My esteemed colleague, Claude Werner, penned an excellent analysis: Revolvers will get you killed – Or will they?

You see, Claude likes data. He likes to collect it, analyze it, interpret results, and in presenting his data he often rocks the boat. It’s one thing I love about Claude.

In this particular article, Claude discusses a recent article that posited armed citizen encounters rarely need more ammunition than what’s in a concealed-carry revolver (5-6 rounds).

Of course, in today’s world where increased magazine capacity is a huge marketing/selling point, only carrying 5-6 rounds tends to be scoffed at. So of course, Claude presents data.

Claude’s data shows the number of shots fired ranging from 0 to 2.

We can also look at Tom Givens’ student incident data, where the average was 3-4 rounds.

Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude that “seldom” does one need more than 5.

In my own incident, I fired 5 rounds.

But here’s where perhaps Claude and I differ.

Because you see, statistics are of little comfort when you are the anomaly.

Looking at the Givens data set, the range of shots fired ranges from 1 to 12 (last I saw the data summary it was 11, but I think recently it went up to 12). That 5-shot snub ran empty long ago. I think about my own incident, and while it was unfolding I was expecting there to be “friends”; if I had only a 5-shot revolver and if my situation was different, I’m not sure how things might have gone.

So this isn’t to say that there isn’t a place and a role for smaller, lower-capacity guns. I have them, and sometimes I carry them because they are what’s contextually appropriate. But for me, if I’m in a situation where I can carry something bigger with greater capacity, I will. Because why not? If all other things are equal, why choose 5 when I can choose 15? Because one thing I can NOT choose is how my self-defense incident is going to be and what I’m going to face.

But I didn’t come here to beat the dead horse of “capacity”.

Because if you read Claude’s article (and I can tell by my website analytics that you haven’t clicked through to read it… which is a shame, and your loss), you’ll come to see what matters MUCH MUCH more in terms of a self-defense incident.

For you see, while the hard-skills of shooting are certainly important, there are skills involved in private citizen self-defense incidents that matter so much more.

You’re just going to have to read Claude’s article to learn.

On April 1, 2017, KR Training ran it’s Defensive Pistol Skills 1 and Defensive Pistol Skills 2 classes. It may have been April Fools Day, but what I want to talk about is no joke.

These particular classes are about gunfighting. These are classes were we work to impress upon students the reality of self-defense with a handgun. It’s fast, it’s ugly, it’s full of pressure. You have to perform at a high-level, usually starting from a deficit, and you must make split-second decisions (these classes are often a sobering reality and wake-up to students).

It’s that last part – split-second decisions – I want to talk about.

Context

Let me explain the context of class.

In DPS-2, we run each student through a shoot house scenario. The intent of the exercise is to introduce students to the notions of moving through structures, use of cover and concealment, and target discernment.

Target discernment.

You see, upon our hip we have a hammer – but we must realize that the world contains more than nails. What complicates matters is some things may appear to be nails, but really are not. Furthermore, we are “good guys”; which means we operate within the constraints of the law, both the laws of men and the laws of morality.

In terms of a curriculum progression, certainly it makes sense to first teach people general marksmanship as well as basic default response to a threat; you have to teach foundational and fundamental skills first. Once people begin to understand the fundamentals, you progress to more complex, complicated, and advanced concepts. One of those is target discernment.

Setting

In this particular run of the shoot house, the situation was framed that you have pulled up to your home in your car and parked in the driveway. You get out of your car and you see… this. The “this” starts out with 2 targets across from you: one is a reactive target (i.e. if you shoot it properly it will fall down) with a threat indicator (a gun), the other is a reactive target with a not-threat indicator (hands up). The student begins by analyzing what they see and responding accordingly.

The student is then to move “into the house”. As they approach the opening, they see way down the hallway – about 15-20 yards away – this target:

When you look at this picture from the comfort of your office or living room, with no pressure, no need to make a decision, as you casually read this article, you can probably figure out what it is that you are seeing.

But when it’s 15-20 yards away, when you have a split second to make a decision, when you are under pressure, it’s not so clear.

Discernment – is this a threat or not – is difficult. Just because it is difficult, doesn’t mean it isn’t important; in fact, it means we need to work harder at it.

Reactions

With about a dozen students in class, responses were wide and varied.

Some people immediately extended their gun and shot.

Some people started to extend their gun, but realized they weren’t sure what they were looking at. (some thought “a grenade?”)

Some people stepped aside (out of line of sight, behind cover/concealment).

Some immediately questioned what they saw.

Some where not sure what they saw and what to do.

From there, responses continued typically with my interaction (i.e. me playing the part of either a “narrator” or role-playing the target).

Of those who wondered or weren’t sure what they were seeing, I asked them what they thought they should do. The basic idea? If you don’t know what it is, work to gain more information so you can become more certain about what it is. Some people wanted to get closer, and while that’s an understandable reaction, it’s not necessarily the safest tactics. What else could they do? They could shout commands, like “DROP IT!” If they did this, I roled-played the target and he dropped it. Of course, another solid response is “don’t go in the house at all; back out and call the police” (that’s really the best general response, but for purposes of the exercise we continue forward).

Of those that were quick to go to guns, I asked them why they did so. Some said “he was in my house”. One gentleman didn’t have his contacts in and wasn’t totally sure what he was looking at, but the general appearance and context was enough for him to perceive a threat. Generally afterwards, showing them what the target actually was caused a bit of reconsideration.

What’s key here is how people perceived the (total) situation, how they assessed threat, and how they chose to respond.

Response

I’m not going to fault any student for whatever their response was. This is class. This is the place to come to make mistakes, to learn, to become better. One of the hallmarks of training is how it provides a forgiving learning ground to learn what to do and what not to do, so when you actually have to do something in the unforgiving real-world, you can do it better and minimize chances of doing it wrong (and risk making things worse).

