What the hell are they teaching here!?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"First of all. Regardless of what the locals laws are, to do such a thing is malicious." I have a problem with the advise to disregard the law. What is or isn't malicious may not be defined, but the law goes a long way toward settling the matter - which is why it is important to know the local laws.
Click to expand...

The Castle Doctrine law, I don't have a problem with it, it's the same in my state. However, I have a problem with folks getting a little trigger happy with they're weapons.

"You can diffuse many situations by simply drawing your gun and giving a warning." You've just described brandishing in many (most?) locals. An option for some? Sure. Again, know your laws. It also depends on who you're talking about- my granny or me? It matters. It is decidedly not "good generic internet advice."
Click to expand...

Really? 'Generic internet advice'? Where did you get this? It is actually common sense. A gun is a scary thing, regardless of who's behind the trigger. I know this from first hand experience. Thinking that a woman behind the trigger is less intimidating and less dangerous to a criminal than a big guy is 'generic internet advice'. And no, drawing your weapon and giving a warning is not against the law, however, drawing a gun and immediately blasting away may very well be.
"Notice police don't immediately draw there guns and fire when they are in trouble." The general public is best advised not to model themselves off of police or military tactics.
Click to expand...

Your right, the police and military know nothing about defensive tactics. We're better off making our own.

"You would not draw a gun if somebody was trying to take your wallet, really?" Really, really. Actually, it all depends on how they are trying to take it. The BG's actions to take my wallet would dictate my response.
Click to expand...

No kidding, but according to the article you should NEVER draw your weapon on a mugger, you should instead wait until he does something that threatens your life and then you kill him.

"Why carry a gun then, if you are not going to use it as a crime Deterrent." To protect myself and others from serious bodily injury and death per my local laws. I do not carry as a crime deterent, though I acknowledge that it may be a crime deterent after the fact.
Click to expand...

Well, I also carry it for that reason, however, you are not protecting anybody from bodily harm if you use such a method for self defense, you are causing bodily harm. More specifically, death, you don't sound to be any better than the criminal.

"The writer mentions you give no warnings, and that you don't use your gun for anything but to defend your own life, Nobody else sees a problem with this?" Nope, though in my local others are included. It is sound advice.
Click to expand...

I'm sure your local police and jury won't feel the same way when they convict you with murder after your wife called a repairman and you end up shooting him due to a misunderstanding.
I'm not trying to nit-pick, but the average reader (this is the net, after all) has to know the law, understand it in context, and be prepared to act within it.
Click to expand...

Yes, however, good luck convincing the jury the man was going to do you harm, when he was reaching for your wallet and ended up with a mag full of bullets without warning. This is a very stupid method of self defense, don't agree? Then explain why it is better to draw and fire in one motion, instead of drawing and warning the criminal to stop and then firing if he continues. What if the confrontation escalates and he draws his gun before you are 'ready'?

Edit: I read this thread again. I think when I started this I was very vague about what bothered me, and that's fine. But around 95% of acts of self defense involving a gun ends with nobody firing a shot, the presence of a gun is usually good enough to diffuse the situation, same happened to me. But if you actually think it is better to draw and fire without warning the attacker, you're cold blooded, as bad, or worse, than a criminal. I think some of you guys should rethink your strategies.
 
Last edited:
Sum1
What I am saying is I think the method of drawing a gun only when you are ready to fire is flawed and immoral.
Click to expand...
....and stupid!

Cops routinely draw on subjects when they anticipate serious danger.

Most instructors teach 'never draw unless you intend to shoot'. Of course, that's ridiculous in the real world and they only say that to cover their butt from lawsuits.
Think they'd follow their own advice? :)

There are a ton of scenarios that can go either way, but I say err on the side of common sense and survival. Use the early draw.
.
 
I very rarely carry (no, I don't have a CCL), but I did when I was backpacking. Break into my house, however, and all the rules change. I still think the .38 Spl +Ps would do the job. The .357 Magnum rifle would probably do number on someone. The 12-gauge with 000 Magnum buck or rifled slugs would probably be considered one-shot stoppers.
 
Last year I was mugged in a parking garage, I was carrying a 22 pistol. The robber had a knife, he was about 4-5 feet away and I reached for my wallet but pulled out the pistol from my back pocket, pointed it at him, and yelled. He ran. confrontation defused, no police, no problems.
Click to expand...
I think you're very fortunate that it turned out the way it did and you didn't get stabbed or worse yet killed. I can't help but think there is some sort of reluctance on your part to use your firearm for other then scaring people.
What I am saying is I think the method of drawing a gun only when you are ready to fire is flawed and immoral. Why? Because you are surprising the BG with your gun and before he has time to react and get the hell out of there, you fire.
Click to expand...
If someone pulls a knife on me or threatens me with deadly physical harm I have absolutely no obligation to warn them that I'm going to defend myself. I'm not worried about convincing a jury or the BG's family, I'm worried about protecting me and my family from deadly physical harm period! If I hesitate for that split second it might get me killed. If one waves their firearm around just to scare someone without the mind set to actually use it the only thing that's going to happen is they're going to have their weapon taken away from them and probably used against them.

