WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH SELF DEFENSE

[golden]

I have noticed some themes repeated over and over in the postings here and wanted to find out if I am alone in viewing them that way I do.

The argument over which round is the best really comes down to what you are trying to accomplish.

Killing someone is not the objective of self defense shooting skills, the objective is to stop the threat.

Other arguments about how many shots miss or whether you will have to shoot through windshields or any other objects miss the above objective.

My agency states we are not to shoot through windshields unless the car is coming straight at you. If you shoot at a passing car or truck or after it has passed, you may not be able to justify that shooting as the threat has passed you and you can get prosecuted. I also think it would be smarter to get out of the way of an oncoming car
.
A police officer in MIAMI found out just how bad this could get. He shot at a motorcycle that had tried to run him down and killed the passenger. It started riots. He was prosecuted locally and they got a mistrial. More riots. So they retried him and could not get a conviction. More riots.

So the mighty FEDERAL DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE stepped in and moved the case out of state and tried him for DEPRIVING THE DECEASED OF THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
Basically, they said he was a cop who shot someone that was innocent and should not have been shot.
At this point, even the federal prosecutor could not get a conviction and lost the case. So to avoid more riots, the city settled with the family.

The officer was not convicted after being tried 3 times. Imagine going through that without the support the officer received.

Also, if you think that most of your shots will miss, then you should not take them or practice at the range a lot more or get professional training or change guns to something that you can hit the target with.

My agency includes shoot, don't shoot training. Recently, we upgraded the training and it really is an eye opener as to what you or I might come up against.

We have also started to include DE-ESCALTION TRAINING (FINALLY).

 

[aaaaa]

My agency includes shoot, don't shoot training. Recently, we upgraded the training and it really is an eye opener as to what you or I might come up against.

Wow, that sounds like it would be really valuable. Wonder if they have that kind of training for the average gunowner.

 

[entropy]

My agency

.....and another thing. Not everybody here is a cop. Us 'civilians' have different ROE than you do, and thus, different weapon and engagement needs.

 

[golden]

Entropy,

You are right, but non-law enforcement is very disorganized, much more than a law enforcement agency. Just look at some of the postings here and on other websites. You have persons with many different views, even among law enforcement agencies.

As for different rules of engagement, just ask the three guys up in GEORGIA how their engagement went? No politics involved in that case, right?

The case I pointed out was a police officer who was supported for the most part, by his fellow officers. Who is going to support the civilian?
In the case where I am in an off duty self defense incident, I would be on my own, except that if my agency did not like the situation or the outcome, they can discipline or fire me.

Oh, and how do you think you would have made out if you used your different rules of engagement and killed a bystander? Or you fired off a round that hit the wrong person?
It could be potentially much worse than if you are in law enforcement. The agency will fight for you in court, not to protect you, but to reduce their liability. The courts have also given police and other law enforcement qualified immunity. You do not get that as a civilian.

Ericuda,

I LIKE ALL CAPS TO MAKE A POINT OR FOR EMPHASIS!

AAAAA,

The new training we now have uses a virtual system and is really something to see. It responds to your actions and is like an incredible video game, except that it is much more realistic.
I tried a simulator at a gunrange, that used some of the same technology, but it did not even come close. The one at the gun range was more of a shoot em up video game on a multi screen stage. The one my agency is using has shoot-don't shoot, de-escaltion, multiple threat, possible threat/possible good guy and many other features. Also, it is not just gun fights. The very first scenario took place with a person who was upset and yelling and then pulled a knife and rushed me. It was a quick draw, hit the target or get stabbed scenario.
I have used these virtual trainers before, starting in the 1990's, but this new one was just a complete generation better. It was the scenarios that made the difference.
We also had one with an irate man at a counter that I and another (virtual) officer were walking past. It was not strictly with in my perview, but we tried to help and it could have gone several different ways. It was really good training that made you think and observe the situation and how you might have to react to it. The options were try to de-escalate, cover the other officer, use a taser or pull your gun. It was also realistic enough that it caused me to really focus.

I would like to see everyone who carries a gun for self defense, LEO'S and civilians alike go through this training. It could save a life, even yours!

Jim

 

[entropy]

The case I pointed out was a police officer who was supported for the most part, by his fellow officers. Who is going to support the civilian?

OTOH, there is no social(ist) presupposition that non LEO CCW's are systemically shooting minorities. As I type this, the TV is blaring about Kim Potter's tragic mistake in pulling her Glock when she meant to pull her Taser. They are already railing against the judge's sentencing of 2 years vs. 7.

The new training we now have uses a virtual system and is really something to see. It responds to your actions and is like an incredible video game, except that it is much more realistic.
I tried a simulator at a gunrange, that used some of the same technology, but it did not even come close. The one at the gun range was more of a shoot em up video game on a multi screen stage. The one my agency is using has shoot-don't shoot, de-escaltion, multiple threat, possible threat/possible good guy and many other features. Also, it is not just gun fights. The very first scenario took place with a person who was upset and yelling and then pulled a knife and rushed me. It was a quick draw, hit the target or get stabbed scenario.

That sounds like an awesome system! Way better than the ones that places like Cabela's had. (Before COVID.)

I would like to see everyone who carries a gun for self defense, LEO'S and civilians alike go through this training. It could save a life, even yours!

Amen. 100% Agreement. Short of Simunition training, it sounds like the best available option. We had MILES in the Army, but annoying beeping is as not as good a training reinforcement as a nice welt.

Even though I was never an LEO (though raised by one, and studied a year to become one) I have had two incidences where presenting a gun was the better choice; The first was a situation where a former schoolmate of mine took umbrage to my co-worker's heritage. My friend was Taiwanese, but the the drunk kid, who's dad had died in Vietnam, didn't seem to appreciate the difference. First it was racist slurs, (slurred by a lot of beer) then when we decided to deescalate by leaving the basement, (where he'd been sitting right by the keg for almost 8 hours!) he followed is up into the kitchen and proclaimed "All <racist term> must die!" as he grabbed a knife from the butcher block next to where he was standing. (well within Tueller distance, BTW.) His expression changed from murderous rage when I pulled the 6" Trooper from the shoulder holster I had it it. He immediately dropped the knife. I called over my shoulder into the living room to the party's host, whom I'd graduated high school with, "Were leaving now. Since there are so many underaged drinkers here, it'd be smart not to call 911." No one did.
I saw that kid (well he was 21) a few weeks later and he asked if I'd have really shot him. I reminded him of what he'd said (which of course he had no recollection) and told him if he had come at us, I certainly would have.

The other happened on a northern MN highway on the way to a friend's cabin. I had had my 16 ga. SxS laying across the back seat (the grouse sit right on the edge of the highway; long as you are out of the right of way, it was OK. (State forest)
A car full of drunk kids wanted to play bumper car chicken at 60 mph. I tried slowing down, they matched it, I couldn't speed up past them, (I had a 6 cyl. Dodge, they had a muscle car) and the driver was starting to become less controlled in his actions. Only my sober reactions saved us all (4 kids in that car and me) from an accident up to that point. When I had to put the right side of the car on the shoulder to avoid a hit, I realized they weren't going to quit until either I went into the ditch, or decided to play. I reached back over the seat, wrist-flicked the SxS shut, and swung it over, resting the barrels on my arm. The passenger's eyes turned to saucers, and the driver punched the pedal down and shot out of view. I stopped on a logging trial, calmed down for a while, then cased the gun and continued.

I get what you were trying to say in the OP, but I agree with ericuda. My dad uses all caps, because he can't see it otherwise. It is a bit offputting, not the best way to start off. Coupled with the "Na-na-na-na-na" tone (hopefully unintended) of the rest of the post (We have to go towards the gunfire, therefore we get special rules) you could see why it wasn't as well received as you expected. Your response to me cleared that up, I appreciate your candor.

