• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Should I "clear" my house?

Mudinyeri

20g
"Philanthropist"
I've seen thread after thread on other forums about people "clearing" their houses when they hear a bump in the night ... or thinking about how they would clear their home if they heard something that they thought needed to be investigated.

Let me make my opinion abundantly clear ... CLEARING A ROOM, BUILDING OR AREA IS AN ACTIVITY THAT SHOULD BE LEFT TO TEAMS OF TRAINED PROFESSIONALS.

Military and law enforcement teams train for hundreds of hours to learn and hone the skills necessary to clear an area, building or room. They do it in teams ... for a reason. Most civilians don't have the training or the team to "clear" their home. This is one case when the phrase, "Don't try this at home," really applies. You and your family have a much better chance of survival if you stick together, in a safe area, call the cops and maintain a defensive posture. (Clearing is not defensive.) In some states, it is even possible that going on the offensive to clear your home exposes you to legal ramifications to which you would not be exposed if you maintain an exclusively defensive posture.

Tactically, my recommendation (if you hear something that sounds threatening) is to gather your family in the most defensible area of the house possible. You should have a plan for your family that takes the variables into account (day time, night time, heavy sleepers, etc.), communicate that plan and practice it regularly.

There's a reason it's called self-defense/home defense not offense!
 
I agree with you here. There will undoubtedly be cases, such as mine, where the home is small, and bedrooms take up all corners. It would involve me actively moving through the entirety of the house to gather my family.

My specific case wont be everyones, and an emphasis should be placed (just as you did) on a plan tailored to individual factors, which will include floor plan as well.
 
In general, no a homeowner should not clear a house by themselves. However, there are going to be situations in which a homeowner will have to leave the room and go get the rest of the family. Additionally, at some point the owner is going to have to decide whether or not to investigate the bump in the night or sit tight. I cannot imagine sitting in the bedroom all night waiting to see if the bump comes to me, or worse yet having the police come over everytime I hear something. This is where dogs, an alarm, layers, and a previously thought-out contingency plan and preparation really help.
This situation is why the people that want to wargame and script their gear and plan according to how they want things to go down can depart from reality quickly.
Distinction should also be made between the family being bedded down and something going BITN, and other situations in which it is known that someone uninvited is in the home such as the family coming home to a kicked in door or seeing burglars moving around.
 
First off let me apologise for the disorginized and I am sure gramar deficient post. I just got off a MVA fatalitly call involving kids, my mind is not in a good place, that being said..


I respectfully disagree with the Op's post and here is why.

I have trained hours and hours with the military (myself) and Leo's for entry and building clearing.
While it is very true that a team clears an UNKNOWN area/building/room, that is the reason for the training, UNKNOWN area's /buildings.
Not your home, your castle, the place you know better than anyone else in the world.
I have never had a LEO friend OR Military team mate call up the Law or his team to check on a problem in their own home.(BITN not there IS someone in my house, we are talking about clearing your home not already knowing someone is there)
I never have.

Your home should be so well know to you and every blind corner prepared for, (mirrors etc) and every bit of true cover know, that you should never be surprised in your home. Between dogs (my choice) outside auto lights, audible alarms(windows/doors, secure locks, I cannot ever see someone entering my home(if I am there) without me knowing or my dog anyway. Outside intruders and attempts at entry or even coming home to a broken window/door are a different post again.

I think there is a great disconect these days that says you must have XYZ training and PDQ equipment to do anything. If you do not have it your somhow less prepared to defend yourself and family. I have the training, but I also grew up being taught basic firearms safety and how to use a gun. My grandfather checked out many bumps in the night and fought off intruders (one fatally) and he never had a day of training on a tac team. It is mindset combined with circumstance with a little luck thrown in, most of all its being prepared to do what you are forced to do.

I will continue to check out noises when my dog wakes me up with her "something isnt right" whine. I do not think its is wise to hunker down with your family in one last resort room and wait for the fight to come to you on the BG's terms. I want distance between the fight and my family stray bullets suck.
This is just my opinion and not ment to discredit the op, just healty discussion.

Steve
 
I think there are few constants that can be generalized in anyones HD plan. Knowing when or when not to go looking through your house may be one of those. The dogs are an exccelent alarm system and deterent. They know when to bark, or when a piece of gravel is out of place in the drive. I personally have dogs inside and out, and I feel confident moving through my house at night, and if I'm going to get my fam safely together, I'm gonna have to. My home is only 860 sq.ft. I have little ground to cover on a single floor, and as soon as I turn a corner, I have a direct line of vision to the front door, no cover.

Thats my situation, not everyones. But I think the generalization here I'm trying to illustrate is that an individual, based on his or her own unique set of circumstances and comfort level moving through the home + the realization of a percieved threat and the depth of that threat (is it a BITN or an armed intruder hopped on meth, who knows?), should equal the response of checking things out, gathering the family and making a phone call and then/or putting ones self between the family and harm.

I really think with the amount of experience and wisdom on the forum we could put together a sort of generalized checklist/HD Plan. Or maybe a flow chart! lol!

Anyhow, some folks will always be more comfortable than others investigating "things that go bump in the night" than others. Each individual needs to know which they are.

I hope that makes sense and isnt too rambling.
 
We can agree to disagree, hunter. However, a lack of training or preparedness for a given situation is the thing most likely to get you into trouble. You refer to yourself and LEO/military friends. If you, or those people, understand clearing tactics that's one thing. My original post refers to people who have no idea how to clear a building or a room other than what they've seen on TV or in a video game.

Additionally, I think I posted in another thread here, that we should not allow "home turf advantage" to lull us into a false sense of security. Just because I know every nook and cranny of my home doesn't mean I know how many BG's (if any) are in my home, what weapons they have (if any) or any of a number of other critical factors.

I'm also no talking about simple bump-in-the-night, what-was-that situations. I'm talking about a door being kicked in while everyone in the house is in the bed sleeping or similar situations.
 
Before the word "tactical" and the advent of "schools" that "train" an individual, Americans defended their homes, some well some not so well.
The percentage of americans who can afford, take the time, and have the desire to take classes are infantly small.
Training and preparedness are two different things. Mindset is yet another different thing.

We obviously disagree, I am not going to try to make you see it my way, this thread has shown you that not all the readers agree with you, that does not make you wrong, What works for you may not work for everyman. What training opportunitys availible to you, are not availible to everyman. BUT everyman still has to deal with the BITN, and he should not have to hide and hope LEO's with team training can get there before he and his family are killed or worse.
There are many documented cases of LEO's not getting there in time, or getting there and not entering until after it was over.


I view that home turf advantage as a tremendious advantage. It does not offer any sense of false security. I have read nor heard of any posts or articles or news storys of a person who has "cleared" their home after getting their door kicked in( until after the threat was eliminated that is.) your post definatly was worded to only include BITN situations. Or did you mean that after your door gets kicked in, you stop dealing with the threat and go gather your family to that room? If that is what your saying, I am saying that is not only extremly bad advice its lethal.


It is obvious that your of the mindset that if you do not have paper from the "tactical" schools your not capable of succesfully defending your home. I get that.
I run a "school" I train Leo's in shotgun work. I have been to the TOP schools in the country. I would never say, nor would ANY of the intructors I have had tell a person or even imply that they would somhow be less capable of defending their home with out "training" or a tac team.
In fact ALL of the schools I have been too (military is the exception) teach to rely on yourself first. THey are their to give you their experience as a tool.

THe only name I will drop here is Clint Smith, maybe you should meet the man, share dinner at his table and ask him a few questions.


Mindset cannot be taught at any school, no amount of gear will make you able to pull the trigger, no class, nothing but yourself, you can not train someone into having the mindset to defend themselves, to not fear the BITN. you either have it or you do not. You can train with a team all you want, what happens when they are not there?
In the real world you dont get to o back through the shoot house, you dont get to start over and you dont get to get undeaded.
Training is great, training is desired, training is an advantage.
However Joe Farmer will do fine with his dog, lights, locks and knowing hte layout of his castle, as long as he is willing to do what he has been forced to do.
Just like he did before tatical became "tier1".

So as not to apear as attacking the OP in anyway, ( I am not, I am however obligated to point out things that I think will harm a person who is seeking knowledge) I will not be posting in this thread again. If anyone has anyquestions icluding the op, IM will be fine.

And OP thank you for posting articles and opinions that promote discussion, that I think is a good thing.
 
hunter72 said:
It is obvious that your of the mindset that if you do not have paper from the "tactical" schools your not capable of succesfully defending your home.

If that is, indeed, obvious then I've mis-communicated. The piece of paper means nothing. The knowledge, ability to use it and mindset to take advantage of it mean everything. Our society has changed over the years. IMO, we have far more sheep, in contemporary society, who think they are sheepdogs than we have in times past. More than ever before, people watch movies and play video games and think, "Hey, I can do that." I've watch this happen time after time in courses in which I've participated. Joe Tacticool shows up thinking he's exceptionally skilled. He has the cool gear. He believes he has the mindset because he just beat the final level in some first-person shooter game the night before. He finds out that it's wildly different in the real world. Almost without exception, there has been an individual like this in every gun fighting-related course I've taken.

One way to gain knowledge is to participate in live-action training (not book reading or video watching) and practice the drills taught in that training over and over again. Another way to gain knowledge is through the school of hard knocks. In this case, those hard knocks can end an individual's life. I'd hate to recommend that someone try something and have them lose their life as a result.

So, when it comes to recommendations (my original intent for this thread) ... my recommendation is that the average civilian should avoid engaging a threat(s) at all costs. This includes taking a defensive approach in one's own home. I would also recommend taking part in as much live-action training as possible (from the most experienced and reputable trainers possible) and practicing that training as often as possible. IMO, that's a recommendation that will, potentially, save someone's life as opposed to put it at risk.
 
I recently came across the following in a similar discussion on another forum. It was posted by an individual that works for Ayoob.

Massad Ayoob tells a story about the National Tactical Invitational, an annual competition in which some 130 of the top shooters and firearm trainers participate by invitation only. One of the events is a force-on-force exercise using simunitions in which the competitor must clear a house against a single "BG." According to Mas during the first six years of the NTI, one, and only one, competitor got through one of those six NTIs without being judged killed, and he was head of NASA security firearms training at the time. And one, and only one, made it through the seventh year. The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great. And remember, these competitors were highly skilled, highly trained fighters.

Anyone who has had decent training and/or has had experience going looking for a bad guy will tell you (1) it is properly a group activity; (2) the guy you're hunting has a great tactical advantage; and (3) it's not something anyone who knows what he is doing wants to do, nor will he do it unless he absolutely must (e. g., to find and protect unaccounted for, known innocents).

For more information on the NTI, go here: http://www.teddytactical.com/Redesign/NTI_Event.html
 
I talked with the OP in IM, I made my case concerning attemting to give advice or training over the net.

Please , if your going to attempt to give training over the Internet to folks that have no idea what your talking about, keep it honest and on one topic at a time This article has nothing to do with your OP, but is lumped in with it to make it appear that a semi famous instructor is advocating something that has nothing to do with your OP.

Apples to Oranges.

The "house" refered to in the article was a "shoot house" not simulated home
The term ENSCONSED, means something very very important to this situation. In fact If one uses that the definition of the word in relation to the article, the folks getting "killed" are the folks going into the ensconsed persons HOME.
The article point out the advantage of the "home field" advantage the article points out that a person on their home ground has an advantage, and also points out the having a hidey hole ambush is the way to go.
The article disproves the OP more than it helps.

how long was the "home owner" given to familiarize himself with the layout. ( the shooters where the ones entering the unknown "house")

The article is written from an LEO and Military/security stand point not a home owner. its the opposite of the OP.
nothing to do with the OP.

Your OP was a Bump in the night, in your own home, thing. this article by Ayoobs employee was nothing close to that.

The sum of your posts are that even with a simple bump in the night you should gather your family (exposing all of them while doing it), not engage the threat but hide and wait till they come to you, hoping its a manageable threat when they get there or that LEO's can get there first and HOPE that they come in, (ps they wont its contrary to every depts policy I have ever been affiliated with).
I guess if the top schools advocated that, then there would be no need for anyone other than Military or leo to bother taking a class...,

Misinformation or confusing information is as dangerous as no information at all, maybe more so.
 
The short answer is yes,
WHILE I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS AN INTENT TO MISREPRESENT THE AYOOB PIECE.



If your intent in posting the Ayoob employee piece was to back up your original post, AS IT APEARS TO ME , either you did not understand the context of the article (i.e. the term "ensconsed") nor that the folks getting "killed" were in fact the "aggressor/rescuer"( more similiar to a bad guy as it relates to your original post) going into an UNKNOWN enviorment. Or it was ment to back up your original topic/post. While it may be completly unintentional, AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR ORIGINAL BITN POST, it would be dishonest to imply that the situation in the article was similiar to the op. It apears that you took the key words "house" "clearing" "team" and the opionion of the article to not clear a "house" with out of team, completly out of context. Therfor it is not an honest "back up" to the "don't clear" your home unless your on a team.
A "not trained" person, or a person who did not understand the context, and wording of the article, would read the ayoob piece as agreeing with the original BITN post. Thus the same reasonable person would conclude that If Mas Ayoob just said that no one should clear their own home, then I am not going to.
THIS COULD GET SOMEONE KILLED. So it is not honest (again dishonestly does not have to have intent).

