Skip to main content

View Diary: The Moral Realities of Self Defense Shootings (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So, for instance, seeing you try to pull out a gun (6+ / 0-)

    would make that small step extremely easy to take.

    •  Depends on how good you are with a weapon (0+ / 0-)

      I for example am not very good with a gun. So i would consider other options.

      But for example if somone was well trained, armed and a sloppy tweaker pulled a gun on them, with a threat.

      The armed victim may likely have a better chance of walking away if they resolve to pull first and shoot.

      The person who decides to strike first does have an advantage.

    •  I am not sure I am interpreting your statement the (0+ / 0-)

      way you intended but I am reading it as a snide remark that tells me you don't really understand the concepts, both tactical and legal, surrounding the use of defensive firearms.  If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies.  My response, which you will find below, is the same regardless:

      Action is always faster than reaction.  If you draw first, your action will be faster than your assailant.  Tactically speaking, this should be accompanied by the set of actions coined, "explode off of the X" which pretty much means move rapidly and unexpectedly in a manner and direction which your attacker will not expect, typically at a 90 degree angle as this gives you the ability to assess if anything was behind you.

      Probably the most important point, and one that from your comment I think you are missing, is that if you are drawing your gun it is because the situation is such that lethal force is now justified and an appropriate response.  You draw your weapon only when the conditions warrant it and you intend to use it.   While it is possible that your attacked could cease whatever they are doing that is a threat, such a drop a knife and turn, thereby in the last second allowing you to not pull the trigger, you don't draw unless there is sufficient cause.

      I should also point out, as I have in other posts, that lethal force is only justified in response to a threat of grave bodily harm, death, or sexual assault.  Never to intimidate, never to coerce.  The most important word being threat.  They don't actually have to have a weapon - the threat of one is sufficient. though it would make any legal challenges more difficult.  

      Here is a link to a fairly long thread dealing with the tactical aspects of these types of situations.  It is called dealing with PESTS where PESTS was part of an acronym for the responsive steps.

      It also talks about the color code awareness and response levels.  Much of the information contained is pertinent to anyone, not just people who carry.

      •  Nothing snide at all. (0+ / 0-)

        First, to address 'action is faster than reaction' - your mugger is already committing a crime, and is probably a bit twitchy - if you try to move quickly in any way at all, even pulling your wallet out fast, his trigger finger is likely to twitch that tiny fraction.  Second, where are you 'carrying'?  If it's in a holster above your clothes, he's already likely seen that you're carrying, and any movement of a hand towards it is going to get you shot.  If it's not, you're even less likely to successfully pull it out, as videos recently posted to debunk the 'carry in class' idea have shown, with a 'carrying' student getting his gun tangled up in his shirt showed.

        So my point is not about anything to do with 'justification'.  It's about you being far more likely to end up shot by a nervous mugger as you try to get a weapon out and in line that if don't try to push him that tiny bit over the edge into being willing to shoot you.

        •  If the mugger already has a drop on you (0+ / 0-)

          meaning already has a live weapon pointed at you, your chances of bringing one to bear on him go way down.  Each situation has to be evaluated and judged according to the specifics as well as your ability.  For example, Krav Maga teaches disarmament techniques that are amongst the best in the world that could chance the balance of power.

          I also know of the video you speak and don't consider it to be a reliable piece.  For example, the cop who played shooter walked in an immediately targeted the student who also had no training.  That isn't realistic either.

          •  I'm reminded of Bruce Lee (0+ / 0-)

            All the kung fu in the world won't stop a bullet in real life.   Hand over your wallet is an easier way to make it out alive.

            Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

            by Chris Reeves on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:08:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (65)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site