Gentle reader et all
WARNING
This is about guns and the rules of engagement - meaning when they can be used, and the moral and human realities of carrying a gun for self defense. There is some strong language and stronger sentiment, but as my wife told me today - I am sensitive and emotional and that may be a deadly combination.

Since guns, defending ones self from 2 and 4 legged animals, light weight ammo have been topics. And we have discussed the legal issues - which most of us are not qualified to discuss BTW. Somehow the ethics and Rules of engagement have not been brought up. No military can move in enemy territory without rules of ebgagement, or everyone would die. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

You can't walk down a street with a concealed weapon and think that you have the moral right to use it just because you have a legal right to carry it. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> If someone does something that offends you, you may not brandish your weapon just because you have one and you think you are in danger. Likewise you cannot shoot someone for being wierd or maybe being offensive. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I do own guns and I do know how to use them - I can shoot a fly off'n a plate of grits at 100 feet and you say which eye to hit. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> seriuosly <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> BUT I only rarely carry a gun, because under the wrong circumstances I would use it. Under the wrong circumstances someone meaning no real bad would be dead. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

People see glorified killing and shooting on tv and are insensitive to what it means to kill something and seeing its [ a former human who someone loved] formerly alive body splatted with blood miles from nowhere. You're gonna have a real tough time with a jury. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

The only thing I can reccommend is a licensed qualified handgun course that teaches more about when not to draw a weapon than about how to kill someone.

I understand hunting and I understand the need for game management, BUT - theres a photo at the local sportsman shop of the manager with huge grin sitting on seven dead coyotes. I understand the need for game management , but I'd like hit him in the teeth with a ball bat - once for each life that he gleefully took. He could have atleast been solemn. So yeh I suppose if I ran into him in the woods and he shot my dog, and I had a gun, he would never see the sunset. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> I'm not proud of saying that. Its why I don't carry. I know I never miss and if I draw - somethings gonna die and I've seen things die before and it made me sick. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I encourage any one who might consider carrying a gun to look inwards at themselve first and ask themselves whether they really are mature enough to carry a gun and never want draw it. You must have premeditated concepts of when and under what cirumstance you can draw your gun and never ever do it against your own rules of engagement.

Finally - what makes you think you will be first to shoot - the 1 out of 1.3 bullets fired in the average gun fight. The very few times in my life when I wished for a gun, I was extremely happy that had none. You could precipitate your own death by brandishing a weapon and having someone else shooting you in self defense.

Finally many of our police members will tell you that if you are not DRILLED in the use of firearms, meanig trained AND practiced AND competent, the other guy will be the first bullet, OR you kill an inocent person. worth it? And yeh I was in the NRA what of it? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I often wish that the gun-owning community spent more time discussing this subject than they do defending the Second Amendment.

I have often tried in the past to turn gun discussions into this channel, and always began by stipulating that I accept the Second Amendment and beleive in their right to keep and bear arms. But once that point is settled, then this subject - when does one have a moral right and a rational motive to use their gun - becomes the imperative issue.

I find that when I try to steer this turn in the argument, sadly, it leaves most gun owners vehemently trying to get the argument back to the right to own guns. They feel secure in that argument. They prefer it. It is familiar and they know all the answer by rote. They do not seem nearly as comfortable discussing the responsibility side of the issue. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Since I already accept the right to own guns, this leaves them berating me for a position I don't even hold, to avoid an issue I think is of vital, life-and-death importance. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

So thank you for posting this.

Perhaps, before complete government control was instituted you could shoot a dog killer and get away with it. Your own self defense is no longer in your hands, Jim. You MUST allow the gov to handle these things for you. They might even fine the guy up to $ 50.00 (US) for shooting your beloved dog.
The point I am trying to make is that you have permission to carry a gun - that's it.
You do not have permission to use it - and if you do you know what might happen -jury or no. Eventually we should all get used to the idea that guns are only for target practice in approved locations, and thats it. Be glad they have given you that much freedom and don't push it.
PS your vote doesnt count either, unless you are a super delegate.

First let me state that I am a retired law enforcement officer. Shooting at paper targets and shooting at a human being are very different. The human usually shoots back and usually shoots first if given the chance. Knowing that fine line of when to shoot and when not to shoot is the key point. The seconds it takes for you to make a decision to shoot is nothing compared to the hours and days the attorneys have to try to prove you wrong. I have, and I carry firearms most of the time. I respect those who choose to carry firearms but please, please know when you can and when you cannot use deadly force. Some states have classes on this subject and if your state or county has these classes I urge you to take them.

Jim, I've taken said "licensed qualified handgun courses' and 'hunter safety courses', and shot target for many years. I shoot weekly but haven't hunted in 20 years.
41 states now have a "CCL" (concealed carry license) and to get that license, one must go through a battery of background checks, get double finger printed, take a written test, qualify with 50 shot range test, go through 10-15 hours of classroom work, and pay about $260 for all this. "Non violent conflict resolution" is drilled into license candidates heads, all through the class room study. We learn about 'options', the gun being the last big equalizer.
"Situational awareness" is a big part of the classroom work. It boils down to "deadly force may be used if you fear for your life". And, we don't shoot to kill, we shoot to 'stop'. Shooter training is "center of mass", again, to 'stop'.
The first Texas CCL death happened in Dallas when two motorists bumped mirrors in tight traffic. The shooter was a frail guy, trapped in his car buy a very large, out of control guy, who tried to pull frail guy through his car window. Frail guy got to his weapon and stopped the big guy, who happened to die in the conflict. Turned out, big guy had multiple assault arrests and mental issues. Frail guy was 'no-billed' by the Grand Jury.
Had the tables been turned and frail guy attacked big guy, big guy would now be in jail for manslaughter, had he used his gun in the conflict. The situation matters.
So, to 'stop' another human with deadly force, you must be 100% at the end of your rope, no other options. You are not a policeman, superman, hero guy, or self appointed public guardian. Self defence, period. Third party deadly force is allowed IF life is in jeopardy, again defence. Texas adopted the "Castle Doctrine" where deadly force can be used for theft, at your home. Most folks would rather get new stuff with insurance money, then take a life. You may now carry a concealed handgun in your car in Texas, no license needed.
Between 1995 and 2004, handgun murders in Texas dropped by 18 percent. I think what's happened is that people are being trained, finally. You could call the CCL program a "well organized militia" and because of that training, some people don't carry at all and realize a gun does them no good, however, they come away licensed and trained. Criminals realize that....hey, that guy might have a gun in that car I'm about to carjack. The mere presence of a weapon can change anyone's attitude, 180 degrees, no shots fired. A CCL holder is bound to call 911 if he/she is forced to brandish their weapon to thwart a conflict, and any/all shots must be accounted for, should the weapon be fired.

So, to sum up, if you truly fear for your life, deadly force is justifiable. The courts will get the last say, and you will face them.

Not that I use my guns much, I worry more about am I going to get arrested for transporting a gun correctly and how do I get it from point A to point B legally? I understand now, at least in Kalifornia, the gun and ammo have to be separate, like gun in vehicle and ammo in trunk or back of truck. I don't have to worry about keeping a weapon away from children since I don't have any.

At what point can you shoot someone, someone is in your house, you can't just shoot them until you feel your life is in danger. Over on TT, The Backpacker, Prosecutor had a good post about if you shoot someone, even in the right, don't say anything, let them haul you away and call your lawyer. I can't remember what he said you could say in a few words to the cops, but whatever it was, they would respect you for it, at least if you were in what appeared to be in the right.

Even though I have been around guns since my teens, I haven't been hunting or target shooting enough to feel like a man among other gun toting men. I guess it all comes down to experience, feeling comfortable with a weapon.

In the late 70's, I made friends with a couple guys who grew up hunting and the few times I went out hunting with them, when we flushed a bird, they had a shot off before I had my shotgun off safety. I got the bird a couple times, when they missed, I got the second go round in.

Very good points Rich. Paper does not shoot back and stands still waiting to be shot.

If you are going to carry a firearm it is your responsibility to know the rules.

The first place to start is your state law. There is no excuse for not knowing the laws. They are available at any library and on line.

Next there may by local laws and ordinances, check those out too.

