Tags
Andrew Branca, Brown v US, Col Jeff Cooper, concealed carry, constitutional carry, D/S/Cs, Darren Wilson, deadly force, Michael Brown, preemption, reciprocity, self-defense, Shaneen Allen, Tueller Drill
All the articles in this series may be found by entering “guns and liberty 2022” into the SMM homepage search bar.
A decision to carry a concealed handgun is only the beginning of a lifelong journey. Of equal, perhaps greater, importance is the knowledge about when to ethically, lawfully use one.
Circa 2022
LEGAL ISSUES:
There are two bodies of law with which anyone carrying a concealed weapon must be intimately familiar: the specific laws of their state that regulate concealed carry and the laws regarding the use of deadly force–in general–and those specific to their state. Circa 2022, 21 states allow Constitutional Carry; anyone of age not otherwise prohibited by law, does not need a permit to carry concealed, though several of those states reserve this for state residents only. Several states, including Florida, are in the process of passing constitutional carry. If planning to travel to other states that share reciprocity with yours, even if they’re constitutional carry states, you’ll probably need a state-issued permit.
Of particular concern are the places where concealed carry is prohibited. Very few of the people willing to go through the vetting necessary to obtain a concealed carry permit ever lose those permits, but most that do have their permits suspended for accidentally carrying their handguns into such places. These restricted zones vary from state to state and year to year. More and more states are liberalizing those policies, designating fewer places victim disarmament zones. Oddly, most still keep schools, where our children are particularly vulnerable, victim disarmament zones. Even so, it’s always wise to carefully research this issue and avoid violating those laws.
Keep in mind, however, the late Col. Jeff Cooper said it’s much better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. In other words, it’s better to be alive and in violation of a given law than dead and faultlessly law abiding. This aphorism may have application in some cities and/or states, but in others, self-defense may be an iffy proposition. I do not advocate violating the law, merely being aware of all of the issues relating to these topics.
State Laws: These regulate who is allowed to carry, the related fees, forms and tests (usually written and shooting), terms of license validity and the means of renewal, specify manner of carry (open, concealed or both, or increasingly, constitutional carry—no permit required) and specific zones and places wherein firearms may not be carried by licensees. They also commonly list states sharing reciprocity. In other words, states that have entered into a compact of mutual respect for the concealed carry licenses of their respective citizens. Odd that states universally honor the representation of a mere privilege—driver’s licenses—but many refuse to honor the representation of an express, constitutional right.
Circa 2022
Most states-–at last count (2022) 41–-are “shall issue” states. In other words, if you meet the criteria for concealed carry under the law, no public official may deny you a license. However, in others–such as California–a “may issue” system is in place where local sheriffs or state officials have absolute authority to decide who will be allowed a license. In such states, licenses are normally granted only for the wealthy, well connected, politicians or similar worthies. The same is true for cities like New York City. The National Rifle Association website maintains an up to date database of state laws.
California, dominated by D/S/C politicians, fights tooth and nail, to the last drop of blood, to continue to deny citizens their unalienable right to self-defense. The D/S/C ruled legislature regularly enacts a wide variety of new anti-liberty/gun measures. California, while theoretically allowing concealed carry, remains a place where gun ownership, and particularly bearing arms, for the law-abiding is made as difficult as possible.
Another vital state issue is preemption. The legislatures of many states have passed preemption laws that prevent cities within those states from passing and enforcing different—virtually always more restrictive—firearm laws than those in state statutes. In the states that do not have preemption, one may be committing multiple crimes simply by driving across city limit boundaries. What is completely lawful on one side of an unmarked border is a crime on the opposite side. New York City and New York State are obvious examples of this issue. Again, it is vital to be fully aware of the law wherever you live and wherever you travel. DO NOT, by any means, expect the police or prosecutors to be just or rational where firearms are concerned. Most will be, but in some places, many will not.
