Category: tactics

Even more pepper spray

Posted by Mostly Genius – July 23, 2009

So after this post about pepper spray and the commentary here it seems like a lot of people are still not getting my point.

Using less lethal in deadly force scenarios. Nobody would choose to fight a knife wielding attacker with their fists if they had anything else available. Seeing as how fist fighting is more force than pepper spray, clearly pepper spray is not the answer to deadly force attacks.

Bypassing less lethal tools in deadly force scenarios. There is a lot of confusion about the use of force continuum. Law enforcement has been addressing this in their training for at least a decade: it’s not a ladder and you don’t have to touch every rung. A lethal threat warrants a lethal response. An escalating situation (as most are) provides room for stopping the fight before it becomes a deadly force encounter.

Liability of not using less lethal in deadly force scenarios. This theory that having pepper spray and not using it in a deadly force situation is going to somehow expose you to more legal liability is totally spurious. This is like saying you better not take a martial art, because you will be expected to use some ninja move instead of your firearm. I don’t shoot because I don’t know how to do anything else, I shoot because my training has told me that this is only appropriate response to the circumstance.

Pepper spraying people is trivial. Especially in comparison to shooting people. If you can effect a stop with pepper spray then you aren’t going to be justifying your shooting in court. This is the most likely case: bad guy gets sprayed and quits. Some people are trying to optimize their equipment selection for defending themselves against manslaughter charges: “I carry nothing but deadly force tools”. I would recommend optimizing for winning the fight in a way that gets you the least involvement with the legal system.

I’d just run away. So would I, if I could. This stops being the perfect answer as soon as you are a better runner than your significant other or children. If they aren’t within arms reach it could very well turn into you needing to stand and fight while they get away.

I’d just shoot them. Ultimately I see a lot of people painting themselves into a corner where they are going to have to pull the trigger in order to have any self defense response. I hear a lot of talk in training circles about “lethal force options.” Lethal force is not optional, it’s mandatory. If I had a choice to make I would choose something other than shooting. Lethal force is what happens when all those options are taken away. If I am not facing a deadly force threat then shooting isn’t even an option.

ATSA Training Scenario Archive

Posted by Mostly Genius – June 11, 2009

Stuff from Hsoi posted an excellent link to the archives of the American Tactical Shooting Association. This is the same group that runs the National Tactical Invitational, a one-of-a-kind event that draws some of the top trainers and practitioners in country. The archives contain a number of good articles and training scenarios.

Self Defense Scams

Posted by Mostly Genius – June 2, 2009

I stumbled across another bad self defense article: “Women’s Self Defense Against Men” (which I am not going to link to, but I will quote from below) that is clearly written by some sort of marketing flack. I see this sort of thing published on a lot of self defense oriented spam blogs that are hawking pepper spray and stun guns. Frequently I see the same content or copy on several different sites.

When looking at the increasing numbers of reports about violence against women, it is clear that women’s self-defense against men is becoming an important issue in today’s society. There are many products and techniques designed for women’s self-defense against men, from mace guns to judo and assertiveness training. Unfortunately, these things are becoming increasingly necessary, and it is essential to stay informed of the most effective strategies for women’s self-defense against men.

I guess they are repeating the title over and over again to try and improve the search rank of the article. Otherwise there really is no content in the opening paragraph other than a vague reference to “increasing numbers of reports about violence against women.”

Since more and more women are working overtime and at late hours, extra attention should be given to women’s self-defense against men. Dark parking lots are among the most dangerous places, and it is good idea to walk into a parking lot with a special device, such as a small alarm, whistle or light, or where it is legal, a mace gun or stun gun. The mace or stun guns should not be shaped like actual guns, but should be disguised as cell phones, pens or key chains which can be carried by hand without attracting undue attention.

So having a weapon that looks like a weapon would cause undue attention, and women should have a James Bond-esque cell phone that shoots electricity or pepper-spray? Clearly a concealed firearm isn’t even considered by the author.

It is important to principle of women’s self defense against men always to look straight ahead and always to appear alert. Potential attackers are always on the lookout for women who seem unaware of their surroundings, so give an impression of confidence.

I guess that in the authors opinion nothing projects confidence like locking your gaze on the horizon and marching in a straight line.

Women’s self-defense against men is not always focused on strangers, but, more often than not, an attacker is someone the woman knows. Before making the attack, the person usually stalks the woman to find out her habits and where she is the most vulnerable.

It is therefore a good idea to change your route frequently if you jog or walk for exercise. Be on the lookout for people who are watching your activities and make sure that you are aware of potential dangers. Like fire drills, women’s self-defense calls for identifying potential danger spots, so, as you go through your day, look for those places where a person can easily intrude.

