Lately in the news it seems that more and more Perps are using shotguns [including short-barreled] to earn their Daily Bread.
Just wondering here if you have ever considered including any training in your programs to help citizens deal w/the firepower disparity between 9mm and 12ga.
The quick answer is: No, not really.
But in case people assume that really means "No, I hadn't thought about it," I should probably explain.
Couple of things, first:
1) Learning effective defensive tactics (meaning, learning to make the right choices under stress so you stay safe) means first knowing what
actually happens in self-defense situations---what sorts of things are A) most likely (which you then use to determine your training priorities), B) most dangerous to you specifically (which you use to determine what else you need to learn, shifting priorities is necessary), and C) possible (which you use for later training goals if you have sufficient time/money to add additional skills).
2) Learning the threats means you learn specific skillsets, and then learn how to make the appropriate choice of skills (tactics) under stress. One thing that can help this is making your skillset as universal as possible. And while there isn't any one particular skill that is applicable to
all situations, it is true that there are some given
sets that tend to be widely applicable. Given A and B above, preparing yourself by putting together a skill
set that covers as much of a range as possible is something that smart, prepared people should do.
3) You aren't going to be attacked by 30 ninjas armed with automatic weapons backed by 3 world-class snipers and supported by a mortar platoon. At least not in any self-defense situation. (If you think you are, either a) you need less Call of Duty in your life, or b) you REALLY need to move out of your current neighborhood.
If you are in the military, #3 may not apply to you.
The main point of #3 is that you need to be realistic about threat assessment.
Ok, that all being said:
I'm not sure that shotguns are actually being used more now than in the past. When SFG first mentioned it, I thought about it, realized that I had heard a couple of stories lately regarding shotguns, but that I hadn't really realized that their use was on the rise. So I started looking around for any statistics---which is often an exercise in annoyance. Mostly, what I found is that use of a shotgun in homicide, aggravated assault, and robbery tends to stay within 3-8% of firearms used in crime (normally hovering very close to 5% for all crimes combined) pretty much every year that I could find. It just didn't seem to fluctuate that much.
The problem, of course, is that there aren't good stats for the last year or so. As such, there might be a sudden surge in shotgun usage.....but at the moment, I must say I'm not really seeing it. As such, I don't think I'd make any sudden changes to what I talk about in DT classes.
However, it is certainly true that they ARE used in crimes. As such, they are a viable topic in the first place for DT classes---so what do I say in those?
It depends.
There is no doubt that a shotgun is more powerful than a handgun. However, we don't want to get hit by either, so that doesn't change anything very much.
People are just as likely to miss with a shotgun as a handgun, particularly when the attacker is attempting to shoot a pistol-grip shotgun, especially if they don't know anything about aiming. Yes, I realize that the shot spreads out. However, at most standard self-defense distances, the spread is what, about 2 inches? (If farther, buckshot still doesn't spread that fast, even out of short-barreled shotguns, and birdshot---well, getting tagged with a couple of birdshot isn't the same as getting 80% of a birdshot load in the chest.)
If the guy is
close with a shotgun, this is actually a good thing. (The best, of course, would be him leaving. But failing that...) It is a LOT easier to make someone in arm's reach miss with a shotgun than it is when they have a handgun. From a CQT perspective, unless the criminal knows how to use a shotgun as an impact weapon (which most people don't, and they certainly won't do it reflexively without a LOT of training), a shotgun assault is MUCH easier to handle than a handgun assault. (This one is easy to show in demonstrations. Weirdly enough, at hand range, a knife is actually the worst to defend against. Then handgun, then long gun.)
If it is a
pump shotgun (which it probably will be), there is a very good chance that the criminal will get one shot at typical self-defense distances. That's it. Because if you aren't hit, you should be putting multiple rounds on target, and it is REALLY hard to rack a shotgun (especially a pistol-grip shotgun) and get it back on target when you've been hit multiple times with a 9mm. I realize that is optimistic thinking in terms of you not getting hit and being able to shoot back---but that is the POINT of training, to be able to do that. Preferably, we want him to not get any shots at all, but you understand what I mean here.