If you use a firearm on someone or someone's animal, you may conceivably be clear of criminal liability, but can still be sued civilly. In civil court the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff only needs to prove their case 51 percent to prevail. Legal costs and damages, should you lose, can be astronomical.

The criminal codes often define terms like "reasonable force" "necessary force" etc. Your actions, motivations and everything else will be scrutinized in court later and these definitions and the laws will be held up against the actions that you took. Decisions in lethal force situations are often made in a split second. There is usually little or no time to ponder complex issues in a lethal force situation. There is no time for moral weighing if you want to prevail in defending yourself. You will be judged by people sitting in comfortable offices and courtrooms months or years later. They will have all the time in the world to consult law books, case studies and examine what you did or didn't do in that cold and lonely place where someone was trying to kill you.

Trained law enforcement officers have to regularly qualify with their weapons and be well versed in state law and their department policy. When they survive lethal force encounters they often don't even remember the specifics of their actions (like reloading their weapon under stress), but they fell back on their training during the incident. Their actions were autonomic due to constant practice and repetition. Attorneys for the plaintiffs often attempt to attack the officer's credibility on these issues. The officers must be cleared of criminal, civil and departmental scrutiny. If you choose to arm yourself, you must be well trained in the legal aspects of using force as well as the proper and proficient use of the weapon.

There are many private vendors who can and will provide this training to the private citizen. These courses are costly and some are better than others. Check references and do research. If you can document your training it might be helpful in later legal proceedings should you ever be in the position where you must use your weapon.

Some may ask, "Why a gun?" The answer is that it is not the universal answer. That is why the police have other force options like impact weapons, OC spray, Tasers, control holds and verbal commands. In a violent potentially lethal attack the goal of the victim should be to incapacitate (not kill, but that is often a side effect) the attacker as soon as possible to stop the attack. The quickest way to incapacitate a highly motivated attacker is to disrupt the brain function with a piece of lead moving at a high enough velocity to enter the cranial vault. Short of that you are in the position of waiting for the attacker's blood pressure to drop significantly from wounds or for them to make the mental decision to give up after feeling the pain of a lesser force option. There are many documented cases of suspects killing people after being mortally wounded, thus the need for quick incapacitation.

I believe very strongly that law abiding citizens have the natural right to defend themselves and others from criminal attack or from animal attack. There is nothing morally wrong with defending yourself and no government should interfere with that right. With this right comes great responsibility for which you will be held accountable.

Disclaimer
This is just an opinion and personal observations, not legal advice. I am not an attorney. If you have specific questions about legality, consult the laws and talk to an attorney.

Jim, I agree with most of what you say, but my concern is with the end statement. It touches on the one area I see anti-gun advocates use time and time again. You're not quite there, but are close.

The idea is the fear-mongering argument that a gun will do you no good because you aren't trained well enough to use it to protect. There seems an undercurrent that every criminal (or sadly, just plain fool in some cases) is a commando whose only purpose is to outgun you.

This simply isn't the case. In most cases, urban criminals have little or no actual training with the weapons they carry. Granted, this makes them most dangerous to the bystanders that were never the actual target in a shooting, but it also begins to debunk the idea that "having a gun does you no good, and you will likely die from your own weapon if you carry one."

Yes, if an adversary has the drop on you in the midst of a robbery, the wisest move is give him what he demands, but this does NOT mean your weapon remains utterly useless in all settings. The previously mentioned incident in Texas shows the truth of this.

I often hear that just because you've attended a CCL course and fired many rounds at the range, this doesn't make you prepared for real shooting against a living target. Granted, there is a difference, and I know it first hand. But if training isn't enough then logic says there are only two alternatives: passively be victimized or seek out a shootout with NO training. Neither are acceptable alternatives. For the law-abiding citizen, training is the ONLY thing which can bring him or her anywhere near preparedness. I find it much desirable my loved ones have SOME training rather than none, even if they are not able to obtain regular training every weekend or within the context of their professional life.

Based on the accounts from the death of Meredith Emerson, I suspect that if she had been carrying, she may well have survived her encounter in the north Georgia hills. She fought visciously against her assailant, according to his confession, but was much smaller and unable to ultimately fend him off. No one can say with certainly a firearm would have made the diference, but to say it certainly would have made NO difference plays into a tired, faulty argument from the anti-gun constituency.

Bearpaw
I certainly agree with your sentiment but this is NOT an antigun thread. NOT. This is - ok now we have guns - now do we have a really serious plan for using it?
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> In fact please do not hijack this thread into a pro or anti gun arguement. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> This is about resonsible gun usage if you already have one - thank you. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Personally:
I think there should be more guns in homes and people should fear breaking and entering. Certainly here in Central Orygun every body has guns [and dogs] and you would be crazy to break into a house with someone home. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

But using a gun in your home is not the subject of this forum , nor is gun ownership- its camping. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> and if you do carry camping - are you prepared?

Besides the supreme court decision in DC pretty much gives you want in interpretation of the second amendment. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I'm simply looking to prevent others from taking the same old line I've heard far too many times, a line designed specifically to frighten citizens into not carrying.

As for when, the obvious answer is when absolutely necessary. Except when hunting or as a Marine, I don't carry in the backcountry. But in light of the occasional incident, particularly regarding women, I would not oppose their carrying when hiking solo. I'm speaking in regard to two-legged predators of course.

But when? When facing threat of imminent harm. Should one brandish? Only if one is about to use the weapon and they brandish as they draw and fire. Of course the previous posts principally address the issues involved frontcountry issues. The idea that one must immediately dial 911 when using a weapon must be amended to "one must [as soon as possible] contact authorities when using a weapon".

The real key is that particulars vary from state to state. They also vary in terms of the make-up of those who would sit on a jury. A reasonable case of self-defense would not likely result in criminal or civil conviction in the rural areas of Tennessee though things would be much dicier in a courtroom in downtown Nashville. It would be worth bearing this in mind before heading into the backcountry in various regions. I would be less inclined to use a weapon in the Sierras than in the region around Big Bend (outside the park) in Texas.

So when? In circumstances where one decides it is better to fire and risk court/jail than be assaulted and possibly killed.

Beyond this point, you could discuss regional peculiarities, but I wonder if we'll see much discussion to add to the debate.

Two reasons I made the above statement....
1) if you had to un-conceal your handgun, the incident must be extremely serious and therefore must be reported, quickly.
2) There are 'incidents' where a 'brandishing incident' happened where the two actors went their separate ways. Attack-er called the authorities and reported an "old man drawing a gun on me at the 7-11 gas pump!" Attack-ee was arrested and held. 7-11's security cameras told the real story, and attack-er was arrested. (again, turned out to be a known suspect with outstanding warrants). Had there been no security cameras or witnesses, attackee would have been charged and attack-er would be free to attack again. Call the police, immediately!

The Meredith Emerson incident, I believe, was un-defendable (by Meredith). I suggest she was 'schmoozed' into confidence, no different than Ted Bundy's victims. So, carrying a weapon won't protect you from being 'sniped' or 'con'd'. Would she have been justified to use deadly force? No. Right up until she turned her back, then it was to late.

If you fear for your life, you may use any force up to deadly force. It's an option. A civilian and LEO have a different set of criteria in which to decide. A civilian isn't an "officer of the court" or "professional witness of the state". A civilian's only available action is to 'defend' themselves.
The mantra, "When seconds count, help is only minutes away.", is the thinking behind civilian deadly force.

Actually, in Gary Hilton's confession, some of which has been publicized, he says the initial blow did not kill Meredith Emerson, who then fought very visciously to defend herself but was eventually overwhelmed. It is possible that had she been carrying the weapon in a fanny pack or similar concealed location, she may still not have been able to bring it to bear. Then again, she may have, and the results might have been dramatically different.

A great deal also depends on the demeanor of possible assailants. Having spent a great deal of time within the hiking community, particularly the eastern hiking community, there are definitely certain norms that you pick up on. Often, they simply serve to note that someone is a novice to backpacking, but other times, they raise red flags that a person is not out there to backpack at all. We often hear the advice to pay attention to those instincts that tell us someone is not quite right.

In such a case as deadly force, this is critical, particularly as it pertains to accessing a weapon if necessary. The extra notice that such cues provide can make the few moments difference in successfully resisting an attack. Slightly opening the fannypack/safepacker or whatever holster device is in use when suspicions are aroused (without actually exposing the weapon to others' view) could literally make all the difference in the world, your world.

Jim,

The three S's are the code of the west.

Shoot,

Shovel,

Shut-up.

The "rule" is that you should not shoot anything you are not willing to bury. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I have to wonder if she saw or suspected the first blow. That's the part I doubt. Somewhere in that incident, she got too close, for whatever reason. Looking at that old coot monster, she could have out run him easily. He ain't going to out run the prison homeys!

And the 'fanny pack' carry option....that's why I started the 'ultra-lite carry' thread last month. With some of the new and tiny .380's, .22 mags, 9's and .38's, front pocket carry is very possible. Keeping a hand in the pocket is quicker and less of a tip-off than a hand in the fanny pack. I still do the fanny pack thing but am trying to get away from it by downsizing.
Working in my park, yup, you can certainly get a sense of what people are about, sometimes long before they know you are there. Gotta keep the radar up, stay aware, AND KEEP YOUR DISTANCE!!! Then the gun won't see the light of day and a choice to 'stop' an attacker isn't part of the thought process.

Lets look at it another way. Are you mature enough to be raped and murdered? Are you mature enough to be killed and eaten? Are you mature enough to watch your pet dog killed and eaten?

Through no fault of your own, are you mentally and morally prepared to be a victim?

Now flip things back again. I carry a medical kit, even though I never use it. I carry jumper cables and tire chains in my truck even though neither have been removed from their original packages. I carry a fire extinguisher in my truck too and yet I have never, ever come upon an accident where it is needed.

I'm not a trained and licensed paramedic, firefighter or mechanic. But with my fire extinguisher I can put out a small gasoline fire before it becomes an inferno. Without it I can only stand back and watch.

A firearm is a tool for projecting lethal force. If you need to kill something a firearm is the best way to do it. With a firearm, a 115lb woman can kill a 115lb wolf that is killing her dog, or she can kill a 250 man who is bent on raping and killing her. Without the firearm she can only stand back and watch. Or die.

Do you need a little training to use a fire extinguisher effectively? Yes, at least read the instructions on the label. Do you need a little training to use those jumper cables? Yes, but it is hardly rocket-science. Do you need a little training on how to use a firearm? Yes, a little, but they are pretty simple.

Do you need to decide whether or not you want to be a victim? Yes, because that will determine if you have a medical kit, tire chains, jumper cables, fire extinguisher and a firearm.

I don't normally partake in these discussions, but you bring up some really good points that I agree with Jim. A little background on me is that I am a gun advocate and own several guns. I also had a concealed carry permit at one time. Normally I don't carry nor do I keep loaded guns around in my house. My guns are unloaded under lock and key 99% of the time. I use them solely for target practice and collecting.

Why? Why would I have guns for no apparent use? Well, for me it goes back to the concealed carry permit. As others have already indicated one has to go through a course and pay quite a bit to get one of these permits. I did it just to "exercise my right to bear arms". I am glad I did it because the class really opened my eyes to the consequences of shooting someone. This lead to some deep reflection on whether or not I could actually do it, and do it knowing I did it because I had to. I came to the conclusion that I didn't feel comfortable that I would make the right decision in a situation like that. Thus, I don't carry or keep a loaded gun around the house.

I think that's what all gun owners need to do. If you have put detailed thought into the consequences of shooting someone, and feel like you can make a good unclouded decision to do so under duress then go ahead and carry. I just think too many people haven't put this type of thought into it. Who knows, maybe one day I will change my mind and carry.

I also believe as others have said that if you are gonna draw it then use it. I fully believe that drawing a weapon to "scare" someone is a bad idea, and too many people have been shot with their own guns.

> I also believe as others have said that if you are gonna draw it then use it.
> I fully believe that drawing a weapon to "scare" someone is a bad idea

You don't draw a weapon to scare someone away, you only draw if your intention is to fire. HOWEVER, if in drawing it you do in fact scare them away, you do not fire. That is what actually happens the majority of the time.

I totally agree with that. Just implying you have a weapon with body language will deter many bad guys.

I would never provoke a robbery into a life or death situation even if I was threatened with a gun. I've been flat out broke and homeless so losing material things doesn't scare me a bit.

I've been profiled by the police and totally shook down and searched. That's as humiliating to me as being robbed, but I wouldn't provoke an officer either.

I have met people who are soulless though, (one is doing life in an Oregon prison for raping two women and killing one of them) and I understand that they will kill without remorse.

Just for the record, I don't own a real gun, but I am totally confident that if I did have one I would not brandish it unless I was prepared to use it, I would not shoot to kill ( a human), but I would keep shooting until the threat was completely diminished. If that resulted in their death, oh well. A baseball bat, heavy blunt object, or even a few knuckle punches to the adams apple will yield a similar result. I prefer those options to a gun for self defense, that's mainly why I don't own one.

If you're in a situation where you HAVE to fight for your life (or the life of a loved one), taking a life becomes an option. That's the only time it's an option. That's pretty simple. Jury decisions are not so simple, but that would never even enter my mind in the heat of the battle.

Bill

Shoot, shovel, shut up?

ah, food, this may sound cute to you, but it is sayings like this which undermine all respect for the idea that gun owners are willing to be responsible members of society. Sure, you can say it. You can laugh at it. But the subject is killing, the joke seems a bit hollow.

Like it or not, you are enmeshed in society. You derive a thousand benefits every day from the good will and hard work of thousands of other people, often people you've never met. The laws of society protect you in more ways than you could ever know or count. The willingness of other citizens to band together and tax themselves for the public good is the reason why you live the life you do.

When you pretend you are a cowboy in an empty, lawless land, beholden to none and a law unto yourself you are engaged in a fantasy life. Please do not let these fantasies of shooting, shoveling and shutting up become real anywhere near me or anyone I love. Thank you.

a 115lb woman can kill a 115lb wolf that is killing her dog

How interesting. I haven't been aware of an epidemic of wolves eating housepets. The last I heard, they were endangered in the lower 48 states, and totally missing in Hawaii.

However, if a wolf ever were to come careening out of the trees and pounce on a that lady's dog, I do not doubt that firing a gun at the wolf would at least get the wolf's attention. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Sorry, but any 250 man trying to rape me is in for a surprise. I have no doubts that I could and would poke his eye out, break his fingers, or do some serious damage to something he values. I don't need your firearms, thanks. He'd probably get it from me, and THEN I'd be in trouble, because I'd be facing a large ARMED man. Guns make me nervous and you need to not be, to use one effectively. Better the unarmed man who I can throw over my shoulder and knock his gonads into his chest cavity.

As long as you educate yourself adequately the forest should not be a scary place. There will always be risk but I feel more at risk walking around my home town than I do in the Sierras. More muggers, rapists, car thieves and gang members here. They don't have the right shoes/gear to follow me into the mountains; those saggy drawers trip 'em up every time.

For the last few weeks, gray wolves have been delisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains (Idaho, Montana & Wyoming) and have been delisted in the Mid-West for quite some time.

Based on the frequent takings, they seem to be defacto delisted in AZ and NM.

aimless,

Not meant to be cute. The use of deadly force is like changing a diaper. It is not a pleasant task, but it does need to be done. I do not trust someone that is not up to the job nor do I trust someone that enjoys the job.

I wish we could rely on government services or even the goodwill of our neighbors to keep us and our property safe.

I do not believe deadly force against a human is appropriate to protect property, but IS appropriate against an animal. The topic was "rules of engagment." In my youth some neighborhood dogs began running in a pack. Mind mannered pets in the day and a pack animal at night. We tried hazing with noise including shots. We called animal control and were told they did not have the resources to help. We knocked on all the doors in the nighborhood and discussed the problem. We recognized several of the dogs during these visits and were met with firm denial. The final solution IS shoot, shovel and shut-up.

Check with your local police department about enforcement of TROs. Sorry, but sometimes our society is unable to do what needs to be done.

I DO believe in the rule of law. That is the reason that my state has a "make my day" law.

