hands, should one want to pursue it.

If you normally are looking at your phone or slouching around with your hands in your pockets, then be honest with yourself and do that in training too.

NO! Stop doing that!

The short version is that I feel almost shortchanged by decades of firearm instruction, nearly all of which assumed the gun would be in your hand when the fight started.

Well, the whole idea is to have it in your hand before you are slashed or stabbed, and good instructors strive to teach the skills.

Even things like IDPA, where reality is stressed, still don't - and really cannot - train students...

As mentioned in the OP, IDPA is a competitive sport, and it is not realistic defensive training.

...train students when and how to produce a weapon in a real-world situation.

The best course I have taken (from PDN I.C.E) addressed just that.

And so, in fact, does any training involving the Tueller Drill.

Trying to draw while being choked or punched or while rolling around...

The entire point of the "Mindset" section of the OP is about minimizing the already remote likelihood that a defender will ever get into such an undesirable situation in the first place.

 

[.38 Special]

Such training is available, for guns, blades, canes, and hands, should one want to pursue it.

And that is the point of my post, really.

NO! Stop doing that!

Indeed. But how many of us have never looked at our phones in public, or placed our hands in our pockets? If you do it in real life, you should train it as well, if for no other reason to see what the effects really are.

Well, the whole idea is to have it in your hand before you are slashed or stabbed, and good instructors strive to teach the skills.

That is a fine idea, but not perfectly realistic, as an hour watching Youtube videos will demonstrate.

As mentioned in the OP, IDPA is a competitive sport, and it is not realistic defensive training.

IDPA presents itself as "Focused on defensive tactics with carry gear".

The best course I have taken (from PDN I.C.E) addressed just that.

I am glad for you. Such training is exceptionally rare, in my experience.

And so, in fact, does any training involving the Tueller Drill.

The drill from 21 feet away? Worthwhile, but also not what I am talking about.

The entire point of the "Mindset" section of the OP is about minimizing the already remote likelihood that a defender will ever get into such an undesirable situation in the first place.

And I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything written therein. If a person is confident that his mindset satisfactorily reduces the likelihood of a person with bad intent ever getting within contact range then more power to him. I don't have that confidence, myself.

 

[.38 Special]

Most defensive handgun techniques taught in training classes are indeed based on the idea that you will be able to draw freely without incumbrance, and even assume a "stance." This isn't necessarily wrong. It does neglect the "rolling around on the ground" type of combat that can happen, but a lot of people that will train with a handgun, will not, or cannot roll around on the ground voluntarily in training. That doesn't make them hopelessly unprepared for violence. Even the "most likely" cause of violence for many people is violent intimidation -- such as an armed robbery, mugging, carjacking, or "hold up." In these cases, the attacker does not want to roll around on the ground. They don't even want to contact the victim at all, they just want money or other valuables.

Violent intimidation does not always present a good opportunity for a defender to use a firearm to stop it. The firearm is not a panacea for it, but other types of violence like terrorism, psychopathic killers, assassinations are much less likely scenarios for most people. What may not be so uncommon would be some kind of bar or street fight, brawl, or other provoked attack. When a person has violent enemies and they've given them cause to attack, the attack may come unexpectedly, at an unexpected time from an unexpected source, in an unexpected place. They may very well find themselves on the receiving end of a "prison yard rush," slammed up against a wall, attacked from behind or "jumped" by multiple attackers. For a person involved in drugs, gangs, prostitution, gambling, racketeering or other vice, these kind of attacks might be more likely. They are also likely for anyone who does not leave to avoid fights, but provokes attacks and stays (like bar fights). For the typical middle-aged attendee of defensive handgun training classes, these would be "worst case" or "outlier" events. Given a limited amount of time and resources, they are better off preparing for the "most likely" case such as opportunistic violent intimidation, home invasion, and car jacking.

Very well put. It is not just "rolling around" scenarios, however. It is also the mugger who comes up from behind you, or the guy who approaches from the front with seemingly innocent intent, or any of the other scenarios in which the "bad guy" has gotten inside your defenses. And I certainly am not arguing that anyone in particular is "hopelessly unprepared". I am illustrating that I felt very well prepared with my gun-centric training, that I discovered a big gaping hole in my plans, and that my experience might have some value to other people on this board.

 

[labnoti]

There are some relevant techniques in Krav Maga and Hojutsu to deal with those close range encounters, but the fact is that violence does not always present a good opportunity for a defender to use a firearm to stop it. John Correia frequently talks about "compliance" often being the best option and the need to "wait your turn" (not drawing when someone has the drop on you). That advice is especially relevant to the kind of violent intimidation I mentioned, but not so relevant to something like an assassination attempt. Ultimately, we do indeed want training that addresses plausible threats and that is certainly not limited to weapons manipulation on a firing line.

