Pistolwhipping/possible necessity?

[Lurper]

A mugger pulls a gun on you, you manage to pull yours at the same time, as the two of you are bringing your guns into action you manage to gain some control over his gun with your left hand, you know you cannot maintain control but you have it for now,not being the blood thirsty type you now have the opportunity to end the confrontation with some correctly applied less lethal blunt force trauma but cannot take the time or make the maneuver necessary to transition to a suitable club, a quick pistol whip to the head, neck or collar bone would in your estimation successfully end the confrontation with no loss of life.
Nowhere in that scenario is it suggested that you draw before you have justification to use lethal force now is there, just as there was none in my first comment Justification does not make it mandatory

Anything less than shooting in this situation is poor tactics and poor decision making. It has nothing to do with being "bloodthirsty". The decision to shoot should be made before you draw your weapon. After that, only removal of the threat should stop you. In your scenario, the threat still exists. You can formulate "what if" scenarios all you want (like what if in making the transition to club he regains control of his weapon and shoots you), you might even be able to find a case or two where it actually happened. However, to try to make it sound like a viable tactic (legally, ethically or morally) is dangerous and uneccessary. If the thought of being forced to kill someone troubles you, perhaps you should not carry a firearm.

There have been cases reported of people attempting this and disabling the gun by pushing the slide to the point that the gun is out of battery and will not fire, see why absolutes don't work

And there have been just as many times it has worked. However, my specific point was that if you want to put the gun against some body part, you should put it somewhere soft and big like the abdomen, not hard and small like the head.

The law in most states does not require you to use less than lethal force against a lethal threat, nor should it. Escape is always the first choice, however it is not always a viable one. The best course of action if you encounter violence agains another person is to dial 911 on your cell phone and be a good witness. Not get involved (with a few exceptions).

[imatt]

It seems to me, that if you are trying to grab the goon from behind, especially one bigger than you, that you have interjected yourself into another individual's scenario. Unless you are a LEO, I doubt you have a duty to do this. So, if you are really concerned about the consequences, I suggest you stay out of it.

In NC, if you find someone who is authorized to use deadly force to defend themselves, the right to use deadly force is passed on to you. It's completely within our rights. That's one thing that NC definitely got right!


-Speculation below-
Of course I would not shoot anyone in the back - that's just asking for trouble. A pistol-whipped BG that survives is likely to sue you for all your worth. Some lawyer I'm sure could charge improper use of a firearm.

[Doug.38PR]

It seems to me, that if you are trying to grab the goon from behind, especially one bigger than you, that you have interjected yourself into another individual's scenario. Unless you are a LEO, I doubt you have a duty to do this. So, if you are really concerned about the consequences, I suggest you stay out of it.

Think about that. What are you going to do if you see someone being beaten within an inch of their life (or beyond)? Sit there and twiddle your thumbs? Call the police and say "the police are on there way, you'd better stop"?

The instinct is to help someone in need. Sometimes that means you have to get down and dirty.

The police can't be everywhere at once, where I come from people take care of each other.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

AR - if you watched the old TV show, they would shoot at Superman and the bullets bounced off, then throw the gun. Poor George would duck then. Huh?

About the original scenario - too silly for words, IMHO. If you want to draw an impact weapon or nonlethal (less than really) carry one. You use your firearm as a bludgeon, in close quarters if out of ammo or reflexively surprised when the gun is all ready drawn.

I might suggest the original poster engage in some significant training in H2H as compared to dreaming such scenarios.

[joab]

Anything less than shooting in this situation is poor tactics and poor decision making.

Back to the absolutes are we?

The decision to shoot should be made before you draw your weapon. After that, only removal of the threat should stop you.

Where have I said that the decision to shoot was not made before drawing, If you read the comment you will see that I said that it was made and the situation dramatically changed.
And would not rendering the attacker unconscious remove the immediate threat

In your scenario, the threat still exists.

Not of he is unconscious from a blow to the skull

You can formulate "what if" scenarios all you want

Beats the hell out of sitting back thinking I know all the absolutes of life

(like what if in making the transition to club he regains control of his weapon and shoots you),

That would be yet another reason to use the club already in your hand, thanks f

you might even be able to find a case or two where it actually happened.