I've got news for you - Hollywood is fake. Gennifer Garner couldn't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. Size does matter when it comes to hand-to-hand combat. To think otherwise is to be paddling on the river Denial.

Attitude is probably the key ingredient to surviving an attack, so your will to fight is a very good thing. Your statement "I don't need your firearms" is true because of the statistical improbability of your being attacked, not because of your notion that the size mismatch isn't important.

Given the stats, I don't think there is a thing wrong with your chosing not to take advantage of the tool known as "gun". But, if you are the unlucky one, like that lady killed a couple months back by the 62yr old geezer, oh well.

As others have noted, they are delisted. In Idaho, munching the family pet is the second biggest interaction problem with Wolves, the first being killing of livestock. So yes, wolves will attack and kill Fido simply because Fido is another canine and isn't part of the pack. Wolves kill coyotes for the same reason.

I spent some time last year with Idaho wolves and there were zero coyotes. It was strange to hear the deep-voiced howling at dusk instead of the high-pitching yipping. And Idaho has specifically allowed pet owners to blow away wolves that are trying to munch their "kick me" dogs.

So far, there has been much talk here about how "I would have no reservations about shooting someone who was endangering me or mine". This is probably true; it certainly would be in my case. What hasn't been discussed is the actual physical and mental state of a person involved in a social shooting. Nor, has there been much mention of the likely aftermath.

When an untrained person is in an extreme "fight-or-flight" situation there are predictable mental and physical changes that occur as a consequence of adrenaline released into the bloodstream. The same changes occur with trained people but they know how to work around them. One change is "tunnel vision"; you only look at the threat. The bad guy could have an accomplice standing next to you with a raised machete and you won't see them. Another is that your hearing disappears; another is that your motor skills drop to near zero and your IQ drops about 50 points. And, you shake like a dog sh!tting a peach seed. In a situation like this, the only thing that will save you is thorough, repetitious, almost Pavlovian training. Your reactions can't involve conscious thought; they need to be instinctive. That is why most progressive law enforcement agencies and special operations organizations spend so much money and effort training their people on target identification, determining what is behind the target, shooting under stress and all of the other elements important in use of deadly force. Even then, trained officers make mistakes. And, if I recall, nationwide, in officer involved shootings, about eight shots are fired on average for each hit. The average untrained individual is much less competent in such circumstances. Range shooting does not even come close to preparing one for use of deadly force.

Assuming you are the victor in a shooting, your ordeal has most likely just begun. First, the police will treat you as a criminal. To them, until investigation shows otherwise, you are just someone who has shot someone else; you won't get any "attaboys" for blowing away the person who was threating your life. You will most likely be interrogated at length regarding your knowledge of the person you shot, the circumstances of the shooting and anything else that they are curious about. You will likely be suspected of being involved in drugs or drug trafficking. If all elements of the investigation point to a justifiable shooting, then they will probably not charge you with any of the possible degrees of homicide. But, if the evidence is inconclusive, you may be charged with homicide.

However, if you are not charged as a criminal, you are still open to civil action for "wrongful death" or similar charges. Here, the criteria for guilt or innocence is "the preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt". For civil action, you are not entitled to the help of a public defender, you have to hire your own attorney. There may be private investigators you need to hire as well as expert witnesses. It gets expensive in a hurry.

As an example, my son lives in Tucson and has an acquaintance who was involved in a home-invasion shooting. He is a computer jock of some sort and not a particularly intimidating guy. He was at home one evening; his wife and kids were, fortunately, visiting relatives in Prescott. About 9:00 pm three males arrived at his front door initially pounding on the door and finally starting to kick the door in. The guy grabbed his 12-gage autoloader when the ruction started and stuffed three quail loads into it finishing just about the time the door flew open and the three guys came after him with pistols in their hands. He emptied the shotgun into the three, killing two and ending the sex life of the third. He then called 911, went out on the front porch and waited for the police to arrive.

When the police arrived, the situation I described above could have been used as a script. He was "on-the-ground, hands-out-in-front"ed, handcuffed and placed in a squad car while the police searched his house. They found a small amount of weed in the dresser but nothing more. He was taken to jail, interrogated for hours, accused of being involved in drug and illegal immigrant trafficking and probably mopery and dopery as well. He spent three days in custody before he was released and was on tenterhooks until the shooting was ruled justifiable a month later. About two months after that, he was sued in civil court for wrongful death by the survivors of those he had shot and injured. The case was eventually dismissed but not until he had spent about $50,000 in legal fees.

He is still traumatized by the experience. He is a gentle person and the knowledge he has killed people really troubles him; enough that he is in counseling. Also, his experiences with the legal system have made him into a truly negative person; his wife has left him taking the kids and he agrees with her decision. He is not fit to be around.

All of this because three lowlife punks got the wrong address.

Note in your scenario that the fellow is still alive. I'm guessing he feels that counts for something. Yes, life and death struggles are tough things to have to live through. Better than the alternative, though.

This came out today......it was discussed on another thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/17/pilot.gun/index.html

Moral to the story........

"Keep yer booger hook off the bang button!!"

I started to insert a laughing imoticon. But this is NOT funny!

Hector
Actually brandishing a weapon, especially a shiny stainless steel one so people can see it - IS A POPULAR CONCEPT - but as said - someone who actually is a bad guy might see you playing with your gun and shoot you. My guns are all black. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> When I do carry camping in lion country I carry a large frame .44 in an exposed shoulder holster. Its a Dirty Harry long barrel. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> It has quite an effect on passing hikers... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> but its legal and trust me, no one is ever rude to me on the trail... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I feel that a gun like this carried exposed is simply a hunting weapon. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> I make no attempt to hide it or to act funny when I see people. I simply ignore the guns presence. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I find it interesting that people want to conceal their guns in the backcountry. This makes little sense to me. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> Of course I live in Central Orygun where everybody has 3 guns 2 dogs and peecup. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Just cause somebody is carrying a gun don't mean nothing unless they look like a street person. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Pika,

The use of deadly force is never my first choice. But Jim's question was actually the protocol prior to the use of deadly force.

I learned as a youngster that everyone gets hurt in a fight, but it is better to be the winner than the loser. I do not claim a PTSD immunity.

In the situation you describe it was a mistake to talk to the police. You talk to the police when there is a purpose. The one armed man would not have escaped because the guy did not talk to them. There was a benefit to the guy to force the police to do a thorough investigation before he talked to them.

It is difficult to proceed with a civil lawsuit until after the criminal case has been resolved.

Lori
quote
Sorry, but any 250 man trying to rape me is in for a surprise. I have no doubts that I could and would poke his eye out, break his fingers, or do some serious damage to something he values. I don't need your firearms, thanks. He'd probably get it from me, and THEN I'd be in trouble, because I'd be facing a large ARMED man. Guns make me nervous and you need to not be, to use one effectively. Better the unarmed man who I can throw over my shoulder and knock his gonads into his chest cavity."
_____________________________________

Thank you Lori. I too do not require a gun to feel safe from any threat I run into. I have chased off Javelina and mtn lions and bears. I don't need no stinking gun to do that. I am simply not a victim and I don't have to make a decision about wheter I want to either carry a gun or be murdered. I do not live in fear. A gun does not help me when I am afraid unless I am staring down a long barrel at a large animal whispering "please don't make me pull the trigger".

Too many people assume that if you don't have a gun you will become a victim. Consider that most ghetto deaths are ghetto people gunning each other down when the other guy is armed. Being unarmed can make you a live victim vs a dead one. OR being armed can make you dead victim as well. I don't think I need to know hand to hand combat, I simply need to have a relaxed profile that says "I know something you don't and you should be worried about that". I have actually had someone about to punch my lights out [bar fight]that I simply stared calmly in the eye while I am thinking "I am James Bond and if you nterfere with my mission I shall have to sanction you", this guy backs off holding his hands protectively before him saying "sorry mister". Being a victim is a lot more than not having a gun. Half of the gunfighters in the old west lost... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> as do half of the people who victimise others who carry.
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

First, there is a movement in various states to prohibit wrongfull death suits for a justifiable shoot.

Second, for every dope-smoking person overwhelmingly traumatized, there are many more who aren't. Believe it or not, surviving the fight deserves a little end-zone dance.

Third, the criminal justice system favors the good guys over the bad guys. The problem is that the civil law system doesn't make the loser pay. This is one area where the British got it right.

Lastly, I would rather be saddled with $50K of legal fee debt than depart this world without a fight. I'm worth it.

Nearly 1 in 5 troops has mental problems after war service

Must all be smoking dope...

Bill

> Actually brandishing a weapon, especially a shiny stainless steel one so people can see
> it - IS A POPULAR CONCEPT - but as said - someone who actually is a bad guy might
> see you playing with your gun and shoot you.

I guess I somehow wasn't clear; I'll try again. You do not pull your weapon unless you intend to shoot. However, if you pull your weapon and the other party turns and runs you don't go ahead and plug them in the back. You are not obligated by having drawn your weapon to carry through if the threat evaporates with a scream, the smell of filling pants and a beating of frightened feet.

In fact, that is usually what happens when someone draws a gun in self-defense with the intention to fire -- the other party is immediately convinced that vacating the area at the highest possible speed is the smartest action and takes off as fast as they can go.

Now, to your other points. I've had exactly one person behave rudely on a trail, and that was a mountain biker on a trail that didn't permit mountain bikes. He seemed to think I should relinquish the right-of-way, which I somehow failed to do, being a rather tired and slow old fart at the end of a long day. He said his little piece and sped away. I plodded on.

I do not normally carry when hiking, but don't mind if others do. Of course, if they carry concealed it doesn't matter what concerns others. Not my place to make their choice in that regard for them, so I don't worry about it.

I don't care whether they like blued guns or parkerized guns or nickeled guns or stainless guns. I don't care if they're carrying to protect themselves against wildlife or people or both. I only care about their actions and attitudes, and if they know how far it is to the next water, and how's that piece of gear there workin' out for ya? I've made some friends out walking in the woods. Some of them were carrying, some weren't. Didn't matter to me as long as they were good people.

And to get back to your original post, saying "you have little chance in a bad situation even if you have a gun" is not impressive to me, since you have virtually no chance without one in that bad situation. If you want to train and carry responsibly, glad to have you around. After all, it's good guys with guns who stop the bad guys with guns; the more of 'em the better.

food, I thank you for the added context. There is no way on earth I (or another person) could have understood your remarks in that light, without your placing them into that framework.

It would seem that the actual "code of the west" you recommend we live by could be phrased as:

- try nonviolence (hazing) and if that doesn't work,
- try persuasion (talking to neighbors) and if that doesn't work,
- try contacting the authorities (animal control) and if that doesn't work,
- shoot, but only if it's an animal, or if it is a human, only if it's matter of self-defense from imminent harm.
- shovel, but only if it's an animal, because if it's a human, you'd better notify the police,
- and shut up.

Not as catchy, but a whole lot more reasonable and less likely to be misunderstood. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Size matters in wrestling. It's much less a factor when your fighting hand to hand for your life. Speed and accuracy, knowing how to dodge and duck, knowing how to injure someone, ripping, biting and slashing when grabbed, these make a difference then. There are lots hurt and dead big guys that have learned that too late.

A hard kick to the knee will slow down most big guys instantly. Take your choice, they're usually both bad. A thumb poked deep in the eye socket is pretty debilitating too. After that you can pretty much have your way with them, I don't care how big they are.

I'm a small guy, 145 lbs, big guys don't scare me, I've always been small. You learn to compensate. I've known some pretty tough women, and I've known some pretty mean women too, I know they never gave a thought to how big a guy was when they started whupping up on them, especially when is was for self defense.

Bill

I honestly don't see that he had a choice. He had two dead guys laying in the middle of his living room floor and another (presumably) rolling around whining about his missing male member. What else could he do? The neighbors were probably wondering what was going on; perhaps someone had already called the police. I suspect that he did the only thing he could do.

Besides being irrelevant, I don't think you have any factual basis for your assertion. There is an old saying that you should never judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Have you?

I guess I choose to disagree with you on this but then I haven't the experience in surviving gunfights that you seem to be claiming.

This reply is to clarify what you posted. First of all I think you are saying that it is unwise to brandish a firearm to scare someone. I totally agree with you on that point. However, I disagree with your statement and the idea "if you are going to draw it use it." I think a better way to look at it is... If you are going to draw it, be prepared and intend to use it if you need to."

Most lethal threat encounters are quick and violent, but there is always the moment between clearing the holster, putting the sights on target (if you are trained to do so, hopefully you are) and pressing the trigger. So a person can conceivably draw a weapon, and the situation change. Such as the person turns and runs, or the "gun" he was pointing at you is really a cell phone. All this is predicated on the context of the situation and events leading up to the decision to unholster.

So, no, I don't think there is a mandate to use the weapon if it is drawn. There is danger in this thinking. It is not the case that "If the blade is drawn it must taste blood."

This is not to advocate brandishing a firearm. That would be tactically unsound practice and demonstrate poor judgement, however, I don't think that it is wise to make an ultimatum that "if you are going to draw it use it." To reduce this to the absurd, every time I unholster my pistol I have to crank off a round before I re-holster? I am guessing this is not what you intend to say.

There are many accounts of the decision being made to shoot and as the slack on the trigger is being taken up the situation changes and the trigger stroke is not completed.

I'm one of those guys who survived being shot at Bill. I don't smoke dope. And I'm very glad to be alive, enough that I did my own version of an end-zone dance every time I got back from an imminent-danger area.

Personally, I find the term "mental problems" for understandable anxiety a gross exaggeration BTW.

At first I was thinking you were talking about that really bad sitcom on CBS, and then maybe something more to do with that set of rules surrounding the whole proposal thing, with the ring and all, and the laws & attorneys that are involved when you break up and try to get it back or not give it back.

But then I realized that this was really just another gun thread, and reading the responses, I get the feeling that even when you're on that side of the packing issue, there's still lots of room for disagreement, to the point where this is starting to look like High Noon, and I was about to go duck behind a barrel or a horse trough while everyone shot it out.

The style and philosphy of the martial art wing chun is most appropriate to mention at this point. Legend of its history is that is was developed by a woman of small stature for the sole purpose of defeating a larger man. What I find most fascinating is the "ready position" or "fighting stance" is not typical. It is relaxed and calm and seems to draw ones opponent into a false sense of security. This is of course part of the effectiveness. The initial "moves" in the martial art are as were mentioned in an earlier post... attacks to the eyes, throat and genitals... the center line if you will.

Dryer, that is a good point.
I've heard a LEO urge his audience to 'be the victim' if there is an incident, you call first and be the victim. It helps in the paperwork.

I've also heard LEO urge, even though displaying a weapon can stop some situations from escalating, it is a very dangerous thing to do. Really, if you don't have enough justification to draw and shoot, don't draw, don't display. Don't threaten to draw or shoot either.
If the time comes, just draw to shoot.
If you end up on the stand explaining that you meant to draw and scare the guy, but accidently shot him (which can happen in a tense situation), it won't go well for you.

Take Tuco's advice in "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly",


Let me also observe that most people that aren't comfortable carrying are probably some of the safest people to have carrying because they're careful.

As an aside, I once had a coworker show me his piece that he carried to work. Even though it was illegal, even though it violated corp. policy, I was quite comfortable with the notion that he had more in his soft sided briefcase than notes and manuals. I thought if someone did go postal at work I had a better chance of surviving with an armed coworker around, although I never carried to work myself.

Here's an example of a hiking trail shooting gone bad:



newspaper article from nearby town

It's great that you've learned some street fighting and probably some preemptive strikes, but I don't think you've really been taken down and on your back with a big guy pounding you or you'd know just how difficult that situation is. A big guy (I don't mean heavy, fat & weak. I mean big, conditioned & muscled) is very much a danger. Muscle mass does matter. Strength and weight does matter in a 'ground & pound' situation.

OK, this might be a stupid statement, but perhaps they should develop better non-lethal self-defence weapons and allow people to carry them, if only to allow more people to testify. Surely if we can put a man on the moon there has to a way to develop something better than a lethal weapon for purely self-defence.

