Don't use your gun to threaten

[AlHunt]

That's a great plan. Unfortunately, it's not always possible to avoid trouble. Troublemakers get a vote too, and there's not always an escape route.

Well, if all else fails there's always my patented 4 step plan. But it involves a lot more paperwork.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Mostly agree, except with the above.

In my state a really high number of people with CHP's, IIRC something over 85%, don't carry. Absolutely nothing to do with a magic talisman.

Each city, town, and county in the state has their own ordinances for handgun ownership and possession. The laws can change as you drive from town to town.

For those with a CHP there's a single set of laws that apply statewide for purchase, non-registration, ownership, transportation, concealed carry, open carry, prohibited areas, and sale of handguns. Most people got their CHP because it made ownership easier, not because they intended to carry or they needed a talisman.

They still don't carry. And if they do it is because "bad stuff is happening".

 

[The Big D]

I'll go!

Have related this exact scenario herein several times, at least.

Two knuckleheads were thrown out of a bar. One broke the glass door on his way out. I suggested they leave without further incident.

One told the other: 'Go get the gun!' As I didn't have to go anywhere to get mine I drew and ordered them proned out on the sidewalk until the local police arrived.

Note: Though a LEO at the time I was not in primary jurisdiction and was essentially acting as an armed citizen.

Pointed a gun at people hundreds of times during my crimefighting days. Happily never had to shoot anyone.

ALL incidents involving 'use' of a firearm had to be reported. In every case my 'use' was deemed justified.

Be safe...be well.

OK, I'll bite, what are those situations? Remember, this is about threatening someone with your gun and making demands that they're supposed to follow.

Ok, go.

 

[fredj338]

Mostly agree, except with the above.

In my state a really high number of people with CHP's, IIRC something over 85%, don't carry. Absolutely nothing to do with a magic talisman.

Each city, town, and county in the state has their own ordinances for handgun ownership and possession. The laws can change as you drive from town to town.

For those with a CHP there's a single set of laws that apply statewide for purchase, non-registration, ownership, transportation, concealed carry, open carry, prohibited areas, and sale of handguns. Most people got their CHP because it made ownership easier, not because they intended to carry or they needed a talisman.

Maybe just your state, but in most states, a ccw/chp is for carry not making anything easier for the gun owner. In many stayes a ccw is just an application. In some states, its class time & a qual, so more work & money. If one is going that far, then pony up the time & money for at least one decent class on how to fight with a gun. Then practice so you dont do something stupid with th gun.

 

[CB3]

OK, I'll bite, what are those situations? Remember, this is about threatening someone with your gun and making demands that they're supposed to follow.

Ok, go.

If you draw your gun just to threaten somebody or to brandish without the intent to actually use it, you could be making a serious mistake. I think this is Rastoff's point, and it is well taken.

However, in a situation that involves drawing your gun, your intent should be to shoot if necessary. There are steps that should be taken in between drawing and pulling the trigger. In the 1.5-3 seconds that it takes to draw from concealment and "point in", a threatening situation can change dramatically. You may not any longer be justified in shooting. The pull-the-trigger decision before even starting the draw can be a mistake.

Having a gun in your hand will almost always allow for a faster, more accurate first shot than having to draw from concealment. It is a tactical advantage to have your gun drawn if you're going to have to use it.

Issuing commands to a threat is a strategy taught by some schools of gun training. In a civilian sense I don't believe it is necessary or required. If you do decide to issue commands, gun in hand, which are not followed and you perceive a deadly threat then you're justified to shoot. The problem is whether you are committed to shooting an adversary or only scaring him/them. When you draw you should be committed to shooting but have the presence of mind NOT to do so. Such fast decisions are very training dependent. There are certain "go or no go" signals your brain must process very quickly.

If I lived in a "duty to retreat state", I would probably want to draw my gun and have it ready for me while retreating, especially if covering others. I should be committed to using it if necessary if retreat does not stop the threat.

While not counting on this as a winning strategy, it is true in at least some cases that the mere presence of a firearm will deter an attack.

If someone is standing 20' from me with a bat, knife or machete, I would not wait to draw. I would even point in but not fire unless that individual ignored my deadly force threat by closing the gap. Many aggressors would not attack a gun in such a circumstance, but if he chose to, you are far ahead of having to draw from concealment. You also have more latitude and focus in decision making.

I do not believe you are required to shoot if you draw, but you should be able to do so if the circumstances warrant it. In the game of chicken depicted in the first photograph, the second to draw should have been holy.

 

[1911haulic]

OK, I'll bite, what are those situations? Remember, this is about threatening someone with your gun and making demands that they're supposed to follow.

Ok, go.

I envision a scenario where a person retreats to his/her limit and is being threatened by an assailant , The defender pulls his/weapon as a last resort and prepares to fire. The assailant retreats to be no longer a threat.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Maybe just your state, but in most states, a ccw/chp is for carry not making anything easier for the gun owner. In many stayes a ccw is just an application. In some states, its class time & a qual, so more work & money. If one is going that far, then pony up the time & money for at least one decent class on how to fight with a gun. Then practice so you dont do something stupid with th gun.

Of course the original purpose was to carry. But that doesn't mean there can't be positive side benefits to having a CHP for all handgun owners in general.

For example, in my state, the larger cities have handgun registration requirements. CHP holders are exempt from all city and state registration requirements. The larger cities require a tougher than NICS background checks done by the police for each handgun purchase. CHP holders only go through an NICS check at initial issue and each renewal. Then you only need to present your CHP and complete the 4473 to purchase a handgun. No NICS check at each purchase. The larger cities have restrictive rules for how handguns and ammo are stored when transporting through the city. Doesn't apply to CHP holders.

Why wouldn't a handgun enthusiast, one that had no interest in carrying, not want a CHP to get the benefit of those laws.

 

[ancient-one]

In that particular situation I don't think that the man has a good way out. He should have never been placed a the position that allowed a mob to stop his car. He got caught in the middle of a bunch of, there are a lot of words to describe them, but most are not acceptable here.

If he tries to drive slowly through the crowd, they will stand in front of his car and dare him to run over them. In many places if he runs over them he will be charged with vehicular assault or homicide.

He didn't initiate the situation, putting it nicely, a bunch of scumbags did and he was probably fearful for his life. If the driver had his gun in a position to aim and fire quickly while the protester was raising his, I think that he should have shot him and got out of there while the crowd was scattering. They don't stand in front of a speeding vehicle.
If I see a crowd like that ahead of me and I can't turn around and get out of there, my gun would be in a position where I could raise it and fire if needed. I might end up dead but I am going to have some company. I am old, I can no longer fight but I can still shoot and will.

When the police can't, by orders from the city hall, or otherwise can't protect us, folks you can talk around it for days but in the end it is going to be up to each individual. The thugs are well funded and organized, we are not.

 

[delcrossv]

I think the most amazing thing about the present situation is that no one has gone off and decided to do some self help " crowd control".
We may crab sbout ostensibly bad decisions with some brandishing , but there's been no emptying of magazines into a crowd of protesters. Gratia Deo.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Of course the original purpose was to carry. But that doesn't mean there can't be positive side benefits to having a CHP for all handgun owners in general.

For example, in my state, the larger cities have handgun registration requirements. CHP holders are exempt from all city and state registration requirements. The larger cities require a tougher than NICS background checks done by the police for each handgun purchase. CHP holders only go through an NICS check at initial issue and each renewal. Then you only need to present your CHP and complete the 4473 to purchase a handgun. No NICS check at each purchase. The larger cities have restrictive rules for how handguns and ammo are stored when transporting through the city. Doesn't apply to CHP holders.

Why wouldn't a handgun enthusiast, one that had no interest in carrying, not want a CHP to get the benefit of those laws.

What State?

 

[Miami_JBT]

Have related this exact scenario herein several times, at least.

Two knuckleheads were thrown out of a bar. One broke the glass door on his way out. I suggested they leave without further incident.

One told the other: 'Go get the gun!' As I didn't have to go anywhere to get mine I drew and ordered them proned out on the sidewalk until the local police arrived.

Note: Though a LEO at the time I was not in primary jurisdiction and was essentially acting as an armed citizen.

Pointed a gun at people hundreds of times during my crimefighting days. Happily never had to shoot anyone.

ALL incidents involving 'use' of a firearm had to be reported. In every case my 'use' was deemed justified.

Be safe...be well.

Like me, you still have the badge backing your play and you have the training and experience even if you're out of your AO. John Q Public doesn't have such a luxury. Drawing and detaining a suspect is a hell of a lot different for a Off Duty LEO than it is for a Private Citizen.

As a Florida Cop I took action in Georgia once while I was off the clock and on vacation (not a shooting, but I did stop a crime in progress). The badge sure as hell helped me out of any sticky situation since APD simply looked at me and said "just fill out a statement and you're cool". But if it was someone else, things would have ended differently. I knew it and so did APD.

A fine example of Private Citizens screwing up is shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. Neither of the McMichaels nor Bryan had the legal authority to conduct a Citizen's Arrest for a Misdemeanor Crime of Trespassing. Yet they pursued Arbery and tried to detain him with firearms.

I'm all in favor and understand that in most self defense cases, the simple display of a firearm is enough to ward away the threat since the bad guy(s) don't want to get shot when it comes to Private Citizens. But the display of the firearm still has to be justified and that means the victim had to be in fear of their life or that of another. That would justify the use of force. Whether it was a shooting or a threat of force.

