Using Deadly Force

[thatguy]

I have read and posted on many threads about the dangers and pitfalls of using deadly force however I believe we must come to terms on using it when needed. The subject seems to be taboo of sorts so I am interested in what others think about it?

I believe that once the line is crossed and there is no way out, one must be willing to fight back hard. I mean deliberatly, thoroughly, decisively, effectivley and brutally put that person or persons down and out of the fight. I cover this in my CHL class as a scenario to see what the student reactions may be. I describe a "no win" situation where they are forced to use deadly force or risk their families life. Funny thing is the women are usually the ones to use DF before the men, Mama Bear I guess.

Please do not hang me from the highest tree. I am not advocating the use of DF, just talking about the mindset of a person in a deadly encounter.

[gwashorn]

Actually, IMHO, this is the question you have to answer to yourself if you are going to carry. I have been there before, so I know what I am willing to do, can do and will do. Or at least I hope I know the next time. But not everyone knows. So you have to ask yourself, will I pull the trigger. You are right, it is not just you but your family that is now at risk if you do not survive. I asked my lovely wife that before we got our CHLs back way then. I believe she can do it. No question. But in a class I took on the NRA Outdoor Protection class this question came up in a round about way. It was about what do the police really face and to make a decision. So a scenario was setup. Each ran it without knowing what was coming. Instructions were, load two rounds, when the target turns decide if it is a threat and should you shoot. Some shot quickly and some hestitated. Many here have seen this target and I have it in my stock. It was an 8 month pregnant woman pointing a 45 auto right at me. "What would you do?" There was no choice in running or anything else. It was a do or die.

You made the comment between men and women. In our test, both sides had some that made the choice and also hesitated. At the end our instructor came over and said "Some of you died". Kind of puts a point on the problem. Rights come with responsibility and not all decisions have happy endings. BTW, I think I lived, in about 3.5 seconds I drew and fired, and I thought about could the EMT save the child if I aimed a little high in that time. So I shot high chest shots and both were hits. Could have been faster but I paused to think it out. Had to decide if the pregnant lady was offering me a candy bar or not, then figured out it was a gun, then tried to deal with that she was pregnant. Life comes at you pretty fast and not always fair. Had it been a gang of thugs most of us would not have a problem in our decisions. Not all are that easy.

Good question Brian, I do not advocate DF either but not all situations are fair. Mind set is important. You should know what you will do before you have to decide what you will do. As I have said to carry a weapon is a right but it DOES require responsibility. Scenario playing in your mind can help. My two cents.

[apostate]

I'm a bit confused. Why else would someone go through all the trouble of getting a CHL?

Consider flood insurance. We hope we never need it. We may even take measures to prevent or mitigate water damage to our house. But we wouldn't write that check every year if somewhere, deep down, we didn't think there was a possibility, no matter how remote, we might need it.

[texanron]

I think you bring up a good subject Brian that folks need to give more thought too. Anyone that has or is thinking about getting a CHL had better answer "Yes, I can use deadly force if needed".

[mrvmax]

I'm a bit confused. Why else would someone go through all the trouble of getting a CHL?

Consider flood insurance. We hope we never need it. We may even take measures to prevent or mitigate water damage to our house. But we wouldn't write that check every year if somewhere, deep down, we didn't think there was a possibility, no matter how remote, we might need it.

many people I talk with that have a CHL never really consider when they would and would not use it. I emphasize that getting a CHL is only the first step of the process, people should spend an ongoing effort to stay educated and prepared. It never surprises me when I have to correct a coworker with a CHL perpetuating false information on the use of deadly force.

[TX Rancher]

I'm a bit confused. Why else would someone go through all the trouble of getting a CHL?

Whether to take a human life or not is a very personal decision. Some will decide yes, some will decide no...it's their individual call.

But even if the decision is "I will not shoot another human" there is still significant advantage to carrying a firearm.

If we can believe the information provided by the NRA, firearms are often deployed in self defense but not fired. In those cases, not being willing to take the perps life was no detriment. In fact, the weapon didn't even need to be loaded!

A study done by Florida State (FSU) indicated weapons will be used in self defense approximately 2.5 million times a year. Now if all those incidents ended up with someone being shot, you can bet it would be front page news. Imagine what the Brady folks could do with those sort of numbers! So we can safely infer that in the majority of those 2.5 million cases, so one was shot or killed. I would further put forward that in a majority of those cases, the mere presence of the firearm was sufficient to "stop" the criminal act.

So just because someone doesn't decide to take another life doesn't negate the positive effects of carrying legally...it could still save their life.

I've had this discussion with potential students and point out that putting a round into another human is always their decision. Deploying a weapon without actually pulling the trigger may still save your life...actually, the odds are in their favor that they will not have to pull the trigger.

Notice I didn't say they don't have to think about it ( they should), only that their decision is not pertinent to whether or not they carry.

Telling someone "Don't carry unless you're willing to shoot someone", in my mind, is a potential disservice to them. If they listen to me, I may have very well set them on a path where they become a victim and didn't need to be.

