Well contrary to most action movies and media, standard low velocity pistol ammo while deadly is not decisive instantly to a destermined individual that is not immediately shocked to find a bullet or few striking them, whether due to resolve or strong drugs.
If you need proof of that there is a lot of fataly wounded soldiers of many wars both friend and foe that go on to do multiple things (Japanese in ww2 out of ammo would do bonsai charges with swords with some after taking a hail of gunfire (powerful rifle rounds) still managing to take a GI or 2 with them, or germans in trenches returning fire after finding themselves surrounded and riddled full of holes. Or well trained bad guys that also keep moving (1986 FBI shootout suspect Michael Platt is a well known example.) Imagine if westerns were realistic and showed not only the quick drawing first firing guy getting off shots but the other guy then returning fire before succumbing to his fatal chest shots..most of the glory would vanish. In fact just such a famous (albeit single shot) duel took place between one of our presidents and a famous southern gentleman. President waited for the gentleman famed to be an unbeatable opponent to fire (now in the 1 shot only duel the now defenseless southerner must stand there and accept his return shot)and then steadily took aim and delivered a fatal shot. President Andrew Jackson recovered, Charles Dickinson did not.
Point being that if guy was well trained and quick and willing to continue to kill after fatal injuries he could (though untrained punk trying to get easy money would likely collapse groaning or holding injuries for last seconds of life instead) if you relied on the gun as a magic death wand. Remember it is a tool that makes defense easier, should not be sole defense. Also most people untrained in knives likely would only give minor punctures or slashes as opposed to deadly attacks leading to rapid blood loss.
Regardless I personaly in all cases would rather take control and dispatch target accepting risk, than hand control to anyone hostile by cooperating and letting them decide how things turn out. However you still may be screwed if you live in a bad state or country afterwards where you get to know you were right from prison..and be unable to legaly own any firearms if and when you get out. So proactive responses won't make as much sense to average sheep like jury member, while reactive responses tend to be more relatable. Meaning that tossing wallet and shooting when he goes for it, or doing the smart thing and gaining distance while bringing out firearm to fire may very well end up with a Jury deciding you had escaped the immediate danger when you shot scumbag.
If you need proof of that there is a lot of fataly wounded soldiers of many wars both friend and foe that go on to do multiple things (Japanese in ww2 out of ammo would do bonsai charges with swords with some after taking a hail of gunfire (powerful rifle rounds) still managing to take a GI or 2 with them, or germans in trenches returning fire after finding themselves surrounded and riddled full of holes. Or well trained bad guys that also keep moving (1986 FBI shootout suspect Michael Platt is a well known example.) Imagine if westerns were realistic and showed not only the quick drawing first firing guy getting off shots but the other guy then returning fire before succumbing to his fatal chest shots..most of the glory would vanish. In fact just such a famous (albeit single shot) duel took place between one of our presidents and a famous southern gentleman. President waited for the gentleman famed to be an unbeatable opponent to fire (now in the 1 shot only duel the now defenseless southerner must stand there and accept his return shot)and then steadily took aim and delivered a fatal shot. President Andrew Jackson recovered, Charles Dickinson did not.
Point being that if guy was well trained and quick and willing to continue to kill after fatal injuries he could (though untrained punk trying to get easy money would likely collapse groaning or holding injuries for last seconds of life instead) if you relied on the gun as a magic death wand. Remember it is a tool that makes defense easier, should not be sole defense. Also most people untrained in knives likely would only give minor punctures or slashes as opposed to deadly attacks leading to rapid blood loss.
Regardless I personaly in all cases would rather take control and dispatch target accepting risk, than hand control to anyone hostile by cooperating and letting them decide how things turn out. However you still may be screwed if you live in a bad state or country afterwards where you get to know you were right from prison..and be unable to legaly own any firearms if and when you get out. So proactive responses won't make as much sense to average sheep like jury member, while reactive responses tend to be more relatable. Meaning that tossing wallet and shooting when he goes for it, or doing the smart thing and gaining distance while bringing out firearm to fire may very well end up with a Jury deciding you had escaped the immediate danger when you shot scumbag.