There’s a few take-homes here.

First, realize how situations can unfold. This scenario started with a context of “trouble”, so human nature is going to expect trouble to continue. When you see something else that’s abnormal – in this case, a strange person supposedly within your home thrusting an object towards you – when a split-second decision needs to be made, we process the situation based upon what information we have.

Take for example a recently released dashcam of an Opelika, Alabama police officer shooting a man on the side of the road in 2014. Every police officer knows that road-side stops are one of the most dangerous events in police work. It’s dark. Pull up on scene, man goes to exit his vehicle. As he exits, he turns towards the officer, something dark in his hands, and he clasps his hands together.

As the situation is unfolding, what might that officer be thinking?

Here’s a freeze-frame from 0:23 into the video. What does that look like?

If you are someone educated in violent behavior (as police tend to be), that certainly looks like someone holding a gun, preparing to extend their arms to shoot. And not just shoot, but shoot at me.

It’s only in hindsight, it’s only with the benefit of sitting in our armchairs, that we can speak otherwise about this event. You can watch the full dashcam here.

I’m making no commentary on that specific event. What I am trying to point out is how there is reality in situations, how they frame events in our minds, and then how it affects our perceptions, especially in the seconds as events unfold. As well, simple objects that aren’t a weapon may not be so obviously-not-a-weapon as situations are unfolding.

We must work to be certain, or as certain as we can be.

Second, rid yourself of absolute mindsets. By that I mean mindsets like “if they’re in my house, they’re getting shot”. I hear this expressed far too often, with people proudly exclaiming how any unknown person in their house is getting shot, no questions, no discerement, no nothing. This is a recipe for trouble.

Claude Werner speaks of Negative Outcomes.  For example:

Deputies found a 32-year-old man who said that he and his wife were sleeping when they heard a noise in the kitchen.

The husband took his handgun and walked in the kitchen area, where he shot the victim.

After the shooting the husband recognized the victim as his younger teenage brother.

Full story, and Claude’s analysis can be found here.

Something as simple as shouting “Who’s there?” could have prevented tragedy.

(Aside: I highly recommend reading anything and everything Claude writes; if you need a place to start, start with his series on Negative Outcomes).

Think

There’s a time to go to guns, and there’s a lot of times not to. Even if we don’t shoot, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault. I’m not saying not to point guns at people when that needs to happen, but we need to be as certain as we can that it actually needs to happen. Because whatever happens, it’s likely it will become necessary for you to articulate why you did what you did. To be able to validly express the ability, the opportunity, the jeopardy of the situation.

At this point in one’s training, one must learn discernment. One needs to move beyond the simple physical skills of “point and click” and work to first engage the brain. In a sense, we should be reluctant to go to guns, but we should be eager to acquire the knowledge necessary to know if we should go to guns – or not.

Because in an instant, what will happen will happen and you cannot take it back.

Greg Ellifritz posted an article, “Lessons Learned From My Good Samaritan Attempt“. The article is written by a man who witnessed a woman being beaten on the side of the road. He chose to intervene in the situation. While things generally worked out ok (the attacker was arrested and convicted), the whole situation didn’t turn out like so many people’s heroic fantasies.

All my previous firearms training revolved around identifying an imminent threat, shooting to stop the threat if necessary, and then hopefully moving on with my life. It was all a pretty simple equation in my mind. However, the reality of my incident that day after Christmas was far different. It was not a simple equation. It was quite complex and has taken over two years to resolve.

That’s the first thing to note: it’s taken over two years to resolve.

But that’s just the beginning.

He notes the media coverage, and because “The Internet is Forever”, how his story basically has never and likely will never go away. It will always affect his life.

He notes the disruption to his sleep and health. In doing so, one particular comment stood out to me:

Ripple effects of the incident are everywhere, and I never considered that aspect of it in my prior training, because everything focused on surviving the encounter, not the aftermath. Keep in mind, I didn’t even have to fire a shot! I can’t imagine how these problems would manifest themselves if I had been forced to take a human life.

Emphasis added.

Everyone likes to focus on the pew-pew-pew. It’s easy to focus on, it’s something that people can easily understand a need or desire for, and it’s fun. To focus on things like dealing with the aftermath of a self-defense incident is not fun. It’s uncomfortable to face, to think about, to plan for. Often people don’t want to plan for it because denial is easier. Consider: if you’re getting/carrying a gun because you think you might need it, then realize there may come a day when in fact you will. The incident itself will last seconds, but the aftermath will last the rest of your life. Are you set up to deal with that?

Being set up to deal with that can be the legal aspects. One reason I’m thankful I’m a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network – they were there for me when I needed them. If I didn’t have them, I don’t know how things would have gone but I suspect not as well.

Being set up to deal with the aftermath also involves the mental and emotional realities. Being able to live with yourself, being able to live with how people will perceive you for the rest of your life. How your family will be perceived and how people may interact with them. A book like Alexis Artwohl and Loren Christensen’s Deadly Force Encounters: What Cops Need To Know To Mentally And Physically Prepare For And Survive A Gunfight,while oriented towards law-enforcement, contains an immense amount of useful information for anyone that may find themselves in such a situation. And yes, ideally it’s a book to read before you need it.

And being set up to deal with the aftermath means being honest with yourself and the harsh realities that may come from self-defense. Have you determined where your line is? In reading this article, I was left with the impression the author didn’t have a well-defined line, but does now. Where we draw our lines will differ from person to person, and likely you will and should revise where and how you draw your line over the course of your life (e.g. you may draw it differently when you’re single vs. when you’re married with children). The important part is to figure this out well in advance of having to put it into play.

There’s much to learn from Aaron’s story. Be wise and learn from his experience.