High round counts for civilians

[Deaf Smith]

That is an interesting and unique situation. I'd proffer even in Texas, unless you are actively supporting the police, your chances of not going to prison for shooting someone at 50 yards is insignificant.

Back in 1966 a nutjob in Austin Texas shot up the UT Campus and other things from the UT Tower. Many citizens with deer rifles fired back at him.

If someone is shooting at people at a distance I 'proffer' those that try to stop the nutjobs won't go to prison in such places as Texas.

https://timeline.com/during-the-nat...ooting-armed-students-fired-back-43bc18a3ddc3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQnqxBYdng

Deaf

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That will depend on the presentation of the situation and the threat. Where I used to work, our long corridor in a building full of kids was 100 yards roughly. I measured it. So if I see a shooter come out of a classroom at the end of the corridor and I am at the other end, am I not justified in taking the shot?

Recall the AF officer who took down a rampage shooter at 75 yards with his Beretta.

The folks with rifles who pinned down Charles Whitman in the UT tower in Austin were firing at great distance. They are credited with stopping further causalities.

Gun folks want decision rules that yield 0,1 outcomes. There is math that will generate such (if you can get the info for the equations). However, those predictions come with with a probability they will be correct.

So the bottom line is to carry a J frame with 5 and think everyone with more is stupid. Or carry two extra 15 mags and think those who just carry five are stupid. Take your pick.

I'm in the more ammo camp as Brit says and others, I prefer to carry a semi and extra ammo in most circumstances. Will some lead me to my J frame - yep, so I do then.

 

[zincwarrior]

Back in 1966 a nutjob in Austin Texas shot up the UT Campus and other things from the UT Tower. Many citizens with deer rifles fired back at him.

If someone is shooting at people at a distance I 'proffer' those that try to stop the nutjobs won't go to prison in such places as Texas.

https://timeline.com/during-the-nat...ooting-armed-students-fired-back-43bc18a3ddc3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQnqxBYdng

Deaf

But not people with pistols. Your example doesn't work.

 

[JohnKSa]

That is an interesting and unique situation. I'd proffer even in Texas, unless you are actively supporting the police, your chances of not going to prison for shooting someone at 50 yards is insignificant.

While distance can be a factor in justifying deadly force, it is by no means either an automatic justification for close assailants, nor an automatic disqualification for distant opponents. It is just one factor of many that could play into determining justification.

If the circumstances of the situation are such that deadly force is justified (let's say an active shooter, or an assailant who is firing on the defender from a distance), then the fact that the attacker is 50 yards (or more) away won't eliminate that justification.

Obviously, longer distances will neutralize a contact weapon, if the only person in jeopardy is the defender--but not if the attacker is endangering another innocent who is closer than the defender. Similarly, longer distances might make escape much easier, or it may have little effect, depending on the circumstances.

But not people with pistols. Your example doesn't work.

I am not aware of any laws that have different justification levels based on the type of firearm used. If the circumstances justify the use of deadly force, then it doesn't matter if you use a rifle, a shotgun or a pistol. Likewise, if the circumstances don't justify the shooting then it won't matter what type of gun is used.

In the days of the UT shooting, the legality of carrying a pistol in TX was questionable, at best, however it was quite common to see deer rifles in pickup truck gunracks. A perfectly legal practice. The reasons rifles were used against the UT shooter were: 1. That's what people had. 2. That's what worked well. If they had used pistols to fire back that wouldn't have affected their justification, just their effectiveness.

 

[Deaf Smith]

But not people with pistols. Your example doesn't work.

Don't matter if its pistols or rifles or slingshots. Deadly force is deadly force. There are plenty of examples of people being able to shoot well past 100 yards with pistols. Thus pistols can be used for self defense at longer range.

And with Texas Stand-Your-Ground laws you don't have to retreat.

Deaf

 

[zincwarrior]

It matters to the topic. You have no duty to retreat but it will strain a jury's belief that you had a reasonable fear at 50 yards with a pistol.

 

[JohnKSa]

...it will strain a jury's belief that you had a reasonable fear at 50 yards with a pistol.

An attacker shooting at a person from 50 yards away with any decent firearm would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of serious bodily injury or death. I've seen a couple of persons make first round hits on bowling pins at 50 yards using pistols. I've seen people who can make consistent hits on human sized steel silhouette targets at 100 yards using a pistol.

Firearms can be deadly out to a mile or more under the worst case scenario. If the defender can't escape, it would be reasonable to return fire with whatever firearm the defender had to hand, as long as it doesn't endanger innocent life.

In addition, if the defender is defending an innocent third party the defender's distance from the attacker wouldn't be relevant as long as the defender reasonably believes that the third party is in danger of serious bodily injury or death. This is the general type of justification used for the actions of police snipers who fire to save an innocent life even though they are far enough from the attacker to be out of danger themselves.

 

[Nanuk]

That is an interesting and unique situation. I'd proffer even in Texas, unless you are actively supporting the police, your chances of not going to prison for shooting someone at 50 yards is insignificant.

That depends on the totality of the circumstances.

