Why and when would you pull the trigger?

[Justme]

In the end I did not "crush" his windpipe in a literal sense, but I did cause some damage which embarassed both of us, since the guy was sort of a friend. The whole point is that things sometimes happen faster than we can think. I'm sure most people think faster than me, good for them.

I didn't pick up your "rack the slide upon draw" hot potato because I do it that way and think it is best for me, I understand that others do not feel that way and it doesn't bother me. We all make subtle compromises that we feel comfortable with. To me the tactical disadvantage of having to rack the slide is outweighed by the safety advantage, other people can weigh those two things and arrive at a different solution to the safety/tactical advantage dilemma.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What is the safety disadvantage of having a chambered Kel-tec 32 ACP? IIRC, that is your carry gun?

If one proposed this fast reaction, why slow it down or carry an unsafe gun?

[David Armstrong]

What, betting your life on gun flashing?

Nope, nobody has said that. Thje point is that one can, and frequently does, defuse the situation without utilizing the maximum level of force that is considered legal. If the BG stops at the sight of the gun, you have won.

When I draw my gun, I am ready to use it. There's no bluffing from this cowboy.

You assume that flashing constitutes a bluff. It doesn't.

Glad you qualified that with the IMO at the end. That is YOUR opinion.

And the opinion of a number of other folks who know a whole lot about this business.

Your gun flashing might work sometimes. But counting on it every time is insane.

As with many, you try to argue about a position nobody has taken. Nobody has said count on it every time. Heck, nobody has said count on it at all.

[David Armstrong]

Not according to Kleck:

When in doubt, go to the source. The NCVS, which Kleck is using as his source, has as the first footnote the explanation that the data showed that most victims who fought back did so only when they had a leg up on the BGs. That is reflected, BTW, in other sources, directly and indirectly. Kleck will also point out that the small number of incidents used create a big question as to their validity in the larger population. If you want to play battleing sources, though, I'll pass on about a half-dozen that say fighting back tends to increase the chance and severity of injury to the good guy.

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

The ones where you seem to disagree with looking at the probable odds and focusing on each event as unique, then using the probable odds and ignoring the unique.

So, does that mean you should feel safe passing them on the right?

It means it is a bit of data, information, that one can use to develop a conclusion on what to do.

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.

And I think it is better to develp that call based on understanding of the overall statistics as well as the current situation. IN fact, without the stats, you have no way to determine what the current situation is likely to indicate.

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?

Nope. But if you had to make a bet, which would you bet on? That is the whole point here. I like Danica Patrick, but I wouldn't have bet on her to win the first race she entered. The odds were against it.

[Justme]

Glenn a keltec with a full magazine but no chambered round is inherently safer than one with a full magazine and one in the chamber. It is much harder to accidently chamber a round and fire it than it is to accidently pull the trigger. Both are unlikely, and I don't have a problem with someone else carrying with a round chambered, I just don't feel safe doing so.

[Cremon]

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

No one said you HAVE to shoot when you draw - that was just you taking my post out of context - like I did yours. But every time I draw, I realize that I might have to shoot. I am prepared to shoot whenever I draw my gun - doesn't mean I will. And if someone is kicking down my door - my gun is drawn.

As with many, you try to argue about a position nobody has taken. Nobody has said count on it every time. Heck, nobody has said count on it at all.

You stepped into the middle of another argument and you probably had the good sense to read what both of us posted. I'm not criticizing you, though I responded to you in the same light that I did Lurper. He saw my post and played on the possibility that I meant you shoot every time you draw. I meant every time you draw, be ready to shoot - you pull a gun - be prepared to use it. Lurper is a smart guy which is why I believe he knew that in advance, but responded anyway because he saw an opportunity to take his own meaning from my post and reply with something that might make himself look witty. If you look at the way he worded his response, you'll see why I came to that conclusion. His overuse of punctuation to show emotion demonstrates the view that he felt he'd just struck gold when he saw my post.

I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think that anyone else here really believes you have to shoot every time your gun leaves the holster. And I don't believe that Lurper did either.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is a grand debate about chambering. Given most DGUs have no shots fired, it will be nonissue for most.

However, if one really, really holds for this fast response view of drawing the gun, it makes no sense to add a significant time delay and increased probability of a screw up, esp. with a gun of relatively limited stopping power.

I think it was claimed by someone that no one could disarm him. However, it would seem to me that if you are forced in a retention situation to rack the gun, that claim might not stand up. BTW, that's why FOF training is useful, to see those close quarters situations that aren't the standard OK Corral gun fight.

