Originally Posted by AdrienXII

It all depends on your ROE, usually. Police officers are expected to use minimum force, and so are civilians defending themselves. So, if you've drawn your gun, why not fire a warning shot? If you're going to shoot someone, why aim center-mass, and not at the legs? And why the double-tap? You're going to run into trouble with the law, if you insist on using your military ROE as a civilian...

Originally Posted by MattLarson

This is incorrect on many levels.

As a civilian, you are ONLY justified in using a gun for defense against an imminent lethal threat. If you have time to be screwing around firing warning shots, you are not facing an imminent lethal threat that justifies using the gun at all.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

"Warning shots" may be well and good if you are out in the countryside, with nobody around for miles. In a populated area, it's an idiotic idea at best. That bullet is going to end up somewhere. And with a bunch of people around, that somewhere might just be in an innocent bystander.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Shooting in the legs? You've watched too many movies and too many TV shows. The bad guy gets shot in the leg, and is instantly incapacitated and stops all hostile action. It just doesn't work that way in real life.

Handguns are poor stoppers under the best conditions. The Hollywood version, where the bad guy flies back 5 feet when shot, is nonsense. If you are actually justified in shooting, you are shooting to stop an imminent, lethal threat. In the real world, this means multiple rounds to the COM.

Matt

Originally Posted by Steve

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

If you're going to pull the trigger of a weapon, it should be only so you can put a bullet into your target. You don't shoot into the air to scare someone or show them you're "serious".

The use of deadly force doesn't really differ from a civilian police department to the military. When a weapon is drawn, it's drawn for one purpose: to use deadly force.

There's also the concept of "escalation of force", whereas a person (cop or otherwise) uses the minimum amount of force to counter the force being presented. In my case, I hadn't drawn my weapon. I saw two switchblades, a butterfly knife, and a pipe. When I drew my weapon, that was following the concept of escalation of force to the letter.

The very sight of a gun should be enough to deter someone who's presenting a knife. No warning shot. no yelling of "I'm serious". The very fact that I drew my weapon should've told the assailants that I was, in fact, serious.

As they decided I wasn't serious, they continued towards my wife and I. Accordingly, I fired my weapon. I fired it not to scare them or show them I was "serious". In fact, I didn't even fire it to kill them. I fired it to stop them.

When you fire a weapon at someone, it's considered deadly force whether you hit them in the chest or the foot. It's even considered deadly force if you miss them completely.

The use of deadly force says that it'll be used to stop an action or to protect an innocent.

Shooting at their legs would've been stupid. It's a much smaller target, thereby increasing the chances that I could miss. A warning shot; well, that's just too stupid an idea to spend any time on. I believe the only people actually authorized to use them are prison guards.

No, I opted for center mass.

Adrien, I've was first trained in the use of deadly force while serving as a military police officer. Now, as a civilian gun owner, I've taken firearms courses through my local gun dealer, taught (in part) by the local police department. Some of these courses deal specifically with the use of deadly force.

My experience with the use of deadly force is, unfortunately, more extensive than that of the average gun owner. I'll probably live the rest of my life never again feeling the need to draw my weapon. But, if I felt that need again, I wouldn't hesitate; not for a second.

If someone is unwilling to use a gun to protect themself or their loved ones, they absolutely shouldn't be carrying one; there's simply no need to do it. I've only had that need once, and I'm glad I had my gun with me at the time.

Here's an article on someone who'd been met with only fists, but grabbed a .22 caliber rifle because his assailant was known to carry a knife. Nothing is said about a knife being used, however:

The Payson Roundup

The shooting was ruled justifiable. The assailant died after what was intended as a "warning shot". Even had the assailant lived, the force used is considered deadly force.

Doing a real quick search, I found two definitions on the web for "deadly force". They differ slightly, but they both contain the very important phrase "death or serious bodily injury":

That force which a person uses for the purpose of causing - or which he knows or should reasonably know, would create substantial risk of causing - death or serious bodily injury.

[That] force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

A quick Google search found this website, and I think it puts the argument in pretty fair perspective:

No Nonsense Self Defense

It refers to "deadly" force as "lethal" force, but I think there's little question that we're talking about the same thing.

This is the part that I think is important is this one:

Critical decision
You need to make a serious decision right now. And that is decide if you are willing to use lethal force to protect yourself -- because your life is on the line. Not threaten to use. Not "well it depends." Not "well if I have to". Nor is "can't I just scare him away by waving it around?" an acceptable answer.

Yes or no.

And if you choose yes, then you are accepting the responsibility that you will be acting with dedication and commitment to take another human life. If you ever do that, you will have to live with the repercussions and guilt for the rest of your life. And that is not easy.

The last sentence, I think, answers those critics who say people who would do such a thing are bullies or cowboys when answering the question "Are you prepared to take a life?:

Therefore a 'yes' answer is not an act of bravado or macho, but a rational, calculated decision to take responsibility.

I think about the one time I had to fire my weapon every single day. Every time I slip my gun into my belt holster, or slip it into its' shoulder harness, I think about it. I suspect I'll think about it every single day for the rest of my life.

