Need another reason to carry? Man brutally beaten while defending his daughter...

[TripleDigitRide]

I mean absolutely no offense to anyone in this thread, but any time I read or hear someone propose (a.) drawing and brandishing to "scare away" the bad guys or (b.) firing a warning or wounding shot first... I am reminded of just how important it is for anyone who carries a handgun for self defense to seek out and obtain good defensive handgun instruction.

These two things are huge No-No's. You never draw unless you are committed to shooting your adversary. You never shoot your adversary unless you are ready to shoot him or her completely to the ground. No warning shots. No winging them. You shoot them center of mass and do so as many times as is necessary to completely stop the threat. Any good trainer will instruct you that the threat is not stopped until the assailant(s) is on the ground and no longer posing a threat to you.

Please, I implore anyone who does not have absolute clarity on what you may or may not do in a self defense situation... GET FORMAL, PROFESSIONAL INSTRUCTION FROM A REPUTABLE TRAINER.

I can recommend one such outfit in middle Tennessee based on my personal experiences. There are others that I can recommend but do not have experience with. It really doesn't matter who provides it as long as the training is good, factual and not full of bad or outdated information or silly impractical tactics.

I agree, to a certian extent.

I believe one could be "committed to shooting your adversary", without actually pulling the trigger. Being "committed", in my opinion, means that you must be willing to actually pull the trigger if the situation gives you no other option. Now, if you unholster your weapon, but lack the balls to actually shoot someone, then you're in serious trouble. There would be almost no reason to pull it. heck, I guess there would be no reason to even own it.

I know many of us are not LEO's, but why would it be perfectly acceptable for them to pull a firearm, but not pull the trigger unless the situation escalates to the point of no return? I can't say I've seen this all too often in person, but I have seen it on many occasions while watching COPS and similar shows. That is supposed to be "real", correct? It seems to me, they will pull the weapon for one of two reasons; 1) Many people will likely calm down at the sight of a firearm; 2) They have their weapon in hand just in case the situation gives them no other choice except shooting someone. Not being a professional, I can only speculate, but that's how I see it. If an LEO could explain why they would pull their weapon without pulling the trigger, that would be great.

LEO or sane HCP holder, you'd likely not see them pull a firearm unless they feel as if they're in imminent danger. I see no difference. And I see no reason why the lives and/or safety of either should be treated any differently. I guess this is somewhat assuming you're implying that we could get in some kind of trouble for simply pulling a weapon.

With that being said, I've never opted for one of those classes, so I'm sure there is plenty I don't know. Maybe someone could clarify.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

I agree, to a certian extent.

I believe one could be "committed to shooting your adversary", without actually pulling the trigger. Being "committed", in my opinion, means that you must be willing to actually pull the trigger if the situation gives you no other option. Now, if you unholster your weapon, but lack the balls to actually shoot someone, then you're in serious trouble. There would be almost no reason to pull it. heck, I guess there would be no reason to even own it.

I know many of us are not LEO's, but why would it be perfectly acceptable for them to pull a firearm, but not pull the trigger unless the situation escalates to the point of no return? I can't say I've seen this all too often in person, but I have seen it on many occasions while watching COPS and similar shows. That is supposed to be "real", correct? It seems to me, they will pull the weapon for one of two reasons; 1) Many people will likely calm down at the sight of a firearm; 2) They have their weapon in hand just in case the situation gives them no other choice except shooting someone. Not being a professional, I can only speculate, but that's how I see it. If an LEO could explain why they would pull their weapon without pulling the trigger, that would be great.

LEO or sane HCP holder, you'd likely not see them pull a firearm unless they feel as if they're in imminent danger. I see no difference. And I see no reason why the lives and/or safety of either should be treated any differently. I guess this is somewhat assuming you're implying that we could get in some kind of trouble for simply pulling a weapon.