One should not carry a gun that they fear for safety issues. It would make more sense if one wanted to carry a small gun to switch to a J frame.


But, that's really off topic.

I think most sensible folks in this thread conclude that:

1. Drawing the gun means it is a potential use of lethal force situation and the ocnditions have been met to use lethal force.
2. You don't have necessarily have to use lethal force if you think that the BG can be stopped or deterred by the presence of the gun
3. From a great deal of experience with many trainers by many people, no one legit argues that you must shoot if you draw.

[threegun]

Again a bad bet on an auto race and you lose money. A bad bet in an armed confrontation and you die. For those of you who wish to gamble with your life on the actions of a criminal more power to you. I will bet on my abilities with my pistol for my safety. I will treat each occurrence as potential death (because it is). Since no one can be assured 100 percent of being left alive I will not pass on an opportunity to end a threat. No stats can determine how individual events will end if gunfire is initiated or if the helpless victim approach is used.

If you are of the mindset that playing the odds is the way to go........then stop carrying. No need to carry because with very few exceptions using your gun only increases the danger.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Then how come in a couple of million DGUs per year, a couple of million BGs are not shot and the situation is resolved in the favor of the Good guy.

Why do quality trainers teach verbal commands and challenges?

Threegun, you still seem to miss the point, if I read you correctly. You treat the situation as a lethal threat but that doesn't mean you poop out your brains when it comes to choices.

[threegun]

My default is that this badguy might kill me. If I can stop them I will even if it means an increase in danger to do so.

If you are going to play the odds Glenn then why carry in the first place? Fighting back except in the rarest of occassions increases your chances of getting hurt. You guys keeps saying play the odds yet you all are carrying even though doing so increases the odds. Thats hypocritical.

[Lurper]

I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to think that anyone else here really believes you have to shoot every time your gun leaves the holster.

I don't really care to make myself look witty or not. I simply took you at your word. I believe the exact quote was "drawing your weapon commits you to using deadly force." As I mentioned, I have students who ask that question so it isn't unreasonable for me to assume that you meant it literally. My main point was that when possible you should draw your weapon when you feel your life is threatened, not wait until you made the decision to shoot. The small edge in time it gives you could make a difference. Based on your subsequents posts, it appeared that you disagreed with that. However, since your last post I think we can agree that you don't draw your weapon unless there is a threat and you are prepared to use it. Fair enough?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think everyone reasonable is saying this. You are prepared to use it. You don't have to use it. You can evaluate the situation to see if the shot is necessary.

Knowledge of likely outcomes in certain situations is useful knowledge in this process. It is just something you take into account. The probabilities don't force a decision but are part of the decision based on the best outcome you can calculate.

Some folks seem to think that if one says that the odds of a bank robbery having a low percentage of violence means that you automatically never shoot are missing the point, again.

[Cremon]

Fair enough?

Fair enough.

Truce.

[sw_florida]

so that writers can straighten out the flowering question marks?! I can keep in the background and sell ice cream, holster on, of course.

[threegun]

Some folks seem to think that if one says that the odds of a bank robbery having a low percentage of violence means that you automatically never shoot are missing the point, again.

If your goal is to survive the event and according to you guys the stats should be taken into account, then why would you shoot? David was pretty clear that we should not start the gunfight unless the bad guy becomes violent

"Why would you willingly change an armed robbery (or other incident) into a gunfight?" Most criminal events that involve deadly force start out that way. If you haven't been shot/stabbed/beaten/etc right off the bat there is a very small chance of being shot/stabbed/beaten/etc later on. Criminals tend to threaten in order to gain compliance, and as long as that compliance is there the event rarely escalates. The key, IMO, is being able to determine with some degree of accuracy when that escalation is occurring, and not doing things to up the violence level yourself.

The correct world view (IMHO ) is that one has a realistic view of the options and abilities. One acts for a goal which is to survive using a path that has the best possibility of such. If the goal is to make a statement - then of course start the fight. If the goal is to save one's skin - then choose a path that maximizes that outcome. One can deal with hurt feelings later.

Unfortunately in the real world if you wait for escalation by the bad guy you are probably dead before you can act. Some people seem to miss that point.

[Boris Bush]

I didn't read all of the posts, too long. Anyway, why would you NOT shoot? Material things today WILL evolve into much larger crimes. If they know they (the criminals) can get away with it they will push it to the limit and who knows where that will go? Killing them may just save someones life, you may not realize it or know it, but that is the way you should look at it...........