One of the major differences probably would be that people who wear glasses are in better shape vs a shotgun than people who don't. Slugs or buckshot, all is equal. Birdshot---a near miss means a couple of annoyingly painful hits with tiny specks of lead, which someone gets to dig out of you with a dull spoon later (at least, that's how I hear that it feels)---
unless you get one in the eye. No matter what, don't stop fighting--but that WOULD make a significant difference.
Overall, when I think about it, I don't believe that the vast majority of self-defense situations would really change much if the bad guy had a shotgun instead of a handgun. We still don't want to get shot so the increased power of the round doesn't make a difference, the range is still small but not at arm's length so the round will effectively still be one projectile in size, no matter what we do if his hand is on the trigger he is probably going to pull it (at least, you need to think that way---often he doesn't, but you can't afford to attempt to bet on that) so the trigger (SA vs possible DA) isn't any different---so overall, not much has changed, in terms of the choices we would be making, which means that our basic "vs handgun" skillset is also applicable to the "vs shotgun" skillset for the majority of types of self-defense situations.
(We could always hope that he'll rack the slide to try to scare us....
)
I can think of a number of specialized scenarios in which the use of a shotgun would make a difference over the use of a handgun. However, "specialized" in this case means "just plain not likely for normal people." If I was teaching an advanced class for people who actually worked in circumstances that made it likely that they'd run into one of those specialized cases (drug interdiction is a solid "yes" there) then I'd probably have a number of extra things to say regarding use of cover and closing the gap (two very opposite tactics). I can think of a number of situations (and goals) for which I'd REALLY prefer a shotgun over a handgun (and I don't like shooting shotguns that much)---but pretty much none of them have any relation to self-defense situations, if I'm thinking about it from the bad guy's perspective.
For most of us----in my opinion (take that for whatever you think it is worth)---the substitution of a shotgun for a handgun in the majority of self-defense situations really only means that if you happen to fail, they'll have to pick a lot more lead out of you. In other words, with respect to the tactics you choose---not much difference to you.
Thoughts? Anything I'm missing?
...one additional comment: From a tactical perspective (meaning from the perspective that you use to make
decisions), one difference would be your threat estimation with respect to injuries to bystanders if outdoors.
But wait---there's more! (Do I ever shut up? No? Well, then don't ask questions!)
SFG said, regarding Walgreens and the criminal with the shotgun:
Have discussed his experience with him.
Had the shotgun been loaded and fired, Jim would have been cut in half.
Did James say that? Or was that your conclusion? I'm just curious.
I know that a bullet from James' gun was found in the shotgun barrel, so obviously at some point the shotgun was pointed at him. However, WHEN that occurred is not known. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't pointed at him when he started shooting. As such, even if the shotgun had been loaded, there is no reason to believe that it was would actually been
fired when on target, as by that time the criminal had several bullets in him. Possibly, certainly. Likely? No one knows.
Now, SFG carefully said "loaded and fired," not merely "loaded" --- however, I think it needs the added "loaded and fired
when pointed at James after the criminal had already been shot multiple times" to make it a true statement of the situation.
Sure, you get someone in front of a shotgun at close range, it is going to hurt them badly. However, the fact that at some point in time after James started shooting the shotgun was pointed at him---is
not the same thing as saying that the criminal pointed the gun at him and would have cut him in half had it been loaded so that he could fire it.
Particularly due to the fact that when James started shooting, it is MOST likely that the criminal reflexively pulled the trigger at that time when it
wasn't pointed at anyone. (That's why James made the decision to shoot at that time---the shotgun was not currently aimed at anyone.) As such, even it is HAD been loaded, without racking the action after the first shot, it was a long, unwieldy club by the time it was pointed at James.
Last thing (yes, I'm almost done):
I consider any argument about being "outgunned" as a tacit admission of a failure of training for self-defense. We KNOW that handguns are poor manstoppers. Therefore, training to make it effective
anyway is part of being a prepared person, because you know that is all you are going to get.
If someone else has a 12 gauge, then yes, they have more firepower than I do. However, I wasn't planning on getting shot in the first place, and no matter what I'm shot with, if I can still notice I'm alive then I'm still going to be responding. So unless they have an area weapon (grenade launchers would indeed make me re-think my DT class) or the BFG 9000 from Doom (I know, I know, I'm a nerd) then not much is going to change.
Well, that was long. Comments or arguments?
(I want one of these, by the way.)
