Defensive Firearms Instructor

Do you ever recommend that someone shoot to KILL an attacker, or are there some circumstances where it would be better to just shoot to...well, not "maim", but just bring someone down but not kill them?

Asked by Jess.W over 11 years ago

Jess - 

You are asking a very important question that has some serious legal, moral and ethical implications.

When we use a firearm for self-defense our ultimate purpose is to STOP an attacker that presents the threat of death or great bodily harm.  

Empirical evidence shows that the most reliable way to quickly stop an attacker is to place multiple shots into the high, center, chest, located between the clavicle and the sternum and between the nipples.  Since our life depends on stopping the attacker we need to use the method that is most likely to work.  Shooting to warn or wound is much less likely to be effective in stopping an attack.

You can probably see where this is leading...

Since a firearm is a deadly weapon and we are firing multiple shots into the chest, it is reasonable to assume that using it to stop an attacker could result in the death of that attacker.  The death of the attacker is not our goal in self-defense, it is however, a reasonable outcome to expect.

A firearm is a lethal weapon and should only be used when it is necessary to use lethal force to prevent great bodily harm or to preserve innocent life.  

I am not an attorney and the above is not legal advice, however it hopefully will help you to understand the ramifications of the use of a firearm in self-defense.

What do you think of people using Makerbots to create their own guns!?

Asked by MStaylor over 11 years ago

MStaylor - 

Your question is an interesting one.  Makerbots have put a new twist onto an old activity, creating personal firearms.

First off, from a legality standpoint, there are no legal issues in manufacturing firearms for your own personal use as long as:

• they are not sold
• built from more than 10 imported parts
• You possess a tax stamp for the weapon if it is a fully automatic or suppressed weapon.

So from a legal stand point the methods are irrelivant.

Now the question is down to is a 3d printer an efficient tool for building a gun.  My gut reaction is that some parts of the gun would be perfect for manufacture on a 3d printer and others would best be manufactured in other ways.

I am certainly not a materials expert or gun designer so I will have to leave the rest to the experts and the experimentors!  Just keep in mind that people have been building rudimentary firearms with supplies from the local hardware store for years!

 

Paul

What's the biggest mistake that people make while carrying (or having to use) a gun?

Asked by FIRST over 11 years ago

This is a great question and I think it needs to go into my que and be made into a podcast! Thanks for the great question and please check SSA out at http://www.SafetySolutionsAcademy.com

There are a multitude of common errors that people make in concealed carry. How about a top ten list in no particular order?

1. Not having the proper training.
2. Not selecting the proper type of handgun for Concelaed Carry.
3. Not considering the ability to conceal the handgun vs the recoil management vs. the wounding capacity.
4. Forgeting that the handgun is part of a system.  Without the proper ammunition, holster, belt, and clothing it just doesn't work.
5. Thinking that just because they have a gun they are somehow magically safer.
6. Neglecting proper storage of the handgun when they aren't carrying it.
7. Investing too much ego in the selection of handgun for self-defense.
8. Not testing the defensive handgun with the defensive ammunition to ensure proper function.
9. Ignoring othe self-defense skills because they have a gun.
10. Not carrying their gun.
    
    

 

Can someone claim self-defense if they shoot someone in the back? I mean, I know that sounds bad but if there's an armed guy who jumps you and then turns to run, who's to say he's not just going to get his buddy with a gun? Is that a reasonable fear?

Asked by UIT over 11 years ago

UIT - 

First off, I am not an ottorney and the following is not legal advice.  Laws vary from state to state and you should consult your local laws directly and seek the advice of an attorney who specializes in self-defense law.

In February I will be hosting a nationally know speaker on use of force and the law.  Massad Ayoob is THE expert in this area and if you are interested in understanding self-defense and the law you should attend.  Go to http://www.safetysolutionsacademy.com/massad-ayoob for more information

Great question.  I'm going to answer it from two different angles and hopefully I will give you the information you need.

From a legal standpoint, the specific scenario you described would land you in prison for murder.

There are two legal doctrines that would lead to your criminal indictment and ultimately your conviction.  The first is called the "cessation of threat."  Your right to self-defense, specifically the use of lethal force stems from your right to protect yourself from the threat of death or great bodily harm.  As soon as there is no threat, your right to defend yourself terminates.  The threat must be immediate, as in happening right now.  Someone returning to hurt you later simply does not meat the burden that you will need to prove to successfully claim self-defense.

The second legal standard that will be giving you trouble is "preclusion."  Preclusion simply means did you take all possible actions to avoid the use of lethal force.  In your example, a very reasonable action would be to leave the area as the bad guy was running away.  If you leave, get in your car and drive to a secure location such as your home or a police station, you have precluded the event from happening.  In many places preclusion is a standard you will be judged on in a self-defense scenario.

 

Now the second angle I want to attack this question from deals with the fact that shooting someone in the back can be a reasonable action.  We use the same principles.

IF an individual poses a lethal threat to you or to another innocent individual and IF there is no other course of action to take to resolve the situation then your use of lethal force may be justified.

For example an able bodied 22 year old male who is facing away from you  is striking your unconsious elderly grandmother repeatedly with a bat.  You may be justified to use lethal force.

In the end we really need to shy away from asking questions about when we CAN use lethal force.  Instead we should focus on when we NEED to use lethal force.  Even if the laws allow the use of lethal force, we are legally and etically bound to resolve the situation through other means if possible.

Remember, consult your local laws and an attorney as everything above is my opinion and does not constitute legal advice.  Also, please stop by and vist my website at http://www.safetysolutionsacademy.com

Who's the youngest student you've ever taught, and would you ever counsel a parent that you don't think their kid is mature or responsible enough to use a gun?

Asked by Trasker over 11 years ago

You ask a great question Trasker.

I teach the defensive use of firearms and I teach with the goal in mind that my students will be safer as a result of what they learn from me.  Regardless of age, when I encounter students that are not ready for the responsibility, they are excused from my course.  Just this past weekend I excused a 71 year old man from portions of my course because his attitude was not consistent with what was required for the safety of all involved.

Quite simply the stakes are too high for me to take risks with the safety of my students and those that they spend time with.

The youngest student I have ever taught was 3 years old.  It was my own daughter and she was and still is an incredibly intelligent and responsible young lady.  Interestingly enough, my second daughter will have her fourth birthday soon and she has yet to recieve any real instruction.  She simply isnt ready.

Outside of my own children, I have worked with many kids from age 7 and up.  Parents motivations varied in each situation and so did the instruction that children recieved. 

I feel very strongly that trying to hide things from your children is probably a bad idea.  Instead, I encourage most parents to deal with difficult topics in a head on fashion.  Guns are one of those difficult topics.  Our intuition may tell us that we can keep our children safe by sheltering them, however, I feel that the exact opposite is true.  The fact is that we cannot be in control of our children at all times.  Even if we are certain to store firearms properly in our home so that they are inaccesable to unautorized users, how can we guarantee that our extended family, friends and parents of our children's friends will do the same?  Plain and simple we cannot.

In my opinion ALL CHILDREN, even from families that do not have guns in their homes need to train their children how to handle a situation when they come across a firearm that is improperly stored.  The Eddie The Eagle Program can help prepare your kids and the steps are simple:

1. STOP!
2. DON'T TOUCH
3. LEAVE THE AREA
4. TELL AN ADULT

Youngsters who are able to understand the importance of these rules show the maturity to progress to the rules for safe use of firearms.  Only after we have progressed to this point can we move on tho the actual use of the firearm.

The decision to make firearms a part of your personal safety plan means that we must give serious pause to all of the consequences even those unintended consequences we would rather just not think about.  How we handle firearms education with our children must be at the forefront of our safety considerations when it comes to the defensive handgun.

My answer here covered a lot of ground and may not have driven in the direction you were hoping Trasker.  Please feel free to ask a follow up question if you would like more specifics.  In addition, you can find more information on this topic at my website, http://www.SafetySolutionsAcademy.com

Thanks for your time and have a great day!

Have you ever shot anyone? What were the circumstances?

Asked by jay cee about 11 years ago

Jay Cee,

Thankfully, no.

Thanks for answering my other question, especially in so detailed a fashion! One more: do you have a moral problem with the kinds of bullets that are designed to shatter on impact so cause the max internal damage? Seems kinda barbaric.

Asked by UIT about 11 years ago

UIT- I think the type of bullets you are referring to are frangible rounds.  Glaser is a brand of frangible rounds and they are marketed as "Safety Slugs."  The purpose of the round is to minimize collateral damage.  For example the safety slug is designed to desintigrate inside of a soft target like human tissue so that it cannot over penetrate and strike another person if the bullet passes completely through.

In addition, if the bullet strikes a hard surface such as drywall inside a home it also shatters into tiny fragments and dissipates the majority of its energy into the wall.  Again, the idea being that it will not penetrate into another room and injure someone unintentionally.

The issue with frangible rounds is the lack luster terminal performance.  The rounds do not perform as well when it comes to stopping lethal threats as other ammunition such as bonded hollow point bullets.

Although it may seem barbaric the purpose of the round is actually a noble one.  Unfortunately the performance doesn't match the concept at this time.

Great question again UIT.  Please keep them coming and stop by http://www.SafetySolutionsAcademy.com for more information on topics like these!