As far as off topic, well," being that the article does not support the original topic, but on the surface with comprehending the context of the Ayoob article, it has nothing to do with the BITN post, except to actually disproves it and supports a person in their home will win an encounter with a bad guy in his well known home. SO while very intresting in and of itself, and worthy of its own thread, it is not on topic with the original thread.

It would be the similar for any instructor to say as an example, "never have a loaded chamber on the firing line" then to say Clint smith says always fire before you get to the firing line, engage the target. while to two use similiar words, one statement makes the other moot. Do I do the first? or the second? (THIS IS AN EXAMPLE NOT FACT.)
 
While the article is not exactly the same as the scenario in my first post, I would argue that no two scenarios are identical. Given that no two scenarios are identical, the Ayoob post still has relevance (on topic). The point of Ayoob's story - according to his employee - was to validate the premise that a relatively inexperienced individual (as opposed to an experienced team) is at a severe tactical disadvantage, even in their own home, when attempting to move around their house to locate a potential threat.

To help make this point, Ayoob demonstrates that even some of the best tactical operators in the country are consistently unsuccessful in "clearing" a building when they operate alone. They don't go into the building cold as you suggested. They review the layout prior to the exercise and familiarize themselves with the building.

Ayoob extrapolates from this unique data set to suggest that the average homeowner places him or herself in grave danger by going looking for a threat - much more danger than taking a purely defensive position and calling for assistance or escaping.

In summary, I posted the quotation because it is relevant. I take offense to your personal attacks - calling me a liar by saying I am dishonest, suggesting that I am trying to mislead the reader, etc. - and would appreciate it if you could constrain your arguments to the subject matter in the future. If you find that you are unable to do so, please refrain from posting in my threads. Thank you.
 
My arguments are on exactly the subject matter, I never called you a liar, in fact I even gave you an out by stateing it is possible you just did not understand the word ensconsed. I stated that the dishonestly may have not been intentional. I cannot find anything in the article that says what your claiming its saying oertaining to homeowners at all. there is nothing there that suggest a homeowner should do anything.

while it is true no two scenarios are the same, when using one to compliment the other, they should be of similiar situations not opposites. Thats like saying reguliar citezens do not need guns for protection, but politicians and rich people do, and to proove it, use crime statistics from the ghetto.
The Ayoob article has NO relivance to a Home Owner bump in the Night scenario, absolutly NONE. It was neither written for the subject nor does it pertain to a homeowner, therefor it is disingenious to try and make a square peg fit into a round hole to suit a point. Ayoob does not extrapuliate anything in the article. saying that he does extrapolate anything other than "call for back up before going into a hostile unprepared for enviroment alone is also incorrect. There is no mention of a homeowner at all. It is clear that the point of the article is LEO/Security. When Mas writes an article about defending your home from bumps in the night then one could say it applies, or even if he wrote an article on defending the police station from armed attackers alone, etc

His point is that AN LEO OR SECURITY MEMBER SHOULD NOT GO ALONE INTO AN UNKNOWN SECURED BY THE ENEMY AREA BY THEMSELVES. Again, the opposite of a homeowner being in his home, knowing the layout and haveing the tacticle advantage to deal with threats. By the very information given in the article, a homeowner should be able to defend his home against an invaider who is unfamiliar with the building and alone.

The verbage in the Ayoob article CLEARLY states its intent is tword, ENTERING an unknown "house" by law enforcment types who are seeking to secure an UNKNOWN area FROM a person that has made the area his home.
I did not read the terms "tactical operator" in your origional post (not the mas article for that matter)
If mas is refering to "tactical operators" then he is NOT refering to the average Joe homeowner, nor does the information apply to Joe.

As far as staying out of your posts, I think not. It is both a public forum and the obligation of TRAINED INSTRUCTORS as well those intrested in the right to defend one's home and family, to call out bad information. It is the obligation of anyone who is concerned wit hthe current trend of "if your not a tactical operator, your not qualified....brings to mine the famous glock 40 cop, I am the only one professionial enough in this room..... If bad information or potentially dangerious information goes unchallenged then, the untrained or new to HD folks will read it as gospel, expecially when we start to throw Big names in the pot to try and proove a point.

I am not suggesting your trying to misread the reader, I am however suggesting that you posted a scenairo, gave potentially dangerious information in it, then posted an article that was the opposite of your point, to back it up. I would not get so upset, I think I might try and reread the information and see that it was not what I thought it was.