Actually, the non-stranger attacker doesn’t do a multiple day reconnaissance and surveillance, but rather becomes “familiar” and exploits a convenient vulnerability. This isn’t a guy hiding in the bushes with a spotting scope and a notebook. This is the guy she lets carry her groceries because he lives across the street.

Many strategies for women’s self-defense against men include some kind of martial arts training. Although many critics complain that techniques learned in classes can not be adapted well to the street, martial arts give women strength and confidence to be able to ward off an attacker.

The rest of the article goes on to try and sell a number of different martial arts without an real knowledge or analysis. The whole article is just a little bit of fear-based marketing copy designed to pad someones website and sell pepper spray disguised as lipstick or a block of Tae Kwon Do classes.

So why am I bothering to call this out? Because there are a lot of people who have a scary experience, throw a few keywords at google, and end up buying a stun gun (that doesn’t work) or enroll in some less than reputable martial arts class for a couple of weeks.

Handgun Retention

Posted by Mostly Genius – April 23, 2009

Much of the argument that people will be disarmed of their weapons and have those weapons used against them stems from a long history of police officers being shot with their own firearms. To combat this problem law enforcement has adopted various handgun retention systems.

While the private citizen carrying a concealed firearm isn’t as likely to be a target for a disarm while the firearm is holstered, I can certainly see a number of scenarios where an assailant might make an attempt against a drawn gun.

If a criminal doesn’t believe that you are going to shoot, or is willing to risk a bullet to escape arrest they might decide to try to do a disarm.

Get good equipment. I frequently see $1000 guns in $20 holsters, worn on $2 belts. A good holster and a belt are a significant portion of the holstered retention equation. Cheap holsters will not keep the gun from falling out, or will rip right off of the belt leaving the attachment loops behind. Holsters that snap or clip onto the belt offer almost no resistance. I highly recommend purchasing high quality holsters, and belts. While much more expensive they truly do last much longer so the expense is justified in the long run.

Use good ready positions. Some ready positions lend themselves to gun grabs more readily than others. The weaker the position the more inviting it is for a grab. The classic low-ready (arms extended at about a 45 degree angle) is one of the worst for both shooting and retention. Keeping the firearm tucked against the body is the mechanically strongest un-holstered position.

Don’t use the wrong tactics. People that want to hold the assailant at gun point until the police arrive expose themselves to a greater risk of disarm attempts. The time spent in proximity to the criminal is a window of opportunity for something to go wrong. Complicating that with trying to dial 911 and communicate with the dispatcher creates a distraction that most people could do without. It would be better to get a good description and have them run and then call the police after they have left. The legal justification for using your firearm is a threat to your life, the subject’s non-compliance may or may not constitute a threat that you can justify shooting him for. It would be much better for us if we didn’t have to shoot anyone.

You can’t always ‘Just shoot’ them. A common answer to people grabbing for an un-holstered handgun is to shoot the person making the grab, but this isn’t always as simple as it sounds. If the assailant has a hold on the gun it can retard the action of the slide (or bind the cylinder on a revolver) preventing more than one round from firing. When the gun discharges it might not be oriented toward the assailant, so gambling on the ‘one shot stop’ is even less of a good bet.

There is also whole class of gun-grabbers that we don’t want to shoot. It might be a friend or spouse who thinks you are over-reacting, it might be the 70 year old grandmother of the assailant who just wants to protect their grandchild. We might be able to make the argument that shooting this class of people is legally justified by the circumstances but again, it would be preferable not to have to do so.

Martial arts or combatives might help you. These can fulfill at least part of the role of retaining the gun. The problem is that a lot of martial arts are largely incompatible for fighting with a drawn gun. Whatever arts or techniques you intend to apply must maintain control of the muzzle and be aware that this fight is going to take place in a clinch. If you need distance to execute your technique you are probably not going to get it. Losing control of the firearm generally means that you are now in the position of needing to perform a disarm in order to ultimately retain the gun. Disarming techniques are part of retention.

Don’t abandon the gun. I have seen it advocated to let go of the gun, and either transition to another weapon or apply combatives or martial arts techniques to recover it. It would never be my primary plan to loose physical control of the gun. At best such a strategy provides the assailant with a club, and at worst a fully functioning firearm.

Transition to another weapon. I am all for transitioning to another weapon if it is available, but I would keep control of the primary whenever possible. In such a situation I would prefer a knife to a backup firearm. A few good cuts should produce some psychological and mechanical advantage.