What would get you to shoot?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by quatin: Therefore, the situations in which I can precisely follow the law to shoot someone is so narrow and the consequences so vast, that I've realized it's futile to carry a gun outside of my home.

Whether to carry is up to the individual.

Yes, I know we are preparing for that 0.1% chance when we need a weapon, but of that 0.1% chance there's a 90% chance that we won't be completely justified in using(shooting) it.

The probability of one's being a victim of violent crime in this country during one's lifetime is shockingly higher than one might think; study this for the data. Just to frame the picture, a forty year old stands, on average, a 36% chance of being a victim of at east one violent crime during his remaining lifetime.

If one does use a weapon only when he or she actually needs it to defend against an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, it really would not benefit him or her to not have it when that need arises.

If the most that a firearm can do for me in those situations is to intimidate the threat, there's much more useful tools that I can carry.

In many instances, the mere presentation of a firearm does suffice to precent a violent crime, but not in all; when it does, that's great. When it does not, the firearm can stop the attack via the application of deadly force.

I now realize how under utilized mace, tazers and batons are. If anything, I'd be negligent to carry a firearm, but not a non-lethal weapon since there's a much greater chance that I'll need it.

As Sam implies, the justification for drawing and if necessary, shooting someone with, a firearm is the same as for striking someone with a hammer, bat, walking stick, golf club, or baton; the operative term is deadly force. Unless one is highly trained, however, such a weapon is much less likely to be as effective as a firearm. If it's all that one has, however, it will have to suffice.

Personally, I do not see a taser as an appropriate tool for civilian self defense. Rather, it is used as part of a continuum force by trained, sworn officers in effecting arrests. If one were to use on on an attacker, what would he or she do after the duration of the shock had ended? Would he or she remove the barbs? And as Sam asked, what would be the justification for using one that would not justify the use of something that would be far more effective in protection the actor?

I do carry a pepper device in addition to a firearm.

My advice?

• Make an informed decision about whether to carry a firearm.
• If you decide to do so, avail your self of quality training on how to avoid the need for using it, how to use it if you have to, and what to do afterward if you do have to use it; that includes becoming knowledgeable of the law in your jurisdiction and any juridiction into which you might travel.
• Maintain your proficiency.
• If you have decided to carry a firearm, do so--there is no way of knowing "when you might need it".
• Always stay observant and alert.
• Avoid risky areas, and if there is somewhere that you would not feel comfortable unarmed, do not go there carrying a gun unless you have to.
• Should a confrontation develop, make every effort to deescalate and get away; if you can safely escape, do so, even if you are in a "stand your ground" jurisdiction; always do everything that you can to avoid using deadly force, if you do have to use deadly force, do so only to defend yourself, your family, and people you know very well.

 

[quatin]

Can you articulate the specific instances where you'd have an affirmative defense for assault (striking someone with a baton, tazing someone, OC-spraying someone) but not have an affirmative defense for the brandishing charge or possible homicide if you display or use a firearm?

Striking someone with a baton would not be "non-lethal force." Less-lethal, perhaps, if you really know what you're doing, but even a punch can kill.

In a completely legal manner? No. As I've gathered from these discussions, there's no practical situation in which I can receive zero fallout. I'm only trying to minimize the consequences.

As I understand it. Striking only in certain vital areas with a baton is lethal force, but using a baton for leverage or striking to the thighs is non-lethal.

 

[BikerRN]

posted by AZ Lawman:

If I have the luxury of options, I will always opt not to have to shoot someone.

I am not a huge believer in shooting to protect property in most cases. If some jackbag wants my truck...take it. I have gap and replacement insurance, and the color is not my favorite to begin with. You see that as my example.

If however, someone wants to take items critical to the survival of my family, such as food, water, or shelter in a critical situation then shooting to protect those items would be a very viable option.

Violently and tumultuously entering my home...you have just given up ANY expectation that I am going to chat you up and be understanding.

