There are a lot of misconceptions and myths surrounding violent crime and real life gun fights. I thought that today I would provide a sobering reminder of the reality of what you face should you find yourself involved in a violent encounter.
The Victims:
According to the Bureau of Justice (study of crime in America) and counter to popular belief, with the exclusion of rape, men are the primary target for every form of violent crime. Sorry guys, but we're just far more likely to be robbed, beat down, murdered, carjacked, etc. than women. Car jackings (twice as likely) and murder (we make up 79% of the victims) jumped out as the most disproportionate. As it has been since the beginning of time, women make up 91% of all rape victims, and men make up 99% of rapists. So ladies, if you're defending yourself, there is a strong chance it'll be against a rapist or rapists, (Half of rapes are committed by multiple attackers) and you'll probably know him/them. Chances are still that you will be targeted at night, however many attacks are happening during the day.
Your Enemies:
Notice I said enemies, plural. Not your opponent, singular. According to Front Sight Firearms Academy, the average fight will have 2.5 attackers. (The .5 must be a midget...or a ginger.) I couldn't find in my lecture book where Front Sight got that statistic, but two things make me believe it. First, the quality and quantity of excellent, valid information they give throughout the rest of their course causes me to trust them. Second the crime and ER experiences that I have been witness to fall right into the line of averaging 2-3 criminals each. Thus, those of you who are doing fight drills against a single opponent are probably not adequately preparing. Yes, I understand that, if you knock out the first guy quickly, you stand a good chance of taking the fight out of the rest of them, but you simply don't know if circumstances will allow for that outcome.
You'll notice that I call them enemies. This is because they are not opponents. An opponent is a friend you play football/chess/video games against. Opponents might be as hostile as politicians trashing each other in campaign ads. A man who is trying to KILL or physically harm you or your loved ones is your enemy, at least for the duration of the fight. It's important to make that distinction.
In his book, "Inside the Criminal Mind", Dr. Stanton Samenow makes a very counter-cultural claim about criminals and how we as a nation perceive them. In our culture, we have a society wide belief that criminals are the products of their surroundings. That due to poverty, poor parenting, broken homes, etc, they lacked the correct teachings of how to live, and thus need love and rehabilitation. This is nothing more than pop psychology nonsense. Certainly broken homes and absent parents cause all sorts of pain, major psychological wounds, poverty, etc, but the large majority of criminals show a mindset of criminality from a young age, and their parenting really has little to do with it. Growing up where I did, seeing criminals grow up from a young age and into adulthood, I saw this in action. If there is one point I could drive home, it is that their mindset is totally alien to our own. As good guys we simply cannot fathom their mentality. Dr. Stanton Samenow put it best when said that the criminal is the ultimate narcissist. He simply doesn't care about you or the people around him. You are an object to be used for his gratification. This is especially true of the violent criminal. They "get off" on hurting people. That is why it doesn't surprise me to find out that men are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. Any man can over power a woman. I imagine it must be much more gratifying for them to dominate another male.....or at least it seemed this way when I used to watch little gang-bangers boast about the other males they had just beat up. (Of course another reason why men are more often victims is that many victims are also criminals, and most criminals are male.) Also, very rarely is the "objective" of the crime really the point of the crime at its root. It's about dominance. It's about making the criminal feel as though he is above the law, above everyone else, that he is in short his own god. I think a quote from Dr. Samenow's book was quite illustrative of this point. When asked what he would do if rape was made legal, the criminal replied "I don't know what I'd do if they took my crime from me." Whoa. Alien thought process anyone?
That isn't to say that parenting has nothing to do with it, as obviously there are parents who force their children in criminal activities. (Think crack addicts forcing their kids to sell drugs so they can take the money, or organized crime families.) However, that is the exception rather than the rule, and the result is the same. There is someone trying to harm you.
