Posted on 08/22/2010 5:44:05 AM PDT by Immerito
There are two golden rules for gun safety. Rule one, never point a gun at something you don’t want to destroy. Rule two: keep your finger off the trigger until you’ve decided to destroy it. “Muzzle discipline” means more than avoiding placing hapless humans in your sights. You should also refrain from potentially destroying your non-gun hand, your right foot, your neighbor’s extremities, the plexiglass range lane divider and anything else that might cause “issues.” To that end, follow the rabbi’s advice. Imagine there’s a five-foot flame coming out of the gun’s muzzle. By the same token, “trigger control” means more than keeping your finger off the go-pedal during transportation . . .
One of the most important lessons I’ve learned from the rabbi: draw your gun from the holster with your finger as far up on the gun barrel as possible. WAY up. And keep it there.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
Ever fire black powder weapon?
I have not.
The five foot flame is real.....
A spud gun will produce a similar effect.
As My old grandpa used to say, at least in the 1890’s, if you needed to pull it, you need to pull it a’asmokin’.
barbra ann
That piece should never leave the holster unless you intend to use it. Determining whether or not lethal force is necessary should be done before a weapon is waved around, since “a soft answer turns away wrath”(proverbs 15:1) more times than not.
Practicing a “two to the heart, one to the head” drill from the presentation with an unloaded piece will make the range time more productive and safer.
I believe that everyone that thinks he or she may end up in a gunfight should read Bill Jordan’s book “No Second Place Winner”.
“That piece should never leave the holster unless you intend to use it.”
I understand your logic about drawing and using your self defense gun.
The problem is, that if you wait to draw your firearm until you have to use it, you have forfeited the opportunity to deter the aggression by letting your opponent know that they are in jeopardy. Yes, I understand that you do not have to let them know, but consider that giving them the opportunity to deescalate can work to your advantage, no court case, no defense costs, no post shooting trauma... etc.
I say this as a reasoned response, because the best, though imperfect statistics that we have are that the mere presence of the firearm defuses the situation in over 99 percent of the cases. Why allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where you have to shoot, if the best is that you can stop the potential crime without having to use deadly force?
Most defensive uses of firearms are against people armed with weapons other than firearms.
Certainly, there exist many situations where people need to draw and fire as quickly as possible. However, those situations seem to be a very small minority of defensive uses of firearms. Because of this reality of the defensive uses of firearms to defuse dangerous situations, we have changed Arizona law to clearly allow for the “Defensive Display” of firearms.
I stick to my assertion that the gun does not have to presented to deter an opponent. The problem with waving your pistol around is that you might have it taken away from you. Mine stays in until I perceive a real threat, not just verbal abuse. If an attacker has a weapon and is advancing, there is every reason to drop him or her in their tracks. If they are just robbing me of something material, I would not consider killing them and would have no reason to threaten them with something that I do not intend to use.
If somebody is robbing me, that means that they are threatening death or great bodily harm if I refuse to give up something valuable.
The robber may decide at any given instant that I am not cooperating or that the material given up is insufficient. They might then be expected to use their weapon to demonstrate the reality of what was previously a threat.
When I carry, my firearm is in my front right pocket. I am going to assume that the robber will insist that I give up valuables from my pockets until he is satisfied.
The only slack that the robber is going to get will be based on my assessment of whether his attention can be distracted by my other hand. Both hands will go into my front pockets. The valuables in my front left pocket will be revealed and offered. Unless I am convinced that fighting would cost me too much, I will draw my gun and fire until the threat is neutralized.
The precious few seconds which might be expended explaining the danger to the robber from my gun, will instead be expended in the initial attempt to eliminate his threat. I will assume that the robber anticipated that his victim might be armed and has already decided that he will attempt to kill me if I fight. No other assumption would be rational.
It is a mistake to treat a gun as if it is a magic wand which can be waved at an attacker and will eliminate any chance of coming to harm. Even the most effective handgun calibers fail to stop about five percent of the time.
The training I have had included the recommendation that one fire twice at center of mass and then, if the threat remains, fire at the head based on the possibility that the attacker is wearing body armor or heavy clothing which may be making the fire ineffective.
I have had many students tell me of situations that were defused when the aggressor realized that the intended victim had a gun and was willing to use it.
Just as a thought experiment, to show that there might be times when it made sense to draw a weapon before it was necessary to fire it, consider this scenario:
You are in your house. It is 3 AM. Someone is banging on the door demanding to be let in, demanding money. The person starts to use some implement to attack the door, which seems to be taking a lot of damage.
Have you drawn your weapon yet?
If you have drawn it, why haven’t you fired yet?
I am only trying to stimulate thought with this. I have been convinced, based on many cases that I have read of and personal situations that I have discussed with students, that life is way too complicated for one answer to always be correct.
There's a good chance that I will have fired it.
If I am home alone, and there is still some chance that the attacker will cease the attack before he breaches the door, and if I am convinced that the attacker is alone, then he might survive the attack. I might be able to safely retreat in a way that does not weaken my position.
Otherwise, I may well fire through the door. The scenario you describe would make any reasonable person fear death or great bodily harm.
If I was alone I might use the couple of seconds needed to breach my door to get to my shotgun.
What is it you would do?
Are you going to assume that the attacker thought the house was unoccupied and let him know you are there, expecting that he will then cease the attack?
Are you going to assume that the attacker knows that the house is occupied, but believes that the resident is unarmed and thus the attacker will not use deadly force himself?
Are you going to assume that the attacker knows that the house is occupied, he is prepared to use deadly force, but that he will cease his attack when he finds out that the resident is armed?
Virtually every single uniformed police officer is armed. If the mere threat of using deadly force is so effective, how is it that any officer ever gets shot?
“Imagine there’s a five-foot flame coming out of the gun’s muzzle.”
Must be referring to a Mosin-Nagant!
I would not try too hard to instill the reluctance to shoot a perp if necessary. To quote my ol’ grandpa again: If you decide to carry, you must have the will to kill your opponent before he kills you. If you lack this will you better carry a gun made of chocolate for when the perp makes you eat it.
barbra ann
Hooooo-kay then...
Your response is quite wise!
If I am home alone, and there is still some chance that the attacker will cease the attack before he breaches the door, and if I am convinced that the attacker is alone, then he might survive the attack. I might be able to safely retreat in a way that does not weaken my position.
Otherwise, I may well fire through the door. The scenario you describe would make any reasonable person fear death or great bodily harm.
If I was alone I might use the couple of seconds needed to breach my door to get to my shotgun.
What is it you would do?
Marktwain replies:
I would call 911. I would yell at the intruder to go away, that the police are on the way, and that I have a gun.
William Tell Posted:
Are you going to assume that the attacker thought the house was unoccupied and let him know you are there, expecting that he will then cease the attack?
Marktwain replies:
I will let him know that I am there, that the police have been called, and that I am armed, hoping that this will deter the attack.
William Tell posted:
Are you going to assume that the attacker knows that the house is occupied, but believes that the resident is unarmed and thus the attacker will not use deadly force himself?
Marktwain replies: No.
William Tell posted:
Are you going to assume that the attacker knows that the house is occupied, he is prepared to use deadly force, but that he will cease his attack when he finds out that the resident is armed?
Marktwain replies: No.
William Tell Posted:
Virtually every single uniformed police officer is armed. If the mere threat of using deadly force is so effective, how is it that any officer ever gets shot?
Marktwain replies. Police officers are forced by their profession to place themselves in the middle of nasty affairs dealing with irresponsible and dangerous people. Most criminals will avoid an armed attack on a police officer if they can. The attacks usually occur out of a combination of desperation, recklessness, alcohol, and drugs. Most criminals don't want to be shot, and will avoid the possibility if they can without severe loss to themselves. They particularly want to avoid armed citizens, who they often feel have less restraint about using firearms than police do. There has been at least one study by Wright and Rossi on this very point.
Many shootings of criminals by armed citizens occur because the criminal has made a “critical error in the victim selection process”.
Consider the Tueller drill, and the possibility of confronting an opponent with a knife or a contact weapon at a distance of 21 feet or so. One of the first things that Tueller suggests, is “draw your weapon” because it reduces reaction time and provides a deterrent effect.
Think that can’t happen?
Because the goblin is still kicking my door.
I want him inside the house when I croak him.
Makes a cleaner case. Just sayin'.
Problem with waving a pistol around?
Shoot, that’s obvious. You’ll never hit anything that way!
What, are we shooing flies with it???
Waving indeed. Feh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.