Watch the video in this news article. I wish I could embed the video, but the link is all I have. (h/t KR Training)
In short, 2 guys trying to rob a store. They failed because the shopkeeper and employee fought back. But in watching the video, one thing really stood out to me.
Fencing.
The shopkeeper was trying to fend off the robbers by using a baseball bat. Not a horrible choice, but it was generally ineffective. It didn’t really deter the robbers until their second attempt, when the guy with the gun jumped over the counter (probably to get a key or some such to unlock the front door) and then the owner could get some better hits in. All this “fencing” did was kinda keep the robber at “arm & bat distance”. The swings didn’t connect, nor was there anything behind the swings (if they did land, they wouldn’t have done anything). The robber kept pressing his attack, trying to grab the bat or at least swat it away, and the “fencing” really wasn’t doing much.
Here’s the thing.
The bat didn’t do much because the gunman was out of (effective) range of the weapon.
Of course, the gunman could have easily overcome this by shooting, but he didn’t. From how he was shooting and behaving, I reckon he can’t shoot worth a damn and figured he had to be up close in order to try to hit anything. So, that works in YOUR favor because yeah, most bad guys with guns can’t shoot (but don’t count on that since some studies and surveys have shown that many criminals actually practice more than cops).
That’s a strong advantage of a gun: the ability to overcome distance.
Many people advocate other weapons: knives, baseball bats, tasers, pepper spray, as some means of effective self defense. But the reality is, do you really want to get up close to the bad guy? I mean, if this guy would only shoot at close distance, since he obviously had no reserved about grabbing people by the throat… do you REALLY want to get up close with this guy? Because up close is the only way for those other tools to be effective.
But a gun? It traverses distance. Distance is your friend in self-defense encounters: creating as much distance as you can works in your favor. I mean, isn’t that what fleeing is about? creating a LOT of distance between you and your attacker? So in a case like this? Yeah, a gun would have been more effective than a baseball bat.
The store owner is quite fortunate, and I’m glad he fared as well as he did. The main reason for that was his choice to not be a victim and to fight back. Next time tho, choose a more effective weapon.
Stuff From Hsoi 
Pretty illustrative video. Shows the wonders of a gun control Utopia. Bad guys have guns… good guys have sticks.
This echoes some of the things I have learned at training (at KR and other places)-
1 Fight like your life depends on it
2 Do what you can with what you have
3 don’t stop fighting if the bad guy scores a hit.
Good point about distance. Engage the reverse gear, create distance.
Those 3 things are pretty much the way it goes. The storekeeper made out alright because they fought as hard as they could and didn’t give up.
But yeah… it also shows that all those gun control laws work… or something. *rolleyes*
The irony to me here is (assuming this is in Chicago) that the gun grabbers have no qualms with this store owner only having a baseball bat to defend himself while the perps are armed, albeit not very skilled. I simply do not understand people who are willing to give up their liberty (their 2A rights will be curtailed too) for a false promise of security.
I think in some regard it’s due to us becoming (too) civilized. We’ve made our society so good, that violence is a rare thing, relatively speaking. This is actually a good thing and shows the general success of our progress of civilization. But then because it’s so rare, because we’ve grown so “civilized”, people are unaware — out of sight, out of mind. We just don’t spend cycles on that which we rarely deal with or rarely enters our lives. That’s a normal human thing. As well, the way we’ve grown our civilization, we have made it rather complex and as such have delegated jobs to others, so again it pushes things out of our realm. I mean, look at our food: we don’t go out and get our own — we don’t grow it, we don’t hunt it, we don’t gather it, we have someone else do all that for us then bring it to us, be it grocery store or restaurant. And so, people don’t really know what it takes to get food from Mother Gaia to their stomach… which creates a whole host of other ignorance.
So to some respect, I cut people slack on this because we’re all human. We can’t know it all. And if you’re just not involved or aware of the way of the world then well… to some extent, the ignorance is excusable and understandable. Because can’t know until something causes us to have to know. We’re all victim of this in some regard on some topic.
But that said, once something causes you to have to know, the choice to remain ignorant or become enlightened well… that’s a different matter. When facts, when data, when experiences, etc. are presented to you and you choose to deny, choose to stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes… well… that’s a problem. And that’s what often happens here, because when people are presented with the reality of what’s going on well… they can choose to listen or not.
I’ve found that trying to preach doesn’t work. But I’ve found that one-on-one discussion works best here. I think it’s probably because everyone is at a different level, everyone has a different tolerances and experiences and expectations. I know a guy that was very anti about things… but then when he called 911 for something rather innocuous but it took 30 minutes for the Sheriff to arrive? that was enough of an eye-opener and game-changer for him. Little conversations here and there, a couple experiences… and there we go.
People will get there. The best WE can do is continue to be calm, civil, reasoned, and LISTEN to them… help them see things; don’t preach, just help guide them and allow them to discover on their own. Success rates may come slower, but better retention. In my experience.