If you shoot at a passing car or truck or after it has passed,

I have a good story about that. My Dad and several other St. Paul cops had a perp trapped in his car in an alley. He didn't think he was trapped, and tried to speed out of it. My Dad had the WIn. 1200 riot gun with Buck in it, and tried to shoot the tire out. He wasn't a duck hunter yet, and hit the passenger door instead. The prep skidded to a halt and put his hands up. The two officers at the end of the alley, who he had the car aimed at, quick ran in and cuffed him. When they were questioning him, he tried to point at my Dad and said, "He-he-he tried to KILL me!"
Dad's best friend, also a cop, and a hell of wingshooter, took him out Skeet shooting and introduced dad to the concept of leading a moving target. Dad started duck hunting with him, and Dad and I got into Trapshooting as a result. As a matter of fact, right after I posted this I left to go Trapshooting in -2 F.

 

[aaaaa]

Yep, ALL CAPS fine for emphasis. Only a problem when it is overdone, especially if an entire lengthy post is done that way.

Some wise man once said the best gunfight is the one you avoid.

 

[HowieG]

Yep, ALL CAPS fine for emphasis. Only a problem when it is overdone, especially if an entire lengthy post is done that way.

Some wise man once said the best gunfight is the one you avoid.

Absolutely. Stand your ground if you don't have options. Leave if you do.

 

[FL-NC]

I have 2 primary objectives:
1- Get me and whoever I am responsible for out of the situation with minimal damage (no damage would be ideal)
2- Keep myself and everyone I am responsible for out of jail
In order to address these concerns, I regularly train as realistically as possible at the range and dojo, and I have an attorney. Every other concern is secondary.

 

[golden]

Entropy,

Your a lucky man, you can still go trapshooting and you can still go with your dad. Mine has passed and was not a shooter, but we occasionally did shoot together.
As for shotgunning, I think my shoulder has had it. I passed on qualifying with the 12 gauge the last few times I had to qualify with my pistol. I have downgraded to a 20 gauge pump gun for home self defense when I want a shotgun. Those 12 gauge slugs and triple ought buck really took the steam out of me. The last time, I had a black and blue shoulder for three days.
I did qualify for a while with the M-4 carbine, the chance to shoot full auto on the agency dime was too good to pass up, but I am getting to the point where that will all be in the past for me.

I use cap's because that is the way I write. When you do reports, Q&A's and narratives, certain items should be capitalized to make them stand out. In some cases, it is policy. As I said, I use it to emphasis, not to deride.

I would like to see this type of virtual training used to get a concealed carry license. However, many police departments do not want to spend the money to get it, so I do not see this happening soon. It would be a political nightmare to apply it to the concealed carry license qualification because somebody would have to pay for the system and then pay for running and maintaining it..

The Kim POTTER case may be a good example of officers (and everyone else) needing more training. I have not looked into it close enough to offer an opinion. Is anyone here familiar with her departments training and qualifying?


The situations that can be covered with a high quality virtual system are huge. In one scenario, I and another virtual officer were walking into a courthouse, when an active shooter incident had just started. What were we supposed to do?
I had an old boss who reamed two officers for helping subdue a man fighting with two officers from a different agency. She said it was outside our jurisdiction. Happily, she is long gone.

Now, my agency wants us to take an active stance and hunt down and stop an active shooter situation if we can. They have rules about when and how to do it. I cannot tell you what they are, but I agree with them. They are reasonable.

I have had role playing and virtual training for over 25 years now and it helps.

We had a role playing training last year that I found very useful. I was posted at a desk and heard a shot. I called on the radio, then drew my pistol and went toward the noise. I stopped at the corners and cleared them before going around. I came onto a scene with another officer down and a man standing over him, but unarmed. He was yelling, but I could not understand him. I yelled, he did not answer, but raised his foot to stomp the downed officer and I shot him ( we had simunition guns).
Afterwards, I entered the room and kept the person I shot covered with my pistol. He was down, but still moving and started to reach for his pocket. I told him I would kill him if he moved his hand closer to his pocket and he stayed that way till the out of role call.
It turned out, I did well when the score was added up. The bad guy had a snub nose in his pocket. I missed perfect because I did not clear a closet, but I did not want to turn my back on the downed bad guy. My justification for shooting was he had raised his foot and appeared to be intending to stomp the downed officer in the head. There was no time to draw a taser or rush him before he would have stomped, so I fired.