Then that would certainly counter your argument that it could never happen them wouldn't it

However, to try to make it sound like a viable tactic (legally, ethically or morally) is dangerous and uneccessary.

How is making it sound like a viable tactic dangerous or unnecessary? You have admitted that it would probably be possible to find real life accounts of such a thing happening, therefore you should be able to admit the possibility that it could be a sound tactic in some cases

If the thought of being forced to kill someone troubles you, perhaps you should not carry a firearm.

There are many members here who would get a kick out of that predictable and simplistic supposition about me. Perhaps I could counter by saying that if you are so set on taking a life you should rethink having access to a firearm, that's what those amused members say about me when they run out of argument

The fact that you deal in absolutes tells me that you have never had to put any of your training or reading into action. Your first time will be eye opening

And there have been just as many times it has worked.

Which totally fits into my anti absolute stand when it comes to combat.
But how would you like to be in the 50% that you suppose the tactic failed on
If you had a gun that misfired as much as it fired would you trust it?
Then why would you trust a tactic with the same failure rate?

However, my specific point was that if you want to put the gun against some body part, you should put it somewhere soft and big like the abdomen, not hard and small like the head.

And my specific point is that pushing a gun into soft tissue introduces the very real possibility of pushing the slide back the 1/8 of an inch or so that is necessary to take a auto out of battery especially if your opponent has the presence of mind and knowledge of firearms to pull the gun further into his body while he pistol whips you

The law in most states does not require you to use less than lethal force against a lethal threat,

And no law in any state requires that you use lethal force against a lethal threat if other option become available

In my opinion anyone who preaches absolute tactical responses to threats does not have the necessary experience to give those lessons

[5whiskey]

A mugger pulls a gun on you, you manage to pull yours at the same time, as the two of you are bringing your guns into action you manage to gain some control over his gun with your left hand, you know you cannot maintain control but you have it for now,not being the blood thirsty type you now have the opportunity to end the confrontation with some correctly applied less lethal blunt force trauma but cannot take the time or make the maneuver necessary to transition to a suitable club, a quick pistol whip to the head, neck or collar bone would in your estimation successfully end the confrontation with no loss of life.

Ok... go right ahead. You're forgeting about the assailants free hand. If you can grab his weapon with your free hand then he can certainly do the same, take it from you, and then wrestle his weapon away from you. If you pull the gun and you can justify deadly force, then shoot. Deadly force is if someone continues to attack. BTW, if someone attacked me bare-handed I probably wouldn't draw, I would just beat the crap out of him.

Doug...

many keep saying "why not shoot them instead of hitting them?" I address this in the original post but nobody seems to be addressing it or countering it. Also not being addressed are the various circumstances surrounding pistolwhipping


Quote:
Police, at least in my neck of the woods, are not typically supposed to hit someone in the head with a baton (although they used to be). It's treated as deadly force, which it is, and some police departments have regulations prohibiting it. Ever see anyone hit in the head with a nightstick or baseball bat?

Quote:
Well with all the talk about big guys not dropping on the first or even second or third shot center mass at times (especially if they are big or pumped up on drugs)....or even taking multiple shots before they go down, getting clubbed in the side of the head or over the head with a metal frame would be more likely to incapacitate the thug as it would disrupt his brain. Why not just shoot the head? Well, in a big struggle, I would have a feeling pressing a muzzel against someones head would be a lot harder than it sounds. It might slip off away, miss or ricochet off the curve of his head.

I countered in the 2nd reply on this forum. If you honestly think that you swinging a pistol at someones head does more damage than a bullet, then you go ahead. Run the risk of said a**hole taking your pistol from you. Bullets glancing? Yes they have done that, though much more common to glance off of a kevlar or hard armor than soft flesh. Here's the news flash...
BULLETS ARE FASTER THAN YOUR HANDS!!!
PEOPLE CAN'T DODGE BULLETS!!!
THEY CAN DODGE YOUR HAND, EVEN IF IT HAS A GUN IN IT!!!
STRIKING BLOWS ARE MORE LIKELY TO GLANCE THAN A BULLET BECAUSE OF THIS!!!

