First, I apologize for the somewhat vague title, but I did not know exactly what to call this thread, so I think that I'll go with what I have.
That out of the way, as I said in another thread on an incident in Kansas, the thread in question brought forth an interesting discussion on something else. That is the question of drawing and shooting; that is, do you shoot if you draw?
There seem to be two main schools of thought on this:
1) This is the position that you only draw your weapon with the intent of using it if you have to. If the bad guy sees your weapon and that you are determined to use it if you have to and he backs off, then the gun has defended you successfully.
2) The second position holds that you should never draw your weapon unless you are about to shoot. If you draw your weapon and you don't shoot, you should not have drawn the weapon in the first place. One person in the Kansas thread even said that by drawing and not shooting, that you are brandishing.
The well-known Western marshall Bill Tilghman allegedly took this stance after an encounter with some drunks. One private message to me likened the second position to the purported Samurai custom of not putting away an unbloodied sword.
On the other hand most police agencies don't take this postion, as I have seen Wichita police making a felony car stop. And their guns were drawn. I imagine that it is rare for an officer to have any time on the job, and for him/her not to have pointed their service weapons at suspects. Yet most cops go through their whole careers without having to shoot anyone. And the same laws of deadly force govern both police and civilians.
I have been to LFI. Massad Ayoob taught us that if we draw the gun and the bad guy breaks off his attack, then that is it. Your next act should be to report what happened to the police or sheriff.
My view is in line that that of Ayoob.
Besides, with the gun in your hand, you will be able to respond faster than you would if you were drawing it from a holster.
What do you all think?
That out of the way, as I said in another thread on an incident in Kansas, the thread in question brought forth an interesting discussion on something else. That is the question of drawing and shooting; that is, do you shoot if you draw?
There seem to be two main schools of thought on this:
1) This is the position that you only draw your weapon with the intent of using it if you have to. If the bad guy sees your weapon and that you are determined to use it if you have to and he backs off, then the gun has defended you successfully.
2) The second position holds that you should never draw your weapon unless you are about to shoot. If you draw your weapon and you don't shoot, you should not have drawn the weapon in the first place. One person in the Kansas thread even said that by drawing and not shooting, that you are brandishing.
The well-known Western marshall Bill Tilghman allegedly took this stance after an encounter with some drunks. One private message to me likened the second position to the purported Samurai custom of not putting away an unbloodied sword.
On the other hand most police agencies don't take this postion, as I have seen Wichita police making a felony car stop. And their guns were drawn. I imagine that it is rare for an officer to have any time on the job, and for him/her not to have pointed their service weapons at suspects. Yet most cops go through their whole careers without having to shoot anyone. And the same laws of deadly force govern both police and civilians.
I have been to LFI. Massad Ayoob taught us that if we draw the gun and the bad guy breaks off his attack, then that is it. Your next act should be to report what happened to the police or sheriff.
My view is in line that that of Ayoob.
Besides, with the gun in your hand, you will be able to respond faster than you would if you were drawing it from a holster.
What do you all think?
