And be realistic about the potential threat.
To justify the threat or use of deadly force, the defender must (1) be in immediate danger from someone who can cause serious harm
and who has provided some some indication that he or who will do so right then should the defender do nothing; and (2) the defender must have no other alternative.
One can reasonably expect the attacker to be moving quickly, for his own evil purposes and survival strategy. That movement will likely be an important element of justification.
The defender will have to react--to draw, present, and if necessary, fire--
very quickly indeed.
The mere presentation of a weapon
may suffice, but the defender cannot count on that. A single shot that is fired and that misses
may suffice, but the defender cannot cannot count on that, either. A hit that does not seriously injure an attacker may result in a psychological stop, but one cannot count on that.
To effect a stop by inflicting serious physical injury, one will have to hit at least one critical part of the attacker's anatomy, and perhaps more. All of those parts are small. and they are hidden from the defender's view in a large three dimensional body, and they will be moving irregularly. Unless
some of them are damaged, counting on a stop simply because the attacker has been hit somewhere in, say, the chest would be akin to drawing on an inside straight.
Because he or she cannot see the critical internal targets; because he or she cannot take the time to try to assess where they might be; and because the target is moving and the defender must shoot quickly, the defender cannot realistically count on damaging them though marksmanship. The defender will be trained to shoot several shots quickly at, say, the upper chest area (or slightly behind it, if the attacker is coming around a car or gas pump at an angle), with the hope that some of the bullets do the job. The defender must count on luck, and the more controlled shots he or she can fire very quickly, the better his or her luck is likely to be. It's all a matter of probabilities.
Should an attack occur, the likelihood that there will be two or more attackers is at least as high as the likelihood that there will be only one. It is
possible that stopping one will dissuade the others, but one cannot count on that.
I think that probably describes the likely potential threat in a self-defense situation rather accurately.
My approach toward risk mitigation has been to avoid questionable places; to train and practice; and to carry a firearm that I can access and shoot quickly, rapidly, and with control. My choice is more powerful than a .380. It carries 60% more ammunition than the 642 upon which I once relied.
