Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Point don't shoot bill
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SMS" data-source="post: 2985389" data-attributes="member: 42"><p>I already discussed that highly improbable and physically near impossible scenario in an earlier post.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This case highlights my talisman point.</p><p></p><p>You were not presented with a threat of deadly force and would not, in my mind, be justified in introducing the threat of deadly force yourself, which you did by presenting a firearm.</p><p></p><p>If, by your own admission, it would've been a bad shoot then why was your gun introduced into the equation? As a talisman to make some scary guys go away? Why not just drive away?</p><p></p><p>Yes, every situation is fluid. I've been in real world shoot-don't shoot situations in the military, governed by wholly different rules and an escalation of force matrix. As civilians I think we actually have a higher standard, but it's also a simpler one: Answer a threat of deadly force with deadly force. If there is no deadly force then don't be the one to introduce it, which is exactly what one does by drawing a firearm.</p><p></p><p>If I'm threatened with deadly force, for the life of me I can't imagine drawing my gun only to wait and see what the other guy does next. Makes zero sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SMS, post: 2985389, member: 42"] I already discussed that highly improbable and physically near impossible scenario in an earlier post. This case highlights my talisman point. You were not presented with a threat of deadly force and would not, in my mind, be justified in introducing the threat of deadly force yourself, which you did by presenting a firearm. If, by your own admission, it would've been a bad shoot then why was your gun introduced into the equation? As a talisman to make some scary guys go away? Why not just drive away? Yes, every situation is fluid. I've been in real world shoot-don't shoot situations in the military, governed by wholly different rules and an escalation of force matrix. As civilians I think we actually have a higher standard, but it's also a simpler one: Answer a threat of deadly force with deadly force. If there is no deadly force then don't be the one to introduce it, which is exactly what one does by drawing a firearm. If I'm threatened with deadly force, for the life of me I can't imagine drawing my gun only to wait and see what the other guy does next. Makes zero sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Point don't shoot bill
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom