More and more people are acquiring firearms for self defense these days. The first thing they should do, as soon as they can, is to avail themselves of some qualified instruction.
Let's first focus on the reason for having a gun in the first place the gun: it is to protect ourselves--not to shoot anyone, if we can avoid it.
The vast majority if us will never have to use a firearm in the gravest extreme, to borrow the title of one of Massad Ayoob's books. But should the need arise, it will be essential to have it with us at the time, to be able to access it, and to use it successfully.
"Using it successfully" means preventing serious harm to ourselves and our loved ones. That's all it means.
Let's try to put the subject of self defense in an overall perspective. Here are a few ideas to reflect upon.
He offers the example of a defender drawing, firing, and missing, putting a bullet into the ground--speaking, of course, of a miss, and not a "warning shot".
The shot causes the attacker to rethink his plans, and he turns and runs.
Rob characterizes that as a successful defensive shot: the defender was unharmed.
That reminds us that we won't necessarily have to shoot an attacker in the upper chest to come home alive.
Claude Werner, "The Tactical Professor", recently wrote of negative outcomes with a firearm. He mentioned such things as shooting an innocent, being shot by a first responder, shooting oneself, and so on.
We thought it might be worthwhile to try to combine those thought processes.
Here's a try at ranking some possible SD event outcomes from best to worst--1 being best:
One other thing: if there is anywhere where you would not be comfortable without a gun, whether or not you are permitted to carry there, you really shouldn't go there at all, unless it is really necessary. That is an advantage that sworn officers do not have.
In a similar vein, if there is some place in which you might feel that a larger, higher capacity firearm might be necessary, you should probably not go there, and you should reflect on why you do not usually carry such a firearm anyway.
On that point, there is a reasonable compromise. Realistically speaking, the civilian defender has no practical need to hang la number of large-capacity magazines on his belt. Unlike the sworn officer, he is not duty-bound to bring felons to justice.
His duty is the survival of himself and his loved ones.
To discuss this, refer to this thread.
Success and Failure in Self Defense--Discussion
Let's first focus on the reason for having a gun in the first place the gun: it is to protect ourselves--not to shoot anyone, if we can avoid it.
The vast majority if us will never have to use a firearm in the gravest extreme, to borrow the title of one of Massad Ayoob's books. But should the need arise, it will be essential to have it with us at the time, to be able to access it, and to use it successfully.
"Using it successfully" means preventing serious harm to ourselves and our loved ones. That's all it means.
Let's try to put the subject of self defense in an overall perspective. Here are a few ideas to reflect upon.
- Keeping a gun for defense is a very serious matter indeed.
- Shooting another person, even when there is no reasonable alternative, is a terrible thing to do. Even in the best of circumstances, a person will live with the memory forever.
- When the need to bring out the weapon arises, the defender's objective is not to kill anyone. It is to stop the attack and prevent the defender from being seriously harmed. That may require shooting an attacker several times before it is too late. But it may not.
He offers the example of a defender drawing, firing, and missing, putting a bullet into the ground--speaking, of course, of a miss, and not a "warning shot".
The shot causes the attacker to rethink his plans, and he turns and runs.
Rob characterizes that as a successful defensive shot: the defender was unharmed.
That reminds us that we won't necessarily have to shoot an attacker in the upper chest to come home alive.
Claude Werner, "The Tactical Professor", recently wrote of negative outcomes with a firearm. He mentioned such things as shooting an innocent, being shot by a first responder, shooting oneself, and so on.
We thought it might be worthwhile to try to combine those thought processes.
Here's a try at ranking some possible SD event outcomes from best to worst--1 being best:
- A potential attacker who has been targeting you reconsiders and moves on, perhaps because of your demeanor, or perhaps simply because he realizes that you have noticed him; or, you "fail the interview"; or someone who has been suspiciously approaching you abandons the hunt after a challenge or other response from you.
- The person forces you to threaten deadly force, and he chooses to retreat.
- You shoot in lawful self defense, and no one is injured.
- Same as 2, but the incident results in an unfavorable legal aftermath
- Same as 3, but the attacker is injured and survives.
- Same as 3, but the attacker expires.
- Same as 3, 5, or 6 , and the legal aftermath is unfavorable.
- Your bullets strike an innocent person.
- You or your spouse are injured.
- You or your spouse are killed.
- You do not detect the threat timely and react--an ambush.
- You do not draw and shoot quickly enough.
- Your shooting is ineffective.
- You do not notice the attacker's accomplice.
- You are shot by a first responder.
One other thing: if there is anywhere where you would not be comfortable without a gun, whether or not you are permitted to carry there, you really shouldn't go there at all, unless it is really necessary. That is an advantage that sworn officers do not have.
In a similar vein, if there is some place in which you might feel that a larger, higher capacity firearm might be necessary, you should probably not go there, and you should reflect on why you do not usually carry such a firearm anyway.
On that point, there is a reasonable compromise. Realistically speaking, the civilian defender has no practical need to hang la number of large-capacity magazines on his belt. Unlike the sworn officer, he is not duty-bound to bring felons to justice.
His duty is the survival of himself and his loved ones.
To discuss this, refer to this thread.
Success and Failure in Self Defense--Discussion
Last edited:
