The Yellow Window

[Skribs]

Hello y'all. It's been a while since I've been a regular here. Even longer since I've been able to get to the range regularly. Since then, I've done a decade of martial arts, grown from a helpdesk tech to a cybersecurity professional, and moved from the ever-worsening Washington state to the Great State of Texas. I have more time and money to go to the range, so I thought I'd come back to this site and get back into shooting.

I specifically mention my experience in martial arts and cybersecurity, because I think they help color my thoughts on self-defense preparedness. It was in "which martial art should I take" discussions that I came up with The Yellow Window, but now that I'm back into gun discussions, I can see it applies here as well.

The Yellow Window is the situation in which your decisions in preparation actually matter. The Yellow Window sits between the Green Zone (you would be equally fine with either choice), or the Red Zone (you would be equally screwed with either choice).

The analogy I typically use is a vehicle used for transport. If you need to take yourself to work, it doesn't matter if you drive a Mazda Miata or a Ford F150. Both will get you from home to work (the green zone). What if you want to win a drag race against a Lamborghini? Neither will have the same acceleration or speed of a supercar, and both are most likely going to lose (the red zone). But if your friend needs help moving, the F150 is a great choice, and the Miata fails. This is the yellow zone, where the decision of what car to purchase actually mattered.

Let's apply my cybersecurity training and put this into a few scenarios. We'll start with the decision of whether to conceal carry a Glock 19 with optic, vs. a Ruger LCP.

• Situation 1: You went about your day and nothing out of the ordinary happened. Green Zone.
• Situation 2: You were out for a walk and saw some rough looking people, so you took an alternate route to avoid them. Nothing else happened. Green Zone.
• Situation 3: You're at a crosswalk and someone finds reason to be upset with you. You're able to frame with your hands to maintain distance while you de-escalate. No gun was drawn. Green Zone.
• Situation 4: You're at the gym, and your gun is in your car, when you get into a tussle over a supposed basketball foul. Because the gun is in the car, this is either green zone or red zone, depending on who won the fight.
• Situation 5: Someone wants a quick buck so they start posturing and threatening you, and ask for your wallet. You either draw your LCP out of your pocket, or start to draw your Glock, and as soon as they see the gun they scream like a little kid and run away. Green zone.
• Situation 6: Someone charges you with a knife, but from more than 21 feet away. You draw and fire, hitting them COM, and they immediately drop.
• Situation 7: Three men who are racist or phobic against your demographic decide to beat you up. You draw your gun, and they taunt you, "You don't know how to use that." You fire off two rounds at one of them. They curse and run away. Green zone.
• Situation 8: Same as above, but they are armed with bats or other improvised clubs, and they are determined to commit a hate crime against you. If you have the Ruger, you dump the magazine and hit one of them two times. Because it has FMJ rounds (because they feed more reliably), it does basically nothing to him, and even if it did, the other two are on top of you and beat you death. With the Glock, you fire 3 rounds at each, and hit each once or twice. The speed and accuracy with which you fired gives them a moment of pause, where you fire 2 more shots at each with much better placement. LCP fails, Glock succeeds, Yellow Zone.
• Situation 9: You are at the bank (somewhere where it is acceptable to do so) when six armored robbers with full-auto AKs burst in. It does not matter what you are carrying. If you even attempt to draw, you're dead before you can get the gun out of the holster. Red Zone.
• Situation 10: A sniper is shooting from a high-rise building. Neither gun is going to be worth much shooting up at that range against someone armed with a scoped rifle shooting down. Red Zone.
• Situation 11: You were doxxed on social media, and an angry mob has found you. You are outside, but you're surrounded and there are no good exits. You draw your gun, but that only makes them angrier, and anyone you do manage to stop just becomes a martyr for the next, and they are able to overwhelm you. Red Zone.

I realize that Situations 9-11 are a bit beyond the scope of ST&T, but that's kind of what The Red Zone is, so I had to briefly go there to finish out the scenarios. I'll go over a second set of scenarios for a different choice, but I'll keep it more brief. This scenario is "Is my bolt-action okay for home defense, or do I need an AR-15?"

1. Nobody wanted to break into your house today. Green Zone.
2. Passive security (lights, locks, presence of cameras, "beware of dog" sign) deterred a would-be burglar. Green Zone.
3. Presence of people (or the dog) deterred a would-be burglar. Maybe even from your neighbor's house. Green Zone.
4. Someone breaks in while you're in the kitchen. You grab a rolling pin and chase them off. Green Zone.
5. Someone breaks in, you grab your rifle. The sight of a gun scares them off. Green Zone.
6. Two people break in. With the bolt-action, you shoot one and successfully stop him. The second person freezes for a moment, which allows you to cycle the bolt and then hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive. With the AR, you fire several rounds at each and stop both. Green Zone, but tinting yellow.
7. Three people break in, armed with pistols. You fire the bolt-action and they take cover, but while you're cycling the bolt they return fire. Or, you fire several rounds at each with the AR-15 and win the fight. Yellow Zone.
8. Someone blocks your doors and then sets your house on fire while you're asleep. Red Zone.
9. Someone with operator-level skills breaks in and gets into your room while you are still asleep and shoots you in the head. Red Zone.
10. Armored men armed with submachine guns simultaneously break through every window and door in your house. Red Zone.

Within cybersecurity, you apply a defense-in-depth approach, which we have here. You also decide what risks you wish to mitigate and what risks you wish to accept. As mentioned above, we are accepting the Red Zone risks. This means we understand that in these situations, we don't stand a chance with any of the options available.

You can never completely eliminate risk. Even if we were to go into silly territory and rig our house with sleeper gas and always wear a gas mask, so that in Situation 10 we can take out all of those submachine gunners...what if they have gas masks? At some point we have to accept that risk.

Defense-in-depth comes to play in the Green Zone. Using basic security measures on your house and using awareness and de-escalation tactics in "the wild", you can avoid most situations where you would need to defend yourself.

What's left is the Yellow Window. This is where these decisions actually matter (whether to carry the LCP or Glock, whether to rely on the bolt-action or upgrade to an AR-15, etc.). And when you get down to it, this is a very narrow margin between these options:

1. Nothing would have happened.
2. Situation avoided through other means.
3. Self-defense required, both options do the job (green zone).
4. Yellow Zone
5. Red Zone

I'm going to pull some numbers out of thin air. Let's say that 99% of the time, nobody would have bothered you. Of those, 95% you're able to keep to stage 2. Of those where a gun is required, half the time it's not going to matter because both do the job. And if one would fail, the other would only succeed half the remaining time. This means the choice only has meaningful ramifications 0.0125% of the time, or 1.25% of situations where someone wanted to bother you.

When you put it into this perspective, it makes the choices much less vital. It's still good to think about and process. It's still fun to discuss and theorycraft. But it's not worth spending hundreds of dollars you don't have, or carrying in a way that makes you uncomfortable, or taking personally arguments over whether you should hollowpoints or ball ammo in your carry gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

You lost me near the beginning.

 

[JohnKSa]

Of those where a gun is required, half the time it's not going to matter because both do the job.

Studies I've seen indicate that it's much higher than half. More like 90%.

When you put it into this perspective, it makes the choices much less vital.

If you focus on the probabilities, from the standpoint of what's likely, then it's easy to rationalize not carrying a gun at all. Or carrying one that's loaded with blanks because in something like 9 out of 10 cases it's not actually necessary to even injure the attacker--just the sight, or even sometimes just the threat of a gun is enough to resolve the attack.

Within cybersecurity, you apply a defense-in-depth approach, which we have here. You also decide what risks you wish to mitigate and what risks you wish to accept. As mentioned above, we are accepting the Red Zone risks. This means we understand that in these situations, we don't stand a chance with any of the options available.

The risk one person accepts, another may find unacceptable and just because a person thinks a situation is a no win doesn't mean it really is.

