# Who do you shoot first



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

Ok. I know I'm new here. I want to go in and read all of your old threads, but I don't have the time right now. So I thought I would ask you guys a trick question and see what I can learn about you based on your answer.

You come home from work and walk into your living room. Inside the room there is a man five feet away from you holding a small knife. Ten feet away there is a guy with a shotgun and twenty feet away there is a guy with a handgun. Of course you are carrying a handgun. Obviously backing up would be a good option, but lets say you don't because you don't know if you have loved ones in the house. Who do you shoot first? 

The trick is that there is only one right answer in my opinion. Don't be afraid to guess but remember it is a trick and the answer is not as obvious as you might think.


----------



## neophyte (Aug 13, 2007)

answer is obvious

1. shoot the shotgunner- his make too much noise
2. shoot the knifer- he came to a gun fight with a knife
3. shoot the pistol shooter- you're done.

Your question lacks certain facts. Handgunner in a ?hall? where he/it could be close to family members or a hiding spot
Shootgunner falls into the same question
knifer too stupid 
Where is the escape hatch? for thugs and or you?


----------



## Anaeran (Mar 22, 2008)

shoot the guy with the knife first then the guy with the shotgun and then the guy with the pistol. 

the guys with the guns may have no ammo or working weapons and well a knife always works one way or another =P


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

I think I would probably shoot the guy with the shotgun first on the premise (though this could be wrong) that the guy with the knife will back up rather than attack the moment he sees you draw and knows he's out-gunned so to speak. I know I would back up if I was the guy with the knife and had an accomplice behind me with a shotgun.


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

Remember there is a trick to it. You have all of the information that you need. Forgive me for picking on you guys, when I don't know you. However this is a question I ask cops, firearms trainer, SWAT guys and CC people. I like to see what they come up with.

This is a common question that gets asked and I think that often people give the wrong answer. I will give you a hint. Think about what happens to you during a high stress situation.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

First the guy who ask trick questions second the knife thrid will determine by action of the others.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

If you "stand and deliver" instead of moving to a more defensible, covered position, it doesn't really matter whom you shoot first. You're going to die using a puny pistol against three armed men, all at close range.


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

The point of the question is not really for you to answer the question. The point is to expose how far from reality we can get with our training. Sometimes what we practice at the range and in our heads is far from what will really happen to us at the moment of truth. I am not just messing with you on this. Let me explain why I brought his up and what value there is in knowing the right answer.

First of all most cops, military and civilians answer the way you all just have. And a couple of years ago I would have too. That was until I was put in a situation similar to, but not exactly like the one mentioned above. I am not going to go into too much detail about that event at this time, I only bring it up to show that I am not just making this stuff up.

Two very good instructors have asked me a question like the one mentioned above in the last year or so. One of them gave me an answer like the one you all did. He tried to think through the tactical problem and decide based on logic. Ok this guy is closer, but that guy has more rounds in his gun. And so on. Let me tell you it will not happen that way.

The other instructor gave me the right answer and that lined up with my real live encounters. Here is what is really going to happen.

You are going to walk into the room and maybe take in the big picture that three people are in your house. Then you are going to notice a weapon in one of their hands. It might be then knife, shotgun or the handgun. Then your mind is going to think, holly #### thats a gun! You are going to tunnel vision on that thing, time is going to stand still, and a great number of other things are going to happen to your body.

If you have trained you are going to go into a conditioned respond, draw and fire. Boom, Boom, Boom. Wow, he fell down and dropped the gun! Outstanding!  

You scan because you conditioned yourself to do that in training. Wow thats a knife! And the process starts over.

So the one right answer is that you are going to shoot the guy that gets your attention first. It might be the guy with the knife, shotgun or handgun. Any other thoughts on this?


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

Yeah, 2 fathers and 2 sons go fishing. They only catch 3 fish yet each of them gets a whole fish for lunch. How is that possible? Remember, this is a trick queston. :mrgreen:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Wyatt said:


> Yeah, 2 fathers and 2 sons go fishing. They only catch 3 fish yet each of them gets a whole fish for lunch. How is that possible? Remember, this is a trick queston. :mrgreen:


MichaelP makes an excellent point, from which we should take a lesson.

Wyatt: They're grandfather, father, and son.


----------



## propellerhead (May 19, 2006)

I would shoot the one that attacks. It could be a case where my son was showing his knife to his grandfather, who was holding a shotgun, sitting next to my brother who was cleaning his pistol.


----------



## Old Padawan (Mar 16, 2007)

Yawn… perhaps you should make a few posts and make a few replies prior to showing us how smart you are. Don’t presume that because your instructor told you the way it would happen that his words of wisdom are written in stone.
There are few things that are black and white in a shooting. Instructors try to tell us there are as that is how they make their money. They teach from a curriculum that they seldom write from personal experience. 
Some instructors at major schools tell you that the 1911 is the ONLY real gun, others tell you to get a Glock or forget it. Some tell you to shoot from an isosceles, others from a weaver. Most teach from a stationary position while others are much more mobile.
I have a friend that shot and killed two men in a liquor robbery. No tunnel vision, no start and stop. He shot the guy close to him and then the guy further away. Perhaps it’s a good thing he didn’t study with your instructor. He may not have survived.
Take what is useful from training. Practice. Train from another school of thought and again take what is useful and train some more.


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

Amen O.P.


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

Remember you are not judged on what the reality of the situation was. You are judged an what you knew at the time and what a reasonable person would have done in your situation. You also must be able to justify that you or somebody else was in great danger. You have to answer these questions for yourself. I think that if I stepped into my house and saw three guys I didn't know holding weapons I would feel in danger of being killed.

Would it be reasonable to run, yes. Would it be reason able to move back to the door frame, draw your weapon and investigate what was going on or to shoot, maybe and yes. Would it be reasonable to draw and fire, yes.


----------



## SigShooter127 (Apr 13, 2008)

from a military standpoint, remove the softest targets first, the man with the knife, take him out easily and forget about him...

Next I'd remove the shotgunner, he by far poses the greatest threat

if your not dead yet, put a double tap in the head of the last man because if youve made it this far someone is watching over you...


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

In response to Old Padawan. Sorry that I gave you a bad first impression. I am glad that your friend survived. We need true warriors in our society.