If there is time for gun waving and scare tactics then there should be time for a hasty retreat. This is no time for the macho Rambo crap.

Just my 2 cents...

riverrat66...out
 
I was ready to shoot if the man needed shooting. If he advanced or did something stupid I would have shot him without hesitation. He didn't, and I was very confident he wouldn't. You should damn well worry about how your actions will effect you later. I might be in prison right now, away from my family, if I followed such a stupid rule as that mentioned in the article.

You have every right to be worried about what happens to you or your family. However, you must use the most important tool you have in such a situation, your good judgment and common sense. If you were in my shoes, you sure as hell wouldn't have waiting for an exuse to kill him, you would have pulled your gun and yelled at the top of your lungs like I did.

This is not a rambo tactic, waiting for your opponent to make a move is a rambo tactic. Once you have assessed the situation and are sure this man means to do you harm and isn't just supicious looking(as in hearing him say 'give me your money' or doing something so you're sure of his intent), you draw your weapon and command your attacker to Freeze, drop his weapon, put his hands on his head, or whatever. waiting until he puts his hands on you or draws his weapon first could be a deadly mistake. It is a stupid tactic in so many ways, that you can't possibly justify it's use. Nobody has given me a good reason on why to use this strategy, and there is a whole 5 page thread discussing how outrageous and idiotic it is. (found here: it's a good thread on what other folks say about it: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210263 )

I wonder who the hell thought of this, and why so many of you folks advocate it? Police don't use it, military doesn't use it... Only fools use it. I realize it is sometimes impossible to draw your weapon and warn first, especially if this man is on some sort of drug and is already on top of you trying to kill you. However, I have never heard of a self defense situation where the victim didn't have a chance to draw, and if you've already determined the threat, why wouldn't you?

You know what I think, I think you folks got hard heads, you don't want to change what has already been taught to you. I have nearly lost faith in humanity because of some of the responses in this thread.
 
I wonder who the hell thought of this, and why so many of you folks advocate it? Police don't use it, military doesn't use it... Only fools use it. I realize it is sometimes impossible to draw your weapon and warn first, especially if this man is on some sort of drug and is already on top of you trying to kill you. However, I have never heard of a self defense situation where the victim didn't have a chance to draw, and if you've already determined the threat, why wouldn't you
Click to expand...

Fella, I believe your heart's in the right place--but here's the real deal....

First of all, you do not draw your weapon to warn. You should only come out with the smokepole when you are in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

Drawing the firearm itself is considered a use of deadly force. Please remember that.

Moreover, please be aware that some muggers/robbers/rapists/fill in the blank can and will mount an attack so violent and savage that you literally do NOT have time to draw your weapon, much less formulate a plan.

And, why do we, as cops, draw our firearms? Simple. It is because a situation exists that can turn deadly in a heartbeat. If you wait until the threat manifests itself into something visible and tangible to have your gun in your hand, you are already behind the power curve, and risk leaving the scene on a stretcher.

So, how is it prevented? First, stay in Condition Orange. Be aware of your surroundings and the things that are happening around you.

Do NOT go into areas where confrontation is likely. Sure, you have a Constitutional right to go where you want, for the most part; however, only a fool will walk in a city park at night if they know that thugs have been using that park as their hunting grounds.

If a situation arises where deadly force can be directed against you, you should have your weapon in hand, fully loaded, and you should be focused on the threat and your surroundings. Be prepared to shoot INSTANTLY, and without warning if need be; but, be just as prepared to reholster your gun without incident. Use your own good judgement.
 
Sum1 Special,
I find it overly convenient that you have opted to cite text from another source without citing some critical information that immediately preceded it. Quoting from the same original source in the same section and citing lines just preceding the ones you cited...

V.D.1.d.: When to draw or shoot?
Three conditions have to met before you can even consider drawing your pistol:

somebody has the *intent* of killing or severely hurting you
they have the *means* of doing so (a knife, pistol, shotgun, their hands, etc.)
they have the immediate *opportunity* to do so
Click to expand...

Then when countered by Armstrong, you came up with the lame scenario that you called murder,

Lets say a drunk stumbles out of a bar and bumps into you. He gets angry and starts yelling at you, you do nothing, he pushes you and threatens you with violence, you 'fear for your life' draw your gun and empty the magazine into him...
Click to expand...

This scenario does NOT match the criteria cited in the article for using lethal force. Your example constituted simple assault maybe, which is a use of force, but not a use of force that indicates the need for the use of lethal force. The drunk had NOT demonstrated the ability to kill you and so you should not have emptied your gun into him.

The article had some shortcomings, such as noted by Charles S, but the suggestion to use lethal force to the fullest extent to assure one's own safety when your life is intentionally being endangered by another who has the intent, opportunity, and ability to kill you is solid logic. Sure, if you want to draw to draw on somebody who already has those three criteria met and THEN verbrally challenge that person, that is your call, although from the overly simplified description, it would appear to be a very tactically stupid call to make.

You are right, cops don't draw their guns at the first sign of minor trouble, sum as being pushed by a drunk, but they do at the first sign if potential lethal force conflict where the opposition meets those criteria IF drawing is the best alternative they have at that time. Then again, most cops I know where ballistic vests, carry a myriad of weapons, can call OFFICER NEEDS HELP and have multiple responders on scene within seconds whereas calling 911 might take minutes or 10s of minutes for a non-LEO to summon help. No sir, what officers do or do not do is NOT a direct comparison with what non-LEOs should do in many cases because us non-LEOs don't have the same situation and support base as LEOs.

A couple of years ago in Dallas, the most highly critical 911 calls, such as a person was being attacked, still took 6-8 minutes for Dallas LEOs to make it on scene on average and that was the best it had been in years and they were proud of the improvement. Some cities were in double digits.

No sir, you don't have the same support structure as the cops and using the cops as a model on how to respond to a lethal force confrontation without that same support structure, training, and gear is exceedingly naive.
 
Just an FYI,

NJ does NOT ban the owning of hollowpoints. It does not ban the possession of hollowpoints. NJ bans the carrying of hollowpoints in firearms used for protection when they are not carried on the "real property" (as in, your car does not count, your house does) or your place of business. You can also carry and use hollowpoints for sporting events and training. This means if you hunt with a hollowpoint, you are fine. If you use hollowpoints at the range to practice, all is good. If you have a handgun on your nightstand with a mag full of hollowpoints, also, fine.

Now, for the issue that Sum1 had:
Sometimes you have no time for a warning. Some may even say if you had time for a warning, you had time to run away. It is a grey area and one that it is easy to second guess when you are not the one involved.

However, if you are being mugged, I would assume harm could possbily follow. I don't need a visible weapon, especially when there is a disparity of force involved. Fists can kill. The human body is a weapon, and this is especially moreso when the person is much bigger than you, or has some of his buddies along for the ride. If I could carry and I saw 3 guys trying to surround me, I am assuming the worst and will draw. If the motion of the unholstering is not enough "warning" then the sound of the report will likely do the rest for me.

However, the above is purely academic. I cannot carry where I am. I don't have a holster, but it is how I believe I would behave when confronted with a similar situation. As others have said, you have to do what you believe is right in accordance with your survival instincts, training and the laws where you live.
 
I would not give over my wallet. ID with my address, credit cards, other things that lead back to me. I would not shoot someone over a wallet but I would say no if the perp demanded the wallet and try to get away from the area he occupies quickly, if he makes any further move to try to forcefully get it and hurt me in the process I will draw on him and fire.

Don't hand over your wallet and belongings to a bottom feeder, try to get away from him before doing that, if the person persists after you have tried to get away and is now being forceful or violent, you have the right to draw and stop him. To me it is kind of a purpose served, if I just hand it over to him then that gives him or her a new confidence and he will go and try to take others things by force as well.

A lot of people say that it's better a dead criminal than one who will shack up in our expensive prison system that wastes both tax dollars and resources, then get out and go repeat the same thing over and over again.

But stay legal, don't fire until it becomes a threat to your body but also don't submit to the BG either because you do have the means to stop the BG if necessary.
 
Have to agree with Sum1 .... I have a CCP and was trained to not warn first, at a short course, but it makes no sense to only have the option of drawing when it is too late . The instructor stated if you are convinced that you or your family's life is threatened, shoot to neutralize that threat...
If the BG has already attacked you, you may not have the ability to draw.... If he hasn't attacked you (yet?) you can't assume he will, to the extent of shooting him. It surely would be best to draw your weapon and have it ready, let the BG know you can shoot him immediately, and let him make the next move.
IF he has a gun out and pointed at you already, its a moot point,.... don't draw unless you are a "faster" cowboy, or are convinced that he will shoot you anyway, robbery or not.
If he has a knife or something that needs close use, you have the time to make that decision. So will he.
If you shoot someone and he keeps coming with a knife, shoot him some more.
Note that a accurately-adjusted laser-sighted gun, (LaserGrips work best IMHO) , will allow an accurate aim from a close in gun position, allow you to have the offside arm for added defense of yourself and the gun, give a visible (most of the time ) sign that the gun is pointed at the BG, and will hit accurately . You won't be caught arms extended with the gun out where it could be deflected, and you won't be as likely to force the BG to try to react violently to your counter-threat to him, especially if he starts to fear for his own life.
 
Last edited:
I think the drawing and chambering is actually from the Israeli Shooting Method. I have a video from AGI that teaches this technique. It's really stupid. You are supposed to sweep with your weaker arm to move anything in front of you and draw, while chambering a round. Not to mention it specifically says NOT to aim while blasting away.

I think this advice is alright at best and rather stupid at worst. A few good points are how it shows restraint. You don't shoot people who have stolen from you, that's murder/manslaughter. You don't pull it out for someone kicking your car in the parking lot. You call the police and if they charge you, then you draw your weapon to keep them back.

Body armor doesn't make someone invincible and after a few shots it tends to lose its bullet resistant quality. And if you have enough time to decide to shoot someone in the head or pelvis AFTER you've realized you're missing (because you suck and didn't train long enough with your weapon) that's not self-defense, you're pre-meditating on murder. Either one will kill someone. The head for obvious reasons, and the pelvis is a dangerous spot to get shot in. A lot of blood vessels and sensitive organs are housed there. Shooting someone there is like shooting them in the gut.

This advice isn't entirely bad but most of it is dreck, pure and simple.
 
I am not an expert, but I have taken some handgun, shotgun, and rifle shooting course.

I think the drawing and chambering is actually from the Israeli Shooting Method. I have a video from AGI that teaches this technique. It's really stupid.
Click to expand...

Not everyone thinks it is stupid.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215241

I however agree that condition 3 is not for me.

ody armor doesn't make someone invincible and after a few shots it tends to lose its bullet resistant quality. And if you have enough time to decide to shoot someone in the head or pelvis AFTER you've realized you're missing (because you suck and didn't train long enough with your weapon) that's not self-defense, you're pre-meditating on murder. Either one will kill someone.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A good training course will teach you to shoot com and if after two or more shots with no response re-formulate your plan. This can become second nature.

Clint smith has a training scenario in which a 3 dimensional target is charging you. The target is held up with a balloon or two located in the head, com, or pelvis. Shooting center of mass does not guarantee a stop.

http://www.actiontarget.com/_sport/sport_targets/the_3d_target.html

You must quickly evaluate and change your point of aim. A center of mass does not guarantee a stop that is why the Mozambique was developed.

Either one will kill someone.
Click to expand...

It will increase the odds of that happening. With a handgun it is still not a certainty.

pelvis is a dangerous spot to get shot in. A lot of blood vessels and sensitive organs are housed there. Shooting someone there is like shooting them in the gut.
Click to expand...

IMHO much worse than a gut shot.

Charles
 
I am not advocating drawing a weapon at the first sign of danger. Nor am I saying that if absolutely necessary you should not immediately draw your gun and fire. All I am saying is use your common judgement, certainly nobody can disagree with me on that. The article does not say this. To somebody who knows at least a little about about self defense, you can see some of the flaws in the article, however, to somebody who just bought a gun and is looking about information on how to use it in an emergency, it is, in my opinion, a bad thing to read and follow. Sure everybody needs training from a licensed instructor, but lets face it, how many gun owners actually go to one? To the average joe the article mentions 3 things that defines deadly force. About the 'lame' scenario I mentioned earlier, in some cases a drunk man grabbing you by the collar can scare the living crap out of you, and could very well be considered deadly force by the man being grabbed, regardless if it is considered 'assault' or whatever by the law. If he follows what he has read, tried to get away and cannot. Then he might draw and fire, wouldn't he? Of course, he might draw, attempt to warn, and then fire. However, there might be a good chance the drunk guy would let go if the victim franticly pulls a gun out and screams.

All I am saying is use your common sense. The article does not advise this, the article states you should draw your gun and immediately fire without issuing no warnings. It does not state 'use your own judgement and fire if you must', or 'just because you draw you are not obligated to fire' it says bluntly, 'Do not draw unless you will fire'.

If there is nothing that you can do to escape without making your position more desparate, in one smooth motion you draw your pistol, rack the slide while bringing it up to eye level, and shoot until you stop the person. Shoot for the center of the torso. Do not issue any warnings; you should not be shooting unless the situation is very grave, and there is nothing more that you can do for them.
Click to expand...

