PDA

View Full Version : What the hell are they teaching here!?


Sum1_Special
July 14, 2006, 02:53 PM
Was searching google for some self defense discussions and ran into this:

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VD1.html

If there is nothing that you can do to escape without making your position more desparate, in one smooth motion you draw your pistol, rack the slide while bringing it up to eye level, and shoot until you stop the person. Shoot for the center of the torso. Do not issue any warnings; you should not be shooting unless the situation is very grave, and there is nothing more that you can do for them.

If the first few shots are not having any effect, either you are missing (very easy to do with a pistol), or they are wearing armor; in this case, you must shoot for the head or perhaps the pelvis. Your intent is *NOT* to kill the person, it is only to stop them. Do not try to "shoot for the leg," since you are probably not good enough to hit a small moving target. The moment that you stop them, STOP SHOOTING! Render your gun safe, holster it, and call the police and an ambulance.

Here are some examples of when you should *NOT* draw your pistol:

* somebody stole your purse or briefcase
Resist the temptation to shoot them in the back, it's illegal!
* somebody is kicking your car in a parking lot
Don't draw and try to "hold them for the police;" just back off and call the police.
* somebody is exposing themselves to you, or playing with themselves
This will not kill you, so don't draw!
* a gang of youths are walking towards you
Back off, cross the street, etc. Don't look scared, since you know what to do if they force you.
* somebody is mugging you
Don't shoot to protect your wallet. Only shoot to protect yourself. So, if some heroin addict is demanding your wallet, hand it over. If they try to hurt you, however, you must draw and shoot to stop, as outlined above.
* somebody is trying to cut you with a knife from behind a big fence
If they can't reach you, you are not in immediate harm, so DO NOT SHOOT! ALL THREE CONDITIONS must be met before you shoot.

I know it's written by some nobody who probably doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but the article looked pretty legitimate up until that point, folks just looking for some self defense info might think that is the right way to handle such a situation and end up doing time for murder. Why do people teach such garbage? Has anyone ever run into a firearms instructor who actually says things like this?

David Armstrong
July 14, 2006, 03:05 PM
Perhaps you can be a bit more specific in your complaint? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything here that would lead to "end up doing time for murder."

Sum1_Special
July 14, 2006, 03:09 PM
Lets say a drunk stumbles out of a bar and bumps into you. He gets angry and starts yelling at you, you do nothing, he pushes you and threatens you with violence, you 'fear for your life' draw your gun and empty the magazine into him...


Murder.

'But officer, I feared for my life!'

autopsytech
July 14, 2006, 03:18 PM
Check and know the laws in your state and community. Just like gun laws, some can vary. In New Jersey you can't own hollowpoints, in Texas we can. You have to go by what is relevant in your state. Don't "Assume" what is legal and not legal. Some states have "Castle Doctrine" laws while others don't. If you're going to carry, get to know an attorney to get some legal advise before something happens. Also it wouldn't be such a bad idea to get some info from the local LEOs. I'm not saying you have to be "Budy Buddy" with them, but get to know some of them to get some info on the laws.

David Armstrong
July 14, 2006, 03:22 PM
Where does the author of the article suggest doing such a thing? It seems he says things like you shouldn't shoot unless "there is nothing that you can do to escape without making your position more desparate" and "you should not be shooting unless the situation is very grave" and "For example, if you are in the middle of a heated argument over a parking space, give it up". He also gives a nice list of examples when one might be tempted to shoot but should not. Hard to find something to disagree with there.

M1911
July 14, 2006, 03:27 PM
I've got to agree with David A. on this. Sum1_special, I see nothing in the article on rec.guns that every implied the actions that you stated. Could you please point out a specific quotation from the article that you think is suspect, because I'm not following what you are objecting to.

Blackwater OPS
July 14, 2006, 03:28 PM
+1 to what autopsytech said, but overall this is pretty good advice, laid out a bit to "Idiot's guide to CCW" style for my taste though. I think the point was well made, nothing here suggest that a person should do something illegal. I do have to say that I don't know why a person would "rack the slide", there should already be a round chambered IMO.

Charles S
July 14, 2006, 03:28 PM
I am not an expert.

rack the slide while bringing it up to eye level

The only tactic I disagree with in the whole article is the above.

I do not believe in carrying a weapon in condition 3, but that is just my opinion. I am perfectly comfortable carrying a round in the chamber. I think it is just as safe and much faster.

Other than that I agree with everything the author asserts.

Charles

Sum1_Special
July 14, 2006, 03:43 PM
First of all. Regardless of what the locals laws are, to do such a thing is malicious. You can diffuse many situations by simply drawing your gun and giving a warning. Notice police don't immediately draw there guns and fire when they are in trouble. If you think there is nothing wrong with what this man is saying, do some thinking, and some reading:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210263

You would not draw a gun if somebody was trying to take your wallet, really? Why carry a gun then, if you are not going to use it as a crime Deterrent.

Lets say a woman or somebody easily frightened was reading the article and took the advice given, he is very vague when saying 'If there is nothing that you can do to escape without making your position more desparate', somebody could easily interprit that as 'I can't get away, i'm scared, I think I'll draw my gun and kill the threat'. What if it is a misunderstanding, say your wife called a plumber and he surprises you in your home. Wouldn't you think drawing first and issuing a warning is better than just blasting away? Does the writer mention anything like this?

The writer mentions you give no warnings, and that you don't use your gun for anything but to defend your own life, Nobody else sees a problem with this?

Why don't you folks read the article and think long and hard about it. I'm surprised over the responses given.

David Armstrong
July 14, 2006, 03:54 PM
Why don't you folks read the article and think long and hard about it.
I did, which is why I question your interpretation of it. Apparently others also feel that your interpretation is a bit off.
Regardless of what the locals laws are, to do such a thing is malicious.
To do what thing? The author actually tends to be fairly conservative in his approach, IMO. Don't draw until you are ready to fire makes a lot more sense than drawing your gun to give a warning.
You would not draw a gun if somebody was trying to take your wallet, really? Why carry a gun then, if you are not going to use it as a crime Deterrent.
The gun is not a crime deterrent, it is to protect your life. If what is in your wallet is worth getting into a shooting, you carry must carry a lot of stuff I don't.
somebody could easily interprit that as 'I can't get away, i'm scared, I think I'll draw my gun and kill him'.
I don't think that is an easy interpretation at all, particularly in light of the rest of the article.
The writer mentions you give no warnings, and that you don't use your gun for anything but to defend your own life, this is what I have a problem with.
I think you are reading a lot of stuff into it that is not there. Just my $.02.

springmom
July 14, 2006, 04:10 PM
Granted that I don't agree with everything the author says (since when should women use ugly fanny packs??? and I carry with one in the chamber) it is a pretty basic FAQ kind of overview of carrying a weapon. Seems pretty conservative.

I actually thought the comments made about mugging were problematic because they were possibly too conservative. A situation can go from "give me your money" to "give me your life" awfully fast and I would worry that by the time the author had determined his/her life to be in danger, they'd already be dead :rolleyes:

Also, in Texas, there are other times that it is allowed to use deadly force. Laws vary from state to state, and I think that probably should have been more emphasized.

So what exactly are you so upset about in this article?

Springmom

M1911
July 14, 2006, 04:16 PM
Regardless of what the locals laws are, to do such a thing is malicious. Huh? To do what thing? Please quote exactly from the article, because I cannot understand what it is that you are saying is wrong.

Are you saying that it is illegal to fire without giving a verbal warning first? There is nothing that I know of in self defense law that requires a verbal warning. There are situations where it would make sense to give a warning and there are situations where it does not.

M1911
July 14, 2006, 04:20 PM
You would not draw a gun if somebody was trying to take your wallet, really? Why carry a gun then, if you are not going to use it as a crime Deterrent.That all depends upon the circumstances, doesn't it? For example, if someone walks up to me without any visible weapon and without making a threatening gesture and tells me to give them my wallet, I'm not going to draw on them. I'm also not going to give them my wallet.

If they already have a gun drawn and pointed at me when they demand my wallet, I choose not to draw -- that's a good way to die.

