To shoot or not to shoot. That is...oh, you get it.

[Uncle Ben]

#2, and for the same explanation that you gave in the original post

[Avenger11]

Too bad how many soldiers have been killed, because some bureaucrat, thousands of miles away from the action, dictated rules of engagement that completely stripped them of their ability to act on instinct and training to protect themselves. That is the epitome of ignorance!
I'm officially in the elderly category, so I guess I'm slow by your definition and should just leave SD to the younger folks. Most training programs don't address our issues because we are incapable of training or too dense to recognize a threat.
Common sense is a trait you acquire with life experience, not thru some training class or cruising web sites.
I'm confident in my abilities to know when a theat is real and accept responsibility for my actions.

[Scattergun Bob]

You said "I'm officially in the elderly category, so I guess I'm slow by your definition and should just leave SD to the younger folks. Most training programs don't address our issues because we are incapable of training or too dense to recognize a threat."

Louie, Clint, Mas, Chuck and myself are all well past 60, all of us have a code of conduct and all of us teach it. Quit whining and understand that hardheadedness is often misdiagnosed as "old man's" disease. Understand that the very rules of engagement that you are disputing help keep all of us safe.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[Avenger11]

The only rules of engagement that I dispute are the ones that require that no action be taken until the threat has advanced beyond my ability to deal with it!
I'm OK with ageeing to disagree, but when I've been labeled ignorant by a staff member here, then I have a problem.

[Scattergun Bob]

I AM NOT suggesting that you allow the enemy any more advantage than necessary. I totally agree that once a threat exists, take aggressive / savage action and SOLVE THE PROBLEM. I am only suggesting that gnarly doesn't meet my standard to draw and zero my weapon.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[pax]

Avenger ~

I am sorry that my truthful statement that you were ignorant of some important principles hurt your feelings. I really am, because it was not intended as an insult in any way. There's nothing shameful about being ignorant (as Will Rogers once observed, everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects).

As far as I can tell, nobody has said you have to hold your fire until the situation has become impossible for you to deal with. That is your own interpretation of what others have said, your response to hearing what you perceived to be complex ideas. But the ideas aren't that complex. They are actually rather simple. Once you understand them, you'll be able to respond much more decisively to a threat, from a strong position of knowledge.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing the matter with "gut instinct" when it comes to deciding whether you are in danger. But once you have decided there's a danger, you don't have to lower yourself to the brute level of an animal in order to protect your own life. You can listen to your instincts while allowing reason, logic, and clear thinking to help you survive both the immediate situation and the completely predictable and inevitable results that will follow from your actions.

Think of the "Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy (Intent)" triad as an important, fast, simple way to validate (and later to articulate) your own instincts. When you understand these basics before there's a need to use them, your own responses to a threat can be both faster and more decisive.

pax,

Kathy

[Keltyke]

I am only suggesting that gnarly doesn't meet my standard to draw and zero my weapon.

And you are absolutely right. In SC, the ONLY reason for legally drawing your weapon is you are "in imminent fear of your life or grave bodily injury." You can also draw in defense of someone else, IF you believe "any reasonable person", if they had a gun, would do the same thing. However, that's a fine legal line that might get you in trouble. As others have stated, motive, means, opportunity must ALL exist before you can shoot. What everyone is forgetting is the scene can go from Condition Green to Defcon 1 in a couple of seconds. You must be ALERT, and react quickly, but not prematurely.

[David Armstrong]

Common sense is a trait you acquire with life experience, not thru some training class or cruising web sites.

The amazing things about comon sense are how uncommon it is and how often it doesn't make any sense. You resort to a firearm for SD when you cannot retreat, not to avoid retreat. You resort to a firearm as a last resort, not a first choice. You shoot when you have to, not when you want to.

[Keltyke]

Exactly right!

[Brian Pfleuger]

While our "good guy" was giving verbal warnings from 20 feet, our instructor illustrated that the BG was able to cover that 20 feet with his knife in under 2 seconds, even faster if knows how to throw the thing.

Our local LEO are taught that a knife within 25 feet is IMMEDIATE threat for that very reason. I have seen many videos showing that you can be slashed/stabbed by BG running from 25 feet away before ANYONE could draw their weapon and make a shot.

Incidentally, I say #2.

[gyrfalcon16]

In response to the question, I would pick #2...

In regards to the comment:

The only rules of engagement that I dispute are the ones that require that no action be taken until the threat has advanced beyond my ability to deal with it!...

I've seen a number of elderly people at concealed carry classes. Some have trouble walking, some have shaky hands, and they definitely have difficulty racking or manipulating a firearm. When someone is unable to safely handle a firearm they shouldn't use it. I feel it's similar to driving a car.

If it takes you 5 seconds to draw and ready your weapon maybe you should consider alternative forms of self defense.

Maybe something like a satchel charge rigged to your first alert necklace?

[Stevie-Ray]

2. Draw your weapon as soon as a threat reaches a sufficient level and only fire if threat continues.

[Scattergun Bob]

Son, there is a huge difference between confident and cocky. The difference is that there MAY be a time when it takes 5 seconds to get on target and fix the problem. The confident individual will never stop, never quiet, never surrender. Cocky folks like you tend to fall apart.

Ed Mc Givern and Jeff Cooper both had hand tremors and had slowed considerably from their youth, I still would not have wanted either shooting at me.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[gyrfalcon16]

Son, there is a huge difference between confident and cocky. The difference is that there MAY be a time when it takes 5 seconds to get on target and fix the problem. The confident individual will never stop, never quiet, never surrender. Cocky folks like you tend to fall apart.

Cocky? I was actually trying for humorous, but I guess I failed.

Some people have reached an age where they can not safely use a firearm, especially in a close quarters self-defense situation.

[pax]

Some people have reached an age where they can not safely use a firearm, especially in a close quarters self-defense situation.

<sarcasm>

Yeah... and those people should just give up and die if they are confronted with a lethal force situation, because it is better for the strong young attacker to live instead...

</sarcasm>



Seriously, gyrfalcon, the error in thinking here is the same tempting one that too many fall for: the idea that the danger to witnesses from the actions of a deliberate murderer is always minimal, while the danger to witnesses and bystanders from the defensive actions of an intended victim is really astronomical.

The danger to the witnesses is actually much greater from the cold-blooded and deliberate actions of the attacker than it is from the defender, no matter how feeble or how poor a shot the defender might be.

If the defender succeeds, the attacker stops immediately. If the defender makes a mistake, one or two unaimed shots might escape the area. If the defender fails, the attacker commits that murder and then turns on the witnesses -- leaving the witnesses in no worse shape than they were to begin with, and perhaps a bit better off if the actions of the unsuccessful defender bought them enough time to escape.

And if there are no witnesses to be deliberately slain by the attacker after the successful murder ... then who could possibly be harmed by the lone old geezer trying to defend himself?

pax

[WIN71]

I don't know, about the last thing I want to face is a feeble, half blind, shaky old geezer with a gun. I'd be taking leg bail. I know you're young and out there in the trenches sort of speak, but lets not forget who dug those trenches...........

[Avenger11]

Don't knock the old geezers cause you will all be one someday, and I guarantee your perspective will change.

[gyrfalcon16]

And if there are no witnesses to be deliberately slain by the attacker after the successful murder ... then who could possibly be harmed by the lone old geezer trying to defend himself?

Have any of you watched someone try to ready a firearm, drop the mag on the ground then jam the gun and be unable to clear it before firing a shot?

My point was basically that people need to consider what they do and the ramifications it has on others and themselves. If you're incompetent driving or using a firearm you should no longer do so.

Hell old people do whatever they want anyhow. I'll shut up now.

[Southern_guy]

I'm for number two. You've got to at least give the guy a chance to save his life, and shooting just because your gun is unholstered is idiotic.

[Avenger11]

Incompetence is not age related!! But knowledge, experience, and wisdom is!! When you grow up, you will understand the difference.