Sometimes people manage to overcome against all odds. But not if they have absolutely no means of dealing with the threat at all. The fact that it is possible to set up any number of hypotheticals that appear to be no-win scenarios doesn't really mean that in the real world they actually would be. There was a situation some years ago where a fisherman (Garen Brenner) was attacked by a grizzly and killed it with a 9mm pistol loaded with FMJ ammo while remaining unharmed.

That's pretty much a no-win scenario by most reasonable standards, but I'll bet Mr. Brenner is glad he had a pistol, that it was one that he could shoot well, that it had enough ammo on board to allow him to connect with a disabling shot and then finish the bear when it went down and that it was loaded with ammo that provided sufficient penetration. He could have just decided that morning that there was no way he was going to stop a grizzly charge with his pistol and left it at home instead of taking it with him for bear defense.

This guy was attacked from behind and shot in the head, taking out one of his eyes before he could respond. He was left for dead by the attacker but managed to come to his senses and kill the man who was still attacking others present. Starting out a scenario being shot in the head from behind, half blind and deaf in one ear is pretty much a no-win, but I'll bet this guy, and the others at the party, were glad he had his handgun with him and didn't quit.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-man-shot-head-party-celebrates-second-amendment-thwarting-shooter

This guy was present when a rifle shooter started a mass shooting. Even though he was well outside of what most people consider self-defense range with a pistol, he took action, made 8 out of his 10 shots at distances up to 40 yards and took down the shooter within 15 seconds of the start of the attack. I think he's glad and others are glad that he took action. He could have said that his odds of prevailing against a rifle shooter with a handgun at that kind of range made it a no win and he would have been right. Except that he not only survived, he prevailed.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/us/eli-dicken-indiana-mall-shooting-bystander/index.html

Maybe a scenario really does fall into the Red Window, but some folks would like to go down swinging instead of merely comforting themselves during their last moments with the thought that there was nothing they could have done. And you know what? Some of them would survive.

All that said, everyone is going to have to make their own decisions, based on what is legal, what is feasible for them, etc. on what they are going to carry and what training they are going to get. What's more important than rationalizing their decisions with arguments about no-win situations is having a realistic understanding of what that training and weapon system provides them in terms of capability so they can use that information to make decisions in the middle of bad situations.

Here are the common mistakes people make when rationalizing the choices they make for self-defense/carry.

1. Trivializing/downplaying violent crime. e.g. Criminals are cowards, they will run at the sight of a gun so it doesn't matter what I carry or what training I get because anything will work.

2. Over-blowing no-win scenarios. e.g. If I need more than 5 rounds, I'm dead anyway so what I carry and the training I get doesn't matter.

3. Equating the low likelihood of needing a gun with idea that having a relatively low-capability self-defense gun won't be an issue. i.e. "It's unlikely I'll need a gun at all, so just having any gun will be good enough." An analogy that shows the problem with this reasoning: The fact that a person only needs to take an airplane to get to a destination once in their life doesn't imply that they will therefore be well-served by an airplane with a very short range. If they need to take a trip halfway around the world, the fact that it's the only trip they need an airplane for in their entire life won't make a very short-range airplane suitable for their needs. This is a variant of the: "I live in a good area and stay away from bad areas so any gun will be good enough." argument.

4. Equating the odds and the stakes. The fact that something is improbable doesn't mean that the risk is therefore automatically acceptable. In fact, often the exact opposite is true. If we could dismiss an outcome based on the fact that it is improbable, people wouldn't buy lottery tickets, serial killers wouldn't kill people, lightning wouldn't ever strike someone, etc.

 

[Skribs]

Studies I've seen indicate that it's much higher than half. More like 90%.

To clarify: 90% of the time both will do the job, or 90% of the time the decision matters?

This is probably a failing on my part, I read it one way, then the other, and now I'm not sure.

The risk one person accepts, another may find unacceptable and just because a person thinks a situation is a no win doesn't mean it really is.

This is part of the point I was trying to make.

Maybe a scenario really does fall into the Red Window, but some folks would like to go down swinging instead of merely comforting themselves during their last moments with the thought that there was nothing they could have done. And you know what? Some of them would survive.

