Not "should I shoot?" but "could I shoot?" That is the question.

A couple of quick points. First, what one THINKS they can/will do in a situation is not a real good indicator of what they actuially will do. A fair amount of evidence over the years of those who think they can freezing up when the time comes, as well as evidence indicating those who say they can't actually perform quite well when the time comes. Second,
Panicky people with guns are at least as much a danger to themselves and their loved ones as they are to any predator.
Click to expand...
On what do you base such a conclusion? Given the strong record of success of untrained and inexperienced people in DGU incidents, it seems that there is little danger to self or loved ones when compared to BGs.
 
Dave is correct. The army found that a lot of soldiers froze, even though they obviously chose a warrior's profession. Thus, modern training programs are designed to reduce the automatic freezing response that sometimes occurs. It's wired into you but can be overcome with training.

Also, saying that someone needs counseling if they consider the consequences of shooting is just plain silly. We've studied the consequences of shootings by very competent and warrior types and they show emotional sequeale.

Easy to posture about this but it isn't reality.
 
thanks for changing the thread...

I'm glad this thread is doing better than the other one (for beginners to pistol).

It's a good thread.

Yes, ultimately what you do is what you do. It is good to know going in that you have thought about it... hard and as much as possible about the scenarios you will be using your handgun. Sure, in the end you may not use it but again you may.

I would rather have this discussion BEFORE you are faced with any situation.

Having a gun and using a gun are totally different topics. Just because you may own a gun does not automatically equate you using it for HD.

Bottomline: It's a personal question and totally dependent on the situation.

It's like the argument I give to gals that are against guns. Oh, your totatally against violence? Can't see yourself "ever" use a gun? Okay, you come home early and your daughter is being raped. You have a gun. Hmmm.... Let's see how long she says she won't use it.

You can create almost any scenario, even illogical ones but you can come up with any scenario to force someone to do something they never thought they would. But, that's not real life is it.

Its also not the end of the story. It's the beginning of a nightmare.

After the shooting. It only begins from there. Legally and morally. Even if you were justified that event may haunt you for the rest of your life.

It's called preparedness: Prepare your mindset and mentally practice so it becomes automatic. Running thru the scenarios you are willing and not willing to use your gun.

I've come to term with my God. I was "dead" set (sorry to use the pun) on not coming home. I knew I had a duty and I would fulfill it with honor. I had my letters home all set aside and ready to be mailed. Fortunately I didn't die for my country but I was ready. Everyday now life is good.

Everyone needs to at their own pace come to some realization what their gun can do and their willingness to use it. At their OWN pace. It's good to ask and discussion but each one of us has to come to terms on their own.
 
If I had a dollar for every time I've covered this topic I'd have paid for my house by now :D

I just helped to run a "gun rights week" at a college campus. The overall theme was a desire to allow on campus carry and how the students could work towards that goal if they so desired. The event finished with a sign up for some free firearms training and a half hour on the range in a one-on-one situation with an instructor.

We had a pretty darned good turnout and a lot of support.

However, after the range session I was standing with a group of students who were discussing firing a gun (for the first time) and although I didn't want to put a wet blanket on their enthusiasm I could tell that someone needed to clarify the difference between the "fun target shooting" they'd just done versus the full ramifications of owning and carrying a firearm for self defense.

So we had a discussion about what, ultimately, it might mean to have a firearm for self defense (namely that you might actually - maker forbid - have to shoot and possibly even kill someone). It was almost painfully obvious that they'd never considered it in the context of "deadly earnest".

I tried to be gentle, but also very firm, in explaining that the thought "could I really shoot someone and possibly kill them" is a serious question that needs to be considered very carefully and over some time.

If, after thought, the answer is "yes I can defend my life at the cost of taking another" then a firearm can be an excellent self-defense tool (along with the necessary training).

However if the answer is "no I don't think I could live with that" then you need to find some other plan for protecting yourself and leave the firearms to "fun" target shooting and plinking.

It sobered them up pretty quickly and I felt a little bad about raining on their parade. However I ran into one of those students today and he said to me "you know, you gave me a lot to think about and I'm really glad you said something because my girlfriend and I have been talking a lot about what you said".

Makes me proud of the younger generation!
 