 

[Nanuk]

It matters to the topic. You have no duty to retreat but it will strain a jury's belief that you had a reasonable fear at 50 yards with a pistol.

The only scenario that your case will see a jury is if you are indicted for a crime. Can you articulate the need? I can shoot a pretty good group @ 50 yards with a pistol, not as good as I once could but certainly good enough.

 

[zincwarrior]

The only scenario that your case will see a jury is if you are indicted for a crime. Can you articulate the need? I can shoot a pretty good group @ 50 yards with a pistol, not as good as I once could but certainly good enough.

What scenario involves you shooting across a Walmart at someone? The topic is for CC. With the exception of deep rural, arguing you saw someone at 50 yards and shot them, your defense attorney is going to need a whole lot of money.

 

[OldMarksman]

With the exception of deep rural, arguing you saw someone at 50 yards and shot them, your defense attorney is going to need a whole lot of money.

It would be very prudent to engage the services of an attorney after any use of force incident.

And do read post #67.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think I laid out a building scenario of zero to 100 yards in a hallway in a place where a rampage shooting is not an unlikely target.

The distance is not a determinant of the legal justification. It is the need to prevent grievous bodily harm.

 

[OldMarksman]

The distance is not a determinant of the legal justification. It is the need to prevent grievous bodily harm.

Right.

When the threat involves a contact weapon, the distance is an issue as it relates to the A,O, J triad and the question of imminence.

It would have no such import in a case involving an attack with firearm, or the arson of an occupied structure.

 

[zincwarrior]

It would be very prudent to engage the services of an attorney after any use of force incident.

And do read post #67.

We will have to agree to disagree on the ability to successfully assert a self defense claim in a non rural environment.

Edit: to the topic, as we started the CHL adventure due to a potential stalker hopped up on Vicodin, we were advised to carry large capacity firearm with spare mags. The view was, be prepared to empty the pistol as fast as possible, empty the mag, and even beat them with the gun while attempting to get away.

While that has changed I found the spare mags is a nice balance on the belt. Remember a good gun belt is worth almost as much as the cc as it helps insure it will be comfortable enough to carry.

 

[OldMarksman]

We will have to agree to disagree on the ability to successfully assert a self defense claim in a non rural environment.

A defense of justification for one of the kinds of use of force incidents described in Post #67 would not involve a self defense claim.

Also, just what is it that you believe would distinguished a claim of justification involving a rural environment from one involving a "non rural" environment?

 

[MandolinMan]

In the article linked below, Massad Ayoob attempts to debunk several common gunfighting myths, one of which is:

“YOU CAN NEVER JUSTIFY SHOOTING A MAN MORE THAN 7/15/25 YARDS AWAY!”

He writes, "I don’t mean to insult anyone, but this statement flunks the litmus test for cluelessness. By definition, if you were able to shoot him at that distance, he was able to shoot you at that distance."

Ayoob goes on to site specific examples of this occurrence. Like all of his writing its definitely worth a read.

http://www.personaldefenseworld.com...-myths-debunked-massad-ayoob/#armed-and-ready

 

[Sharkbite]

if you were able to shoot him at that distance, he was able to shoot you at that distance."

And that should put that to rest......

 

[zincwarrior]

And that should put that to rest......

Its the "why were you shooting someone 50 yards away" that is generally problematic. If the examples are Wild Bill Hickok and someone shooting someone else to support police, well I guess that could theoretically happen. So I will concede, if someone starts shooting at you from 50 yards away, or the UT tower shooter has fought through the three police officers on duty at the Tower and you want to shoot at him with your pistol from ground level, or if you come upon a police officer engaging someone 50 yards away, you could indeed argue self defense.

 

[MTT TL]

This is a brave new world with mass murders on rooftops with bump fire stocks and other cowards driving trucks in to crowds to kill as many as possible. Defense of self and others is allowed in every state.

Range and distance to target isn't an issue. The offenders are going to keep trying to kill people until the offenders are either dead or disabled.

Most defense, non police, shooting encounters involve a low round count because....... that is how many rounds the defender brought. Magically the round count soars in police shootings because.... that is how many they brought....

Back when the police had wheel guns round counts were much lower.

I can think of a few cases where one party to the fight (either attacker or defender) died with an empty gun. You might argue; "He shot him when his gun was empty! He was disarmed"

What should the defender do? Wait till he reloads?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The thing is, while the tenacity of your opponent is not something you can control, you can control how much ammo you carry in the event your opponent exhibits non-rational behavior (comparative to your frame of reference). If you do come across a non-rational opponent, you might find they are more tenacious than the typical scenarios you've imagined.

It doesn't need to be terrorists either. While that is increasingly more common, even much more common is the guy with three times the fatal dose of meth in his system who thinks squirrels are trying to make a nest in his brain. Those people do not respond to displays of lethal force like you imagine a rational person would and our society does a poor job of separating them from the rest of society.

Everybody thinks they won't be that person dealing with an irrational attacker; but at least once a month I see a case like that (luckily, the number requiring violence to solve is more like once or twice a year).*

*Out of about a 568,900 population.