I do fall into that camp as well. I'm just saying if you go down swinging with your LCP and get to the pearly gates, it's probably very low chance that Peter's going to be standing there saying, "If you would've carried your Glock, you wouldn't be here right now."

You lost me near the beginning.

Because I didn't include a TL;DR, or because you disagree with the opinions I presented?

 

[fastbolt]

There's a lot convoluted strategizing in your post.

Your 'Situation' scenarios are scripted in a way that the fertile minds of screenwriters might create them.

I've know a fair number of cybersecurity specialists and firearms trainers, and the crossover of threat/risk assessment matrices and practices isn't usually something considered so easily cobbled together.

Even the common Color Code of Awareness creates some occasional dissension among firearms/self defense trainers and practitioners of firearms related topics. The subject becomes a bit more muddled when DT and Martial Arts folks are drawn into the discussions, too. (I offer that personal perspective having served as a LE firearms instructor for 26 years, a multi-discipline martial arts practitioner since '71, and a career cop who had to receive DT training at various times throughout my career as the DT field underwent some evolution over time. So, it's just the product of my own training and experiences.)

Welcome back, though. Glad life has apparently been good to you.

 

[JohnKSa]

To clarify: 90% of the time both will do the job, or 90% of the time the decision matters?

Something like 90% of the time, even when you need a gun, what gun you have doesn't matter. It doesn't need to do anything other than look like a gun and make noise.

I'm just saying if you go down swinging with your LCP and get to the pearly gates, it's probably very low chance that Peter's going to be standing there saying, "If you would've carried your Glock, you wouldn't be here right now."

It's a very low chance that you'll need your LCP in the first place--so save the hassle of carrying, the expense of buying a gun and ammo and practicing/training if probabilities are the main deciding factor.

It's a mistake equate the low likelihood of needing a gun with idea that having a relatively low-capability self-defense gun won't be an issue. The low likelihood of needing a gun means that it's unlikely you need a gun. That's it. It doesn't mean that the scenario that reality serves up will fit the decision you made at the gun store, or perhaps that morning when you left the house. When you buy a lottery ticket, there's a very low chance you will win the jackpot. But if you do win the jackpot, it's not a smaller jackpot because the odds were very low that you would win it.

 

[Skribs]

Your 'Situation' scenarios are scripted in a way that the fertile minds of screenwriters might create them.

I understand that they were embellished a bit, and that there's a million ways self-defense can play out. I just wanted a list of what highlights the concept I was trying to discuss.

I've know a fair number of cybersecurity specialists and firearms trainers, and the crossover of threat/risk assessment matrices and practices isn't usually something considered so easily cobbled together.

Technically, we all are assuming some level of risk management by what we choose to carry or not. Even the "manual safety" vs. "no manual safety" debate is about which risk you prioritize greater: safety on when you need to shoot, or not having a negligent discharge that could have been prevented with a manual safety. When you pick what gun is good enough (based on caliber, magazine size, etc), you're making a decision based on the risk that a gun with less power and/or capacity would fail, and so this is acceptable.

Welcome back, though. Glad life has apparently been good to you.

Thank you!

It's a mistake equate the low likelihood of needing a gun with idea that having a relatively low-capability self-defense gun won't be an issue. The low likelihood of needing a gun means that it's unlikely you need a gun. That's it. It doesn't mean that the scenario that reality serves up will fit the decision you made at the gun store, or perhaps that morning when you left the house. When you buy a lottery ticket, there's a very low chance you will win the jackpot. But if you do win the jackpot, it's not a smaller jackpot because the odds were very low that you would win it.

While true, some of the green scenarios did feature the gun being used, and for more than just intimidation.

Although to be honest, I've carried once in the past 8 years. I was working on an Army base in the day, so no carrying there. I would go straight from there to the martial arts school where I taught all evening, so no carrying there either. That covered my day from 6:30 AM to 9:30 PM, and I usually spent most of the weekends catching up on chores.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's a mistake equate the low likelihood of needing a gun with idea that having a relatively low-capability self-defense gun won't be an issue. The low likelihood of needing a gun means that it's unlikely you need a gun. That's it. It doesn't mean that the scenario that reality serves up will fit the decision you made at the gun store, or perhaps that morning when you left the house. When you buy a lottery ticket, there's a very low chance you will win the jackpot. But if you do win the jackpot, it's not a smaller jackpot because the odds were very low that you would win it.

