Has anyone been involved in a concealed carry shooting?

[Wondering Beard]

The mugger in a shootout with the victim and with an obvious escape path vs the mugger in a shootout with police with sirens closing in surrounding him may be the same person, but the motivation to stay in the fight and kill is much different.

Another gold nugget

[GardoneVT]

The biggest single predictor who will win in a random crime is who shoots first. It's not 100%, there are exceptions, but it's a pretty solid majority. Surprise, speed, and violence of assault on the criminal are the main factors. The rest is minutiae. That's not to say it's worthless or small advantages aren't to be found there. Reading body language and seeing the assault coming (along with avoidance and de-escalation), a solid and consistent draw that is disguised or involves a distraction, and then quick hits, that's it.

I think most "defensive classes" involving firearms miss the mark big time on this point.
Logistics once demanded I walk out of an urban casino with a date- and a black guy walking about 'intimately' with a white woman in zero dark thirty tends to invite trouble. So I was on the look for potential unpleasentness ,and noticed a dude with his hands in his pockets ambling across the street looking- and not just with his eyes. I only unbuttoned my coat at this, and Mr CrossStreet instantly reacted by changing direction away from us.

I never showed my 'gat , never even broke stride. A tac reload didn't save the day - paying attention did. Packing a $4,000 Glock with more windows in it then a Malibu beach home is worthless without situational awareness.

[octagon]

Well, somethings we just have to wargame out.

Hit rates go down the longer the gun fight goes on. Participants start to move, find cover, etc. Hitting a stationary target in training is simpler than a moving one, and when both shooter and target are on the move it's even tougher. Most defensive shootings by civilians just don't get to that point as they are over too fast. One team is down, disabled, or fleeing very early on.

Reloads in general is more of a gaming skill than a defensive skill. I've yet to see a civilian reload at all in a random crime, and yet to see reload speed matter in doper-on-doper crime, where we have found empty magazines and enough spent casings to indicate reloads took place. Even in LEO shootings, the reload is usually an after the action affair, nothing that mattered. I've yet to see a tactical reload matter, although I'm aware of incidents they were used. Todd made the point in a blog post that you have to reload to continue a range session anyway, so you might as well not waste the training opportunity. I get that, and agree, but it's not a high reward skill in my opinion.

The biggest single predictor who will win in a random crime is who shoots first. It's not 100%, there are exceptions, but it's a pretty solid majority. Surprise, speed, and violence of assault on the criminal are the main factors. The rest is minutiae. That's not to say it's worthless or small advantages aren't to be found there. Reading body language and seeing the assault coming (along with avoidance and de-escalation), a solid and consistent draw that is disguised or involves a distraction, and then quick hits, that's it.

I'm going to belabor this point a bit, but in random crime the criminal is generally not very dedicated to killing you. They wanted to rob you, rape you, etc. They want to live another day to rob or rape the next victim. Once you scare and hurt them, they are most likely exiting the fight. In the majority of cases they don't fire back at all, in the ones they do they fire as they flee, sometimes shooting unsighted over their shoulder, but more often taking a quick shot as they turn. Perhaps a startle reaction, perhaps to get you to stop shooting, I don't know. Either way, it's generally not sighted fire, but from where they were concealing the pistol from passerbys, and I believe that movement can help avoid that shot. It's just not as important as often as getting the first shot and resetting their attitude. Targeted crime where the goal is to kill you, or failing to kill you will result in apprehension for a lengthy prison term, things change. That's why the "we deal with the same guys as you" that CCW holders say is true, but misses the mark. The mugger in a shootout with the victim and with an obvious escape path vs the mugger in a shootout with police with sirens closing in surrounding him may be the same person, but the motivation to stay in the fight and kill is much different.

Lots of good points in your post.