Glenn you misunderstood me. What I meant was you may need counseling to deal with it. A person may even have thoughts of remorse or guilt. It's normal to feel like that. It wouldn't be normal to deal with it like nothing happened. What I meant by considering the alternative is it would be better to deal with it later than not being able to deal with it because you were the deceased. Sorry for any confusion, but this is a subject I definitely know a little about.
 
After its over, its just beginning

You will most likely have nightmares. You might need some counseling to cope. It's ok. Someone whom that won't weigh on their mind is probably a little sociopathic. It would be normal to be messed up afterwords but consider the alternative.
Click to expand...

The aftermath.

Some folks have an easier time of this than others. Warrior types (cops, military, emergency, etc) have sort of a built in defense mechanism and support structure within their culture that allows them to function fairly well immediately following an event and for a while after. They also have a lot of experience contemplating, training, or actually dealing with conflict and have usually answered this "Could I?" question to a higher degree than most.

I am totally generalizing here of course. After a trauma, in these professions and others like them, they are able to "suspend" their feelings about it in order to do what they need to. When things settle down is when they actually "deal with it". Paperwork, debriefing, then finally a few moments alone to sit and think about it. Then off for a beer with a close friend or two that is "in the business".

These professions, and the culture they create have institutionalized attitudes and traditions, even ceremonies, going back a long time that help their members cope. They wouldn't exist if this wasn't a "big deal".

I brought all of this stuff up is because your average civilian doesnt really have any of the above support or institutionalized attitudes. Friends and family are only so much help because they "haven't been there" so to speak. Sometimes a member of one of these "warrior professions" will step up and take a civilian aside for a talk but there usually isn't a lot of common ground. Sometimes its a complete culture clash. (Thanks to all of the Military, LE, Paramedics, Fireman etc that take the time to do this, its clearly not easy). The civilian is left mostly to themselves and people who have never "been there" to help them. Pretty sad. Even if they can afford therapy.

This is topical because one of the toughest emotional obstacles for someone going through the post trauma of a defensive situation is guilt, real or inflated, and all of the associated self recrimination. "Why me?", "What should I have done different?", "Why did I ever get that gun in the first place?", "Am I a killer now?", "How can I face my friends and family? They will never look at me the same again.", etc.

Having pre-decided your decisions about this stuff and being "OK and resolved" to your place in a defensive situation can go along way in getting through the aftermath because it directly addresses the biggest emotional obstacle, guilt.

Acting with purpose and unapologetic acceptance of the situation is likely to reduce your risk of finding yourself asking "What they hell was I thinking?" because you know exactly what you were thinking and you were OK with it. I believe that it will also help you be OK with it afterward too.

So my thinking is that, in addition to helping you stave off panic and function better in a defensive situation, being "OK and resolved" to your place in a defensive situation can also help you get through the aftermath.

For a civilian (as in non-warrior types) with very little institutionalized and cultural support, I view answering the "could I?" question as thoroughly and realistically as possible as paramount.

There are new reasons to seriously address the "could I?" question coming up as this thread progresses. Agree with them or not, does anyone really see a downside to really exploring it?
 
Last edited:
Eric - me - misunderstand? You been talking to people who know me? :D

Sorry, if I got it wrong. Duh.

BTW - there is a large and technical literature on dealing with after incident stress disorders in emergency personnel and the military. While it is nice to speculate on what works or doesn't work based on what one thinks is common sense or your own personal philosophy - I will suggest that if you are in this position, you get competent professional help.

When I get the chance - I might post some good readings. Busy now.
 
Thanks Glen. I appreciate your support. I'm ok now and it's a funny thing, as that I was able to cope immedately but it weighed on me. Combat situations are surreal though. Kandahar might as well be the moon. If I were a sniper and shot from a mile away, it would be different. More traumatic than pulling the trigger is watching the man die. When you come home and decompress, life gradually returns to normal. As a civilian, to shoot a person on your own block where you live, that would be a world of difference.
 
Words are powerful.

Can you accept wearing the mark of Cain (if you believe in that sort of thing) to save the life of an innocent? Be honest with yourself when you answer those questions. Don't use euphamisms. Say "Kill" and decide if you want to put down the gun or not.
Click to expand...

I wanted to address this early because it can be a pretty sticky wicket.