I don't really believe in the whole "sheepdog" mentality as far as most of the posturing about it goes on. I am not against it as a concept, but as an attitude I see where the self-proclaimed sheepdog is almost looking for an opportunity to play the hero. I know I'm probably going to get flamed for that, but I see it in some of the guys who come to my classes...all decked out in their tactical finery and just itchin' to be able to burn some powder on some miscreant.

It's a tough call, and not one answer can blanket it.

Be ready and prepared for the very worst, but hope by God that you never have to.

Very well stated and I agree.

I put certain things in bold that I thought needed to be emphasised.

There is very little the seperates a hero from a zero. Me, I just want to go home to my loved ones, and keep them safe. If you get in the way of that, then I will do what I have to do.

BikerRN

 

[quatin]

Personally, I do not see a taser as an appropriate tool for civilian self defense. Rather, it is used as part of a continuum force by trained, sworn officers in effecting arrests. If one were to use on on an attacker, what would he or she do after the duration of the shock had ended? Would he or she remove the barbs? And as Sam asked, what would be the justification for using one that would not justify the use of something that would be far more effective in protection the actor?

There's no difference in justification. I'm entirely aware that I am risking injury/death as a trade off to financial freedom/personal freedom in the justice system. I'm not happy about it, but if this is the case that I am in, I see no recourse. I am not entirely defenseless, I have some faith in my fighting skills such that if I can supplement it with a non-lethal weapon, I would have good confidence.

I do carry a pepper device in addition to a firearm.

My advice?

* Make an informed decision about whether to carry a firearm.
* If you decide to do so, avail your self of quality training on how to avoid the need for using it, how to use it if you have to, and what to do afterward if you do have to use it; that includes becoming knowledgeable of the law in your jurisdiction and any juridiction into which you might travel.
* Maintain your proficiency.
* If you have decided to carry a firearm, do so--there is no way of knowing "when you might need it".
* Always stay observant and alert.
* Avoid risky areas, and if there is somewhere that you would not feel comfortable unarmed, do not go there carrying a gun unless you have to.
* Should a confrontation develop, make every effort to deescalate and get away; if you can safely escape, do so, even if you are in a "stand your ground" jurisdiction; always do everything that you can to avoid using deadly force, if you do have to use deadly force, do so only to defend yourself, your family, and people you know very well.

If what Jeff said about escalating a confrontation by merely possessing a firearm is true, then I'd rather give up my gun than give up non-lethal options.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by quatin: As I understand it. Striking only in certain vital areas with a baton is lethal force, but using a baton for leverage or striking to the thighs is non-lethal.

True, but the distinction has to do with the concept of a continuum of force as applied by sworn officers in the performance of their duties.

Striking someone in the thighs or in other "green" areas has its place in police work for subduing a suspect or prisoner, but the untrained civilian would very rarely have the need. The real question is when and whether deadly force is immediately necessary. When it is, striking the thighs would be ineffective and unwise. When it is not, poking or clubbing someone with a baton might be appropriate to help effect an escape, but should death or serious bodily harm result in the event, the choice of that implement would not be much of a defense.

I'm entirely aware that I am risking injury/death as a trade off to financial freedom/personal freedom in the justice system. I'm not happy about it, but if this is the case that I am in, I see no recourse. I am not entirely defenseless, I have some faith in my fighting skills such that if I can supplement it with a non-lethal weapon, I would have good confidence.

Do not believe for a moment that the legal risks, criminal or civil, that may be encountered in the aftermath of a defensive encounter are associated with the choice of weapon.

True, persons shot by handguns do die in some cases (say, 15-20%), but so do people struck with batons. It is also true that, should your attacker happen to die, and should your defense of justification prove tenuous, the aftermath would cost you more than otherwise. The outcome for different choices of weapons, however, is legally about the same.

...but it is not the same tactically. There's the old phrase about taking a knife to a gun fight, which is not for me. One has to ask how effective a less than lethal device, or even a lethal contact weapon such as a baton or cane, would be against an attacker armed with a firearm. How about multiple attackers? Crime stats show that the likelihood of being attacked by two or more attackers is almost as high as that of being attacked by one. And consider this: do you think it likely that, should one choose to try to defend himself against violent criminal actors by striking them in the thighs with such an implement, and should one of them gain control of the implement, the perp will limit his use of the thing to non-vital areas?