The key take away, again in all caps...
BULLETS WILL DO MORE DAMAGE THAN YOU CAN SWINGING WITH YOUR PISTOL!!!

[joab]

You're forgeting about the assailants free hand.

I'm forgetting nothing, but you are forgetting that I don't believe in absolutes

For every scenario someone can find a way it can be successfully defeated by some simple maneuver. For every defeating maneuver you come up with a counter maneuver can be presented.
By doing do you merely strengthen my position not weaken it

I probably wouldn't draw, I would just beat the crap out of him.

You're forgetting that macho posturing does not impress most of us anymore

[Lurper]

joab
My point is simply this:
If involved in an altercation with an armed assailant, shooting them is usually the best course of action - grappling with the intent of pistol whipping is not.
If you want to call that an absolute, so be it.

Where have I said that the decision to shoot was not made before drawing, If you read the comment you will see that I said that it was made and the situation dramatically changed.
And would not rendering the attacker unconscious remove the immediate threat

Again calling for the decision if a lethal threat exists. If it does shoot, if it doesn't don't. My point was that before it reached the point where the situation changed, the assailant should be shot. I stand by my contention that if you are armed and assaulted by an armed assailant, shooting them is the quickest way to remove the threat. Grappling with them and hoping that you can disarm them or worse thinking you can knock them out by pistol whipping them is a very bad decision.

Quote:
In your scenario, the threat still exists.

Not if he is unconscious from a blow to the skull

That's a big if. I am not willing to stake my survival on an IF that big. I'll stake it on proper shot placement all day long.

There are many members here who would get a kick out of that predictable and simplistic supposition about me. Perhaps I could counter by saying that if you are so set on taking a life you should rethink having access to a firearm, that's what those amused members say about me when they run out of argument

The fact that you deal in absolutes tells me that you have never had to put any of your training or reading into action. Your first time will be eye opening

Been there, done that on more than one occasion. I have also been an instructor for many years to civilians, police and military. I can also think of at least one occasion where I would have been fully justified in shooting but didn't because my assailant ceased his actions. Him & I 4 a.m. no witnesses, I could have easily shot him when he charged me w/hammer in hand. I didn't have to because he knew I would (a subject for another thread). Yet, he chose to fight it out with 4 officers in the processing room at the station that night. So, your contentions about my lack of experience, training, ability and the desire to needlessly take someone's life are based on something other than reality. Sort of like the idea that a civilian should grapple with an armed assailant.

One can always find statistical outlyers to justify any point. Just like one can modify or tweak any result or scenario to reach their desired conclusion. Doesn't mean it is smart, accurate or realistic. Survival realistically depends on removing the threat in the fastest way possible. You may be Bruce Chuck Steven Norris Segal Lee, but I am not. Nor would I risk grappling with someone whose background I have not knowledge of (and I am trained in 2 different martial arts). Removing a lethal threat in the fastest manner usually means putting lead on the target quickly. I'll take my chances on that strategy all day long thank you. And yes the law is that cut and dry - there is either justification for use of lethal force or not. Sometimes, it takes a long court battle to decide that, sometimes not. But the bottom line is in the end you survived.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about who has the experience to teach what, but I believe those who have paid me good money to teach them would have a different opinion.

[Trip20]

In a hand-to-hand struggle, having to hold a pistol that I do not intend to use would be a liability in that it's cumbersome. It takes away many options I might otherwise have with that hand. So I’ll avoid that situation at all costs. That's just personal preference.

If I'm at the point where hitting someone over the head with a heavy metal object is warranted, I'm probably fighting for my life at that point.

If I'm struggling with an attacker and this attacker is trying to employ a deadly weapon, I think I would use my own firearm, knife, or spray in the proper way (i.e., it's intended use).

Would I rule out bashing someone in the face/head with a pistol? Hell no. The more options you have available, the better off you are IMO. I'll fight dirty, especially if it's for my life. Sand in your eyes, buddy! But using a pistol as a club would not be one of my first few choices.

