Glenn Bartley Super Moderator

Joined: Feb 2002 From: Mineola, NY

Posts: 1,118





Tell me what do you do with your gun when you are in the shower or when you take a dump, or when you go for a swim?



Yes there are times when even the most macho among us will lay a gun aside. I am not saying that is a good thing but it happens. And there are times that even having a gun would not help us avoid serious bodily injury or death when attacked by an assailant with an edged weapon. If the person in this story, who yielded the sword, had been of sound mind (which I think he was not), had been intent on killing his intended victim, and had he been trained in the effective use of his weapon, this story would not likely have been told by the person who told it. I am ecstatic that Dave was victorious - please don't misconstrue what I am saying. I would rather have heard this story from Dave than anyone else who could have told it; because that meant Dave won.



What I am saying is that in such an attack, you could have your firearm in your hand, and when surprised by someone effectively yielding a sword of this nature, you would in the GREAT majority of cases loose the fight and wind up dead. The guy holding the sword was apparently off his rocker, he also did not know how to effectively use the sword to cause at least incapacitating damage before attempting to deliver what he probably thought would be a death stab. A few quick slashes, heck sometimes one, can often incapacitate a man's arms - and are more likely to incapacitate the victim to allow for the attacker to then finish his business with stabbing wounds. On the other hand, an initial strike utilizing a stab even to the heart, may not wind up in a rapid kill or incapacitation and may not kill at all. Note that this attacker repeatedly stabbed, not slashed, his intended victim. Because of that he lost the effectiveness of slashing wounds over stab wounds regarding the incapacitation of his intended victim's hand and arms.



Even had he slashed at Dave, Dave may yet have been able to fight back effectively,; however the odds would have been much more in the favor of the whacko with the sword had he slashed. Dave can thank goodness for idiots, but he has no one but himself to thank for his willingness to fight for his life and to fight at effectively. Note that one of the most important things that Dave did was not in any way related to a weapon that he had in his possession, but was rather that he pushed himself away from the assailant. Had he had a firearm on his person (or had he remembered sooner that he actually did have one), even once he had gotten that bit of distance between them, he probably would not have been able to effectively draw and fire it before again being struck by the sword but I will admit it may have shortened the length of the attack somewhat. As it was his use of his arms and hands to fend off the blows was probably what he would have had to resort to even if he had a firearm on his person. Sure it would have been better to grab something to fend off the blows, but maybe there was little or no opportunity to do so. As I pointed out in another post on this same subject, the advantage goes to the person attacking with the edged weapon.



Dave's next move was one of those that saved his life - he ran away - at least to create some distance between him and the attacker; he also made effective use of cover and concealment by slamming the door on his attacker. Not only did his attacker then have to pull the sword out of the door in order to attack again, he had to get through the door to Dave and close the distance to within striking range. This gave Dave what he needed - time, and it prevented the attacker from keeping up the assault at least momentarily. In that time, if nothing else, Dave probably got some wind. This would also have been the opportunity for Dave to bring a firearm into play - and it is too bad he did not have one available (or at least remember that he did have one) - so at this point I would agree it would be good to have a firearm whenever you can carry one - but this is the first time he could possibly have effectively drawn and fired it without his being stabbed or slashed while he did so. The thing is though that Dave did have a firearm available to him during the whole fight, but he had not thought of it until after he was again stabbed, this time the worst of all, and he remembered when all else seemed lost as the attacker tried to push the blade even deeper. Dave without even realizing it, had done something else that had bought him time - and this time most assuredly he did the one thing that bought him his life. He grabbed hold of the blade as the attacker tried to push it in deeper and he basically got into a tug of war holding onto the blade of a sword. He tried to pull it out while the attacker tried to push it in. Dave used one hand the attacker used two. In the moments that this was happening - the attacker was unable to withdraw the sword - or was distracted from even thinking about pulling it out - to stab again - because Dave by grabbing it had refocused the assailants thoughts and energies. Now the assailant was only concerned about being able to push it in deeper. Not that I would ever recommend letting someone stab you to distract them, but Dave was already stabbed, and he fought back even while the sword was stuck deep inside of him. He kept up the fight, distracted the assailant so much so that instead of repeatedly stabbing he just trying pushing harder, and paid attention to one thing and one thing alone. He paid attention to Dave holding onto that blade - as if that was the only thing that he, the assailant, had to worry about. He forgot to watch Dave's hands, at least his other hand. That was a fatal mistake for the attacker, and one excellent move by Dave.



During this whole thing, Dave apparently forgot about that Beretta until he had a bit of time (and I do mean just a moment). That moment came about when he actually had his second opportunity to draw a firearm - the first being missed when he slammed the door on the attacker. When Dave finally remembered something that mattered - he remembered he had that Beretta in his pocket. He also had a free right hand. The truth of the matter is that under these circumstances, Dave had been reacting and not doing much higher cognitive functioning. He was likely in shock, had certainly been surprised, had to react instantaneously, and was repeatedly stabbed. So, he reacted as best he probably could in the situation. He apparently did not even have time to pick up anything to fend off the attack or use as a weapon such as a chair, a book, a paper weight, a pencil - hell anything. He used his hands because that was all he had at the moment. I use moment to mean the briefest possible amount of time, because even taking a few moments to reach into his pocket, draw the firearms, cock it, point it, and fire it would have been long enough for this assailant to have delivered several more stabs or if he had the mind several incapacitating slashes.



Dave may think he did not do the right thing, and maybe he did not react the all out best way every moment, but to draw a firearm early on in this mess would likely have gotten him stabbed or slashed even more seriously. He did do the right though because he fought back. When he finally used the firearm, he did so when he had the opportunity to do so - and when he had had the opportunity to think about it. Dave got that opportunity when he had a moment of time to think in a higher mode of cognitive functioning and that moment was all it took. That moment remember, was given to Dave, by Dave engaging in a tug of war with his assailant over the sword thereby distracting him and also thereby giving Dave a moment to think of his options instead of reacting to new repeated stabs. Dave then drew the psitol and used it in desperation. He killed the guy and that was great. The thing is he never really had much of a chance before that to use the firearm from how I see it except when he slammed the door on the bad guy, and I can understand how he did not even think of that gun at that moment. This was not the movies, not a fantasy, this was real.



Sure it would have maybe been better for Dave to remember that pistol earlier. It would have been better to have it in a holster. It sure would have been better to strap it on once his friend told him this guy was in the bushes. It would even have been better if he had called 911 instead of the non-emergency police number. It would have been better to have a .45 on his hip. It would have been better to have two trained attack dogs in the shop at all times. It would have been betetr to be wearing a suit of armor. It would have been better to have stayed home in bed that day. The thing is: hindsight is better than 20/20 but it doesn't mean squat to what happened to Dave. Foresight is what matters now to help protect Dave and others in the future, and I sort of think that may be one of the reasons why Dave shared his story with us. The point of your post, however, seemed to be at least to me, that of a wise guy who is the know it all firearms and defensive tactics guru and who wants to shove hindsight into Dave's face. So Dave did not have his Glock on his hip or "worn religiously", nor did he even remember the pistol that he had; at least until almost too late. Even this would probably not have mattered much in Dave's favor and it may even had made things worse at the earliest point of the confrontation had he tried to draw and fire then! Dave may have made some mistakes, but he is sharing that with us so we don't do likewise. Then again, lots of people make mistakes, but I am getting the idea that you do not believe yourself capable of being one of them. The replies you make in these forums make me think you believe you know it all. Let me assure you that you cannot know it all until after it happens or at least while it is happening. Each confrontation can be quite different. Remember the question I opened up with - heck I bet your answers would be: you don't go swimming, you have a wall mounted SS pistol in your shower stall, and that when you take a dump you hold your pistol at the ready in your non-wiping hand. More power to you, but if someone ever gets the drop on you with a sword and knows what he is doing, those things may not help as much as distance and good defensive tactics that don't necessarily include the use of a firearm even if a firearm is what ultimately decides it in your favor.