If what Jeff said about escalating a confrontation by merely possessing a firearm is true, then I'd rather give up my gun than give up non-lethal options.

You missed his point entirely. Jeff was commenting on the wisdom of "going hand to hand" while carrying a firearm, which he characterized as dangerous and irresponsible.

I do think that also having a less than lethal option is a good idea.

There is a forum on THR here for non-firearm weapons. The main advantage such weapons have is that they may be lawful in jurisdictions or locations in which firearms are not. They are simply less effective, and choosing one solely to reduce legal liability in the aftermath of a defensive encounter is a questionable justification for choosing one if firearms are permitted.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm only trying to minimize the consequences.

The consequences are death if you are unable to defend yourself. That's the central point of using deadly force in self defense. If you don't, you or someone else will be murdered. Whether or not to carry is a personal decision but the potential of dying (or much worse) is something to bear in mind when balancing against potential prosecution or civil suits.

I have some faith in my fighting skills such that if I can supplement it with a non-lethal weapon, I would have good confidence.

Against a firearm?

 

[quatin]

True, but the distinction has to do with the concept of a continuum of force as applied by sworn officers in the performance of their duties.

Striking someone in the thighs or in other "green" areas has its place in police work for subduing a suspect or prisoner, but the untrained civilian would very rarely have the need. The real question is when and whether deadly force is immediately necessary. When it is, striking the thighs would be ineffective and unwise. When it is not, poking or clubbing someone with a baton might be appropriate to help effect an escape, but should death or serious bodily harm result in the event, the choice of that implement would not be much of a defense.

I worked Kali a little bit. A hit to the thighs is one of the methods to immobilize an opponent and getting space or in this case running away.

True, persons shot by handguns do die in some cases (say, 15-20%), but so do people struck with batons. It is also true that, should your attacker happen to die, and should your defense of justification prove tenuous, the aftermath would cost you more than otherwise. The outcome for different choices of weapons, however, is legally about the same.

...but it is not the same tactically. There's the old phrase about taking a knife to a gun fight, which is not for me. One has to ask how effective a less than lethal device, or even a lethal contact weapon such as a baton or cane, would be against an attacker armed with a firearm. How about multiple attackers? Crime stats show that the likelihood of being attacked by two or more attackers is almost as high as that of being attacked by one. And consider this: do you think it likely that, should one choose to try to defend himself against violent criminal actors by striking them in the thighs with such an implement, and should one of them gain control of the implement, the perp will limit his use of the thing to non-vital areas?

I'll be using a baton for leverage in grappling or hitting the thighs to stun them while I run or perhaps hitting the forearm to knock out a weapon. I've done some Kali, I know the difference between a vital hit and a non-vital strike. If by some unfortunate chance they die, then oh well. It would've been equally worse if I shot them with a gun. The difference is I have the option of using non-lethal force with a baton.

If I am up against multiple attackers or a firearm, I'm just screwed. Maybe I'll carry a fogger type pepper spray and just pray they get more affected than me. This is the compromise I have to make, there's really no way to deal with multiple attackers without lethal force that I can think of. I can't prepare for both, so I'll prepare for the situations that are more likely.

You missed his point entirely. Jeff was commenting on the wisdom of "going hand to hand" while carrying a firearm, which he characterized as dangerous and irresponsible.

Maybe I didn't phrase my follow up correctly, but I want to retain the ability to go hand to hand against an assailant. It will most likely be my first line of defense.

There is a forum on THR here for non-firearm weapons. The main advantage such weapons have is that they may be lawful in jurisdictions or locations in which firearms are not. They are simply less effective, and choosing one solely to reduce legal liability in the aftermath of a defensive encounter is a questionable justification for choosing one if firearms are permitted.

You guys convinced me. Being imprisoned or collecting a lifetime debt is a serious matter to me. It will do me or anyone who depend on me no good if I save my life, but end up in prison. I was initially under the impression that I could carry the gun as a last line of defense, but following what Jeff said and what some others commented it implies that if I have a firearm, everything that I do must be considered as deadly force. Besides talking or trying to leave a situation, I am also willing to use non-lethal force. I'm not willing to subjugate myself to running away in all instances, like if I have to leave someone behind. There are also situations where I will strike first, especially if I'm being cornered or outnumbered. I'll risk an assault charge than risk being crippled in a gang stomp. If carrying a firearm would up those charges to attempted murder/murder then the risk outweighs its benefits.

Perhaps when I get older and can't rely on my physique or when the laws become favorable towards the defender, I'll start carrying again.

 

[Sam1911]

Perhaps when I get older and can't rely on my physique

Not to argue you out of your position if you are convinced of how you feel comfortable proceeding, but if someone is threatening you with a firearm, or other deadly weapon, it is highly unlikely that your physique and hand-to-hand skills are going to be sufficient, even now when you are young.

I would not ever counsel someone to carry a firearm if they are uncomfortable with the risks of doing so, but between the inability to answer some threats sufficiently with anything less -- and the fact that the justification to employ most "less lethal" weapons is exactly the same as employing a deadly weapon like a firearm -- most who have deeply studied the options do decide that a firearm is the most appropriate personal defensive choice.

 

[quatin]

Not to argue you out of your position if you are convinced of how you feel comfortable proceeding, but if someone is threatening you with a firearm, or other deadly weapon, it is highly unlikely that your physique and hand-to-hand skills are going to be sufficient, even now when you are young.

I would not ever counsel someone to carry a firearm if they are uncomfortable with the risks of doing so, but between the inability to answer some threats sufficiently with anything less -- and the fact that the justification to employ most "less lethal" weapons is exactly the same as employing a deadly weapon like a firearm -- most who have deeply studied the options do decide that a firearm is the most appropriate personal defensive choice.

I've actually done some disarming drills on handguns, but even my instructor admits that it only gives you a slight chance. It's just too tough to predict on how to defend against another firearm and there's no real chance I can do it with a gun either. I'm not happy to give up my gun, I only got my CCW permit 3 months ago, but if this is the reality of the situation, I place higher priority on being able to use non-lethal force to it's full extent.

 

[mustang_steve]

Fights can turn deadly quick. I would definitely use a weapon if I was forced into a fight. I may avoid using deadly force, but it's going to get worse in the future. there's pee-wee MMA at my gym and these 5 year olds learn quick. I saw one make a take down, get back control and slap on a rear naked choke in 5 seconds. The next generation of kids will have unparalleled fighting skills.

Since this was about as a by-stander...how can you know if it's going to turn deadly? You don't, that's how. Also if it's a domestic, the person you saved will likely try to get you to hang for saving them...that's part of the mental screwiness that goes with such abuse...they love their tormentor...so don't intervene...call the police on that one.

As for a regular fight, you don't know why it's happening, who they are, or what they're capable of....to turn a fistfight (possibly lethal) to a absolutely lethal situation is jumping the gun on many levels.

 

[Jeff White]

If what Jeff said about escalating a confrontation by merely possessing a firearm is true, then I'd rather give up my gun than give up non-lethal options.

Let me clarify something here. If you engage in a hand to hand fight while carrying a firearm, you have to be able to not only protect yourself, fight well enough to defeat your opponent but you also have to maintain positive control of your weapon. Even if you do not intend to use your firearm to end the situation your opponent may grab it and use it on you, maybe not to shoot you but to threaten you with it. It may get knocked loose, slide across the ground and picked up by a bystander and used. That's why I say that you essentially give up your right to go hand to hand if you are carrying a firearm. Maybe you don't intend on using it to resolve the situation, but if you lose control of it, you have no way of knowing what whoever gets control of it will do with it.

