Thursday, July 9, 2009

Fight back or not?

Hi Mr. Aguirre,
Like many who were woken up by the collapse last year, being afraid of what might come and what to do about it. I found your experiences on a survival web forum very insightful and useful. Since then I had follow your blog, and also bought your book and read it, in no time. It had help me prepare.
I had recently gotten my license to carry, and am looking to prepare myself with some purchases.
Since then I had different scenarios in my mind of what might happen if it requires the use of gun self defense. Here is one,

If you know there are 4 assailants with handguns broke into your house, and you only have a handgun, would you use that to defend yourself risking escalating into a firefight, which is to your disadvantage, or do nothing, hope they are only after your money and not hurt your wife who is pregnant with twins?

Very interested in what you think.

Thanks for your time, hope all is well with you and your family's health.

p_

This article suggests that it might be better to not fight back.

see link: http://www.eiconline.org/resources/publications/z_gvdb/gvb1-5.pdf

the first paragraph says:

¡» Emphasize that wielding a firearm in selfdefense
may ironically increase one¡¦s risk of death
or injury by increasing the likelihood that the
assailant will use his or her own weapon.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Still feeling humiliated from a home robbery three
weeks earlier, a homeowner decided to fight back
when three gunmen invaded his house. Feigning illness
and asking to retrieve medication, he was
allowed by the men to go into his bedroom where he
kept a handgun. He grabbed the gun and started firing
at the intruders, saying ¡§No one is ever going to
rob me again.¡¨ He killed one of the men, but was himself
killed when hit with ni neteen return bullets from
the others.
¡VLA Times, 6-1-00




Hi P, about the article, its clearly biased and misleading antigun propaganda.
If guns are such a bad idea, ask yourself. Why is every president in this planet surrounded by a dozen people carrying them, 24/7?
Wouldn’t that escalate terribly the chances of getting wounded with their own guns, according to those statistics?
Next time Obama wants to take your guns, just say “Sure, that’s a great idea! Lets start with the ones carried by the secret service guys standing all around you! Lets get rid of those first, since they are already here!” I’d love to hear his explanation to that.
Guns aren’t good or bad, or even dangerous. A gun wont hurt anybody all by itself. It’s the shooter that makes the difference.
As I said in my book, if we allow ourselves to be reduced to the average level of population stupidity for our own safety we wouldn’t have guns, cars or even allowed to use matches, or sharp objects.
I consider people like us above that very mediocre level.
We’re people that own guns, practice with them and received enough formal self defense training. At least that’s what every person arming himself for self defense should do.
In my case, my home is very defendable. I’d certainly fight back and probably succeed.
Depending on your type of home and location, a few warning shots may be in order.
The most natural reaction humans have when someone starts shooting is to run in the other direction. Criminals are no different.
There’s plenty of cases where the home owner starts shooting and even without hitting anyone the bad guys leave. That’s the most common reaction.
This isn’t an exact science, but I’d rather shoot than give up without a fight and maybe regret that for the rest of my life like so many people did.
I’m no Rambo, I’d readily give away my cell phone and wallet if mugged on the streets is that solves the situation quick enough, but when its your house, your family, and you talk about surrendering and being at their mercy, that’s very different. Usually you’ll get none.
You have to make your own decision and learn to live with it.
I already made mine.

FerFAL

5 comments:

Jason Cato said...

Check out this website for a running account of various uses of firearms for self-defense.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

This one particular event, http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2009_07_01_archive.html#7597670225878756277 a single man fended off three professional jewel thieves, killing two.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ferfal,

I have enjoyed reading your work ever since you first showed up in the forums. Thank you for your contributions.

Regarding warning shots: Generally they are a bad idea. First, they reveal your position. Second, they give your opposition the idea that you shoot and miss. Third, unless you are scrupulously careful, they may go you-know-not-where. Fourth, they deplete your already limited supply of ammo. Fifth, they give the opposition the idea that you do not have the stones to actually shoot them.

Jeff Cooper had similar things to say, and I am not sure that any of the more modern teachers recommend the warning shot.

Generally, the only safe backstop for a fired shot is the body of your assailant.

Please know, I write this from a standpoint of only one moment of experience, which is not much. But in that experience, I saw a man continue to advance in the face of a shot from a .357 magnum fired about six feet over his head at a range of 15 feet. His reaction? He yelled, "You tried to kill me, you S.O.B!" and he kept advancing.

So in that one case, a warning shot was not effective. That is my only experience. Everything else I have is just from books.

(PS, the advancing man was finally subdued, not shot.)

Again, thank you for your blog.

Sincerely,
Ed Gage

Subby said...

I think the problem is many people think a gun is a magic wand that makes all their problems disappear, they are completely ignorant of their weapons capability and they don't have the proper training to know their own weapon handling ability and its limits.

Pulling a gun on four armed assailants cqb is called suicide. If the man had gotten a gun and somehow made it to his front door without escalating the situation by firing his gun he could have survived instead he panicked and got shot to death.

If I was in the same situation, I would know that I would need to pull off 4 head shots in less than 2 seconds. As it stands, I am not capable of pulling off those types of shots.

ps In the movie John Rambo in the river pirate scene, Rambo DID kill 4 weapon holding assailants at close range. But that shit only happens in movies.

parabarbarian said...

The pdf mentioned is from the Entertainment Industries Council. It s part of a series of five that advise writers and producers on how to depict firearms in a extremely negative way.

Anonymous said...

I love the Entertainment Industries Council giving such sage advice about violence when the whole industry is overflowing with porn and gratuitous violence for the sake of it.

massive hypocricy.

America deserves Stalinism after 30 years of these kinds of people hijacking the entire country with their sick, twisted, weakling spittle.

Ooozing, vomit like creatures deserve the absolute worst this planet has to offer for the crime of advising weakness because they found a few anecdotes to back up their nanny state necrophiliac sickness.

This place needs to burn big time and wake these piss weak people up as to what is what on this planet.

It's the only thing that's gonna work. Like pestilence, burning it out is what it's going to come down to.