You are telling me you folks agree with this?

Because if I interpreted it that way, than many people probably interpreted it that way.

Edit: It's pretty much saying, 'draw and fire at the last second'. In the scenario the quote mentioned, it sounds like you have time to determine whether or not you could get away, and if not, you draw your gun and fire. If you have time to draw the gun and rack the slide, why wouldn't you have time to yell 'Freeze!' before you fired? Certainly there is a good chance it would have a good effect on the attacker and he will stop, and if not, then fire.
 
Last edited:
If a situation arises where deadly force can be directed against you, you should have your weapon in hand, fully loaded, and you should be focused on the threat and your surroundings. Be prepared to shoot INSTANTLY, and without warning if need be; but, be just as prepared to reholster your gun without incident. Use your own good judgement.
Click to expand...

Have I not been saying that all along? I agree 110% with what you are saying, however, the article doesn't. And it sounds like many people who have responded to this thread do not either. And that is what I have a problem with.
 
Because you are surprising the BG with your gun and before he has time to react and get the hell out of there, you fire.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but frankly I would prefer the BG be suprised if I have to pull steel on him.

Silly me. All this time I thought that was the idea of carrying concealed. :confused:
 
Drawing the firearm itself is considered a use of deadly force
Click to expand...

That simply defies any legal logic and would require a specific statute to be public policy in any state. If you know differently, please explain.
 
You can pick apart this article and cut it's throat 75 different ways but let's face it. Take the positive out of it and leave the negatve. This is the internet to include this thread.
 
Sum1,
I can understand what your thoughts are. When a person decides to carry a concealed weapon for protection they take on a huge responsibility. Not just that of carrying a firearm but the consequences of using that firearm. Will you actually be able to do it? How will you react afterward? Are you prepared for the legal repercussions? There are a host of questions that should be dealt with before one even straps on that firearm.

Many people think because they begin "carrying" they can venture into the worst part of town or areas they would not normally go. They become extra brave and invincible. There are lots of people around, some on this board who seem very anxious to shoot someone just to prove their manhood.

There have been many accounts of people, even LEO's who were unable to fire on someone when the chips were down. This thread is about "The Moment of Truth" http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198827Also
There is a hugh difference between carrying a firearm and being prepared to use it.
Click to expand...
Also there are many cases of officers who were unable to return to work as a result of shooting someone. Read this thread about "After the Gunfight" http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203849

It's a proven fact that a man with a knife can cover 21ft in 3 seconds, less time then it takes to draw your weapon and fire! That means there is no time for warnings, racking a round into the chamber or anything else. One will be lucky to get off one shot before getting cut or stabbed. That's why training is so important. Being a good shot is not enough. You need to know how to react and move accordingly.

Read the two threads to which I have provided the links for. They are old but provide some very good information concerning concealed carry and possessing the correct "mindset" that could save your life someday.

riverrat66...out
 
Sum,
It sounds to me from reading your original post and your replies you have a very serious issue with the thought of killing someone. For you to err more on the side of caution is fine, but I think your views and what you seem to take from this article are a little skewed. You seem to advocate warning the CRIMINAL before you shoot. Why? If they have put you in a situation where it is justifiable to shoot, blast them. Understandably most people don't want someone's death on their conscience or the thought of losing everything they own because they get sued, but it's something we all accept as handgun permit holders. For me personally the only fault I had with the article is the same as most others here, I carry with one in the chamber. It was maybe a little poorly worded, but I don't think there is anything there that would get you arrested because it's bad advice. If anything because of what you prefer to do you may end up trying to skirt a brandishing charge should you try to "warn" the wrong person. Take this how you will, but you have 2 pages of replies where at this point I've only seen one person that agrees with you. I'm not saying the mass group is right and you're wrong, but you may want to re-examine why it is you are so angry over this article and to me it also sounds like you need to re-evaluate if you are ready to take a life if needed.
 
Charles,

You bring up good points. However I cannot accept the Israeli Method as being a legit technique. The technique I've witnessed on the video is unrealistic. Shoving something out of your way, then drawing a weapon and chambering a round while you are being attacked is nearly physically impossible without immense training. Even then I think it'd be so-so at best. Not to mention the technique I've seen doesn't teach aiming, just spray and pray with a pistol. That's rather irresponsible and dangerous for by-standers. Not to mention your defense in court will sound hilarious. "I just chambered a round and blasted away at my attacker. Who needs to aim?"

You're right, shooting someone in the pelvish is worse than a gut shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top