I sincerely wish I hadn't been in a position that required the use of my gun. But, knowing that I did the right thing, I will never, ever, regret having done so.

I would love to contunue this conversation but, if we're to do that, you really do need to educate yourself on what deadly force truly is, what it means to use it, and the proper use of a firearm. Until you do that, you'll be in a position of ignorance on the topic, and that's certainly not something which will help move the discussion along.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

As for legs being small targets, please. I've only fired a pistol once in my life and I feel confident I could hit a beer bottle out to 20 meters without any trouble. You are trained, it shouldn't present you with any difficulties.

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Why not? I don't see why I would need any prior knowledge in order to discuss anything, provided I'm not totally stupid, which I don't think I am.

Originally Posted by crisis

Yeah well with this kind of mentality you can’t blame them! -


"I am of the belief that guns are merely tools, one is responsible for his own actions and some people just need killin'."
EricOKC

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

I feel confident a bullet in the knee or hip will stop anybody in his tracks. You can't hit a knee at zero range? Wtf are you doing carrying a firearm in the first place?

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

I feel confident a bullet in the knee or hip will stop anybody in his tracks. You can't hit a knee at zero range? Wtf are you doing carrying a firearm in the first place?

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

Why not? I don't see why I would need any prior knowledge in order to discuss anything, provided I'm not totally stupid, which I don't think I am.

First, no two situations are alike, so what applies to one may very well not work in another. But saying that having drawn your weapon, you are then compelled to use it makes no sense to me. You may, or you may not have to, depending on how your assailants react to the presence of the weapon. Unless they have firearms themselves, which, as I understand, is not the situation we were discussing, you will have time to react.

Now, warning shots may be potentially dangerous to bystanders, I agree. All the same, it is possible to shoot at something that will stop or slow the bullet, such as a the ground, a tree, a car, or whatever.
As for legs being small targets, please. I've only fired a pistol once in my life and I feel confident I could hit a beer bottle out to 20 meters without any trouble. You are trained, it shouldn't present you with any difficulties.

Originally Posted by Americano

One time? You must be the new Annie Oakley (she used bird shot) or a rare natural. I shoot all the time, have for many years but would never make that statement and am considered an excellent, consistent shooter. There are shots termed flyers that happen to everyone. I shoot with cops, some of whom can barely qualify and others who shoot in competition, and experienced/novice civilians and see very few other than the pros who can consistently put every shot in a 2" group at 25-yards. Most novices are lucky to even put one out of five on the target at 25-yards (23M) with short barreled auto-loaders, much less shoot a tight group. Now factor in the adrenalin rush of a confrontation.

The people at the range I use who instruct novices determine if practice is going to be a regular event or if they're just getting a sidearm to stick in a drawer for home protection. If the latter, instructors use the 7-yard (6.4M) 'bellygun' distance to train them and build their confidence levels. Even at that short distance it's often scary to watch the results.

Originally Posted by Steve

Drawing a weapon does not compel you to pull the trigger. But, if you do decide to pull the trigger, it had damn well better be while the firearm is aimed at a target, and not off to the side or up in the air.

When I drew my weapon, our assailants didn't stop making their way towards us. At that point is when I decided to use the weapon...

Originally Posted by Steve

How close should I have let them get? As it was, they were within 10 or 15 feet. What would be an acceptable distance? Should I have let them get close enough to cut me, or to hit me with the pipe that one of them had?

Originally Posted by Steve

And all that does is make a loud noise. If anything, it suggests to your assailants that you're not prepared to fire your weapon in a manner which will stop them...

Originally Posted by Steve

My God, this is getting sillier by minute.

If I were on a range, I could shoot the dots off a dice at 100 feet. That's not the position I was in, though. I wasn't on a range, I was on a street, with four people approaching me who meant to do me harm.

If I put a bottle on a sidewalk, and then sent four people towards you with weapons, and I gave you only a second or two to go from not having a weapon in your hand to hitting the bottle with a bullet, and you knew that the four assailaints would beat and rob you if they got to you, I have little doubt that you'd miss that bottle...

Originally Posted by Steve

Training can't stop the physiological effects that you experience in a "real world" environment. It can do nothing to stop the adrenalin rush (which makes you shake, by the way) or the tunnel vision. It can do nothing to stop the hyperventilating

I always laugh when someone says that, because they might have centered a target once on a range, they think they could adequately defend themself with a firearm. The environments could not be more different, and the physical reactions one experiences in those two environments could not be more different.

Originally Posted by Steve

So, again, I'd suggest that if you wish to continue this discussion, you educate yourself on the topic. Without that, you'll continue to argue from a position of ignorance...

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

I used a Mac 50 9mm. I didn't spend any appreciable time aiming to put 5 rounds out of five in the target at 15m. Granted they were not centered, but then it was the first time I used any kind of pistol. My point was, a trained shooter using a decent firearm should have no problem shooting a guy in the leg, adrenalin notwithstanding. He can just shoot until he hits.

Originally Posted by Steve

Zero range??

If the assailant is at "zero range", you might consider the fact that you are, as well.

That's far too close.

At that point, you've pretty much decided not to use your weapon. So, I would agree with you: What the fuck are you doing carrying a firearm in the first place?