I agree with David Armstrong that I do not carry a gun to deter crime. I carry a gun to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones.

M1911
July 14, 2006, 04:24 PM
Lets say a woman or somebody easily frightened was reading the article and took the advice given, he is very vague when saying 'If there is nothing that you can do to escape without making your position more desparate', somebody could easily interprit that as 'I can't get away, i'm scared, I think I'll draw my gun and kill the threat'.Actually, I think he's basically following the legal standard, and your post is missing vital points about the duty to retreat.

In most states (not all, but most), if you are in a confrontation outside of your home, you must retreat if it is safe to do so. That's the point that the article is making. You must try to retreat, but not if doing so will put you in further jeopardy. In your home, you have no duty to retreat.

As for when you can use deadly force, in most states, deadly force is justified only if you (or another innocent) is in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. The legal yardstick used to determine this is whether a reasonable man, knowing what you knew at the time, would believe himself to be in danger of death or grave bodily injury. I see nothing in the article above that is inconsistent with that legal standard.

PinnedAndRecessed
July 14, 2006, 04:47 PM
Has anyone ever run into a firearms instructor who actually says things like this?

My guy said you had to have been knocked to the ground and were being kicked repeatedly before you had a legal right to draw your weapon.

He also said that Smith and Wesson had a "smart" gun on the market and that Ruger was about to market theirs.

He also said that a bullet shot into the air will descend with the same velocity as it ascended.

Capt Charlie
July 14, 2006, 04:59 PM
He also said that a bullet shot into the air will descend with the same velocity as it ascended
Sounds like he has a different interpretation of "terminal" velocity than I do ;) .

Erik
July 14, 2006, 05:33 PM
I know it's written by some nobody who probably doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but..."

Actually it appears to be written by some one offering sound, generic advice (with the except for carrying a partially loaded pistol) to the gun carrying public.

As already noted know your local laws.

Sum1_Special
July 14, 2006, 05:41 PM
That all depends upon the circumstances, doesn't it? For example, if someone walks up to me without any visible weapon and without making a threatening gesture and tells me to give them my wallet, I'm not going to draw on them. I'm also not going to give them my wallet.

If they already have a gun drawn and pointed at me when they demand my wallet, I choose not to draw -- that's a good way to die.

I agree with David Armstrong that I do not carry a gun to deter crime. I carry a gun to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones.

Maybe you folks just don't understand what i'm mad about, or maybe I just don't understand the article.

What I am saying is I think the method of drawing a gun only when you are ready to fire is flawed and immoral. Why? Because you are surprising the BG with your gun and before he has time to react and get the hell out of there, you fire.

Last year I was mugged in a parking garage, I was carrying a 22 pistol. The robber had a knife, he was about 4-5 feet away and I reached for my wallet but pulled out the pistol from my back pocket, pointed it at him, and yelled. He ran. confrontation defused, no police, no problems.

Lets say I would have instead refused to give him my money, and he came to get it, grabbing me in some fashion. To many people this would be considered a 'life or death situation'(Hey, he had a knife) and I immediately grab my gun and fire all 7 rounds. Maybe i'm missing something, but that is exactly what the article is saying, give no warnings, draw and fire when you have to. At least, that's what it's saying to the average joe reading it. Now you have a dead, bleeding man laying in front of you. You must now explain to the police what happened, witnesses must explain what happened, you must go to court and tell them you did not warn the attacker you had a gun before you fired, and if somehow the judge rules Unnesessary force or whatever, you must serve your time, become a criminal yourself and end up with this on your conscience for the rest of your life. Hell, what about the muggers family? They'd sue you for everything you've got. I'm glad I did what I did and did not follow some idiotic article about self defense on the internet.

Or am I wrong? What possible justification could you have for the method mentioned above.

Secondly, maybe it's just me, but I don't carry a gun just for my protection. I want to protect the lives of myself and my fellow human beings. If I see a mugging, robbery, or rape in progress, I will try everything I can to help stop this crime. I'm not just worried about myself. How could you say you wouldn't do the same?

Erik
July 14, 2006, 05:45 PM
"First of all. Regardless of what the locals laws are, to do such a thing is malicious." I have a problem with the advise to disregard the law. What is or isn't malicious may not be defined, but the law goes a long way toward settling the matter - which is why it is important to know the local laws.

"You can diffuse many situations by simply drawing your gun and giving a warning." You've just described brandishing in many (most?) locals. An option for some? Sure. Again, know your laws. It also depends on who you're talking about- my granny or me? It matters. It is decidedly not "good generic internet advice."

"Notice police don't immediately draw there guns and fire when they are in trouble." The general public is best advised not to model themselves off of police or military tactics.

"You would not draw a gun if somebody was trying to take your wallet, really?" Really, really. Actually, it all depends on how they are trying to take it. The BG's actions to take my wallet would dictate my response.

"Why carry a gun then, if you are not going to use it as a crime Deterrent." To protect myself and others from serious bodily injury and death per my local laws. I do not carry as a crime deterent, though I acknowledge that it may be a crime deterent after the fact.

"The writer mentions you give no warnings, and that you don't use your gun for anything but to defend your own life, Nobody else sees a problem with this?" Nope, though in my local others are included. It is sound advice.

I'm not trying to nit-pick, but the average reader (this is the net, after all) has to know the law, understand it in context, and be prepared to act within it.

Best - Erik

Bender711
July 14, 2006, 05:58 PM
The only thing that I didnt like was carrying on an empty chamber.

Sum1_Special
July 14, 2006, 07:14 PM
"First of all. Regardless of what the locals laws are, to do such a thing is malicious." I have a problem with the advise to disregard the law. What is or isn't malicious may not be defined, but the law goes a long way toward settling the matter - which is why it is important to know the local laws.

The Castle Doctrine law, I don't have a problem with it, it's the same in my state. However, I have a problem with folks getting a little trigger happy with they're weapons.

"You can diffuse many situations by simply drawing your gun and giving a warning." You've just described brandishing in many (most?) locals. An option for some? Sure. Again, know your laws. It also depends on who you're talking about- my granny or me? It matters. It is decidedly not "good generic internet advice."

Really? 'Generic internet advice'? Where did you get this? It is actually common sense. A gun is a scary thing, regardless of who's behind the trigger. I know this from first hand experience. Thinking that a woman behind the trigger is less intimidating and less dangerous to a criminal than a big guy is 'generic internet advice'. And no, drawing your weapon and giving a warning is not against the law, however, drawing a gun and immediately blasting away may very well be.

"Notice police don't immediately draw there guns and fire when they are in trouble." The general public is best advised not to model themselves off of police or military tactics.

Your right, the police and military know nothing about defensive tactics. We're better off making our own.

"You would not draw a gun if somebody was trying to take your wallet, really?" Really, really. Actually, it all depends on how they are trying to take it. The BG's actions to take my wallet would dictate my response.

No kidding, but according to the article you should NEVER draw your weapon on a mugger, you should instead wait until he does something that threatens your life and then you kill him.

"Why carry a gun then, if you are not going to use it as a crime Deterrent." To protect myself and others from serious bodily injury and death per my local laws. I do not carry as a crime deterent, though I acknowledge that it may be a crime deterent after the fact.

Well, I also carry it for that reason, however, you are not protecting anybody from bodily harm if you use such a method for self defense, you are causing bodily harm. More specifically, death, you don't sound to be any better than the criminal.

"The writer mentions you give no warnings, and that you don't use your gun for anything but to defend your own life, Nobody else sees a problem with this?" Nope, though in my local others are included. It is sound advice.

I'm sure your local police and jury won't feel the same way when they convict you with murder after your wife called a repairman and you end up shooting him due to a misunderstanding.

I'm not trying to nit-pick, but the average reader (this is the net, after all) has to know the law, understand it in context, and be prepared to act within it.

Yes, however, good luck convincing the jury the man was going to do you harm, when he was reaching for your wallet and ended up with a mag full of bullets without warning. This is a very stupid method of self defense, don't agree? Then explain why it is better to draw and fire in one motion, instead of drawing and warning the criminal to stop and then firing if he continues. What if the confrontation escalates and he draws his gun before you are 'ready'?