----------



## SigShooter127 (Apr 13, 2008)

Old Padawan said:


> Yawn&#8230; perhaps you should make a few posts and make a few replies prior to showing us how smart you are. Don't presume that because your instructor told you the way it would happen that his words of wisdom are written in stone.
> There are few things that are black and white in a shooting. Instructors try to tell us there are as that is how they make their money. They teach from a curriculum that they seldom write from personal experience.
> Some instructors at major schools tell you that the 1911 is the ONLY real gun, others tell you to get a Glock or forget it. Some tell you to shoot from an isosceles, others from a weaver. Most teach from a stationary position while others are much more mobile.
> I have a friend that shot and killed two men in a liquor robbery. No tunnel vision, no start and stop. He shot the guy close to him and then the guy further away. Perhaps it's a good thing he didn't study with your instructor. He may not have survived.
> Take what is useful from training. Practice. Train from another school of thought and again take what is useful and train some more.


Yes I agree, although I do think trick questions are fun...As with anything you have to be good at you have to keep an open mind, cant lock yourself to just one technique or style. There are a number of techniques developed all for different reasons and it's best we practice them all, and understand why...why do you think we Marines do so much drilling, dry fire and live fire exercises...you must be able to react corectly and adapt to any situational changes that may occur instinctivly...so practice, practice, practice


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

I am always the student. I hope to learn from you all. I am here to make friends, not to annoy anyone. Your right, bad start. Fair one.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

michael P. said:


> We need true warriors in our society.


Uh oh, there's that "W" word! :mrgreen:


----------



## Teuthis (Apr 9, 2008)

*Take Cover!*

Do not start shooting. Back out post haste, run for cover and call the police. You have posited a fight you cannot win. Even the guy with the knife could get you if he was street-wise and fit.


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

I think people are forgetting the first thing that would happen to 95% of people... 

The obligatory CRAP YOUR PANTS!! 

Then start taking action. From having been in 2 different situations where I've had to draw my gun, I can tell you that a good 80% of your training goes right out the fraking window. It has alot to do with how your personality deals with fight or flight response. I've been out on the town with good friends who always talk all "hard" and then when push comes to shove.. they bail like a skirt wearing sissy! I usually end up talking people down, but in your situation, I'd think that the overwhelming response from most people would be like this....

1. Crap your pants!
2. Run back where you came from..
3. Decide to fight or continue running.
4. Remember that if you made any noise coming into your home, they'd most likely have bolted anyways and there wouldn't really be anyone there. Criminals for the most part don't want confrontation any more than you do.
5. Realize that the first best defense to any attack is own a dog, if it doesn't meet you at the door, something may be amiss.
6. Being that your dog didn't come to you when you got home... retreat and assess situation.


and the disclaimer is.... (drum roll please)

An ounce of PREVENTION is worth a ton of SPECULATION.

I really just think that people are fooling themselves at times when they say.... "yeah, I'd blast the shotty guy, then the blah blah blah...."

What you'd like to do and what you actually do will most likely be two entirely different things. So, that being said, make it so you see the problem from far off, and you won't be caught with your proverbial pants around your ankles. 

Buy a dog.


Zhur

PS. Remember that if one asks for an opinion, they should never get upset at what is said.


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

The point I was trying to suggest is simply to always check what you are training to do, with reality. The validity of my theory on target discrimination is of course debatable. I suppose with enough "realistic training", I'm thinking force on force, you could hone in on a shotgun over a knife. I would agree that if we were all presented with that situation you would see each of us chose at least a slightly different course of action. If not a major difference. I have seen this proved out in training on a number of occasion.


----------



## themayer78 (Jan 23, 2008)

> 5. Realize that the first best defense to any attack is own a dog, if it doesn't meet you at the door, something may be amiss.
> 6. Being that your dog didn't come to you when you got home... retreat and assess situation.


Amen,

I have put 1300 rounds through my XD since I got it about 6 weeks ago so I feel comfortably familiar with how it operates:mrgreen:. I hope to God I never have to use my weapon to defend myself and if I do I hope it is after I have some formal, professional training and several thousand more rounds under my belt. Aside from that my only plan of action is to cross that bridge when I come to it (as quickly as possible), and deal with the situation and all of its specifics as soon as I can assess what they are.

A few years ago I was robbed while in the drivers seat of a friends car. I'm surprised they didn't take the car, but I had a gun shoved in my face and was held there while another gun wielding criminal rifled through the car. I must say I guess I'm more at peace with my maker than I knew because I did not crap my pants or even get tunnel vision. I didn't WANT to get shot but I knew it was possible if not likely and that my job at that time was to stay calm and do whatever I could to avoid being killed.

My point is that for me, I don't think it's a good idea to train for a specific scenario, or even several different ones. Way too many variables, just try to stay calm and try to stay alive.


----------



## JeffWard (Aug 24, 2007)

I agree... There is no "correct" answer, aside from retreat and regroup. Yes, there's family in the house... but you do them no good dead.

The guy 5 ft away with a knife will stick you for sure way faster than you can draw on him. He's the biggest threat, but standing and fighting him is stupid.

Get back through the door you came through. Get to cover, and take them as they come. The door way, and distance are your best allies. Make as much noise as you can in your retreat, waking up the whole neighborhood. Draw them away from your family, but not by sacraficing yourself!

From the corner of the garage, you can possibly take the knife-holder, if he's stupid enough to give chase vs a gun. If you startled them, you MAY have a chance to gain distance. The guy with the shotgun is trouble... If they are stupid enough to file out the door one at a time, you have a chance. 

If I drop the guy with the knife while escaping, and engage the shotgunner from behind the corner of the house, or garage... I can hope Carla will come out of the room with MY 12 gauge and take number 3 from behind... since his attenton will be on me. Then, if I'm still alive, we cross-fire number 2.

HER instinct to protect her kids is pretty strong...

Face it guys... If there's 3 bad guys in your house, your dog is currently either eating very well, or dead...

LOL
JW


----------



## Liko81 (Nov 21, 2007)

All of them are a threat. The guy with the handgun at twenty feet (7 yards) is the least threat. The guy with the shotgun at 3 yards and the guy with the knife point-blank are the bigger threats.