About war gaming things out. When conducting Simunitions scenarios early on we had a Glock training gun come back with the rear site almost coming off the slide. As I went to fix it I realized I should be asking about seeing the sites and considering hit location. I made sure the site was on but not aligned for the rest of the shooters that day and got mostly "I don't know" when I asked if they saw or used their sites. It was scientific at the ranges and Simunitions accuracy but it helped with debriefing and when I later was zeroing the gun it would be easy to miss a stationary target let alone a moving one. I also saw almost every person involved start moving once the first shot was fired in almost every scenario where it was possible and they were not sitting. It is not the same as a gunfight but food for thought.

On the first to shoot principle I can't disagree at all and John at Active Self Protection comments a lot on the first to get a decent hit almost always wins the fight and he has the CCTV footage from quite a few incidents that backs this up. This along with criminal mindset you found that they primarily want to get away would lead one to believe (along with some instructors commenting on it similarly) that a hit anywhere is not going to do the badguy any good or help him shoot better. I don't think Bill Jordan's (IIRC) comment on even a quick loud noise will upset the badguy's psyche and may cause him to miss. He lived in a different time and liability world so I don't fault him.

Lastly another reason I started the thread was to see if there was much on instructors seeing students who have gotten training and then had incidents where they had to shoot. Obviously this is related primarily to Tom Givens work but it relates to GardoneVT's post about mindset and situational awareness. We all talk about how important these are and how mindset is the biggest factor but how much does the training so often focus on the mechanics and gear and miss the mindset/SA portions when the percentage of range time vs classroom time are compared. I know a lot of people won't sign up for mindset focused class over the fun shooting intensive one so that part is our(as defensive shooters looking for training) fault.

[Tamara]

Some things I have heard or seen being regularly taught is a tactical reload. I asked a few years ago on a number of forums similar to PF if anyone other than military situations has any information on a documented shooting where a LEO or citizen did a tactical reload and then used the partial loaded magazine again in the fight. I didn't find any.

FWIW, I don't know of anybody on my radar teaching that as an important skill for anything but IDPA competition, and for the exact reason you mentioned.

Reloads in general are...well, you have to reload your gun while you're practicing so you might as well practice doing it right, but again, for the civilian shooter and even the typical patrol cop, it's just not a thing that's really at all likely.

As to what BBI wrote about the news reports, mea culpa. As one of those liars of the press who writes them up for a magazine, I try to limit the information to the barest of bare bones so as not to draw too many inferences. The main things of interest to me are:

1) Did the (putative) good guy shoot? If so, was any collateral damage reported?
2) Were there bad guys on site when the po-po showed up?
3) If possible, do wne know if the good guy started with the gun on their person or did they have to fetch it?

Past that, shit gets pretty speculative pretty fast, even reading multiple news stories and watching video of the incident.


Another thing I get leery of is "Well, I've seen this CCTV footage and 99 times out of 100, the person shrieks and throws one hand over their eyes and point fires blindly with one hand, so what we're going to teach in this class is called the shrieking-one-handed-point-shooting-flail." So...they're going to train me to react like an untrained person? Why do I need training to do that if it is my "natural reflex"?

[octagon]

Another thing I get leery of is "Well, I've seen this CCTV footage and 99 times out of 100, the person shrieks and throws one hand over their eyes and point fires blindly with one hand, so what we're going to teach in this class is called the shrieking-one-handed-point-shooting-flail." So...they're going to train me to react like an untrained person? Why do I need training to do that if it is my "natural reflex"?

That would be using the available information unwisely or poorly. The way John at ASP uses it is more appropriate and useful as he points out using 2 hands is better than 1 in most cases, not getting too close with gun in hand to avoid a struggle over the gun, waiting your turn over drawing on a drawn gun, the 5 D's of a weapon disarm, and more even though he doesn't always have detailed information on the specific event he provides good commentary that can be useful even if he can't determine what the actual distance may be close or out of reach is still useful/practical information. These things can be used to help guide useful training but no one or even a useless trend should be used to mandate a training technique when it doesn't make logical sense.

