Decent chance I will, again, be living in a dense, predominantly pedestrian, area with a decent population of street people, but which recognizes my carry permit.

So, from run ins the last time/other cities.

BG tends to be very close, well within arm reach, before he initializes.

Does not seem to care about crowds or witnesses - lots of "no shoots"

3 BGs is pretty much the largest number. They can't really move in cars, and more than 5 guarantees a cop interview, usually. Usually seems to be a lone crazy.

Neighbors tend to be in 3 dimensions, as are no shoots.

You really don't want to print, as there are plenty of hoplophobes about.

The best option I can think of, and I admit a bias toward them, is a revolver. Ideally, say a shrouded hammer 45 l frame, but I don't think that's made.

Something very unlikely to ricochet, and which would, probably, be fired down into the pelvis of the attacker.

Not sure that a semi will be that easy to draw/use in tight quarters.

When I get back to SC, my buddy and I will set up some 3D targets to work on very close quarter shooting/drawing.

I have a few ideas on shooting:

A) Practice drawing "authoritatively" - we will use an SIRT/get some blue guns. Urban living pushes awareness, and more of a focus on not bumping into folks. Mix a draw with a strike, both in case BG is trying to interfere/to drive through incidental contact with a no shoot.

B) Drop into a shuffle gait. This will be tricky. Competitive shooting encourages lifting your feet, to move faster, but it seems a gait more suited to boxing, would be appropriate.

C) Practice backing/moving aggressively. Again, both for BG contact, and knocking no shoots clear/still have to not knock no shoots into traffic/frankly, it's usually not going too fast.

D) Figure our how to index for a pelvic shot, at very close quarters. This will take some thinking. Normally, I do not like appendix carry - and pocket carry is very useful for this environment, especially with large enough pockets that you can walk with the gun in your hand, if you feel the need. However, belt carry may be more reliable to deploy/is certainly easier to practice.

Strong side draw just may not be the easiest to execute on a crowded sidewalk.

Draw to a low retention position anchoring the base of the hand and pinky finger near the waist at 3:00, non dominant hand extended to face of attacker, angle non dominant foot forward just a hair. Cant the gun away from the body about 30* (especially if running a semi auto so reciprocating slide clears clothing and pudge (personal problem of mine),) and fire in bursts of 2's, 3's and 4's into the pelvic region.

After action drill is a step or two back, extend to a two handed low ready, ensure threat is down and unarmed, scan for accomplices remembering to actually LOOK at what is around you, eyes back to the threat to confirm neutralization, reload/top off as necessary. Make a mental note of what you saw in your scan. Was there a witness? Was there a clock on the bank marquee with an exact time? Any cars in the area? Can you direct someone to call 911 for you? Etc...

That's how we always did it in our classes.

Thanks for the pointers. What do you think about trying to move the index point up, so there's more of a downward angle - both for no shoot safety, and to improve the effectiveness of the impacts?

I'm 6'4", but my buddy is ~5'10", and both times I had issues with street people, they were taller than I was. (One I felt bad for. Pretty sure he was schizophrenic, and I don't think he had any idea where he was. The other was just the usual drunken *******)

I'd think that moving the anchor point up on the body would make shooting downward more difficult. From a biomechanics standpoint, canting the gun outward supinates the arm and wrist away from the body and would make it difficult to then point downwards.

If you can do it comfortably and still manage recoil effectively then go for it!

http://monderno.com/training/pelvic-shooting-best-worst-option/

This seems like a terrible option, and not one I'd be planning for. You'd be far better off working on other self defense tactics, carrying less than lethal options such as mace, or working on your commuting routes and situational awareness.

Imagine trying to distinguish where to place a shot on a banger with baggy trousers as you dance around trying to pull off a shot without getting your firearm taken away. And, if you make the shot, you have a very small chance at creating blood loss, or breaking bones sufficiently to stop a threat.

I think Massad Ayoob was just trying to get creative when he created this dangerous idea, and other than a few anecdotes, there's no real-world evidence that shows this works.

Martin Fackler, a field surgeon and wound ballistics expert, said this:

Quote:

---

I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and 18 not a target in the pelvis.

The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.

Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (1oops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training and to most of those with medical training.

The "theory" stated in the question postulates that "certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress" causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause "severe disability." I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the "autonomic responses" that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles in the so-called "fight or flight" response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.

---

are you LE? Sounds like a taser would make more sense for the scenarios you describe.

Dr Fackler is an excellent medical expert but a tactician he is not.

The intent of a pelvic shot is not incapacitation. I think it's pretty well agreed that it's not an ideal target.

The intent of pelvic shooting is weapon retention. It's a reasonable, large target for firing from a retention position at extremely close range.

You don't want the muzzle at chest level when firing at a target 6" from your own chest. You also don't want to fire up.

You can fire from a breast level retention position too but A: you have to get the gun there while fighting against an assailant, B: you have muzzle blast and flack spraying your face and C: in a situation like that you're likely fighting with your non dominant hand and at the higher level of retention you have a chance of hitting your own hand.

Firing at the pelvis is less than optimal. Absolutely agreed. But there is a reason for practicing it.

Unfortunately the video got taken down that showed drawing a pistol in close quarters. First you put your known shooting hand up and out to get the person away from you and protect yourself. When you draw your first few shots are in the pelvic/stomach area and then you can create some space to get a full draw to hit the person in the chest and head. The pelvic shot is not ideal but will stop most people in their tracks and prevent them from coming after you so you can fully incapacitate them.

The only other reason I see a pelvic shot being ideal is if someone has body armor on and you cannot get a head shot. But that will almost never be the case for most of us.

Right PUTU.

The intent is to make room and cease the attack to create room to either administer better shots or create a gap for scanning the scene.

hope it's not a tangent but are yall aware of the CAR (Center Axis Relock) system for CQ shooting?

I've taken exactly one tactical shooting course so I don't know ****, but the pistol part of the course I took was based on this system.

Ahmed, not trying to be as ass, but have you ever lived in a downtown area?

Keeping my head on a swivel is beneficial, and something to always work on, but the degenerate politicians have turned the psych wards loose on the streets of most cities.

Now, as to why I seem to get accosted... I don't know. Maybe it's the cowboy hat. I do seem to irritate crazies and French women, merely by walking by.

NRD09 said:

---

hope it's not a tangent but are yall aware of the CAR (Center Axis Relock) system for CQ shooting?

I've taken exactly one tactical shooting course so I don't know ****, but the pistol part of the course I took was based on this system.

---

I've never seen or practiced it but again, it is based on the assumption you can get the gun to that point. A two handed grip on the gun at chest level sounds very simple to attain but may very well not be when struggling with meth head Matt or cocaine Sue.

If you ever shoot someone, they're going to have a field day with your internet posts.

I don't see any legal problems here.

phideaux_2003 said:

---

I don't see any legal problems here.

---

A pelvic shot can be incapacitating, but not necessarily fatal.

From the legal seminars I have attended, the standard to shoot someone is 'fear for one's life'. The argument then proceeds if you took a non-lethal shot, you probably weren't really in fear for your life. So if you weren't in fear for your life, the shot was not justifiable.

This comes from legal experts, police and lawyers from several states.

Mr. Dubi said:

---

phideaux_2003 said:

---

I don't see any legal problems here.

---

A pelvic shot can be incapacitating, but not necessarily fatal.

From the legal seminars I have attended, the standard to shoot someone is 'fear for one's life'. The argument then proceeds if you took a non-lethal shot, you probably weren't really in fear for your life. So if you weren't in fear for your life, the shot was not justifiable.

This comes from legal experts, police and lawyers from several states.

---

That is some really really poor logic from legal experts. I expect that from cops, but not attorneys.

Take it however you like. You practice like that, you wind up in that predicament, you intentionally take a shot like that, you are now the bad guy, as defined by precedent.

Not my laws, not my opinions, just sharing a tidbit I have learned.

There's a lot more to carrying than owning a gun and having a CHL. Most training and seminars will push the evade rather than engage mentality.

The logic is not to shoot in fear of ones life. The logic is to shoot to stop an attack.

Any shots taken to stop an attack are defensible.

What is not defensible and what I'm guessing is the focus of those legal experts opinions is the INTENTIONAL shooting to wound.

The intentional "I'll shoot him in the leg" tactic is what they're warning against.

I think it's fairly well laid out above my reasons for having to take a pelvic shot. I admitted it's less than optimal for stopping an attack but that in extreme circumstances it may be the only option for a number of reasons.

No legal issue here.

Mr. Dubi said:

---

Take it however you like. You practice like that, you wind up in that predicament, you intentionally take a shot like that, you are now the bad guy, as defined by precedent.

Not my laws, not my opinions, just sharing a tidbit I have learned.

There's a lot more to carrying than owning a gun and having a CHL. Most training and seminars will push the evade rather than engage mentality.

---

Please show me the precedent. I am not advocating practicing pevic shots, but there is no case I am aware of where someone took a pelvic shot in the heat of an encounter and it was proven therefore that a person wasnt in fear for their life. I also agree that evade is infinitely better than engage.

Mr. Dubi said:

---

Most training and seminars will push the evade rather than engage mentality.

---

Indeed and the evade training is even more important than the engage training.

That said, engage training does need to happen too.

I have taken several classes from a former UK SWAT firearms instructor and 20+ year veteran of Scotland Yard counterterrorism team.

His training really focuses on the pelvic shot. His rationale, based on actual gunfights he was in, it was the fastest way to stop a fight. No-one can continue to fight after being shot in the hip/groin. They immediately fall to the ground and stop fighting while their brain tries to figure out why they can no longer stand and why they are in so much pain.

In addition, there is never body armor around the hips/groin area. While rare, mass murderers do wear body armor. The recent event in downtown Dallas, the shooter was wearing body armor, however, it was punctured by a FMJ .223 round to the chest. In Tyler, a mass murderer at the courthouse was engaged by a CHL carrier who hit him 3 times in the upper body with .45 ACP rounds. After being knocked down, the body armor wearing murderer got up and killed the CHL carrier who had emptied his only magazine.

It is just another way to solve a puzzle.

I have taken classes from a US SWAT instructor and his mantra is 2 to the chest and 1 to the head. Even though in the 3 gunfights he was in, he had no idea how many shots he fired until the empties were counted. Another Delta veteran preached the CNS. Take a 4 inch wide target from the navel to the throat and try to hit the spine.

All of this revolves around training and muscle memory. I do not advocate one technique over the other.

I'm pretty sure that's about using a rifle on the groin.

I have no idea. I've taken a couple basic classes, and have spent a far amount of time shooting paper and steel.

But, I don't think most pistol rounds are doing much to a pelvis. Maybe a 5.7x28?

Next time I get a chance, I'll shoot a green pig pelvis with one/Maybe a deer one, not sure which would be closer.

Do you have any case citations?

Of course evading* is a better option - this is a technique for crowded areas. (Think city sidewalk, with lots of people.)

*A bad knee, and a spine that was broken in 3 places, and damaged in a couple others, does limit my evading ability.

Crowds, and traffic, limit everyone's.