What does this mean for you? Well it means that the notion that you are going to "deter" him with a weapon because most criminals are "cowards" isn't really true. Will a lot of pissant criminals turn tail and run if they see you're armed? Sure. But those guys aren't in the same league as the truly violent criminal. (Criminals themselves are divided into different mentalities that determine what sort of crimes they commit) The truly violent criminal doesn't care, and, in his own twisted way, he can be quite brave. He just thinks "hey, I'm getting a gun out of this too!", because he believes himself to be untouchable. This is why I question the OC argument that they're deterring an attack against themselves. Sure, they may scare off some pissants, but those guys are just going to run at the first sight of you drawing a gun anyway. The truly violent criminal is just going to plan/ act around it. Heck, many of them have the mentality that they aren't going to live to see old age anyway, so they're willing to take the risk. (Like I said, alien mentality.) So why give away the fact you're armed? Better that he goes in unaware, and thus make it more likely that he makes a major tactical mistake that exposes him to your fire. Not that I am an OC hater or think they're being stupid. OC does have the advantage of being quicker on the draw. But, if you do choose to OC, you need to realize that you need to be totally and completely aware of not only your surroundings, but also the actions of every person around you. I personally will not OC around lots of people for this reason. I just dress to my gun, carry with a holster that allows a quick draw, and I like to appendix carry for a faster draw stroke. This also goes for posting signs in your windows like "Proud Member of the NRA" or "Protected by Smith & Wesson".Why are you giving away the fact that you have guns in your house or car? So they can be stolen?
EDIT: This also means that the violent criminal will not give a second thought about hurting you whether you comply or not. They will think nothing of blasting you/ stabbing you/ choking you to death to eliminate a wittness. I can't tell you how many half dead victims in my ER just complied with the criminal's demands and only lived via a miracle. Despite the media BS, you don't surrender. If police agencies tell their cops not to surrender regardless of circumstances, then neither should you. They only tell us mere "civilians" this because they're afraid they'll get sued after a civilian defends themselves, gets hurt, and blames the police advice for it.
The mentality of the violent criminal also carries one more implication that most people just don't want to think about. Because of the nature of his aggression, you are going to be required to be just as aggressive (if not more so) if you want to live. When the time comes, you will need to be down right mean. You will need to be just as willing to commit whatever violent act it requires to get him to stop trying to hurt you, and you will need to do it faster. This makes good and decent folks like ourselves squeamish. It's not a pretty thought, but it is reality. Adjust your mindset accordingly.
During the Fight:
Americans in general have a poor understanding of violence. This is not meant as an insult. It's just that we live in a relatively peaceful area of the world. Most of us don't grow up watching our neighbors shoot each other. Most people don't have to kill to get through life. Thus we have a very Hollywood view of how violence goes down. Everyone thinks they have a plan for how it's all going to work out. Everyone has "mental exercised" their gunfight....but they've never tested it under stress. Never having been under even a limited Body Alarm Reaction (BAR), most people have no idea how they'll really react.
When your fight or flight instinct kicks in, adrenaline is going to get dumped into your body. You're going to lose fine motor control. Your eyes will not be able to focus on anything but your adversary at close range. That doesn't mean you won't be able to use your sights. It just means they're going to be blurry and harder to see. In short, you're going to go totally caveman. This is why Force on Force training is so useful. You really need to see how you are going to perform under stress for three reasons. First you need to figure out for yourself what individual tactics will work for you. Secondly, you need to know where the weak areas in your training are. Stress will show you what needs to be dry practiced more. Finally, you need to know if your gear set up actually works under stress. Can you access what needs to be accessed in a bad situation?
In Dave Spaulding's interviews of 200 winners of gunfights (including civilians, police, etc), he picked up on some common themes. First, those who remembered seeing their sights fell into three groups. Those who used long guns, those who used revolvers, and those who were able to see the fight coming and prepared. The people using long guns performed a cheek weld as trained, and thus had no choice but to see their sights. Those who used revolvers had the standard orange front post sticking out at them, so that their eyes could easily see them due to the major contrast. The final group of people saw the fight coming, and thus could manage their reaction far better than if they had been surprised. What does that mean for you?
It means two things. First and foremost you need to stay aware. If you can see the fight coming, you will have a massive advantage as the trained individual. Secondly, it means that for those of us not carrying long guns or revolvers, we probably have a lot to benefit from this new trend of big, glowing fiber-optic/ colored front sights coming onto the market. I'm personally looking into the big, orange, reflective dots with the tritium inserts made by trijicon. I think these will make an excellent addition for my M&P. I'm also quite interested in fiber-optic sights, but I'm not convinced I will be able to see them in low light. (Any FO users care to comment here?)
A second trend Spaulding picked up on was that those who won gunfights typically had more distance between themselves and their assailants. The average distance between his subjects and their enemies was around 20 feet. They were smart enough to move off the X and immediately put distance between themselves and their attackers. That's something we could all benefit to emulate. Standing still and quick drawing on a guy seems to be a poor decision, as does rushing into the fight. (Which causes me to question trainers with a military mentality who teach their students to advance. That only works if you are advancing to cover or working with a fire team. Aggression is good, but it needs to be channeled to make intelligent moves.) Yet so many people's first reaction isn't to execute a tactical retreat or a move to cover. Distance is your friend, especially if that distance allows you to escape. You are (hopefully) the trained individual. If you are not, then become a trained individual.
