It actually does give me that right. If I guy pointing a firearm at me at any distance doesn't provide me with a "reasonable reason to fear for my life" I don't know what does. I'm a strong believer in the rule "Never point a firearm at something you don't intend to destroy". If someones pointing a firearm at me they lose the right to any assumption of innocent intentions.
5 Gunfighting Myths Debunked By Massad Ayoob
- Thread starter george burns
- Start date
- Status
It actually does give me that right. If I guy pointing a firearm at me at any distance doesn't provide me with a "reasonable reason to fear for my life" I don't know what does. I'm a strong believer in the rule "Never point a firearm at something you don't intend to destroy". If someones pointing a firearm at me they lose the right to any assumption of innocent intentions.
420Stainless
Member
I'm a bit puzzled by that one. It is difficult for me to imagine a more threatening situation than someone pointing a rifle at me from 25 yards. Even for poor shooters that is almost can't miss distance. Proof may be hard to come by unless witnesses state that he was pointing the rifle at you, but in most urban settings at least, just having the rifle in one's hands in public would make him the aggressor unless it was itself a defensive response to a threat.
notaglockfanboy
Member
I too am a strong believer in that theory. I don't care if his finger is on the trigger or not, point a rifle or handgun at me, be prepared to see how it feels to take a piece of hot lead.
Let's look again at what is later presented:
65 YARDS away with a .30-30 already shooting at the public. Not hard to figure that out. A perp wanting to use a rifle is wanting to use the distance against you expecting your pistol to be inadequate.
Prove him wrong or die trying are about your only options. If you live in the suburbs line of sight is much longer than "the mean streets."
65 YARDS away with a .30-30 already shooting at the public. Not hard to figure that out. A perp wanting to use a rifle is wanting to use the distance against you expecting your pistol to be inadequate.
Prove him wrong or die trying are about your only options. If you live in the suburbs line of sight is much longer than "the mean streets."
Crowcifier666
Member
texasgun writes:
HE'S POINTING A GUN AT YOU!
There's a saying that goes: "It's better to be judged by 12, than carried by six"....pretty sure that applies to this situation. That said, yes, if I had a chance to run for cover I would (run, hide, fight, in that order). But you betcha I'd be going for the pistol whilst doing so; or, if out wide open with no cover? I would like to think I wouldn't think twice of drawing and firing.
There are no rules, IMO, when it comes to defensive situations. You survive, die, or get injured. Yardage has nothing to do with it, anything can happen.
HE'S POINTING A GUN AT YOU!
There's a saying that goes: "It's better to be judged by 12, than carried by six"....pretty sure that applies to this situation. That said, yes, if I had a chance to run for cover I would (run, hide, fight, in that order). But you betcha I'd be going for the pistol whilst doing so; or, if out wide open with no cover? I would like to think I wouldn't think twice of drawing and firing.
There are no rules, IMO, when it comes to defensive situations. You survive, die, or get injured. Yardage has nothing to do with it, anything can happen.
Last edited:
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
The 4 articles at the bootom of that article are worth reading also.
I'm not really seeing a whole lot of "debunking" going on in this article. Hes using some pretty extreme examples, I don't think anyone was arguing that you absolutely never ever need more than x shots or that you are only going to get into deadly altercations at x number of yards.
The truth is a civilian living in the US in a relatively safe part of town is very unlikely to ever need their gun in self defense. In the event they will its very unlikely to be an extended mag emptying shootout at 25 yards. Stranger things have happened, but I feel safe enough packing a 2-shot derringer.
The truth is a civilian living in the US in a relatively safe part of town is very unlikely to ever need their gun in self defense. In the event they will its very unlikely to be an extended mag emptying shootout at 25 yards. Stranger things have happened, but I feel safe enough packing a 2-shot derringer.
Dframe
Member
ayoobs points are always relevant, though not always right for everyone. Guess that's like most of the world.
buntline
Member
Once again, trying to arrive at a hard and fast rule is pretty tough. Twice, I have had folks point guns towards me from a distance and pull the trigger, and in both instances a shouted "STOP THAT!" was sufficient to neutralize the threat, because they were both idiots, one firing a shotgun at the brush for the fun of it, without checking where he was shooting, the other taking target practice in my direction without a backstop.
