Do you think that transfers over to real life incidents?
I have several decades of experience hunting yet I remain as reluctant to harm humans as the day I got my first gun. That has always been and I hope will always be only a last resort. If somebody gets themselves shot by me it's because I was forced to do it, not because I was looking for an opportunity to shoot them.
Not speaking for Ken, exactly, but there's a subtle difference I think, in what he said and what you got out of it.
It isn't that the shooter WANTS to shoot someone. It is that the stresses of the confrontation situation start the brain screaming, "This is going to end badly... this guy is threatening me ... he's going to hurt/kill me...etc.," and looking for a way to turn the tables. We all tend to reach for the tools we know are most successful to solve any problem, especially an emergency life-or-death kind of problem.
If the "victim" is unarmed, or not terribly familair with his/her sidearm, he may try very hard (perhaps to a fault) to use every social/conversational skill, trick, or tool he can think of to work his way out of the confrontation without resorting to a violent response. Sometimes this can work, sometimes, of course, it doesn't.
But the flip side is when someone is very used to the presense and (apparant) power of their gun, there can be a trend to skip right to the "most effective tool" to end a scary situation. That's where you see lawful carriers get into some trouble when they take an uncomfortable encounter (aggressive panhandling, an argument, a shoving match, or ???) and try to defuse it by drawing, brandishing, or even shooting the gun.
And, of course, that's not always legal and it's not always
succssful at ending the situation in the "victim's" favor. This is what folks are indicating when you hear trainers and educated students use the phrase, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Or, "the gun is just one tool in the tool box -- the LAST one you reach for."
Does that make some sense?