With that being said, I've never opted for one of those classes, so I'm sure there is plenty I don't know. Maybe someone could clarify.

big difference if i was to walk up to someone in a car with my gun drawing and point it at them for no reason im going to jail and a LEO wont go to jail hes doing his job. LEOs have to do it time to time for their job even if their life's are not in jeopardy they have to try to talk people down were we dont have to. we might have to do it for our protection. you really cant even compare the two. just my two cents

Edited July 17, 2008 by GLOCKGUY

[TripleDigitRide]

big difference if i was to walk up to someone in a car with my gun drawing and point it at them for no reason im going to jail and a LEO wont go to jail hes doing his job. LEOs have to do it time to time for their job were we might have to do it for our protection. you really cant even compare the two. just my two cents

We're not talking about pulling a gun for no reason. We're talking about pulling a gun, because your life and/or safety are in danger.

Of course you would/should go to jail for pulling a gun for no reason.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

We're not talking about pulling a gun for no reason. We're talking about pulling a gun, because your life and/or safety are in danger.

Of course you would/should go to jail for pulling a gun for no reason.

you said "I know many of us are not LEO's, but why would it be perfectly acceptable for them to pull a firearm, but not pull the trigger unless the situation escalates to the point of no return?" because its their job to try to talk people down were its not ours if we feel the need to pull our gun we dont have to try to talk people down all we have to do is pull the trigger. if LEOs pulled the trigger everytime they pulled their gun i would be dead alot of my friends would be dead for no real reason. they are trained to talk people down were we are not

and another thing LEOs take an oath to serve and protect. we dont take that oath to carry a gun

Edited July 17, 2008 by GLOCKGUY

[Guest tedbo]

I agree with Crimsonaudio. Numbers have a factor. I believe that more than one person attacking you gets them charged with aggravated assault.

In my mind I think that eight would definately qualify.

I feel pretty sure of what I would do.

[Guest Mugster]

I agree, to a certian extent.

I believe one could be "committed to shooting your adversary", without actually pulling the trigger. Being "committed", in my opinion, means that you must be willing to actually pull the trigger if the situation gives you no other option. Now, if you unholster your weapon, but lack the balls to actually shoot someone, then you're in serious trouble. There would be almost no reason to pull it. heck, I guess there would be no reason to even own it.

I know many of us are not LEO's, but why would it be perfectly acceptable for them to pull a firearm, but not pull the trigger unless the situation escalates to the point of no return? I can't say I've seen this all too often in person, but I have seen it on many occasions while watching COPS and similar shows. That is supposed to be "real", correct? It seems to me, they will pull the weapon for one of two reasons; 1) Many people will likely calm down at the sight of a firearm; 2) They have their weapon in hand just in case the situation gives them no other choice except shooting someone. Not being a professional, I can only speculate, but that's how I see it. If an LEO could explain why they would pull their weapon without pulling the trigger, that would be great.

LEO or sane HCP holder, you'd likely not see them pull a firearm unless they feel as if they're in imminent danger. I see no difference. And I see no reason why the lives and/or safety of either should be treated any differently. I guess this is somewhat assuming you're implying that we could get in some kind of trouble for simply pulling a weapon.

With that being said, I've never opted for one of those classes, so I'm sure there is plenty I don't know. Maybe someone could clarify.

I tend to agree. A handgun is a tool like a tomahawk. You can use it however you want. Take a scalp or chop up some firewood.

What bothers me about "professional training" is that they seem to have a pat answer (usually some fubar'ed military like anacronym) to everything.

Steadfast black and white rules don't cut it in the military or (I'm guessing) for the police either, and it won't work in real life. I worry a bit when someone tells me that absolutely if they draw they will shoot to stop the threat which is some kind of PC for "shoot to kill". In any kind of fight, typically you win it by being more aggressive, quicker, stronger, and skilled than the other guy. Getting the first lick in is important, but its not worth going down on a manslaughter rap.

If you draw and threat disappears, I'd advise not shooting, personally.

