Sum1_Special
New member
"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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: