I am trying not to make any assumptions that are not in the OP:
Quote:
|
you're armed what would you do.
|
Quote:
|
I am a firm believer, that if someone has a gun pointed at you, and you are carrying, the advantage is in your court. I think you can draw and fire before the bandit can shoot his gun he already has out.
|
Quote:
|
After reading about the Cousin who got carjacked, or maybe another subject...
|
Quote:
|
...if you get the guy talking, you'll beat him every time....
|
Talking distance (3 feet? 5 feet?, 10 feet?), carjacking distance (what's the length of a car door? 3 feet?), gun pointed at you, not waving around at a room full of people.
Those are my assumptions.
So many arguments just don't seem relevant. Of course it's better to be better trained. Who said it wasn't?
Of course it's "possible" to fight and win against bad odds.
Those things are not the point of the OP.
My points are (have been) as follows:
1)Some one pointing a gun at you does not give you an advantage.
2)"What would yo do?" Nothing, unless I thought I was going to be shot anyway. No point in turning a robbery into a shootout, even if I come out unscathed, especially if I don't.
3)"It can be done" is irrelevent.
SHOULD it be done. I believe that the OP implies that drawing and firing is the correct course of action... He asks what would you do and goes on to explain why he can draw and fire faster than the BG can shoot.
I believe that CHOOSING to fire on armed bad guys is almost always a bad choice. By far, most robberies end without people getting killed or severely injured. By far, most shootouts do not.
If you believe you are about to be shot (and him having a gun does not mean you're about to be shot) or they're going to execute you in the cooler, that's one thing. Starting a gun battle at "Yo, give up da cash and no buddy gets hurt!" is quite another.