The first one, I verbally "educated" at length, the second I had the sheriff "educate" at length, because when I shouted she ran into her house and would not come out when I came calling.
No particular point here, except there is absolutely NO hard and fast rule that will allow us to turn off our brains and follow a course laid out previously with no thought to the details. Certainly, somebody pointing a gun at me from 25 yards is in danger, but so am I, if that person turns out to be the neighbor's kid trying to pot a dove out of the mesquite tree in my yard with his BB gun.
We are, at least morally, required to TRY and read INTENT! Often, the intent is obvious from the first glimmer, but if it is not, I have found it rewarding to wait just a bit. Someday that two seconds may kill me, but it saved me from erroneously killing two idiots and one young dove hunter in the springtime of his life.
I can live with the risk......until I don't.......Joe
The first one, I verbally "educated" at length, the second I had the sheriff "educate" at length, because when I shouted she ran into her house and would not come out when I came calling.
No particular point here, except there is absolutely NO hard and fast rule that will allow us to turn off our brains and follow a course laid out previously with no thought to the details. Certainly, somebody pointing a gun at me from 25 yards is in danger, but so am I, if that person turns out to be the neighbor's kid trying to pot a dove out of the mesquite tree in my yard with his BB gun.
We are, at least morally, required to TRY and read INTENT! Often, the intent is obvious from the first glimmer, but if it is not, I have found it rewarding to wait just a bit. Someday that two seconds may kill me, but it saved me from erroneously killing two idiots and one young dove hunter in the springtime of his life.
I can live with the risk......until I don't.......Joe
Mainsail
Member
That was the take-away I had from skimming through the article.
He -shoots down- five myths, but perpetuates a far bigger myth; that the average Joe going about his regular day needs to be armed to the teeth to survive an encounter with a criminal.
There's a lot of good info there for the jeweler or cop, but little for the rest of us. I prepare for the worst (one or two back-up mags) but recognize the reality (I likely will never need even most of the rounds in the gun).
You are over reading into it.
If you are going to be prepared, then be prepared. Don't go half way.
By far the vast majority of people will never, ever, need so much as a can of pepper spray to keep themselves safe. If you are going to be prepared by carrying a gun, why only be prepared for certain types of encounters? There's a limit, it simply isn't practical to carry a rifle around with you at all times with an extra ten mags tucked into the vest over your plate carrier. Fine. But if you can carry an auto, and have 17 rounds, instead of 5 in a j frame, wouldn't that be better? And maybe 2 extra mags, better yet, yes? And if you do, by some chance, have to use your gun, and you only have to fire a round or two, or none at all, then great. But if you have to fire more, you'll be glad you have the ability to do so.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
Are you serious??? Dude has just threatened you verbally, then he comes back with a rifle, points it at you and that's not a threat??? I don't know how they do things in Texas but in Florida, where this happened, pointing a firearm at someone is assault. Had he pointed it at me, I would've found myself in a gunfight. Doesn't matter what his intent was or whether or not it was loaded. That is not information you have. A threat is standing there pointing a rifle at you, you can either engage, run or stand there hoping he's bluffing. I was standing in the open, wearing a 30lb toolbelt so running was not an option. Distance is completely irrelevant. Luckily for both of us, this idiot was just posturing and stood there with it in his hands.
And what do you base this on???
How do you know what the DA will be interested in knowing???
How can you not see a guy at 25yds pointing a rifle at you???
Who give's a rat's ass if his finger was on the trigger? You're going to take the time to ascertain that???
I could hear him threaten to kick my ass and he could hear my reply. I could see him return with a rifle. He could hear me ask him what it was for. I could hear him say simply "cleaning'. As could two or three witnesses.
God almighty, I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you have to fight for your life.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,093
I gotta agree. Seems to be Ayoob's SOP to take cases outta context in attempt to justify his opinions. He done the same for almost 30 years with the Daniel Bias case. I surprised the link didn't show a picture of him walking on water........
OP
OP
george burns
Member
The difference is weather or not that person or persons are an immanent threat to your life. If they are pointing a gun at you and have fired or threaten to fire, you have every reason in the world to feel your life is I danger. If they are running away or not pointing a gun at you, or posing an immediate threat, then regardless of the situation, you can't shoot them.
Now if they just killed your family member it gets tricky because you need to look at it as if this is an ongoing situation, but ideally you would need them to turn and fire at you, or you might get in trouble anyway because they were retreating, and if you shot them in that circumstance it would be open to debate. But a man or woman with a rifle or a pistol is still a threat at any distance if they have the intent and ability to kill you.
How many times has a store owner been arrested for chasing a robber down the street after the guy left the store, and shooting at him while he was running away, that's illegal the act has finished, then it becomes a police matter. You can't go endangering the public just because you were robbed, even shot at, once they leave the scene it is turned over to the authorities.
But the same holds true if they start shooting at you, you have every right to defend yourself no matter what the distance, you just can't initiate or escalate the situation, or endanger the public by shooting down a crowded street a reasonable person would leave the scene if possible and allow the police to take over, but if that's not possible you can shoot back. You just have no duty to do so, unless you are a LEO. They can't leave. But anyone who is pointing a rifle at you is fair game, it's not your job to guess what their intent is, only to protect yourself.
Now if they just killed your family member it gets tricky because you need to look at it as if this is an ongoing situation, but ideally you would need them to turn and fire at you, or you might get in trouble anyway because they were retreating, and if you shot them in that circumstance it would be open to debate. But a man or woman with a rifle or a pistol is still a threat at any distance if they have the intent and ability to kill you.
How many times has a store owner been arrested for chasing a robber down the street after the guy left the store, and shooting at him while he was running away, that's illegal the act has finished, then it becomes a police matter. You can't go endangering the public just because you were robbed, even shot at, once they leave the scene it is turned over to the authorities.
But the same holds true if they start shooting at you, you have every right to defend yourself no matter what the distance, you just can't initiate or escalate the situation, or endanger the public by shooting down a crowded street a reasonable person would leave the scene if possible and allow the police to take over, but if that's not possible you can shoot back. You just have no duty to do so, unless you are a LEO. They can't leave. But anyone who is pointing a rifle at you is fair game, it's not your job to guess what their intent is, only to protect yourself.
Last edited:
"If they are pointing a gun at you and have fired or threaten to fire, you have every reason in the world to feel your life is I danger"
Bingo. Nailed it.
My example was just somebody from a greater distance pointing (not aiming !) a rifle at you and there have been NO verbal threats or shots been fired and it's not during the occurrence of a crime (gas station robbery etc.)....
according to some here their CHL/CPL gives them cop-style use of lethal force ... to fire the first shots and make them "taste a hot piece of lead" (seriously... I wonder who's issuing CHLs in some states...)
Bingo. Nailed it.
My example was just somebody from a greater distance pointing (not aiming !) a rifle at you and there have been NO verbal threats or shots been fired and it's not during the occurrence of a crime (gas station robbery etc.)....
according to some here their CHL/CPL gives them cop-style use of lethal force ... to fire the first shots and make them "taste a hot piece of lead" (seriously... I wonder who's issuing CHLs in some states...)
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
You are truly clueless. Your logic is just unfathomable to me. If you require your opponent to tell you he's gonna shoot you or fire the first shot, you're going to end up losing.
OP
OP
george burns
Member
Craig with all due respect, if they are pointing a gun at you, they are threating your life. What more could or would you need to justify defending yourself? If you let it go past that point it won't matter because you will be either dead or injured.
The act of pointing a gun at someone, is enough justification to envoke a reaction on your part, None of us can read peoples minds, and I am sure there have been instances where someone said, I was just kidding , when pointing a gun at a friend or acquaintance, but once you do that, you cross the line.
You are now subject to the full force of that persons ability to remove you from the equation by whatever means necessary.
This happens all the time with fake guns used in robberies and kids who hold up an unsuspecting couple who look well heeled.
It's not the victims job to determine if a weapon used in a crime is indeed real, or a replica or toy, the purpose which it is being used dictates the response it receives.
It would be terrible to have to shoot someone for any reason, excluding real bad guys and terrorists, but to have shot a kid with a watergun is something the person who acted, will just have to learn to live with.
The act of pointing a gun at someone, is enough justification to envoke a reaction on your part, None of us can read peoples minds, and I am sure there have been instances where someone said, I was just kidding , when pointing a gun at a friend or acquaintance, but once you do that, you cross the line.
You are now subject to the full force of that persons ability to remove you from the equation by whatever means necessary.
This happens all the time with fake guns used in robberies and kids who hold up an unsuspecting couple who look well heeled.
It's not the victims job to determine if a weapon used in a crime is indeed real, or a replica or toy, the purpose which it is being used dictates the response it receives.
It would be terrible to have to shoot someone for any reason, excluding real bad guys and terrorists, but to have shot a kid with a watergun is something the person who acted, will just have to learn to live with.
ljnowell
Member
It's amazing the stock people set in a mans opinion on gunfights when he has never been in a gunfight and never even been a real full time cop.
Your problem is that you seem to think that police have some sort of license to kill. Fearing for your life is fearing for your life, whether you are a cop or not.
In general the statutes regarding use of lethal force refer to a fear of death or great bodily injury. Your example, "pointing but not aiming" is very ambiguous, perhaps you are talking about a guy who is holding a gun horizontally in the crook of his arm while hunting, and the muzzle happens to point your direction? Or what? But it doesn't matter, because if a cop isn't in fear for their life or great bodily injury, or they aren't protecting others, they don't get to just gun someone down.
buntline
Member
In post # 34, I gave three real word examples of having guns pointed at me and fired in which I (rightly) did not return fire. ALL of those examples are MORE, not less, likely to happen to citizens who live and work in country where guns are everyday tools, openly carried by by both wise and foolish men and women and also children, than examples where people are honestly trying to kill somebody with no warning.
I'm not "just plain lucky", but "just plain realistic". I have never had a doubt when somebody honestly wanted me dead, and have used a gun to prevent that on a few occasions, but have never had to shoot anybody, mostly because it involved clubs and knives and a simple "point and cock" was enough to clear the field. I never really considered whether it was LEGAL for me to shoot somebody, but only if it was REQUIRED for me to stay alive, and it never has been, so far.
I'm more than a little inclined to think that most of the above is posturing by folks who have never been in lethal situations and required to make the choices involved, and I pray that you can argue about it for years to come, never having had to decide anything involving life and death, but it all sounds like junior high bull crap to me. If y"all are examples of typical armed citizens, I'm afraid our rights are severely in jepordy.....I'm done here......God Bless and Good bye........Joe
I'm not "just plain lucky", but "just plain realistic". I have never had a doubt when somebody honestly wanted me dead, and have used a gun to prevent that on a few occasions, but have never had to shoot anybody, mostly because it involved clubs and knives and a simple "point and cock" was enough to clear the field. I never really considered whether it was LEGAL for me to shoot somebody, but only if it was REQUIRED for me to stay alive, and it never has been, so far.
I'm more than a little inclined to think that most of the above is posturing by folks who have never been in lethal situations and required to make the choices involved, and I pray that you can argue about it for years to come, never having had to decide anything involving life and death, but it all sounds like junior high bull crap to me. If y"all are examples of typical armed citizens, I'm afraid our rights are severely in jepordy.....I'm done here......God Bless and Good bye........Joe
Well it certainly did address gunfighting myths 
Not to say he doesn't make valid points, but as someone with what amounts to a household name among gun enthusiasts, he has the potential to bring up new material for discussion and he hasn't done that. Gunfighting is all well and good, but I'd like to know for example if female CHL holders are more or less likely to be involved in a DGU, or if the derision open-carry gets from a tactical standpoint is justified. Three of the five 'myths' are hardly myths at all; I won't say it's quite common sense, but most of us realize that aimed and instinctive fire have their applications, and that aiming is preferable if at all possible, and that all else being equal more bullets are better than fewer bullets. I don't know why the distance one even needs discussion; if the average DGU occurs at 7 yards, that means quite a few have to occur at greater distances to balance out the number of DGU's at bad-breath distance.
I do like the second myth he addressed though. I've always raised an eyebrow at the idea of 'fighting your way to your rifle/shotgun' if it's not within a couple paces when the shooting starts.
Not to say he doesn't make valid points, but as someone with what amounts to a household name among gun enthusiasts, he has the potential to bring up new material for discussion and he hasn't done that. Gunfighting is all well and good, but I'd like to know for example if female CHL holders are more or less likely to be involved in a DGU, or if the derision open-carry gets from a tactical standpoint is justified. Three of the five 'myths' are hardly myths at all; I won't say it's quite common sense, but most of us realize that aimed and instinctive fire have their applications, and that aiming is preferable if at all possible, and that all else being equal more bullets are better than fewer bullets. I don't know why the distance one even needs discussion; if the average DGU occurs at 7 yards, that means quite a few have to occur at greater distances to balance out the number of DGU's at bad-breath distance.
I do like the second myth he addressed though. I've always raised an eyebrow at the idea of 'fighting your way to your rifle/shotgun' if it's not within a couple paces when the shooting starts.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
And your two situations are COMPLETELY different from mine. Posturing? Hardly.
One of the major myths not addressed is thinking that cops and civilians need to respond in the same way.
They can not and will not.
A police officer is an employee of the local jurisdiction having authority, i.e., YOU and ME collectively. He's a public safety officer delegated to handling bad behavior so that we don't need to. His rules of engagement require him to respect OUR civil rights if and when we are approached. That is the reason he is charged to respond to force with an equal amount of force, and escalating beyond that without justification can and will get him in serious trouble.
Or, that's the way it's supposed to work.
Nonetheless, from the academy up, and as I was taught in MP, on the job you are not given a license to kill just because someone is hesitant about getting handcuffs on, or won't pull over when exceeding the speed limit.
On the other hand, the use of a firearm by a civilian is what the Constitution is written on, and how that applies goes to any of us defending ourselves from harm. Since the average person isn't a cop and has no obligation to be a trained law enforcement officer, regulating their behavior by the rules that a public servant is restricted to follow doesn't exist. The laws don't reflect it, either.
When a cop is confronted by a weapon pointed at him, he's often required to command the citizen to lower the weapon and detain them for an illegal act. When YOU are confronted by a weapon pointed at YOU, if it is in your mind a lethal threat, you can respond in kind. And I would suggest you respond quickly.
We have a rash of LEO's under intense scrutiny for shooting civilians these days, even when struggling under an opponent who shoved them into their cruiser. Or, who pull into a park and rapidly gun down someone sitting at a bench.
You or I would be looked at thru a completely different lens - the perspective of how an officer may react is different than you or me.
In the first example, should someone shove me into my car punching me, then get kicked out and be more passive sitting on the pavement, acting in the heat of anger and with knowledge the individual was still dangerous and could attack, I very well may be found not guilty of shooting them. In the heat of anger against a much larger opponent, juries find a lot of empathy.
On the other hand, driving up to a park bench and unloading on some kid sitting there, expect the death penalty. I makes no difference he pointed the gun at you - however far away you were, driving the car was your escape, not responding with lethal force.
The myth that the civilian has to react the same as a cop, or vice versa, is the largest myth out there. There are separate rules and the outcomes will be treated differently.
Some suggest that the absolute protection some officers seem to receive for their apparently overzealous reaction should be lifted. By and large, tho, most officers aren't out there doing that, and opening the floodgates of prosecution will simply result in not having cops at all. It's a hard enough job, we give them the dirty end of the stick in dealing with other humans, there is a serious need for some give and take.
Just as with some civilians, there are some cops who went too far and got away with it, and some who refrained from lethal force far beyond what we are told is just cause and nonetheless seriously affected. Cherry picking examples and trying to use them as a set of rules to govern an unknown future situation is dangerous. Your circumstances are not identical to your neighbors and making blanket statements about them is where someone shows they have decided to stop learning - or are no longer capable of it.
They can not and will not.
A police officer is an employee of the local jurisdiction having authority, i.e., YOU and ME collectively. He's a public safety officer delegated to handling bad behavior so that we don't need to. His rules of engagement require him to respect OUR civil rights if and when we are approached. That is the reason he is charged to respond to force with an equal amount of force, and escalating beyond that without justification can and will get him in serious trouble.
Or, that's the way it's supposed to work.
Nonetheless, from the academy up, and as I was taught in MP, on the job you are not given a license to kill just because someone is hesitant about getting handcuffs on, or won't pull over when exceeding the speed limit.
On the other hand, the use of a firearm by a civilian is what the Constitution is written on, and how that applies goes to any of us defending ourselves from harm. Since the average person isn't a cop and has no obligation to be a trained law enforcement officer, regulating their behavior by the rules that a public servant is restricted to follow doesn't exist. The laws don't reflect it, either.
When a cop is confronted by a weapon pointed at him, he's often required to command the citizen to lower the weapon and detain them for an illegal act. When YOU are confronted by a weapon pointed at YOU, if it is in your mind a lethal threat, you can respond in kind. And I would suggest you respond quickly.
We have a rash of LEO's under intense scrutiny for shooting civilians these days, even when struggling under an opponent who shoved them into their cruiser. Or, who pull into a park and rapidly gun down someone sitting at a bench.
You or I would be looked at thru a completely different lens - the perspective of how an officer may react is different than you or me.
In the first example, should someone shove me into my car punching me, then get kicked out and be more passive sitting on the pavement, acting in the heat of anger and with knowledge the individual was still dangerous and could attack, I very well may be found not guilty of shooting them. In the heat of anger against a much larger opponent, juries find a lot of empathy.
On the other hand, driving up to a park bench and unloading on some kid sitting there, expect the death penalty. I makes no difference he pointed the gun at you - however far away you were, driving the car was your escape, not responding with lethal force.
The myth that the civilian has to react the same as a cop, or vice versa, is the largest myth out there. There are separate rules and the outcomes will be treated differently.
Some suggest that the absolute protection some officers seem to receive for their apparently overzealous reaction should be lifted. By and large, tho, most officers aren't out there doing that, and opening the floodgates of prosecution will simply result in not having cops at all. It's a hard enough job, we give them the dirty end of the stick in dealing with other humans, there is a serious need for some give and take.
Just as with some civilians, there are some cops who went too far and got away with it, and some who refrained from lethal force far beyond what we are told is just cause and nonetheless seriously affected. Cherry picking examples and trying to use them as a set of rules to govern an unknown future situation is dangerous. Your circumstances are not identical to your neighbors and making blanket statements about them is where someone shows they have decided to stop learning - or are no longer capable of it.
Ayoob tends to write from a cops perspective.
Cops as we all know are the people who go in harms way to apprehend the bad guys.
The average armed citizen doesn't and shouldn't do this.
The encounters citizens get involved in are mostly attempted armed robberies and car jackings and the confrontation distances are generally close, real close, lever the butt down, jam the muzzle up and cut loose close.
The exception would be encountering an armed individual or multiple individuals intent on doing harm to a number of innocents such as the jewelry store robberies and the point Ayoob is making is that the armed citizen must be prepared to counter such a threat with aimed fire, determination in mindset, and more bullets if necessary.
Be Prepared the Boy Scouts like to say.
Cops as we all know are the people who go in harms way to apprehend the bad guys.
The average armed citizen doesn't and shouldn't do this.
The encounters citizens get involved in are mostly attempted armed robberies and car jackings and the confrontation distances are generally close, real close, lever the butt down, jam the muzzle up and cut loose close.
The exception would be encountering an armed individual or multiple individuals intent on doing harm to a number of innocents such as the jewelry store robberies and the point Ayoob is making is that the armed citizen must be prepared to counter such a threat with aimed fire, determination in mindset, and more bullets if necessary.
Be Prepared the Boy Scouts like to say.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
Fact is there just aren't that many folks in the country who can claim to be experienced gunfighters. Outside of certain military who make up a very small percentage and fight and perform at much different levels and conditions that we citizens there are cops but again, very few can claim to be experienced gunfighters.
I'd also guess that of the few cops who could even claim multiple shootings they would say that each was very different so that leaves it up to those writers and teachers who study and accumulate the historys and assemble whatever doctrine they and their followers wish to expound.
Mas is no different than any of the modern cadre of those instructors who claims to know what we need to know.
I'd also guess that of the few cops who could even claim multiple shootings they would say that each was very different so that leaves it up to those writers and teachers who study and accumulate the historys and assemble whatever doctrine they and their followers wish to expound.
Mas is no different than any of the modern cadre of those instructors who claims to know what we need to know.
- Status