When I went through the academy, out of 4 months of training, we had role playing and virtual training for just one day.
We had some training on it, but the virtual training we now have was a whole different dimension with people running up to you, sometimes armed, but in plain clothes. What do you do? We then had to move through the building to make it secure and try to locate and stop the shooter.

I have repeatedly asked, "WHAT DO YOU DO?", because that is the point of this training, to get you to think ahead, not when the problem has already arrived on your doorstep.


One reason the I am such a booster for training is that I had nothing appropriate for the times I actually have drawm my gun.

I have drawn my gun twice, but not in the line of duty. It was when I was off duty and in one situation, I interrupted what I thought was a kidnapping. A young woman being dragged across a parking lot at at 3:00 am, by a much larger man while she was screaming, "let me go" and I won't go with you". It turned out not to be a kidnapping, just a really loud domestic with a drunken husband who turned out to be an off duty (and armed) cop. Lucky me!.

The other time was on the way home at 2:00 am, on a lonely highway. A guy tailgated me and turned on his high-beams. He could have just passed me on the left, I was in middle lane of a 4 lane road. Instead he just got worse and worse, so I slowed down and coasted, so he would get the idea and go around me. Wrong! He got as close as he could and stayed with me. I slowed and then decided to pull over, so he could just pass and leave. Not him. He pulled over behind me. Now I was getting worried. Was he drunk, was he just insane or really belligerent to the point of being irrational.
I floored it and pulled all the way to the left hand lane and he roared after me and pulled up to the right of me. I though he was going to ram me off the road. So I turned on the roof light and drew my gun and held it up, not pointed at him, just in a ready position. I was in uniform then and he could clearly see me and my GLOCK. He floored it and pulled away, with me waiting to see what would happen next. I had his license plate, so I contacted the sheriff's and asked if they had any warrants on him. The next day I reported this incident to my chief and he said it sounded ok. I ran the plate myself, to see if their was a connection to something I had worked on, but it turned out just to be a some idiot pushing his luck.




I mention the qualified immunity given to police because it is a fact. Courts have rendered decisions based on it Sometimes they are really bad decisions, in my opinion, but that is all that it is, an opinion.
It does not change the fact that LEO'S may have it and civilians don't. It just exists until someone decides to change it.


Oh, just note that CALIFORNIA now wants to let its gun owners private information to be given to CHOOSEN research groups. Could you imagine if the IRS was ordered to give information to RESEARCH groups.
So much for civilians rights in CALIFORNIA.


Another funny story. When I was at the academy, we watched training films. In one video, a raid team in jackets and helmets with police written on them crawled up to a hotel door. They yelled "POLICE" and knocked the door in. A guy sitting on the couch reached for a sawed-off shotgun and one of the officers fired. The bad guy goes down and the officer runs to him, drops to one knee and says," FEDERAL AGENTS" in a loud voice, and then in a kindler, gentler voice, he says, "were here to help!". You have never seen so many grown men rolling on the floor laughing!


Jim

 

[HowieG]

Entropy,

Your a lucky man, you can still go trapshooting and you can still go with your dad. Mine has passed and was not a shooter, but we occasionally did shoot together.
As for shotgunning, I think my shoulder has had it. I passed on qualifying with the 12 gauge the last few times I had to qualify with my pistol. I have downgraded to a 20 gauge pump gun for home self defense when I want a shotgun. Those 12 gauge slugs and triple ought buck really took the steam out of me. The last time, I had a black and blue shoulder for three days.
I did qualify for a while with the M-4 carbine, the chance to shoot full auto on the agency dime was too good to pass up, but I am getting to the point where that will all be in the past for me.

I use cap's because that is the way I write. When you do reports, Q&A's and narratives, certain items should be capitalized to make them stand out. In some cases, it is policy. As I said, I use it to emphasis, not to deride.