You stand a decent chance of getting shot in a gunfight. It's not remotely guaranteed, but the closer you are to your enemy, and the more enemies you have, the higher the chances get. The good news is this, as I've seen in the ER and in statistics, if you get hit, but you're not instantly dead or don't bleed out within moments, then you're probably going to live through your gunfight and after (assuming you get medical attention)....and, if you're dead, it doesn't matter anyway! Thus, you keep on moving until your enemy is down and out of the fight. Then you can worry about your flesh wound. (Most people who get hit and live report remembering getting punched, and those who get hit in the legs, assuming bone isn't broken leaving them immobile, often don't even notice until after the fight.) What does that mean for training purposes? It means use marker rounds to tell where you've been hit, but keep on going until the scenario is over. Don't end the scenario when you've been shot. Don't ingrain the idea of stopping when you've been hit. Assess afterward to learn from your mistakes. On the flip side that also means your enemy is going to be hard to take down. You need to overwhelm his system with damage quickly to take him out of the fight, or else be ready for a head shot.
As far as the actual violence goes, unless you're already used to blood and screaming, it will be shocking to you. The speed of the encounter will make you feel like you never got caught up. (Unless you saw it coming and acted first) The deafening noise, the muzzle flashes, the smell of cordite, the unforgettable metallic, almost earthy smell and taste of blood, the noises the body makes when it dies, and the smell of defecation (assuming that you kill them and they have something to void), will all combine to create an experience that will be far from the aseptic scenario often envision in our own minds. You'll be too busy to notice it all at first, but later these sensations will stick with you.
Consequences:
First, being in the presence of death and being alive at the end will give you an immediate reaction of straight up joy and relief. "WOOHOOO!!! What a rush!!! I'm alive!! I Won!!!! Suck on that!!!!"
This reaction can last anywhere between hours and a few days, and it's completely normal. Don't let it color other people's perception of you and don't let it get your tongue flowing and talking to cops (or really anyone but your lawyer) after the event. Take a deep breath, call 911 (Yourself!! Don't let a bystander call!!) tell them two things.: What you need and where you need it. State that you need EMS and the Police at X address. Then hang up. Period. Holster your gun. When the cops arrive get on your knees and put your hands behind your head. They'll take your gun from you, don't resist that. You'll get it back between 2 weeks and 6 months later. You can make a statement after you've talked to a lawyer.
Second, as I mentioned above, you stand a decent chance of being wounded, particularly if you're close in. Beyond the immense amount of pain this is going to cause after the adrenalin wears off (with adrenaline pumping in a toe to toe encounter, you won't notice at first) you're going to have medical bills. As I said to FireBirDS when he wrote his guide to proper holster selection, being shot is an automatic trauma 1 activation. That will cost you 15,000$ in activation fees alone. Your surgery and hospital stay will cost another $100,000+. That's 115,000$ BEFORE physical therapy, follow up doctor visits, and missed income from being absent from work. Let's say your insurance pays for 80%. That's at least a $23,000 hospital visit. Which means we're probably talking about $25,000 once we get physical therapy etc done.
EDIT: I used the 80% rule that the people in charge of billing gave me. Some insurance plans have a cap that you pay up to and then they take care of the rest. But even if that cap is 5,000$, by the time you miss work, pay for physical therapy, etc., you're talking about an expensive day in my ER.
Next we have the lawyer fees. Yes, you stand a chance of being sued by the bad guy's family. This is shocking to most people. However, this is governed mostly by the politics of the area in which you live and the ability for the family to hire a lawyer, and it's not as common as people would think. Fortunately Indiana law does a lot to help you, assuming you were clearly in the right, and you stand a good chance of winning that lawsuit too, should a suit be filed against you. However, if you do get sued by someone, it's going to get expensive. Even if you succeed in getting the opposing party to pay for your court costs, you're still talking about a $10,000 up front hit to your wallet.
Finally we have the emotional and social costs. There is an overplayed and tired idea that killing or shooting another human being "changes" you. For the most part that is total BS. The only people who are dramatically changed by those events are people who weren't at all mentally prepared for it and had a sheeple view of the world, and thus were shocked by the sudden revelation of stark reality. On the other side of the spectrum are the people who knew it was a possibility, had mentally and physically conditioned themselves, and have a sense of justice such that they know their actions were totally justified. Because of this, the event doesn't bother them. Most people will fall somewhere in between. They will have an emotional reaction after the event (could be anything like depression, insomia, impotence, fatigue, etc) but then get over it and live normal, healthy lives. (Note that this assessment is based off of my own personal experiences with death and violence, Spaulding's research into the study of hundreds of gun fight winners, and my own talks with men who have killed. This is not applicable to the experience of war or the continual stresses soldiers often experience.)
This is not meant to dimish the seriousness of the action you have taken. Shooting someone until they stop attacking you will likely kill them. They will never enjoy another cold beer or steak dinner. They will never make love to their woman or man again. They will never see their children again. But don't get too broken up about it. They lost their right to take their next breath when they purposely tried to harm you. The world is much better off keeping the guy who just wants to peacefully live his life than to let the criminal who gets off on spreading pain and misery live on.
Other emotional and social costs include people who may not want to associate with you because you are now a "killer". It sounds ridiculous but there are sniveling sheeple out there who are like that. I've personally experienced this even though I've never actually had to kill anyone. (Thank the Lord) Just because I have had to commit real violence against another human being, I have been judged and ostracized by certain people when they found out. It's shocking because you're immediately embarrassed. "Hey! I'm the good guy here!! Why are you treating me like this???" It's not right, but take comfort in the fact that such people aren't worth being around anyway, as they obviously are self-centered individuals who lack both empathy and the ability to pull their heads out of their own butts. As an added note, if you work for a boss or company who has this mentality, there is a real risk of losing your job when they find out. It's total bullcrap, but that's the way it is. There are people out there who don't want to do business with a "killer".
EDIT: I failed to mention one more consequence. Retaliation. I don't know how common it is, but it does happen. When you gun your assailent down, you could be killing the little brother of Big Chino, the president of your local drug cartel. In some cases gangs have issued hits out on the victim simply because the victim won the gunfight. I know of one particular jewlry store owner who killed two men who tried to rob his store. The gang sent three more men to avenge their deaths. So he killed them. The gang then sent another set of BGs to take him down. So he killed them. I don't know how many times the cycle repeated itself before he finally left town.
Conclusion:
To apply what was said above, let's take a look at a recent shooting here in Indy that was widely reported. Earlier in 2013, a young patrolman made a routine stop. When the driver was found to be driving on an invalid license, the officer asked everyone to vacate the car. The two people upfront removed themselves from the vehicle, but a man in the back of the car refused to move. The officer walked over to the window to confront the man, and the suspect went for a gun. Within moments the two men were exchanging gunfire, with both men expending multiple rounds. The fight was over within seconds, and the suspect was dead with two others in the car wounded. The officer was taken to the ER with multiple GSWs through his arm, his gun was taken from him, and he was isolated from his fellow officers. He'll have months of physical therapy and pain meds in front of him, there will be an investigation, and he will have to testify in front of a grand jury. He'll win nothing more than perhaps medal for bravery and the hatred of the BG's family and his friends who were hit, and at best he'll get to keep what he has.
And this is considered winning.
It might seem like, after considering the reality of a gunfight, that carrying a gun just isn't worth it. That's not true. Carrying a gun and knowing how to use it will keep you alive. It's always better to survive and keep your loved ones unharmed that it is to suffer at the hands of a vicious criminal. And what of the next person this criminal victimizes if you don't stop him now? Your survival is always worth the hassel afterwards. Your life inherently has value, and, if the world loses you, it will be diminished. Your friends will be crushed, your spouse will be heart broken, your children will grow up without a parent. In what world is that worth letting a criminal kill you?
The truth is that gunfights are a lot of fun to train for and traumatic experiences to endure. If escape is an option, then it's not worth passing up the opportunity to get out. I understand that there are incidents where you could escape but couldn't live with yourself if you did, so you'll chose to stay and fight. For example, gunmen break into your house and you could escape but decide to stay and defend your family, or perhaps the local store you frequent and have made friends and other in gets attacked so you decide to stay and protect your friends and/or innocent life. However, you need to take a good long look at yourself, and then at the list of things you will have to deal with, and decide for what you are willing to risk it all in a gunfight in order to save. If you can escape and live with yourself, then by all means go home, celebrate that you're alive, eat a good meal and make love to your spouse. It's a much better deal. Especially as civilians, you don't get a medal, you don't win any cash prize, you don't score points with the powers that be. At the very best your life is at risk, and your reward is getting to keep what you already have.
Gunfights are like hurricanes. If you can escape one great, if not, you'd better have your insurance (the gun) to protect you from loss. Even then, you might not get to keep everything.