I am however not against the 1 hand screaming point shoot technique if it is shown to provide solid,fast hits that end the fight quickly. I just hope I don't have to be kicked in the groin to get a high pitched scream to allow the technique to work properly ;-)

[Ed L]

I'm going to belabor this point a bit, but in random crime the criminal is generally not very dedicated to killing you. They wanted to rob you, rape you, etc. They want to live another day to rob or rape the next victim. Once you scare and hurt them, they are most likely exiting the fight. In the majority of cases they don't fire back at all, in the ones they do they fire as they flee, sometimes shooting unsighted over their shoulder, but more often taking a quick shot as they turn. Perhaps a startle reaction, perhaps to get you to stop shooting, I don't know. Either way, it's generally not sighted fire, but from where they were concealing the pistol from passerbys, and I believe that movement can help avoid that shot. It's just not as important as often as getting the first shot and resetting their attitude. Targeted crime where the goal is to kill you, or failing to kill you will result in apprehension for a lengthy prison term, things change. That's why the "we deal with the same guys as you" that CCW holders say is true, but misses the mark. The mugger in a shootout with the victim and with an obvious escape path vs the mugger in a shootout with police with sirens closing in surrounding him may be the same person, but the motivation to stay in the fight and kill is much different.

I really like your series of posts in this thread. I especially like your other thread where you examined civilian defensive shootings, , but I have a question

In a lot of situations where we hear about the police-criminal shootouts the criminal is not surrounded, but occur as a result of some type of encounter or interaction where the criminal is facing one or two police officers and do indeed have an escape path.

Also, if you look at criminal on criminal violence, you see what angry criminals do to each other. Should we expect them not to be mad at a citizen who is foiling their plans and challenging their ego?

I am not criticizing you, BehindBluel's, but there seem to be certain people who believe all you need is to fire at the criminal with a .22 and they will run away.

It seems to me that a fair amount of criminals who get shot by citizens are bumbling idiots, like the 3 home invaders who got shot by the guy with the AR-15 in Oklahoma.

I don't expect to be able to fend off Keyser Soze, but I do aim to be able to do the best I can and not hope to be facing the lowest common denominator.

If you look at the defensive shootings of Tom Given's students you see criminals taking multiple shots with service caliber handguns. I don't want to be any less prepared than that.

[BehindBlueI's]

I really like your series of posts in this thread. I especially like your other thread where you examined civilian defensive shootings, , but I have a question

In a lot of situations where we hear about the police-criminal shootouts the criminal is not surrounded, but occur as a result of some type of encounter or interaction where the criminal is facing one or two police officers and do indeed have an escape path.

Also, if you look at criminal on criminal violence, you see what angry criminals do to each other. Should we expect them not to be mad at a citizen who is foiling their plans and challenging their ego?

Facing a cop is different. They expect pursuit from a cop. They do not expect pursuit from civilians. Shoplifters are a good example. They'll yell at employees who chase them "you aren't a cop." Remember the news story about the cowboy at a Wal-mart who lasso'd a shoplifter? The guy's complaint was "you don't have a badge". It's different. Shoplifters aren't robbers, but it gives you an idea of the mindset.

I am not a psychologist, and am at best a well read journeyman in the realm of criminal psychology. I suspect the numbers are as they are because when you surprise a criminal with resistance, they don't have time to be angry. Especially a robber/rapist/whatever who's got several successes under their belt. They *expect* compliance and are complacent, because that's what experience has taught them. Wave the gun, threaten the mark, they give you what you want. Now, you can make them angry by drawing it out, verbally being non-compliant, etc. Especially younger offenders or offenders in groups (they need to save face).

My experience with incoming fire is that you aren't angry or scared, at least when it starts. You don't have time for emotion. If it draws out, then emotion has time to creep in, but when a surprise shot breaks it's just 'oh shit, survival mode time' and you react based on your training and instincts...right or wrong.

As for the last part, you can't be over prepared. If you're prepared for a squad of dedicated terrorists, that's awesome, and Joe Crackhead the street robber should be a walk in the park. I would never advocate being less trained or less prepared. However, regardless of my opinion on the matter, the numbers show that in one on one confrontations of random violence, even the untrained do very well for themselves if they present a functional firearm as a surprise. Roughly 1/4-1/3 win by firing and missing, something we're constantly told you can't do...miss fast enough to win. Some gunfights can be won with a starter pistol, some wont' be won with anything less than a solid head shot.

