Things Not to Live By

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kleanbore

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
17,313
Most of us have seen these comments in discussions here regarding self defense. I'm confident that just about everyone here knows to not draw incorrect conclusions from them, or to discount them heavily:
  • The average gunfight is over in less than "n" rounds.
  • Since the odds of one's ever having to use my gun in self defense are less than one in "n" thousand, one really doesn't have to be concerned about magazine capacity.
  • A good shoot is a good shoot.
  • There has never been a court case in which.....
  • Magazine articles tell us that thousands of people have defended themselves successfully without having had training.
  • I don't put much stock in so-and-so as a trainer, because he has never been in a real gunfight.
  • More people have been killed by .22 rim-fires than by any other caliber.
  • A five shot revolver is more than adequate if you carry speed loaders.
  • Unless you expect to be attacked by a gang, you don't need more than five rounds.
  • I know every inch of my home, but the intruder does not.
  • Auditory exclusion will protect your ears from damage.
  • If he gets away, he may victimize others.
Some of these are true facts, depending up on what "n" is, or how one completes the sentence; others may be true but would be difficult to verify; and one is false. Some represent conjecture or conclusions.

They all have two things in common: (1) they have been offered as bases for decisions and recommendations regarding self-defense; and (2) for varying reasons, they cannot serve as a legitimate basis for drawing any important conclusions.

It might prove useful to peruse and reflect upon the list.

Should anyone have any questions about any of them, don't be bashful. We all start out not knowing what we do not know, and now is a good time to receive some clarification or explanation. The staff and the membership are here to help.

One other thing--I put the list together quickly from memory. I'm sure there are other good examples. If you can think of some, shoot.

I hope this proves helpful.
 
I've experienced things I never thought possible quite a few times, both in my personal life and a few times in self defense situations. Those experiences have taught me to, within reason, prepare for the worse case scenario, not the best case scenario hoping that's what happens. By within reason means my primary carry gun is a P365XL (Sig replaced my problem plagued one with one that works), as capacity matters to me with attacks by multiple attackers in our area (the Chicago suburbs) being common. I also carry two 15 round magazines. I completely understand that the odds of needing 43 rounds are immeasuably small, but it costs me nothing to carry the extra magazines.

In regards to the legal system, in my days as a LEO I saw things that again were unimaginable. Don't believe you can predict the outcome of a court case or the aftermath of a self defense situation.
 
Last edited:
Possible responses to some of these points:

Since the odds of one's ever having to use my gun in self defense are less than one in "n" thousand, one really doesn't have to be concerned about magazine capacity.

It's not about the odds, it's about the stakes.

There has never been a court case in which.....

Doesn't mean there won't be one and doesn't mean it won't be you.

Magazine articles tell us that thousands of people have defended themselves successfully without having had training.

True. But is that the standard to which we should aspire? Training greatly improves your odds.

More people have been killed by .22 rim-fires than by any other caliber.

Killing your attacker isn't the goal, stopping him is. Fat lot of good it does if he dies three days later in the hospital after he stabs you to death on the scene.

Unless you expect to be attacked by a gang, you don't need more than five rounds.

Maybe.

Unless you happen to be the one unfortunate enough to run into the guy who takes 14 rounds of .45ACP, including 3 head shots, and ends up finally dying in the hospital.

"But the odds...."

Once again, It's not about the odds, it's about the stakes.
 
Most of us have seen these comments in discussions here regarding self defense. I'm confident that just about everyone here knows to not draw incorrect conclusions from them, or to discount them heavily:
  • The average gunfight is over in less than "n" rounds.
  • Since the odds of one's ever having to use my gun in self defense are less than one in "n" thousand, one really doesn't have to be concerned about magazine capacity.
  • A good shoot is a good shoot.
  • There has never been a court case in which.....
  • Magazine articles tell us that thousands of people have defended themselves successfully without having had training.
  • I don't put much stock in so-and-so as a trainer, because he has never been in a real gunfight.
  • More people have been killed by .22 rim-fires than by any other caliber.
  • A five shot revolver is more than adequate if you carry speed loaders.
  • Unless you expect to be attacked by a gang, you don't need more than five rounds.
  • I know every inch of my home, but the intruder does not.
  • Auditory exclusion will protect your ears from damage.
  • If he gets away, he may victimize others.
Some of these are true facts, depending up on what "n" is, or how one completes the sentence; others may be true but would be difficult to verify; and one is false. Some represent conjecture or conclusions.