Finally,
As I stated in the RESPONSE to your IM, if your going to try and be a tactical intructor on the internet, make sure you know what your talking about. When one comes of as the teir 1 tactical instructor, it had better be with good information. I have no ill feelings tword you, nor do I feel I persionally attacked you. I did and will attack the information provided if I feel it may endanger a member of this or any other board. Please try and seperate the two.

I will discuss scenarios and situations till the sun comes up. I will apply my experience and the experience of my peer group. I will not just sit back and let bad information go.

We not only have the RIGHT but an obligation to defend our homes from what ever threat presents itself. Morning, noon and night. The police are not only NOT obligated to come to your rescue, often times with the current LEO situation, they cannot answer every call for help. Its a good thing the founding fathers did not find a safe room and hope the bad guys went away or that the rescuer would get there in time.

If and when I post a thread that a member here strongly disagrees with I encourage them to point out why, give me information and education on what the problem was. I encourage anyone who reads a post of mine giving information as fact to challenge it if they feel I am wrong. My opinions are mine, I do not represent my opinions as fact or as what anyone should do or not do. Feel free to call me out anytime you or anyone else has difficulty with a post I make no bones about it.
That is the reason boards like this exsist, to share information and opinion with fellows of like mind. Not to come out and try "instruct".
 
I also encourage ANY reader of this thread, read the information provided and promptly correct me.
The facts as written speak for themselves.
I find it rather odd though that the ;last paragraph in the Ayoob excerpt clearly states,
Anyone who has had decent training and/or has had experience going looking for a bad guy will tell you (1) it is properly a group activity; (2) the guy you're hunting has a great tactical advantage; and (3) it's not something anyone who knows what he is doing wants to do, nor will he do it unless he absolutely must (e. g., to find and protect unaccounted for, known innocents).

Even though a homeowner was not the subject of the article, it sure sounds like a Father and homewoner defending his home and if needed gathering his family AND dealing with a threat at the same time. Could be applied to that.

While the article is not exactly the same as the scenario in my first post, I would argue that no two scenarios are identical. Given that no two scenarios are identical, the Ayoob post still has relevance (on topic). :?: The point of Ayoob's story - according to his employee - was to validate the premise that a relatively inexperienced individual (as opposed to an experienced team) is at a severe tactical disadvantage, even in their own home, when attempting to move around their house to locate a potential threat. :?: PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE IN THE ARTICLE IT SAYS THIS OR HOW YOU REACH THIS CONCLUSION.
HIS EMPLOYEE OR WHAT MAS SAYS HIMSELF.....
To help make this point,WHAT POINT? Ayoob demonstrates that even some of the :?: best tactical operators in the country are consistently unsuccessful in "clearing" a building when they operate alone :?: HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THE HOMEOWNER. They don't go into the building cold as you suggested. They review the layout prior to the exercise and familiarize themselves with the building. HOW IS THIS SAME AS A HOMEOWNER THAT HAS LIGHTS, KNOWS HIS HOUSE AND LOCATIONS OF DANGEROUS AREA'S

Ayoob extrapolates from this unique data set to suggest that the average homeowner places him or herself in grave danger by going looking for a threat - much more danger than taking a purely defensive position and calling for assistance or escaping. THIS IS NOT IN THE ARTICLE AT ALL, THIS IS AN INTREPRITATION FROM A SECOND PARTY NOT EXTRAPULATION BY THE AUTHOR.
 
Let's try this from a different angle.

hunter, have you ever been through anything like MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) training? If so, what was the basic premise of tactical advantage between the hunter and the hunted? Which one inherently has the tactical advantage?
 
I have indeed been to Mount training, In fact I CURRENTLY have two up coming dates to be the "ensconced" person/s at Ft. Leonard Wood MO.
I work with the CSM of the MP schools wife. I have volunteered my time as aggressor and "guest" trainer many times.

Do you understand that in mount training the instructor's/ aggressors win all(at first) of the time (it is set up this way so that hte ensconced person has all the advantage and it is nearly impossible for the team to win, this is the same asa homeowner preparing for intruders and by knowing hte home, hiding places etcetc has the advantage. The premise of Mount training is to learn clearing skills
SO THAT A SINGLE OR SMALL GROUP OF EMBEDDED INDIVIDUALS HAVE LESS OF A CHANCE OF TAKING OUT A WHOLE SQUAD/TEAM? You are showing that a team is needed to deal with a single "homeowner: and that the entry team needs multiple members, and by virtue of the numbers (needed to overwhelm the ensconced person/ homeowner), Why do you think that team training includes and in fact has just as much training on packing out wounded? Its because the team leaders know that most likely someone is getting hit before the person in the building is killed or taken.

AGAIN WHAT YOUR SHOWING IS THAT THE PERSON "ENSCONCED" OR AT HOME, IN THE STRUCTURE HAS THE ADVANTAGE. IF the person has time to fortify the building and to have early warning systems (light dogs not electronic, but maybe even that for the homeowner) the occupant HAS THE HUGE TACTICAL ADVANTAGE NOT THE TEAM. The point and need of the team is to overcome the advantage with numbers. In doing so it is understood that one or more of the team will not be going home.
Mount training is designed to protect the "Good Guys" it is the same thing as the ayoob situation. The good guys are the ones clearing the house, HOWEVER in your bump in the night post, the persons "attacking" the house are actually the "bad Guys". The entry team DOES NOT HAVE THE ADVANTAGE, the person in the home/building does. The whole point is that the single (sometimes multiple) person in the home or building takes a team to over come.

Mount training is to deal wit hthe very person you say has no tactical advantage. EVERY new team gets killed repeatedly, Every semi trained team looses team members. Very few teams get through unscathed.

In the last week I have discussed the Bump in the night and Homeowners protecting their homes from unwanted intruders with,
The CSM of the MP corps at FLW,
THe Captain of the SRT traning facility at FLW,
Two SSgs from the SRT team,
Two County Sheriffs and at least 7 deputies,
A police Chief
and more than 12 street cops
THEY ALL SAY THAT THE HOMEOWNER HAS THE ADVANTAGE, AND THE REASON THEY (THE COPS,SRT ETC) DO NOT GO IN ALONE IS THE ENSCONCED PERSON OR HOMEOWNER HAS THE ADVANTAGE AND COPS GET KILLED GOING IN ALONE.
I am not sure what the disconnect is here, a person in their home IS the good guy, and the person/s coming in are the aggressor's, THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF SWAT,SRT,WARRANT SERVICE, ETC.
Two different scenarios that are only related or similar because of the situation of a single person can eliminate or hold off someone coming INTO their environment.
The need for a"team" to deal with a single person in a home is nearly de facto proof that the homeowner has the advantage and will be successful many many more times than not even against trained professionals and if prepared correctly will be successful against a single invader in his home, that he had warning was coming"lights,dogs,locks. He will also have the tactical advantage of mirrors, layout, furniture placement and knowing where an aggressors will have to go (funneled).

If you want to discuss the need for the advantage of TRAINED teams vs. a single bad guy, that's a different topic, separate from the BITN homeowner.

I think that by not understanding the term "ensconced" when posting the article and NOT being able to differintiate between BITN homewoner being the "good guy" and the intruders being the "bad guy" and the "team" being the good guys and the ensconced person being the "bad guy"
while similiar they are two HUGLY different things.
 
I am encouraging the owners to move this back to tactical, so that other opinions may be represented.
I believe that the persons on this site should be able to comment on the above information and have the chance to learn, and give their opinions.

I think it is important for the discussion to be public and to allow all members of this site the chance to comment.

Hunter
 
The "ensconced" homeowner stays put - hence the term "ensconced."

Ensconced:
–verb (used with object), -sconced, -sconc·ing.
1. to settle securely or snugly: I found her in the library, ensconced in an armchair.
2. to cover or shelter; hide securely: He ensconced himself in the closet in order to eavesdrop.

A homeowner who leaves an ensconced position to go looking for a bad guy is no longer ensconced. I'll agree with you that the homeowner has a potential tactical advantage as long as he or she stays ensconced. That is why I recommend that the homeowner stay ensconced. Once the homeowner leaves his or her ensconced position the tactical advantage previously held is lost.

When I went through MOUT one of the things we learned on Day 1 was that the hunted has the tactical advantage over the hunter. Once the homeowner decides to go hunting, i.e. clear his or her house, both parties are now hunters. The homeowner may have a home field tactical advantage but he or she no longer has the ensconced tactical advantage. This is why I cannot recommend that the average homeowner go on the hunt.

As far as moving this topic back out into the open forums goes ... I am in agreement with the site admins that it should remain here as long as your personal attacks remain a part of the thread. It does the membership of the site no good whatsoever to see one moderator personally attack another moderator. As much as you protest to the contrary, saying that I am dishonest is a personal attack.
 
Back
Top