First, let me say that I am completely on board with the above quote. Some of you from other threads will note that I got a thorough flogging for using the word Kill or Killer in my posts in this kind of way. I don't want to drag one closed thread into another so lets just talk about this one..... Please?

Read the quote again, what is it he is saying?

Can you accept wearing the mark of Cain (if you believe in that sort of thing) to save the life of an innocent? Be honest with yourself when you answer those questions. Don't use euphamisms. Say "Kill" and decide if you want to put down the gun or not.
Click to expand...

Pretty strong stuff. Harsh, even brutal language. The mark of Cain even. I believe he, a police officer and a police firearms trainer, used this powerful language because he wanted the reader to break through shallow rationalizations of the issue and really face it.

He says so with:
Don't use euphamisms. Say "Kill" and decide if you want to put down the gun or not.
Click to expand...

I don't think for a second that he is trying to tell everyone to be a hyper-aggressive killer but it can be pretty easy to jump all over this guy with this perspective of what he wrote. Lets don't. It doesn't address the point he is really trying to make.

None of us wants to think of themselves as a killer in the way that word is typically used in our culture. For a police officer, its probably a bigger deal because the implications of this word in its common usage could blur or even remove the line between himself and the the people he struggles against every day. He uses it anyway, emphasizes the word kill, insists on its usage even. Bold stuff and I think I know why.

If the word "kill" is the proverbial monster in the closet, I think he is kicking us in the backside to get us to open the door and really take an unflinching look around instead using rationalizations to learn to live with our fears. He doesn't want us pretending its not there or re-imagining the monster in the closet into cute little fairies and twinkling elves, he wants us to throw the door open and face the monster. I really like this approach because it is simple, direct, and honest.

It follows the classic adage that when its important, Keep It Simple Stupid, or K.I.S.S.

I don't claim to speak for the original author, this is just my take on what he said. If I completely butchered what he was trying to say, I hope he accepts my apologies and will post back to clarify.

Again, new thread, lets keep it about this one.
 
Last edited:
I don't think for a second that he is trying to tell everyone to be a hyper-aggressive killer but it can be pretty easy to jump all over this guy with this perspective of what he wrote. Lets don't. It doesn't address the point he is really trying to make.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of difference between having to kill someone in self defense and being a killer. Some seem to confuse the issue. "Killing" in self defense is an unwanted, yet sometimes necessary, outcome over which the individual has fairly little control. Stop the threat and such terms are not euphimisms, they are goals. Sometimes killing is a side effect of achieving that goal.
 
my thoughts about the critical incident stress debriefings: I never liked them, because you've got a counselor type telling you that what you're feeling is normal, that its ok to have certain feelings..etc. After a traumatic experience thats the last thing that I want to hear. Especially from someone thats trained to tell you that and wasn't even there.
Talking with the guys and gals that were there always helped me...because we're there seeing and doing things most people only watch on tv, and then having to deal with it later. I've only been a firefighter/paramedic for 5 years but dead babies and nasty suicides are still hard to deal with sometimes, especially the ones that haunt me.
 
I think the only thing that would give me pause is if I had to measure up my own competence in the actual shooting... i.e. if the assailant was holding my wife or child in front of him, and a MISS could be deadly to someone I cared about. That, I'm not so sure I could do, without being very very certain of my skill. If you imagine that you believed the assailant was going to kill everyone in the house once you gave up the gun, well, then maybe I'd be shooting away anyway.

I've actually thought along the lines of WHERE to shoot someone that wouldn't be immediately fatal, such that if I hit my wife/child instead (and the bullet passed through them on the way to the assailant, possibly), what area would be best. Obviously, a head shot would be out of the question unless at close enough range or my wife/child was not being used (at all) to conceal the BG's head. I keep getting reminded of the scene in Die Hard 4 where Bruce Willis shoots himself in the shoulder to effectively shoot the BG in the center chest area. Something enough to disengage the BG from my loved one, but not something enough to immediately kill my loved one if I wasn't good enough to make a precise shot.

This is the scenario that bothers me most... not the BG out in the open stuff. Ever since I had a kid, I think my 'protection' gene has kicked in and I'd be fiercely defensive. Sure, I may second guess myself afterwards, but going in, if it's them or me (and mine), the choice will be easy.
 
