bobernet
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I was going to post in the Vermont thread, but decided to start a new one instead. The thread that sparked my thoughts was this one.
I have been to one of the largest firearms self-defense schools in the country. I have spent time with a good friend who is in charge of training for a large metro police force. I have participated on firearms forums for a long time.
That said... my thinking has always been that in a potentially or actually violent confrontation, if you have a gun drawn and a person continues to attack, threaten or otherwise close with you... it's likely a good idea to shoot.
The logic goes... any normal unarmed person, when seeing a gun pointed at them, is going to stop what they're doing. The fact that they are faced with deadly force and continue to attack means 1) they are armed and intend to kill you 2) they are so mentally unbalanced that they are a significant threat, armed or not 3) they intend to try to take your gun from you (and use it on you).
So, that's my thinking on the subject... it's the training that police in a major metro area receive... it's the training that a large national self-defense school delivers - and yet, time and again I see people critical of others because they didn't "duke it out," run away, use "other means of defense," etc before shooting under those circumstances. Why?
If you were on a jury, would you consider the circumstances described as justifying use of deadly force or not?
I was going to post in the Vermont thread, but decided to start a new one instead. The thread that sparked my thoughts was this one.
I have been to one of the largest firearms self-defense schools in the country. I have spent time with a good friend who is in charge of training for a large metro police force. I have participated on firearms forums for a long time.
That said... my thinking has always been that in a potentially or actually violent confrontation, if you have a gun drawn and a person continues to attack, threaten or otherwise close with you... it's likely a good idea to shoot.
The logic goes... any normal unarmed person, when seeing a gun pointed at them, is going to stop what they're doing. The fact that they are faced with deadly force and continue to attack means 1) they are armed and intend to kill you 2) they are so mentally unbalanced that they are a significant threat, armed or not 3) they intend to try to take your gun from you (and use it on you).
So, that's my thinking on the subject... it's the training that police in a major metro area receive... it's the training that a large national self-defense school delivers - and yet, time and again I see people critical of others because they didn't "duke it out," run away, use "other means of defense," etc before shooting under those circumstances. Why?
If you were on a jury, would you consider the circumstances described as justifying use of deadly force or not?