[OldMarksman]

Posted by Eagle Eye: I am trying to show that the conflicting comments make no sense. It is others who have made those statements in words that I have paraphrased and shortened. These are not my comments and thoughts.

So, here are the words, "paraphrased and shortened":

(1): You cannot use lethal force unless you justifiably fear for your life or that of others.

That's a pretty good generalization, though there are exceptions.

I do not see anything remotely similar to that in the thread, however.

(2): So as one suggested (I paraphrase): All hell breaks loose if he turns his back on me... Really? Shoot him in the back? The threat to your life will be hard to justify after he turns his back.

In the OP scenario, it is not the threat to "your" life that would make the use of deadly force justifiable, and shooting the perp in the back would be lawful if shooting him in the front or the side would be lawful.

(3): And another says you don't have a chance of shooting him if he even has his hand on his gun (paraphrased again, so don't nitpick me).

Massad Ayoob did demonstrate that, and it is true for most people. You can try it yourself with Airsoft guns. Think about it: is it likely that one can draw, present, and pull the trigger more quickly than another can detect movement and pull the trigger? Even if so, is it at all likely that one's shot would prevent the other from firing?

(4): So if he produces a gun you do not have a chance, so just comply with his wishes and hope he does not shoot (one writer suggests he will only shoot 25% of the time). Don't even try in this case, since he will always outgun you.

It's a personal judgment--one weighs the risks (very high liklihood of being shot if one draws vs. lower likelihood of being shot if one does not draw) and makes on'e own decision. I would comply rather than force him to shoot.

(5): And if he does not produce a gun, you can't produce yours?

Where did that come from? I did not see that in the thread.

I remain confused.

That is demonstrated by this:

I am saying that if all these sorts of statements made by others were true, that they are so conflicting that one may as not carry.

If one eliminates (5), which is entirely incorrect, there is no contradiction among the other four statements.

The first one simply says that one must be justified to use deadly force justified; no reason for not carrying--just the law. Much of the gist of the thread had to do with whether it would be prudent for a civilian to intervene in a store robbery by shooting at the robber; one does not carry to shoot people who rob stores. Finally, the fact that it would probably be foolhardy to try to draw and shoot should one have a gun pointed at him point blank ((3) and (4)) does not indicate against carrying in any way. It simply highlights the need for situational awareness and for avoiding such situations.

Where are the supposed contradictions?