Edit: I read this thread again. I think when I started this I was very vague about what bothered me, and that's fine. But around 95% of acts of self defense involving a gun ends with nobody firing a shot, the presence of a gun is usually good enough to diffuse the situation, same happened to me. But if you actually think it is better to draw and fire without warning the attacker, you're cold blooded, as bad, or worse, than a criminal. I think some of you guys should rethink your strategies.

Skyguy
July 15, 2006, 12:06 AM
Sum1
What I am saying is I think the method of drawing a gun only when you are ready to fire is flawed and immoral.
....and stupid!

Cops routinely draw on subjects when they anticipate serious danger.

Most instructors teach 'never draw unless you intend to shoot'. Of course, that's ridiculous in the real world and they only say that to cover their butt from lawsuits.
Think they'd follow their own advice? :)

There are a ton of scenarios that can go either way, but I say err on the side of common sense and survival. Use the early draw.
.

skeeter1
July 15, 2006, 01:07 AM
I very rarely carry (no, I don't have a CCL), but I did when I was backpacking. Break into my house, however, and all the rules change. I still think the .38 Spl +Ps would do the job. The .357 Magnum rifle would probably do number on someone. The 12-gauge with 000 Magnum buck or rifled slugs would probably be considered one-shot stoppers.

riverrat66
July 15, 2006, 01:46 AM
Last year I was mugged in a parking garage, I was carrying a 22 pistol. The robber had a knife, he was about 4-5 feet away and I reached for my wallet but pulled out the pistol from my back pocket, pointed it at him, and yelled. He ran. confrontation defused, no police, no problems.
I think you're very fortunate that it turned out the way it did and you didn't get stabbed or worse yet killed. I can't help but think there is some sort of reluctance on your part to use your firearm for other then scaring people.
What I am saying is I think the method of drawing a gun only when you are ready to fire is flawed and immoral. Why? Because you are surprising the BG with your gun and before he has time to react and get the hell out of there, you fire.If someone pulls a knife on me or threatens me with deadly physical harm I have absolutely no obligation to warn them that I'm going to defend myself. I'm not worried about convincing a jury or the BG's family, I'm worried about protecting me and my family from deadly physical harm period! If I hesitate for that split second it might get me killed. If one waves their firearm around just to scare someone without the mind set to actually use it the only thing that's going to happen is they're going to have their weapon taken away from them and probably used against them.

If there is time for gun waving and scare tactics then there should be time for a hasty retreat. This is no time for the macho Rambo crap.

Just my 2 cents...

riverrat66...out

Sum1_Special
July 15, 2006, 02:16 AM
I was ready to shoot if the man needed shooting. If he advanced or did something stupid I would have shot him without hesitation. He didn't, and I was very confident he wouldn't. You should damn well worry about how your actions will effect you later. I might be in prison right now, away from my family, if I followed such a stupid rule as that mentioned in the article.

You have every right to be worried about what happens to you or your family. However, you must use the most important tool you have in such a situation, your good judgment and common sense. If you were in my shoes, you sure as hell wouldn't have waiting for an exuse to kill him, you would have pulled your gun and yelled at the top of your lungs like I did.

This is not a rambo tactic, waiting for your opponent to make a move is a rambo tactic. Once you have assessed the situation and are sure this man means to do you harm and isn't just supicious looking(as in hearing him say 'give me your money' or doing something so you're sure of his intent), you draw your weapon and command your attacker to Freeze, drop his weapon, put his hands on his head, or whatever. waiting until he puts his hands on you or draws his weapon first could be a deadly mistake. It is a stupid tactic in so many ways, that you can't possibly justify it's use. Nobody has given me a good reason on why to use this strategy, and there is a whole 5 page thread discussing how outrageous and idiotic it is. (found here: it's a good thread on what other folks say about it: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210263 )

I wonder who the hell thought of this, and why so many of you folks advocate it? Police don't use it, military doesn't use it... Only fools use it. I realize it is sometimes impossible to draw your weapon and warn first, especially if this man is on some sort of drug and is already on top of you trying to kill you. However, I have never heard of a self defense situation where the victim didn't have a chance to draw, and if you've already determined the threat, why wouldn't you?

You know what I think, I think you folks got hard heads, you don't want to change what has already been taught to you. I have nearly lost faith in humanity because of some of the responses in this thread.

Powderman
July 15, 2006, 04:12 AM
I wonder who the hell thought of this, and why so many of you folks advocate it? Police don't use it, military doesn't use it... Only fools use it. I realize it is sometimes impossible to draw your weapon and warn first, especially if this man is on some sort of drug and is already on top of you trying to kill you. However, I have never heard of a self defense situation where the victim didn't have a chance to draw, and if you've already determined the threat, why wouldn't you

Fella, I believe your heart's in the right place--but here's the real deal....

First of all, you do not draw your weapon to warn. You should only come out with the smokepole when you are in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

Drawing the firearm itself is considered a use of deadly force. Please remember that.

Moreover, please be aware that some muggers/robbers/rapists/fill in the blank can and will mount an attack so violent and savage that you literally do NOT have time to draw your weapon, much less formulate a plan.

And, why do we, as cops, draw our firearms? Simple. It is because a situation exists that can turn deadly in a heartbeat. If you wait until the threat manifests itself into something visible and tangible to have your gun in your hand, you are already behind the power curve, and risk leaving the scene on a stretcher.

So, how is it prevented? First, stay in Condition Orange. Be aware of your surroundings and the things that are happening around you.

Do NOT go into areas where confrontation is likely. Sure, you have a Constitutional right to go where you want, for the most part; however, only a fool will walk in a city park at night if they know that thugs have been using that park as their hunting grounds.

If a situation arises where deadly force can be directed against you, you should have your weapon in hand, fully loaded, and you should be focused on the threat and your surroundings. Be prepared to shoot INSTANTLY, and without warning if need be; but, be just as prepared to reholster your gun without incident. Use your own good judgement.

Double Naught Spy
July 15, 2006, 07:26 AM
Sum1 Special,
I find it overly convenient that you have opted to cite text from another source without citing some critical information that immediately preceded it. Quoting from the same original source in the same section and citing lines just preceding the ones you cited...

V.D.1.d.: When to draw or shoot?
Three conditions have to met before you can even consider drawing your pistol:

somebody has the *intent* of killing or severely hurting you
they have the *means* of doing so (a knife, pistol, shotgun, their hands, etc.)
they have the immediate *opportunity* to do so

Then when countered by Armstrong, you came up with the lame scenario that you called murder,

Lets say a drunk stumbles out of a bar and bumps into you. He gets angry and starts yelling at you, you do nothing, he pushes you and threatens you with violence, you 'fear for your life' draw your gun and empty the magazine into him...

This scenario does NOT match the criteria cited in the article for using lethal force. Your example constituted simple assault maybe, which is a use of force, but not a use of force that indicates the need for the use of lethal force. The drunk had NOT demonstrated the ability to kill you and so you should not have emptied your gun into him.

The article had some shortcomings, such as noted by Charles S, but the suggestion to use lethal force to the fullest extent to assure one's own safety when your life is intentionally being endangered by another who has the intent, opportunity, and ability to kill you is solid logic. Sure, if you want to draw to draw on somebody who already has those three criteria met and THEN verbrally challenge that person, that is your call, although from the overly simplified description, it would appear to be a very tactically stupid call to make.

You are right, cops don't draw their guns at the first sign of minor trouble, sum as being pushed by a drunk, but they do at the first sign if potential lethal force conflict where the opposition meets those criteria IF drawing is the best alternative they have at that time. Then again, most cops I know where ballistic vests, carry a myriad of weapons, can call OFFICER NEEDS HELP and have multiple responders on scene within seconds whereas calling 911 might take minutes or 10s of minutes for a non-LEO to summon help. No sir, what officers do or do not do is NOT a direct comparison with what non-LEOs should do in many cases because us non-LEOs don't have the same situation and support base as LEOs.

A couple of years ago in Dallas, the most highly critical 911 calls, such as a person was being attacked, still took 6-8 minutes for Dallas LEOs to make it on scene on average and that was the best it had been in years and they were proud of the improvement. Some cities were in double digits.

No sir, you don't have the same support structure as the cops and using the cops as a model on how to respond to a lethal force confrontation without that same support structure, training, and gear is exceedingly naive.

Mark54g
July 15, 2006, 09:23 AM
Just an FYI,

NJ does NOT ban the owning of hollowpoints. It does not ban the possession of hollowpoints. NJ bans the carrying of hollowpoints in firearms used for protection when they are not carried on the "real property" (as in, your car does not count, your house does) or your place of business. You can also carry and use hollowpoints for sporting events and training. This means if you hunt with a hollowpoint, you are fine. If you use hollowpoints at the range to practice, all is good. If you have a handgun on your nightstand with a mag full of hollowpoints, also, fine.

Now, for the issue that Sum1 had:
Sometimes you have no time for a warning. Some may even say if you had time for a warning, you had time to run away. It is a grey area and one that it is easy to second guess when you are not the one involved.

However, if you are being mugged, I would assume harm could possbily follow. I don't need a visible weapon, especially when there is a disparity of force involved. Fists can kill. The human body is a weapon, and this is especially moreso when the person is much bigger than you, or has some of his buddies along for the ride. If I could carry and I saw 3 guys trying to surround me, I am assuming the worst and will draw. If the motion of the unholstering is not enough "warning" then the sound of the report will likely do the rest for me.

However, the above is purely academic. I cannot carry where I am. I don't have a holster, but it is how I believe I would behave when confronted with a similar situation. As others have said, you have to do what you believe is right in accordance with your survival instincts, training and the laws where you live.

Love&Hate12
July 15, 2006, 10:10 AM
I would not give over my wallet. ID with my address, credit cards, other things that lead back to me. I would not shoot someone over a wallet but I would say no if the perp demanded the wallet and try to get away from the area he occupies quickly, if he makes any further move to try to forcefully get it and hurt me in the process I will draw on him and fire.

Don't hand over your wallet and belongings to a bottom feeder, try to get away from him before doing that, if the person persists after you have tried to get away and is now being forceful or violent, you have the right to draw and stop him. To me it is kind of a purpose served, if I just hand it over to him then that gives him or her a new confidence and he will go and try to take others things by force as well.

A lot of people say that it's better a dead criminal than one who will shack up in our expensive prison system that wastes both tax dollars and resources, then get out and go repeat the same thing over and over again.

But stay legal, don't fire until it becomes a threat to your body but also don't submit to the BG either because you do have the means to stop the BG if necessary.

Alx
July 15, 2006, 10:43 AM
Have to agree with Sum1 .... I have a CCP and was trained to not warn first, at a short course, but it makes no sense to only have the option of drawing when it is too late . The instructor stated if you are convinced that you or your family's life is threatened, shoot to neutralize that threat...
If the BG has already attacked you, you may not have the ability to draw.... If he hasn't attacked you (yet?) you can't assume he will, to the extent of shooting him. It surely would be best to draw your weapon and have it ready, let the BG know you can shoot him immediately, and let him make the next move.
IF he has a gun out and pointed at you already, its a moot point,.... don't draw unless you are a "faster" cowboy, or are convinced that he will shoot you anyway, robbery or not.
If he has a knife or something that needs close use, you have the time to make that decision. So will he.
If you shoot someone and he keeps coming with a knife, shoot him some more.
Note that a accurately-adjusted laser-sighted gun, (LaserGrips work best IMHO) , will allow an accurate aim from a close in gun position, allow you to have the offside arm for added defense of yourself and the gun, give a visible (most of the time ) sign that the gun is pointed at the BG, and will hit accurately . You won't be caught arms extended with the gun out where it could be deflected, and you won't be as likely to force the BG to try to react violently to your counter-threat to him, especially if he starts to fear for his own life.

Big Mac
July 15, 2006, 11:10 AM
I think the drawing and chambering is actually from the Israeli Shooting Method. I have a video from AGI that teaches this technique. It's really stupid. You are supposed to sweep with your weaker arm to move anything in front of you and draw, while chambering a round. Not to mention it specifically says NOT to aim while blasting away.

I think this advice is alright at best and rather stupid at worst. A few good points are how it shows restraint. You don't shoot people who have stolen from you, that's murder/manslaughter. You don't pull it out for someone kicking your car in the parking lot. You call the police and if they charge you, then you draw your weapon to keep them back.

Body armor doesn't make someone invincible and after a few shots it tends to lose its bullet resistant quality. And if you have enough time to decide to shoot someone in the head or pelvis AFTER you've realized you're missing (because you suck and didn't train long enough with your weapon) that's not self-defense, you're pre-meditating on murder. Either one will kill someone. The head for obvious reasons, and the pelvis is a dangerous spot to get shot in. A lot of blood vessels and sensitive organs are housed there. Shooting someone there is like shooting them in the gut.

This advice isn't entirely bad but most of it is dreck, pure and simple.

Charles S
July 15, 2006, 12:07 PM
I am not an expert, but I have taken some handgun, shotgun, and rifle shooting course.

I think the drawing and chambering is actually from the Israeli Shooting Method. I have a video from AGI that teaches this technique. It's really stupid.

Not everyone thinks it is stupid.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215241

I however agree that condition 3 is not for me.

ody armor doesn't make someone invincible and after a few shots it tends to lose its bullet resistant quality. And if you have enough time to decide to shoot someone in the head or pelvis AFTER you've realized you're missing (because you suck and didn't train long enough with your weapon) that's not self-defense, you're pre-meditating on murder. Either one will kill someone.

I disagree. A good training course will teach you to shoot com and if after two or more shots with no response re-formulate your plan. This can become second nature.

Clint smith has a training scenario in which a 3 dimensional target is charging you. The target is held up with a balloon or two located in the head, com, or pelvis. Shooting center of mass does not guarantee a stop.

http://www.actiontarget.com/_sport/sport_targets/the_3d_target.html

You must quickly evaluate and change your point of aim. A center of mass does not guarantee a stop that is why the Mozambique was developed.

Either one will kill someone.

It will increase the odds of that happening. With a handgun it is still not a certainty.

pelvis is a dangerous spot to get shot in. A lot of blood vessels and sensitive organs are housed there. Shooting someone there is like shooting them in the gut.


IMHO much worse than a gut shot.

Charles

Sum1_Special
July 15, 2006, 03:58 PM
I am not advocating drawing a weapon at the first sign of danger. Nor am I saying that if absolutely necessary you should not immediately draw your gun and fire. All I am saying is use your common judgement, certainly nobody can disagree with me on that. The article does not say this. To somebody who knows at least a little about about self defense, you can see some of the flaws in the article, however, to somebody who just bought a gun and is looking about information on how to use it in an emergency, it is, in my opinion, a bad thing to read and follow. Sure everybody needs training from a licensed instructor, but lets face it, how many gun owners actually go to one? To the average joe the article mentions 3 things that defines deadly force. About the 'lame' scenario I mentioned earlier, in some cases a drunk man grabbing you by the collar can scare the living crap out of you, and could very well be considered deadly force by the man being grabbed, regardless if it is considered 'assault' or whatever by the law. If he follows what he has read, tried to get away and cannot. Then he might draw and fire, wouldn't he? Of course, he might draw, attempt to warn, and then fire. However, there might be a good chance the drunk guy would let go if the victim franticly pulls a gun out and screams.

All I am saying is use your common sense. The article does not advise this, the article states you should draw your gun and immediately fire without issuing no warnings. It does not state 'use your own judgement and fire if you must', or 'just because you draw you are not obligated to fire' it says bluntly, 'Do not draw unless you will fire'.

If there is nothing that you can do to escape without making your position more desparate, in one smooth motion you draw your pistol, rack the slide while bringing it up to eye level, and shoot until you stop the person. Shoot for the center of the torso. Do not issue any warnings; you should not be shooting unless the situation is very grave, and there is nothing more that you can do for them.

You are telling me you folks agree with this?

Because if I interpreted it that way, than many people probably interpreted it that way.