Police officers are shot with their own weapons more times then you would think. It still happens even though "snatch proof" holsters are widely used.

If you are in a fight and someone is trying to get your firearm it's just turned into a deadly force situation. You don't what he will do with it if he takes it from you, so you have to assume he will shoot you with it and act accordingly.

Police officers have to go hand to hand while armed. They receive specific training in weapons retention and in many cases use special holsters that make it hard for anyone else to remove the weapon, and still they are shot with their own weapons.

Real life fights aren't at all like the ones portrayed by the entertainment media where there is some unspoken rule that guns are ignored while filming the HTH fight scene. No actors and directors in these scenarios.

Another more minor consideration; If you carry your weapon in the common 4 o'clock position, what kind of injury do you think you might sustain if you go down hard and land on it? You have a good chance of sustaining a serious injury of you go down hard and land on that lump of steel no matter where you are carrying it. The pain and shock of the deep bruising might be enough to stun you long enough to be robbed or killed. It certainly isn't going to help you win the fight. You handicap yourself by going hand to hand while armed.

Personally, I do not see a taser as an appropriate tool for civilian self defense. Rather, it is used as part of a continuum force by trained, sworn officers in effecting arrests. If one were to use on on an attacker, what would he or she do after the duration of the shock had ended? Would he or she remove the barbs? And as Sam asked, what would be the justification for using one that would not justify the use of something that would be far more effective in protection the actor?

I used to feel exactly this way about a private citizen using a taser for defense. That was until I experienced the 5 second jolt from a taser while certifying to carry one on the job. If you use the civilian model taser the way Taser International recommends and tase your assailant, drop the taser and get out of there, it is a good option. IIRC the civilian model taser delivers a 30 second shock, which is plenty of time to make your escape. Tase your assailant, drop the taser and run. There is no need to worry about removing the barbs or taking the subject into custody, use it to facilitate your escape. The same advice goes for using OC. I have used OC many times on the street and you certainly don't want to deal with the cross contamination you will get from manhandling your assailant after you spray him/her. Spray and use the time that your assailant is incapacitated to effect your escape. There is no need to stay at the scene, go to a safe location and call the police.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by quatin: I'll be using a baton for leverage in grappling or hitting the thighs to stun them while I run or perhaps hitting the forearm to knock out a weapon.

If you think that's a viable tactic for defending yourself against an armed criminal bent on mayhem, that's up to you.

If one lives in a jurisdiction where one cannot arm oneself for self protection, that may be the only thing to do. Given a choice however, most, if not all, experts would opt for a different approach.

If by some unfortunate chance they die, then oh well. It would've been equally worse if I shot them with a gun.

So what's the advantage? There is an advantage to having a gun, in addition to its greater defensive effectiveness: in the vast majority of the instances reported, the mere presentation of a firearm will sound the bell for going back home post haste, with no shots fired. How's that for a "non lethal" outcome?

The difference is I have the option of using non-lethal force with a baton.

I have the option of non deadly force with my pepper blaster, and I have a more effective option should it be needed.

If I am up against multiple attackers or a firearm, I'm just screwed.

That's hardly an endorsement of that strategy, is it?

.... I want to retain the ability to go hand to hand against an assailant. It will most likely be my first line of defense.

I cannot understand why anyone would recommend going hand to hand with a violent criminal actor who may well be armed. If you believe that being unarmed for the purpose of choosing to engage in hand to hand combat against one or more armed criminal actors who pose to you an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm is a good strategy for self protection, I simply cannot understand why.

You guys convinced me. Being imprisoned or collecting a lifetime debt is a serious matter to me. It will do me or anyone who depend on me no good if I save my life, but end up in prison. I was initially under the impression that I could carry the gun as a last line of defense, but following what Jeff said and what some others commented it implies that if I have a firearm, everything that I do must be considered as deadly force.

At this point, I cannot tell whether you are trying to be facetious or whether you are truly very confused.

