This may be controversial but...

Fallsguy said: "My CCW instructor always said (in Ohio) that if there is a possibility to retreat and run - you have to take it."

While that is good practical advice for most situations, . . . and if there is any reasonable way out of a shooting situation, . . . that reasonable way should most definitely be taken.

BUT to advertise that as being iron clad: THOU SHALT RUN IF THEE CAN, . . . that is a crock and the instructor did not do anyone any favor in stating it that way. That only confuses people and gives them a false understanding of the intent of the law.

According to his information if the Tacoma mall shooting ocurred at a mall in Ohio, . . . everyone has to hide in Starbucks or Penney's, . . . and the Ohio law was just simply not written that way.

I do not have a duty to run from a situation where I am confronted with deadly or felony force being waged against me or anyone near me. I and all other Ohio CHL holders may elect to run like the devil, . . . or we may elect to pull our weapon and engage the bg. There is no DUTY to retreat, . . . and if the instructor said it that way, . . . he needs to get another job.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
I think anyone who is willing to pick up a gun for self defense has already come to terms with the fact that under certain circumstances they are willing to use deadly force...if not, don't have a gun. A criminal will be able to tell you are bluffing and probably just take it away from you and kill you with it.

Know your laws and when you can and cannot shoot and practice as realistically as you can...from the draw, prone, on your back, while moving, weak hand..and while you are breathing heavy. And then play some paintball...its a wonderful thing to know how adrenaline effects your aim before you are in a life or death situation.
 
You are not justified in firing unless you are justified in killing the person...only in New York does anyone think shooting to wound makes any sense

However....the difference between "stopping" and "killing" and it is not just some gun writers game...though there is good reason to be skeptical of anything a gun writer says:D

The difference is the part that can keep you out of prison

For instance....shooting someone to the ground...whether they live or die is justified.

Walking up and putting a last shot in their head....just to make sure.......

Becomes murder
 
Mack59 You Scare Me

Based on your post you have never served in the military, am I correct? Are you thinking Charles Bronson and "Death Wish" movies or something?
 
A time to kill

It is within our ablility as humans to kill but it is not our nature. The U.S. Army after WWII started using human silouettes for targets to desensitize the troops because it is not natural to shoot at another human being. Perhaps that means I wouldn't do that well. I don't like using human sillouettes at the range. I like using bull's eye targets. On the other hand maybe I would be able to place a shot at somebody's knee cap or wrist instead of their chest. I don't carry right now anyway. But I still want to be a good marksman if that event ever did come upon me as I hope it never does.
 
I know this is one of those things that you don't know how you will react until you are in that actual situation. I hope I don't come off as a psychopath or a mall ninja, but I really don't think it would be that hard to kill someone that is trying to kill me or my family.

While mindset is important, I feel that reaction, based on training and practice will allow you to shoot someone. With proper training and practice, you identify a threat, you draw your weapon and address the threat, and then you end the threat. If someone has a weapon and an equal chance of shooting you, there is no time for hesitation as that will get you killed.

Now if you are in a situation where the bad guy does not have a gun, I can see some hesitation before shooting. There must still be a threat of death or severe bodily harm before drawing your weapon in the first place. This means that the bad guy is physically able to kill or severely injure you. Many people underestimate the effectiveness of a contact weapon and/or over estimate the effectiveness of a handgun to immediately stop a threat. Upon drawing on the threat, the bad guy must stop all hostilities and either flee or assume the "position". Any failure to immediately stop hostilities should cause you to shoot the bad guy.

I think it basically comes down to muscle memory, training, and practice. When a there is a serious threat, you address it as you would on a B-27 target and shoot until the threat is neutralized. I'm sure if you have any conscience at all, it will hit you sooner or later, but train well and be prepared to act.
 
Dennis2 wrote:

"Mack59 you scare me: Based on your post you have never served in the military, am I correct? Are you thinking Charles Bronson and "Death Wish" movies or something?"


I'm not really sure where you are getting or coming from with this whole - you scare me, Charles Bronson - Death Wish thing.:confused:

I would very much prefer to never use a firearm against another living soul. However, God forbid, that someday I or someone else should find it necessary to use a firearm in self-defense - it might be a good thing to be prepared mentally and emotionally to do so. There is a big difference as has been pointed out between being willing to kill if necessary to save life and wanting to kill. No one in their right mind wants to kill another person. But one can be in their right mind and be willing to kill another person should it come to that. Using lethal force in self-defense is always in my mind the last option.

I hope, and I probably will, live my life without ever having to use a firearm in self-defense. That would make me very happy. :) On the other hand I have a responsiblity to protect my family and my life - I would rather be prepared to do so than unprepared. Legally one is justified in shooting to stop when one is in reasonable fear for their life - but the plain fact is that if one is forced to use a firearm or other lethal weapon to defend ones life - to shoot to stop - the direct emotional fact that one is forced to confront is are you willing to kill someone in that circumstance? One can't truly know unless/until that misfortune should happen - but I'd much rather try to confront and try to answer that question as much as possible before that should happen and be as emotionally and spiritually prepared as possible - than to avoid thinking about it, or pretend I know, or to assume what the answer would be, or to deny that the question exists or isn't important. I think that it would be irresponsible of me to consider using a lethal weapon to defend myself or my family with and to have not confronted what using a lethal weapon in self-defense means. What it means is: if we shot someone in self-defense and they died or were wounded - I wouldn't think of that person as being stopped - I would think of them as being wounded or being dead - emotionally I wouldn't be dealing with the fact that I stopped them - I'd be dealing with the fact that I shot them and wounded them, or that I shot them and killed them.
 
jibjab

YOU (and others) seem to think the laws are based on the bible. While SOME laws might be based on biblically-oriented busybodies (i.e., drug laws, prostitution laws), the most important laws (about murder, robbery, rape) are NOT.

These laws, the oldest laws, are based on something very simple. If a large group of people (society) wants to live together, they have to have a way to manage the occasional member who wants to get his way at all costs. No bible is needed to tell me I don't want to be assaulted. No bible is needed to tell me I don't want to be battered. No bible is needed to tell me I don't want to be murdered. I can go on, but you get the idea.

Absent laws, all that's left is the vendetta to manage this type of problem. Managing crime by vendetta would end up in chaos.

So society adopts laws to punish such offenders.

That's where I think the law comes from, because that's where it does come from.

The reason I don't want to kill anybody for no reason at all is that I understand why there is law to prevent me from doing so and I agree with the law, and I have better things to do with my time.

However, since my obedience of laws against murder is based on understanding why they are needed, not 'cause the bible tells me so, I also hold no biblical inhibition against killing somebody if they make it necessary.

So, I will do my best to follow the law in the matter of self-defense. I will do this because the laws are time-tested and are very reasonable. They protect everybody the same. Now, nothing is perfect. I can't guarantee I won't screw up and end up afoul of such laws. But it won't be because I'm trying to break them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top