Edit: It's pretty much saying, 'draw and fire at the last second'. In the scenario the quote mentioned, it sounds like you have time to determine whether or not you could get away, and if not, you draw your gun and fire. If you have time to draw the gun and rack the slide, why wouldn't you have time to yell 'Freeze!' before you fired? Certainly there is a good chance it would have a good effect on the attacker and he will stop, and if not, then fire.

Sum1_Special
July 15, 2006, 04:29 PM
If a situation arises where deadly force can be directed against you, you should have your weapon in hand, fully loaded, and you should be focused on the threat and your surroundings. Be prepared to shoot INSTANTLY, and without warning if need be; but, be just as prepared to reholster your gun without incident. Use your own good judgement.

Have I not been saying that all along? I agree 110% with what you are saying, however, the article doesn't. And it sounds like many people who have responded to this thread do not either. And that is what I have a problem with.

CajunBass
July 15, 2006, 07:23 PM
Because you are surprising the BG with your gun and before he has time to react and get the hell out of there, you fire.

I don't know about you, but frankly I would prefer the BG be suprised if I have to pull steel on him.

Silly me. All this time I thought that was the idea of carrying concealed. :confused:

foodchainking
July 15, 2006, 07:45 PM
Drawing the firearm itself is considered a use of deadly force

That simply defies any legal logic and would require a specific statute to be public policy in any state. If you know differently, please explain.

U.S.SFC_RET
July 15, 2006, 08:22 PM
You can pick apart this article and cut it's throat 75 different ways but let's face it. Take the positive out of it and leave the negatve. This is the internet to include this thread.

riverrat66
July 15, 2006, 08:58 PM
Sum1,
I can understand what your thoughts are. When a person decides to carry a concealed weapon for protection they take on a huge responsibility. Not just that of carrying a firearm but the consequences of using that firearm. Will you actually be able to do it? How will you react afterward? Are you prepared for the legal repercussions? There are a host of questions that should be dealt with before one even straps on that firearm.

Many people think because they begin "carrying" they can venture into the worst part of town or areas they would not normally go. They become extra brave and invincible. There are lots of people around, some on this board who seem very anxious to shoot someone just to prove their manhood.

There have been many accounts of people, even LEO's who were unable to fire on someone when the chips were down. This thread is about "The Moment of Truth" http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198827AlsoThere is a hugh difference between carrying a firearm and being prepared to use it. Also there are many cases of officers who were unable to return to work as a result of shooting someone. Read this thread about "After the Gunfight" http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203849

It's a proven fact that a man with a knife can cover 21ft in 3 seconds, less time then it takes to draw your weapon and fire! That means there is no time for warnings, racking a round into the chamber or anything else. One will be lucky to get off one shot before getting cut or stabbed. That's why training is so important. Being a good shot is not enough. You need to know how to react and move accordingly.

Read the two threads to which I have provided the links for. They are old but provide some very good information concerning concealed carry and possessing the correct "mindset" that could save your life someday.

riverrat66...out

marlboroman84
July 15, 2006, 09:49 PM
Sum,
It sounds to me from reading your original post and your replies you have a very serious issue with the thought of killing someone. For you to err more on the side of caution is fine, but I think your views and what you seem to take from this article are a little skewed. You seem to advocate warning the CRIMINAL before you shoot. Why? If they have put you in a situation where it is justifiable to shoot, blast them. Understandably most people don't want someone's death on their conscience or the thought of losing everything they own because they get sued, but it's something we all accept as handgun permit holders. For me personally the only fault I had with the article is the same as most others here, I carry with one in the chamber. It was maybe a little poorly worded, but I don't think there is anything there that would get you arrested because it's bad advice. If anything because of what you prefer to do you may end up trying to skirt a brandishing charge should you try to "warn" the wrong person. Take this how you will, but you have 2 pages of replies where at this point I've only seen one person that agrees with you. I'm not saying the mass group is right and you're wrong, but you may want to re-examine why it is you are so angry over this article and to me it also sounds like you need to re-evaluate if you are ready to take a life if needed.

Big Mac
July 15, 2006, 10:36 PM
Charles,

You bring up good points. However I cannot accept the Israeli Method as being a legit technique. The technique I've witnessed on the video is unrealistic. Shoving something out of your way, then drawing a weapon and chambering a round while you are being attacked is nearly physically impossible without immense training. Even then I think it'd be so-so at best. Not to mention the technique I've seen doesn't teach aiming, just spray and pray with a pistol. That's rather irresponsible and dangerous for by-standers. Not to mention your defense in court will sound hilarious. "I just chambered a round and blasted away at my attacker. Who needs to aim?"

You're right, shooting someone in the pelvish is worse than a gut shot.

Charles S
July 15, 2006, 10:51 PM
Big Mac,

I agree. I feel that the Israeli Method was designed by people who were afraid of others carrying with a round in the chamber.

I think it is foolish to carry in condition 3. I posted the link to show that there are others that feel it is a valid way to carry a gun.

I have taken several classes, none of the instructors belived condition 3 to be prudent.

I personally like cocked and locked, but I am also happy with other modes of carry as long as there is a round in the chamber.

Charles

Sum1_Special
July 15, 2006, 11:16 PM
marlboroman84, despite all the rantings in this thread, nobody has actually explained to me why I am wrong. I don't think I am wrong and neither does the 5 page discussion found near the top of 'tactics and training'. I don't know if you people are misunderstanding me or what.

I don't want to kill any man, criminal or not, I don't think anybody sane really does. However, I think if you carry that you should be able to do it if necessary. Maybe you should re-read my last 2 posts and try to figure out what I am trying to say. Whenever possible, you should warn the attacker before you fire, what do I mean by warn? A simple 'Freeze!' is a warning. If you can draw your weapon, you can certainly yell that as you draw. If the attacker stops, you should not fire, if he continues you should fire.

Is that clear enough now? That is what I have been trying to say from the very beginning of this thread. Powderman, who is a LEO, is saying exactly what I am trying to say.

If you disagree with this, then explain why. If you agree, then say so.

Big Mac
July 16, 2006, 12:05 AM
Completely understood. Shooting someone in cold blood when you could de-escalate it peacefully (albeit with a loaded weapon helping secure the said resolution) makes you no better than the vermin attacking you. Yes, most criminals will not learn from their mistakes, but that doesn't give you a free ticket to blast away when there are alternatives to fighting.

Sum1 is right, no sane person would actually look forward to killing someone, criminal or not.


Charles, I guess it boils down to "to each their own", eh?

Sum1_Special
July 16, 2006, 12:13 AM
Thank god. :)

I am finally being understood. I have been frustrated all weekend because of this thread.

Does anyone else agree with what I have said above?

Big Mac
July 16, 2006, 12:27 AM
I sure hope so. One shoudl never attack in anger and rage. The Dark Side are these.....

Winston007
July 16, 2006, 06:53 AM
Sum1_Special Secondly, maybe it's just me, but I don't carry a gun just for my protection. I want to protect the lives of myself and my fellow human beings. If I see a mugging, robbery, or rape in progress, I will try everything I can to help stop this crime. I'm not just worried about myself. How could you say you wouldn't do the same?

Sir, unless you are a police officer you got no business protecting anyone other than yourself. Your attitude seems like a wonna-be and it is just the kind of person we don’t want carrying guns.
Did you report your little incident to the local police? I bet you did not or otherwise you would have been charged with a number of offences. Had you done the right thing you would have been able to report the incident and maybe have the person(s) arrested and hence offer some real protection to the community.

Sum1_Special You would not draw a gun if somebody was trying to take your wallet, really? Why carry a gun then, if you are not going to use it as a crime Deterrent.

Using a gun is your last option (the last resort), NOT your first option. It appears that you have the wrong idea altogether. It will not be long before you find out the hard way.

rezmedic54
July 16, 2006, 06:59 AM
This is always hard to explain to someone but I get it .Maybe a better way to say it will help you. The way I teach my CCW students is that when put into a situation that things happen quickly your mind is going a million miles an hours . Would you agree? The way to look at it is that a reasonable person put in the same situation would do the same thing. I agree nobody here wants to go shoot anybody or they would be doing it. I can tell you watch to much TV in 20 years of working side by side with LEO I never once heard one say freeze. Stop, Do Not Move, and many other ways of saying the same thing but never freeze. It boils down to this if you truly think about it when you carry a weapon you have decided if the need arises that you will take another human life to save you,yours or that of a third persons. If you can not take that life if need be then leave the gun home. It also comes to this when things are said and done you have to be able to articulate that you where in fear for your life or a loved one or that of a third party. when the weapon is on your side you are now in control of life or death period there is not in between. Hopefully we all practice for something we hope we never have to do if that makes sense. The best of luck to you and yours because like I said you need to decide which you will do run or fight you don't have the luxury to decide which one you will do when some dirt bag has the drop on you and your mind goes bye bye. Because it will and your subconscious will kick in ask anybody who has been in a life or death situation. Hopefully your training kicks in and you go home safe. Be Safe Out There Kurt

Bud Helms
July 16, 2006, 08:53 AM
I'm guilty of some "speed scanning" here and not reading in depth, so if someone has come out and actually said this, then just give me one of those :p smileys.

I agree that a crime deterrent, generally speaking is not a good reason to carry. The crime deterrent aspect is a byproduct, as has been mentioned.

I think powderman may have come the closest to saying what I expected to see in this thread. That would be to present your weapon only when you feel the threat is unavoidable and meets all the other legal and moral criteria of doing so, but before firing, if possible, give one last warning before committing an act you may cannot undo. I say, give the goblin one last moment to save his own existence, or any way you choose to phrase it. There is also the evidence that was mentioned concerning how many goblin-related events are stopped each day merely by letting the goblinperp know that the victim is armed. The citizen shooter will have the question asked of him or her, "Did you give the person any kind of warning?" I want to be able to say "Yes" with a clear conscience. I would always try to find an opportunity to not shoot. You don't get a do over.

General Comment: Something I notice in these tactics and training threads is how the discussions of scenarios are approached. The technical details of each and every move you make and when you make it goes for pages. 1st step, 2nd step, 3rd step, etc. Now, I'm all for being prepared mentally, in fact I believe it is a survival requirement. Mindset can overcome every obstacle, even equipment failure. But there are only a couple of rules for survival. Be aware. Be prepared. Don't give up. Somewhere in there is a "go" button. My point is that all these "steps" must to be put together in a continuum that is situation driven. So we need to be flexible because you won't have time to get your checklist out once it's on. I know that training is built on "steps" and "building blocks", but it's necessary to make the transition to that flexible, responsible, continuum of action before we start carrying a firearm in public. I think that is best done with expert training. Exactly when you make that irreversible move to commit needs to be based on your developed sense whether you can live with the results of your actions and your knowledge of you. This too-long post assumes a working knowledge of your state and local laws. I could be preaching to the choir here.

riverrat66
July 16, 2006, 09:58 AM
I could be preaching to the choir here.
Indeed I think you are. Crime deterrent is absolutely the worst reason I can think of for carrying a firearm. In fact, in New York State it is illegal to "show" someone your firearm for the purpose of scaring them. That's called brandishing and can get YOU arrested.

Training and preparation are very important but when the SHTF one must act on instinct. Generally speaking, there is no time to "think" about what to do next. If you need to think about what to do then it's probably too late. When one is involved in a shooting they are hard pressed to recall the events not only because of the stress involved but because it's usually over in a split second. There could be 10 witness' and all would likely have a different view of what happened.

Like I said earlier, it's all about mindset and how that individual will react when the time comes and no one knows until that moment arrives. To me that's a very personal decision.

riverrat66...out

revjen45
July 16, 2006, 12:38 PM
The sight of the muzzle should be plenty of warning. If the situation has become so desperate that I have presented there's no time for talk. I have a hard time doing 2 things at once. If it's time to shoot all my attention is going to be devoted to assessing the situation and hitting the target. I don't want to be thinking about what to say. Due to age and orthopedic injuries flight is not an option. If the low life sub-human who is menacing me decides to leave when I present I will not shoot, but if he continues the attack I will shoot to slide lock (followed by reload) or until he falls down, whichever occurs first. I carry to protect my life and my wife's. The general public can either pack or depend on the police. I have no intention of pounding my life savings down the rat hole on lawyers for some sheep who doesn't care enough about his/her own well being to defend it.

Desertscout1
July 16, 2006, 12:48 PM
I haven't read all of this thread but it seems like most think like I do. I see nothing wrong with what the author wrote excet that I would not carry an empty chamber.

About warnings...
If the attack is imminent but not actually in progress, a warning may be justified and logical.
If thye attack IS in progress, as in "immediate", one should present to CoM and stop the threat.

We teach very much the same thing here but are not quite as conservative.

Capt Charlie
July 16, 2006, 12:49 PM
There have been several threads addressing this in the past, and this one seems no different. Folks seem strongly polarized in their opinions, with few wavering from their beliefs.

One thing few seem to consider is the fluidity and difference in circumstances of each and every situation. Anytime we consider a scenario here, it must, by nature, be static. By that, I mean that we make the surrounding environment stand still, and we force the actors into pre-established roles and actions, so that we can dissect the results and state our responses. It can't be helped.

Consider watching a movie. The scene will play out as it will; you can't change it by your actions.

Real life situations, however, are dynamic, ever changing. Second by second things change; environment, lighting, cover, actions of non-combatants, and of course, both the actions of the BG's and you. No two situations are the same.

Along with a win-at-all-costs attitude, the most important factor in being able to survive an armed encounter is the ability to quickly analyze both your surrounding environment and the actions of your assailant(s), and then re-analyze, second by second, and react accordingly. This is true, situational awareness.

We must never plan our responses in such a way that they can't be changed in a split second. This includes drawing a weapon up to the point of firing. At the point you've made the decision to draw, the circumstances have dictated that it's necessary to deploy deadly force, and you are in the mindset to fire. A split second later, the circumstances may change (BG drops his weapon, etc.) and you have to be able to analyze the change, and change your actions accordingly. In this case, it means de-escalating your response from firing to a point/aim and verbal commands only. This is expected of law enforcement officers, and is the primary reason we are trained in shoot / don't shoot scenarios. It's also expected of armed citizens.

To say that, once you draw, you must shoot, is locking yourself into a static mindset. Not only can that place you in a legal and moral dilemma, it can also reduce your ability to survive by reducing your ability to adapt.

Train, and train hard, but never train so that your actions become mechanical only. Self defense is a thinking man's game ;) .

cgraham
July 16, 2006, 12:59 PM
I'd like to comment on Sum1's account, because it touches on several common issues that are frequently discussed here.

The Original Article cited: "Don't shoot to protect your wallet. Only shoot to protect yourself." (Agreed); AND "Do not issue any warnings; (Disagree) you should not be shooting unless the situation is very grave". Agree.


Sum1_Special: "Last year I was mugged in a parking garage, I was carrying a 22 pistol. The robber had a knife, he was about 4-5 feet away and I reached for my wallet but pulled out the pistol from my back pocket, pointed it at him, and yelled. He ran. confrontation defused, no police, no problems."


The citation says "don't SHOOT to protect your wallet. Only shoot to protect yourself". I agree. What was Sum doing? He was in fear of his life and preparing to defend himself. It has nothing to do with robbery deterrence; theft of the wallet was merely the perp's immediate motive.


I think Sum's situation was this: He was not immediately under attack, but was been threatened with attack; he cannot know if the threat will be followed through, so must prepare for it. The 3 criteria for self defense are met: Means, Opportunity and Intent (intent at least implied - "if you don't give me the wallet, I'll use the knife").

Sum was fortunate in that he was not immediately attacked, was able to draw and turn the tables. He clearly exercised self-control, and drew WITH THE INTENT OF SHOOTING IF NECESSARY. When the perp ran, the 3 criteria no longer held, and Sum was able to secure his weapon.

I do not believe this is a case of brandishing (drawing to threaten), it is a case of drawing for self protection in the face of imminent danger. There may be issues of jurisdiction as to whether he should draw or just hand over the wallet and hope the perp goes away, but usually an imminent threat with a deadly weapon is considered adequate reason for an armed response". Note I said "armed response", not "shoot". If the perp presses the attack, shoot; if he retreats, don't. One can't know what the perp might do if you offer no resistance. If he attacks you on presentation of your weapon, he almost certainly had further plans for you after taking the wallet. So to my mind, drawing for a defensive purpose is fully justified in this situation. Shooting is not, unless an attack is pressed.

Having read many of these scenarios, I have come to the conclusion that "If you draw, you must shoot" is quite incorrect; it should be "If you draw you must be PREPARED to shoot. I have read that over 95% of draws are resolved without an attack, because the BG backs down on his (presumably) lethal threat. If you have the time and opportunity to give a warning/command, I think it is wise to do so, not only to emphasize your command of the situation, but to show you made every effort to avoid a shoot, in case it comes to that.

If you can't get the drop on the perp as Sum did, it's altogether another ball game.

I think there are many instances where it would be wise to draw, sometimes descreetly, in order to ensure that the perp does not get the advantage over you.

I don't endorse the article particularly: it is a good starting point for leaning the business, but not the end.

I believe this incident SHOULD be reported to the police; I can't see how Sum did anything wrong. In fact, Sum, congratulations for handling it well! Again, wisdom of reporting might depend on the jurisdiction and unrelated circumstances. General Rule: call before someone else tries to put you in the wrong.

C

Skyguy
July 16, 2006, 01:54 PM
What the hell are they teaching here!?

It's not just there. Below is a direct quote from a fairly well known commercial trainer/instructor. It is very bad advice, yet some people believe it...and repeat it.

"My gun is not coming out unless it is with intent to pull the trigger on someone because thats what is necessary to stay above ground. I do not care to attempt to de-escalate anything when the gun needs to be used as a civilian as some intimidation mentality. That process can likely get one killed IMO.

There's a time for shooting and you get to shooting. I work from a defensive posture as a civilian, not an offensive position similiar to swat or in some instances line officers.

Having been trained in swat and swat commander while carrying a shield, I do know the difference between the two."
.

Sum1_Special
July 16, 2006, 03:16 PM
Man... I was alone for 2 pages, trying to understand why everyone was saying I was being unreasanable. I believe forums work in a certain way, the first few responses usually indicates where the thread is going. In this case, I am wrong, the next person agrees, 10 people follow, I explain a situation that happened to me last year, everybody tells me I am wrong again, even a Leo tells me I am wrong and yet explains exactly what I was trying to say. people are pretty much looking at me as if I am an idiot who should not be carrying a gun. Finally, somebody agrees with me, Captain Charlie chimes in, and now everybody is beginning to agree with me. Is it the hostile way I write my posts? :D Or is sense finally entering this thread? Don't mean to be rude, but I could not believe some of the things I was reading. I would think what I was trying to say was common knowledge and that people would be on my side... I guess not.

cgraham and Captain Charlie have it dead on.

1. I was afraid that if I did not give the man my money he would stab me to death, considering he was 5 feet away and was threatening just that. I did not call the police because I didn't think it was necessary. The mugger was long gone and I didn't want to explain all of this to a police officer. I just wanted to go home. Maybe I was wrong, but I didn't want to complicate things, all I remembered was the knife the guy was holding. If it was under different circumstances, I might have called the police.

2. I believe Captain Charlie is 100% correct. And if what he and powderman say is true then the article is undoubtedly wrong. And that goes for the rest of you who disagree.

Charles S
July 16, 2006, 03:56 PM
To say that, once you draw, you must shoot, is locking yourself into a static mindset. Not only can that place you in a legal and moral dilemma, it can also reduce your ability to survive by reducing your ability to adapt.

I agree 100%. However, to say I draw with the intent of shooting (my personal belief) is quite different. I will not issue a verbal warning (I am not a police officer and I do not feel that I am obligated to the attacker in any way form or manner), my only obligation is the protection of myself and my family. If a situation escalates to the point I am drawing my gun, it is my intent to fire at the time I draw. However, I have drawn my gun twice in my life and have yet to fire in self defense. How can that be you ask? To answer your question, there mugger in question, upon seeing my gun elected to cease his current actions and flee the scene. I felt no need to restrain him, I did call 911 and wait 30 minutes for an officer to arrive, at that point in time I called back and left my name and number so I could be contacted and left (let that be a lesson to those who think the police can be there to protect you). The second instance an individual felt the need to break in my house. I entered the room and the individual (with a screwdriver in hand) was entering the house. I managed to get a clear sight picture and the individual in question elected to leave.

If the individual in question had not stopped the actions that prompted me to draw my gun. I would have shot. There is no question in my mind. In neither instance did I yell "freeze," "stop, I'll shoot," ect. I would have shot without warning (other than the fact that I was drawing my firearm), I had the mindset and the ability.

I hope I am never again faced with the need to utilize a gun for self defense, but make no mistake about it, I am prepared to utilize deadly force to protect myself and my family.

I do encourage all of you to take a defensive handgun course. I highly recommend LFI. Ayoob's book, In the Gravest Extreme, the afore mentioned book On Killing, The Street Smart Gun Book Farnham, and No Second Place Winner, Jordan are all good starting points.

Again, there is no substitute for quality training.

Capt Charlie, is correct: One must be flexible in their tactics, situations are fluid and you must change to match the situation. After five years in full contact martial arts, I have realized It never works out in real life like you had previously planned for it to.

Good luck

Charles

Sum1_Special
July 16, 2006, 04:20 PM
The reason I say to warn first(as in yell 'Freeze!', 'Stop!', 'Don't move', or whatever) , and the reason I did yell 'Freeze!' is because the parking garage was dark, and I wanted to make 100% sure the attacker knew I had drawn my gun on him. If you are in a well lit area, and the attacker sees you draw your gun, you have obviously just warned the attacker. Therefore, I think Charles S did the right thing whether or not he yelled anything...

Just making things perfectly clear on my part. :)

Big Mac
July 17, 2006, 12:27 AM
Regarding the brandishing part. Yeah it MIGHT get you arrested but keep in mind, it takes 12 people to convict you. If you have a good enough lawyer, the case can get dismissed if you have a DAMN good reason for brandishing that weapon. Not that I am advocating whipping out Ol' Betsy when you get into a fender bender or someone gets in your face and talks some crap, but if you see a felony in progress, it is your duty to help prevent it within reasonable constraints.

kansas45
July 17, 2006, 01:10 AM
I believe the article give's a general view of good advice. Except for the condition of carry. Cocked & Locked is the only wayto do it. It may only save a split second, but that split second may save your life! It took me a little time to get used to it & I'm sure that if we all thought back to when we started we would find that it was a little scarry knowing we had a chambered round that was ready for action, but it soon became accepctable to us. A split second will win in any sport I can think of. You can win a car race by a split second. you can win a calf ropeing by a split second. You can save a life by a split second. Just use your head, size up the situation in a split second and act accordingly.;)
:) " May The Force Be With You!":) (or something).

revjen45
July 17, 2006, 11:14 AM
I respectfully disagree with post above stating that one has the duty to interfere with the commission of a felony. Legally the police have virtual immunity for whatever they do in the line of duty- a peon doesn't. The sentiment is noble, but the law is full of trickery and a vigilante (you know that's what the lying media will call you) can find himself spending all he has or will ever have on lawyers. Even if you do prevail in court and don't get sent to prison you won't have anything left when it's all over. After all, the purpose of the law is to create busy work for the legal industry. Ask yourself if you have a spare $50,000 and if it's worth spending it on this. If you want to help, be a good witness. Personally I would leave and hope not to become involved. The last thing I want to do is be standing there holding a hot smoking pistol when the police arrive.

NRAhab
July 17, 2006, 11:48 AM
Tuco:
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

I know that quoting a western may be not quite inbounds, but it makes a valid point. There are times when a warning could cost you your life. I agree wholeheartedly with Capt. Charlie in that a self defense situation is a dynamic environment. What holds true for one may not for the next, so sometimes a warning could be justified as well.

That being said, when it is time to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

Charles S
July 17, 2006, 03:49 PM
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

That is exactly what John Farnam teaches.

