I would caution against shooting someone unless they have managed to gain unauthorized possession of your loaded firearm or were already armed prior to attacking you. Personally, I'd strongly recommend using other forms of retention techniques as well as some PPCT techniques.
Are you nuts?What if, in trying to follow these "other forms of retention techniques" I fail, and the attacker gets my gun? What am I supposed toshoot them withAFTER they have control of my gun?
Its a good idea to keep everything nonlethal if possible andfollow theescalation of force protocol.
THEY have already escalated the situation by trying to takeMY gun. They can keep it nonlethal by keeping to themselves.
This is what OC, batons, and tasers are designed for and they are allusually very effective if deployed properly.
Who carries all of this crap with them every day, except LEOs?
Don't use your gun in asituation like this unlessyou have no other options left.
They have already exhausted my other options by trying for my gun.
Using a firearm against a singleattacker that is not armed (unless they were already armed at the time of attacking you or they somehow managed to gain unauthorized possession of your loaded sidearm) will probably land you in a lot of legal trouble.
Not in any of the "free" states. Once again, what are you supposed to useafter they have your gun?
Q: When does an assault become dangerous enough to justify use of DF?
A: When the assaulter attacks you.
Just because they may not be armed, doesn't mean that they are not dangerous. If they get my gun, then I know that they are dangerous.
There is no sense in losing your right to own firearms for doing something dumb such as not following the escalation of force rules.
There is no sense in letting someone get your gun and losing your right tolive because you are afraid of some anti-gun official getting upset about your choice to survive. Only a bureaucrat, lawyer, or cop worries about "escalation of force rules" when fighting for control of a gun.
YOU don't want to look like the aggressor in court, and believe me, a good prosecutor is going to try to make you look like the aggressor.
Only the most rabid anti-gunner would try to say that you were the aggressor in this situation. Even if that happened, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Thats my opinion on this.
You are entitled to it, but I can't help but think that only someone who has spent an extended time as a LEO in a very restrictivepart of the country,would buy into what you are saying. I can't help but think that you must be a cop, or have been one in the past. Not everyone (very few in fact)goes about their daily business with a duty belt full of gear on them.
Thats why I say first use retention techniques, then spray, then go from there if whatever methods you are deploying don't seem to be working. I'm not saying DF isn't an option, because it is. Just make sure you've exhausted everything else before making the decision to shoot.
I agree on the retention thing (No.1 priority is keeping possession of your gun), but after that, I'm probably not going to want to go into a long debate about what their intentions are.
No person in their right mind is going to try for your gun with only honorable intentions. They go for the gun, they are up to no good. They are bent on violenceat worst, stupid beyond belief at best. Either way, they are an immediate threat to the personal safety of yourself and all around you. Treat them as such.