Is there such a thing as "Too Close" ?

[44 AMP]

If the attacker has a contact weapon and is close enough to use it, ..

IF????

The human body is a contact weapon, capable of delivering lethal force.

Much as I hate all the BS involved with the Zimmerman case, boil it down, and one guy was beating the other guy's head against the pavement. No ADDITIONAL weapon was needed for that attack to be life threatening, and justifying deadly force as a response.

Even the law recognizes that an "unarmed" man is always "armed" with the capability of inflicting deadly force, though it uses "disparity of force" to determine what charges, if any should be brought, after the fact.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

IF????

The human body is a contact weapon, capable of delivering lethal force.

Much as I hate all the BS involved with the Zimmerman case, boil it down, and one guy was beating the other guy's head against the pavement. No ADDITIONAL weapon was needed for that attack to be life threatening, and justifying deadly force as a response.

Even the law recognizes that an "unarmed" man is always "armed" with the capability of inflicting deadly force, though it uses "disparity of force" to determine what charges, if any should be brought, after the fact.

Absolutely. I never implied that an "unarmed" attacked was not a deadly threat. There had better be a fairly obvious disparity of force though.

If you quoted the whole sentence, I think there would be less of an issue.

If the attacker has a contact weapon and is close enough to use it, "too close" should not even come into the equation.

[James K]

Let me see. A "good shoot" is the use of a gun in which self defense is obvious to all concerned, and the sheriff and the shooter buy drinks for the house.

It may happen that way in the movies, but I wouldn't want to bet on it in real life. Anyone who carries a gun and has the intent to use it "if necessary" had better have memorized the phone number of a good defense attorney (they take away your iPhone in jail).

Jim

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by James K

Let me see. A "good shoot" is the use of a gun in which self defense is obvious to all concerned, and the sheriff and the shooter buy drinks for the house.

It may happen that way in the movies, but I wouldn't want to bet on it in real life. Anyone who carries a gun and has the intent to use it "if necessary" had better have memorized the phone number of a good defense attorney (they take away your iPhone in jail).

Jim

I'm hoping you are a NRA member, which would mean you would receive the American Rifleman. Every month there is a section called The Armed Citizen, detailing instances when firearms were used in self-defense. If that is your idea of it only happens in the movies, I suggest you start watching better movies.

I believe most of us know that there are risks in using a firearm in self defense, but we knowingly take that risk to avoid the what could happen if unarmed in the same situation. Someone using a gun for self defense can still be sued civilly by the attacker's family, even if the shooting was ruled justifiable.

As for memorizing a criminal attorney's number, you can feel free to do so if you wish. My phone call would go to a family member who would call our regular attorney to find out who is the best criminal attorney (oxymoron? ) around.

I hope we all respect human life and only use lethal force when absolutely necessary, but I also hope that it doesn't cause us to hesitate and lose our own lives instead. Avoid trouble, even at the expense of your ego, but be prepared to take decisive and aggressive action if needed.

[OldMarksman]

Every month there is a section called The Armed Citizen, detailing instances when firearms were used in self-defense.

Do not infer from those little snippets that each case was deemed a "good shoot" at the scene and/or that the defender is embraced by the sheriff.

Even when it does happen that way, justification remains elusive until the defender is charged, tried and acquitted, or the case is dismissed with prejudice, or the defender is pardoned, or the statute of limitations expires. That last never happens in the event that someone is killed.

Except in the movies.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Do not infer from those little snippets that each case was deemed a "good shoot" at the scene and/or that the defender is embraced by the sheriff.

Even when it does happen that way, justification remains elusive until the defender is charged, tried and acquitted, or the case is dismissed with prejudice, or the defender is pardoned, or the statute of limitations expires. That last never happens in the event that someone is killed.

Except in the movies.

And yet you carry and are prepared to used deadly force to protect you and yours right? Same here.

I don't believe that any of my comments made light of the use of deadly. For me, deadly force is a last resort, but I am prepared to do so. That means that I am willing to deal with any and all ramifications that the use of deadly force brings, including legal and civil.

[OldMarksman]

I don't believe that any of my comments made light of the use of deadly.

Not at all.

For me, deadly force is a last resort, but I am prepared to do so.

Yep.

No criticism intended.

It's just that the phrase "a good shoot is a good shoot" can make some people less sensitive to things that can help them avid the worst after the shooting.

Anyone who uses it here can expect a reaction.

[James K]

"I'm hoping you are a NRA member, which would mean you would receive the American Rifleman. Every month there is a section called The Armed Citizen, detailing instances when firearms were used in self-defense. If that is your idea of it only happens in the movies, I suggest you start watching better movies."