That's extremely well put.

 

[Jim Watson]

Interesting that it used to be common currency that only one of eleven defensive uses of a firearm resulted in shots fired.
Now we are warned that we are likely to be prosecuted for brandishing if we deter a criminal by showing him a gun. If, that is, we are not shot by a cop or other intervener who mistakes us for the felon.

 

[JohnKSa]

You just have to make sure that there's sufficient justification for displaying a gun. In TX, for example, displaying a gun is considered to be a "use of force, but not deadly force". It's a crime if not properly justified, but if force or deadly force are justified, then, at least in TX, you would be justified in displaying a gun.

I think the problem is that people often don't understand that pulling a gun on someone is a crime, even if it's not fired. Just like any other act that is criminal, on the face of it, there needs to be justification for such an act.

As far as getting shot by a cop goes, that's just a reality of life. If a cop is summoned to the scene of a crime where firearms are involved, they are going to be looking for someone with a firearm and that creates potential for misunderstandings. Misunderstandings involving armed persons in high-adrenaline situations always have the potential to go wrong in really spectacular ways.

In both cases, the key is being aware of the pitfalls involved. Simply knowing that brandishing a gun requires legal justification is probably enough to help a person avoid pulling a gun out before it's justified. And knowing that a cop won't instantly be aware that you are a good guy and that you will have the same difficulty as a cop if you put yourself in the place of a first responder, should help people make good decisions.

 

[Skribs]

Now we are warned that we are likely to be prosecuted for brandishing if we deter a criminal by showing him a gun. If, that is, we are not shot by a cop or other intervener who mistakes us for the felon.

There have been warnings like this forever in the 2A community. "Don't carry a gun with a trigger kit because then the prosecutor will claim that you modified the gun to make it more deadly." I wonder how many of these are reasonable concerns and how many are internet legend.

I think in most cases, if you use your gun defensively, chances are the situation is over before police arrive, and hopefully whoever is calling 911 will be able to inform them of the situation.

In both cases, the key is being aware of the pitfalls involved. Simply knowing that brandishing a gun requires legal justification is probably enough to help a person avoid pulling a gun out before it's justified. And knowing that a cop won't instantly be aware that you are a good guy and that you will have the same difficulty as a cop if you put yourself in the place of a first responder, should help people make good decisions.

If police do arrive during the shootout, or they don't get the memo that there's a good guy with a gun, there's the third layer of chance that they might shout orders before going in guns blazing, further reducing the chance of such a mixup. At any rate, it kind of goes back to your first post in this thread: would you rather go down swinging or not?

 

[JohnKSa]

Armed with the knowledge that responding LE will be predisposed to view anyone (with the exception of uniformed LE) at a crime scene with a gun in their hand as a threat, a defender can take steps to make it very unlikely that they will get shot due to a misunderstanding. Where people get into trouble is when they just don't think about the possibility that there's nothing obvious that makes it clear to others coming on the scene that they are a "good guy" and, in fact, that the simple truth that they are at the scene of a crime with a gun in their hand can actually make the opposite conclusion seem pretty safe.

 

[fastbolt]

...
Technically, we all are assuming some level of risk management by what we choose to carry or not. Even the "manual safety" vs. "no manual safety" debate is about which risk you prioritize greater: safety on when you need to shoot, or not having a negligent discharge that could have been prevented with a manual safety. When you pick what gun is good enough (based on caliber, magazine size, etc), you're making a decision based on the risk that a gun with less power and/or capacity would fail, and so this is acceptable.
...

There are literally worlds that could be pondered and discussed in breaking down everything in those 3 sentences.

The adverb 'technically' can cover and conceal a multitude of sins and misconceptions.