[karder]

I think it is good to give some thought to the "what if" situations. Most likely, if any of us ever have to pull our weapon we will be in a situation where we are afraid that we, or a loved one, are in serious danger of death or bodily injury if we do not use deadly force. I consider this situation to be a no brainer. In my opinion, to not shoot someone who is about to kill or injure you is counter to every instinct God has given us.
Where it gets a little more muddy, is whether we would draw our weapon and potentially use deadly force to stop a crime, prevent our truck from being stolen, stop a robbery, or something similar. These things become judgment calls and at least giving some thought to how you would react in one of these situations is a good idea. While most situations are best left in the hands of law enforcement, are you going to stand by and let someone else be victimized if you could stop it? A lot of complicated questions, arise from the moral and legal ramifications of getting involved or not.

[shootthesheet]

It is my opinion that if you can't or won't pull the gun and the trigger if necessary the gun should be locked in a safe. If a person can't live with the death of an attacker it may be good to do some soul-searching before getting a CHL.

Good people don't want to kill anyone. They want to be left alone and not put in that position by an aggressor. That is why I agree with the OP that a decision has to be made to be as brutal as is necessary. No hesitation or mercy in stopping the threat. I think the reality of that thought process will weed out those that are not serious about the responsibilities of CHL and gun ownership. I have told family that got their CHL this same thing. If you can't pull the trigger when it comes time don't get a CHL. I had rather a person that lives life as a victim not supplie the nuts with another gun they can pray on others with. That isn't advocating deadly force in every situation but an encouragement to anyone who has to use it to go all out.

[The Annoyed Man]

There are a lot of platitudes one hears about the combat mindset. Here are just a few examples:

• "There is no such thing as a 'fair' fight."
• "If you fight fair, your tactics suck."
• "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out."
• "Vive la mort, vive la guerre, vive le sacre mercenaire." ("Long live death, long live war, long live the cursed mercenary.") - Mercenary marching cadence and toast.
• "Civilize the mind but make savage the body." - Chairman Mao
• "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud in "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis" via John Pate

There is a reason for these kinds of quotes...... most people are fundamentally decent, and they don't want to have to kill anyone. They have to be taught how, and inculcated with a certain mindset until the point where they are comfortable with it.

Please note, this is not a moral judgement. It just is. Society is partially possible because of our natural reluctance to off one another. For those people who not only don't need to be indoctrinated, even if by themselves, in order to be willing to use deadly force, and are self-motivatedly eager to do so, we call them 'predators.'

All I'm saying is that if these kinds of sayings and writings are what it takes to get an otherwise good person to the point where they could use deadly force in defense of self or others, then that's not such a bad thing. We really should think about it before being willing to strap on the gun.

[BigPa]

I truly feel "what if scenarios" are a good practice. I am also a true believer that if you have to stop to think "would I pull the trigger if it was a an true case of DF" you do not need to be carrying a weapon. You have to KNOW, YES I WOULD. If your answer is "I THINK I WOULD", you need to seriously reconsider carrying. Just my two cents...

[TX Rancher]

I agree that it needs to be thought about and come to a decision one way of the other. Where I disagree is if you can't say you are willing to shoot someone you shouldn't carry a gun.

Since by far the number of crimes stopped did not involve the citizen having to shoot the criminal, how you answer that question should not determine if you are going to carry a firearm.

Should you think about it...yes.

Do I think the "right" answer to the question is shoot if required...yes

But answering no does not mean that weapon will be useless for you.

Just my opinion...

[¿Qué?]

Whether to take a human life or not is a very personal decision. Some will decide yes, some will decide no...it's their individual call.

But even if the decision is "I will not shoot another human" there is still significant advantage to carrying a firearm.

Do they carry it unloaded? At least that way the criminal won't take it away and shoot them when they hesitate.

[Excaliber]

I agree that it needs to be thought about and come to a decision one way of the other. Where I disagree is if you can't say you are willing to shoot someone you shouldn't carry a gun.

Since by far the number of crimes stopped did not involve the citizen having to shoot the criminal, how you answer that question should not determine if you are going to carry a firearm.

Should you think about it...yes.

Do I think the "right" answer to the question is shoot if required...yes

But answering no does not mean that weapon will be useless for you.

Just my opinion...

It may be worse than useless to the GG - it may be useful to the BG.

Someone who hasn't made the decision beforehand has a different demeanor that any streetwise BG can smell that a mile away. This radically increases the risk that the gun the GG may not be willing to use against the BG will be used by him (with no such reservations) against the GG.

Someone who wants to rely on trying to bluff psychopathic criminals might well consider foregoing the expense and trouble of a CHL and an expensive EDC and just carry a realistic looking toy gun. It will yield the same unsuccessful defensive results as a real gun one is unwilling to use, but at least it won't be used to shoot the GG.

[Excaliber]

Whether to take a human life or not is a very personal decision. Some will decide yes, some will decide no...it's their individual call.

But even if the decision is "I will not shoot another human" there is still significant advantage to carrying a firearm.

Do they carry it unloaded? At least that way the criminal won't take it away and shoot them when they hesitate.

Weight training?