“If you go to guns you failed,” Steve Tarani writes in American Handgunner. That “means that you failed multiple opportunities to take preventive measures in ensuring your personal security and that of those who you are responsible to protect.”
The guy has an impressive CV. He’s a subject matter expert, an educator, and an author “specializing in awareness-based training” with decades of experience in both public (CIA, DOE, National Security Institute) and private (Gunsite Academy, Sig Arms Academy) sectors. So, at the risk of ignorantly challenging the professor in a class I have no business even attending without passing some advanced prerequisites, I’m going to call BS on the example he uses to illustrate his point.
I won’t argue with the reality that going to the guns should be a last resort and that situational awareness can prevent encounters from occurring in the first place. Those are self-evident truths that go hand-in-hand with avoiding sketchy people, areas, and situations when we can.
But sometimes, the best-laid plans don’t work out, and we find ourselves in a fight-or-flight situation—or, as Tarani recounts, fight or surrender.
He tells the story of one of his students who was mugged, admitting, “it was a situation that warranted firearm response and it would have been a justifiable shoot.” Instead, the student didn’t act and instead mulled over the legal and financial ramifications of doing so:
“He therefore reluctantly kept his readily accessible weapon in his holster and handed over his wallet. Luckily, his phone wasn’t on his person at that time and he later cancelled any cards after the perp vacated the area getting away with about $100 for his troubles. Looking back on the situation he said it was the best decision of his life.”
How fortunate for him that he still has a life he’s able to look back on. Because it wasn’t the wallet the perp was threatening, it was the robbery victim’s life. And while that priceless life was being threatened, he was worrying about liability and calculating attorney fees…?
As we’ve seen before, just giving predators what they want is no guarantee that a violent, sociopathic moron twisted enough to threaten strangers over chump change can be counted on to respond rationally. Consider these headlines:
- GRAPHIC WARNING Hotel Manager Fully Complies With Armed Robber, But He Murders Her Anyway
- Roxbury store clerk shot during robbery dies after nearly two months on life support
- Mesa QT clerk killed over cigarettes
Consider the “Wendy’s Massacre,” where the robbers “took the seven employees into the restaurant’s freezer, bound and gagged them at gunpoint, put plastic bags over their heads, and then shot each of them in the head.”
Just give them what they want? What if, after you bare your throat and cede all decision-making to remorseless reptiles, you find out what they want is you?
It’s a little late to act at that point.
Sorry, Mr. Tarani, I’m not trying to start a public fight with you, I’m just saying too many real-life reports don’t have such happy endings, and when confronted with an immediate existential threat, internal second guessing and hesitation only work to an attacker’s advantage.
Face it. Your guy got lucky.
Most defensive gun uses end without a shot being fired– that’s the choice he could have made once he had determined that he’d stopped the threat. Instead, he left all choices to his attacker.
Admitting there’s no one size fits all approach, and each situation is different, I hope if ever confronted with such physical intimidation I have the presence of mind to respond less like your student and more like Sonia Sotomayor’s security guys. As for the legal liabilities, the $150,000 in attorney fees, and other considerations you cite, at least I may be around to pay them — true, I may not, but I can count on my judgment and experience to guide my choices and actions more than on the “mercy” of some desperate and evil piece of human excrement who forces them on me with the threat of death.
Like the saying goes, I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. And like the poem advocates, “Do not go gentle into that good night.”
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Having over 4 decades LEO instructing experience.
One incident should not be used to make policy.
It can be used as training information.
But as a blanket statement for policy. It is a bad idea.
This guy has a lot of three letter agencies attached to his name, but is he credible because he wears instantly credible pants?
Was he a pencil pusher? Or does he have the the been there, done that t-shirt complete with embedded lead fragments?
No one will know for sure, as he is not permitted to talk about it.
I’ll stick with my grain of salt.
Presumably there was sufficient disparity of force that lethal defense would be justified. If a 200 lb unarmed man attacks a 90 lb 80 year old woman – does she not have a right to protect herself? What tools would you suggest which even come close to effectiveness of a firearm? I presume victim did not hand over his wallet simply due to a firm verbal request. Thus I think specifics of how mugger was armed, or claimed to be armed, are kind of irrelevant.
Whole heartedly agree that victim was extremely luck mugger did not find the gun.
i understand the rational in his article but sometimes you have no choice, you can never trust what an animal will do, two or four-legged.
being proactive is always better than being reactive, playing catch-up. situational awareness has to constantly be used to prevent a reactive situation.
out is society is no place to be unaware of your surroundings, face buried in a screen, with earbuds blasting.
insert Jeff Cooper’s quote here about the criminal doesn’t fear the police or legal system. To get criminals to stop attacking citizens, then the the criminals must learn to fear their potential victims.
Sounds like Mr. Tarani needs to go back to Gunsite for further education.
“He therefore reluctantly kept his readily accessible weapon in his holster and handed over his wallet. Luckily, his phone wasn’t on his person at that time”
He is lucky the mugger didn’t take the gun. It was probably worth far more than the wallet or the phone.
It’s always easy to second guess someone else’s decision, but it sounds as though this student hadn’t given the decision to carry a weapon as much thought as he should have. Since the Great 2020 Democrat Summer of Lawlessness, in addition to the examples that Mr. Codrea cited, I can recall security videos of several more that made a profound impression on me. A man walking his dog in Philadelphia around 10 PM (nuts) was rolled up on by two assailants. Despite offering no resistance and complying completely, they shot and killed him afterwards. In another, a Midwestern C-store clerk was nothing but helpful… Read more »
Here is the simple truth of the matter. Culture has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. Restraint by moral or practical motives has eroded over decades. Drug use has certainly contributed. If you have ever dealt with long-term coke, meth or speed addicts you know what I mean. Their brain wiring gets crossed over time and they become unpredictable. Out here in meth country, cartel country you do not ever trust the motives of a criminal. Never. There are other influences at work. MS-13 practices Santaria. In that twisted mess of Aztec and Catholic liturgy human sacrifice is a… Read more »
Tarani is trying to get us killed, to make a higher statistical count to prove the anti-gunners right!! No one should EVER follow this person…to the toilet.
And don’t be snookered by “shooting insurance” either. Once you open fire, no leftist insurance co. is going to pay anybody anyway.