They all have two things in common: (1) they have been offered as bases for decisions and recommendations regarding self-defense; and (2) for varying reasons, they cannot serve as a legitimate basis for drawing any important conclusions.

It might prove useful to peruse and reflect upon the list.

Should anyone have any questions about any of them, don't be bashful. We all start out not knowing what we do not know, and now is a good time to receive some clarification or explanation. The staff and the membership are here to help.

One other thing--I put the list together quickly from memory. I'm sure there are other good examples. If you can think of some, shoot.

I hope this proves helpful.
The only one that I take great disagreement with is the "gun fight trainer".

Having been shot at,I can say that I had NO FREAKIN IDEA what my butthole tasted like at the back of my throat -------- until I washed it down with cold black coffee..

So, I want to be trained by those that have seen the "eye of the tiger" and lived to tell about it.

Finished a course in Tn a few months back,and as a grizzled ex cop,I went with the belief that I had nothing to learn .

WRONG = bigtime,and the instructors were all veterans who impressed the living crap out of me.

rant off.
 
Auditory exclusion will protect your ears from damage

I used to believe this crap. I am currently going through a VA claim for my hearing. As part of my case I went to an independent audiologist who doesn't know my history (I was a 13B Field Artillery Cannon Crewman). For a second opinion to give the VA.

We went through the hearing and tinnitus test and he sat me down to show me the results and pointed on the chart to a dip that he calls a hearing notch.

He explained to me very clearly and very thoroughly that the notch was caused by noise exposure. He said that in normal hearing loss the curve just kind of goes down gradually but my case for it to go down, drop off and then come right back up indicates noise exposure.

He also told me that it is permanent and progressive. Which means that I will eventually become deaf.

I'm sitting here typing this and my ears are ringing so loud it hurts. I was actually sitting at work one day when a fault alarm sounded on the fire alarm control panel. After a minute my coworker looked at me and asked "Do you not hear that alarm?" I told him I thought is was my tinnitus. (Tru story bro).

I can't enjoy music, I can't use a phone, My TV is set to Closed Caption by default. My wife has given up on repeating herself to me.

If anybody tells you that auditory exclusion you protect your hearing they're full of it.

Wear your damn hearing protection. Wear your damn hearing protection. Wear your damn hearing protection
 
Here's a little something I learned the hard way in 22 years on the street... from 1973 to 1995... Put simply -the actual results of an armed encounter on the street are so random and unpredictable that they're to be avoided at all costs unless you have no other choice.... In some cases shots were fired (once or twice lots and lots of shots, in one case nearly 100...)- in others, despite all the odds there was never a shot fired by either side... Some cases involved wounded parties or killings - in other cases after more than a few shots were fired no one was hit - even at almost point blank range.. For myself - I only fired a single shot on the street in all those years - and I'd take it back if I could -even though thoroughly justified...

All of us adapt and learn to live in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in.. For me at least my attitudes and reactions changed dramatically over the years to dangerous situations from the rawest most gullible rookie to a very cynical and reactive individual. The day I retired out I quit carrying a sidearm - and that hasn't changed all these years later... Within six months into retirement (at the old age of 47...) I actually felt five years younger... and so it goes...
 
Put simply -the actual results of an armed encounter on the street are so random and unpredictable that they'...
And that....
  • Averages don't mean anything.
  • Experiences in a violent attack or two don't tell us much about how to avoid injury or death
  • One cannot make any meaningful conclusions about the defensive effectiveness of different handgun rounds
  • ....or about the number of rounds required to stop an assailant
Good put!
 