In this scenario, I would drop the shotgun-wielder first. At his range I'm dead if he gets even a poorly-aimed shot off. The guy with the knife is the next biggest threat just because of range; before the first bang stops ringing in my ears he'll be on me and I'll have to deal with him up-close and personal. Then, if I'm still alive and mobile, I take care of the guy with the handgun.

Now, all of this assumes I can drop one baddie, put the second in a wrist lock and shoot the third before that third guy gets a well-aimed shot off. I honestly think it's impossible.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

Mike Barham said:


> If you "stand and deliver" instead of moving to a more defensible, covered position, it doesn't really matter whom you shoot first. You're going to die using a puny pistol against three armed men, all at close range.


+1

MOVE YOUR ASS!!! Seek cover, check 6, start thinking about flanking and getting help (911 on cell, drop cell and start screaming for help is a good start).

*Gunfight Rules*

1. Have a gun.
a. Preferably, have at least two guns. 
b. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
a. "Why did you shoot only once? There's no additional paperwork for shooting someone twice!" -- Firearms Instructor P.O.J.D., MOS debriefing after a shooting. 
b. Bring ammo.
i. The right ammo. 
ii. Lots of it.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

5. Proximity negates skill. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun&#8230; and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun. Use a gun that works every time. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat, always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
a. "If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly."

12. Have a plan.
a. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

13. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

14. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect your own flank.

15. Don't drop your guard.

16. Always perform a tactical reload and then threat scan 360 degrees.

17. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.)

18. Decide to be aggressive enough, quickly enough.

19. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

20. Be polite. Be professional. But&#8230; have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

21. Be courteous to everyone. Friendly to no one.

22. Your number one option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

23. Nothing handheld is a reliable stopper.

24. Carry the same gun in the same place all the time.


----------



## neophyte (Aug 13, 2007)

submoa: Amen


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

For the record, the "Crap you pants" statement was not meant literally! hehehe:mrgreen:

Zhur


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

Then their are several other things to consider. One is where they are at in the OODA Loop and where you are at in the loop. The OODA loop stands for, Observe, Orientate, Decide and Act. If the hear you coming because you made noise coming up the steps(Observe), the realize that they have a problem(Orientate), and decide to shoot(Decide), then when you walk into the door the (Act) you have little to no chance at all. But if you catch them sleeping and you see each other at the same time, you have a chance. This is why training is so important it helps you complete the loop quicker than the other guy. Heck if you were paying attention and noticed that a light was on that you had left off (Observe) before you got to the door, you might (Orientate) yourself that something is not right, (Decide) to call the police and (Act) by calling and posting outside.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

It's Observe, *Orient*, Decide, Act. If we're going to pilfer Col. Boyd's work unattributed, let's at least get it right. :mrgreen:

You're correct, we need to get inside our opponent's "OODA Loop." But of course this jargon is basically just a cool-guy way of saying "action beats reaction," and has been recognized since the dawn of gunfighting - well before Col. Boyd observed, formalized and "acronym'd" it for fighter pilots.


----------



## BLS86 (Jan 22, 2007)

Would the most effective tactic not be to just turn around and run right back out? Should you choose to fight, you'll most likely lose. Then they may decide to search the house for any witnesses that may have previously gone unnoticed. When you run, they'll assume you're calling the cops and most likely high tail it outta there. You stand a greater chance of saving your own life, as well as your families, given that they weren't killed or injured before you arrived anyway.

The best method of defense is staying out of the fights you can't win.


----------



## PanaDP (Jul 20, 2007)

I am not a defensive shooter. I don't know the first thing about it. That said, I would probably unload in their general direction while running like hell, hoping the little bit of fire would give me a half-second head start.

Backup Plan: Having already shat myself, hope that they inhale deeply and walk away.


----------



## TOF (Sep 7, 2006)

Do either of the individuals with guns have uniforms or badges on?

I would hate to shoot a couple of Cops and a Paramedic that were rendering aid to one of my family members in my absence.

You better not start blasting without reasonable knowledge that it is warranted.

:smt1099


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

Running is obviously a good option. How to say that you couldn't win is something that I don't believe.


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

michael P. said:


> Running is obviously a good option. How to say that you couldn't win is something that I don't believe.


You _could_ win - anything is possible - but the odds are very heavily against coming out of this without at least one new ventilation hole. Dying in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, even if you killed all three of your opponents, is not what I'd consider a win.

Fortunately, an armed citizen is extremely unlikely to face such a scenario, though it is probably somewhat more likely for a cop.


----------



## vernpriest (Jan 15, 2008)

I am always impressed on how much time people believe they will have to mentally evaluate and weigh their options in these cases. I always enter the house first for a reason, if their are people inside I am rapidly leaving and my family will already be outside in safety. If I can't retreat safely with my family I am not partial to which one gets shot first, hopefully it isn't me. To claim their is "only right answer in your opinion" is pretty arrogant in my opinion!


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

If possible, sidestep to place the knife guy directly in between you and the shotgunner. The guy with the shotgun can't take you out without blowing his accomplice to shreds in the process. However, if they have any sense about them, the guy with the knife will probably drop to the floor, giving the shotgunner an unobstructed shot. Odds are he's got buckshot, and a terrible shot will still put you in a world of hurt, or kill you.

If it were me, I wouldn't draw. The guy with knife would have my jugular in his hand before I even got my handgun out. I'd put my hands in the air, say calmly, "Guys, what are you doing here?" And whatever the response was, say, "Well the guns aren't necessary. I'm unarmed. Take what you want and leave, but please don't hurt anyone." Then pretend to start crying, which would take their guard down. Once their guard is down, yank my handgun out and start plugging them. If they don't let their guard down, let them take whatever, leave, and call the police. You might get thousands of dollars jacked, but at least you survived.

IMO, immediately drawing and firing will get you killed. You're outnumbered 3 to 1, your weapon is concealed (which means you don't have it drawn and aimed), and you're wielding a handgun against a close-range knife, shotgun, and another handgun. Odds are, the three have worked together before, and all have a particular job they've trained themselves for. A knife for quick and silent kills, a handgun for easy manueverability and fast reloads, and a shotgun to take down the big threats. You pose no tactical threats to them upon entering, so the best choice is to outsmart them, not outgun them.

On the flip side, owning a dog is probably the best form of home defense one can have. Simple barking will usually deter an invader as his cover is completely blown. Occupants of the dwelling will be alerted to his entry, and if he's not too lucky, the dog may be a trained doberman or rott ready to tear his spine out. My pit bull is a total sweetheart, but I have no doubt in my mind she would take off after a home invader once she learned he was not supposed to be there. And if she doesn't tear into him, my buckshot will. That's on the grounds I'm already home and someone breaks in, not in the situation originally posed.


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

I did say that their was only one right answer. True enough. However I didn't say that the answer was the same for everyone. In fact it would be different for different people. The right answer is that you are going to deal with what you determine to be threatening your life at that moment. It might be the knife, gun, or the shotgun. It might not even be just the weapon. It might be the look in the guys eye, or his posture + the weapon. My point is that it is hard to determine these things until you are facing the threat.


----------



## submoa (Dec 16, 2007)

michael P. said:


> You come home from work and walk into your living room.


Most of us live in something more elaborate than a 1 room house.



michael P. said:


> Obviously backing up would be a good option, but lets say you don't because you don't know if you have loved ones in the house.


So your loved ones could be in the house, but in other rooms with unknown number of bad guys.



michael P. said:


> One is where they are at in the OODA Loop and where you are at in the loop.


At this point you have _observed_ 3 BGs in your living room. You don't know where your loved ones are. Entering your front door, you are _oriented_ with one path of retreat behind you and (assuming you do not normally block your front door with furniture) no cover. Your _decision_ is to go full Rambo, selecting your targets by some kind of training methodology. You _act_ by drawing and shooting.

Where are the BGs in the OODA? There are a minimum of 3 armed BGs in your house. Until you enter, they are confident and feel in full control. There is a possiblity of additional BGs elsewhere in the house with your loved ones. 3 armed BGs _observe_ the sound of you unlocking your front door. As you enter, the 3 BGs _orient_ themselves and their weapons towards you. As you rapidly recover from the shock of your discovery, decide to act and draw, the 3 BGs _decide_ you are going to be trouble and _act_ by shooting you. Any remaining BGs will _observe_ the sound of a gunfight, _orient_ themselves towards your loved ones and _decide_ between a hostage situation, witness elimination, or retreat.

My primary, secondary, and tertiary objectives is the safety of my loved ones. Then comes my own safety. Then comes the societal benefits of removing miscreants from the gene pool.

Moving and seeking cover does more than preserve your own hide. It de-escalates your initial encounter, restores the BG's illusion of control and provides the BGs the option of retreat. This just might save your loved ones lives.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

submoa said:


> Most of us live in something more elaborate than a 1 room house.


:anim_lol: Michael P. forgot to add that in this scenario, we live in a one-room shack.


----------



## sesquipedalian101 (Apr 19, 2008)

As I cruised by this site searching for something else, I spotted this thread and became intrigued. I registered for the site because I just couldn't resist the temptation to toss in my 2 cents worth (that's the after-inflation value). So, even if you don't like Michael P's thread, you can thank him for "hooking" another member (or curse him, should you decide I am a poor addition to your forum).

Regardless, the scenario posed is so vague that one can not answer it without taking myriad assumptions about the situation. Lots of factors would play in to one's tactical analysis, or lack there of, in a real-life situation. These elements, missing from the scenario as laid out, get "backfilled" by our respective imaginations. This "backfill" is different for each of you, so you wind up arguing for different actions based partly on your training, partly on your experience, but mostly on how you imagine the situation in your mind's eye. 

Have you ever watched a movie Popcornsmilie creatively derived from a book you read? If you can truly read (a dying skill these days), most times you will exit the movie saying, "Boy they ruined that story!" If pressed for "how it got messed up," most people will say things like, "they cut out the best part or "the characterization was all wrong." In reality, most times, the real problem is that all the details your imagination filled in one way, the movie director's imagination filled in another way and the stories wound up different. It's notable that seeing the movie first, then reading the book is far less likely to make one think the movie a poor adaptation.

To get specific, from the description of this scenario, I found myself assuming that the BGs are more-or-less in a straight line; how many of you imagined a semi-circle? How many of you, on reading the scenario, did what I did and looked at your own living room to visualize the situation? I don't know about your house, but the furniture, room layout, and lighting all make a difference in what is possible in my house. For example, at least until my bride re-arranges again, a quick step to the left, after entering the front door, would take me out of line of sight for all but the knife guy. This would be good -- except I carry for my left hand most of the time :roll: Each reply I've read thus far partly reflects the "facts" given about the scenario; partly the skills and experience brought to the situation; but, mostly, each shows the interpretation the individual respondent is "reading into" the circumstances. 

Now that we've proven I'm verbose :smt024 and everyone has reason to blame Michael P. for attracting my attention, how would I answer his scenario? Keep in mind, I am "reading into" the situation at least as much as everyone else. 

For starters, having been born and raised on a working ranch, I've been in a number (too many) life-threatening situations -- usually at the whim of some critter, ten times my size, wanting to stomp a mud hole in me. Only one such "close call" involved people with firearms (and the apparent intent to use them) on the other side of the dispute and, fortunately, being faster than the other two, I didn't have to shoot anybody. :smt083 

Regardless, I totally reject the "crap your pants" :horsepoo: reaction. Sure, afterwards, (sometimes, hours afterwards) I've melted into a puddle of goo; :smt089 but, my initial reaction to threat has always been anger, :smt076 not fear (this reaction has its own set of problems). Besides, at the critical moment, there was never time for fear to set in. In fact, there's not much time at all.

So, would I make a "tactical analysis" of the situation? You bet! Would it be wrong? Quite possibly; but, again, there is no time to debate pro and con. You have to see, think, react, and hope you live long enough to regret any mistakes you might make. For sure, if you skip the "think" part, you are going to do exactly what the opposition expects of you -- which is generally a bad thing. I know, some will complain that things happen too quickly for thought. I disagree. If you don't have time to think it's not because things are happening too quickly; it's because you think too slowly.

One thing is for certain, assuming that the situation warrants a gunfight, I am not going to "double-tap" anyone. For starters, I generally carry a single-action 6-shot revolver with an empty cylinder under the hammer. I am going to put one (1) round into each target worthy of attention and save the final two for "lurkers" or for any who need an additional persuasion. In fact, even if I carried something with a 15-round magazine, I would follow this procedure. 

