What’s so different about self-defense?

First, here’s the list of what personal self-defense is not:

  • It’s not like military combat.
  • It’s not like law enforcement.
  • It’s not like working security (public or private).

Here’s what self-defense IS all about, in my opinion:

  • Threat management.
  • Threat management.
  • Threat management.

How and why is personal threat management different than the three non-personal defense situations?

If I’m assaulted, produce a gun in self-defense, and my attacker flees – I am not required to pursue him and bring him to justice. I don’t have to face him down at all costs, until he’s panicked into a higher likelihood of shooting.

Law enforcement doesn’t have that luxury.

But I do. I’ve been fortunate enough that attackers have fled under threat of me completing an armed response, without firing a shot.

Next – so long as I’m not brandishing under state law, I can produce a firearm against an attacker and attempt to frighten him.

I want to frighten him.

I want him dulled with fear, paralyzed with it if I can do it. I want him so scared that he’ll sit down while I hold him at gunpoint, knowing that the police are on the way (and I’ve been fortunate enough to do that).

If there are several of them, I want to hold one at gunpoint and threaten the others that their buddy gets it first in the head no matter what.

In military, law enforcement and security work, those scenarios don’t add up the same way. In those disciplines, almost a certainty that shots will be fired when weapons come out (definitely for the military).

But not for self-defense.

I want my assailant more afraid of getting shot than having a round in him and making him bolder by realizing that he’s survived the first phase of the engagement.

And I have to do it alone, no exceptions. It’s conceivable that several of us could be walking innocently down the street together and assaulted while we’re all armed. But that’s never happened to me, I’ve only seen that in the movies, and I don’t think that ever will happen to me.

My only backup is going to arrive long after the fact in the form of law enforcement and they’re going to look down on me no matter what, definitely at first. I know that from experience.

Home invaders – I’m all for killing home invaders if there’s no other choice. I’ve never had to, but I will. Not telling myself that with you reading as the excuse – I’m just stating a fact.

When left with no other choice, I will kill an attacker with no more emotion than I have turning off a light switch. I decided long ago that there’s nothing wrong with putting a stop to a waste of energy.

I’m also of an equal mind to think of them as pirates on my boat – the first responsibility is to repel the boarders, so to speak. I don’t want to shoot holes in my own hull and I don’t want to risk harm to my shipmates.

I have insurance. I want them out first, subdued second, and dead last.


In all cases, I accept that I could be in combat and it could come down to that. I have been before.

But I prioritize my self-defense arms and tactics in terms of threat management first, combat shooting second.

What I do, what I say, what I carry – those are what I concentrate on – to maximize for fear first and then use that to establish psychological control.

I have actually held back 4 gun-armed attackers by putting my hand in an empty pocket, handing them a thousand-yard stare, a posture like I was about to draw, and a long, silent wait. They started shouting, “Go ahead, pull it out!” So I shifted my stance to the first one that talked, then to the one that didn’t. And then stared at him like I was armed and he was my target, no question, until even I started to believe it. They got scared and fled. I got drunk for two days. But I’m still here.


Those are my views on the subject?

C’mon BS – what are yours

One thought on “What’s so different about self-defense?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *