Why and when would you pull the trigger?

[threegun]

If I draw a weapon I will shoot, if I shoot I will shoot to stop the threat

How about a bad guy capitulating at the sight of your weapon? You pulled your gun and he instantly dropped his. What about 3 or 4 men threatening you but unarmed? If they attack you are justified however they stop and run when you pull.

Pulling and shooting in the above scenarios might get you indicted.

[Cremon]

What?!?!?!?! Are you trying to say that if I draw my weapon I have to shoot?

Lurper, when you draw your weapon, you are crossing a line. You do not have to shoot whenever you draw. But EVERY time you draw, you have to be aware that you might have to shoot it, yes!! When you draw your weapon, you mentally make a commitment that you are going to shoot if you have to. You have crossed the line - your gun is now visible. If you do NOT make that commitment to yourself, you will probably be face down on the pavement by the end of the encounter.

Don't EVER draw a weapon without being prepared to use it. It is stark foolishness to believe that merely flashing a gun will make a BG run away. That is an inherently DANGEROUS attitude to have. When you draw your weapon, you have just made a very big decision and you are now betting your life whether you are consciously aware of that or not at the time you do it.

As experts like Massad Ayoub have said - when you make the decision to draw your weapon, the entire situation should be resolved in 3 seconds or less. Even police will tell you they are always mentally prepared to shoot when they draw. If you draw a gun thinking to threaten only, you're not giving your bet (stakes=your life) good odds to win on.

[Justme]

I don't know threegun. If I draw my gun it is because I feel my life is in immediate danger. I know it's not impossible that the BG might see me draw a gun and drop to the floor with his hands out, but it doesn't seem a likely scenario. I practice drawing, racking the slide and firing in one smooth move, it happens very fast, not enough time, I hope, for the BG to make any move one way or another, that's the point.

Depending on circumstances I might give the BG time to escape before I draw. I might say something like I am armed and prepared to fire, get out now.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Why does one have to rack the slide when ones draws?

Just gets better and better. Now we start the Israeli carry debate.

[cryption]

In texas, it is your responsablity as a civilian to stop the comission of a felony by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force. If you see a felony beign comitted, try and place them under citizen's arrest (a great help to us LEOs) or shoot if necessary. It isn't attempted homicide if you shoot below the waist.

[David Armstrong]

In texas, it is your responsablity as a civilian to stop the comission of a felony by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force. If you see a felony beign comitted, try and place them under citizen's arrest (a great help to us LEOs) or shoot if necessary. It isn't attempted homicide if you shoot below the waist.

As I have to mention every now and then, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There is so much wrong with that it is hard to figure out where to start. There is NO responsibility as a civilian to stop a felony, much less by any means necessary. In fact, using deadly force to stop many felonies is prohibited. Putting people under citizens arrest, a rather iffy proposition, is not a great help to LE in most incidents, and shooting a person ANYWHERE is generally considered to be an attempted homicide.

[Lurper]

You're talking apples and oranges there is a huge difference between saying "when I draw my gun I will use deadly force" and "when I draw my gun I will be prepared to use deadly force."

It is stark foolishness to believe that merely flashing a gun will make a BG run away.

It is not "stark foolishness". As has been shown countless times, in the vast majority of DUG incidents just the presence of a gun ends the encounter. Also, usually you will be in a more tactically sound position if you already have your gun in your hand, not in the holster.

In texas, it is your responsablity as a civilian to stop the comission of a felony by any means necessary, including the use of deadly force. If you see a felony beign comitted, try and place them under citizen's arrest (a great help to us LEOs) or shoot if necessary. It isn't attempted homicide if you shoot below the waist.

There is just SO much wrong with that statement. I don't believe that any state requires you to stop the commission of a felony. Some allow you to, some also say that you may use lethal force to stop certain felonies, but none require you to intervene or place someone under citizen's arrest. The last sentence is so absurd that I won't even bother to address it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

DGU, not DUG - sorry, Lurper - comes from grading exams.

[Cremon]

It is not "stark foolishness".

Oh yes it is! If you draw your gun and you aren't ready to use it, you are a daredevil living on a lunatic fringe. When you pull out that smoke stick, you are taking a HUGE gamble. If you aren't mentally committed to shooting in advance, the split second you think you need to shoot, most people will hesitate. Pulling a gun out merely as a show of force is stupid, and even police will arrest you for doing something like that. It is illegal to pull out a gun in a situation where your life is not immediately at risk and they CAN charge you with assault if you do it in public.

If you're a gun flasher, you better HOPE like hell he falls for your bluff. Because if he doesn't, you are dead. Period.

The Armed Citizen Solution - a professional guide to concealed weapon carrying priveded by the US Concealed Weapon Carry association - speaks volumes about the legality and suicidal dangers of gun flashing.

[Lurper]

NP Glenn, it comes from dyslexic typing. lol

[Lurper]

If you draw your gun and you aren't ready to use it, you are a daredevil living on a lunatic fringe.

You really should read what I wrote again. You are missing the point entirely.
Let me back up a bit so that you can get a better look at the entire picture.
Drawing your weapon when you feel your life is threatened and not firing it is perfectly legal. There is nothing wrong with it, nor is it illegal. Needlessly displaying a firearm is. Saying that "drawing your weapon commits you to using lethal force" is akin to saying "if you draw your weapon, you must use it" (about every other class, there is a student who asks that very question). That is absolutely untrue. Moreover, having that mindset may cause some people to either hesistate drawing their weapon or think that they have to wait until the last possible second. Neither is true and both can be fatal. I think we can all agree that starting the confrontation with your gun in your hand is better than starting with it in your holster. As fast as I am, I would still rather have my gun in hand than in holster.

Secondly, of the estimated 2.5 million DGU (better Glenn?) incidents annually, only between 20,000 and 80,000 (depending on whose figures you use) involve shots being fired. In the rest of the incidents (which I think we can all agree is the vast majority), the mere presence or mention of a firearm ends the confrontation. So, it is not stupid, nor illegal, unwise or necessarily a bluff provided the basic criteria of threat of death or serious bodily injury is present.

[David Armstrong]

A better analogy would be that we need to treat all dui drivers like extreme dui's because we cannot tell how inebriated they are. Again, I have no way of knowing where my assailant falls in the sample.

Well, once again we have an impasse. All drivers are not dui drivers, any more than all criminals are killers. You should not lump either together, particularly when your conclusion is likely to be wrong. There are many ways of knowing how inebriated a driver is, and one can predict with a fair amount of certainty what percentage of drivers will be intoxicated, how intoxicated they will be, etc. Thus you might look at the driving experience differently based on driving at 2:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

Which is my point. It's easy to say that it's irrelevant when you are not the one involved in the incident.

Sorry, but I think you miss the point. What is irrelevant is looking at each element of each crime as a unique factor to be considered. All incidents are unique, but looking at unique incidents in aggregate gives one a pretty good idea of how the incidents will play out. thus the idea that each event is unique is irrelevant.

Again, there is no way to now the likelihood of the actions taken by your assailant without knowing his past patterns.

Sure there is. You know what he is doing now, and that helps you determine what actions are likely to be taken. When a driver turns on the left turn signal, it indicates a strong likelihood they are going to turn left. Sure, they might not do so, sure they might not have done so in the past, but it is fair to assume they are going to do so now. If your assailant is demanding your billfold, it is likely he is not going to rape you.

The only information that is totally relevant is the information you gather at the time the incident happens.

Sigh, that is just wrong, and in no other endeavor would such an idea even be considered. You are in essence arguing that, as an example, each NASCAR race is unique therefore past records of events, drivers, and so on are not relevant to discussing the likely outcome of the race.

No, what we should do is take action to down a hijacked plane in spite of the fact that most hijackings end without violence.

That might be a nice idea, but it has nothing to do with the question asked, as you may not know if a plane has been hijacked or not.

Based on nationally representative samples of crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Surveys, victims who use guns for self-protection were less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all. For example, among robbery victims who used guns, only 17% were injured and only 31% lost property, compared to 25% inury rates and 88% property loss rates among victims who did not resist at all, and 33% injury rates and 65% property loss rates among all robbery victims.

As happens so often, knowing the story behind the numbers can be important. The NCVS findings look good, but as it turns out the reason we see such success is that the victims tended to fight back only when the criminal was not comparably armed, so we don't really see an appropriate comparison to what we are discussing, IMO. Also of importance in that same study is the fact that victims who used guns to defend themselves only hit the BG 3% of the time, and in only 2% of the violent crimes did the BG fire his gun. Those times they did fire the gun were almost exclusively as a response to something the victim did that threatened them, which tends to show that the basic premise of "if not hurt initially you won't get hurt" is a pretty safe bet.

[David Armstrong]

It is stark foolishness to believe that merely flashing a gun will make a BG run away.

No, it is actually a pretty good bet. Again, understanding the facts can make a lot of difference. However, it is sort of funny to see Lurper commenting ' "It is not "stark foolishness". As has been shown countless times, in the vast majority of DUG incidents just the presence of a gun ends the encounter. ' thus defending one statement with the same type of support he is arguing is irrelevant in another post!

The Armed Citizen Solution - a professional guide to concealed weapon carrying priveded by the US Concealed Weapon Carry association - speaks volumes about the legality and suicidal dangers of gun flashing.

A dubious guide by dubious professionals offering dubious (and sometimes obviously erroneous) advice. Not a source I'd put a whole lot of faith in, IMO.

Pulling a gun out merely as a show of force is stupid, and even police will arrest you for doing something like that.

I don't see where anyone has suggested doing that. Yes, you don't pull a gun just as a display of force, but pulling it in no way obligates you to use it. One can make that show of force as part of an acceptable overall use of force decision without any trouble.

[Cremon]

You really should read what I wrote again. You are missing the point entirely.

Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here? You started it.

[Cremon]

No, it is actually a pretty good bet.

What, betting your life on gun flashing? Better YOU than ME. I won't make that gamble with MY life. I don't know about you, but I have a family that needs me. I don't play games with a responsibility like that. When I draw my gun, I am ready to use it. There's no bluffing from this cowboy.

A dubious guide by dubious professionals offering dubious (and sometimes obviously erroneous) advice. Not a source I'd put a whole lot of faith in, IMO.

Glad you qualified that with the IMO at the end. That is YOUR opinion. A lot of tactical training instructors endorse the principles they teach on that site for survival and with dealing with the legal ramifications after.

Your gun flashing might work sometimes. But counting on it every time is insane. There is no such thing as a Russian Roulette champion.

[threegun]

Justme,

I once had to draw my weapon on a customer who I believed was about to rob the shop where I work. As this bad guy began to reach into his trench coat in the area normally associate with a shoulder holster I decided to respond. As I began my draw pistol I noticed that the bad guy was pulling a gun from his coat. As I climbed his body with my front sight and began to depress the trigger (on my Glock) I realized that the pistol he was pulling was in fact a bb gun. In the span of 1/2 second (my draw speed back then) I was able to both note the type of gun (it was really big at that moment LOL) and stop from pulling the rest of the trigger. My point is you have time. I would have been justified as this dim bulb actually pointed the bb gun at my partner. He was trying to scare my partner. Thankfully I was able to stop and reholster my gun.

[Justme]

I would like to think I could stop if the situation changed, I am not at all sure I would be able to. I once crushed a guy's windpipe in a bar(an NCO club in England actually) because he insulted my then wife, to this day I don't remember making any concious decision, but my hand snapped up and I grabbed the guys throat. That is why I do not draw until I deem that the situation calls for firing, I'm not sure where my mental processes stop and muscle memory takes over. It's one thing to strangle a guy who probably deserved it(in all fairness my first wife was a whore so...), quite another to shoot someone.

[threegun]

Blinded by anger isn't the same as reacting to a life and death threat. I didn't have time for emotions until it was over.

[Justme]

Fear is an emotion too, just as strong as anger I would suspect. Like I said, I would like to think I could stop myself, but who knows. I have had car accidents from reacting too slowly to something like a person in front of me stopping suddenly. I had enough time to stop but my brain just couldn't believe that the nimrod in front of me actually slammed on the brakes.

Anyway, my point is that when I draw it is with every intent to shoot, therefore I don't draw until I have made the decision to also pull the trigger. While I would make every attempt to stop myself if the situation changed during my draw, I am not at all sure I would be able to.

I wonder if this is a case where less practice is actually better? If you practice drawing and firing often enough that it becomes second nature do you also increase the chance that you wouldn't be able to stop yourself firing if you register something amiss?

There are enough stories about cops who accidently shot kids with squirt guns and bbguns and such to make me worry that an inexperienced person like myself could easily make such a mistake.

[pax]

If you practice drawing and firing often enough that it becomes second nature do you also increase the chance that you wouldn't be able to stop yourself firing if you register something amiss?

Yes, you do.

But that doesn't mean less practice is better! It means you need more practice than you believe, and it means you have to actually think when you practice.

Any responsible training program incorporates "Shoot/Don't Shoot" decision-making as part of the training material. In addition to regularly practice draw and fires just as quickly as you can go, it is also a good idea to regularly practice drawing to low ready, assessing the situation, and then raising the gun to fire quickly only if the situation demands (you can have a friend give you a "shoot" or "don't shoot" verbalization to simulate this).

Similarly, most professional firearms instructors suggest students do not practice a simple Tap-Rack-Bang as the immediate action drill, instead using Tap-Rack-(assess and)-Bang -- with the part in parentheses being a very, very quick assessment of the target to see if it still needs to be shot (and it takes place while you are tapping and racking, so to an observer it looks about the same ... but don't leave that assessment out because the situation can change radically in just that split second it takes to clear a jam).