The Victims:
According to the Bureau of Justice (study of crime in America) and counter to popular belief, with the exclusion of rape, men are the primary target for every form of violent crime. Sorry guys, but we're just far more likely to be robbed, beat down, murdered, carjacked, etc. than women. Car jackings (twice as likely) and murder (we make up 79% of the victims) jumped out as the most disproportionate. As it has been since the beginning of time, women make up 91% of all rape victims, and men make up 99% of rapists. So ladies, if you're defending yourself, there is a strong chance it'll be against a rapist or rapists, (Half of rapes are committed by multiple attackers) and you'll probably know him/them. Chances are still that you will be targeted at night, however many attacks are happening during the day.
Your Enemies:
Notice I said enemies, plural. Not your opponent, singular. According to Front Sight Firearms Academy, the average fight will have 2.5 attackers. (The .5 must be a midget...or a ginger.) I couldn't find in my lecture book where Front Sight got that statistic, but two things make me believe it. First, the quality and quantity of excellent, valid information they give throughout the rest of their course causes me to trust them. Second the crime and ER experiences that I have been witness to fall right into the line of averaging 2-3 criminals each. Thus, those of you who are doing fight drills against a single opponent are probably not adequately preparing. Yes, I understand that, if you knock out the first guy quickly, you stand a good chance of taking the fight out of the rest of them, but you simply don't know if circumstances will allow for that outcome.
You'll notice that I call them enemies. This is because they are not opponents. An opponent is a friend you play football/chess/video games against. Opponents might be as hostile as politicians trashing each other in campaign ads. A man who is trying to KILL or physically harm you or your loved ones is your enemy, at least for the duration of the fight. It's important to make that distinction.
In his book, "Inside the Criminal Mind", Dr. Stanton Samenow makes a very counter-cultural claim about criminals and how we as a nation perceive them. In our culture, we have a society wide belief that criminals are the products of their surroundings. That due to poverty, poor parenting, broken homes, etc, they lacked the correct teachings of how to live, and thus need love and rehabilitation. This is nothing more than pop psychology nonsense. Certainly broken homes and absent parents cause all sorts of pain, major psychological wounds, poverty, etc, but the large majority of criminals show a mindset of criminality from a young age, and their parenting really has little to do with it. Growing up where I did, seeing criminals grow up from a young age and into adulthood, I saw this in action. If there is one point I could drive home, it is that their mindset is totally alien to our own. As good guys we simply cannot fathom their mentality. Dr. Stanton Samenow put it best when said that the criminal is the ultimate narcissist. He simply doesn't care about you or the people around him. You are an object to be used for his gratification. This is especially true of the violent criminal. They "get off" on hurting people. That is why it doesn't surprise me to find out that men are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime. Any man can over power a woman. I imagine it must be much more gratifying for them to dominate another male.....or at least it seemed this way when I used to watch little gang-bangers boast about the other males they had just beat up. (Of course another reason why men are more often victims is that many victims are also criminals, and most criminals are male.) Also, very rarely is the "objective" of the crime really the point of the crime at its root. It's about dominance. It's about making the criminal feel as though he is above the law, above everyone else, that he is in short his own god. I think a quote from Dr. Samenow's book was quite illustrative of this point. When asked what he would do if rape was made legal, the criminal replied "I don't know what I'd do if they took my crime from me." Whoa. Alien thought process anyone?
That isn't to say that parenting has nothing to do with it, as obviously there are parents who force their children in criminal activities. (Think crack addicts forcing their kids to sell drugs so they can take the money, or organized crime families.) However, that is the exception rather than the rule, and the result is the same. There is someone trying to harm you.
What does this mean for you? Well it means that the notion that you are going to "deter" him with a weapon because most criminals are "cowards" isn't really true. Will a lot of pissant criminals turn tail and run if they see you're armed? Sure. But those guys aren't in the same league as the truly violent criminal. (Criminals themselves are divided into different mentalities that determine what sort of crimes they commit) The truly violent criminal doesn't care, and, in his own twisted way, he can be quite brave. He just thinks "hey, I'm getting a gun out of this too!", because he believes himself to be untouchable. This is why I question the OC argument that they're deterring an attack against themselves. Sure, they may scare off some pissants, but those guys are just going to run at the first sight of you drawing a gun anyway. The truly violent criminal is just going to plan/ act around it. Heck, many of them have the mentality that they aren't going to live to see old age anyway, so they're willing to take the risk. (Like I said, alien mentality.) So why give away the fact you're armed? Better that he goes in unaware, and thus make it more likely that he makes a major tactical mistake that exposes him to your fire. Not that I am an OC hater or think they're being stupid. OC does have the advantage of being quicker on the draw. But, if you do choose to OC, you need to realize that you need to be totally and completely aware of not only your surroundings, but also the actions of every person around you. I personally will not OC around lots of people for this reason. I just dress to my gun, carry with a holster that allows a quick draw, and I like to appendix carry for a faster draw stroke. This also goes for posting signs in your windows like "Proud Member of the NRA" or "Protected by Smith & Wesson".Why are you giving away the fact that you have guns in your house or car? So they can be stolen?
