BobDobolina said:
So to review: ideally one should fire multiple shots at an attacker just to be on the safe side even if they have no visible weapon, and since we're not all crack shots and should assume that most shots fired under duress will miss*.
Please understand that our tendency to miss is not
why we fire multiple shots. We fire them because even hitting the target doesn't guarantee they'll instantly stop. For instance, cops are trained to fire at least three shots--chest, chest, head. The purpose of the gun is to
stop the attacker, and that hasn't been accomplished until they've stopped.
That said, yes, we tend to miss.
However, shots fired into the air pose an unacceptable risk to innocents and bystanders, and can and do kill people up to a mile from the scene.
There's a very troubling inconsistency here. Why shouldn't the latter be assumed of all those rounds being squeezed off at an attacker? Especially since we're assuming (wisely, as you note) that some significant portion of them will miss? Do the rounds that miss not pose an unacceptable risk of harming bystanders, or innocents far from the scene?
There's a difference between firing directly at the attacker and firing into the air. Yes, there is always the potential for someone to get hurt, but I'm simply saying that a person should never
intentionally fire away from the target. They would be
intentionally visiting risk upon others.
I mean, I get that at least the rounds you're spending in firing towards the attacker are at least potentially contributing more concretely to self-defense than the far more uncertain option of the warning shot -- but if we're assuming, as you direct us via the Tueller Drill, that any attacker can close with you fast enough from 20 feet to render the range advantage of a pistol essentially moot, why wouldn't you default to non-lethal close range tools like pepper spray or (especially) a taser instead? It seems to me that given the parameters you've outlined, and since range would really have been the only reason to prefer a pistol in the first place if your only objective is to stop the guy, this would make more sense. Especially for non-cops (I take it the point about multiple shots is "mostly for cops" since we're hoping have they a relatively smaller chance, at least, of accidentally killing someone unrelated to the incident with a stray shot)?
Please understand that pepper spray and tasers are
not close-range measures. Pepper spray requires a considerable distance unless you also want to spray yourself. Both of these are non-lethal
apprehension tools, not self-defense. They are used by cops who already have them drawn and ready when a subject is at range, meaning they've come into the situation prepared. In an attack, this isn't the case.
And stun guns of all sorts carry the risk that you'll be in contact with the person you're stunning... and in doing so, you'll stun yourself. These are useful if you have the element of surprise (in which case it's not an attack).
[small](* You do note, it would seem wisely, that this is mostly for cops... but then undercut this by going on to talk about how this rule actually makes most sense for civilians who can't assess whether there really is a weapon in play or not. So it actually sounds like, despite your caveat, you're prescribing this as a methodology for civilians.)[/small]
I think there was a misunderstanding somewhere. What I said was "mostly for cops" is the idea of drawing your weapon on an opponent that is farther away--that is to say, usually cops are the ones that have that advantage, since they go into the situation
knowing there is a crime occuring.
Firing multiple shots is
proper use of a handgun, regardless of "cop or not." One bullet won't stop anyone. Even a headshot. There are police training videos of men with
huge holes in their heads, still able to move around and pose a danger. The person is "dead," but the body is still a threat. Fire until the target stops.
