From the 1992 LA riots, we know that at least some criminals kept up attacks despite being fired upon with pistols. Being able to observe their victims and overwhelm them with numbers apparently made up for the risk of getting shot. We also know that rifle fire from extended ranges, especially with the shooter being invisible, cause instant retreat. In 1992, people were willing to fire at extended ranges due to the absence of authorities — 50 yards is not a typical self-defense range and most people are conditioned not to fire until backed into a corner and almost at contact distance. Lawful people are also conditioned to perceive individuals rather than groups or mobs as threats, so most would not fire into a hostile group. Putting buckshot with “to whom this may be addressed” dispersion into a group can be very effective but goes counter to the peacetime conditioning. The number of conversations with 911 dispatchers where people in dire and immediate danger keep asking for permission to fire suggests that the main factor preventing massive casualties to rioters is the lack of the will, not the lack of firepower. That will is notably bolstered whenever a riot affects residential areas rather than business districts. A store may be abandoned, but a home with a family within is likely to be defended to the last.
In terms of equipment, night vision would be at the top of the list. Since rioters favor nighttime and wear no uniforms, the defenders would have to be able to observe them and be very sure about the hostile actions before firing. Due to possible electrical power failures, it would be prudent to locate emergency store lights in advance. The same goes for weapon lights and floodlights. In terms of disadvantages, defenders are greatly restricted in maneuver. If they wait until point blank range before opening fire, they can be enveloped from the sides and burned out. That eventuality makes long-range response more attractive.(Full post here).
No comments:
Post a Comment