EDIT: This also means that the violent criminal will not give a second thought about hurting you whether you comply or not. They will think nothing of blasting you/ stabbing you/ choking you to death to eliminate a wittness. I can't tell you how many half dead victims in my ER just complied with the criminal's demands and only lived via a miracle. Despite the media BS, you don't surrender. If police agencies tell their cops not to surrender regardless of circumstances, then neither should you. They only tell us mere "civilians" this because they're afraid they'll get sued after a civilian defends themselves, gets hurt, and blames the police advice for it.
The mentality of the violent criminal also carries one more implication that most people just don't want to think about. Because of the nature of his aggression, you are going to be required to be just as aggressive (if not more so) if you want to live. When the time comes, you will need to be down right mean. You will need to be just as willing to commit whatever violent act it requires to get him to stop trying to hurt you, and you will need to do it faster. This makes good and decent folks like ourselves squeamish. It's not a pretty thought, but it is reality. Adjust your mindset accordingly.
During the Fight:
Americans in general have a poor understanding of violence. This is not meant as an insult. It's just that we live in a relatively peaceful area of the world. Most of us don't grow up watching our neighbors shoot each other. Most people don't have to kill to get through life. Thus we have a very Hollywood view of how violence goes down. Everyone thinks they have a plan for how it's all going to work out. Everyone has "mental exercised" their gunfight....but they've never tested it under stress. Never having been under even a limited Body Alarm Reaction (BAR), most people have no idea how they'll really react.
When your fight or flight instinct kicks in, adrenaline is going to get dumped into your body. You're going to lose fine motor control. Your eyes will not be able to focus on anything but your adversary at close range. That doesn't mean you won't be able to use your sights. It just means they're going to be blurry and harder to see. In short, you're going to go totally caveman. This is why Force on Force training is so useful. You really need to see how you are going to perform under stress for three reasons. First you need to figure out for yourself what individual tactics will work for you. Secondly, you need to know where the weak areas in your training are. Stress will show you what needs to be dry practiced more. Finally, you need to know if your gear set up actually works under stress. Can you access what needs to be accessed in a bad situation?
In Dave Spaulding's interviews of 200 winners of gunfights (including civilians, police, etc), he picked up on some common themes. First, those who remembered seeing their sights fell into three groups. Those who used long guns, those who used revolvers, and those who were able to see the fight coming and prepared. The people using long guns performed a cheek weld as trained, and thus had no choice but to see their sights. Those who used revolvers had the standard orange front post sticking out at them, so that their eyes could easily see them due to the major contrast. The final group of people saw the fight coming, and thus could manage their reaction far better than if they had been surprised. What does that mean for you?
It means two things. First and foremost you need to stay aware. If you can see the fight coming, you will have a massive advantage as the trained individual. Secondly, it means that for those of us not carrying long guns or revolvers, we probably have a lot to benefit from this new trend of big, glowing fiber-optic/ colored front sights coming onto the market. I'm personally looking into the big, orange, reflective dots with the tritium inserts made by trijicon. I think these will make an excellent addition for my M&P. I'm also quite interested in fiber-optic sights, but I'm not convinced I will be able to see them in low light. (Any FO users care to comment here?)
A second trend Spaulding picked up on was that those who won gunfights typically had more distance between themselves and their assailants. The average distance between his subjects and their enemies was around 20 feet. They were smart enough to move off the X and immediately put distance between themselves and their attackers. That's something we could all benefit to emulate. Standing still and quick drawing on a guy seems to be a poor decision, as does rushing into the fight. (Which causes me to question trainers with a military mentality who teach their students to advance. That only works if you are advancing to cover or working with a fire team. Aggression is good, but it needs to be channeled to make intelligent moves.) Yet so many people's first reaction isn't to execute a tactical retreat or a move to cover. Distance is your friend, especially if that distance allows you to escape. You are (hopefully) the trained individual. If you are not, then become a trained individual.