Explanatory Digression: When I was a kid (this would be some time ago), there was a police officer who walked into the middle of a bank robbery. As I recall, it was one of those, "I'm on lunch break and I need to cash a check" type of stops (yeah, they still used paper checks and paper money and, back then, banks would cash your check even if it were drawn on a different branch). Anyway, he walked right into the lobby before realizing there was something amiss about three guys with masks pointing guns at the bank patrons. The cop went for his gun, drew, and fired four rounds before any of the robbers could react. Every one of his shots scored a perfect "bulls eye" -- just like on the target range. Unfortunately, just like on the target range, the officer put two rounds through the head of the first (closer) guy and two rounds through the heart of the second (middle) guy, then took one (1) .22 bullet in his own chest from the third (farthest) guy. Sadly, this shot ended his life. Had he put one round on each bad guy with the same accuracy and speed he did with two-rounds-per-robber, he would have downed all three, had an extra just incase any threat remained, and survived the encounter. 

I don't "double tap"…

As for the order in which I would try to take them out, though he had no formal "tactical pistol" training, I would go with Alvin York's :smt1099 "backwoods" solution. 

-101-


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

Thanks for the reply and welcome to the forum. You do have a good idea on how to engage the targets. Law Enforcement teaches the tactic that you are describing. The plan is that everyone gets firsts(one shot) before you serve seconds(another to the chest and then one to the head). This might be a good plan and it is one that we are encouraged to use.

My thought on it is that. 1. This contradicts all of the other training that you have done, the thousands of times that you have hopefully practiced shooting two to the chest and one to the head. So although it might be a good plan, I question weather you would do it under duress. Who knows? Maybe you would. It is a worth drill to practice just in case. Drilling in in force on force would give you a better idea of what you would do in this situation.

Secondly you are right, sometimes things do happen so quickly that you don't have time to be scared until later. In law enforcement you move towards the sound of gunfire, sometimes this means a 20 minute drive. In those situations of course you do have time to be scared. 

I will submit that when something sudden happens that threatens our lives that it dose effect us. A good example and one that we have almost all experienced is a car accident.

Lets say that you start sliding on the ice while driving down the roadway and end up in the other lane, heading towards an on coming vehicle. What happens? Your hart rate increases, your grip on the steering wheel tightens down, your whole body becomes tense. Your eyes usually lock into the threat(the on coming vehicle). If somebody was looking at your face they would most likely tell you that it was completely flush. The body reacts the same when it is thinks that death and serious injury are about to happen. Now imagine shooting under these conditions!

Now if you are a good driver you might survive this. The experienced driver may do all the right things to get the vehicle under control and out of harms way. He most likely will experience all of the things mentioned above, but to a lesser degree than someone who is just learning how to drive. His hart rate will increase, but not to the level that a new driver's would. All of us are calmer and make better driving decisions now than we were first learning how to drive. But I don't think this is because we are better at thinking through the problem. We are still basically on auto pilot at that point. But the mind has been their and done that. It is so much easier to make the right decision, based on past experience without you really thinking about it. The brain thinks, OK, I have done this before and this has worked in the past. This is the point of training. Training in a realistic manner, to give the brain a learned, realistic experience to have as a point of reference.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

About "double taps":
I learned to put one on each, and then to go back and put one on each again.
And nowadays I'd add: But before you start shooting, first find some cover.


----------



## sesquipedalian101 (Apr 19, 2008)

michael P. said:


> Lets say that you start sliding on the ice while driving down the roadway and end up in the other lane, heading towards an on coming vehicle. What happens?


I find it deliciously ironic that you would choose this particular example!

Back when I was eighteen -- two (2) years out of Driver's Ed and ten (10) years of driving experience -- my brother, sister and I took a trip to the local ski hill. The two of them were belted beside me on the front seat of my '74 Nova. As we came out of a left-hand turn on a down grade, the rear of the car caught some ice ruts and broke *left*. By the time the back end passed 60 degrees of angle, I had "feathered" the gas until my foot was off the pedal, the steering wheel was all the way to left-lock, the car was still turning clockwise, and the "time-dilation" effect had started. I remember clearly _*thinking*_, "Hmm, if I survive this, I am going to find Buckmiller (my Driver's Ed teacher) and tell him to revise his lecture on skids :smt014 because, as I pass 90 degrees and start going backwards, I'm actually going to be steering _with_ the skid. That will really suck  because the 300 foot drop-off that was on my right a moment ago will be on my left by then and we are going to go over the edge backwards! Time for a new tactic... :smt017 :idea:"

As the car passed 80 degrees, I placed my right index finger behind the spoke of the steering wheel like the "necker's knob" :smt052 we used to have on our old John Deere tractor, and used it to spin the wheel all the way to right lock. As the car reversed directions, instead of accelerating the spin, the front wheels caught enough to slow the yaw straighten us out backwards. I finally applied the brakes (without disengaging the clutch), and caught enough snow to stop the car. I wound up with a good view out the driver side window -- if you like "scenic overlooks"; personally, I don't care for them so much anymore. 

If I had followed my training and done exactly what my then relatively recent Driver's Ed course taught, I'd have dumped the car over the edge and we'd not be having this discussion. As it was, I *thought* about what I was doing, decided "this ain't working," and changed the plan. Of course, this was not a protracted internal debate and my situational analysis could have been flawed (and we would have been dead); so, I have no doubt Divine Intervention helped a lot...

But, the point stands. I didn't panic; I didn't have time; I had to use all the time available (less than a second from break-out to 90 degrees) to analyze the situation, and adjust my reaction to it. (Note: the panic came later, as I rode the chair up the mountain pondering our close call. By the time I reached the top of the hill, I was so shaky I nearly "killed myself" coming off the lift -- of course, I could have just been cold too ;-) )


----------



## zhurdan (Mar 21, 2008)

@ sesquipedalian101
You mentioned that you disagree with the whole "crap your pants" notion, and I'd have to say that I put it in there for a touch of humorific banter. Later I noted that it was not intended to be literal.

To that point, you being able to act first, without fear is probably more of a rarity than you'd think. That's why in tragic situations, car crashes, small fires, fights, and domestics(yes they can be different than fights), most often times there is a complete and utter lack of response from the crowd that so quickly is either dispersed by fear, stunned into place because they are overwhelmed, or the one or two who take action.