Here's a little something I learned the hard way in 22 years on the street... from 1973 to 1995... Put simply -the actual results of an armed encounter on the street are so random and unpredictable that they're to be avoided at all costs unless you have no other choice.... In some cases shots were fired (once or twice lots and lots of shots, in one case nearly 100...)- in others, despite all the odds there was never a shot fired by either side... Some cases involved wounded parties or killings - in other cases after more than a few shots were fired no one was hit - even at almost point blank range.. For myself - I only fired a single shot on the street in all those years - and I'd take it back if I could -even though thoroughly justified...

All of us adapt and learn to live in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in.. For me at least my attitudes and reactions changed dramatically over the years to dangerous situations from the rawest most gullible rookie to a very cynical and reactive individual. The day I retired out I quit carrying a sidearm - and that hasn't changed all these years later... Within six months into retirement (at the old age of 47...) I actually felt five years younger... and so it goes...
And I greatly appreciate 'your truth'.

I have been retired since 2007 and have NEVER been without a means to defend me & mine.

I live near where I worked,and have run across a few I put away = HUNDREDS of miles from my home !.

Glad you don't need to "walk heavy".

My theory is that I give no more thought to my gun than I do my knife,spare tire,fireextinguisher,shovel,first aid kits, etc.

They all exist ,and I know I can figure out what I need and WHEN [ or if ] by a sound,a smell,or a visual.

Loving life and btw = my coffee is hot so ,later brothers.
 
The only one that I take great disagreement with is the "gun fight trainer".

Having been shot at,I can say that I had NO FREAKIN IDEA what my butthole tasted like at the back of my throat -------- until I washed it down with cold black coffee..

So, I want to be trained by those that have seen the "eye of the tiger" and lived to tell about it.

Finished a course in Tn a few months back,and as a grizzled ex cop,I went with the belief that I had nothing to learn .

WRONG = bigtime,and the instructors were all veterans who impressed the living crap out of me.

rant off.

I agree to an extent. If I’m going to be trained in something where my life might depend on it, I want the instructor to have some first hand knowledge of it, I totally get this. However having been in a gun fight wether it’s military, Leo or SD/HD based doesn’t guarantee that they would make good instructors. They may not have the personality traits that lends itself to training other people and can actually train bad habits purely becouse they’re not cut out for such a role.

On the flip-side, someone who is competent with firearms and teaches solid principles in a clear and coherent manner could make an excellent instructor, even if they haven’t Bene in a firefight. Massad Ayoob I believe isna good example of this.

I think the issue is when people with no experience act like they have and everything gets a bit disingenuous. Alarm bells start ringing and I wouldn’t want to be trained by them either.
 
...having been in a gun fight wether it’s military, Leo or SD/HD based doesn’t guarantee that they would make good instructors. They may not have the personality traits that lends itself to training other people
That's certainly a very important point.

Also consider this: of the relatively few people who have actually had to use deadly force to defend themselves in situations even remotely comparable to those that can be expected in civilian self defense. still fewer have done so more than one or two times.

Therein lies the rub. There are so many possible ways that a violent attack can unfold that what those who have been shot at and shot back have experienced can barely scratch the surface, if that. An even then, they may not really be aware of all of what happened in the event. Add to that the fact that if anyone were deceased, they would likley be advised to never say anything at all about the incident.

It's pretty much a dry well.

The best instructors of whom I am aware do have LEO experience, but that they know has come from experiences of many others, and from extensive FoF simulation, in which many, many variables may be evaluated.

The situation is not unlike that of air-to-air combat training. We do not (and cannot, at this point) base our learning on what was experienced in a just handful of sorties.

Then after we have found people who do understand what needs to be taught, the question, that you put well, is which ones can teach.
 
That's certainly a very important point.

Also consider this: of the relatively few people who have actually had to use deadly force to defend themselves in situations even remotely comparable to those that can be expected in civilian self defense. still fewer have done so more than one or two times.

Therein lies the rub. There are so many possible ways that a violent attack can unfold that what those who have been shot at and shot back have experienced can barely scratch the surface, if that. An even then, they may not really be aware of all of what happened in the event. Add to that the fact that if anyone were deceased, they would likley be advised to never say anything at all about the incident.