It is very irresponsible to tell people that they must fire every time they touch their holstered gun. This is simplistic and easy to train and completely incongruent with reality. In reality: you'd better not draw unless you are emotionally and legally prepared to shoot if it becomes necessary. When you draw, you must be able to articulate, in a court of law, why you felt it was necessary to draw the gun. And if you shoot, you must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

All of this is far more complex than most folks are prepared to accept, which is why conversations like this so often devolve into mere sloganeering. KISS, right? But ... it ain't simple, and you ain't stupid.

pax

The most dangerous untruths are the truths moderately distorted. -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

[Lurper]

Anyway, my point is that when I draw it is with every intent to shoot, therefore I don't draw until I have made the decision to also pull the trigger. While I would make every attempt to stop myself if the situation changed during my draw, I am not at all sure I would be able to.

Some of you are really missing this point. If someone is kicking down your front door, are you going to keep your pistol holstered until they break through? You need to understand that drawing and firing are two seperate actions. If you think of and practice them as one, they will be. There have been a couple of times when I have had the sights aligned on someone (finger off the trigger even in SD situations) and they have decided to stop the confrontation. There have been times where I have drawn and not fired. Thinking that if you draw you must fire or thinking of them as one and the same is poor training.

Again, it is much faster and smarter to have the gun in your hand when the confrontation starts if possible.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A logical conundrum occurs to me with the door scenario. What if there is a threat and you don't have a holstered handgun?

You have a long arm. Are you compelled to shoot if you pick it up and look for the target? It's not holstered.

BTW, if you really crush a windpipe, do you kill someone and go to jail for it as it is inappropriate for an insult?

In TX, if you respond with force for an insult, it is not taken kindly to by the law.

Still waiting on racking the slide on the draw - such a trouble maker, I'm!

[Lurper]

A lot of tactical training instructors endorse the principles they teach on that site for survival and with dealing with the legal ramifications after.

There are many who don't endorse all of their principles and teachings, at least a couple have posted in this thread.

[gvf]

I think the "drawing weapon" question is also one of practicality: once it's out you're much more likely to use it out of an instinctive reaction. Is that bad? NO in some situations 'cause the time saved in not needing to draw will save you; in others, it will get you to shoot when you shouldn't and indicted.

When a family (most were attorneys) opened a restaurant/bar as a side business many years ago in my city, some cops came in to greet them and talk about security over a few cold ones. Cops told them: "If you're getting robbed: shoot him. If it turns out he didn't have a gun, he will have after we examine the crime scene"

[Lurper]

As happens so often, knowing the story behind the numbers can be important. The NCVS findings look good, but as it turns out the reason we see such success is that the victims tended to fight back only when the criminal was not comparably armed, so we don't really see an appropriate comparison to what we are discussing, IMO.

Not according to Kleck:
"These data indicate that victims who use guns for self-protection actually face less favorable circumstances than other victims, and that the post-self-protection injury rates for defensive gun use, low though they are, may still be misleadingly high compared to tother self-protection measures because victims who used guns faced tougher crime circumstances. More dangerous situations apparently prompt victims to adopt more dangerous self-protection measures. Two pieces of information available in the NCVS support this view. First, victims who used guns were substantially more likely than victims in general or victims using other self-protection measures to face offenders armed with guns — 32.7 percent of victims who attacked the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, and 21.8 percent of those who threatened the offender with a gun, faced offenders with guns, compared to only 6.8 percent of all victims who used self-protection measures, and 2.2 percent of all victims. Second, victims who used guns were more likely to face multiple offenders — 33.2 percent of victims who attacked offenders with a gun and 34.5 percent of those who threatened with a gun confronted multiple adversaries, compared to 20.6 percent of all those who used self-protection measures, and 6.2 percent of all victims. These findings are consistent with the view that crime circumstances likely to appear more dangerous to victims are more likely to push victims into using guns. They are contrary to the speculation that crime outcomes are better for gun-wielding victims merely because other circumstances of the crime made successful outcomes more likely." (pp. 291-92)

thus defending one statement with the same type of support he is arguing is irrelevant in another post!

Which post are you referring to? I'd be happy to clarify both positions if you'd like.

When a driver turns on the left turn signal, it indicates a strong likelihood they are going to turn left. Sure, they might not do so, sure they might not have done so in the past, but it is fair to assume they are going to do so now.

So, does that mean you should feel safe passing them on the right? Sure, the odds are in your favor that you could without incident, but you really don't know if they are turning left and will your insurance company give you a break because the odds were in your favor or is your car less wrecked? My point is that it boils down to a judgement call, that imo is better based on information gathered during the situation than statistics and it is hard to fault someone for whatever decision they make because they are the participant, not the observer.

You are in essence arguing that, as an example, each NASCAR race is unique therefore past records of events, drivers, and so on are not relevant to discussing the likely outcome of the race.

So, a NASCAR race is always won by the driver who is statistically most likely to win and has never been won by one who was statistically not?