I've personally been in the above mentioned situations on a few occasions, and I always think back about them and shake my head in amazement that I was, quite literally, the only person moving towards the issue instead of away from it. Some might call me just plain stupid, others might say I am looking for attention, yet others still might say I think of others safety first. All would be correct in a matter of degrees.

Someone once asked me how I always ended up in the middle of the scariest thing that happened that day, and honestly it has to do with the fact that I would be more afraid of not doing something and having to live with the fact that I could have prevented something bad from happening. That would stick with me much longer than any fear I might have.

Coming back around here, fear is by far the most powerful emotion (in my opinion) that we can feel. Mostly because it's the one that comes on with little to no warning. Sure, love is a strong feeling, but you see it coming, unless your a hootchie mamma who falls in love every Friday night at the bar (added for flavor). Anger, well, I don't consider it a base emotion, I think its a reaction to fear. That being said, I think everyone has fear, they just respond to it differently, where that may be by running, helping, fighting, getting angry or whatever. Fear is part of the human makeup, people just learn how do deal with it differently.

On an aside, I completely agree that perception is reality. First thing I did was get it in my head that this way my house we were talking about. It's kind of hard not to be honest. So +1 on what you said about "filling in". 

Zhurdan


----------



## michael P. (Apr 13, 2008)

I have had adrenalin dumps, when I was not really in danger. Like some little guy in my face. Later I thought, that was stupid, you are twice his size, have several black belts and lot of experience fighting.

Other times, I have been involved in situations that I should have had adrenalin dumps, car chases for example, and did not. Later I thought, dang, you need to get out of this business if you aren't scared of anything anymore.

I agree that things are unpredictable and some times unreasonable on both ends of the spectrum. I think that some of this is personality/exposure. Some if though is ignorance.

For instance, take the OODA loop. I watched a video in the academy of a female police officer who gets punched by a male suspect. The male suspect was clearly displaying several clues that indicated he might strike the officer. But she was Observing his actions, because he was standing right in front of her. However she never Orientated her self to the fact that what she was Observing was the fact that she was about to get struck in the face. There for it came as a complete surprise and she never did get an adrenalin dump until after the fact. I sure.

If she would have Orientated herself the fact that she was about to get hit, she most likely would have got an adrenalin dump, and she would have started Deciding what to do, and then acting, by backing up, drawing her spray or giving verbal commands. I think this is why some people get a dump and some don't. This is also why I think that the OODA loop is a good model and not simply a cool guy way of saying action vs reaction. I will try and find the video to post it.


----------



## sesquipedalian101 (Apr 19, 2008)

zhurdan said:


> @Sesquipedalian101
> You mentioned that you disagree with the whole "crap your pants" notion, and I'd have to say that I put it in there for a touch of humorific banter. Later I noted that it was not intended to be literal.


Please accept my most humble apology. I did recognize the humorous intent of your comment, but failed to acknowledge it. When I get rolling, even on a bad day, I type something in excess of 80wpm. As you might imagine, this makes my comments and posts quite long with the potential of becoming, as someone here has already pointed out, "sesquipedestrian"; therefore, I honestly, sincerely, try to post-edit my commentary to remove the least-pithy passages. (I leave to your imagination what they would be like if I did _not_ do this  ) In the process, civility sometimes gets sacrificed on the alter of concision. Please believe, no offense was intended.



zhurdan said:


> To that point, you being able to act first, without fear is probably more of a rarity than you'd think.


You may be correct. Though, I am not claiming a lack of fear; just a lack of time to indulge in it under the scenario described. I suspect, in part, it has to do with one's upbringing. To the best of my knowledge, I am by no means unique among the cohort in which I was raised.

I grew up "out in the country." The nearest town, where we went for supplies, schooling, et cetera had a "huge" population that is smaller than you would probably find in one city block of apartment buildings in, say, Seattle. In fact, both the town and the county for 50 miles around it still contain less than half as many people as the student housing of the "small, private, Christian" college where I presently work. In an environment where you go to your neighbor's barn fire to fight the blaze, to rescue livestock, and to help out, not to watch "the professionals" work, you grow a different sort of people -- at least you did when I was a kid.

Today, most every "safety" lecture I attend at work is concerned, mostly, with how to *not* become involved; how to *not* become a victim; or, how to *not* incur liability. Scant attention is paid to how best to help or rescue someone who aready *is* a victim.

We periodically take confined space training at work. One "basic knowledge" question is "What do you do if someone in a vault is overcome by hydrogen sulfide gas and passes out while not wearing a safety harness?" The standard answer we have to memorize and parrot back is "call for help and guard the opening." As I told the instructor privately, "If my co-worker passes out down there, I am calling for help first to get rescue on the way, but then I'm going down to tie on a rope and hoist him out. When diving, I can hold my breath for about three minutes; I can tie a bowline in less than one." He responded, "Yeah, that's what I would do too, but insurance requires we teach the course this way."



zhurdan said:


> That's why in tragic situations, car crashes, small fires, fights, and domestics(yes they can be different than fights), most often times there is a complete and utter lack of response from the crowd that so quickly is either dispersed by fear, stunned into place because they are overwhelmed, or the one or two who take action.


When I have time to "stop and ponder" getting involved, I generally take several assessments. 1) Are there better people available (firefighters, paramedics, police, et cetera) already on scene? If so, I usually elect to get clear out of the way (id est: leave). 2) If I am the best available, can I do anything to help or am I likely to make the situation worse? 3) Who is likely to sue me for what cause if I mix in?

Of the three questions, only the last causes me shame over the hesitation. Still, while I am willing to risk my life to help somebody in need, sadly, it does give me pause when I think about risking the livelihood and welfare of my family into the bargain. Thus far, I have not ever refused to assist someone because of that consideration; but, in today's litigious society, it does give me pause.



zhurdan said:


> Someone once asked me how I always ended up in the middle of the scariest thing that happened that day, and honestly it has to do with the fact that I would be more afraid of not doing something and having to live with the fact that I could have prevented something bad from happening. That would stick with me much longer than any fear I might have.


Amen!



zhurdan said:


> Coming back around here, fear is by far the most powerful emotion (in my opinion) that we can feel. Mostly because it's the one that comes on with little to no warning. <*snip*> Anger, well, I don't consider it a base emotion, I think its a reaction to fear. That being said, I think everyone has fear, they just respond to it differently, where that may be by running, helping, fighting, getting angry or whatever. Fear is part of the human makeup, people just learn how do deal with it differently.