Best regards,

Glenn B Unregistered,Tell me what do you do with your gun when you are in the shower or when you take a dump, or when you go for a swim?Yes there are times when even the most macho among us will lay a gun aside. I am not saying that is a good thing but it happens. And there are times that even having a gun would not help us avoid serious bodily injury or death when attacked by an assailant with an edged weapon. If the person in this story, who yielded the sword, had been of sound mind (which I think he was not), had been intent on killing his intended victim, and had he been trained in the effective use of his weapon, this story would not likely have been told by the person who told it. I am ecstatic that Dave was victorious - please don't misconstrue what I am saying. I would rather have heard this story from Dave than anyone else who could have told it; because that meant Dave won.What I am saying is that in such an attack, you could have your firearm in your hand, and when surprised by someone effectively yielding a sword of this nature, you would in the GREAT majority of cases loose the fight and wind up dead. The guy holding the sword was apparently off his rocker, he also did not know how to effectively use the sword to cause at least incapacitating damage before attempting to deliver what he probably thought would be a death stab. A few quick slashes, heck sometimes one, can often incapacitate a man's arms - and are more likely to incapacitate the victim to allow for the attacker to then finish his business with stabbing wounds. On the other hand, an initial strike utilizing a stab even to the heart, may not wind up in a rapid kill or incapacitation and may not kill at all. Note that this attacker repeatedly stabbed, not slashed, his intended victim. Because of that he lost the effectiveness of slashing wounds over stab wounds regarding the incapacitation of his intended victim's hand and arms.Even had he slashed at Dave, Dave may yet have been able to fight back effectively,; however the odds would have been much more in the favor of the whacko with the sword had he slashed. Dave can thank goodness for idiots, but he has no one but himself to thank for his willingness to fight for his life and to fight at effectively. Note that one of the most important things that Dave did was not in any way related to a weapon that he had in his possession, but was rather that he pushed himself away from the assailant. Had he had a firearm on his person (or had he remembered sooner that he actually did have one), even once he had gotten that bit of distance between them, he probably would not have been able to effectively draw and fire it before again being struck by the sword but I will admit it may have shortened the length of the attack somewhat. As it was his use of his arms and hands to fend off the blows was probably what he would have had to resort to even if he had a firearm on his person. Sure it would have been better to grab something to fend off the blows, but maybe there was little or no opportunity to do so. As I pointed out in another post on this same subject, the advantage goes to the person attacking with the edged weapon.Dave's next move was one of those that saved his life - he ran away - at least to create some distance between him and the attacker; he also made effective use of cover and concealment by slamming the door on his attacker. Not only did his attacker then have to pull the sword out of the door in order to attack again, he had to get through the door to Dave and close the distance to within striking range. This gave Dave what he needed - time, and it prevented the attacker from keeping up the assault at least momentarily. In that time, if nothing else, Dave probably got some wind. This would also have been the opportunity for Dave to bring a firearm into play - and it is too bad he did not have one available (or at least remember that he did have one) - so at this point I would agree it would be good to have a firearm whenever you can carry one - but this is the first time he could possibly have effectively drawn and fired it without his being stabbed or slashed while he did so. The thing is though that Dave did have a firearm available to him during the whole fight, but he had not thought of it until after he was again stabbed, this time the worst of all, and he remembered when all else seemed lost as the attacker tried to push the blade even deeper. Dave without even realizing it, had done something else that had bought him time - and this time most assuredly he did the one thing that bought him his life. He grabbed hold of the blade as the attacker tried to push it in deeper and he basically got into a tug of war holding onto the blade of a sword. He tried to pull it out while the attacker tried to push it in. Dave used one hand the attacker used two. In the moments that this was happening - the attacker was unable to withdraw the sword - or was distracted from even thinking about pulling it out - to stab again - because Dave by grabbing it had refocused the assailants thoughts and energies. Now the assailant was only concerned about being able to push it in deeper. Not that I would ever recommend letting someone stab you to distract them, but