I have to plead guilty of being an NRA member. But those monthly snippets don't tell the whole story. Yes, there are cases where self-defense is immediately recognized, and a shooter released with few problems. But often that is not the case, especially where the political climate is strongly against self-defense or where the victim is a member of a favored minority. In such cases, the prosecutor will work very hard to put the "armed citizen" in jail or at least make him/her pay out thousands of dollars to lawyers to have justice recognized. A reasonable defense will cost at least $20,000, and could run many times that in a complicated case. That may be chump change to O.J. Simpson, but most of us would be lucky not to lose our homes and just about everything else we own. And that is if the result is acquittal. If it is not, you may have a home for a good many years - "... to protect the citizens of our city from right-wing gun crazies who think they can kill with impunity..."

Jim

[stephen426]

For those who are that concerned about the legal repercussion, NRA offers insurance to cover legal fees at a very reasonable rate.

https://mynrainsurance.com/insurance...s/self-defense

I might have to look into this.

[OldMarksman]

For those who are that concerned about the legal repercussion, NRA offers insurance to cover legal fees at a very reasonable rate.

https://mynrainsurance.com/insurance...s/self-defense

I might have to look into this.

Provides for reimbursement for criminal defense costs if and when one is acquitted.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by oldmarksman

provides for reimbursement for criminal defense costs if and when one is acquitted.

what’s covered

your defense costs and damages in a civil suit
reimbursement for criminal defense costs when you are acquitted of charges
bodily injury and damage caused by the use of a firearm
your spouse is automatically included on your policy
annual liability limit options and costs

$100,000 combined single limit $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit $165 per year
$250,000 combined single limit $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit $254 per year
$500,000 combined single limit $100,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit $400 per year
$1 million combined single limit $100,000 criminal defense reimbursement sub-limit $600 per year

[jack07]

Since most private citizens will, more likely than not, be attacked at contact distance, then say 21 ft., I'm guessing it will be legal.

[FireForged]

I guess I am simply not a deep thinker as many in this thread obviously are. That said, I look at use of force in very basic terms... If I MUST use my firearm to prevent very grievous and potentially life threatening force being used against me, I will. If I don't, I wont. All other considerations are mute in the face of what I MUST do ( in the moment) to survive. I don't want to use force against anyone and if I do, they will dictate the distance not me. Generally speaking, physical attacks are going to be "up close".

If I were to be concerned about use of force distances, I would be more concerned with greater distances to target being frowned upon, not the other way around.

[Elkins45]

If I were to be concerned about use of force distances, I would be more concerned with greater distances to target being frowned upon, not the other way around.

Agreed. It would be easier to justify having to shoot someone 1 foot away than someone 100 feet away, generally speaking.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Well, a "belly gun" would have to be a revolver. Since a revolver doesn't go out of battery the way a semi-automatic does.

Granted, there are some methods to doing a similar thing with a semi-automatic. But you'll only get one round off and then you'll have to rack the slide to clear the brass from the chamber.

That's with better case scenario where you have both hands available.

[Nanuk]

I believe the Charter Arms Bulldog 44 to be the perfect modern belly gun. It also makes a perfect companion for the Model 69 S&W.

[Tactical Jackalope]

I believe the Charter Arms Bulldog 44 to be the perfect modern belly gun. It also makes a perfect companion for the Model 69 S&W.

That's a beastly belly gun!

Mine is a Smith and Wesson 360PD in .357MAG.

[tipoc]

A small point;

"Fitz" Specials weren't just about concealment. They were built as close up fighting guns. They were intended for pocket carry, as Fitz did, at a time when carrying large frame revolvers in leather lined coat or pants pockets wasn't so odd. The cut away trigger guards were so that a thick finger could get to the trigger quickly without anything getting in the way.

Fitz didn't invent the ideas of snubby's or of "belly guns" (after all what's a derringer but a belly gun?). He was a theorist and proponent of "Fighting Handguns". That is of guns designed and intended as close up fighting tools for personal defense and primarily that. He drew a sharp line between these and military or police sidearms or sporting handguns (as did Chic Gaylord who came along later).

Anyways a part of self defense is thinking through the ramifications, legal and societal, in advance of the event.

tipoc

[A J]

I don't think "too close" is ever an issue in a self-defense shooting. However; "too far" can be a problem.

[Danoobie]

Seems like you're already getting too close for comfort,
when you have to defend yourself.

Now we have to worry about being TOO close? IMO,
it's a non-issue, unless physical contact moves your
slide out of battery.