Tactics of living in gun control zones

leadcounsel said:

....Gun laws are just so pointless and only disarm the good guys....

Click to expand...

And there it is folks, the long and the short of it.

The French made their bed and have to live with it.

They may want to think about kicking up their port security. If I had to guess those weapons came from Algeria, Libya or Moracco.

Sad case and Prayers sent for those who lost their lives and their family members.

In this case knowing the fire escapes,and any safe rooms plus being able to evade them and call the cops .

In the situation mentioned we're getting close to something I dealt with years ago down here in Miami during the "cocaine wars". There were more and more incidents back then when a young cop could be confronted by someone armed with military grade weapons -a situation where they were clearly out-gunned.... this was long before that crazy shootout on film that occurred in the bank robbery out in California. By corollary, if a young cop on the street can find him or herself in that situation -so can any armed citizen...

Today's incident in France involved two officers detailed to that location, charged with protecting it - both were taken down immediately by heavier weapons handled by determined individuals. In short, their tactics in that incident simply weren't sufficient for the circumstances -they didn't stand a chance.... Here's how I instructed my officers all those years ago if they ever encountered heavy weapons (automatic weapons used in assault mode...). Instead of standing their ground we encouraged our cops to give way, go to cover, yell for help with a clear description of what they were facing and fnally retreat out of the line of fire until assistance could arrive (in short, we're talking basic Officer Survival -something that should have it's counterpart for armed citizen training, once they've learned the basics). An individual armed with a sidearm is simply no match for military hardware in the hands of trained, determined assailants. Anyone who thinks that what they've seen in the movies will allow them to survive if they engage when the odds are so clearly against them.... is going to lead a lot more exciting life than I want to....

While I'm on the subject, that recent double killing of officers up in New York reminds me of how heavily we invested in training our officers to survive every form of ambush while on the job back in the eighties... My guess is that many departments around the country will get busy and begin reviving that sort of training (maybe I'm just mis-informed and not aware that's it's been on-going, but I doubt it). If the current climate is an indication that our society is headed back to the seventies both police outfits and armed citizens everywhere are going to need to expand their survival training to keep up.

Topics that I'd want to see in the training I'm speaking of include quick instinctive threat assessment, instruction with demonstrations of just how well various barriers can protect you from bullets (a vehicle is no barrier to military grade weapons for instance...), ways and means of withdrawing or going to cover under fire... just a few of the things for any potential trainer to consider... These are just a few thoughts on the topic from someone that's dealt with these kinds of things and seen how training can turn bad circumstances into survivable incidents. Lord know we certainly spent enough time on analyzing every officer killing or terrorist incident after the fact....

Lead Counsel -" ... I bet most/all of us armed with a pistol could have put some rounds on target from that rooftop vantage point behind concrete. Shooting fish in a barrel. ..."

Click to expand...

I kinda doubt if one of "us" were on that rooftop with a pistol, he could have been able to hit either of the terrorists in the video. That distance appeared to be 35 or 40 yards. The terrorists were moving quickly and decisively. From what I have read today, they were wearing body armor, therefore it would have been necessary to have shot them in the head.

At that distance and with a pistol, shooting downward at a steep angle, fast moving head targets....... I don't think so.

"Luck" might have come into play, of course, but as the old saying goes, "Depending on luck is a very poor survival plan."

Just my opinion.

L.W.

Best tactic to use in gun control localities?

Move. Works every time.

Deaf

The cops were fish in a barrel. In France even the majority of cops are unarmed! IIRC the one killed in the video wasn't armed and an unarmed security guard was also killed.

If this happened in my home town I hope I would have fired on the terrorists. Seeing the video elsewhere I'm still not 100% clear if the videographer was recording from an apartment of an office building. But he did appear to be filming from behind a thick masonry wall of some sort. S/he would have had cover and concealment (even cover from a rifle it appears). If this happened in Downtown of my home town and I observed it from a 2nd/3rd story window I probably could have rained pretty effective 9mm fire down on the BGs. This time of year I carry a full sized HK and a spare mag, and the guns are very accurate. Plus I would have the corner of the window as a rest. And since they were fixated on the targets in front of them it probably would have taken them a bit to realize they were being fired upon (unless they were hit) and longer still to find the source of the fire.

Of course as the OP says, if you're in a gun-free zone and obeying the law your options are pretty limited. If you're several stories up and relatively safe from fire, stay put!

We cannot help but get awfully close to the line that divides these ST&T discussions from politics on some occasions. This seems to be one of them. But we still have to be careful not to cross that line.

