I guess this is only semi-related, but an interesting story about alcohol, adreneline, and their effects none the less. The first time I broke my nose, I was "shadow boxing" with my friend after a few drinks. I wasn't wasted to the point of falling over, but had a decent buzz going. Anyway, I didn't realize that my nose was broken until going to work THE NEXT DAY and seeing people staring at it. The second time I broke my nose, I was at a concert in a mosh pit. I didn't have any alcohol in me, but my adreneline was going pretty heavy (being in a pit at a death metal show). When that elbow hit me in the face, I damn near passed out just from the sound of my nose crunching, not to mention the blinding pain that shot across my head. The point of my story is that adreneline and alcohol / drugs have very different effects on a person's ability to cope with pain and injury, so their effects should not be interchanged when discussing disabling injuries.
Principal Incapacitation Mechanism: Fear
- Thread starter LightningJoe
- Start date
- Status
ghost squire
member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 339
I have seen a few videos of cape buffalo shot more than 5 times in the vitals with stopping caliber guns (.458, .600 Nitro etc.) and live for minutes.
Big game hunters have double rifles because if they miss a charging animals brain the first time, they have to hit it a second time. Even if they hit the head and miss the brain the animal will only be stunned at best.
Big game hunters have double rifles because if they miss a charging animals brain the first time, they have to hit it a second time. Even if they hit the head and miss the brain the animal will only be stunned at best.
ocjared
Member
Our principal incapacitation method is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two incapacitation methods are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* incapacitation methods are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our incapacitation methods.... Amongst our incapacitation methods...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
ghost squire
member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 339
As an apparent user of PCP, would you care to share some insight on how to frighten someone on it?
LightningJoe
Member
Jeff:
My ability to clarify appears to need improvement. I don't advocate carrying small caliber handguns, although I did in fact carry a .32 ACP for several years. I would advocate carrying a small caliber handgun, though, if the alternative were a less effective weapon--or no weapon. I would say do not sacrifice caliber for anything other than carryability and do not sacrifice caliber for more carryablility than you actually need. But never let caliber keep you from carrying a gun.
Given the actual wounding effect of handgun rounds of whatever caliber (often not that great, especially with COM shot placement), handgun battles that are terminated quickly (especially those that are terminated with neither combatant hit) are (I suspect) in many if not in most cases ended by something other than the mechanical incapacitation of the attacker (i.e. by fear or by demoralization).
But of course this is only those cases in which guns are fired. I strongly suspect the defensive handgun sees most of its effective use in incidents in which it is not even fired.
My hypothesis is that in the actual event, fear is the principal incapacitation mechanism, principal in the sense of it being the one that ends the hostilities in most instances. When it is not effective, the results are often amazing stories that may cause entire Federial agencies to rethink their some of their philosophies (FBI and the Miami Shootout).
My hypothesis might be rephrased in this way: When a handgun is used for self-defense, typically it is not fired. When it is fired, oftentimes the intended target is not hit. When the intended target is hit, oftentimes the severity of the injury inflicted does not affect the outcome of the encounter. When the severity of the injury inflicted does affect the outcome of the encounter, shot placement will be more important than caliber. For these reasons, caliber only comes into play in a small percentage of self-defense encounters. I don't know what that percentage is--no one does--but I'll guess and say 3%.
LEOs will see a disproportionate share of that 3%.
My ability to clarify appears to need improvement. I don't advocate carrying small caliber handguns, although I did in fact carry a .32 ACP for several years. I would advocate carrying a small caliber handgun, though, if the alternative were a less effective weapon--or no weapon. I would say do not sacrifice caliber for anything other than carryability and do not sacrifice caliber for more carryablility than you actually need. But never let caliber keep you from carrying a gun.
Given the actual wounding effect of handgun rounds of whatever caliber (often not that great, especially with COM shot placement), handgun battles that are terminated quickly (especially those that are terminated with neither combatant hit) are (I suspect) in many if not in most cases ended by something other than the mechanical incapacitation of the attacker (i.e. by fear or by demoralization).