[WIN71]

Once your weapon is in your hand you probably don't want to be within reach of your aggressor. If you do club him with it and don't disable him the fight will be on and he most likely will be going for the gun. If he gets a hold of it your survival is going to depend on controlling your own weapon. This is a real bad deal now and it may not be over until the thing goes off and one of you is hit.
Besides, most CCW weapons are light weight and small. Even with multiple blows I doubt most of us could take a big nasty out. We're not talking about a Contender with a 14 in. heavy barrel here.

[Doug.38PR]

If you honestly think that you swinging a pistol at someones head does more damage than a bullet, then you go ahead. Run the risk of said a**hole taking your pistol from you. Bullets glancing? Yes they have done that, though much more common to glance off of a kevlar or hard armor than soft flesh. Here's the news flash...
BULLETS ARE FASTER THAN YOUR HANDS!!!
PEOPLE CAN'T DODGE BULLETS!!!
THEY CAN DODGE YOUR HAND, EVEN IF IT HAS A GUN IN IT!!!
STRIKING BLOWS ARE MORE LIKELY TO GLANCE THAN A BULLET BECAUSE OF THIS!!!

The key take away, again in all caps...
BULLETS WILL DO MORE DAMAGE THAN YOU CAN SWINGING WITH YOUR PISTOL!!!

You're correct of course. Bullets are faster and more effective against the head than my hand or anything in my hand. BUT, as I said in the original post, I have a strong feeling that it is much easier to land the side of your revolver frame and barrel against a skull than to aim or press a muzzle at a moving head and arms that are struggling against you flying around and adrenaline pumping through you. There is a lot going on in a few second, placing a shot in someone's head is not so easy. Not that pistolwhipping is easy, as said there is a lot going on, but pistolwhipping effectively might be easier than planting a shot in someone's head

AND as one or two other people in here have said, it is more likely to result in preservation of life than taking of a life, especially if it is, at the point of beginning, a non-lethal attack (but could potentially escalate into one if he finds your gun on you.)

[Trip20]

BUT, as I said in the original post, I have a strong feeling that it is much easier to land the side of your revolver frame and barrel against a skull...

What lead you to the erroneous conclusion that swinging a pistol towards an attackers skull will be more effective than emptying the pistol into an attacker's arms, legs, chest, and abdomen via repeated trigger squeezes at point-blank range?

Have you ever been in a fistfight?

It is extremely difficult to get a disabling strike at the distances we're discussing. It's not an easy task even for people trained in striking, and especially if you’re also trying to fend off attacks from the assailants weapon at the same time.

Now add to that task a heavy hunk of metal, an uncoordinated striker, and a non-cooperative target, and you have a recipe for disaster. The odds of you disabling someone are very low, Doug.

Seriously, I do not wish for anyone to get false confidence from this thread... it is a silly idea.

I said earlier that I would hit someone with a pistol if I had to - I'll do anything to stay alive and well. But I would have exhausted many other options prior.

I can’t imagine the perfect scenario where pistol whipping would be supreme, but that doesn’t mean using a pistol as a club is never a good option. If you ran out of ammo, it could make sense at that point (though personally, I’d go for my knife instead). But, overall my opinion is that under most circumstances pistol whipping is not a good tactic, and one should concentrate on learning other hand-to-hand skills.

[AR15FAN]

A silly idea and one of many countless inflamatory questions posed and then the OP plays to the crowd with false rhetoric. Hillary C. employs this tactic, very annoying.

[Double Naught Spy]

That's what I'm saying in the above quote is that shooting someone even at close range center mass 1) may not stop them and 2) even a head shot might be difficult in a struggle.

Aside from the tactical shortcoming of pistolwhipping, as noted, I still am unable to ascertain in what circumstances you perceive being able to pistolwhip somebody in the head and not shoot them there.

As for the comments about not using a pistol as a club until there is no more ammo, one way to turn a pistol into a club is via pistolwhipping. Guns can break, torque, and otherwise cease to function properly after being exposed to the forces used in pistolwhipping, foces acting on the gun in directions and intensity for which the gun is not designed and may not be able to handle.

Using a loaded pistol as a rock in an attempt to use lethal force against one's opposition (many, if not all states consider braining the opposition with a hard object as intent to commit serious or lethal injury, i.e. lethal force) is a poor use of resources.

Think about that. What are you going to do if you see someone being beaten within an inch of their life (or beyond)? Sit there and twiddle your thumbs? Call the police and say "the police are on there way, you'd better stop"?

The instinct is to help someone in need. Sometimes that means you have to get down and dirty.

Oh that sounds sexy and glamourus. You mean to tell me that you see somebody in the process of likely being beaten to death and the best thing you can come up with is to draw your gun and use it like a rock to inflict serious bodily or lethal injury at contact distance when you had the option to shoot inside?

[Charles S]

For all of you pistol whipping advocates, I would like you to keep in mind that strikes to the head and neck with an object is considered lethal force in some jurisdictions and requires the same level of justification as shooting.

So instead of shooting someone (we have the justification required) I am going to close with them and engage in hand to hand combat?

I am constantly amazed by the positions taken by people on this board.

I have three questions for those advocating pistol whipping.

1. If you are advocating pistol whipping have you ever had training in boxing, full contact martial arts, or a practially applied hand to hand combat course or are you experienced in any of the above?

2. If you are advocating pistol whipping have you ever had any weapons retention training?

3. Have you had any training at all (beyond a required concealed carry course) ie, Thunder Ranch, LFI, or any other quality program?

I already know the answer to these questions.

Pistol whipping, with very few exceptions is a really bad idea. There are, however, exceptions and a place where it would be not only justified but necessary. These situations are few and far between. Using a loaded gun as a blunt object is a bad idea.

[5whiskey]

I'm forgetting nothing, but you are forgetting that I don't believe in absolutes

For every scenario someone can find a way it can be successfully defeated by some simple maneuver. For every defeating maneuver you come up with a counter maneuver can be presented.
By doing do you merely strengthen my position not weaken it

The simplest solution, even reaching to draw your pistol, in a situation where your life is in danger is way more complicated than anyone who has never had their life put in danger by those situations will ever be able to understand. When you are faced with a real live opponet I seriously doubt you will be contemplating your non-lethal options. But you can type about it if you want. If you see a situation you feel COULD be dangerous but does not justify deadly force, you most certainly may have time to draw your pistol pre-emminatly as you should ALSO HAVE TIME TO FLEE instead of thinking about what non-lethal means you will use to subdue the assailant.

You're forgetting that macho posturing does not impress most of us anymore

My appologies for appearing arrogant and "Macho", as you would put it. Should I appear weak and subjected to get my point across? Well, now that I have apparently made a comment that is deemed as macho posturing I will at least try to explain what I was trying to convey in a non "macho postured" way. I'm not a big fan of pulling a weapon on someone that obviously appears unarmed. If I can avoid the confrontation then I most certainly will. If not possible but still not a lethal force situation, then yes, I will most certainly attempt to... how do I word this without macho posturing?... subdue through physical force.

I know what you're trying to say, that you don't believe in absolutes. Roger, I got it and I also think you're right in thinking this way. There is no one practice, method, martial arts move, or gun to fit EVERY situation. I agree. What I am saying as that pulling the trigger IF IT WARRANTS DEADLY FORCE is at many times more applicable to many more situations than pistol whipping will ever be. 999 times to shoot, 1 to pistol whip. What I think you are saying is to not dispell it completely as an option. Noted, if I run out of rounds then I will start bashing with the pistol.

[Doug.38PR]

What lead you to the erroneous conclusion that swinging a pistol towards an attackers skull will be more effective than emptying the pistol into an attacker's arms, legs, chest, and abdomen via repeated trigger squeezes at point-blank range?

Because, we all know that shooting someone in an arm, leg or even center mass doesn't always stop them (the chances of this happening are even greater if they are a large individual and/or pumped up on drugs or alchohol) I read of an account once where a policeman shot a man 3 times center mass and wound up having to kick him in the head to settle the argument. A strike against the head, even with a man on dope, is an attack on, well, the main computer...his brain. If that is disrupted or disabled (with a strong enough blow from a heavy enough object, the fight stops.

Have you ever been in a fistfight?

yes

It is extremely difficult to get a disabling strike at the distances we're discussing. It's not an easy task even for people trained in striking, and especially if you’re also trying to fend off attacks from the assailants weapon at the same time.

Yes it is. It's not going out and hitting a punching bag, you're right. It is a struggle for life and/or health. It is an ugly thing that can turn out any number of different ways. There is a lot going on.

I'm not saying it's supposed to be like in the movies where Roy Rogers or Humphrey Bogart pull out their revolvers and whip somebody over the head and viola, fight over before it begins.

[5whiskey]

On a side note, it's too bad that this discussion doesn't involve rifles and butt strokes. I am an advocate of that, especially in close quarters where the distance between you and the assailant is closer than the length of the rifle AND you have a retention sling. This is of course to back the assailant off of you enough for you to bring your rifle up to shoot, with a pistol thats not required as there will almost always be room to shoot. If there's not, then guess what? There's not enough room to move your arm in the action of swinging the pistol so the pistol whip STILL DOESN'T APLLY! imagine that

[Lurper]

Doug
In my experience (and opinion) here is the problem with your logic. Hitting someone in the head does not always have an effect. In fact most training with batons, etc. has gotten away from head strikes - partially for that reason, partially for liability. However, here is my personal reason in condensed form:
I was holding a guy by his shirt collar and he was resisting, so I hit him in the side of the head with a fiberglass baton. He looked at me and said: "Why you hit me with your stick man?". Then the fight was really on (it had been on for a while, but not so intense). He began punching and grappling with me. I alternated between pounding on the top of his head with the butt of the baton to hitting him in the groin when he would move back to avoid the head blows. I noticed that he was pushing me backwards and out of the corner of my eye I noticed a car coming up the drive. He was trying to push me in front of it. At that point, I felt my life was in danger. I dropped the baton and drew my weapon. Before I cleared leather (and I'm pretty quick), he was hauling ass down the road. I saw a cruiser stop in the middle of the street and an officer who was somewhat athletic pursue the suspect. The suspect outran him and everyone else and got away.

I don't have much faith in head strikes.

[cuate]

I had the opportunity one time but the slapper in my l/h hip pocket was more
appropriate. My Highway Patrol Model S&W .357 was too pretty to bang on some fighting drunk's head even if he was a double handful and then some.

[Trip20]

Originally Posted by Doug

I read of an account once where a policeman shot a man 3 times center mass and wound up having to kick him in the head to settle the argument.

He kicked a guy that was already shot 3 times center mass…

I can provide you an account where a bad guy shot a cop that was wearing a vest. He shot the cop one time with a .22cal pistol, and the cop died.

Handguns, punches, kicks, swords... you name it; most things fail to work perfectly all of the time.

So you see, these accounts have zero bearing on the big picture regarding what is generally accepted as more effective. That is what we need to discuss.

Now let’s throw aside the stories, internet myths, and shooting videos on the understanding that my stats can counter your stats, and yours mine.

You're refusing to see the many, many ways that pistol whipping is a bad idea as a first resort in close contact situations.

You assert pistols are can be ineffective when used as designed (true), and you want to employ a method even less effective, which takes greater strength, dexterity, and in many ways plain old luck.

Unless perfect conditions exist (i.e., you sucker punch this guy right on the sweet spot with the cylinder)... the odds are very low that your pistol will land in such a way that the attacker will be temporarily incapacitated.

Do you really believe you're personally capable of employing this tactic in a fashion that would be more effective than the ft/lbs of energy you could repeatedly dump into an attackers body by shooting your pistol?

If you don't feel shooting is justified, do you feel you're better able to defend yourself in hand-to-hand struggle while holding on to a heavy object that has little success in extending your reach?

I'm not trying be argumentative here, Doug, but I see a real problem with assumptions and jumps-to-conclusion you're using as justification for this pet tactic. If this was good tactic, I'd be sitting back and learning instead of debating... but this is just plain wrong on many levels, bro.

I do realize that we’re all different, and we’ll do as we wish. If this is the route you choose – by God I hope it works out. This isn’t personal; I just see you making what I feel is a mistake.

I hope someone can come along to authoritatively put this bad idea to rest.

[WIN71]

A silly idea and one of many countless inflamatory questions posed and then the OP plays to the crowd with false rhetoric. Hillary C. employs this tactic, very annoying.
Yesterday 09:30 PM

It's common with several OP's. Some are real good at starting a fire and before it can die a natural death they stir the ashes again and again. I missed most of this one. My frustrations were instead directed towards some robot recording of DirectV.

[joab]

My point is simply this:
If involved in an altercation with an armed assailant, shooting them is usually the best course of action - grappling with the intent of pistol whipping is not.
If you want to call that an absolute, so be it.

I don't call that an absolute. But I do call your original unedited statement an absolute

I think the counter is that if the situation requires the use of deadly force, you should shoot

Which you further expanded on the absolutism with this statement

In civilian life there is not. The situation either calls for lethal force or it does not. There is no in between. You should not pull your weapon unless the situation dictates its use (you have already made the decision to shoot). That does not mean that you must shoot, the situation can de-escalate with the presence of a weapon. What it does mean is that you shouldn't draw until you have justification. Once the threat stops being a threat, lethal force is not justified. There is no in between.

and this

you shouldn't place the pistol against the head. You should stick it in some soft tissue and pull the trigger allowing the gases to contribute to the damage. Unless your pistol is empty, there is no reason to not shoot until the threat is removed.

which you stuck to even after admitting that it was not always a good tactic
And then even after claiming that you are not making statements of absolutes, in what some would call in the next breath

Again calling for the decision if a lethal threat exists. If it does shoot, if it doesn't don't. My point was that before it reached the point where the situation changed, the assailant should be shot.

Holy crap

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about who has the experience to teach what, but I believe those who have paid me good money to teach them would have a different opinion.

I guess you feel that you have been in enough fights to know all practical possibilities and outcomes of any fight. I have been enough to know that I don't

My point is and always has been
Anyone that thinks that know all the answers doesn't know half the questions yet
Never is never the right answer and always is always the wrong answer
If you say that typically it is a bad decision I can't argue with you, but when you say that it is never an appropriate response you lose all credibility and I wouldn't pay a dime for your instruction.

And there was an account written by Ayoob, I believe ,of a state policeman who was ambushed , pinned on the ground and trying to shoot his assailant but the gun would not fire. It was later determined that he had taken the gun out of battery by pushing into the soft tissue of the BG's side.
If it happened once it can happen again. As an you instructor should know how easy it is for a gun to be taken out of battery this way and how difficult, in an adrenal moment, it is not to.
Also as an instructor why would you instruct people to rely on a tactic that you reckon to have about a 50% fail rate

[joab]

I agree. What I am saying as that pulling the trigger IF IT WARRANTS DEADLY FORCE is at many times more applicable to many more situations than pistol whipping will ever be. 999 times to shoot, 1 to pistol whip. What I think you are saying is to not dispell it completely as an option. Noted, if I run out of rounds then I will start bashing with the pistol.

Now you're getting it.

Apparently you also have been in many fights at least enough to feel that you could win any that you get into, just like Mike Tyson.Oh, but that example doesn't work anymore does it.

If you have been in as many fights as you imply that you have you know that they are fluid and fast and that a determination of the next move happens in a real time instant not after much deliberation on the subject.
Do you think that Chuck Norris and Mike Tyson went into the ring with a predetermined plan of what move they would make when or did they rely on their training reviewing tapes opf the other fighters in action while contemplating as many what ifs of may come that they could think of.

with a pistol thats not required as there will almost always be room to shoot. If there's not, then guess what? There's not enough room to move your arm in the action of swinging the pistol so the pistol whip STILL DOESN'T APLLY! imagine that

Still living in the world of absolutes. A pistol whip does not necessarily have to involve the traditionally envisioned washwoman swing. It could very well be the mafia style of punching with the gun in your hand in a slightly modified grip. That would require no more room than a bare handed swing would, Watch Goodfellows for a reference (and yes I have seen it done in real life, as a kid. The guy that took the beating was armed with a knife, I still have it somewhere)

[Pistolman1974]

I would see pistol whipping as a viable tactice is was trying to make the BG talk