I suppose that the kind of training that really addresses this need is not actually firearms training because live fire and real firearms aren't ideal for the purpose. Rubber guns and knives are frequently used in martial arts like the ones I mentioned. If someone can, it is highly advisable to train in a martial art, particularly one that is "street" focused rather than competitive sport tournament focused. Among the many dozens (not quite hundreds yet) of people I've met in firearm training classes, there have been a handful that also train in relevant martial arts. There have been far more whose health made just standing on a firing line in the sun a dubious proposition. Not only are many of the people, but I would say it is typical of most of the people I've met in firearm training classes to be middle-aged or older, overweight, and disabilities or health problems are also common. That doesn't totally preclude them from getting more physical training or invalidate the value of more physical training, but it does seem likely to result in such training being less attractive to the same group.

It seems to me that it would be much easier to attract a bunch of guys already doing street-focused martial arts and combatives to get into firearms training than it would be to try to get people already doing firearms training to get into training combatives.

 

[Kleanbore]

That is a fine idea, but not perfectly realistic, as an hour watching Youtube videos will demonstrate.

It is, hoever, the objective.

IDPA presents itself as "Focused on defensive tactics with carry gear".

The drill from 21 feet away? Worthwhile, but also not what I am talking about.

Maybe not , but it is a "real world situation."

If a person is confident that his mindset satisfactorily reduces the likelihood of a person with bad intent ever getting within contact range then more power to him. I don't have that confidence, myself.

I don't know how confident I am, but I do have some idea about what to do.

By the way, should your "mindset" practice alert you to a threat 21 feet away, the priority becomes one of skills, and how fast the defender can produce the firearm.

It's not easy, and should you not be quick enough and end up within arms reach, you will likely be bleeding profusely, rather than rolling around on a mat.

 

[.38 Special]

By the way, should your "mindset" practice alert you to a threat 21 feet away, the priority becomes one of skills, and how fast the defender can produce the firearm.

It's not easy, and should you not be quick enough and end up within arms reach, you will likely be bleeding profusely, rather than rolling around on a mat.

To my mind, Tueller's great contribution was to really emphasize the "reactionary gap" which is, in fact, a big part of what I am writing about. One of the troubles, though, is that 21 feet somehow became dogma. I believe that the Tueller drill is a valid method of training, but I also think it should sometimes be modified to include an attacker running toward the defender with a training blade, and the defender responding however he chooses, while carrying training weapons. That will quickly demonstrate that the "21 foot rule" is meaningless.

 

[Kleanbore]

To my mind, Tueller's great contribution was to really emphasize the "reactionary gap" which is, in fact, a big part of what I am writing about. One of the troubles, though, is that 21 feet somehow became dogma.

It was and is simply the average distance that an average person can run in the time that it takes a police officer to draw a handgun from an uncovered belt holster and fire once.

I believe that the Tueller drill is a valid method of training,

Actually, it was intended to prove the fact that, at that distance, which was derived from Tueller's experiments, a person with a contact weapon can constitute a threat with the opportunity to cause death or serious bodily harm.

It is used in some training drills.

....I also think it should sometimes be modified to include an attacker running toward the defender with a training blade, and the defender responding however he chooses, while carrying training weapons.

The training blade should not be necessary for anyone with any imagination whatsoever.

Yes, the response may include more than drawing and shooting. Shoving a grocery cart, using a car door, moving behind cover, using a cane....

One does not want to end up grappling with an attacker wielding a blade. Yes, people do train that, but it is a high risk strategy with a high chance of a negative outcome. Score any contact as a loss for the defender.

That will quickly demonstrate that the "21 foot rule" is meaningless.

I'm not sure what you mean.

A defender's knowledge of the subject could figure in a defense of justification, provided that the defender could prove that he had that knowledge prior to the event.

 

[TikkaShooter]

Actually, it was intended to prove the fact that, at that distance, which was derived from Tueller's experiments, a person with a contact weapon can constitute a threat with the opportunity to cause death or serious bodily harm.

It is used in some training drills.

Potentially, the distance may not be 21'. The closer an attack begins, the greater the level of difficulty becomes..

 

[Kleanbore]

Potentially, the distance may not be 21'. The closer an attack begins, the greater the level of difficulty becomes..

Certainly!

Twenty one feet is only a distance that is defined by an average speed and an average time.

Better to have detected potential trouble timely and avoided or departed from harms way than to get into a use of force encounter.

 

[TikkaShooter]

Certainly!

Twenty one feet is only a distance that is defined by an average speed and an average time.

Better to have detected potential trouble timely and avoided or departed from harms way than to get into a use of force encounter.

IMO, the Tueller drill made an impression in people's minds how quickly an attacker could cover 21'.

How does one detect potential trouble timely is the next question and it's a big one..

X2, it is much better to beat feet than get into a use of force encounter, but that may or may not be an option..

This is a good example.
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ng-jihadist-stopped-by-public/comment-page-2/
Even here in the US with a CCW permit; a terrorist pulls knife and starts stabbing people.. Given time, distance or both to react the armed citizen could drop him; however, those standing within couple of feet.....

 

[PWC]

If I were witness to an armed robbery of a business, I would not intervene because money is insured and can be replaced, but I would be in condition 1, ready to defend my life or anothers, albeit, probably too late for another being shot, should the robbery take a ugly twist. I would concentrate on being a good witness; get the best description possible of the perp or perps.