There is some risk that, due to a lack of favorable witness testimony, a person who has necessarily and properly defended himself will become embroiled in a costly legal battle. That is not the result of his having chosen to carry a firearm--it doesn't matter what he used to defend himself. There is also the very real fact that had the actor not been able to defend himself effectively, he-- and his family--might well have been killed our maimed.

The sad fact is, there are times at which only the credible threat of deadly force or the use of deadly force can successfully keep a citizen and his family from being maimed, raped, or murdered. Worrying more about the legal consequences than about survival itself does not seem balanced to me. I strongly recommend that you avail yourself of some pertinent training, such as MAG-20. I also recommend that you read this by Kathy Jackson and Mark Walters, and this by Massad Ayoob.

Much of discussion to which I believe you are referring--that which has apparently raised your level of concern about with the potential consequences--has come up in response to suggestions about the possible unwise use of deadly force, or threats thereof. There are those who would put forth the idea of going out into their yards and pointing guns at trespassers, those who would pose the question of whether to open fire on a robber in a convenience store to protect the clerk, those who would suggest intervening in what appears to them to be a case of an innocent person being battered by someone else, and those who would suggest trying to detain a suspect at gunpoint. It is to those people that we on THR, and our counterparts on The Firing Line, often explain the potential downsides and risks, and those risks involve much more than legal considerations.

Besides talking or trying to leave a situation, I am also willing to use non-lethal force.

Good. If it works, do it. You may not lawfully employ deadly force unless you have to.

There are also situations where I will strike first, especially if I'm being cornered or outnumbered. I'll risk an assault charge than risk being crippled in a gang stomp. If carrying a firearm would up those charges to attempted murder/murder then the risk outweighs its benefits.

I do not understand why you think that striking a gang member first would materially reduce the likelihood of your being crippled, but you are correct in concluding that it could lead to criminal charges against you.

Now, if you really are willing to commit a crime such as assault and battery, do not do so while carrying a weapon. By the way, that includes your prized baton, since the penalty will be the same in many jurisdictions, but those of us who really do not like anti gun publicity would urge you to refrain from having a gun if you do intend to commit a crime.

Perhaps when I get older and can't rely on my physique or when the laws become favorable towards the defender, I'll start carrying again.

You just cannot rely upon your physique to effectively defend your self and your family against well armed, determined attackers. No one can. If for some reason you think that you can rely on your physique to protect your family, consider that a thumb in the eye, one or two blows to the back of the neck, a slashed tendon or two, or a couple of bullets would have a very debilitating effect on that physique of yours.

Regarding the laws--in every jurisdiction in this country, the law allows one to employ deadly force when immediately necessary to defend oneself and one's family against imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. In some, the centuries old duty to retreat has been eliminated, but it still has real tactical and legal advantages everywhere.

In every jurisdiction in the country, the law prohibits the use of both physical non-deadly force and deadly force when it is not justified. The thresholds for justification are spelled out in state criminal codes and in the rulings of appellate courts.

Now, just what changes in the law do you think would be proper? What aspect of the current law causes you to question the idea of carrying a firearm to protect yourself or your family?

 

[quatin]

So what's the advantage? There is an advantage to having a gun, in addition to its greater defensive effectiveness: in the vast majority of the instances reported, the mere presentation of a firearm will sound the bell for going back home post haste, with no shots fired. How's that for a "non lethal" outcome?

It's not about the advantage of the baton, it's about the disadvantage of having a gun.

I have the option of non deadly force with my pepper blaster, and I have a more effective option should it be needed.

Ok, maybe I'll carry a pepper blaster as well.

That's hardly an endorsement of that strategy, is it?

I'm being honest, the plan has holes, but it's the best I got.

I cannot understand why anyone would recommend going hand to hand with a violent criminal actor who may well be armed. If you believe that being unarmed for the purpose of choosing to engage in hand to hand combat against one or more armed criminal actors who pose to you an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm is a good strategy for self protection, I simply cannot understand why.