It's kinda like the Federal wheelchair access laws.
Just think how many billions have been spent refurbishing older buildings with ramps & wider doors etc.. Instead of spending a score million developing a better wheelchair that can do stairs.

Check out all articles associate with trailside shooter and handguns...the search turns up more articles than necessary, but some good stuff is there.

http://www2.payson.com/search/?q=harold+fish

That's unfortunate. I'd like to have been a 'fly on the wall' during the inital questioning. Two dogs? "...charged at him, yelling death threats"? "charged him down a steep trail?" " several violent incidents in Kuenzli's past"?

What aren't they reporting that got the shooter charged with murder? According to this story:
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/story/23902
The jury said the shooter "over-reacted and had other options." What might those other options have been?

Ok, so what's it take? Two attack dogs and one freaked out owner. Three against one.

I think there was doubt about whether the deceased was cursing & running in protest over his loose dogs being shot at and to protect them, or that the dogs were attacking and the owner was joining in the attack.

I think this is all sad. I suspect the dogs were just running around & ran upon the hiking teacher who got scared. I think leashes on the dogs would have prevented this.

The trailhead is not remote. It is in the rural, small community of Pine, or at least right adjacent to it's boundaries and just off the highway.

hey Kev <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Wow that engagement stuff was really frightening. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I see why you were lookin fer a horse to hide behind. Anyway I prefer the shoot out at the OK Corral. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yeh - somepeople watched too many cowboy movies. And you spend too much time watching sitcoms... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
YMMV
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Yes it's sad! My #1 reason for carry is dogs, wild or not, in the nature preserve I care for. Our town has even passed a pit-bull ordinance because of the problem. Regular calls are heard on the scanner like .... "woman and children pinned in their cars by mean dog..." It's also sad that some dog owners will fight to the death for their dogs "right" to intimidate. I've seen that kind of protectionism around here.
Maybe we should have a "concealed dog license" that educates and trains the owners. Sounds like dogs were a major part of that "hiker shooting gond bad".

I see an out of control dog no less dangerous than someone waiving a pistol around with a random safety. Especially if small kids are present.


(disclaimer....not a dog hater here....but I can dicern between a nice dog and a mean dog!)

It's been done: http://www.ibotnow.com/about-ibot.html

I threw that last statement in there about “use it if you draw it” at the last second without really explaining myself. I agree with what you posted. One should draw intending to use it, but by all means do not fire if the situation changes (i.e. the perp turns and runs). The point I was trying to make is that brandishing a weapon just for the sake of intimidation is a bad idea. If one has not prepared themselves mentally to pull the trigger if they feel it is the right thing to do to protect their self or loved ones, then you have a situation where a perp that may have had many guns waved in his face will overpower and take the victim’s weapon. I guess that is all I was trying to say.

Personally for me, I would probably not draw (i.e. let someone know I even had a gun on me) unless I was 99.9% sure I was going to pull the trigger as soon as I got my gun into position. Yeah, there’s always that 0.1% chance things might change though, so that has to be taken into consideration. Thus, why I just decided that for now I won’t carry. I just haven’t come to the point where I feel like I would make the right decision. I believe my judgment would become clouded by my emotion, and I don’t want to do anything “stupid”.

The big thing in all this is the mental preparation. I just feel too many people own and carry guns that haven’t put 5 minutes into thinking about the consequences of their actions if they use them (I have actually met plenty of these people…they kinda scare me). I understand that there are people with extensive firearms training, people who may have military training, or just people who have a lot of experience using a firearm. These aren’t the people that concern me. It’s the one who has had a bad thing happen, and suddenly goes and gets a gun cause that’s gonna protect him/her from said bad thing happening again. Or the person that knows someone who had something bad happen to them, so they get all freaked out and get a gun. These are the people who load it up and stick it under their pillow or carry it around, and haven’t put the time into practicing using it, getting training in using it and thinking about when it would be appropriate to use it.

At any rate, on another train of thought (while I’m at it) I was watching 20/20 one night (yeah I know, tabloid style crap), and they actually had an interesting story on there. It was about a guy that was hiking and came upon a strange situation. The background is that the guy was a standup citizen (no police record) that legally carried a concealed weapon (has extensive firearm training/experience) when he hiked. On one of his hikes he happened across a strange fella with 2 dogs. The 2 dogs ran at him and did not appear friendly, so he drew his gun and fired into the ground to scare them away. After that then the strange guy ran at him. Not knowing his intentions or if he had a weapon, he shot him (the guy ended up dying). What ended up happening? Well, turns out the jury decided that since the strange fella wasn’t armed the other guy had used excessive force, and he went to prison. I know this is an extraordinary circumstance, but I ask…what would you do in that situation?

Me…I wouldn’t have had a gun on me so who knows what would have happened. I would like to think that since I am fairly large I could either over power the guy or at least outrun him while trying to get away (although the dogs factor in here if they are vicious). If I had a gun in that situation…well, I probably would have done the same thing or something similar to what the other guy did.

Oops, I just mentioned this incident in one of my replies. There was also a 2 hour 20/20 (or some similar show) that covered all the details of this incident. It was truly a "1 in a million" circumstance, but the bottom line is the guy shot someone that was unarmed. Whether he was right or wrong, that is why he went to prison.

"After the trial, jurors said they didn't believe Fish's claim of self-defense, mostly because testimony from a medical examiner indicated Kuenzli's wounds were probably defensive."

http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/story/24609

Well, that headline could have also read, "Nearly 4 in 5 troops do not have mental problems after war service".

You got out mostly unscathed then. That's a lucky thing. Odds were with you on that. Having spent time with many `nam vets I would say that characterizing their war related mental trauma as "understandable anxiety" is describing their situation inaccurately too, but I would not extend that to yours personally. It probably depends more on what happened to you personally than any other factor and both terms are too broad to be descriptive.

My point was really that smoking pot would have little to do with rather someone in a violent death related incident would feel remorse. George Washington smoked pot, I don't recall reading anywhere that he was remorseful for his part in leading the revolution's forces which certainly caused a few deaths.

And hey, had I been there with you I would have danced a dance for life with you too. I understand that, believe me.

Bill

"Personally for me, I would probably not draw (i.e. let someone know I even had a gun on me) unless I was 99.9% sure I was going to pull the trigger as soon as I got my gun into position. Yeah, there’s always that 0.1% chance things might change though, so that has to be taken into consideration."

But that's just it -- in the majority of cases, things DO change when a weapon is drawn with the intent to fire, in the typical scenarios in which law-abiding citizens are forced to draw a weapon to defend themselves. We're talking thousands of times a year. Definitely do not draw unless you intend to fire. Definitely do not fire just because you drew your weapon.

I was waiting for someone to mention this, because I think it really does have a place in this "rules of engagement" discussion. And it really has been a _discussion_ which is a miracle in this day and age. It's a credit to everyone participating in this thread.

I'm going to suggest that people who aren't DEEPLY skilled need to think about carrying non-lethal weapons, perhaps in addition to a lawful handgun. Unless you think the majority of your incidents will be life and death, train yourself to go for the long knife or pepper spray first. (If you really expect to encounter a high probablility of life and death situations -- you should reall re-think being in that area.) There is probably a million and one chance that you should have gone for your gun, which really is an unlucky break, but there is a much greater chance that you non-lethal defensive action is enough to buy what you need to run away. If it really is life and death, I suspect you will drop your knife or pepper spray instanly and get your hands on your handgun, having lost only a half second.

Lots of conversations focus on this lost half-second, but I think it's a red herring. That half-second used wisely is most likely sufficient to save your life -- and it keep you from making the biggest mistake of your life.

-jamieS

I remember this Fish incident well in the local news.

It was a classic case of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Berserker

quote not from you:
"allowed the former Tolleson High School teacher the opportunity to vividly and emotionally tell for the first time in public what happened on the trailhead the day he shot Kuenzli three times in the chest."
___________________________________________-

You can't expect to shoot someone 3 times and claim self defense, not in California anyway. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> If you shoot more than once, you better have a convincing story. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Interesting that the new law shifts the proof of using deadly force to the state for self defense. Um - I sort of thought you were innocent until proven guilty - oops that was before """WE""" decided to toss out the Constitution as an unreasonable barrier to "national security". <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

My thought about the above case is - what about the dogs? Why didn't the dogs get to him before the "victim" was within "stiking range"? Did he shoot the guys dogs? Is that why the guy ran at him screaming? Moral - keep your dog on a leash becasue someone might not like Fido bighting them and may feel the moral right to "kill in self defense" even to the point of reloading. And the other moral - find another way to deal with dogs on trails besides shooting them with lead. Maybe a bunch of you guys with guns should have mace instead.