You stand a decent chance of getting shot in a gunfight. It's not remotely guaranteed, but the closer you are to your enemy, and the more enemies you have, the higher the chances get. The good news is this, as I've seen in the ER and in statistics, if you get hit, but you're not instantly dead or don't bleed out within moments, then you're probably going to live through your gunfight and after (assuming you get medical attention)....and, if you're dead, it doesn't matter anyway! Thus, you keep on moving until your enemy is down and out of the fight. Then you can worry about your flesh wound. (Most people who get hit and live report remembering getting punched, and those who get hit in the legs, assuming bone isn't broken leaving them immobile, often don't even notice until after the fight.) What does that mean for training purposes? It means use marker rounds to tell where you've been hit, but keep on going until the scenario is over. Don't end the scenario when you've been shot. Don't ingrain the idea of stopping when you've been hit. Assess afterward to learn from your mistakes. On the flip side that also means your enemy is going to be hard to take down. You need to overwhelm his system with damage quickly to take him out of the fight, or else be ready for a head shot.
As far as the actual violence goes, unless you're already used to blood and screaming, it will be shocking to you. The speed of the encounter will make you feel like you never got caught up. (Unless you saw it coming and acted first) The deafening noise, the muzzle flashes, the smell of cordite, the unforgettable metallic, almost earthy smell and taste of blood, the noises the body makes when it dies, and the smell of defecation (assuming that you kill them and they have something to void), will all combine to create an experience that will be far from the aseptic scenario often envision in our own minds. You'll be too busy to notice it all at first, but later these sensations will stick with you.
Consequences:
First, being in the presence of death and being alive at the end will give you an immediate reaction of straight up joy and relief. "WOOHOOO!!! What a rush!!! I'm alive!! I Won!!!! Suck on that!!!!"
This reaction can last anywhere between hours and a few days, and it's completely normal. Don't let it color other people's perception of you and don't let it get your tongue flowing and talking to cops (or really anyone but your lawyer) after the event. Take a deep breath, call 911 (Yourself!! Don't let a bystander call!!) tell them two things.: What you need and where you need it. State that you need EMS and the Police at X address. Then hang up. Period. Holster your gun. When the cops arrive get on your knees and put your hands behind your head. They'll take your gun from you, don't resist that. You'll get it back between 2 weeks and 6 months later. You can make a statement after you've talked to a lawyer.
Second, as I mentioned above, you stand a decent chance of being wounded, particularly if you're close in. Beyond the immense amount of pain this is going to cause after the adrenalin wears off (with adrenaline pumping in a toe to toe encounter, you won't notice at first) you're going to have medical bills. As I said to FireBirDS when he wrote his guide to proper holster selection, being shot is an automatic trauma 1 activation. That will cost you 15,000$ in activation fees alone. Your surgery and hospital stay will cost another $100,000+. That's 115,000$ BEFORE physical therapy, follow up doctor visits, and missed income from being absent from work. Let's say your insurance pays for 80%. That's at least a $23,000 hospital visit. Which means we're probably talking about $25,000 once we get physical therapy etc done.
EDIT: I used the 80% rule that the people in charge of billing gave me. Some insurance plans have a cap that you pay up to and then they take care of the rest. But even if that cap is 5,000$, by the time you miss work, pay for physical therapy, etc., you're talking about an expensive day in my ER.
Next we have the lawyer fees. Yes, you stand a chance of being sued by the bad guy's family. This is shocking to most people. However, this is governed mostly by the politics of the area in which you live and the ability for the family to hire a lawyer, and it's not as common as people would think. Fortunately Indiana law does a lot to help you, assuming you were clearly in the right, and you stand a good chance of winning that lawsuit too, should a suit be filed against you. However, if you do get sued by someone, it's going to get expensive. Even if you succeed in getting the opposing party to pay for your court costs, you're still talking about a $10,000 up front hit to your wallet.
Finally we have the emotional and social costs. There is an overplayed and tired idea that killing or shooting another human being "changes" you. For the most part that is total BS. The only people who are dramatically changed by those events are people who weren't at all mentally prepared for it and had a sheeple view of the world, and thus were shocked by the sudden revelation of stark reality. On the other side of the spectrum are the people who knew it was a possibility, had mentally and physically conditioned themselves, and have a sense of justice such that they know their actions were totally justified. Because of this, the event doesn't bother them. Most people will fall somewhere in between. They will have an emotional reaction after the event (could be anything like depression, insomia, impotence, fatigue, etc) but then get over it and live normal, healthy lives. (Note that this assessment is based off of my own personal experiences with death and violence, Spaulding's research into the study of hundreds of gun fight winners, and my own talks with men who have killed. This is not applicable to the experience of war or the continual stresses soldiers often experience.)