[Justme]

Material things today WILL evolve into much larger crimes.

One of the sillier things I've read in my life. Reminds me of those reefer madness movies that tried to convince everyone that one joint was going to turn everyone into a psychotic heroin addict.

Violence, the reason to shoot someone, and theft are fundamentally different behaviors. Plenty of thieves aren't violent and plenty of violent people aren't thieves.

[Boris Bush]

Justme

I just re-read the original post and wiped my brow..... An ARMED robber wanting only physical belongings on you should die. I don't know where you live, but where I grewup I had a friend killed because what little he had on him angered the robber so much they just shot him (robbers own words).

I hope you wear an expensive watch, drive a nice car, and carry alot of money. Most of time the most expensive thing I got on me is my SIG and I am more than glad to give it to anyone that wants it, but they gotta take the bullets first..........

[David Armstrong]

Anyway, why would you NOT shoot?

Maybe because you don't want to turn a robbery into a gunfight?

Killing them may just save someones life, you may not realize it or know it, but that is the way you should look at it...........

That is about as valid as "not killing them may cause them to turn their life around and they will invent a cure for cancer....." Too many folks seem to want to deal with crime according to what they see on TV instead of taking a little time to learn the facts.

[Boris Bush]

That is about as valid as "not killing them may cause them to turn their life around and they will invent a cure for cancer....." Too many folks seem to want to deal with crime according to what they see on TV instead of taking a little time to learn the facts.

I rarely watch tv and I do believe that where you live has a large impact on your view. I have three times used a pistol to stop crimes that were going to happen against me. Never fired a single round. Two of the times the bad guys (all three times there was more than one) started a retreat as soon as my hand found the pistol over my kidney, they didn't wait to see what I was packin'. The third wasn't convinced until I showed it to them. At home a blinding beam from a maglite made would be burglars change their mind on my neighbors house, and a 12 gauge racking another time did the job.

For my real job I get shot at all the time, and my carry weapon (not a pistol) is very accurate and violence of action has saved my life from contact range to 90 meters. If need be I do not think I would hesitate to defend myself, family or otrhers from a bad guy intent on doing bad, especialy if they knowingly continue with a legaly armed person on scene.

[David Armstrong]

If need be I do not think I would hesitate to defend myself, family or otrhers from a bad guy intent on doing bad, ....

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. The question is if one should make that decision based on accurate information and facts and as full an understanding of the reality of the event as is possible or if one should base that decision on wild fantasies and fictions.

[threegun]

Wild fantasies and fiction have nothing to do with assuming that the bad guy threatening my life, might carry out the threat. Odds or percentages won't bring me back if I choose wrong based on them therefore I will assume that I might die and use any opportunity presented to eliminate the threat.

To say that folks who disagree with giving serious weight to odds and percentages in an armed confrontation are uninformed or living in a fantasy world is ridiculous and designed to antagonize.

One thing is clear though, waiting for escalation reduces your chances of survival if escalation happens.

[Lurper]

Here are the figures, decide for yourself:

The likelihood of an injury was the
same for victims facing armed and
unarmed offenders (26%); serious
injury was more likely from armed
offenders (7% versus 2%).

Offender use of firearms
Of incidents involving offenders
with firearms, victims —
! were shot (3%)
! were shot at but not hit (8%)
! were struck with a firearm (4%)
! were threatened with a firearm (72%)
! did not describe offender’s use of
firearms (13%).

Robbery and injuries
About half of victims of robbery by
offenders armed with blunt objects/
other weapons sustained an injury
during the crime.
About a third of victims of robbery by
unarmed offenders (36%) and offenders
armed with knives or sharp objects
(31%) sustained injury during the
victimization.
Offenders armed with any weapon
other than a firearm inflicted a serious
injury during about 1 in 7 robberies that
they committed.
Victims of robbery by offenders armed
with blunt objects/other weapons were
more likely than victims of robbery by
offenders armed with a firearm to be
attacked without a prior threat.

It should also be noted that in the majority of the cases where the victim was injured, the assailant injured them without warning (before, during or after complying). A victim was just as likely to be injured by an unarmed assailant as an armed one.

[pax]

Lurper ~

Source link?

pax

[Lurper]

National Crime Victimization Survey 1993-2001 and 2005, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Don't have the link handy - on my way out the door.