It's pretty much a dry well.

The best instructors of whom I am aware do have LEO experience, but that they know has come from experiences of many others, and from extensive FoF simulation, in which many, many variables may be evaluated.

The situation is not unlike that of air-to-air combat training. We do not (and cannot, at this point) base our learning on what was experienced in a just handful of sorties.

Then after we have found people who do understand what needs to be taught, the question, that you put well, is which ones can teach.

I think I can see what your trying to say.

BUT [ you knew there was one ] I will post this as a counter.

I have NEEDED surgery more than once in my life [ related to being an LEO ,replaced joints ] and I was told by VERY wise men that the only one you want to do your DELICATE SURGERYS are those that do at least a THOUSAND a year !.

I see that as a truth !,so from that I see that any LEO who took people down at gun point,made arrests AT GUN POINT,and even if there were no shots fired = he/she knew that they were about to cap a human.

That makes you a much better trainer than those who can "shoot well".

You do need to have the ability to convey the required physical metheds to all.

But add to the above,those who have taken life and they are not as few as you might think.

I am adding military COMBAT veterans to this list as those at the last course I took were mostly of that ilk.

And they had many hours out of the 'green zone' and were able to let you know ------ they had seen the "eye of the tiger" as its often called.

to each their own,as I must say to end this !.
 
Any type of self defense where lethal force is applied, outside of war, is a very rare event. That is there is a many variable problem that relies specifically on the specific context of a particular time, place, and individuals involved including their capabilities.

But, when we get to threatened or apparent threat of violence and self defense is involved, we come into a much richer line of inquiry statistically speaking. Obviously, the best outcome overall is avoiding the situation that bad things may occur in the first place. That is Farnam's application of Avoid stupid people, Avoid stupid places, and avoid all places where people do stupid things. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/self-defense-tip-avoid-gunfights-using-a-stupid-checklist/

Next up is situational awareness that if you find yourself present at such a situation, then how to extract yourself before it becomes necessary to use or threaten to use deadly force. That is pattern recognition and awareness (Cooper's conditions work here). https://www.bsr-inc.com/awareness-color-code-chart/

Then comes warding off a potential attack without discharge, and the options get worse from here. Trained LEO's and others dealing with the criminal classes are great help here in training classes and publications. They may have never discharged their weapon but they have assuredly dealt with crazies, low-lifes, druggies and drunkards, yutes, and so on. In fact, their personal example of not discharging their weapon might actually be a virtue here as their conflict avoidance skills may have been superior enough to end the potential violent situation with a minimal application of force.

Training, research, even reading the crime reports of your local newspaper or online source, gives you valuable intelligence about your local context so that you can practice avoidance, extraction, and warding off potentially violent situations. Statistics in this case are very valuable and one can draw some pretty good generalizations of specific good practices for personal safety aside from the actual discharge of firearms in a lethal force situation.

Then we get to actual gunfights where we can identify many of the variables but will never be able to have certainty. Best we can do is identify potential variables that we cannot control that can affect our success and work on maximizing our own capabilities--movement, reloads, marksmanship, mindset, reliable tools, etc. That is where things like Tom Given's database of Rangemaster encounters, the Tactical Professor's work, the armed citizen anecdotes on the NRA's website https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/the-armed-citizen/, FBI after action reports, and so on are useful to identify variables involved in deadly encounters. It will not give an exact answer to what might be your particular problem but can very well illuminate what not to do for example.

As usual, YMMV, IMHO, and all other caveats that apply to your specific context.
 
The one that gets me is one that I teach my kids. People preach situational awareness, and I’m one who firmly believes in it, but it is not the end-all be-all stay out of the way measure. There are times where a person simply can be overloaded or distracted, or in too hectic of a situation to really know what’s going on around them. Large crowds are too busy to keep an eye on that person who sets off your internal alarms. You eventually have to sleep. You can be doing something where you are alone or in a small group in a room and someone enters from out of nowhere causing a substantial ruckus. Situational awareness can keep us out of a lot of trouble, but it can’t keep us out of all of it. There are times where there is no reaction time and you still have to find a way out without perforation, and if you already see a gun in the hands of your foe, then you already lost.

