Why Every Armed Citizen Needs an Emergency Response Plan

By: Joel T. Nadler

It is not enough to have the tools to respond in an emergency. You also need the skills to use those tools, and an understanding of how a high-stress situation can affect those skills. Having self-defense options, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, and emergency supplies (food, water, communication) are all important first steps. But to be prepared, there are additional steps. These include developing your skills to properly use each tool, understanding when to use those tools, and knowing the potential repercussions. Beyond acquiring the skills to use each tool, it is equally important to recognize that any emergency requiring their use will likely be a high-stress situation where our use of logic, thought, and skills will be reduced.

The impact of stress on our physiological reactions and senses

The authors of Deadly Force Encounters (Dr. Alexis Artwohl and Loren W. Christensen) used in-depth interviews with police officers who found themselves needing to use deadly force to examine the impact of stress on learned skills. Their research resulted in a deeper understanding of the physiological impacts of being put into extremely stressful situations. What they found was that the majority of those interviewed reported extremely high heart rates, vasoconstriction of the blood vessels not central to major bodily functions, and a reduction in fine motor control. Additionally, perception was impacted, including auditory exclusion (missing important sounds), tunnel vision (focus on the life-and-death threat with little peripheral vision), and an inaccurate sense of time passing (either faster or slower). Additionally, they found cognitive impairments including poorer decision making, gaps in and/or creating false memories, and hyperfocus on small cues in the environment (including advantageous examples and irrelevant examples).

Dr. Alexis Artwohl and Loren W. Christensen’s research along with others has resulted in knowing that how we function in low-stress situations is dramatically different than what occurs in high-stress situations. As a result, training often simulates stress to help individuals build awareness and experience before an actual emergency. This stress inoculation training prepares individuals to understand the impact of high-stress situations while experiencing such stress in a variety of simulated situations.

The usefulness of plans (no plans, plans, and stress inoculation training)

Though ideally each person should experience stress inoculation training (SIT) to be ready for emergency situations, there is value to simply thinking through the “what ifs” of defensive situations. On the continuum of being prepared for an event, one starts with no preparation, training, or needed tools. Often the next step in the continuum is at least having the needed tools. Next comes mastering the skills and training needed to use those tools; this is often followed by creating plans or scripts based on potential likely scenarios. Finally, various forms of SIT can reduce the effects of stress through simulated stressful scenarios. The advantages of stress inoculation training are well documented and result in a more adaptive approach to situations by building resilience to stress and allowing better decision making under stress. However, these skills take time and resources to develop but are well worth the effort if ever confronted with a stressful situation.

Conversely having a plan is better than having no plan.  In the absence of a plan, the likelihood of freezing, delaying or making poor choices under stress is greatly increased. Plans, especially if practiced, give us a roadmap to follow when a stressful event occurs.  Such thoughts are the basis for initial firearms training.   Learning and practicing what to do if confronted with a threat, accessing and presenting a firearm, experiencing a malfunction, or needing to reload are all based on having micro plans for each event.  These “what ifs” are then trained to result in a practiced planned reaction.  If confronted with a sufficient threat, present your firearm.  If the firearm has a malfunction, go into a malfunction clearance automatically. If the gun is out of ammo, reload without having to think through the process. These are all examples of micro plans.  

Additionally, firearms training will also encourage people to work on larger-scale plans. What sequence of actions would I follow in various “what if” scenarios? What would I do if confronted while pumping gas into my vehicle? What if a store I was in was being robbed or if someone broke into my house? Perhaps most importantly, what would I do afterwards (call the police, call my lawyer, protect evidence, surrender to arriving officers, stay quiet until a lawyer arrives)? These plans increase the likelihood that, even under stress, we have a plan to fall back on. The disadvantages of such plans are that they tend to be rigid and mitigate stress or allow thinking through stressful events only when those situations closely match the imagined scenario. Plans work best by automating responses as much as possible into a step-by-step process regardless of the levels of stress. Plans have been shown to be very successful in allowing someone to function in a high-stress situation, given the situation closely matches the plan. Where SIT excels beyond simple plans is in flexibility of decision making and/or working better in novel or unique situations.

Simple plans for self defense

Beyond the tools and basic skills for their use, everyone should develop individualized plans for defensive scenarios that align with their own experiences and risks. At a basic level, most of us should create and practice a minimum of four plans. Each of these plans needs to be as adaptable as possible, tailored for individual situations, while focused on simplicity. Plan one is a plan for home defense. Where are the tools needed stored, what are the most likely areas of attack within your home, and what are the additional factors that must be dealt with (such as escape, or others that need protection in the home)? Plan two is a more general plan of a sudden threat requiring potential deadly force regardless of the setting. The third plan should be based on where we spend most of our time. For me it was how to deal with potential workplace violence. Finally, the fourth plan allows us to deal with the situation after the event has passed. Who to call, what to do, and what not to do in the aftermath of a use of force. The saying that best captures this idea is that under pressure, we don’t rise to the occasion, we sink to the level of our level of training and practice.

Each of these plans needs to be simple enough to be easily remembered and practiced, while being adaptable enough to apply to multiple situations.  For example, my home defense plan is built around three possible entry points (front door, garage, back kitchen entrance) and two most likely initial positions of myself (my office downstairs or asleep in the master bedroom).  These choices are based on my most likely location and the most likely areas of attack.  I have prepared what I would do in each situation including acquiring needed tools.  

What your choices are for each plan (escape or defend) will be based on individual choices, local laws, your own moral thoughts, and the goals you have. Defense plans increase the likelihood that anyone will easily move into a series of pre-planned and pre-practiced steps. The downside of such plans is again their rigidity. For example, in my home defense plans, what happens if someone breaks into the dog room while I am watching TV? This situation may be like other plans, but the likelihood of poor decisions or freezing without SIT is greater. A plan is better than no plan, but we can’t plan for everything. Additionally, each new plan we make adds to the complexity of its use and the time it takes for training.

Conclusions

Being prepared and creating plans extends to all forms of emergencies including medical, fire, and self-defense. Ideally, individuals will take the time and resources to go through SIT; however, even with SIT, having plans to cover basic likely scenarios provides a better alternative to having no plans at all. Plans serve as a useful stopgap between truly being prepared and having no plans at all. If we are serious about stopping potential threats, we need to 1) train in the use of defensive tools, 2) learn about the impacts of high-stress situations, and 3) create simple plans to deal with likely situations. The goal is that, if needed, we are more likely to succeed in self-defense, and making plans makes this outcome more likely.