My train of though would go. Can I talk my way out-> Can I run my way out -> Can I use unarmed strikes -> Can I use a non-lethal weapon
And it used to then go to use lethal force. However, if having a gun on me would put be liable for my 3rd/4th option, I'd rather give it up than go straight to lethal force. Yes, I've already admitted the weakness would be situations where nothing but lethal force is required.

There is some risk that, due to a lack of favorable witness testimony, a person who has necessarily and properly defended himself will become embroiled in a costly legal battle. That is not the result of his having chosen to carry a firearm--it doesn't matter what he used to defend himself. There is also the very real fact that had the actor not been able to defend himself effectively, he-- and his family--might well have been killed our maimed.

The sad fact is, there are times at which only the credible threat of deadly force or the use of deadly force can successfully keep a citizen and his family from being maimed, raped, or murdered. Worrying more about the legal consequences than about survival itself does not seem balanced to me. I strongly recommend that you avail yourself of some pertinent training, such as MAG-20. I also recommend that you read this by Kathy Jackson and Mark Walters, and this by Massad Ayoob.

Much of discussion to which I believe you are referring--that which has apparently raised your level of concern about with the potential consequences--has come up in response to suggestions about the possible unwise use of deadly force, or threats thereof. There are those who would put forth the idea of going out into their yards and pointing guns at trespassers, those who would pose the question of whether to open fire on a robber in a convenience store to protect the clerk, those who would suggest intervening in what appears to them to be a case of an innocent person being battered by someone else, and those who would suggest trying to detain a suspect at gunpoint. It is to those people that we on THR, and our counterparts on The Firing Line, often explain the potential downsides and risks, and those risks involve much more than legal considerations.

I haven't given up self defense for freedom from prosecution, I've merely compromised. I'm still willing to act in self defense, just no longer with a firearm.

I do not understand why you think that striking a gang member first would materially reduce the likelihood of your being crippled, but you are correct in concluding that it could lead to criminal charges against you.

Now, if you really are willing to commit a crime such as assault and battery, do not do so while carrying a weapon. By the way, that includes your prized baton, since the penalty will be the same in many jurisdictions, but those of us who really do not like anti gun publicity would urge you to refrain from having a gun if you do intend to commit a crime.

In every fight, whomever hits first has the advantage. If you're going to be in a fight, you'll want to make the first hit in hopes of disabling your opponent. If there's multiple opponents, you would hope to disable one of them before you get attacked. Obviously it requires good judgment on whether you'll be at risk or not. If I have to strike first, I'm going to be in fear of injury, whether that is justified by the law is unknown as you've already pointed out. But at least the consequences won't be as severe if a mixture of incompetence, vindictiveness and ignorance should put me to blame.

You just cannot rely upon your physique to effectively defend your self and your family against well armed, determined attackers. No one can. If for some reason you think that you can rely on your physique to protect your family, consider that a thumb in the eye, one or two blows to the back of the neck, a slashed tendon or two, or a couple of bullets would have a very debilitating effect on that physique of yours.

I fight weekly. I know the limits and ability of my body. I don't need to be reminded that bullets will have a negative effect on me.

Regarding the laws--in every jurisdiction in this country, the law allows one to employ deadly force when immediately necessary to defend oneself and one's family against imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. In some, the centuries old duty to retreat has been eliminated, but it still has real tactical and legal advantages everywhere.

In every jurisdiction in the country, the law prohibits the use of both physical non-deadly force and deadly force when it is not justified. The thresholds for justification are spelled out in state criminal codes and in the rulings of appellate courts.

Now, just what changes in the law do you think would be proper? What aspect of the current law causes you to question the idea of carrying a firearm to protect yourself or your family?

All the consequences and limitations that have been posted. Especially consequences in clear cut cases of self defense.

 

[Deanimator]

If I fire this shot, am I going to save a life?" That to me sums it up pretty well.

That about sums it up.

I will use deadly force to defeat the unlawful use of deadly force, primarily against me or those in my care, and only secondarily with regard to strangers, and ONLY if I'm 100% CERTAIN of the situation.

 

[Sam1911]

I agree, and I think we can call this one "answered."