But of course this is only those cases in which guns are fired. I strongly suspect the defensive handgun sees most of its effective use in incidents in which it is not even fired.
My hypothesis is that in the actual event, fear is the principal incapacitation mechanism, principal in the sense of it being the one that ends the hostilities in most instances. When it is not effective, the results are often amazing stories that may cause entire Federial agencies to rethink their some of their philosophies (FBI and the Miami Shootout).
My hypothesis might be rephrased in this way: When a handgun is used for self-defense, typically it is not fired. When it is fired, oftentimes the intended target is not hit. When the intended target is hit, oftentimes the severity of the injury inflicted does not affect the outcome of the encounter. When the severity of the injury inflicted does affect the outcome of the encounter, shot placement will be more important than caliber. For these reasons, caliber only comes into play in a small percentage of self-defense encounters. I don't know what that percentage is--no one does--but I'll guess and say 3%.
LEOs will see a disproportionate share of that 3%.
LightningJoe
Member
Ocjared:
This new learning fascinates me! Explain to me again how inflated sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes!
This new learning fascinates me! Explain to me again how inflated sheep's bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes!
mathyoo ~
Two officers. One with a six-shot, one with a five-shot. All eleven shots impacted the head & neck of the BG.
They dumped all they had because the miscreant had just shot one of them in the gut at point-blank range. (Rather literally: when all was said & done, turned out the BG was armed with a starter's pistol & blanks. Did I mention Cirillo tells some great tales?)
pax
Two officers. One with a six-shot, one with a five-shot. All eleven shots impacted the head & neck of the BG.
They dumped all they had because the miscreant had just shot one of them in the gut at point-blank range. (Rather literally: when all was said & done, turned out the BG was armed with a starter's pistol & blanks. Did I mention Cirillo tells some great tales?)
pax
Joe,
I understand now. What does your hypothesis tell us? Is there anything you think we can learn from it, or is it just an interesting bit of self defense trivia?
Personally, I'm going to go into every defensive situation like it may be a fight for my life and be pleasantly surprised if fear incapacitates my foe.
Jeff
I understand now. What does your hypothesis tell us? Is there anything you think we can learn from it, or is it just an interesting bit of self defense trivia?
Personally, I'm going to go into every defensive situation like it may be a fight for my life and be pleasantly surprised if fear incapacitates my foe.
Jeff
LightningJoe
Member
Jeff White said:
Well, there are trade-offs. For example, you can buy a Taurus Millennium-type pistol in (I think) .32 ACP, .380 ACP, 9mm, 40 S&W, or .45 ACP. I recommend 45. There's no trade-off. All these guns are about the same size and weight.
But if there is a relationship between the carryability of a gun and its caliber, I would maintain a strong bias in favor of carryability. And it's not just to increase the probability of having the gun on me. I carry a gun at all times unless I'm asleep, in the shower, or on private property belonging to someone with whom I have agreed not to be armed. I even carry in the swimming pool.
But the range of problems that can be solved by the defensive handgun is extremely narrow. I've only been in a couple of encounters in my entire 42-year life in which the right thing to do would have been to draw my weapon and to start blasting. (Another situation in which I'm unarmed is when I'm in a foreign country). I think a scuffle, a fist-fight, or an inpromptu wrestling match are a lot more likely (especially with my nutjob neighbor on the corner).
The giant gun on your belt can only be a liability in a situation in which you must fight someone but can't shoot that person. In fact, I can only wonder how LEOs handle this situation. LEOs in the US have carried giant guns on their belts for generations. We will never know quantitatively how big of a problem this has been. The gun is a solution to a few problems, but it might itself be the problem with some unknown but significant frequency. LEOs must carry guns in competent calibers due to their likelihood of encountering very dangerous opponents, but by wearing these guns openly in holsters on the outside of their clothing, they actually make their guns more accessable to a wrestling opponent than to themselves. Trying to wrestle someone with your left hand while you've got your right hand on your gun sounds extremely difficult. I have the impression that for a lot of officers, their closest call was the time they were wrestling for their gun with a 16-year-old.
