What the hell are they teaching here!? - Page 2

Powderman · July 15, 2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

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...

Quote:

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,

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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/...d.php?t=215241

I however agree that condition 3 is not for me.

Quote:

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/s...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.

Quote:

Either one will kill someone.

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

Quote:

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'.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

foodchainking · July 15, 2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

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/...p?t=198827Also

Quote:

There 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/...d.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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud Helms

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.

July 15, 2006, 09:23 AM	#28
Mark54g Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2005 Location: NJ Posts: 1,265	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. __________________ CZ 75B Stainless Beretta PX4 F Series 9mm & U22 Neos 6" black S&W Shield 9mm

July 15, 2006, 10:43 AM	#30
Alx Member Join Date: May 31, 2006 Posts: 56	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. Last edited by Alx; July 15, 2006 at 10:27 PM.

July 15, 2006, 08:22 PM	#37
U.S.SFC_RET Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2005 Location: The Old line State Posts: 282	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. __________________ 1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. 2. Never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to shoot. 3. Keep the finger off the trigger and firearm on safe until ready to shoot. 4. Know the target and what's beyond it.

July 15, 2006, 09:49 PM	#39
marlboroman84 Senior Member Join Date: March 20, 2006 Location: Memphis,TN Posts: 541	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. __________________ Ban Liberals, not guns! ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh)

July 15, 2006, 10:51 PM	#41
Charles S Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2002 Location: North East Texas Posts: 950	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 __________________ "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell

July 15, 2006, 10:10 AM	#29
Love&Hate12 Senior Member Join Date: October 13, 2005 Posts: 452	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.

July 15, 2006, 11:10 AM	#31
Big Mac Senior Member Join Date: July 13, 2006 Posts: 196	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.

July 15, 2006, 10:36 PM	#40
Big Mac Senior Member Join Date: July 13, 2006 Posts: 196	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.

July 15, 2006, 11:16 PM	#42
Sum1_Special Senior Member Join Date: May 21, 2005 Posts: 243	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.

July 16, 2006, 12:05 AM	#43
Big Mac Senior Member Join Date: July 13, 2006 Posts: 196	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?

July 16, 2006, 12:13 AM	#44
Sum1_Special Senior Member Join Date: May 21, 2005 Posts: 243	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?

July 16, 2006, 12:27 AM	#45
Big Mac Senior Member Join Date: July 13, 2006 Posts: 196	I sure hope so. One shoudl never attack in anger and rage. The Dark Side are these.....

July 16, 2006, 06:59 AM	#47
rezmedic54 Senior Member Join Date: April 25, 2005 Location: Arizona Posts: 288	Wow 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 __________________ Kurt Pietrzak Maricopa Shooting Service S.W.A.T. South West Airsoft Tactical CCW Instrutor NRA Certified Instructor Gunsmith Maricopa ,Az. http:www.maricopashooting.com

July 16, 2006, 08:53 AM	#48
Bud Helms Senior Member Join Date: December 31, 1999 Location: Middle Georgia, USA Posts: 13,198	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 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.

July 16, 2006, 12:38 PM	#50
revjen45 Junior member Join Date: May 7, 2006 Location: Everett, WA Posts: 626	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.