And the other thing that bothers me is that people give visual tells that they are carrying by feeling and adjusting the gun. That does NOT tell a person you have a gun unless you give them a good print or outright expose it, it just tells the person that something in your pocket is bothering you. Keys poke legs, wallets get in a bind, and sometimes you have to check to make sure you picked your phone up when you left that restaurant.
 
Training, research, even reading the crime reports of your local newspaper or online source, gives you valuable intelligence

I see the point you are making is to be as well informed as possible, but I cannot agree with your means of making the point here. I agree with the premise, but I do not believe that media, especially professional media, are trustworthy enough to consider a credible source. Never forget that the event that started off in Ferguson Missouri was “started” by a cop and the victim was “just a teenager” when in reality the event started when a “person” (taking emotion out intentionally whereas media inserts it intentionally) robbed a convenience store and the cop was dutifully responding to the call. That’s just one example, and hundreds more could be used in its place. The media has shown themselves as nothing more than a group of instigators looking for the next story to sensationalize, and are therefore not worthy of being trusted in any manner regarding the protection of my life or my family. Hard statistics are good. Conversations with law enforcement (even casual interactions in public) are good. On more than one occasion I have booked a hotel room in an area I know nothing about only to be cautioned that it’s a rough spot and to take valuables in from the car or in one case to eat the cost of the room and find anything else.
 
makes you a much better trainer than those who can "shoot well".
There is far more to defensive training than learning how to shoot.

All other things being equal, I would prefer a trainer with LEO experience--Ayoob, Givens, Pincus--to another.

I was speaking of discounting the value of the trainer who has not "been in a gunfight".

see that as a truth !,so from that I see that any LEO who took people down at gun point,made arrests AT GUN POINT,...
I am adding military COMBAT veterans to this list as those at the last course I took were mostly of that ilk. And they had many hours out of the 'green zone' and were able to let you know ------ they had seen the "eye of the tiger" as its often called.
Tthe experiences of those who have engaged in search and destroy missions, and even of hose who have made traffic stops, responded to 911 calls, served warrants, etc., are, I think, of little relevance to those who are tasked and authorized to pursue and capture absolutely no one, and who must avoid harm in a parking lot or convenience store or at a gas station.
 
Last edited:
I see the point you are making is to be as well informed as possible, but I cannot agree with your means of making the point here. I agree with the premise, but I do not believe that media, especially professional media, are trustworthy enough to consider a credible source. Never forget that the event that started off in Ferguson Missouri was “started” by a cop and the victim was “just a teenager” when in reality the event started when a “person” (taking emotion out intentionally whereas media inserts it intentionally) robbed a convenience store and the cop was dutifully responding to the call. That’s just one example, and hundreds more could be used in its place. The media has shown themselves as nothing more than a group of instigators looking for the next story to sensationalize, and are therefore not worthy of being trusted in any manner regarding the protection of my life or my family. Hard statistics are good. Conversations with law enforcement (even casual interactions in public) are good. On more than one occasion I have booked a hotel room in an area I know nothing about only to be cautioned that it’s a rough spot and to take valuables in from the car or in one case to eat the cost of the room and find anything else.

I understand your viewpoint but I have to work in a field that constantly requires separating fact from fiction, and objectivism versus narrative constructions. If you think of it as raw intel that has a mix of reliable and unreliable information, then you can still glean good information from such.

Believe it or not, you can get good information from biased sources--quite a bit of research on how former Soviet Union people read the news in those days and found out things that the gubmint did not want them to. Another example is law enforcement use of criminal informants. Unfortunately, the best source of information on criminal activities in a neighborhood are criminals themselves which often might have some narrative issues just like the media. Yet, the police use them and have developed ways to get useful information from them. Most of us are in the same boat with the media.

One of the big things that you can get from the media regardless of how biased they are about guns is location of incidents to be able to discern criminal activity hotspots as crime is usually not normally distributed geographically.

Fortunately, most crime reports in newspapers are buried in the back of local rags and no one really cares enough to alter the narrative. Most such papers simply take whatever the police department and courts issue and publish it verbatim. Although a mainstay in the old days for papers, police beat reporters are a dying breed in today's print media. Police and court reports are where you find the names and ids of local druggies, alkies, the typical assortment of crimes, stupid people doing stupid things, the locations, etc. While some police agencies have websites with crime incident reports that can be gleaned directly, smaller jurisdictions often rely on local papers. The new Nextdoor social media and other such Facebook groups etc. can also yield useful information but there have been problems with reliability there as well.

None of these sources are where I would look for shots fired, caliber of weapons used, training, past criminal histories, etc. Heck, in those cases, even police reports can be unreliable just as battle incident reports can resemble works of fiction as well. But, we do the best we can with what information we can glean. There are no perfect sources, there is no certainty in lethal force encounters, no perfect prescient predictions, and the best that we can do is play the odds that we understand at the time.
 
The one that gets me is one that I teach my kids. People preach situational awareness, and I’m one who firmly believes in it, but it is not the end-all be-all stay out of the way measure. There are times where a person simply can be overloaded or distracted, or in too hectic of a situation to really know what’s going on around them. Large crowds are too busy to keep an eye on that person who sets off your internal alarms. You eventually have to sleep. You can be doing something where you are alone or in a small group in a room and someone enters from out of nowhere causing a substantial ruckus. Situational awareness can keep us out of a lot of trouble, but it can’t keep us out of all of it. There are times where there is no reaction time and you still have to find a way out without perforation, and if you already see a gun in the hands of your foe, then you already lost.

And the other thing that bothers me is that people give visual tells that they are carrying by feeling and adjusting the gun. That does NOT tell a person you have a gun unless you give them a good print or outright expose it, it just tells the person that something in your pocket is bothering you. Keys poke legs, wallets get in a bind, and sometimes you have to check to make sure you picked your phone up when you left that restaurant.


For the most part, one can choose to avoid large crowds at sporting events, concerts, movies, fireworks shows, etc. as that involves choice to attend. Farnam certainly recommends avoiding all crowds as a general rule for example. If at an event, almost necessarily, you are trusting watchdogs and their security system rather than your own and that trust may be misplaced. Thus, awareness consists of locating exits, locating resources, locating hidey holes, moving away from problematic people if possible, and even leaving the event if it does not feel right. And not all events are the same, I cannot recall an opera, orchestral performance, ballet, etc. having this sort of mass casualty event. Something like the Superbowl is going to get high quality multilayered protection or during a presidential inauguration ceremony (afterwards might be a different issue). A football match in HS between schools with gang issues is one that I would avoid.

Depending on the nature of the event, it may very well be a stupid place with a lot of stupid people and a lot of stupid things--e.g. Bourbon Street and its environs during Mardi Gras. A lot of places see similarly problems when a sports team wins a championship and people come out of bars all liquoured up and ready to rumble.

Cooper actually deals a lot along with Ed Lovette with the perception that you cannot pay attention to everything at every time and gives some very valuable advice as to make it a habit to watch people, watch how they behave, etc. When it becomes a habit, you do it automatically and soon apply it everywhere you go. There is also the old maxim, safety in numbers, if you must go out including distractions such as bars, restaurants, it is better to have a group so that one person at least stays aware of their surroundings (also useful tactic for designated drivers to keep away from the source of merriment).

Regarding sleep, that means that you have to increase your response time estimates which means defensive barriers and practices--hotel rooms--use all the locks, don't sleep in public, consider portable alarms and door wedges if you stay in a number of different places.

Homes are the easier one to increase your time to respond and raise your alert level through layering--dogs, alarms, hardening entry points, lighting, OPSEC, internal barriers in the home--doors etc.
 
Joe Biden says all you need to do is get a double barrel shotgun and if someone comes a knocking, just blast a shot up in the air.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top