I think, overall, you are correct; however, I disagree with fear being *the* cause of anger. I suppose there could be some tortuous reasoning that might connect the two in _every_ circumstance; however, for me, they are generally separate emotions. For example, I get angry (as distinguished from "mad") over things that are in no way personally threatening to me; I also get angry about things that do threaten me. In the latter case there _is_, at some point, fear; but, not in the former; yet, in both there is anger&#8230;

As for fear in tense situations, you bet! If something hazzardous goes on for a protracted period of time, fear definitely becomes an element of the equation. However, for me, fear is not an element of "surprise" situations. Even the two things about which I am "phobic," water and heights, do not panic or freeze me; but, I try to avoid unplanned encounters with either ;-) All of which doesn't mean that it is a good idea to jump out from behind the door and grab me as I walk in the door; but, you can take some comfort from knowing that the broken nose and bruised ribs you got did not come because you "scared" me


----------



## sesquipedalian101 (Apr 19, 2008)

Okay, back to the original scenario. As I said in my first post, Michael P.'s question was too good to resist. Let me first explain why&#8230;

My bride and I have three sons. We also have a number of firearms. One of our more intense marital (ever notice how that word and "martial" use the same letters?  ) discussions came from questions about how to store the firearms and how to expose (or not expose) the children to them when they were younger. (This might be fodder for another post, perhaps in another thread&#8230 Suffice to say, I "won": all the firearms in serviceable condition were loaded; most were generally easily reached; none were "hidden" from our children.

By the time the youngest was seven, all three boys were good shots (Middle son, for example, broke a whole string of clays qualifying for Hunter's Ed at 10) and we had a number of discussions with them about exactly how they should respond if someone were to break into the house to threaten and hurt them or their family.

One of the things that we discussed was exactly who to take, how to take them, and in what order -- essentially Michael P's question; albeit on a 7 to 12 year-old level. It is not as easy as you might think at first blush to come up with good answers for some situations when the person being taught is well under four feet tall. We never used the scenario that Michael P. proposed; for one thing, until they turned 21, the boys would not have been returning home while "carrying"; for another, the house we had at that time couldn't have gotten you 20 feet of separation across the living room. But we did go over things like being awakened in the middle of the night by someone breaking in or coming out of the bathroom to find somebody holding Mom or Dad at knife point. So, when I read the scenario, I thought, "Ah, somebody has had dinner table conversations like ours."



zhurdan said:


> @ sesquipedalian101
> On an aside, I completely agree that perception is reality. First thing I did was get it in my head that this was my house we were talking about. It's kind of hard not to be honest. So +1 on what you said about "filling in".
> Zhurdan


So, with the idea that the basic conversation is not new to me, let me tell you how my house layout would "play" into this scenario. First, We have two (2) outside doors; both open into the kitchen. If I were to come in via the "straight" door, I could see immediately into the living room; if I were entering via the side door, I'd have to walk around a corner to get the view. Let's say I come in the straight door.

There is a back porch behind me and a second door to the outside; if I turn and run, I'm a "fish in a barrel" for at least six feet. On the good side, I have direct line of sight through the kitchen into the living room, and the passageway is four feet wide. If all the BGs are spaced as Michael P. described, they would have to be in more or less a straight line. Even better, Mr. Knife Guy, can't be 5ft away, because he'd be growing out of the kitchen table; he's got to be at least 8 feet away, on the other side of the table, or we're not going to have a gunfight because he and I are already wrestling for the knife (or I'm already dead). Mr. Shotgun would be in the middle of the living room, just this side of the bench seat that serves for company to watch TV; Mr. Pistol would be on the other side of the bench, near the fireplace; all three would be within my "kill zone."

Now, if they are all "pointing at me because they heard me coming," I'm likely to duck sideways and head for the backdoor -- hoping that they will hesitate to shoot past their partners. If they are not waiting for me and/or if I think I have to fight for some reason, Mr. Pistol goes first, Mr. Shotgun goes second, Mr. Knife last -- if at all.

Here's why:

1)	Mr. Pistol goes first because, as I said before, Mr. Knife *has* to be on the other side of the table or the distances don't work. He is my shotgun shield; he's probably not a pistol shield. I'm betting that his partner, Mr. Shotgun, will try to jockey for position before opening up. Even if he doesn't, so long as I keep Mr. Knife between us, Mr. Knife is going to absorb some of the lead. Mr. Pistol, by contrast, has the weapon that can shoot past Mr. Shotgun and Mr. Knife. He also has cover to duck behind. If I take him before he can move, he's out of it; if I shoot somebody else first, he has time to duck and we have a protracted firefight (which I am *not* prepared to prosecute). Mr. Shotgun, by contrast, has no effective cover without moving a long ways; I have time for two shots before he can get occluded. Further, once Mr. Shotgun faces me, he can't see Mr. Pistol; not knowing I neutralized Mr. Pistol with the first shot, he won't know if he still has somebody covering his back; he won't know if Mr. Pistol is about to shoot *through* him instead of past him; he may decide to get out of the way sideways or drop, and let Mr. Pistol have me instead of joining in. Finally, if they are busy robbing the place, odds are he's "one handing" his weapon because it's kind of hard to rifle (pardon the pun) stuff with both hands on the shotgun. Hopefully, this will make him slower than Mr. Pistol.

2)	Mr. Shotgun goes next. Most of the same reasons apply as with Mr. Pistol. By the second shot, any residual "rigor mortis" affecting Mr. Shotgun and Mr. Knife is going to break. Mr. Shotgun may decide to "shoot through" his buddy. More likely, Mr. Knife is busy getting out of the way; or coming around the table; or coming over the table. (If the latter, he may get to go first.)

3)	Mr. Knife goes last. Unless he's an ex-circus performer, he doesn't have a "ranged" weapon; distance is my ally with him; backing up, even out the door, is a viable option. By this time, I would expect him to either be attacking, in which case he gets his turn; or, he'll be taking cover; or, he'll be running (with no place to go except through a window or past me). There is also the possibility, by the time I get to shot number three, that Mr. Shotgun or Mr. Pistol will have taken him out with volley fire.