Frankly, realistic approaches to taking on multiple, body armored assailants armed with long guns as a citizen who is legally armed only with a handgun are few and far between. We've had graphic demonstrations of that right here in the USA already.

So please stick to the strategies, tactics and training aspects of this issue, and leave the politics out of it...

If you are suddenly facing 3 armed attackers with full-auto or semi-auto rifles, whether you are armed or not is irrelevant, your first order of business is to GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE.

If you are unable to escape and have no other choice but to engage, your chances are not especially good.

There was an incident in Texas (the trailer park) where a handgun (revolver) wielding citizen took on a rifle-wielding bad actor who had a police officer pinned down, from a considerable distance (60+ yards if memory serves), not long ago.

He had the drop on the bad guy and managed to put at least one round on target before the bad guys started putting aimed fire BACK at him.

The good guy with a handgun survived, saved the police officer, and the bad guy (who had already murdered someone that day) stopped being such a nuisance, and had the good grace to quit using up our oxygen supply when he expired.

But that was ONE bad guy with a rifle, the good guy shot from heavy cover from the flank, and the bad guy was hit before he had a chance to return fire. In essence, a counter ambush.

Try that against three bad guys who are hell bent on killing as many people as possible, who are mobile, who can leverage (and demonstrated the ability) to use rudimentary squad level infantry tactics to their advantage... and....

... you will go home in a body bag.

There is a very serious disconnect between some concealed carry holder's perceived abilities and their *actual* abilities, even on this forum, where perhaps the average poster is quite a bit beyond the general level of competence in the gun owner population. The problem is compounded as you learn and progress in skills. Games like IDPA/IPSC don't particularly help that phenomenon, they artificially inflate the ego of the shooter who says "Oooh! I can engage X targets in Y seconds with doubletaps and that makes me {insert favorite western actor here}"

The reality is, your opponents might have trained as hard, or harder for what they are presently acting out when you are faced with violence. They may have killed before. They might have shed blood before. They might have a great deal of experience killing people. They KNOW it is coming, YOU do not. You get an adrenaline shock, a fight or flight response, accompanied by all of the physical manifestations that go with it - tremors, loss of fine motor skills, perhaps even loss of control of your excretory containment functions.

Putting X rounds on Y targets in Z seconds on cardboard with a clock running is one thing. Those targets aren't shooting back.

Could a single armed civilian make a big difference?

You betcha!

Would you survive a 3 on 1 armed with a handgun against military level small arms?

Not very likely!

Fred Fuller said:

We cannot help but get awfully close to the line that divides these ST&T discussions from politics on some occasions. This seems to be one of them. But we still have to be careful not to cross that line.

So please stick to the strategies, tactics and training aspects of this issue, and leave the politics out of it...

Click to expand...

I agree Fred.

That being said religious-zealot attacks against civilians or fixed targets are not unheard of in the continental US, so it *is* a worthy discussion to have.

They take different forms, but we've seen solo or small teams of actors carry out terrorist strikes within our own borders in recent years; Fort Hood and Boston come to mind.

However, the chances of being present during such an attack are probably about as small as being bitten by a shark while simultaneously being struck by lightning; so other than a novel mental exercise, there's little to actually gain from the dialog.

The most useful skill one has in such an event is escape and evade.

The second most useful skill one has is a fast, smooth draw that is built on muscle memory, with a highly accurate first round impact.

Exercises which focus on engaging multiple stationary targets are of much less use than the average gun owner would think. While "tacticool" and fun, they're pretty worthless, from a training perspective, when you consider what actual threats you are likely to face (and the probabilities of facing them).

When I practice handgun, I tend to focus heavily on draw and first + second round impacts. Sometimes I'll start from the surrender position (or at least turned around not facing the target) to add the movement component that's likely to be necessitated on a sudden attack from your side or rear.

I also practice drawing, then shooting while moving laterally because if I am ever attacked, I want to find cover fast - or at least present a mobile target! - and not be flat footed.

The skills for defensive handgun use - for practical, everyday, real world average Joe applications - are pretty well defined at this point in our timeline. There's nothing especially fancy about it; get your projectiles on target as fast as possible while making yourself a more-difficult-to-hit-target.

Practicing on secondary skills (malfunction clearing, multiple attackers, etc) are still great, but I would vastly weight the basic fundamentals of drawing and first/second-round accuracy over all else.

Just my .02... those skills are still highly relevant no matter what the situation is.

(Personally, I'd scoot my own butt AWAY from rifle fire as fast as my legs would carry me...and not in a straight line lol.)