For a non-LEO civilian, the same difficulties exist. A two-pound piece of steel can be concealed on your person, but not from the guy with whom you're rolling around on the asphalt. If you're going to carry a gun, make sure it's going to be a solution rather than a problem. Figure out a style of carry with which even if you get your ass beat and you're lying there unconscious, your gun won't come into play. This will be a lot easier with a smaller gun than with a larger one. If you've got to go down in caliber to get a gun small enough, then I think it's the better option overall.
mathyoo ~
You can read the story yourself in the book Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights, by Jim Cirillo. Frankly the story is better in person though. Since the story came out of the NYPD stakeout squad, I'd expect the BG got charged with attempted robbery, assault (probably three counts -- there was a clerk & a pharmacist involved too), and since it was NY, probably some kind of weapons offense. Cirillo didn't say, though.
pax
You can read the story yourself in the book Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights, by Jim Cirillo. Frankly the story is better in person though. Since the story came out of the NYPD stakeout squad, I'd expect the BG got charged with attempted robbery, assault (probably three counts -- there was a clerk & a pharmacist involved too), and since it was NY, probably some kind of weapons offense. Cirillo didn't say, though.
pax
Just want to observe here that if the "principal" incapacitation mechanism actually is fear, then you surely wouldn't want to carry, say an NAA mini or a Kel-Tec P32 -- because these great carry guns are often mistaken for mere toys. You're not going to scare anyone off with a gun too small to see when it's in your hand!
pax
Pax,
But then you would have surprise on your side, using the pea-shooter mini-revolver.
I think if I was facing a hardened criminal, I'd rather him see me as defenseless (where he can't see the weapon in hand) until that last moment, to gain the element of surprise (hoping that his guard will be dropped- I don't want his blood up), since fear or mechanical incapacitation probably won't immediately pan out with him- that's why he's hardened.
If I was facing a neophyte, then I'd like to have fear on my side to possibly diffuse the situation using ONLY fear: IE, a large revolver or large knife, for example- making the teenage youngblood certainly think twice.
I'd be more prone to draw a knife or a gun or square off on a neophyte to avoid a true conflict while with a hardened criminal, the very presentation of a weapon means he'll steel himself against you (getting his blood up) making an attack imminent- so with the hardened criminal, you'd best be prepared to utilized the weapon you have because it WILL go down- once he's chosen you as a potential victim.
The difference here is analogous to a jackal looking for easy pickings, but easily scared off or a large brown bruin, sizing you up for food or territory issues.
-paco
But then you would have surprise on your side, using the pea-shooter mini-revolver.
I think if I was facing a hardened criminal, I'd rather him see me as defenseless (where he can't see the weapon in hand) until that last moment, to gain the element of surprise (hoping that his guard will be dropped- I don't want his blood up), since fear or mechanical incapacitation probably won't immediately pan out with him- that's why he's hardened.
If I was facing a neophyte, then I'd like to have fear on my side to possibly diffuse the situation using ONLY fear: IE, a large revolver or large knife, for example- making the teenage youngblood certainly think twice.
I'd be more prone to draw a knife or a gun or square off on a neophyte to avoid a true conflict while with a hardened criminal, the very presentation of a weapon means he'll steel himself against you (getting his blood up) making an attack imminent- so with the hardened criminal, you'd best be prepared to utilized the weapon you have because it WILL go down- once he's chosen you as a potential victim.
The difference here is analogous to a jackal looking for easy pickings, but easily scared off or a large brown bruin, sizing you up for food or territory issues.
-paco
Longbow
Member
I've heard stories that merely showing/pointing a weapon to the BG is all it took to stop 'em. No shots fired. Does that count?