What John Q Public fails to understand is the subtle nuances between what would be a criminal charge of Brandishing or Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon or Justifiable Use of Force.

As such, I've always instructed people that if they're going to carry. They need to understand that the gun is the FINAL OPTION and not the first one.

 

[Ziggy2525]

What State?

Nebraska.

Omaha and Lincoln have incredibly restrictive city ordinances for handgun ownership. Purchase, registration, transportation, sale. Not NYC bad, but not far behind.

Having a state CHP preempts those city ordinances/requirements statewide. A single, consistent set of statewide laws apply to CHP holders. Pro-2A state legislators have tried to do something similar for non-CHP handgun owners, a single set of preemptive statewide laws, but the cities have shut it down. The cities claim they need the more restricive rules to fight gangs.

 

[fredj338]

Of course the original purpose was to carry. But that doesn't mean there can't be positive side benefits to having a CHP for all handgun owners in general.

For example, in my state, the larger cities have handgun registration requirements. CHP holders are exempt from all city and state registration requirements. The larger cities require a tougher than NICS background checks done by the police for each handgun purchase. CHP holders only go through an NICS check at initial issue and each renewal. Then you only need to present your CHP and complete the 4473 to purchase a handgun. No NICS check at each purchase. The larger cities have restrictive rules for how handguns and ammo are stored when transporting through the city. Doesn't apply to CHP holders.

Why wouldn't a handgun enthusiast, one that had no interest in carrying, not want a CHP to get the benefit of those laws.

Again, in many states it gives you no benefit & can cost upwards of $500 in requirements & hours of time, if there is no benefit, why? Though if you are carrying, it is your responsability, imo, to get some basic training so you can at the minimum deploy your handgun without making a stupid mistake that causes injury or death. I am all for anyne getting a ccw but it doesnt benefit most unoess you actually carry it.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Again, in many states it gives you no benefit & can cost upwards of $500 in requirements & hours of time, if there is no benefit, why? Though if you are carrying, it is your responsability, imo, to get some basic training so you can at the minimum deploy your handgun without making a stupid mistake that causes injury or death. I am all for anyne getting a ccw but it doesnt benefit most unoess you actually carry it.

Yeah and if you go back and actually read the posts, I was repondimg @Miami_JBT where he said that people (as in all people) get a CCW "just in case..." I responded back it wasn't universally true - IN MY STATE...people have another reason. I didn't mention anything about California or anywhere else. Just IN MY STATE. My understanding is there also are a couple more states like mine, but I didn't say it applied anywhere else but IN MY STATE.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Yeah and if you go back and actually read the posts, I was repondimg @Miami_JBT where he said that people (as in all people) get a CCW "just in case..." I responded back it wasn't universally true - IN MY STATE...people have another reason. I didn't mention anything about California or anywhere else. Just IN MY STATE. My understanding is there also are a couple more states like mine, but I didn't say it applied anywhere else but IN MY STATE.

Reading is fundamental.

Your State in the anomaly, not the normality.

 

[fredj338]

What State?

CHP, betting Illinois.

 

[Jon651]

I've said it many times and I'll continue; don't use your gun as a threat.

The only time your gun should come out of the holster, except the range and for maintenance or storage at home, is when your life is in danger.

I'm not going to post the video here because it doesn't meet the language standards on this site, but here's a screen shot of a terrible situation:

The man in the truck is feeling threatened by the crowd and he presents his gun in an apparent attempt to get them to leave him alone. The guy in the helmet has responded with a gun of his own. Neither intends to shoot, but both are now in violation of law.

The eternal question: What do you do when they don't follow your demands?

The only answer is to shoot, but it wouldn't be justified. Why? Because your life isn't in danger. If it were, you would have shot right away. Situations like this can only end badly.

Outside of the obvious situation shown in the photo and exhaustively discussed here, there were three things that went through my mind the very first time I saw the picture:

1. (And please pardon the obvious stereotyping)... We have one redneck and one soyboy here - could they even understand what the other was saying without a translator? And,
2. In spite of whatever you may have heard, apparently there are some far-left ultra-progressive tree-hugging hippy liberals WHO DO LIKE GUNS ; and lastly,
3. Apparently, neither side of this issue has cornered the market on common sense.

 

[Ziggy2525]

CHP, betting Illinois.

So you're going to bet on Illinois even after I answered his question in post #52 a few posts back and already said the answer was Nebraska???

 

[ContinentalOp]

Even after I answered his question in post #52 a few posts back and already said the answer was Nebraska???

If I had a dime for every time someone posted in a thread without reading the other posts...

I'd have a lot of dimes.

 

[ditrina]

Thank you all for your input, we are done here.