Reciprocity is likewise important. Many states have entered into agreements with other states that allow constitutional and/or concealed carry to mutually honor their licenses. Circa 2019, there was a bill before the Congress for national concealed carry reciprocity. Despite Republican control of Congress for several years, it was never brought to a vote. This has been the case for many years. During the Obama administration it was impossible to pass the law. For the first two years of the Trump Administration it would have passed, but Republican Senate and House leaders refused to allow a vote. Circa 2022, with the Congress essentially deadlocked, it is again impossible to pass any pro-liberty law relating to firearms.
Shaneen Allen and her children
The Shaneen Allen case is instructive. Allen, a single, working mother of two young boys, and a resident of Pennsylvania, obtained a concealed carry license after twice being robbed. Stopped for a minor traffic violation in New Jersey, she was arrested for possession of her firearm and was facing a felony conviction and years in jail until massive public outcry forced the anti-gun prosecutor involved to authorize a pre-trial diversion program designed for cases like hers. The intervention of the Republican governor was vital—he eventually pardoned her–and without it, Allen, a young mother with no criminal record, might well have done hard time. I can’t say it enough: you are responsible for being aware of any and all laws wherever you live or travel.
Municipal laws may also have some bearing, but only in those states that lack a state preemption statute. Ultimately, the point is to become very familiar with any state or local laws that might apply, not only where you live, but where you plan to travel. Even those states with reciprocity agreements with your state are likely to have some significant differences in law, and you are required to follow the law wherever you are, even if it differs from the law in your home state.
Federal Law: With the advent of the Harris/Whoever Administration—Joe Biden is merely a temporary place holder, the bait in the most corrupt bait and switch scam in American history—and the Congress more or less in D/S/C hands, every anti-liberty/gun measure D/S/Cs have salivated over for decades is again not only on the table, but possible. Even without new restrictions, it is federal law that regulates the transportation of arms on the airlines, railroads and other interstate means of public transportation. Following those laws to the letter is vital, yet is never a certain way to avoid legal trouble.
The Doctrine of Deadly Force:
This is another area where you must carefully follow state law. The laws of some states are more lenient than the general principles of the use of deadly force, while some are more restrictive. The question is: when is the use of deadly force justified? General Answer: when necessary to halt the imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to self or another.
Andrew Branca, whose definitive book The Law of Self Defense, is must reading for anyone concerned about these issues, adds several other, related criteria/concerns:
Innocence: the defender must not be the initial or unlawful aggressor. People engaging in mutual combat can’t claim innocence. Because they’re actively trying to harm each other with no way to tell how far the conflict will go, they’re not engaging in self-defense. It is necessary to be able to demonstrate one had no intention of using force against another, and was instead forced to act defensively. When the attack is ended and no further force is necessary, one must stop. If they do not, they can, in that instant, become an unlawful aggressor even though they did not initiate the encounter.
Imminence: one can’t use force against a vaguely defined possible attack, or against an attack that might happen at some time in the future. The danger must be real, clearly about to occur, or already occurring, the attack must be imminent. The law doesn’t require anyone to meekly absorb blows. One need not wait for an attacker to land a first blow that might render them unconscious—or dead.
Proportionality: any response to a threat must be reasonable. A thrown piece of wadded up paper can’t trigger a gunshot. This does not mean a response can’t escalate if the degree of force used by an attacker escalates, but does require judgment. A knife thrust is generally not a proportional response to a shove, nor is a gunshot a proportional response to a verbal threat unaccompanied by clear intent and the means to imminently act on that threat.
Avoidance: Some states require retreat, if it is reasonably possible, before using force. Even if clearly attacked, the victim is required to demonstrate they could not safely run away–-avoid the conflict–-before using force. Some leftist prosecutors extend this requirement to the absurd length of essentially forcing people attacked in their home to abandon the safety of their home to avoid harming violent criminals. Sane states do not require retreat, or have a “stand your ground” law. SYG laws are commonly grossly misrepresented for political purposes. They mean only that as long as one is lawfully present when and where attacked, they have no duty to retreat before responding to an attack. An attacker is presumed to have ill intent. Most also do not allow attackers—or their survivors–to sue their victims, which is entirely rational. They do not allow anyone to employ deadly force outside the boundaries of its lawful use, and have nothing whatever to do with race. In any case, the smart thing to do, always, is to avoid any fight.
Reasonableness: A reasonable person of the same knowledge, abilities and in the same circumstances would be compelled to use force.
And if all of this were not enough to digest, remember one needs to consider these—and more—factors, and make 100% correct decisions within seconds, potentially while under imminent attack. Do you, gentle readers, see why it’s best to avoid any physical confrontation? This article may also be useful in considering these issues.
State laws vary, using different terms, and it is everyone’s responsibility to be aware of the law in their state of residence. Some states particularly allow the use of force–even deadly force–under circumstances that others do not.
What this basically means is in any situation in which a reasonable person would believe they–-or another–-was facing the imminent–-as opposed to possible or future–-threat of serious bodily injury or death, deadly force is a reasonable response. Of course, running away might also be a wise and reasonable response, but only if it is reasonably possible. In states that have enacted the Castle Doctrine or a “stand your ground” law–-more about that later–-it is not required, but may still be a good idea.
credit: wordcrunch.com
It’s important to understand what “serious bodily injury” means. While the legal definitions will tend to vary somewhat from state to state, it essentially refers to injury that, while not deadly, is crippling, seriously disfiguring, that will have a continuing, negative impact on the quality and longevity of your life from the moment it is inflicted. Getting shot in the leg or shoulder–-as in the movies-–is not something to be easily treated and shrugged off. Gunshot wounds are ugly, nasty and can be permanently debilitating. Equally, cuts inflicted by edged weapons like swords or knives can be as debilitating and in many ways, far more horrific and ugly. Many police officers surviving a gunshot wound may be physically healed, but never fully psychologically recover. Broken bones from a beating would also certainly qualify.
One of the problems the law seeks to address is how do you know what injury the next blow delivered by hand or foot will cause? Will you be merely bruised? Will bones be shattered? Will you be blinded, brain damaged, crippled, even killed?
This was the dilemma facing Ferguson, MO police officer Darren Wilson when he encountered Michael Brown, who had robbed a quick shop minutes earlier, and both hands full of stolen cheap cigars, was walking down the middle of a suburban street. Before Wilson could exit his vehicle, Brown attacked, slamming Wilson’s car door, trapping him behind the steering wheel, repeatedly punching him, and reaching into Wilson’s patrol vehicle, trying to snatch his holstered handgun. Brown succeeded in freeing the gun, but Wilson, though injured and stunned, was able to keep control of it, and fire one round, which slightly injured Brown’s hand. Brown fled, but quicikly turned, and even though Wilson was covering him with his handgun and ordering him to surrender, made a head down, berserker charge, which ended only when a bullet finally hit Brown in the head, dropping him at Wilson’s feet. The Brown case archive is here.
The social justice narrative of this case is Brown was murdered while on his knees, his hands raised, yelling “don’t shoot.” The reality, proved by every credible witness and the physical evidence is what I’ve described here. But Brown was an unarmed teenager! Brown, 18, was 6’4” tall (photo montage above) and weighed 292 pounds. His unprovoked and brutal assault convinced Officer Wilson Brown intended to kill him. When Brown made a second attempt, Wilson was certain if Brown reached him, he would be able to disarm and kill him.
Considering Brown was initially running away, but chose to turn and again attack an armed police officer, this was an eminently reasonable belief.
Take the case of Ken and Carol Dorushka. Ken was shot in the arm while shielding his wife with his body during the January 8, 2011 attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson. He, like the others present at the time of the attack, was unarmed. The brutal thug that injured and killed so many would want his name to be mentioned here. Despite suffering no physical injuries, Carol arguably suffered most, and continues to suffer. Some do not deal well with the realization we alone are responsible for our personal safety and continued existence and always have been.
