ending threat just by presentation?

[rmocarsky]

Gunners,

Sorry if this is not in the appropriate thread.

Are there any legitimate statistics that state the percentage of threats that have been stopped when nothing more happens than a firearm is brought to bear by the intended victim?

Rmocarsky

[Newton24b]

well lets be whimsical about it, in the 25 years that COPS has been on the air with fox networks, how many times have you seen the just paroled car jacker not get poled over in the stolen car?

how many times does the criminal surrender right when the police yank guns out? not very many times.

the best thought on this came from an unknown person. "dont pull your gun if you dont have to use it at that moment. otherwise your the criminal brandishing a gun"

[Brian Pfleuger]

Some states specifically allow for the presentation of a defensive firearm for the particular intent of preventing the escalation of the situation to actual use of force. Some states do not allow the firearm to be in sight unless you are justified in pulling the trigger.

As far as an accurate assessment of how often it work... I've never seen that particular question studied. The Armed Citizen Analysis mentions that shots were fired in 72% of the 482 incidents in their data.

[deepcreek]

I was always taught never to pull a gun unless you are going to use it. Off of the top of my head I can think of many bad possibilities and very few good ones.

-Most of the time a handgun gets banished cops get called, it is a felony in many places and it is your word against others. Better be prepared for a very expensive and stressful legal trial.

-It is a tactical error to pull a gun and not use it. You are showing the person your next move before you take it and giving them time for a proper attack.

-To unknown spectators the guy with the gun looks like the "bad guy".

-Many people carrying gun are not aggressive enough to use them and many people get them stripped away and used against them. Are you prepared to shoot an unarmed person who tries to strip your weapon?

-If someone pulls a gun on me and I am armed that is my legal ticket to put 2 in their chest when I get a chance.

-What is your intention with your gun out? To control a person? Most aggressive people are not that easily controlled. Police control people with guns drawn but they also have a badge.
What will you do with a person in your control? do you have the proper training to safely disarm them? To keep them in a position where they are not a threat?

As with everything there is always scenarios where it could be the thing to do but in general I think it is bad.

[Hiker 1]

About 20 years ago I presented a Glock 21 to a young "gentleman" who was rapidly approaching the group of 4 I was with as we were getting into a car.

He and I had locked eyes and his hand was in a small gym bag slung across his body.

When he saw the .45, he stopped cold, gave me a look of disgust and went back the way he came.

No shots fired. Threat ended.

[Silver00LT]

You pull then you better as well be prepared to fire the second you aim the weapon at your intended target.

-Law enforcement have a badge and training to allow them to use weapons as a controlling situation. If the police are called to the scene and you're there holding someone at gun point. The police will be pointing their weapons at YOU not the initial criminal until they can properly access the situation and get control of the scenario.

-They take off and run away you immediately get to safety and call the police that instant and tell them what happened.

-They still approach you and the threat is not stopped then you use your weapon. Then call the police and report the crime. Also good to have a lawyers number on standby.

If you were man enough to pull the weapon on a threat you better be ready to use it. If you can not use it at a moments decision to end a threat then why did you draw in the first place?

There are laws protecting us gun owners, but there are also laws keeping those weapons of ours HOLSTERED and not just brandishing them at every 'threat' situation. If the threat is perceived liable to draw a weapon then it is liable to fire your weapon unless the threat takes off running. You shoot someone in the back...then you are the criminal.

[Evan Thomas]

Apart from not including negative outcomes, the problem with the "Armed Citizen's" database is that the main source of incidents is new reports. It's unlikely that the media report many incidents in which a gun was displayed but not used.

I was always taught never to pull a gun unless you are going to use it. Off of the top of my head I can think of many bad possibilities and very few good ones.

If pulling the gun ends a threat (the assailant turns and runs, for example), you would not be justified in shooting. As Brian notes, laws differ on when you're justified in displaying a gun, but even in those where it's legal to display it only if lethal force would be justified, the point is that you should be prepared to use it, not that you must.

[Brian Pfleuger]

There's seems to be 3 different concepts that folks are merging into a single idea, which isn't appropriate.

1)Displaying a firearm hoping it will end a threat.

2)Drawing a firearm means you must pull the trigger.

3)Displaying a firearm because you hope it scares someone away and you're scared/unwilling to use it.


The three aren't the same.

There's a very good chance that the sight of the firearm will end the threat. How good? Don't know, doesn't matter. It might, and if it does and you still shoot because you've got the mindset that you're going to shoot if you ever draw, you very well may end up as a murderer.

If you haven't made the decision that you will use deadly force should it be unavoidable, you should not be carrying a gun. That is true. But it's also completely different than saying "If I draw, I will shoot, which is likely to put you on the wrong end of the law, should it ever happen.

[deepcreek]

If pulling the gun ends a threat (the assailant turns and runs, for example), you would not justified in shooting. As Brian notes, laws differ on when you're justified in displaying a gun, but even in those where it's legal to display it only if lethal force would be justified, the point is that you should be prepared to use it, not that you must.

Like I said earlier "As with everything there is always scenarios where it could be the thing to do but in general I think it is bad."

A statistically person that strikes first and hard in confrontations usually gets the upperhand and takes control of the situation. Waving a gun around is like waving your fist around it just gives the other side time to prepare. IMO

Fights are usually very fast paced and chaotic most of the time it is just do and muscle memory. If you are pulling a gun out as a show piece and contemplating this and that you might get yourself in a lot of trouble.

Just my take on it, I keep guns hidden same with sticks and fists.

[Silver00LT]

As gun owners we should remain calm and avoiding situations that could even lead to just fist fighting...sight of a weapon will change the game completely. If you don't plan on drawing your weapon, but the guy knows you are armed and manages to grab your gun...well you can be robbed and killed with your own weapon.

The biggest thing we can do is keep a cool head, because as stated prior. Firing JUST because you pulled the weapon could very well put you behind bars.

[Alabama Shooter]

Police officers draw firearms that end threats every day without pulling the trigger. If you are looking for statistics I would try researching that. I bet someone has done a study on it.

[MLeake]

I had thought Lott claimed 90% of defensive gun uses result in no shots fired.

[Alabama Shooter]

Lott claims a lot of stuff. Given the small sample size, the lack of any remaining source data from the survey, the age of the study, a single source reporting from an older study is not always the best way to go.

Since the study would be easily reproducible today one wonders why that has not happened?

[dayman]

If you draw your gun you should be prepared to use it, but if the sight of a gun ends the threat all the better. Hopefully drawing a gun will change a situation where using it is justified (bad guy advancing) into one where it isn't (bad guy retreating).
The point of brandishing laws is to keep people from escalating a confrontation by prematurely drawing guns, not to trap people into shooting each other if they ever do.

You shouldn't carry a gun if you're not prepared to use it, but you also shouldn't carry a gun if you want to use it.

I don't know of any statistics on how often that happens, but I would guess it's a lot - most "bad guys" are cowards, and are just looking for easy prey. "Cops" and "the armed citizen" are bad sources for data as they both pick and choose which stories their audiences will like.
It does seem like a good study to do though.

[TXAZ]

Like another poster I grew up being taught you dont pull a weapon unless you are going to use it. Since that time I've stopped a burglary by showing up with a shotgun. I can't imagine showing up and shooting those two early-teenagers just because I had the weapon. Hard and fast rules have a tendency to create problems around the edges.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...It is a tactical error to pull a gun and not use it....

Not exactly. One should not pull a gun unless under the circumstances the immediate use of the gun would be justified. But if upon presenting the gun the threat ends, e. g., the assailant turns and flees or immediately surrenders, one would not be justified in shooting.

This was all well explained by Vanya, Brian and dayman in posts 7, 8 and 14, respectively.

It's important to understand the legal issues.

The usual definition of assault, based on the Common Law is:

an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

In the laws of some States this crime might be given another name. For example, in Alabama it's called "menacing." But by whatever name it is called, it is a crime in every State.

So a display of a firearm, when done for the purposes of intimidation or to secure compliance, is, in all States, an assault of some type. You are effectively putting someone in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, i. e., getting shot.

Now in all States it will be a defense against a charge of assault (or any similar crime) if you establish that your assault satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.

In most States the standard for justifying a threat of lethal force is the same as for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In a few, it's a somewhat lesser standard. So in all States if you threaten lethal force you will need to be able to at least show prima facie such threat was legally justified, that is if you want to avoid a conviction for assault.

[deepcreek]

Not exactly. One should not pull a gun unless under the circumstances the immediate use of the gun would be justified. But if upon presenting the gun the threat ends, e. g., the assailant turns and flees or immediately surrenders, one would not be justified in shooting.

This was all well explained by Vanya, Brian and dayman in posts 7, 8 and 14, respectively.

If a situation is such where you need to pull a gun and you do and the situation somehow changes in the moment you pull the gun and level it (.05 seconds?) yeah don't pull the trigger. To look for that in a draw would be a hesitation IMO. But that’s just me.