This might be the best comment I've seen in a long time

"If you are suddenly facing 3 armed attackers with full-auto or semi-auto rifles, whether you are armed or not is irrelevant, your first order of business is to GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE."

I occasionally "have my moments of clarity."

The French made their bed and have to live with it.

Click to expand...

Unlike in the US, where we don't have mass shootings, and when we do they are always abruptly halted by the intervention of a CCW.

The Monday QBing in this thread is tainted with too much optimism for sidearm vs multiple armored shooters with long guns, especially when those BGs have the competency to shoot and move at a level of training higher than most civilian gun owners.

Trent is 100% right.

The chances suck, but ya know what - I'll take the chance I have with a pistol against three rifle wielding assailants over the chance I would have without the sidearm, like those French citizens. I am no hero, no Rambo, no John McClain, no Audie Murphy, nor Carlos Hathcock, so I will be doing my level best to get out of the area at full old fat guy speed.

Today's incident in France involved two officers detailed to that location, charged with protecting it - both were taken down immediately by heavier weapons handled by determined individuals.

Click to expand...

I had heard all the available French police were unarmed, and apparently French cops are given the option of being armed or unarmed, haven't confirmed that yet. A French policewoman was also reportedly killed same day, don't know if it is related. I would hazard a guess that a lot of SP 2022 pistols are being pulled out of storage right now.

armoredman said:

I would hazard a guess that a lot of SP 2022 pistols are being pulled out of storage right now.

Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that the brits might be re-thinking their unarmed officer doctrine; if not now, but at some point when they get hit. Just a matter of time; but it appears the current "Jihad" trend seems to be targeting civilians of countries on their home turf.

Quite a few countries who participated in the gulf wars will need to rethink domestic security if these recent hits are more than just isolated incidents.

But that's neither here nor there. Let's not get too distracted from ST&T.

I kinda doubt if one of "us" were on that rooftop with a pistol, he could have been able to hit either of the terrorists in the video. That distance appeared to be 35 or 40 yards. The terrorists were moving quickly and decisively. From what I have read today, they were wearing body armor, therefore it would have been necessary to have shot them in the head.

At that distance and with a pistol, shooting downward at a steep angle, fast moving head targets....... I don't think so.

Click to expand...

It is only a long distance if you never practice shooting at it. As a handgun hunter that is well within easy handgunner distance. Actually body armor protects from rounds directed towards torso for a more or less horizontal angle not a steep angle from the top of a building. Thus the top of the shoulders and head will present vulnerable areas.

If on the ground the legs, back of the knees, lower legs, ankles and feet are vulnerable. Immobilize him then direct high volume of fire as more help arrives.

Try that against three bad guys who are hell bent on killing as many people as possible, who are mobile, who can leverage (and demonstrated the ability) to use rudimentary squad level infantry tactics to their advantage... and....

... you will go home in a body bag.

Click to expand...

History is full of incidents where a cool headed, determined person with a gun made all the difference. The last thing these terrorists expected were citizens armed with firearms. It is no accident they choose the target they did.

As concealed carry has become more common in the U.S. the greater the odds are you will not be the only citizen with a gun.

Besides you are a dead man anyway if you don't resist.

Sometimes it's advisable to evade and escape. I'd readily state that I'm not a hero nor do I carry my weapon pretending to be a cop or Soldier. Having said that, I could NOT in good conscience watch a man be executed under those circumstances in a public street and do NOTHING about it. Armed with a handgun or rifle, I would have done SOMETHING to intervene, and dumped a magazine into these men.

Click to expand...

I have said many times over that I am the biggest coward on THR and will always run away if at all possible. But like leadcounsel in a terrorist attack like this I would also intervene using some of the tactics I have listed.

I like to think that if I were there I would have fired at least ONE round at them, if for no other reason than to maybe disrupt their rampage a little bit or to make them move more slowly.

After that one round I doubt I would pop my head above cover and try again. I would probably just retreat under cover and then change my diaper.

France has near total gun prohibition,

Click to expand...

This is patently wrong.

They have a total prohibition on citizen ownership of fully automatic firearms. Semi-automatics are a restricted class, and most everything else is, according a French national on another board I frequent, relatively easy to obtain.

Concealed weapon permits, on the other hand, are basically reserved for the privileged class.

Having said that, gun rights have pretty much nothing to do with the terrorist attack. As Fred has already pointed out, a citizen armed with a defensive handgun is really no match at all for a pair of men, ostensibly trained, wearing body armor and packing AKs. If you'll recall, a similar scenario took place in Hollywood, and the result was the blood of armed and trained police officers all over the parking lot.