IndyColts, I hear that bro. I really don't think getting any kind of help should be mandated at all. In all fairnes though, the individual shouldn't play tough and refuse help if he really does need it. However, if the person does need it, whom he sees and when he sees them should be up to him. As opposed to talking to a department psychologist, what if he'd be more comfortable speaking with his parish priest. Maybe he has a regular shrink he sees and trusts. Maybe he'd be ok dealing with it on his own. My point is, seeking help isn't something a person should be pushed in to. It could do more harm than good.
 
Not should I but Could I

I think, rather than a "why (or should) you shoot" issue, his post is about coming to terms with the fact that you have an undeniable risk of killing someone using a firearm for defense. In this context, addressing the word "Kill" directly makes a lot of sense.

Its pretty easy to say:

"I could use a firearm to stop an attack"

Its entirely different to fully own the statement:

"I am willing to kill to stop an attack."

The chances of actually killing are up to debate but, however you rate the chance or the intent, its the kill part that gets to people.

If people are using a lethal weapon to protect themselves, its my position that they must be willing to accept the fact that a lethal weapon has reasonable chance to kill and they must address that directly.

To drop the word kill or lethal out of the discussion is sanitizing it to the point of irrelevance and doesnt help someone become OK and resolved with what they are choosing to do.
 
Last edited:
Gaxicus understood my point. He also recognized that I used harsh language for a very pointed reason. I'm not advocating that anyone stop using terms like "stop the threat" when those terms are called for. Gentle folks don't want to hear hard words and lawyers want to hear them so that they can use them to win their cases. Words are tools that need to be used every bit as carefully as table saws and guns. All I'm trying to say is that we have a duty to be blunt/honest/crude/real in our choice of words/concepts/images when we have this discussions inside our own skulls.
 
When I get to work, tomorrow - I'll post some good references. BTW, the profession doesn't look favorably on critical stress debriefing. It has surface validity and fits into a military or paramilitary culture but its efficacy is suspect.
 
The question of being able to actually pull the trigger when faced with the situation should have been answered by the individual gun owner who carries for protection or has firearms readily available in their home for defense.

If the answer was a 'maybe' or leaning towards the negative, then in my humble opinion they should have sold all their guns and invested in Brinks Home security systems.

Having doubts about being able to do whatever it takes to survive is not something that should be contemplated after you have found yourself in a bad situation.

What comes first (or at least did for me) was educating myself on my states laws regarding the use of deadly force in self defense, and what constituted 'assault' in all its various forms. After I was satisfied I understood the laws of the land, then I had to figure out how I interpret the laws of my conscience.

Sometimes the chestthumping clouds everyones judgments, even those who have clear heads.
 
Kudos

We had a pretty darned good turnout and a lot of support.

However, after the range session I was standing with a group of students who were discussing firing a gun (for the first time) and although I didn't want to put a wet blanket on their enthusiasm I could tell that someone needed to clarify the difference between the "fun target shooting" they'd just done versus the full ramifications of owning and carrying a firearm for self defense.

So we had a discussion about what, ultimately, it might mean to have a firearm for self defense (namely that you might actually - maker forbid - have to shoot and possibly even kill someone). It was almost painfully obvious that they'd never considered it in the context of "deadly earnest".

I tried to be gentle, but also very firm, in explaining that the thought "could I really shoot someone and possibly kill them" is a serious question that needs to be considered very carefully and over some time.
Click to expand...
It sobered them up pretty quickly and I felt a little bad about raining on their parade. However I ran into one of those students today and he said to me "you know, you gave me a lot to think about and I'm really glad you said something because my girlfriend and I have been talking a lot about what you said".
Click to expand...

Nice work. No problems in the mirror next morning either I bet.

I've has some in depth discussions with some instructors that had various reasons for NOT doing what you did.

After hearing a bunch of them, I took away from it that they were worried about scaring people out of taking the classes they offered and/or they were worried about legal exposure.

I think both are legitimate concerns but I dont think either of them is a barrier to doing what you did, just an obstacle. Exposing people to the "Could I?" aspects of firearms was the responsible thing to do IMO.

Golf Clap
 
Could I shoot a BG, yep. But so many anti gun advocates on this forum have convinced me that in an encounter with a BG my shot will miss him, and even if I hit him my handgun is underpowered and he will live. So I guess I'll just call 911 instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top