The legalities of even pulling out a gun are very serious many people get charged with felonies for even brandishing/presenting a gun, which translates to prison and loss of gun rights. Nothing to take lightly..

My take on it is do not pull a gun unless it is a legal shot and if it is a legal shot your life is probably in danger so don't play around. Hopeful it was already an important thought out decision when the gun came out.
I have been seeing a lot of gun brandishers get arrested and charged with felonies in the news lately. To many people are pulling and displaying guns over stupid things like road rage and arguments.

[Onward Allusion]

There are so many variables but the gist is correct. Don't pull a gun unless you are willing to maim/kill/stop/whatever the other person. Seriously, there is no correct answer. One can't think and mull over it during a time of crisis. To even try might get a person killed. It is best to walk through the different scenarios when you are sitting in front of a computer. All the armchair quarterbacking doesn't do jack in the real world. Yes, I have had to pull mine a couple of times. Sometimes you just gotta trust your instincts. All ended without shots, luckily.

[Skadoosh]

I was always taught never to pull a gun unless you are going to use it.

I was taught to pull my weapon from it's holster if I have a reasonable expectation that I might need to use it...

[MLeake]

Well, Alabama Shooter, interesting you should ask that, so...

In 2002, he repeated the survey, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent brandishment-only.[14] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz's 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.[15] Lott explained the lower brandishment-only rates found by others was at least in part due to the different questions that were asked.[16] Most surveys used a recall period of "Ever" while some (Hart, Mauser, and Tarrance) used the previous five years. The Field Institute survey used periods of previous year, previous two years and ever.[3] The NSPOF survey used a one year recall period.[8] Lott also used a one year recall period and asked respondents about personal experiences only, due to questionable respondent recall of events past one year and respondent knowledge of DGU experiences of other household members.[16]

So, even on the low end, studies seem to find that shots need not be fired 70-80% of the time, and the percentages increase if warning shots are considered as a separate category of shot fired, IE a shot not fired with intent to hit the BG.

Also, note the point that different studies limited the timeframe about which they asked, IE last five years; last two years; etc.

Granted, this came from a Wiki article, but it has its footnote list at the bottom of the linked article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

[CSG]

I've had a gun out twice where no shots were fired and the situation was resolved. Once when I was off-duty as a deputy and the other time a couple years earlier (as a civilian) when I and a buddy were being threatened by a couple asswipes. I was prepared to fire both times but having a gun pointed at their chests seemed to resolve things. I arrested the guy when I was a cop and fled the earlier scene. Exit stage right is the best outcome. Situational awareness is something anyone who carries a firearm that needs to be part of your daily life.

As a civilian, you might get charged with brandishing so the only time you'd want to do it is if you really thought your life or safety was in real jeopardy.

[Hiker 1]

If you read post #5, I describe my own situation. I was mentally prepared to do what I needed to do, but the threat ended.

I'm not a fan of the phrase "pull a gun". That sounds like something that happens in the parking lot of a biker bar at 3:00 am but that's just me.

If I ever need to draw a weapon or present a gun and the threat ends again, so be it.

[LewSchiller]

At Gun Shows we frequently hear women's stories of being cornered - car jack attempts - men coming at them in parking lots...
All of those situations were handled without a shot fired but by the woman showing that she was armed.

I'm no lawyer but I think that's a far better outcome than feeling that if threatened it's either shoot or nothing, assuming she was fully prepared to use it if it became necessary.

I have had a woman's husband tell me - in disgust at the thought of a CC holster - he'd trained his wife to carry in a purse and shoot through it if she felt she was in danger. I countered with what I said above. He insisted that there's no middle ground between shooting and not shooting. Well - what if the attacker turns out to be unarmed ? Still a threat but can you gun him down in the parking lot because you feel a threat? Firing through a purse - isn't that it's own kind of illegal if it comes out that it's your defense plan from day one?

I don't think so.

[Brian Pfleuger]

There's nothing illegal about planning to shoot through a purse. A situation either meets the criteria for deadly force or it does not. If it does, the manner of deadly force is irrelevant. You could hit them with a shovel, run them over with your car or shoot them through a purse. Makes no difference.

Fact is, if a woman carries in her purse, she SHOULD have a plan for shooting from inside it.

[MLeake]

My main concern with purse carry isn't legality of self-defense, it's the impracticality of putting one's weapon in the likeliest target for a snatcher.