This is not meant to dimish the seriousness of the action you have taken. Shooting someone until they stop attacking you will likely kill them. They will never enjoy another cold beer or steak dinner. They will never make love to their woman or man again. They will never see their children again. But don't get too broken up about it. They lost their right to take their next breath when they purposely tried to harm you. The world is much better off keeping the guy who just wants to peacefully live his life than to let the criminal who gets off on spreading pain and misery live on.
Other emotional and social costs include people who may not want to associate with you because you are now a "killer". It sounds ridiculous but there are sniveling sheeple out there who are like that. I've personally experienced this even though I've never actually had to kill anyone. (Thank the Lord) Just because I have had to commit real violence against another human being, I have been judged and ostracized by certain people when they found out. It's shocking because you're immediately embarrassed. "Hey! I'm the good guy here!! Why are you treating me like this???" It's not right, but take comfort in the fact that such people aren't worth being around anyway, as they obviously are self-centered individuals who lack both empathy and the ability to pull their heads out of their own butts. As an added note, if you work for a boss or company who has this mentality, there is a real risk of losing your job when they find out. It's total bullcrap, but that's the way it is. There are people out there who don't want to do business with a "killer".
EDIT: I failed to mention one more consequence. Retaliation. I don't know how common it is, but it does happen. When you gun your assailent down, you could be killing the little brother of Big Chino, the president of your local drug cartel. In some cases gangs have issued hits out on the victim simply because the victim won the gunfight. I know of one particular jewlry store owner who killed two men who tried to rob his store. The gang sent three more men to avenge their deaths. So he killed them. The gang then sent another set of BGs to take him down. So he killed them. I don't know how many times the cycle repeated itself before he finally left town.
Conclusion:
To apply what was said above, let's take a look at a recent shooting here in Indy that was widely reported. Earlier in 2013, a young patrolman made a routine stop. When the driver was found to be driving on an invalid license, the officer asked everyone to vacate the car. The two people upfront removed themselves from the vehicle, but a man in the back of the car refused to move. The officer walked over to the window to confront the man, and the suspect went for a gun. Within moments the two men were exchanging gunfire, with both men expending multiple rounds. The fight was over within seconds, and the suspect was dead with two others in the car wounded. The officer was taken to the ER with multiple GSWs through his arm, his gun was taken from him, and he was isolated from his fellow officers. He'll have months of physical therapy and pain meds in front of him, there will be an investigation, and he will have to testify in front of a grand jury. He'll win nothing more than perhaps medal for bravery and the hatred of the BG's family and his friends who were hit, and at best he'll get to keep what he has.
And this is considered winning.
It might seem like, after considering the reality of a gunfight, that carrying a gun just isn't worth it. That's not true. Carrying a gun and knowing how to use it will keep you alive. It's always better to survive and keep your loved ones unharmed that it is to suffer at the hands of a vicious criminal. And what of the next person this criminal victimizes if you don't stop him now? Your survival is always worth the hassel afterwards. Your life inherently has value, and, if the world loses you, it will be diminished. Your friends will be crushed, your spouse will be heart broken, your children will grow up without a parent. In what world is that worth letting a criminal kill you?
The truth is that gunfights are a lot of fun to train for and traumatic experiences to endure. If escape is an option, then it's not worth passing up the opportunity to get out. I understand that there are incidents where you could escape but couldn't live with yourself if you did, so you'll chose to stay and fight. For example, gunmen break into your house and you could escape but decide to stay and defend your family, or perhaps the local store you frequent and have made friends and other in gets attacked so you decide to stay and protect your friends and/or innocent life. However, you need to take a good long look at yourself, and then at the list of things you will have to deal with, and decide for what you are willing to risk it all in a gunfight in order to save. If you can escape and live with yourself, then by all means go home, celebrate that you're alive, eat a good meal and make love to your spouse. It's a much better deal. Especially as civilians, you don't get a medal, you don't win any cash prize, you don't score points with the powers that be. At the very best your life is at risk, and your reward is getting to keep what you already have.
Gunfights are like hurricanes. If you can escape one great, if not, you'd better have your insurance (the gun) to protect you from loss. Even then, you might not get to keep everything.
Last edited:
after I damn near got myself 
on State Road 67 back in 1993. I had just gotten out of the Corps a few months before and was no longer covered by military/VA medical care, and I was working a full-time job through a temp agency, so I had no medical insurance either... 
members for hooking a brother up..! 
that either occurs...
