http://straightforwardinacrookedworld.blogspot.com/2013/10/primary-decisions.html
Sorry for the white text on black lines text. For some reason I can't get rid of it.
Recently there has been a small spate of "can I shoot him/her if ..." threads. Those threads generate a lot of back & forth about just how long one has to wait/how much of a beating/cutting/stabbing/being spit on/etc. one has to endure before it becomes "OK" to shoot the person threatening to assault/assaulting you. That discussion emgenders discussion about how close a potential threat needs to get, without actually assaulting you, before you can shoot them.
As the article says (and goes on to explain) "gun does not always equal threat."
But how do you go about making the decision correctly that the presence of a gun does not equal a threat?
You really do not want to read how my thoughts about that are absolutely correct and the rest of your thoughts were pulled from your third point of contact - even though there is no chance I that might be wrong. So I'm opening this up for discussion. What do you look for? What do you consider? And just as importantly, what information do you disregard?
stay safe.
I came across this quote today.
"While there is some concern of overpenetration with a handgun cartridge, your primary concern should be that your defensive round of choice will have sufficient penetration to reach vital organs and cause incapacitating blood loss in an attacker."
On the surface the statement is clearly logical enough, provided we remove one aspect of it.
"... your primary concern should be ...."
Lest you ever find yourself in a lethal use of force encounter...or potential lethal use of force encounter, sufficient penetration of your ammo is far from the primary concern.
Your primary concern is to make sure that what you are seeing is in fact accurate, ala use exemplary judgement.
And I mean it. THAT is your primary concern.
"Hold on a minute" you're thinking.
"If I'm startled from my sleep in the middle of the night to someone breaking into my house I need to win that fight short and quick.".
Of which I would concur with you. However, you still need to confirm that what you believe to be happening is in fact happening. Don't misinterpret what I am saying, you can in most instances come to the conclussion that you need to apply the lethal use of force very very quickly. In some cases a mere blink of an eye.
However, time and time again we allow preconceived scenarios other people have laid out for us to become our future predictors. There is a distinct difference between sitting at a red light and seeing pistol pressed against the driver's side window and, sitting in an outdoor cafe somewhere and hearing gun fire, followed by a guy with a handgun running in your direction.
Gun does not always equal threat.
Sorry for the white text on black lines text. For some reason I can't get rid of it.
Recently there has been a small spate of "can I shoot him/her if ..." threads. Those threads generate a lot of back & forth about just how long one has to wait/how much of a beating/cutting/stabbing/being spit on/etc. one has to endure before it becomes "OK" to shoot the person threatening to assault/assaulting you. That discussion emgenders discussion about how close a potential threat needs to get, without actually assaulting you, before you can shoot them.
As the article says (and goes on to explain) "gun does not always equal threat."
But how do you go about making the decision correctly that the presence of a gun does not equal a threat?
You really do not want to read how my thoughts about that are absolutely correct and the rest of your thoughts were pulled from your third point of contact - even though there is no chance I that might be wrong. So I'm opening this up for discussion. What do you look for? What do you consider? And just as importantly, what information do you disregard?
stay safe.