I would like to see this type of virtual training used to get a concealed carry license. However, many police departments do not want to spend the money to get it, so I do not see this happening soon. It would be a political nightmare to apply it to the concealed carry license qualification because somebody would have to pay for the system and then pay for running and maintaining it..

The Kim POTTER case may be a good example of officers (and everyone else) needing more training. I have not looked into it close enough to offer an opinion. Is anyone here familiar with her departments training and qualifying?


The situations that can be covered with a high quality virtual system are huge. In one scenario, I and another virtual officer were walking into a courthouse, when an active shooter incident had just started. What were we supposed to do?
I had an old boss who reamed two officers for helping subdue a man fighting with two officers from a different agency. She said it was outside our jurisdiction. Happily, she is long gone.

Now, my agency wants us to take an active stance and hunt down and stop an active shooter situation if we can. They have rules about when and how to do it. I cannot tell you what they are, but I agree with them. They are reasonable.

I have had role playing and virtual training for over 25 years now and it helps.

We had a role playing training last year that I found very useful. I was posted at a desk and heard a shot. I called on the radio, then drew my pistol and went toward the noise. I stopped at the corners and cleared them before going around. I came onto a scene with another officer down and a man standing over him, but unarmed. He was yelling, but I could not understand him. I yelled, he did not answer, but raised his foot to stomp the downed officer and I shot him ( we had simunition guns).
Afterwards, I entered the room and kept the person I shot covered with my pistol. He was down, but still moving and started to reach for his pocket. I told him I would kill him if he moved his hand closer to his pocket and he stayed that way till the out of role call.
It turned out, I did well when the score was added up. The bad guy had a snub nose in his pocket. I missed perfect because I did not clear a closet, but I did not want to turn my back on the downed bad guy. My justification for shooting was he had raised his foot and appeared to be intending to stomp the downed officer in the head. There was no time to draw a taser or rush him before he would have stomped, so I fired.

When I went through the academy, out of 4 months of training, we had role playing and virtual training for just one day.
We had some training on it, but the virtual training we now have was a whole different dimension with people running up to you, sometimes armed, but in plain clothes. What do you do? We then had to move through the building to make it secure and try to locate and stop the shooter.

I have repeatedly asked, "WHAT DO YOU DO?", because that is the point of this training, to get you to think ahead, not when the problem has already arrived on your doorstep.


One reason the I am such a booster for training is that I had nothing appropriate for the times I actually have drawm my gun.

I have drawn my gun twice, but not in the line of duty. It was when I was off duty and in one situation, I interrupted what I thought was a kidnapping. A young woman being dragged across a parking lot at at 3:00 am, by a much larger man while she was screaming, "let me go" and I won't go with you". It turned out not to be a kidnapping, just a really loud domestic with a drunken husband who turned out to be an off duty (and armed) cop. Lucky me!.

The other time was on the way home at 2:00 am, on a lonely highway. A guy tailgated me and turned on his high-beams. He could have just passed me on the left, I was in middle lane of a 4 lane road. Instead he just got worse and worse, so I slowed down and coasted, so he would get the idea and go around me. Wrong! He got as close as he could and stayed with me. I slowed and then decided to pull over, so he could just pass and leave. Not him. He pulled over behind me. Now I was getting worried. Was he drunk, was he just insane or really belligerent to the point of being irrational.
I floored it and pulled all the way to the left hand lane and he roared after me and pulled up to the right of me. I though he was going to ram me off the road. So I turned on the roof light and drew my gun and held it up, not pointed at him, just in a ready position. I was in uniform then and he could clearly see me and my GLOCK. He floored it and pulled away, with me waiting to see what would happen next. I had his license plate, so I contacted the sheriff's and asked if they had any warrants on him. The next day I reported this incident to my chief and he said it sounded ok. I ran the plate myself, to see if their was a connection to something I had worked on, but it turned out just to be a some idiot pushing his luck.