The scariest things I have read in this thread is the message that some people :
1) feel the need to kill in self defense [not wound]
2) have the feeling that if it might be legal to kill someone that its OK.

um what happened to though shalt not kill?
If someone feels the need to kill someone in self defense, they will create a situation where they need to defend themselves.
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

P.S. After due consideration I think I would be rather be unarmed [except with my dull assalt scissors] while hiking in public wilderness with a variety of users.

PPS. The crazy unarmed users have just as much right to be there as said solid citizen carryng a gun. Maybe if Fish wasn't packing he wouldn't have shot the guys dogs and his arrogance about having a "right to shoot" somebody wouldn't have landed him prison and shattered 2 families. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Well said. This is a very eloquent way of summing up my impressiion of Teacher Fish at the time this tragedy happened.

Another scary thing this thread brings out is how much fear and loathing there is out there regarding our fellow humans and dogs on the trail!

I worked on R&D for wheelchairs for a few years. People in wheelchairs don't necessarily want a chair that climbs stairs. What they want is a way to get at what's up those stairs. Most would be happy if you brought it downstairs so they could get at it there instead.

People that use manual chairs don't want power chairs and neither want plush bucket seats, which I was surprised to learn. We made a four wheel drive, independent suspension, power assisted steering, wheelchair that went over 20mph, could go off road, and you could raise it high enough to get at the stuff in standard kitchen cabinets (with a plush bucket seat). It did not go upstairs though.

Not one C-5 or C-4 Quad even wanted to get in it. Not one. Not even one Paraplegic wanted to take it for a spin. Not one. They all said the same thing, "It's too much, I would never go that fast and I really hate that seat."

I sure had fun test driving it though, it was one cool machine. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Bill

Jim, I would say that killing and defending one's life are not the same. If I were attacked by a cougar I would try to defend myself, not necessarily to kill the cougar, but if that's what it took to save my god given gift of life, then that's what I'd do. I would not waste my life with non-violent submission in that situation. Nor would I waste if it was a soulless human that were trying to take my life.

I would feel the need in both situations to defend myself. If doing that caused a death, am I a killer?

Bill

BTW, Awesome thread you've started here <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Reminds me of my Granny Lavina...

She's sort of a legend too. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Bill

And that is a thoughtful, realistic, personal viewpoint. And I believe that everyone should have the right to decide this for themselves, and the maturity to respect individual decisions.

Bill

I have to tell you that I sympathise with your distaste for "souless humans". Theres some people that I just don't think have a right to life, however they in fact do have a right to life regardless of my opinion. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> No. In the interest of saving what semblance of peace we have in America, what with a government bent on selling us fear, I just think its a better idea to live and let live than to try to create a better place - one death at a time. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

I mean just image the imapct of running into illegals along the border and pulling your assault scissors out. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> I'm sure brandishing some shiny scissors would put the fear of God in their hearts - <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> either because they know what assault scissors are, or they think yer gonna whup em all and give em a haircut, or because they think you must be some kind of nut. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Or all of the above, in which case if you are polite they might share their smoke with you. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

By not being afraid, you put the fear of God into those that live in fear. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
P.S. Yes Bill if you kill someone then you are by definition a killer but maybe not a murdered, thats after they convict you. If you are that frightened of the illegals along the border, hike somewhere else. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Its not worth subjecting yourself to that level of discomfort to enjoy desert hiking.

Like many, my biggest fear, no matter if hiking or at home are all the paranoids out there out to get me!

OK. The clarification makes sense. If you are going to carry, be prepared to use it, not necessarily do you have to use it. You are right in that you have to have the right mind set. Just the same that mindset must be flexible.

"You can't expect to shoot someone 3 times and claim self defense, not in California anyway. If you shoot more than once, you better have a convincing story."

You are correct in that you had better have a convincing story and hopefully direct evidence and physical evidence to justify your actions. I disagree that you are limited to shooting a person once if they are a lethal threat to you. You should shoot until the threat is no longer a threat whether it be the suspect gives up, runs away or is incapacitated.

The reason you took the action to shoot them in the first place is because you perceived that they were taking substantial action to kill you or gravely injure you. But California is one of those special places where certain people are attempting to outlaw self defense altogether. So you may be right. That's one of the reasons I don't live in California.

The minimum response should be two rounds or more to the center of mass and maybe a third to the head if the two did not do the job. This is the gory reality of armed conflict. People don't go down with one shot like on TV.
This is the stuff that one should prepare one's self for if they plan to be armed.

Regards,
Green and Tan

Concerning, "feel the need to kill in self defense [not wound]".

Because of legal ramifications you can't say, "I was shooting to wound him. Oops, I'm sorry he died."
So I think legal concerns force us to adopt the mindset, "I was shooting to stop the threat." with death or life being incidental.


As for, "have the feeling that if it might be legal to kill someone that its OK"
I hope I haven't come off like that. I seldom carry. I've never pulled a weapon on anyone and never shot at anyone. I hope I never need to, but if it happens I want to win and live.

Coyote

Coyote, oops you're right, shoot only until the threat changes, however a sniper doesn't waste rounds... <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> My daddy always taught me not to waste ammunition. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> In his day a .22 round was serious investment in dinner.
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
I would never shoot twice, but I was never taught that. I'm a hip shot, I don't need no stinking sights. I never even see my sights unless I'm target shooting at a range. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

No you haven't come across wrong, and I understand the sentiment "I'd rather it was him than me". My wife made the same statement tonight so I was able to grill her about just what she meant. Her idea was a very theoretical concept not grounded in any tactical reality. I explained to her that this post was about using deadly force. She actually had never thought about details like rules of engagement. Mentally she could do it, but she had no ideas about how. She is totally unprepared planning wise.
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Jim <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


All I'm really asking is that you folks who do carry should be prepared if you ever intend to use them.

I agree with that. I did not say I wanted to kill soulless people. I said I would defend myself (and loved ones) from being killed by soulless people, like the guy I mentioned doing life in Oregon. I knew this man. He had no soul. He did not care about people. He considered them all "Potential victims", he told me this himself. I would not have cared in the least if I had heard he was killed while committing his crime against those two young women, but I felt for them. Had I been there I would have tried to defend those women, even if I had to kill him to do so. And I would have done a victory dance when it was over too.

Maybe I can sum it up like this, I wouldn't help Jeffrey Dahmer make the sauce for his dinner, and I don't think Jesus would've either. "Live and let live" works great for you and me, but not so good when it's you, me, and Jeffrey. I can sit still and let Jeffrey kill and eat you, and then me too. I could justify that by saying Jeffrey has a right to live too, but how is the world better for that?

If I saw Jeffrey boil a pot of water and then get ready to conk you on the head, what would you have me do? What if this happened every night for a week and I was getting sleepy?

The subject of this thread is "Rules of engagement". If I am to lay down my life, and that of those I love to any Jeffrey that will take them, there are no rules, and no reason to live. Even the dove tries to defend itself from the attacks of the cat. If it kills the cat in the process that does not make it a killer. It never had, and never will, attack any cat and try to kill it, therefore it cannot be a killer.

I did not receive the gift of life to amuse madmen with how they might take it from me and I have many reasons to want to keep living. These things I know to be true.

Go to the forums for ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos ". Look up the thread, "Solatium for This Weeks Memorial". That's me writing those messages. Several have been deleted by the moderator, but you'll get the idea of what I'm trying to say there.

Bill

I should've pointed out that this also includes Presidents and other such "Leaders" who are madmen too.

Bill

Jimshaw,
I carry a gun for one reason, a cop is too heavy to carry. And I mean that in a halfway serious way. I started training and shooting handguns (rifles and shotguns as a teenager) when I joined the military. I have untold thousands of hours at the range, both civilian and military, and many, many hours in CQC (indoor close quarter combat) buildings.