[voodoo_man]

Facing a cop is different. They expect pursuit from a cop. They do not expect pursuit from civilians. Shoplifters are a good example. They'll yell at employees who chase them "you aren't a cop." Remember the news story about the cowboy at a Wal-mart who lasso'd a shoplifter? The guy's complaint was "you don't have a badge". It's different. Shoplifters aren't robbers, but it gives you an idea of the mindset.

I am not a psychologist, and am at best a well read journeyman in the realm of criminal psychology. I suspect the numbers are as they are because when you surprise a criminal with resistance, they don't have time to be angry. Especially a robber/rapist/whatever who's got several successes under their belt. They *expect* compliance and are complacent, because that's what experience has taught them. Wave the gun, threaten the mark, they give you what you want. Now, you can make them angry by drawing it out, verbally being non-compliant, etc. Especially younger offenders or offenders in groups (they need to save face).

My experience with incoming fire is that you aren't angry or scared, at least when it starts. You don't have time for emotion. If it draws out, then emotion has time to creep in, but when a surprise shot breaks it's just 'oh shit, survival mode time' and you react based on your training and instincts...right or wrong.

As for the last part, you can't be over prepared. If you're prepared for a squad of dedicated terrorists, that's awesome, and Joe Crackhead the street robber should be a walk in the park. I would never advocate being less trained or less prepared. However, regardless of my opinion on the matter, the numbers show that in one on one confrontations of random violence, even the untrained do very well for themselves if they present a functional firearm as a surprise. Roughly 1/4-1/3 win by firing and missing, something we're constantly told you can't do...miss fast enough to win. Some gunfights can be won with a starter pistol, some wont' be won with anything less than a solid head shot.

Just gana quote this for preservation as this was a point of contention of a recent thread.

[octagon]

I won't quote BBI again but he has some very thoughtful words particularly in the last few lines. I would add as a LEO who has studied all kinds of shootings looking for common trends and learning points for 25+ years that the comment about winning with a starter pistol SOMETIMES is valid but obviously no one is recommending it just because it (or misses) has worked in a number of shootings. Look at ASP coverage of CCTV footage of mostly citizens in shootings with badguys. A lot of them are exactly what BBI said. They take off at the first shot or when the goodguy gets a gun visible. A lot shoot while fleeing and only a few do much serious fighting back unless the goodguy is in physical contact or clinch/weapon disarm attempt. His shoplifter analysis is 100% accurate from my experience as I have been advised by loss prevention officers those exact words were used more than once.

If we had more data to work from I would be curious to know how many incidents where a BG was shot and injured(and aware of it) and yet continued his aggressive actions rather than submit or flee if he wasn't trapped? I can't think of any from memory other than preplanned or murder that was rage or drug induced with known players not from any street type crimes of opportunity or home invasions. If you know of any let me know.

[Tamara]

Also, if you look at criminal on criminal violence, you see what angry criminals do to each other. Should we expect them not to be mad at a citizen who is foiling their plans and challenging their ego?

I am not criticizing you, BehindBluel's, but there seem to be certain people who believe all you need is to fire at the criminal with a .22 and they will run away.

I have to read a lot of reported incidents of good guys with guns resisting criminals for work.

From all available evidence, your typical burglar/robber (that is to say, someone who is there for the dough, not a 'process predator' or someone who is deliberately targeting you or thinks you have 72 pounds of dope in your bedroom) is not going to advance through gunfire for a wallet or a cell phone. Nine times out of ten the very first shot from the good guy's gun, whether it's a .22 Jimenez or a Roland Special, whether it's a hit or a miss, serves as the starting gun for the Bad Guy's Five Yard Dash for the Exit.

I still carry a Glock 19 and practice with it mostly because I enjoy it. And, hey, maybe this is that one out of ten crazy bad guy, or maybe the dude thinks the deputy who used to live here still lives in my house and has a score to settle, or maybe they got the digits on the address transposed for the dope dealer's house two blocks down. *shrug*