LightningJoe
Member
For encounters in which a handgun is used for self-defense and in which the defender's handgun does not experience a malfunction, here's my breakdown of outcomes:
1] The gun is not fired, else
2] The intended target is not hit, else
3] The severity of the injury inflicted does
not affect the outcome of the encounter, else
4] Shot placement is decisive, else
5] Penetration is decisive, else
6] Some other characteristic of the
ammunition is decisive (e.g. caliber, bullet design)
Inserting malfunctions into the above set of outcomes is a little complex. Malfunctions mainly affect autoloaders and most of those can be cleared quickly by a marginally skilled person. The effects of delays in firing caused by malfunctions are hard to evaluate. Autoloaders rarely experience malfunctions until at least one round has been fired.
Malfunctions that are quickly cleared and which occur after the first round is fired will affect categories 4, 5, and 6 above only if more than one round is needed to accomplish the objective (fairly likely) AND if the delay caused by the malfunction allows the attacker to injure the defender or the attacker gains some other advantage from the delay (such as moving to a better position). Delays caused by common malfunctions (e.g. FTE, FTF) can be very short. There may not be any good data on the effects of quickly cleared malfunctions on actual defensive encounters. There are examples of malfunctions being decisive in shootouts, but this appears to be the case when one of the participants has a malfunction and fails to clear it. It may be that malfunctions that are cleared quickly have little effect on the outcome of encounters in which a handgun is used for self-defense.
Malfunctions that occur after the first round is fired probably wouldn't have much effect on categories 2 or 3, especially if the malfunction were cleared quickly. Malfunctions should have no effect at all on category 1 (which is the category into which fit the great majority of encounters in which a handgun is used for self-defense). Actually, whether or not the gun is loaded or carved from a bar of soap should have no effect on category 1 encounters.
Malfunctions that are hard to clear (e.g. rimlock, squib load) will have more effect on categories 4, 5, and 6 and may have some effect on categories 2 and 3 that is greater than effect of quickly cleared malfunctions.
1] The gun is not fired, else
2] The intended target is not hit, else
3] The severity of the injury inflicted does
not affect the outcome of the encounter, else
4] Shot placement is decisive, else
5] Penetration is decisive, else
6] Some other characteristic of the
ammunition is decisive (e.g. caliber, bullet design)
Inserting malfunctions into the above set of outcomes is a little complex. Malfunctions mainly affect autoloaders and most of those can be cleared quickly by a marginally skilled person. The effects of delays in firing caused by malfunctions are hard to evaluate. Autoloaders rarely experience malfunctions until at least one round has been fired.
Malfunctions that are quickly cleared and which occur after the first round is fired will affect categories 4, 5, and 6 above only if more than one round is needed to accomplish the objective (fairly likely) AND if the delay caused by the malfunction allows the attacker to injure the defender or the attacker gains some other advantage from the delay (such as moving to a better position). Delays caused by common malfunctions (e.g. FTE, FTF) can be very short. There may not be any good data on the effects of quickly cleared malfunctions on actual defensive encounters. There are examples of malfunctions being decisive in shootouts, but this appears to be the case when one of the participants has a malfunction and fails to clear it. It may be that malfunctions that are cleared quickly have little effect on the outcome of encounters in which a handgun is used for self-defense.
Malfunctions that occur after the first round is fired probably wouldn't have much effect on categories 2 or 3, especially if the malfunction were cleared quickly. Malfunctions should have no effect at all on category 1 (which is the category into which fit the great majority of encounters in which a handgun is used for self-defense). Actually, whether or not the gun is loaded or carved from a bar of soap should have no effect on category 1 encounters.
Malfunctions that are hard to clear (e.g. rimlock, squib load) will have more effect on categories 4, 5, and 6 and may have some effect on categories 2 and 3 that is greater than effect of quickly cleared malfunctions.
LightningJoe
Member
pax said:Just want to observe here that if the "principal" incapacitation mechanism actually is fear, then you surely wouldn't want to carry, say an NAA mini or a Kel-Tec P32 -- because these great carry guns are often mistaken for mere toys. You're not going to scare anyone off with a gun too small to see when it's in your hand!
pax
This would be true in encounters in which the gun were not fired. One possible solution would be to fire the gun.
- Status
Similar threads