[Guest Engloid]

These two things are huge No-No's. You never draw unless you are committed to shooting your adversary.

Why aren't cops taught this?

I believe that the fear of a brandishing charge is what fuels the "draw and shoot" logic. If you're justified in shooting, you're sure as hell justified in drawing the gun and waiting to see if the threat stops or continues.

As said before, if you draw and the thread ceases, the best thing to do is not shoot. It's better to defend yourself (with good odds) against a brandishing charge, than have the odds against you in a manslaughter charge. Odds are, if you're truly threatened, you will be able to prove it and never get charged anyway.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Engloid

[Guest Phantom6]

Dang, I should have been visiting more often. Thanks for the plug Tungsten!

Someone mentioned "pat answer (usually some fubar'ed military like anacronym) to everything". If you are looking for those don't come to our classes. We don't believe that there truely are any "pat answers" other than what the law allows. Here is what we can do:

1. We can tell you what the law is and what has been considered appropriate by prosecutors and juries in this state.
   
2. We can provide you with up-to-date information and tactics that will increase your odds of not being trapped in a situation that will require the use of deadly force. Read carefully here. I said increase the odds not eliminate them.
   
3. We can tell you what others have done in similar situations including the latest FBI statistics on what LEO's run into in dealing with today's new breed of criminal thugs. Want an eye opener? Check out the article in Bullet Points, our new newsletter called "Some Alarming Statistics".
   
4. Most of us can tell you from personal experience just what we have done in past certain situations. Believe me, it has a tendancy to chisel itself on the mind like a name carved in stone.
   
5. We can teach you skills.
   
6. We can provide the drills and exercises you will need to build mental memory as well as muscle memory needed to develop your responses and tactics to various scenarios. We can provide you with the tools you need to survive an encounter.
   

In the end however, it's all a matter of what you do with those tools.

Mugster, Engloid and others that mentioned it; Though you must be prepared to shoot your threat when drawing your firearm, you are right on target in your thinking that you will not always have to pull the trigger on your target. Keep in mind that the shootings in Grundy, VA at the Appalachian School of Law back in '02 were finally stopped by two students that ran to their cars (both, incidentaly, off duty cops- one out of his jurisdiction) retrieved their firearms and confronted the assailant without ever having to fire their pistols. Though it's probably the most generally notable example for most, it is only one example of hundreds and hundreds of "triggerless" incidents that occur between us "law abiding gun-toters" and dirtbags every year. If however Odighizuwa (the shooter at ASL) had pointed his pistol at the student responders he certainly would have been shot and most likely could have ended up the subject of a coroner's report.

[TGO David]

If you are able to defuse the situation by drawing upon the attacker and they wisely choose to halt their aggression toward you... then by all means don't pull the trigger on them.

HOWEVER: Statistically speaking most self defense encounters happen at conversation distance. If you produce your firearm at arm's length from your attacker and just hope that the guy's going to suddenly give up the fight and walk away from you, you're probably going end up getting hurt or worse.

I stand by my assertion that when you clear leather, you better be committed to pulling the trigger.

If there is enough distance between you and the assailant that you have ample time to produce your firearm and "threaten them off" with the mere sight of it, you probably had other options at your disposal. Like running the other direction, really really fast.

There is no pat answer to this. But I think far too many of us (and again I'm guilty in the past) tend to base our mental scenarios on what we've seen on TV or in the movies. Those are scripted events! A bad guy surrenders at the sight of a gun because a screenplay author said so. In real life, if someone is beating the hell out of you are approaching you at break-neck speed with a knife in their hand, they probably won't even notice your gun aimed at them until it's too late for them. Adrenaline and/or rage will absolutely give human beings tunnel vision.

I'm glad we're having this conversation because it is good mental exercise to examine all of the angles and possible outcomes.

[TGO David]

I will say this:

Force on Force training is a real eye opener. It's amazing how fast a person can be right on top of you with a knife or just beating your head in with a ball bat or piece of pipe. The amount of time you will have to react in a random incident of violence is able to be measured in fractions of seconds.