I mention the qualified immunity given to police because it is a fact. Courts have rendered decisions based on it Sometimes they are really bad decisions, in my opinion, but that is all that it is, an opinion.
It does not change the fact that LEO'S may have it and civilians don't. It just exists until someone decides to change it.


Oh, just note that CALIFORNIA now wants to let its gun owners private information to be given to CHOOSEN research groups. Could you imagine if the IRS was ordered to give information to RESEARCH groups.
So much for civilians rights in CALIFORNIA.


Another funny story. When I was at the academy, we watched training films. In one video, a raid team in jackets and helmets with police written on them crawled up to a hotel door. They yelled "POLICE" and knocked the door in. A guy sitting on the couch reached for a sawed-off shotgun and one of the officers fired. The bad guy goes down and the officer runs to him, drops to one knee and says," FEDERAL AGENTS" in a loud voice, and then in a kindler, gentler voice, he says, "were here to help!". You have never seen so many grown men rolling on the floor laughing!


Jim

CAPS are okay with me, but you have to spell the word right. "CHOOSEN" ??

 

[golden]

Only one misspelling, I am doing better than usual

LOL,

Jim

 

[HowieG]

Only one misspelling, I am doing better than usual

LOL,

Jim

WELL, we will call it one. I was just looking at the CAPS.

 

[SwampWolf]

I would like to see this type of virtual training used to get a concealed carry license.

I agree but only if it and most other training regimens are NOT MANDATORY (how's that for emphatic point-making? ) in order for the government to approve a citizen's right to self-defense.

 

[golden]

SWAMP,

That is the problem. If it is not mandatory, the people who will need the training most will be the ones who try to get it least, in my experience. I would like to see it made mandatory, so that this training gets to the most people. Imagine if the police dropped the MANDATORY FIREARMS TRAINING requirement?
I know that a lot of people have a problem with the mandatory requirements, but I think it would be in everyone's best interest. There are a lot of mandatory things we have to do right now. As bad as our roads are now, supposed we dropped the requirement to pass a driving exam or loosened the requirements on pilots.
I know that it is unlikely that mandatory training will pass for a concealed weapons permit, but that does not make it a bad idea.

Jim

 

[HowieG]

SWAMP,

That is the problem. If it is not mandatory, the people who will need the training most will be the ones who try to get it least, in my experience. I would like to see it made mandatory, so that this training gets to the most people. Imagine if the police dropped the MANDATORY FIREARMS TRAINING requirement?
I know that a lot of people have a problem with the mandatory requirements, but I think it would be in everyone's best interest. There are a lot of mandatory things we have to do right now. As bad as our roads are now, supposed we dropped the requirement to pass a driving exam or loosened the requirements on pilots.
I know that it is unlikely that mandatory training will pass for a concealed weapons permit, but that does not make it a bad idea.

Jim

Most police don't shoot near as much as people think. That is part of the reason you see news reports about those spray and pray cop incidents. I spent 20 years working around federal agents. They went to the range on a regular, but infrequent basis.

 

[HowieG]

I agree but only if it and most other training regimens are NOT MANDATORY (how's that for emphatic point-making? ) in order for the government to approve a citizen's right to self-defense.

You forgot to underscore your bold italics. And perhaps change the letters to red.

 

[SwampWolf]

I know that it is unlikely that mandatory training will pass for a concealed weapons permit, but that does not make it a bad idea.

I think it's a TERRIBLE idea. American citizens should never have to pass a "test" so that we can protect ourselves from being injured or killed by the types of violent criminals being released on the streets en masse today. The police certainly aren't going to save us and the kinds of governments we have now will do everything they can to prevent law-abiding Americans from even owning a gun, let alone letting you have the right to carry a gun concealed for self-protection. You want to have to pass a "mandatory training" program before you will be "allowed" to defend yourself from violent predators stalking the very streets you walk? I wonder how the training prerequisites for making carrying a weapon concealed legal would be configured in the cities of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York (I could go on almost ad infinitum)? Do you really want them to be the ones to determine whether or not you can arm yourself? I think not.

 

[Zendude]

It would benefit a non LEO citizen to have some legal training regarding the state’s laws regarding self defense if a gun will be part of their self defense options.

 

[HowieG]

I never did get a CCL. My friends that did didn't keep them. They decided it wasn't worth the yearly trouble and money as well as earmarking you for the government. We have constitutional open carry in this state and weapons in vehicles are extensions of our homes so concealed is fine there. If things get tense, we can always have something close to hand.

As far as mandatory training goes, I don't think most gun owners are really shooters. If they were forced to participate in training, most would just not sign up in the first place.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Forced training in order to use your Constitutional God given rights is tyranny, PERIOD.

How's that for caps. Any patriot wont want any part of that.

I won't even get into how inept most LEO are compared to competitive shooters.

 

[rust collector]

The usefulness of training is not debatable. More training is better, but many folks do not have access to qualified training that is local and affordable. Training for LEOs must be more intense because of a greater likelihood of going in harm's way, and that training is generally not available to John Q Public.

I agree that training should not be a prerequisite to gun ownership, but gun retailers and gun owners are doing a poor job of getting new gun owners started off on the right foot. We do need to do a better job of making training available and inviting. Every gun sold should and could easily be accompanied by a tag with a QR code that takes the buyer to a. a basic and qualified on-line firearm safety course, b. contact info for local and regional training, and c. contact information for area ranges, shooting facilities and wildlife agency offices.

Someone who buys a carry gun or home defense gun because they feel threatened, but is never taught how to recognize, avoid, and survive threatening situations while minimizing collateral damage is a threat to us and to our way of life. If we don't do our best to make new shooters safe shooters, we can look forward to more restrictions imposed by those who do not understand that firearms can be used without endangering users and bystanders.

 

[golden]

rust collector,

Very well said.


Good Ol' Boy

As Samuel JOHNSON once said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Also, in my experience, using the word patriot to describe yourself when disagreeing with someone is proof that you are not a patriot or even know what patriotism is.

Jim

 

[Kleanbore]

It would benefit a non LEO citizen to have some legal training regarding the state’s laws regarding self defense if a gun will be part of their self defense options

It most certainly would--and that extends to any means of using force.

I do not like the idea of making the carrying of a defensive weapon by a law abiding person who has not been issued a permit a criminal offense.

But---we are seeing, far too frequently, disastrous actions by ignorant people who seem to have little inkling about basic use of force law.

In recent days, a man who had been robbed retrieved his firearm and shot at a departing vehicle that he thought belonged to the robbers--and he killed an innocent child.

We have seen law abiding citizens head out to investigate trespass without realizing that doing so with gun in hand is a felony even in one of the most "gun friendly" states in the Union.

We have seen persons fed up with being burglarized leave doors open deliberately, lie in wait, shoot, and end up with life sentences.

I had a friend who was shocked to learn that he could go to jail for using the baseball bat that he kept by the door on a vandal who was defacing his neighbor's truck.

We have seen law abiding citizens who "felt threatened" by approaching people draw firearms, fail to be the first to call it in, and end up pleading guilty to crimes after wondering incredulously why they were the ones being arrested.

The list of examples could go on and on. Those actors paid a price, but in many cases, so does an innocent person.

Training and education are important--very important.

The issue is one of how to effectively motivate people to avail themselves of training and education without denying them the means to protect themselves before they have been able to do so.

At the very least, they can be strongly urged to listen to Massad Ayoob's excellent explanation on the use of deadly force for self defense, right away.

 

[webrx]

to answer the original title of this post: What are we trying to accomplish with self defense.

Stop the threat to myself, family, property, etc.

I for one refuse to be dependent on someone else for my safety, at best, it will take a sheriff minutes (and sometimes a lot of minutes) to get to our home and neighborhood. Most of the time, you don't have that long if someone means you harm.

d

 

[golden]

KLEANBORE,

I think that you hit the problem exactly on the head.

I live in FLORIDA and I obtained a ccw, even though I am an LEO and could carry my gun off duty, already.
I do not want to be involved in an incident with my duty gun, unless I am on duty. I have seen too many people sticking their opinions and noses into incidents that were really none of their concern. They have the rank, so there is nothing you can do about it, except not carry their gun.

FLORIDA has a very easy to obtain license procedure. You take a course, usually about 2 hours long and then demonstrate to an instructor you can handle a firearm safely. When I took it, all I had to do was fire one shot.
After that, you have your fingerprints taken by a L.E. agency and send in your application with your check. I could have skipped the class by showing my credentials that allow me to carry, but the class includes a lot of legal knowledge you should have, so it was a good investment.

I personally think that the training should be more complete. It would be great to see some virtual shoot/don't shoot scenario played out for the future concealed carrier. It might open their eyes to what can happen.
Will more training be required by law, probably not. First, who pays for it? The ccw applicant, the trainer (meaning they bill the ccw applicat) or the state?
Some of my family just retired and moved to gun friendly Florida. They had concealed permits from the state they lived in and were shocked at how easy it was to get a Florida permit. I pointed out, their former state charged a lot more to give some extra training. I also lean on the side keeping it simple, the way Florida does.


Police state mentalities, like that of New York or California mean that only the rich or influential have permits, not the guy making the night deposits or the woman coming home late from work. In fact, if they try to defend themselves, they may get prosecuted. I remember a young woman who was an attempted rape victim in NYC get charged because she pulled a knife and stabbed her rapist when he attacked her.


It is unfortunate that so many people who give their opinions on ccw, open carry and constitutional carry, think only of themselves and their point of view.
As a result, we may see new laws or regulations foisted on us, when we could have negotiated something more reasonable and less onerous.


In FLORIDA, there is no open carry, unless your are engaging in some kind sporting activity. Carrying a gun openly while hunting or fishing is legal, not if you are going out to get a hamburger or carton of milk. I think it is reasonable.
About 40 years ago, we had an epidemic of car-jacking including a famous case where a tourist and her family were chased down the road and she was murdered. After that, the law changed to allow a resident to keep a loaded gun in your glove box. Huge billboards were put up at the state borders to WARN INNOCENT TOURISTS OF THE DANGER. Tourists and everyone else ignored these warning of doom and gloom and I think the law has been very successful. I know that car jackings went way down after that law was passed.
It was reasonable and did not seem like something only extremists would support. Now it has been a model for other states with the same results.

I see no reason for open carry other than sports activities and I see a great many risks if it ever comes to pass. When I moved to Florida as a boy, 1 out of every 3 police officers were killed with their own gun. That figure has dropped because of training and more importantly the adoption by nearly every law enforcement agency of SAFETY HOLSTERS for uniformed officers. If we go to constitutional open carry, will secure holsters be required.
If you never done a gun retention course with a red man instructor, it will open your eyes. I lost my gun within seconds and I did not react properly. Part of it was the old holsters we had with our BERETTAS has only an easy to pop strap. Will this kind of training go with open carry. Almost certainly not. Will there be gun grabs because it will be so easy to grab them, I will lay money on it.


Some posters who think mandatory training is TERRIBLE, should think about all the mandatory things they have to do to get by in everyday life. Anyone here drive without a license? I have been in court when a judge sentenced otherwise honest, non-criminal people to jail for driving with a suspended or invalid license.
Try to board a flight into the United States from abroad without a valid U.S. passport and see how your constitutional right to always enter the U.S. does not work. The government will not refuse you, but the airline will know that THEY-THE AIRLINE will get a hefty fine for bringing you without prior authorization if you do not have a valid U.S. passport.
Also, as a U.S. citizen, you have a right to pursue work so you can pursue your happiness, so try to get a job without a social security card and a government issued I.D.

I do not want the government to decide whether I can own a gun, but in fact, many laws already do. If I have a violent felony conviction, a domestic violence conviction, even a misdemeanor one, or a stalking protection order and now with red flag laws, a new law banning my possession of weapons. You may think that you have a constitutional right, but as pointed out many times, no right is absolute.

Jim