Dave was already stabbed, and he fought back even while the sword was stuck deep inside of him. He kept up the fight, distracted the assailant so much so that instead of repeatedly stabbing he just trying pushing harder, and paid attention to one thing and one thing alone. He paid attention to Dave holding onto that blade - as if that was the only thing that he, the assailant, had to worry about. He forgot to watch Dave's hands, at least his other hand. That was a fatal mistake for the attacker, and one excellent move by Dave.During this whole thing, Dave apparently forgot about that Beretta until he had a bit of time (and I do mean just a moment). That moment came about when he actually had his second opportunity to draw a firearm - the first being missed when he slammed the door on the attacker. When Dave finally remembered something that mattered - he remembered he had that Beretta in his pocket. He also had a free right hand. The truth of the matter is that under these circumstances, Dave had been reacting and not doing much higher cognitive functioning. He was likely in shock, had certainly been surprised, had to react instantaneously, and was repeatedly stabbed. So, he reacted as best he probably could in the situation. He apparently did not even have time to pick up anything to fend off the attack or use as a weapon such as a chair, a book, a paper weight, a pencil - hell anything. He used his hands because that was all he had at the moment. I use moment to mean the briefest possible amount of time, because even taking a few moments to reach into his pocket, draw the firearms, cock it, point it, and fire it would have been long enough for this assailant to have delivered several more stabs or if he had the mind several incapacitating slashes.Dave may think he did not do the right thing, and maybe he did not react the all out best way every moment, but to draw a firearm early on in this mess would likely have gotten him stabbed or slashed even more seriously. He did do the right though because he fought back. When he finally used the firearm, he did so when he had the opportunity to do so - and when he had had the opportunity to think about it. Dave got that opportunity when he had a moment of time to think in a higher mode of cognitive functioning and that moment was all it took. That moment remember, was given to Dave, by Dave engaging in a tug of war with his assailant over the sword thereby distracting him and also thereby giving Dave a moment to think of his options instead of reacting to new repeated stabs. Dave then drew the psitol and used it in desperation. He killed the guy and that was great. The thing is he never really had much of a chance before that to use the firearm from how I see it except when he slammed the door on the bad guy, and I can understand how he did not even think of that gun at that moment. This was not the movies, not a fantasy, this was real.Sure it would have maybe been better for Dave to remember that pistol earlier. It would have been better to have it in a holster. It sure would have been better to strap it on once his friend told him this guy was in the bushes. It would even have been better if he had called 911 instead of the non-emergency police number. It would have been better to have a .45 on his hip. It would have been better to have two trained attack dogs in the shop at all times. It would have been betetr to be wearing a suit of armor. It would have been better to have stayed home in bed that day. The thing is: hindsight is better than 20/20 but it doesn't mean squat to what happened to Dave. Foresight is what matters now to help protect Dave and others in the future, and I sort of think that may be one of the reasons why Dave shared his story with us. The point of your post, however, seemed to be at least to me, that of a wise guy who is the know it all firearms and defensive tactics guru and who wants to shove hindsight into Dave's face. So Dave did not have his Glock on his hip or "worn religiously", nor did he even remember the pistol that he had; at least until almost too late. Even this would probably not have mattered much in Dave's favor and it may even had made things worse at the earliest point of the confrontation had he tried to draw and fire then! Dave may have made some mistakes, but he is sharing that with us so we don't do likewise. Then again, lots of people make mistakes, but I am getting the idea that you do not believe yourself capable of being one of them. The replies you make in these forums make me think you believe you know it all. Let me assure you that you cannot know it all until after it happens or at least while it is happening. Each confrontation can be quite different. Remember the question I opened up with - heck I bet your answers would be: you don't go swimming, you have a wall mounted SS pistol in your shower stall, and that when you take a dump you hold your pistol at the ready in your non-wiping hand. More power to you, but if someone ever gets the drop on you with a sword and knows what he is doing, those things may not help as much as distance and good defensive tactics that don't necessarily include the use of a firearm even if a firearm is what ultimately decides it in your favor.Best regards,Glenn B