Once you see it for yourself, you realize that the idea you'll somehow have time to draw and ward off evil with the sight of your firearm is complete and utter crap. God forbid it happen to any of us, but if it does, most of us will barely have time to draw our own firearms and begin defending ourselves.

That's why it is imperative to remain vigilant and try to avoid the fight to begin with.

[molonlabetn]

Who was it that said 5 shots in a snubby would solve any problem we'd likely face?

8 guys... now there's a drill to practice...

[TGO David]

Who was it that said 5 shots in a snubby would solve any problem we'd likely face?

8 guys... now there's a drill to practice...

As long as it wasn't me, I'll help you make fun of that person.

[Guest Ranger Rick]

Dang, I should have been visiting more often. Thanks for the plug Tungsten!

Someone mentioned "pat answer (usually some fubar'ed military like anacronym) to everything". If you are looking for those don't come to our classes. We don't believe that there truely are any "pat answers" other than what the law allows. Here is what we can do:

1. We can tell you what the law is and what has been considered appropriate by prosecutors and juries in this state.
   
2. We can provide you with up-to-date information and tactics that will increase your odds of not being trapped in a situation that will require the use of deadly force. Read carefully here. I said increase the odds not eliminate them.
   
3. We can tell you what others have done in similar situations including the latest FBI statistics on what LEO's run into in dealing with today's new breed of criminal thugs. Want an eye opener? Check out the article in Bullet Points, our new newsletter called "Some Alarming Statistics".
   
4. Most of us can tell you from personal experience just what we have done in past certain situations. Believe me, it has a tendancy to chisel itself on the mind like a name carved in stone.
   
5. We can teach you skills.
   
6. We can provide the drills and exercises you will need to build mental memory as well as muscle memory needed to develop your responses and tactics to various scenarios. We can provide you with the tools you need to survive an encounter.
   

In the end however, it's all a matter of what you do with those tools.

OK Phantom6... I'm interested.

I've looked thru Austin's website. Which course is the best one to start with if I wanted to work on the above list of objectives? I've got reasonable skills with handgun, rifle and have HCP. (Would like to also work on developing some shotgun skills to.) What do you recommend?"

[Guest Phantom6]

Who was it that said 5 shots in a snubby would solve any problem we'd likely face?

8 guys... now there's a drill to practice...

I'd be willing to bet a dollar that once you hit center mass on one target most of the rest would scatter. I said a dollar, not my life. Now if they were all armed with bats and clubs (or worse, guns) I wouldn't bet that dollar but of course that wasn't the case in this event.

Ranger Rick, PM sent.

[Guest Brian@GunDepot]

FIFY.

Not trying to be pedantic, just saying that if you condition yourself to using words like 'neutralizing' or 'stopping' instead of 'killing' it might help you should you ever be in the unfortunate position of waiting to hear if you will be prosecuted (or waiting to hear if 12 of your peers think you are innocent or guilty)...

The legal term is 'shoot to neutralize' not 'shoot to kill', but I totally agree with you.... the aggressor needs taken care of totally to avoid legal hassles later.

As far as shooting an unarmed 'man', you would definitely have to show you we're trying to stay away and that he was aggressive in not letting the issue go. In this case there were more than one unarmed man and you would not have to show as much evidence of retreat. Obviously 8 on 1 is meant to be brutal, and is life/family threatening. Its easy to say what you would do when you have all the time in the world to think about it, but the wife or husband should've phoned 911 the second the aggressor 'called in more troops' AND started walking to the car. I think this would've been more than enough to cover aggression in a shooting case.

In my case I have 16rds in HydraShok flavor, there is no way I could get away with 'emptying a clip' into someone even if it was justified; so practice and training is needed to know when is enough, where and how many. Anything more than that you'll be charged with excessive force; which in my opinion unless you 'execute' someone on the ground with a GSW to the head is a total BS charge.