Charles

threegun
July 17, 2006, 05:13 PM
Sum,

What I am saying is I think the method of drawing a gun only when you are ready to fire is flawed and immoral. Why? Because you are surprising the BG with your gun and before he has time to react and get the hell out of there, you fire.

So I am immoral for not giving my potential murderer any extra time to kill me? Are you serious? "Time to react and get the hell out of there" they should have never put me or themselves in danger. Now I must decide to delay and possibly get cut/killed or fire instantly not giving the poor knife wielding bad guy a chance. I think I will error on the side of staying alive.

I was ready to shoot if the man needed shooting. If he advanced or did something stupid I would have shot him without hesitation.

You are very lucky buddy. If he had charged, you would be cut......bottom line. Unless you can hit the brain or spine of a deadly threat at full run. If you think that any carry handgun cartridge can instantly stop a human never mind a 22lr you are seriously in denial of the facts. One thing I can promise you is that the last thing you want stuck to you is a ticked off bad guy with a knife. Had this situation turned ugly and the threat decided to charge your decision to give a warning could have been a mortal mistake. I will never hurt a soul however I refuse to be hurt by a bad guy. If someone decides to pull a knife they better hope that I have some cover between us. If not there will be no warning. I can't afford to take the chance you did.

tony pasley
July 17, 2006, 06:47 PM
the reason for carry is protection in n.c. you must be in fear of death or serious bodly harm to you or others felonies don't always apply. no threat be a witness if threat you must decide at that time what is best.

TexiCali Slim
July 18, 2006, 12:31 AM
I was under the impression that you could shoot if being robbed:confused:

odessastraight
July 18, 2006, 07:48 AM
The author that you deride in this thread has a much better grasp of the use of deadly force by citizens than do you, Sum1 (Yet I'm also one of those who don't agree with condition 3 for an autoloader). The only time the ccw is used, to include presentation, is if one is in fear of the loss of life or in fear of grave injury...Period. A BG has you at knifepoint and it's your right and obligation to stop the BG with deadly force. I think you were very lucky to have survived your encounter with the knife weilding BG...and I just have to wonder how many other victims have come under knifepoint from him since then. I'm of the mindset that anyone who exhibits the behavior of having me at knifepoint immediately gets that behavior stopped with a center hit with a .44 Special. I not only see this as my right but also my obligation...to me and law abiding society, in general.

You see, sir, I've already made up my mind about when to use my ccw and there will be no hesitation when it's needed nor will I pull it if not to absolutely save life or escape grave harm. It must be that "clear cut". There is just no room (nor time) for subjective "warnings".

---------OK, I'll refrain from comment of .22s for ccw...ouch!!! bit my tongue.

riverrat66
July 18, 2006, 09:40 AM
OK, I've been trying not to comment on this for fear of upsetting someone but I'm about to burst if I don't.
I think Sum's situation was this: He was not immediately under attack, but was been threatened with attack; he cannot know if the threat will be followed through, so must prepare for it.
The knife wielding mugger was only 4-5 feet away! How long do you wait before reacting? Until he starts slicing & dicing? By then you'll probably bleed out! Remembering the Tueller Drill, Sum1 was at a disadvantage from the moment this encounter began. An accomplished knife handler could have just as easily plunged his knife into Sum1's heart before he even had a chance to fire his .22 pistol and a seasoned crack addicted mugger would not have been scared off so easily either.

The good part is Sum1 was extremely fortunate that he did not get cut, stabbed or even killed.

The bad part is he may think if it worked once it will work again and the next time all he has to do is just "show" his firearm and the BG will run away, again! Which means he's lost the edge, it's called complacency.

I agree with odessastraight, TexiCali Slim & threegun on this one. As for me, if someone with a knife demands my wallet I'm gonna double tap him as I move off to the side. But I'm not using a .22 either, I'm using my XD45. Sorry threegun, I put my Glocks in the safe for now. ;)

But of course as usual this is only my opinion. I'm not an expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once. ;)

riverrat66...out

rezmedic54
July 18, 2006, 10:22 AM
If you wait for things to go south you usually waited to long at least that is the general opinion . If possible I might same something if not the way I understand it from all the LEO I have talked to is if the BG is there with a weapon the law looks at it as the BG intends to use it.If I where to walk into my living room and saw a BG with his back to me looking thru my stuff and saw he had a gun he would have bought himself a round in the back to say something by the time he turned you would be behind the curve ( and you'd probably get shot in that case), with a knife maybe a warning not to move ,make any sudden movements and you will be shot. If I catch him standing facing me his hands behind his back and tell him make any sudden moves and you will be shot do you think if he is in his right mind he'd throw his hands up probably not and if he did just by the movement being fast he'd get shot.Granted there are times to let them know they have been caught and there are times when you let the weapon do your talking every encounter is going to be different it's like emergency medicine in 20 years of working the street never found one patient that read the book same in self defense.If and when any of us has to shoot somebody we all hope it's the right thing at the right time. Cause if it isn't we stand to loose all we have worked for. But as we know every law is subject to interpretation by a judge and just cause it says this doesn't mean when it's done it won't say that. But like I said before what do I know I'm just a retired Medic. Be Safe Out There Kurt

john in jax
July 18, 2006, 11:32 AM
Actual real life case here in Jacksonville, FL from a few months ago:
Individual enters an electronics store and asks for or insists they give him some money (depending on whose story you believe). When the store owner, named Freeman, refuses the individual starts to wander about the store. Store owner gets worried, and sends staff to a more secure area in the back and they call 911. The store owner is VERY worried, so when the individual makes a move for his waistband the store owner shoots him several times. The individual was NOT armed and the store owner was NOT charged with any crime.

The long and the short of it was the store owner BELIEVED he was in danger of robbed, great bodily harm, being killed, or any of the above.

In FL the laws (at least the way I as a lay person, interpret them) used to say your concealed weapon was there to save you or somebody else from being killed or grave bodily harm NOT as a crime deterent - - leave law enforcement to LEO's. If yours or somebody else's life was not in danger you had better not shoot.

New Florida laws beef up and expand the "castle doctrine". It allows the home/business/car owner more leeway in defending his/her property.

Doubletaptap
July 19, 2006, 11:59 PM
Usually in these scenarios your brain is your first line of defense.
If you percieve bodily harm or death I feel it prudent to draw and warn the opponent. If that don't work, shoot him. If it's almost too late,just shoot him.He can't defend himself in court if he's dead.
Also you have to remember court,wonderful court.
Now I saw some posts where folks here have or want big bad magnums,big bad buckshot and howitzers for defense.
Well, the judge wants to find out if it was your intent to kill this perp or just stop him from doing a crime.
He'll ask what caliber,size of bullets etc and if you tell him you was using a normal handgun of say .40 cal with self defense ammo it'll look good for you.
If you tell him you were using super magnum nitro armor piercing blasters it'll help put you away.
I use #6 shot in my home defense 12 ga. and plain hollow point Cor-Bons in my .40 semi carry pistol. Buckshot judges don't like. Magnums judges don't like.
Always carry one in the pipe and always try to get away from the situation if you can.
If you can't, shoot em.
If you shoot em' make sure they're dead or they'll come back and sue you for damages.
There are many things to consider for the gun carrying person. The laws make it tough to defend yourself but it can be done if you USE YOUR HEAD.
KNOW THE LAWS OF YOUR STATE, and don't try to be John Wayne and clean up the bad guys.
The reason behind carry licenses are to DETER crime.
Yes, I believe you should come to the aid of someone else in trouble,after calling the police if you can. Cell phones make it easy now. Cell phones with cameras sometimes help even more. Sometimes you can deter a crime just by the action of taking a picture or video,the bad guy will take off.
I try to leave the blasting of bad guys to the police and military, but I will blast someone to save my hide or someone elses if necessary,after I use my head and think a little first.
George

springmom
July 20, 2006, 09:32 AM
If it's a clean shoot (you were in fear for your life or the life of another, and the other Texas justifications) you will never have to explain to a judge what ammunition you used because you will never go before a judge in the first place. Here in Harris County, the grand jury has not true-billed a self-defense shooting since I've lived here; nor did any grand jury in Austin when I lived there.

God bless Texas.

Springmom