Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

[MyopicJoe]

The current HT debate on gun control made me revisit Marc MacYoung's excellent website, No Nonsense Self Defense. All gun owners, sooner or later, think about using their gun in "self-defense". Unfortunately, most don't know the very narrow, legal definition of "self-defense". You may survive the attack but die in legal hell. Did you know, even if you are found innocent in criminal court, you could still be successfully sued in civil court by your attacker or their family?

After dodging or taking the legal bullet, you will probably suffer emotional trauma. Most normal people will have doubts. "Did I really have to pull the trigger?" "Did I do anything to cause the situation?" It may not bother you right away, but it could blindside you years later, late at night. And if you do suffer, you will probably suffer alone. How many people do you know have killed another human being, who you can confide in?

The price of killing another human being, even in true self-defense, is high. That's why you need to learn and exercise all the steps to avoid that situation.

MacYoung's website doesn't have a specific gun section, but it has a knife section. Both are lethal force instruments, so the wisdom still applies. Before I give you the link, I'd like to say two things about his website:

1) His articles may take a few paragraphs before they flow well
2) His website can be a challenge to navigate

Regardless of my two caveats, the information on his website is worth the effort.


This article talks about the emotional price of killing someone. You can read the whole thing, but I recommend you scroll 1/3 of the way down to "The cost of using a blade". You can use your browser to search for the text.


This article talks about some of the legal issues around using lethal force.


If you want more, I highly recommend Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme"


You'll learn more about real self-defense from the rest of his website than most martial arts or gun schools; that's for sure.


If you need to know what his street cred is, you can go here.

[scrivener]

Re: Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

It's a MyopicJoe sighting!

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

Yeah, I only come back to HT when there's drama. Like flies on a turd :P


Off topic, but how are you enjoying your break from teaching?

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

It's a MyopicJoe sighting!

Just occurred to me: Were you playing with "myopic" and "sighting", by chance?

[scrivener]

Re: Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

No, but "sighting" and guns did pop into my head just before I hit submit.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

Several things to consider:

Often just the presence of a gun is enough to ward off an attack, even by an armed assailant, unless their intent is to kill you. If they turn and run, let them go and call police.

Not all uses of a gun end up in killing - but there are several takes on this:

1. Some say a dead assailant cannot testify against you, and when protecting yourself and giving testimony say, "I feared for my life." A wounded gun-bearing assailant can still shoot back.

2. Better to be alive in court than dead on the floor.

3. Best usage is not having to shoot, but this is hard to judge. Life is not like TV shows.

The emotional or mental impact of shooting a fellow human being can take a great toll on your life. Make sure any price you pay is worth it. Saving your life or your family's lives is worth quite a bit. You don't shoot unless you are certain your life is in danger.

Best scenario is not having to shoot.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

Often just the presence of a gun is enough to ward off an attack, even by an armed assailant, unless their intent is to kill you.

I understand what you're saying, but I would lean away from the gun, an object, being the source of protection. Simply having a gun, but not having the confidence (which comes from training) nor the will to use it (which comes from thinking AHEAD of time where your line in the sand is), won't make you safer. It's very easy for gun owners to think of guns as magic talismans.

And before a gun needs to be involved, there are a TON of other things you can do to mitigate or avoid the situation all together.

But yes, an attacker who suddenly realizes you are more dangerous than they original thought will reconsider their next action. The motivation behind the attack will dictate their next step. It's easier to avoid criminals who just want to make an easy a living. It's tougher to avoid crimes of passion.

If they turn and run, let them go and call police.

Right. Once they turn to leave, even if they're carrying your expensive 60" LED TV, they are no longer an immediate threat to your life. In a split second, a legitimate self-defense shoot can turn into murder.

Some say a dead assailant cannot testify against you

I would be careful with this line of thinking. You should only shoot to stop the immediate threat to your life or that of another. No more, no less, and for no other reason.

A wounded gun-bearing assailant can still shoot back.

Another thing to consider is "getting off the X" or "getting out of the pie". The basic idea is you usually don't want to stand still, trading overly well aimed shots.

Better to be alive in court than dead on the floor.

It may be "better", but it might not be that much better. It could be a living hell. But I understand the general idea of what you're saying.

Best usage is not having to shoot, but this is hard to judge. Life is not like TV shows.

Right. Good training will help you figure out what to do BEFORE ever being in the heat of the situation.

Though I have yet to attend one, Massad Ayoob's class comes highly recommended.
http://massadayoobgroup.com/?page_id=7


When I leave the main door open, for a breeze, I habitually lock the screen door. It will NOT keep a violent person from invading my home, BUT it will quickly tell me their intent. Most people with innocent intentions won't be kicking in your screen door. Also, it forces the intruder to make a lot of noise, reducing the likelihood of catching my family and I by surprise and buying us precious seconds.

I also thought ahead of time that our immediate response is to gather the whole family and run into a "safe room". This isn't an armored bunker like you see in Hollywood. It's simply a room we've decided ahead of time to gather in while we call the police (though you can do some simple things like replacing the hollow door with a solid core one ALONG with a stronger door frame).

Hunkering down in a safe room serves multiple purposes. First of all, if the invader is only after property, they will be busy in the front of our home while we're safe at the back. Secondly, when the police arrive, they won't have to worry about mistaking us for the intruders. We will be constantly relaying information to the 911 operator. Thirdly, if the intruders start kicking in the bedroom door after I tell them I've called the police and have a gun, then I have a HUGE clue what their intention is. My line in the sand has become the bedroom door. Finally, the intruders will be at a big tactical disadvantage, going through a choke point and into a defended position.

The more you seriously think about real self-defense, instead relying on magical gun talisman, the more you realize what a small part firing your gun plays. Most of it is planning ahead and taking mundane steps. In fact, you can minimize the likelihood of having your home invaded. From doing things which make your home less appealing to criminals, to not owing money to bad people or sleeping with their wives.

And it doesn't take any intense "commando training" or being supper athletic. Learn from experts, practice, role-play a few times, and then go back to living life.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

Well said, MJ.

I was not proposing solutions, but scanning alternatives from several positions and mentioning them. Spreading the knowledge, so to speak.

Back when I was allowed to own guns, I had a prowler in my back yard (my PTSD manifests as hyper vigilance) and I was roused from sleep by his footsteps. I took my gun out of the easy- access gun safe, went to my back window and saw him tiptoeing through my back yard. I cocked my gun (a revolver), he heard the double click, evidently, and took off running. I didn't fire, I called the cops, who never found him. However, he has not been back.

I also took my target frame from the firing range, which has a 'man-shape' In the canak under where the targets are stapled, and there is a significant hole where a person's heart would be. A warning so to speak, that you don't want to mess with as good a shot as I am.
I placed it in a place where prowlers could see it, and I have had no further problems. Psychological protection - better than the alternative.

We have aluminum baseball bats now that HPD has disarmed me, but I have kept the target frame; we cannot be too careful. Many of my neighbors have been burglarized. Some of them twice! We have had no killings that I know of.
Property can be replaced, but we only have one life - take good care of it.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Reality check: using a gun in "self-defense"

I'm happy to hear you had your gun secured in a safe. I'm even happier to hear you didn't need to fire it.

Psychological protection - better than the alternative.

I heard a story of a large land owner having problems with trespassers. He ended up switching his "No Trespassing" signs to "You're not lost, you're trespassing." Surprisingly it worked. Apparently by taking away their standard excuse, they were less likely to ignore the sign.

Human psychology...