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

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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/...d.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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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/...d.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.

July 14, 2006, 03:28 PM	#7
Blackwater OPS Senior Member Join Date: September 11, 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,152	+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. __________________ "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin Spc. Jeremy M. Campbell Died 9/1/2005 and the best DS ever MSG Matthew Ritz Died 11.23.2005 matthewritz.com For those who have had to fight for it, Life holds a special meaning that the protected will never know. (\__/) (='.'=) Someone set us up the bunny! (")_(")

July 14, 2006, 04:10 PM	#11
springmom Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 2005 Location: Houston area Posts: 1,823	What's the problem? 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 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 __________________ I will not be a victim home on the web: www.panagia-icons.net (my webpage) www.nousfromspring.blogspot.com (Orthodoxy) "I couldn't hear you. Stop firing the gun while you're talking!" Frank Drebin, The Naked Gun

July 14, 2006, 05:33 PM	#17
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	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. __________________ Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective

July 14, 2006, 05:45 PM	#19
Erik Senior Member Join Date: December 24, 1999 Location: America Posts: 3,479	"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 __________________ Meriam Webster's: Main Entry: ci·vil·ian Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\, Function: noun, Date: 14th century, 1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law, 2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b: outsider 1, — civilian adjective

July 14, 2006, 05:58 PM	#20
Bender711 Senior Member Join Date: September 20, 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 340	The only thing that I didnt like was carrying on an empty chamber. __________________ From a Mod "Seeing as how "butt Smurf" is not profanity in the usual sense and humorously creative, I'll leave this up for now"

July 14, 2006, 03:05 PM	#2
David Armstrong Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2005 Location: SW Louisiana Posts: 2,289	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."

July 14, 2006, 03:09 PM	#3
Sum1_Special Senior Member Join Date: May 21, 2005 Posts: 243	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!'

July 14, 2006, 03:18 PM	#4
autopsytech Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 179	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.

July 14, 2006, 03:22 PM	#5
David Armstrong Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2005 Location: SW Louisiana Posts: 2,289	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.

July 14, 2006, 03:27 PM	#6
M1911 Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2000 Posts: 4,055	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.

July 14, 2006, 03:43 PM	#9
Sum1_Special Senior Member Join Date: May 21, 2005 Posts: 243	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/...d.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.

July 15, 2006, 01:07 AM	#23
skeeter1 Senior Member Join Date: April 11, 2006 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 3,403	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.

July 15, 2006, 02:16 AM	#25
Sum1_Special Senior Member Join Date: May 21, 2005 Posts: 243	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/...d.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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search