-101-


----------



## TDIllini (Jan 5, 2008)

3 guys all that close? I highly doubt you're going to get all 3 of them right there unless you are the freaking terminator. I'd probably shoot whoever I was looking at (probably the knife guy), and fire off a couple shots while I haul ass down the hallway where I will jump through a window/flee through the door, or take cover and shoot at them until I can get away.

What it would look like is when the scene where Han Solo chased a couple stormtroopers into a hangar full of imperials (A New Hope). He then sprinted down the hallway in full retreat while turning slightly to fire.


----------



## Kyle1337 (Mar 22, 2008)

I'm gonna go the movie star route, shoot the guy with knife in the head, grab him keep him upright and use him as a shield while I shoot the other two....lol! 

Now in real life, who knows what I'd do, I've been trained to draw double tap center mass, so I'd do it to all three as fast as I could, probably the knife first as he'd probably be in the way of the other two. Also theirs a thing called muscle memory, meaning you have to do something 1500 - 2000 times in order for it to start to become a natural reaction or something you can do without thinking. Which the draw and shooting I have done more than that. I remember the other night I heard a crash that woke me up, before I even lifted my head my gun was up and at center of the door frame. I don't ever remember picking my gun up from under the bed and pulling it out of the holster, I just remember panting and sitting up in bed with the weapon on the center of the door frame......then I cleared the house, it was a glass for some reason fell.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

TDIllini said:


> What it would look like is when the scene where Han Solo chased a couple stormtroopers into a hangar full of imperials (A New Hope). He then sprinted down the hallway in full retreat while turning slightly to fire.


Lol, that scene's hilarious. He gets all pissed off and goes charging after them, then comes around the corner and they've regrouped and are unloading on his ass.


----------



## TDIllini (Jan 5, 2008)

Yeah the original 3 were full of good scenes like that. The new ones, not so much. Also, I would probably use a revolver to give a "cowboy" feel. I am thinking about getting a SW 686 as my first gun.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

TDIllini said:


> Yeah the original 3 were full of good scenes like that. The new ones, not so much. Also, I would probably use a revolver to give a "cowboy" feel. I am thinking about getting a SW 686 as my first gun.


If I ever get a revolver that's what I'll get...4" barrel in .357 mag...can't go wrong with that!


----------



## TDIllini (Jan 5, 2008)

I'm actually leaning towards the 6inch model, but I'm going to wait until I can compare both of them in my hand and see which feels best.


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

I've got the 686+ in the 4" barrel. I prefer it over the 6". Here's a good thread on the subject of barrel length which was recently discussed:

http://handgunforum.net/showthread.php?t=13185


----------



## TDIllini (Jan 5, 2008)

Yeah I saw that thread. I live in a state where I can't carry, so it's pretty pointless for defense purposes. I also don't anticipate having to use it for home defense. I would use the pistol more for target shooting and potentially hunting applications. So the 6 inch barrel fits my needs a little better, but I'll have to see which one feels best.

I could always compromise and get a 5 inch unfluted cylinder 686 from buds though.


----------



## Fred40 (Jan 7, 2008)

I would probably.....die.....hopefully I take one or two with me.


----------



## Wyatt (Jan 29, 2008)

TDIllini said:


> Yeah I saw that thread. I live in a state where I can't carry, so it's pretty pointless for defense purposes. I also don't anticipate having to use it for home defense. I would use the pistol more for target shooting and potentially hunting applications. So the 6 inch barrel fits my needs a little better, but I'll have to see which one feels best.
> 
> I could always compromise and get a 5 inch unfluted cylinder 686 from buds though.


Yeah, I figured from your stage name you were in a "Won't Issue" state (my home state actually). Even my 686 4" is a big gun and wouldn't be ideal for concealed carry. But I think some of the guys were saying the 6" is alot even to tote around the woods all day. However, for target shooting and hunting it does sound like the longer barrel fits your needs better.


----------



## DSVETeran1990 (Mar 9, 2008)

Wyatt said:


> Yeah, 2 fathers and 2 sons go fishing. They only catch 3 fish yet each of them gets a whole fish for lunch. How is that possible? Remember, this is a trick queston. :mrgreen:


father,son,son's son = 3 people? DUH!!!!:buttkick:


----------



## DSVETeran1990 (Mar 9, 2008)

BLS86 said:


> Would the most effective tactic not be to just turn around and run right back out? Should you choose to fight, you'll most likely lose. Then they may decide to search the house for any witnesses that may have previously gone unnoticed. When you run, they'll assume you're calling the cops and most likely high tail it outta there. You stand a greater chance of saving your own life, as well as your families, given that they weren't killed or injured before you arrived anyway.
> 
> The best method of defense is staying out of the fights you can't win.


:smt104:smt108:smt104 WTF?


----------



## sniper350 (Jan 6, 2007)

I have to say this ............ this is a great forum, with a lot of sharp guys giving some sound advice. My hats off to the Moderators for keeping these very sensitive discussions within legal limits ! 

A lot of you have hit on the correct answer to this problem ........and no it is not attacking the first guy you see as a threat.

The correct answer --- is to turn the situation from one of shocked defense { entering your house and finding the armed men} to one of planned offense. To do this you MUST leave the house, instantly !
"Never bring a HANDGUN to a GUN FIGHT" ........... is what I have been taught. If you stand {with a handgun } and try to engage 3 armed men, one with a shotgun, you will most likely loose. I have known only a handfull of men in my life-time that could draw a handgun and come out the winner in the above senerio........... the rest of us would loose and then where would that leave your family ?? 

Retreat & then Attack ............. but on your terms. When you are seen leaving .....maybe the the BG's will send someone after you, to prevent you from contacting Police. Their mistake .........scratch one BG. And so it goes .....re-enter your home at a point where you have some tactical advantage { ONLY if it is necessary to protect your family }

The point or lesson to take away from this Hypothectical ........ be able to recognize instantly when you are out gunned and take the "appropriate" action. Blindly going up aginst multiple attackers, one with a shotgun ...... is a loosing hand .......... unless you have also got that trick down with water into Wine !

Just another opinion :mrgreen:

JF.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy (Aug 12, 2007)

If the guy with a shotgun has it loaded with buckshot and gets a clean shot at your torso, neck, or head, you're done. Lights out.


----------

