Robar

I hope so too.

SH0RTBUS

The need to draw your weapon, and the need to fire it are two completely different situations. The goal is to STOP the threat, not KILL the threat. Say for example you are confronted by someone who threatens to harm you if you do not hand over your wallet. You draw your weapon and order this person to the ground. If they comply, you have successfully stopped the threat with out firing. If they advance toward you in a threatening manner, you shoot, also stopping the threat. The need to draw was the same, the need to fire was not. If you are looking to kill someone, you will regret it in the end, regardless of what you say now. Just because you drew your weapon does not mean you should fire it. I sure am glad (most) cops don't share your rationale.

Firedog73

Being I always carry and hope I never have to use my weapon; god forbid I ever have to use it however, I will never sit back and say I wish I would have been able to protect myself or family. Being Ex Military I was trained; 2 to the chest one to the head. I am damn good at it Expert every time I fired the nine. I still practice that way today. I wonder if after all I can do to defuse the situation, and the threat still exists and I have to fire my weapon will I be accused of excessive force for following the instinct/training I was given? I carry the Baby Glock with Hollow Points so 2 to the chest should suffice I just think that third one is going to come out no matter what.
Your thoughts

Robar

That is called the "Mozambique" or the "Failure drill" and if that is the way you were trained there shouldn't be a problem with it, as almost all civilian law enforcement is trained under the same method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill

Area-51

Exactly.

When I got my carry permit decades ago, a 4 weekend course was required...going over various situations. This was what was drilled into me...whether right or wrong in the opinion of others.


If you could safely retreat from a situation without harm to yourself or others WITHOUT even drawing your gun, that was your first choice of action.

If you could not, your second choice was to draw, but attempt to get the threat neutralized without the need to fire. That did not mean put anyone else at risk by not shooting, but if it was possible to get the threat to drop their weapon, and assume a safe prone position until law enforcement could arrive without further violence or harm to others, that was the next choice of action.

If that was not possible, then you were to shoot to neutralize the threat. No fancy trying to shoot a weapon out of their hand....double-tap to the chest...and assess the situation again...if threat not neutralized, another double-tap to the chest...repeat, rinse. At least that was what the "manual" we were training from said.

The third shot to the head was not part of the official instruction books he was teaching the course from, but my instructor was ex military and a retired sheriff, and that was also what he taught. His comment was that if someone was so doped up...two to the chest alone might not always be enough...but one to the head on a followup was almost a certainty.

He would not pass you until he saw consistent shooting on the range using the double-tap to the chest, and one to the head on targets at various ranges.

The three step process was the best course of action for a civilain, but if it came down to step 3, neutralize did not mean wound, but take the threat out permanently. But that it should still be the last choice, certainly not the first.

JKPirate08

I agree, IF you walk around like most of the people in America, (with your head up your A$$), but if you are actually paying attention to yourself and your surroundings, and use just a hint of common sense, you will more likely than not, be able to either avert the threat totally, or react to it fast enough that the firearm can be of benefit. Condition Yellow always!