This sort of discussion often reminds me of someone trying to ask "What would you do if I did this?" questions regarding the martial arts. It depends, and not often for the reason(s) someone may mistakenly assume are involved.

 

[Skribs]

There are literally worlds that could be pondered and discussed in breaking down everything in those 3 sentences.

The adverb 'technically' can cover and conceal a multitude of sins and misconceptions.

This sort of discussion often reminds me of someone trying to ask "What would you do if I did this?" questions regarding the martial arts. It depends, and not often for the reason(s) someone may mistakenly assume are involved.

You are quite literally technically correct in this assessment.

 

[fastbolt]

Armed with the knowledge that responding LE will be predisposed to view anyone (with the exception of uniformed LE) at a crime scene with a gun in their hand as a threat, a defender can take steps to make it very unlikely that they will get shot due to a misunderstanding. Where people get into trouble is when they just don't think about the possibility that there's nothing obvious that makes it clear to others coming on the scene that they are a "good guy" and, in fact, that the simple truth that they are at the scene of a crime with a gun in their hand can actually make the opposite conclusion seem pretty safe.

Yep. It's not like both off-duty and plainclothes/UC cops haven't been shot and killed by responding uniformed cops when they're holding weapons at a 'shots fired' or 'man with a gun' call. The rise of active shooter incidents has added to the potential risk factors, too. Nowadays that's become a mainstream topic during LE training. It was in its infancy as a training topic some years ago. I heard it first discussed at length some time in 2000 (taking up part of one of the days of a training class for plainclothes cops). It's a serious risk, and that's among active and retired cops who should know how things can go at such incidents.

 

[Jim Watson]

hopefully whoever is calling 911 will be able to inform them of the situation.

If you shoot in self defense, YOU had better be the first caller.

 

[JohnKSa]

That definitely puts you in a better situation than if the other party calls first. The system tends to assume that bad guys will want to avoid LE and the good guy will reach out to LE for help as soon as possible.

 

[Skribs]

If you shoot in self defense, YOU had better be the first caller.

"Someone broke into our house, my husband shot him."

"There was an active shooter and my coworker took him down."

You get the point.

 

[Kleanbore]

Now we are warned that we are likely to be prosecuted for brandishing if we deter a criminal by showing him a gun.

No.

It is the case that we can be charged with aggravated assault or the equivalent if we produce, display, touch, or mention a firearm for the purpose of influencing the actions of others, unless we are justified in using deadly force, or in some jurisdictions, non-deadly physical force under some circumstances.

Attorney Andrew Branca says that about half of the SD cases on which he is consulted involve aggravated assault charges.

Massad Ayoob advises us to be the first to call if we ever do draw.

 

[Valkman]

You lost me near the beginning.

I have no idea what this is about. It puts me in the Red Zone.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I have no idea what this is about. It puts me in the Red Zone.

<g>

 

[CDW4ME]

If friends need help moving they can rent a truck; I'll take the Miata for enjoyable top down driving and in FL a convertible is nice nearly all year.
Glock 19 with optic AIWB plus Ruger LCP in pocket for the most options and regardless of area or anticipated threat.

 

[Skribs]

If friends need help moving they can rent a truck; I'll take the Miata for enjoyable top down driving and in FL a convertible is nice nearly all year.

I got the Miata right after moving to TX, and thanks to all the pollen it's been top up most of the time.

 

[shafter]

You lost me pretty early on but if I get your gist this is how I recommend self defense training.

Situational awareness and avoidance
Deescalation skills
Physical fitness
Grappling
Striking
Blade and counter Blade
Pistol

All of the above integrated into a system that allows you to transition to what is needed. Start with a simple baseline for each and slowly push the goalposts out over time. Don't get too far ahead in any one area.

 

[fastbolt]

If you shoot in self defense, YOU had better be the first caller.

You have no way to know of the presence of witnesses who may call when gun shots are heard, or see you and think that you're the 'bad guy'.

Sure, many witnesses disappear when cops need them, but then they also come out of the woodwork at the damnedest times. Not always accurate regarding what they thought they knew or saw, either.