It takes 12 rounds to stop a threat, no really, it did.

Status
Not open for further replies.
More is always better in America. Gee, what size sugary coke should I buy today.
I think I like the one that donates 1$ to Diabetes Foundation for every one sold.

OA0jvbL.png
 
I wish we had better info. Seems like the bad guy got what he earned, but some of the gunshots seem a bit late. I get it, you try to avoid use of force but when you make noise you do it until the threat stops, but the last couple shots seem to be after the threat stopped. Perhaps bad guy had twitches that set off his firearm and it was him that provided the last bit of noise.

This thought does bring to light though that even when the bad guy is down the threat isn’t necessarily over.
 
Last edited:
Caliber war, round count war, grip war, bore axis war, magazine war, revolver vs semi auto war, beauty war. Man it never stops on the internet.
You forgot:
So true, especially for civilian SD.
Those police officers are also civilians.

Carry whatever you believe in, but make sure your beliefs are correct first. I believe in .45acp and .357sig - but not because some internet guru told me to, and not because I was so afraid of 'printing' I picked a tiny gun.
 
Watching this thread, it has no useful information because we do not have a diagram of the hits on the individual. If they did not sever a major blood supply or impact CNS or destroy a major structural joint, there's no reason to expect a DRT result. I did not see a head shot and I guess I am being critical of the shooter as just pumping out rounds without a more nuanced use of aiming and sights.

There's nothing here to be learned as far as gun type, or caliber. The folks I shoot with might have dropped him in the first three shots.
 
Those police officers are also civilians.
We don't play silly word games here. "Civilian" is the common term for anyone not in military, police or firefighting service. Since that is the common use for the term we will use it as such. Debates on who or who isn't a "civilian" are off topic.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilian


civilian
[ si-vil-yuh n ]
|
SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR civilian ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
adjective
of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.
 
Actually, I don't know of any law enforcement agency that doesn't incorporate "failure to stop" drills (head and pelvic girdle shots) into pistol training and qualification.
We never were, both at the Academy and during dept. training/qualifications
 
As a civilian [/sarcasm], I was trained to take pelvic shots in a multi-day academy-type defensive handgun class. Some people are convinced pelvic shots are effective. Shawn Ryan (Vigilance Elite) has demonstrated pelvic shots on his Youtube channel and claimed that hitting the pelvic bone is "like a frag going off" in there and advised it as a great place to make hits, specifically in reference to handgun use. Whatever your opinion of this guy, he has been trained intensively by people expected to have expertise.

I think pelvic girdle shots are a poor choice. To back that up, I have the opinion of Dr. Martin Fackler:

" I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

• From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline.....
• The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior venacava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge....
• Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. ....The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places......
...
Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups."

I have edited his commentary (as shown by ellipsis) for brevity. If anyone wants to read the comments in complete form, they are in Wound Ballistics Review Volume 4, Number 1.

I reiterate his comments, "I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight." The obvious exception would be if there is no other possible hit.
 
Good post on the pelvic shot story. I've heard the same analysis.
 
Some people are harder to kill than others and it is just that simple. Beats me why; however, it is what it is.



Go to about 1:27.
 
I find it interesting so many folks dismiss shots towards the groin area as effective when hits to the groin regions have been taught for eons in HTHC.

What makes a bullet (or bullets) any less effective than a fist, elbow, knee or foot?


Granted, these aren't optimal but I do believe from at least some first hand experience and a bunch of videos that they can be effective.


I guess we need data on amped up PCP bad guys being shot in the twig 'n berries to be sure.
 
We don't play silly word games here. "Civilian" is the common term for anyone not in military, police or firefighting service. Since that is the common use for the term we will use it as such. Debates on who or who isn't a "civilian" are off topic.
C'mon Jeff (and labnoti), read it in context. I'm pointing out the silly things people argue about in forums in REPLY to the post about caliber, round count, bore axis, and etc. wars. I'm surprised you missed that. So despite your assertion, ironically we are playing silly word games.

In any event (to stay on topic), we should remember that our opponent will not behave like a paper target and just stand there while we make follow-up shots. It is likely the first round we fire will be the only round to hit, regardless of how many follow-up shots we make, because after that the opponent will be moving quickly and erratically.

Make the first shot count.
 
It's fascinating to think about the state of mind in a situation. I think if a man decides that he's going to be tough to kill then he probably would be unless it's a head shot. Probably no different than a Judo expert who breaks 12 wooden board stacked on top of each other with his hand. He thinks he can do it and he does whereas another man would say "I'd break my wrist if I tried that" and he probably would. Fascinating to contemplate!
 
I want to point out that we don't know how many of the 12 shots heard in the video were hits, and we don't know where they hit.
Excellent point. It's important to keep in mind that not all shots fired will be hits, and that not all hits will be instant stoppers. Both of those things are true regardless of the handgun caliber used which is why it's wise not to bet that a relatively small number of rounds will reliably wrap up a defensive encounter.
 
Anyone that hunts has to know that the results of gunshots can be wildly unpredictable. True, wild animals are a bit hardier than domesticated humans but if a deer can take 3 x 168gr bullets from a .308 and run a few hundred yards then it shouldn't shock us when pop guns like the .45 ACP fail to anchor a human right there.


EDIT: Spelling
 
Last edited:
9mm. Just saying.

Which likely had nothing to do with it. I've seen people absorb .45 ACP rounds like that, too.

Guns generally stop people in just a few different ways, listed here in descending order of effectiveness:

1) Severe central nervous system damage (these are the ones where someone might drop like they were struck by a bolt of lightning)

2) Severe blood loss (not as fast)

3) Damage to the frame (breaking a leg or hip with a bullet might put the bad guy on the ground, but won't prevent them from fighting back)

4) Pain (sometimes works, but is definitely no guarantee)


The 9mm vs 45 ACP debate is a tired old argument over semantics. On a round to round basis neither one has a substantial advantage over the other, and I've been through scientific wound ballistics courses that support my assertion.
 
...we should remember that our opponent will not behave like a paper target...
Absolutely!

...and just stand there while we make follow-up shots.
Do you somehow believe that a violent attacker is likely to "just stand there" for the first shot?

It is likely the first round we fire will be the only round to hit, regardless of how many follow-up shots we make,...
Why would anyone believe that?

...because after that the opponent will be moving quickly and erratically.
But not before? Come now!

Make the first shot count.
How would one go about doing that?
 
It's important to keep in mind that not all shots fired will be hits, and that not all hits will be instant stoppers. Both of those things are true regardless of the handgun caliber used which is why it's wise not to bet that a relatively small number of rounds will reliably wrap up a defensive encounter.
Yep!
 
Do you somehow believe that a violent attacker is likely to "just stand there" for the first shot?

Why would anyone believe that?
I don't, but the way some people draw up their safety plan it seems to be the paradigm. I hear responses like, "I like [.380 or 9mm] because I can make faster follow-up shots." While certainly true, those calibers cannot defy physics; the lack of recoil on the sending end of it means a lack of impact on the receiving end as well.

But not before? Come now!
Of the videos I've seen of shootings, once the first shot is fired there's a pronounced difference in the movements of the parties involved. The one that stands out in my memory was of a police shooting along a roadway- cop stopped a driver and as the cop approached the car the driver jumped out and started firing. That cop, trained as he was, moved like a jackrabbitsquirrel on speed. This seems to be typical in other videos as well. There will be movement before the shooting starts, but once shots are fired it's a different kind of movement; faster, more erratic, more panic.

How would one go about doing that?
The same way we do our aircraft take-off data; plan for the worst and hope for the best. If we ever need to go to guns- make every shot count, and make every shot do the most damage it can do if it hits. The first shot will have the most potential. Planning for the worst- I don't plan to have multiple hits, so I choose a caliber and bullet design that makes the biggest ugliest hole it can. Hoping for the best- If I can make multiple hits, all the better.
 
Lol, man a whole lot of opinions going around. Yawn. Going out to day and will be taking my Beretta Pico. And actually worry more about a Cell Phone Text messaging driver taking me out than needing more than 7 rounds of ammo. I sure this will really upset all the internet experts, but frankly do not care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top