Another means for determining–-on the spot-–if deadly force is necessary and justified is to apply the “means, opportunity and jeopardy” test. Keep in mind this explanation assumes that you are the innocent party; you have not provoked or initiated the confrontation. It also assumes a reasonable person of the same abilities in the same circumstances would be compelled to apply deadly force. There are a variety of similar terms/acronyms, but they all boil down to the same thing:
Means: Does your opponent have the means necessary to cause serious bodily injury or death? If you are a 100 pound, 5 foot nothing woman, any man of average size and strength would almost certainly have the means necessary employing only his bare hands–if he is close enough. Someone with a gun certainly would. Someone with a knife, almost certainly, and someone holding a variety of other instruments would also pose such a threat. Someone known to be highly skilled in a martial art, even if smaller than you, might also have the means.
Glock 19 with Alien Gear Holster
Opportunity: Does your opponent have the opportunity to cause serious bodily injury or death? An attacker armed with a handgun certainly does, out to normal handgun ranges, perhaps as much as 50 yards away, although there is always such a thing as a lucky shot at even greater ranges. An attacker armed with a rifle has a much greater dangerous range. Someone armed with a knife is dangerous to a minimum of 21 feet, perhaps even more, as practical experience demonstrates that even an average person with a knife can close 21 feet before they can be shot and/or stopped by a handgun-wielding victim. Practicing for this possibility is commonly known as the Tueller Drill. By all means take the link and read the related article.
If a knife-wielding opponent at a greater than 21-foot distance moves to throw the knife, a reasonable person must assume they know what they are doing and can cause serious injury or death at a distance with that knife. Other tools such as hammers, bats, screwdrivers, etc. are also dangerous if the person wielding them is close enough and arguably, if they throw them from a reasonably close distance. Some people are more able to dodge than others, and the law does not require one be able to successfully dodge an imminent, deadly threat.
Jeopardy: Is an opponent acting in such a way, here and now, as to indicate to a reasonable person that they, or another, are in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death? An opponent you know to be carrying a handgun which remains holstered is not putting you in jeopardy, but when he, after uttering threats, perhaps even glaring at you menacingly, quickly reaches for his handgun, jeopardy attaches. Someone standing across the street with a knife yelling threats is not putting you in jeopardy, but when they begin to run toward you, jeopardy increases enormously with each foot gained.
Notice that I keep referring to what a “reasonable person,” might think or do. This is the general standard applied by the law in analyzing the use of deadly force. Shooting a slight 10 year-old girl who yells “I’ll kill you,” while making ready to throw a baseball at you from 50 feet away would almost certainly be found to be inherently unreasonable. Shooting an adult male who has threatened to kill you and is bringing a shotgun to his shoulder from the same distance would surely be inherently reasonable. Fortunately, the courts, even the Supreme Court (Brown v US 1921), understand that one cannot be expected to be absolutely cool, calm and able to engage in extended intellectual reflection and debate when faced with imminent deadly danger. That necessary understanding does not, however, relieve anyone of the necessity of acting reasonably in deadly force situations.
credit: restate.com
Shooting to Kill: YOU MUST NEVER SAY, OR EVEN THINK, YOU SHOOT TO KILL. You never shoot unless the elements necessary to use deadly force have been satisfied. More specifically, you shoot only if all of the necessary elements under the self-defense and use of deadly force laws of your state are present, and only if shooting is absolutely necessary at the moment the trigger is pulled. If so, you shoot only to STOP the attacker, to immediately cause them to stop doing whatever they were doing that put you or another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. To that end, you shoot as quickly and effectively as possible to immediately end the threat.
This might seem a trivial exercise in semantics, but it is very important. If being investigated, or on trial for shooting another human being, regardless of how innocent you are and how reasonable and correct your actions, every word you utter, every intention, every regret, will be vital to your freedom and future.
With that in mind, one shoots to stop an attacker, not because you wanted to kill them–or anyone–but because you had no choice, because you reasonably believe if you didn’t stop them then and there, that very second, you or another would have been gravely injured or killed. That they died as a result of being stopped is regrettable and tragic, but a tragedy they forced on you, an innocent person who had no intention of hurting them or anyone else. You are the innocent victim of a deadly attack, and you must say and do nothing to paint yourself as anything but an innocent, remorseful victim.
Once again, the best and most complete current resource on this issue is The Law of Self Defense by attorney Andrew Branca. His book, now in its third edition, is truly excellent. Full disclosure: Branca and I correspond upon occasion, and sometimes link to each other’s articles, but I yield no benefit from his book sales.
Next Tuesday’s installment of this series will focus on the mechanisms of stopping human beings that wish to do you serious bodily harm or cause your death. I hope to see you there.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
You know, it strikes me that to be a cop includes training in all of this.. and I am sure that training also includes some exercises in role play to emphasize when and when not to use the force of a firearm. If nothing else cops supposedly have that practice range where cops must address popup targets to discern a threat from no threat under some kind of pressure.
So, I am wondering, cops are required to learn and practice all you’ve written here as a matter of performing their job. Is it realistic to presume that anyone deciding to toddle out in public carrying a firearm is going to be the least bit astute enough to remember all this and not have any training at all?
It seems to me there’s more than just “my unalienable right”. Your entire series illustrates the complexities, moral and legal, in not only pulling your firearm out and using it, but also in carrying the thing at all as there are any number of limitations. So the entire thing.. conceal & carry or open carry, is all about personally evaluating the cost benefit in the self-defense you personally think you need, versus moral and/or legal entanglements…. and…. a divided public where bias can easily be against you within a local justice system, and thus present a real financial consideration in trying to get off the hook should you end up in the system.
Yep.. better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6… but there’s a reality in between all that that can make your life truly miserable… and the lives of others in your world. The inevitable wrongful death suit of your “assailant” can be more than you want.
Of course carrying a firearm has responsibilities, But waving the Constitution to defend your actions with that firearm does not guarantee an easy strut from the courthouse at the end of the day. Better have the money for a dream team defense.
Of course Doug, there’s MORE than just our “unalienable right”…….YOU may wish & are allowed to use harsh words to protect your family, your life, your liberty and hopefully you & yours will survive. My attacker (in my civilian life) makes your ‘perfect world’ irrelevant. Evil does exist and sadly, often prevails. So your choices are death or to be “truly miserable” and I selected neither, to your annoyance.
Why would ones’ refusal to be a victim, irritate you?
“Why would ones’ refusal to be a victim, irritate you?”
Mike.. because this issue carries more responsibility than simply “refusing to be a victim” and this “unalienable” justification for the Second Amendment. You equate some “God-given” right to self-defense means…
“I get to own/carry a gun because the bad guys do… and given we do not know when and where those bad guys will strike.. at me personally or my family… I want to make the decision when to pull the trigger… and I expect to walk away justified and absolved of any and all legal responsibility.”
I discuss all this in detail here…
https://www.theindependentknight.com/humanism-philosophy/the-context-of-god-given-and-inalienable-and-our-founding-documents/
Whether you fight off a home invader by clubbing him over the head with a pot off the kitchen stove and kill him.. or pull a trigger and kill him, you will have to face the reality of answering to those other parts of the Constitution that have created our justice system… you will (or maybe not) be judged by your peers for what you did… and all the attention that brings.. it’s the same thing I keep repeating… just because the Constitution gives us a right does not mean we are free from the responsibility in exercising it… be it freedom of speech or the Second.
In my case, I am fully aware of the total and complete unpredictability of human beings as they may react to certain stress situations.. whether those stresses are right in front of them, real or imagined, as a threat to their life.. or… affects of mental health.
I’ve said many times.. I own guns.. and if I felt threatened I would grab one and very likely kill someone who I might interpret would want to kill me or the family… and I’d expect the family to be saved and I would suffer the wrath of the expense in defending myself within our Constitutional justice system, suffer the media invasion of privacy. suffer the civil litigation and that financial result, lose my job, and maybe be chastised by half the population.
So.. pulling a trigger has its consequences based on a reality. Of course, all this assumes while you were defending yourself that you didn’t place others in risk.. even to the caliber and bullet load you are using doesn’t go through your bad guy and hit the kid down the street. In other wards, the unintended consequences of YOUR right to a self-defense.
Perhaps I am suggesting that way too many gun owners take a cavalier attitude to the Second Amendment as a justification for CCW and open carry.
Dear Doug:
No, I get to carry a gun because it is an unalienable right of all law-abiding Americans. And yes, the Founders also considered it a God-given–“natural” if you prefer–right, an unalienable right, one we have because we are God’s creations and as such, have such rights, which government can neither destroy or rescind. The right to self-defense existed before governments, certainly before America. If it does not not exist, as I’ve so often written, we are reduced to a tyranny of the majority at best, and to a world where the strongest rule and life has only the value they are willing to recognize at a given moment.
Perhaps you’re missing my constant exhortations to avoid trouble at all costs? My warnings of the potential consequences, legal and psychological of taking a life, even if it is done entirely legally?
And yes, you are wrongfully ascribing the cavalier attitude you mentioned. Such suggestion is far more applicable to criminals, though they are nothing for the Constitution or any law, except they may warp it to their advantage when caught. We need no justification for self-defense or the means to exercise it. The Second Amendment grants nothing. It merely acknowledges what is and restrains the government–to whatever degree a government allows itself to be restrained, which is merely one more reason for the necessity of self-defense.
Oh.. now you enter the world of the Second Amendment as it was intended… as a means of a public defense before a standing military could be practical or afforded… in the proverbial “organized militia”, and in doing so the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As I’ve mentioned copious times, we are not in the pre-20th century anymore. Keeping a gun to make sure government stays in line is an absurd concept in this day and age for any number of reasons. Makes far better sense to keep a gun around to defend family, house and home if you chose to do so. But SCOUTUS has ruled otherwise. And so it goes.
Dear Doug:
The term you’re looking for, from the Second Amendment, is “well-regulated militia,” which does not mean what D/S/Cs would have us think it means. One might read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Heller to be well informed on that issue.
No, SCOTUS has not ruled otherwise. The principles underlying the Second Amendment, particularly arms in the defense of liberty, have not changed because human nature has not changed. Heller also made clear the Second Amendment does not refer to membership in a militia, hunting or anything other than an express, unalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms.
“Heller also made clear the Second Amendment does not refer to membership in a militia, hunting or anything other than an express, unalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms.”
But of course. I’ve never disputed that SCOTUS made that interpretation law… and that is what I will always follow. It does not mean I subscribe to their interpretation as my own opinion.. which matters not in the real world.
Dear Doug:
As one of the Mythbusters used to say: “I reject your reality and insert my own.”
I apologize to Mike.. I meant this reply to Mr. Buck. Sometimes the way WordPress displays the replies tend to confuse who is directing the reply.
Dear Doug:
As I’ve often written, police officers tend not to be good shots, despite whatever training they received. By the way, they receive far less training, and far less effective training, than one imagines.
As for the rest: um, yes?
Doug, this is one of your best comments.
I live in North Carolina, and can only speak to the CCW laws here. I began carrying my pistol in what is referred to as “open carry” about 16 years ago. My best friend was a NC Highway Patrol Trooper, and he encouraged me to train and educate myself, and carry the gun. After a few years, my wife and I decided to get our CCW permits, and at the time, the state required at least 12 hours of formal, certified instruction. We both ended up with 16 hours because we wanted a little additional training. Our instructors were all former LEO’s. Several hours of classroom time was spent covering the various laws in the legal use of force. The emphasis was on understanding the importance of using force to stop the threat, not about using deadly force. I cannot remember when “The Law of Self Defense” was published, but all of the concepts explained was part of our instruction, so I believe this is well established thought.
My point here is that the training we initially received was intended to change the way we think about self defense, and the decision to carry a defensive weapon. And it certainly did! Yes, I have come to a “cost benefit” type decision to carry. No, I have never thought I was “waving the Constitution” to do so. Perhaps some of my acquaintances did. I admit that I am a bit conflicted on the difference between states that have permit-less carry, and states like mine. I feel strongly that my right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed, yet I appreciate how I have benefited from the required training. I am very wary of those who think they do not need instruction and never go to the range. I also know some former LEO’s that believe only they (LEO’s) should be allowed to carry. (a husband and wife in my church)
Yes, this is a very complex issue.
regards,
Mr. VIW, ALL my comments are better than the last. Just not so much on this blog. :) Levity aside… thanks. Quite obviously you and your lady have taken seriously and accepted the responsibility of CCW more than most. And as you indicated, this you did under NC laws. States with lesser requirements, those permit-less states you suggest, (like AZ) we can easily assume most folks would not go to the lengths you did for that kind of responsible training.
With gun ownership these days, and the push for more CCW and open carry, I’m sorry… from what I am observing, it’s mostly about “waving the Constitution”…. but that element will always be there because people are diverse with their interests in life.
Now, for as prepared as you are with classroom and pistol range.. does this mean 1. You can you pull a trigger to kill someone, and 2. You can you live with it? This most of us never know until it happens.. and this is even with cops… and soldiers on the battlefield. That’s the moral and mental coping process. Then you have the world of hurt falling on you from the justice system, and even public opinion (and unwanted media attention). As you said.. a truly complex issue, but you have to admit, the average gun owner wanting to CCW or open carry to express his Second Amendment rights to the world has no concept, or even a care in the world, regarding that complexity.
Doug,
Situational awareness in terms of self-defense is an interesting topic for discussion. I believe that my level has improved as a result of training and practice. I have never been in a shoot/don’t shoot training simulation, though. How good is my training? I hope I never have to find that out. I look to avoid situations that carry increased levels of threat. Using force to stop a threat is a last resort. If I ever had to, I believe I could live with myself. That is part of how one’s thinking changes. Ego and bravado have no place in this.
Everyone has fears. I knew a woman who feared left turns while driving, and avoided them. Some folks refuse to go shopping in a mall. (I haven’t been in one in years) I worry about violent mobs and civil unrest. (We had some BLM protests that blocked major intersections and looked for confrontation) I worry about the random shooter, or the drug-addled homeless person wandering the parking lots. I even worry about a home invasion. (pretty far down the list)
With our legal system, I do worry about the consequences. I am a USCCA* member, and hope I never need their legal services. Perhaps Mike can expound on the pros and cons of such a service.
There have been a couple of times that I have approached people that I see carrying openly, and I asked them about their views on the matter. One, a young black woman, was very matter of fact. She said it was her right to defend herself, and end of discussion. Another, a young white man on a motorcycle, said he just “liked to.” I used to travel to AZ on business quite a bit, and I was surprised by the number of people openly carrying. I don’t see it as much here. I suppose the term “average gun owner” is a bit fluid. The ones I know well and shoot with seem very well grounded. Any discussions that arise about having to shoot, are best described as very sobering. A common thread is the notion that we all refuse to be victims. Mentally, this is a crucial concept, and I think it would be supportive emotionally after the fact. Yes, there is evil in our world.
*US Concealed Carry Assoc.
Good point on situational awareness as that is not only regarding your immediate surroundings in order to heighten your perception of possible threats, but also regarding your situational awareness in CCW or open carry to begin with.
Nice chatting with you, btw. Not sure we have before. Seldom get replies in here without some measure of emotion tossed in.. along with the finger pointing.
I’ve been lurking on Mike’s site for years. Nice chatting with you as well.
Dear Voice in the Wilderness:
Lurkers always welcome.