Sol said:

The French made their bed and [strike]have[/strike] will continue to live with it.

Click to expand...

There...fixed it. The French don't HAVE to live with it...they CHOOSE to live with it. And they will continue to do so because it's been ingrained in them.

Gun control...indeed, weapons control of all kinds, has long since been heavily indoctrinated in many of the European cultures.

However, in such instances as this there have been few historical documentations of armed citizens taking on such attackers, and even fewer where they've done so successfully.

First order of business for civilians is generally duck and cover.

If this went down in my hometown I would likely be armed. I agree, one could intervene with minimal risk to oneself. Not no risk, of course- the risk is ever zero. But in the video I saw there are two shooters visible, not three. Their attention is occupied at street level. They don't appear to be trained (eg their movement look untrained, their SA was non-existent; they weren't even looking for anyone trying to resist, probably because they knew there were no armed opponents extant). Realistically, who here thinks they could locate the source of the shots coming down on them from a window fast enough to turn and return accurate fire? Especially if you had no idea anyone was drawing a bead on you.

I'm not Rambo and I'm not gonna keep Jerry Miculek up late fretting that I might beat him in a competition. Still, from behind the cover of masonry, with a window corner/sill as a rest, with my VP9 I feel I could put rounds on target accurately enough to either take at least one of them down or least screw up their OODA loop and get them to change or break off their attack.

Realistically, who here thinks they could locate the source of the shots coming down on them from a window fast enough to turn and return accurate fire?

Click to expand...

I could, by the second shot I'd know *precisely* where the rounds were coming from, and in just a bit over 2 tenths of a second would be engaging with return fire, if my rifle were already shouldered. MOST people would be able to locate the sound precisely if there's a direct path for the soundwaves to travel (echos would throw you off), and definitely anyone who has ever been in combat, or who has hunted extensively, would have the reflexes to respond with a weapon.

Your brain has an incredible capability to hone in on sounds, and reaction time for them to turn and shoot back is going to be faster than gravity can pull you down if you react to the threat now facing you and try to duck.

As far as cover; hollow masonry blocks are not cover from an AK47. (There was a video posted not long ago on THR, showing 30 cal ball readily penetrating masonry even from a 45 degree angle). If the walls were solid stone, yeah, now you have cover. Otherwise, normal masonry building blocks, all you really have is concealment.

Another point, did you notice how that video was so shaky?

That is something you CANNOT control when you get a huge adrenaline dump - that shaking. It hits hard and fast and it makes handguns FAR less than ideal for taking accurate shots, than rifles.

Then, we get to aftermath, even a great shot might have repercussions. You might drop the first guy only to have the second guy (who is half deaf from rifle fire already), mistake where the sound came from, and open up on a previously-non-combatant soccer mom and her three little kids, thinking that minivan was where the shot came from, instead of the guy hiding in the bush in the window above it.

Which is why I posted what I did earlier. There's SO MANY things that can go wrong, when you are outgunned. You only *really* have an advantage for the standard human reaction time, even if have the drop on them. After that? It's no longer an advantage.

Even if you DO hit them on the first shot there is absolutely NO guarantee they are going down. The handgun vs. rifle event in texas, it took a half dozen shots from a 357 and an AR15 before the guy quit shooting at the cop and the civilian. In another shooting incident that was covered on THR, a guy took *17* 40 S&W and 223 hits before he went down. *17 hits*, and the cops *STILL* had to wrestle the guy in to cuffs! (He expired on the way to the hospital). No alcohol in his system, no drugs.

He was just MAD. REAL mad. Mad enough to absorb 17 mixed shots from a pair of handguns and an AR15 and still put up a physical fight after structural failure dropped him.

For mental games, beyond places you KNOW you may need to defend (house, work, car, yard), thought exercises are of little use. It's fantasy. Focus on skills and fundamentals; if you ever need them, *regardless* of the situation, then you'll have them.

You just can't worry about everything that might happen.

For mind games (they ARE useful training aids), focus on the home front, the work environment, the places you frequent in your daily business (ATM's are a big one nowadays); that's where your self-defense is most likely to occur. Then focus on the skills relevant to dealing with a small group of bad guys, especially smooth draw and accurate, rapid shot placement, with accurate, rapid followup shots. Stop the most dangerous / highest threat in the group, rinse, repeat.

Just my opinion, of course, everyone has to decide for themselves how to think and train.