I think there is a common misconception, that everyone who has a concealed carry permit (here in KY you can open carry if you want) is some kind of wild eyed raving lunatic, "just itchin to do me some killin", redneck.

Far from it. Most people I know, make that everyone I know, who has a CCW permit, first of all, well you'd probably never know it, and second they are probably a lot more well trained on when not to shoot, than when to shoot. So I think that we've (those who choose to carry) been watered down here a bit, into something too simple, as to having the same mentality as the people we want to defend ourselves from. This is what the media would like you to believe.

The problem lies with those who want to do me harm. You see, they also carry concealed. Never in the open. Mostly because they have criminal histories, and can't legally have a gun. Many around here are not U.S. citizens, and they don't get a CCW, either.

I shoot with a lot of cops. Just as many more cops do as little range practice as possible, just enough to meet their departments requirements.

I have had to brandish my firearm (outside the military) one time. I would have been well within my legal rights to have shot the individual, but said individual was caught completely off guard, was visibly very shaken, and decided to concede the fight, and I let him go his own way, then dialed 911, and waited by the roadside until a Sheriff's deputy came, took a description, had me sign a short witness statement, showed him my CCW permit, and I never heard anything else about it.

Had I not presented my weapon in defense, would the scumbag have shot me? I'd say maybe, I don't know. But I would hate to be laying on the ground, bleeding out, wishing I had used a show of force, and thinking of that as my last thoughts before I died.

So, my position is this. If you choose, for whatever reason under the sun, not to carry a weapon, then I support your decision 100%. Not only is that your right, but you are also no threat to me.

The police? Well, if there happens to be one standing nearby, I doubt that unless the "bad guy" is suicidal, he/she, are going to walk on by and look for another victim. Again, no threat there. Unfortunately, there aren't enough law enforcement in the world to safely guard everyone. Law enforcement usually responds to crimes already commited, or if they can get on the scene quickly enough, crimes in progress. But, they are more typically 1st responders to a violent crime already commited.

Lastly, I could walk right by you a hundred times a day, and you'd never know that I was armed, well trained, and well disciplined. If you shoot someone, even in rightous self-defense , there IS going to be a review by the prosecutor, and you still may have to defend yourself in a court of law. So the notion that people who carry gun's are wild eyed, quick on the trigger, wannabe cowboys is way off the mark. Are there those types out there. Certainly. But there are airline pilots who try to board and pilot aircraft while under the influence of alcohol. There are dirty cops. There's been prominent firemen caught in the act of arson, just for the sole purpose of trying to self-promote. There are Doctors who prescribe powerful drugs as a way to riches. And the list goes on and on. There is bad in every group.

The world isn't as simple as black and white. And that world consists of bad guys who would rape your wife in front of you, shoot your kids, and save you for last, just for the personal enjoyment of it all. Sick, sad, but true.

I hope I never meet that person. And I sincerely hope I never, ever have to "kill" anything other than a cold beer, or can of soda. But if it comes down to me or the bad guy, I'm going to put him down first, if at all possible. It's just as simple as that. It's not political, it's not an issue of morality, it's just pure human survival instinct. If you feel that you can't, won't or never would shoot in a situation, no matter what, there is not the need or reason to jump through the legal hoops, get a background check, (here, we also have to get the permission from the top cop in the area, usually the Sheriff's dept, take the time to obtain professional training, and continue that training, there's no reason for you to even bother in the first place.

I don't think it's an ideological ot political discussion, I know several on the far left, almost to the extreme, who carry concealed. I don't think survival is a "moral" issue, either. It's a mature choice for mature people, and with it (choosing to own and carry a firearm) definetley puts the onus of responsibility on the legal firearm owner. It's just that simple. I would never judge you or anyone else as to whether or not you choose to carry a weapon for self defense.

J.

I got my first 22 at 5 yo. My mom was so pissed. But my grandpa spent all summer teaching me. After weeks of target practice at his wood pile a robin landed near where I was shooting, my grandpa said I could shoot it. As a young kid without much thought or empathy I took aim. Just before pulling the trigger my grandpa wispered into my ear," but your going to eat it!" after not shooting the beautiful bird my grandpa explained the value of life and how to use what you need nothing more. A gun is meant for killing, always treat it as such. If you eat meat you owe the animal the courage of taking it yourself or go vegan.

And that world consists of bad guys who would rape your wife in front of you, shoot your kids...

I'm pretty sure you meant to say the world "includes" such people, not that it "consists of" such people.

Yes, you are correct. Consists of and "includes" are two different things. So, I stand corrected. However, every day as I scan the news, both television, and web, that line seems to be blurring.

But, yes, thanks for that clarification. You are correct.

Thanks,
J.

For now I am leaving this in the Backcountry Health and Safety forum, but only if it stays focussed on the backcountry.

If the discussion strays away from that, but stays calm and reasonable (and experience does show that gun threads tend to have a strong pull away from staying calm and reasonable) then I will move it to Off Topic forum.

If the discussion goes off the rails and into the deep weeds, it will be deleted or locked, whichever route is indicated.

You've made a good point. This thread, I think, or what I read was actually related to carrying a firearm while hiking.
I know firearms threads can go south very quickly, but this one seems to have stayed very civil. So when I posted, what I actually had in mind was carrying while camping, rather than a pro/anti sort of thing. I should have added that I was referring to going way out in the wilderness, far from loop trails and such. We have such a huge problem with Meth labs, and to a lesser extent marijuana fields, being very candestine and out in the middle of nowhere, that I get a little nervous sometimes, especially if I smell something odd (like a chemical smell). Those types of people wouldn't think twice of harming a backpacker, just to keep the locations secret. That's pretty much what I had in mind, even though my post didn't address that point.

J.

A long time ago, I read a book called "Outpost" by Robert Heinlein. It was about a survival trip for teens to another planet. The hero's sister told him to only carry a knife for protection since then, he would be more likely to avoid danger than confront it.

In my opinion, there is very little danger if you stay on the trails as that's where the pot growers know you will be. The danger comes if you start going off trails, especially in flatter terrain near water where it would be easier to grow.

We did run across a marijuana farm on a recent hike. It had already been discovered, so it was surrounded with police tape. It was pretty easy to smell from the trail. I'd treat the smell like a bear. Don't look towards it and anyone watching may think you didn't see their farm.

Realistically, you aren't going to get off a shot if someone wants to shoot you. They will likely be behind cover with a rifle and you won't know they are there until they shoot.

If you are bushwhacking, I'd suggest coming out on a different route than you went in if you see something. That way, they won't watch for you to come back the way you came. It's like the bad guys laying mines for a patrol that comes back the same way they went out.

I'm really confused on this whole pot growers shooting at people... So they are already doing something illegal and think shooting at someone, possibly injuring or killing them, is going to help their case?

deleted!

Hmm... I'm surprised there's really much of a problem with meth labs on public land in the sticks there. Around here they're generally on private property, and there aren't many of those anymore.

I bushwhack off trail here all the time, and I prefer the more remote areas. I never run into pot fields or meth labs. I found the remnants of an old meth cooking operation one time about 15 years ago on public land. It was pretty close to a road and the site hadn't been visited in at least a year. They were probably there for one night, left their mess, and never came back.

Here, the local law and feds combine resources and fly all over looking for pot fields. They find a few each year, but not many, because there aren't many, and almost all of them are on private land.

So here in Missouri and Arkansas I never worry about going off trail on public land, and I have never felt the need or had any reason to carry a gun while backpacking here.

Of course, hunter's carry rifles and shotguns all the time, that' common here, but I've seldom met a backpacker carrying a sidearm. Honestly, there is nothing out there you need a gun to protect yourself from. Try as I might, I've never even run into a single axe murderer out there yet. Maybe I'm just too old for them now, but I never even ran into one when I was a teen, not even with my girlfriend along.

I AM GOING TO LOCK THIS TOPIC. ITS PRETTY OLD AND HAS HAD A GOOD RUN FOR ITS MONEY AND A GOOD VARIETY OF COMMENTS.
We do not need further anguish over this thread.
Jim
Edited so it doesn't sound personal that I closed the thread.