Guns for Beginners: Self Defense Basics and Frequently Asked Questions

[Annihilator]

Nice little read on guns for beginners and some basics for self defense

Guns for Beginners: Self Defense Basics and Frequently Asked Questions - The Truth About Guns

[ED: Our friends at U.S. LawShield produced this FAQ on issues surrounding self defense and they’ve agreed to let us share it here.] Many people have questions when they first become interested in learning self-defense. In this guide, we’ll address some of the most common self-defense questions...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[wmg1299]

This is a much better article than most basic introductions to self defense. I appreciate what the authors of these articles are trying to do, and this one does it pretty well, but no generic article or overview will ever replace the need to familiarize yourself with your specific state's laws. Even in states like mine, which no longer require a permit for lawful gun owners to carry, attending the state training class can be a worthwhile investment for the portions on local laws alone. If I had my way, these articles and classes would be unnecessary because every middle school student in the state would be fully educated on civil rights and criminal law.

 

[Ranger715]

A pretty good summary of what constitutes lawful self defense, but I do take issue with one thing. It says, "the person defending themselves must use only the level of force necessary to stop the imminent threat against them, and no more."

The trouble with that is how can anyone know what the minimum level of necessary force is? Will a stern rebuke suffice? How do you know if you don't try? Perhaps the display of your firearm is all that is necessary. Maybe if you shot them in the big toe with a .22, that would be all that is necessary. There are many more options available before you get to a 12 gauge slug through the cranium. Are you required to try all of them, in order to carefully determine the minimum amount of force that was "necessary" as they lunge across the room with their knife? Of course not.

The right language is "reasonable force," rather than "necessary force." There may be a thousand possible responses to the threat, all of which could be reasonable, from passive submission, to bashing them over the head with a frying pan, to blowing them away with a shotgun. You can't be asked to evaluate all of them in the heat of the moment to calculate which is "necessary." You may have only fractions of a second to decide a course of action. Just make it reasonable according to the circumstances, and hopefully others will see it that way, too.

 

[Bassbob]

A pretty good summary of what constitutes lawful self defense, but I do take issue with one thing. It says, "the person defending themselves must use only the level of force necessary to stop the imminent threat against them, and no more."

The trouble with that is how can anyone know what the minimum level of necessary force is? Will a stern rebuke suffice? How do you know if you don't try? Perhaps the display of your firearm is all that is necessary. Maybe if you shot them in the big toe with a .22, that would be all that is necessary. There are many more options available before you get to a 12 gauge slug through the cranium. Are you required to try all of them, in order to carefully determine the minimum amount of force that was "necessary" as they lunge across the room with their knife? Of course not.

The right language is "reasonable force," rather than "necessary force." There may be a thousand possible responses to the threat, all of which could be reasonable, from passive submission, to bashing them over the head with a frying pan, to blowing them away with a shotgun. You can't be asked to evaluate all of them in the heat of the moment to calculate which is "necessary." You may have only fractions of a second to decide a course of action. Just make it reasonable according to the circumstances, and hopefully others will see it that way, too.

Well without clarification it can certainly be taken many different ways. I mean most of the time the "Threat" could probably be stopped by blowing someone's kneecaps off, but I don't think anyone should ever do that unless knee caps are the only target available to you.

 

[KillerFord1977]

A pretty good summary of what constitutes lawful self defense, but I do take issue with one thing. It says, "the person defending themselves must use only the level of force necessary to stop the imminent threat against them, and no more."

The trouble with that is how can anyone know what the minimum level of necessary force is? Will a stern rebuke suffice? How do you know if you don't try? Perhaps the display of your firearm is all that is necessary. Maybe if you shot them in the big toe with a .22, that would be all that is necessary. There are many more options available before you get to a 12 gauge slug through the cranium. Are you required to try all of them, in order to carefully determine the minimum amount of force that was "necessary" as they lunge across the room with their knife? Of course not.

The right language is "reasonable force," rather than "necessary force." There may be a thousand possible responses to the threat, all of which could be reasonable, from passive submission, to bashing them over the head with a frying pan, to blowing them away with a shotgun. You can't be asked to evaluate all of them in the heat of the moment to calculate which is "necessary." You may have only fractions of a second to decide a course of action. Just make it reasonable according to the circumstances, and hopefully others will see it that way, too.

I agree with your first paragraph.

If the threat has a knife attacking me, I’m not going to pull out a knife and go “equal threat level”. I’m using my firearm to defend myself

 

[BobM]

Good article Anni, thanks.
Article discussed legal criminal liability, but didn't touch on the fact that civil liability may also be involved like law suits by survivors and families even if incedent was justified defense for example. With some states legal systems, both liabilities are covered if defender is cleared of criminal legalities, in some states they're separate and not.

 

[TSiWRX]

A pretty good summary of what constitutes lawful self defense, but I do take issue with one thing. It says, "the person defending themselves must use only the level of force necessary to stop the imminent threat against them, and no more."

The trouble with that is how can anyone know what the minimum level of necessary force is? Will a stern rebuke suffice? How do you know if you don't try? Perhaps the display of your firearm is all that is necessary. Maybe if you shot them in the big toe with a .22, that would be all that is necessary. There are many more options available before you get to a 12 gauge slug through the cranium. Are you required to try all of them, in order to carefully determine the minimum amount of force that was "necessary" as they lunge across the room with their knife? Of course not.

The right language is "reasonable force," rather than "necessary force." There may be a thousand possible responses to the threat, all of which could be reasonable, from passive submission, to bashing them over the head with a frying pan, to blowing them away with a shotgun. You can't be asked to evaluate all of them in the heat of the moment to calculate which is "necessary." You may have only fractions of a second to decide a course of action. Just make it reasonable according to the circumstances, and hopefully others will see it that way, too.

I understand what you're saying, @Ranger715 , but in the language, reasonable and necessary are intertwined in this context - it's typically "reasonable force that's necessary to protect oneself (and/or one's property, depending on locale)."

So then the question arises, logically....

I agree with your first paragraph.

If the threat has a knife attacking me, I’m not going to pull out a knife and go “equal threat level”. I’m using my firearm to defend myself

The issue here is whether a lethal response is reasonable and necessary - and given that the threat presented is a lethal one (i.e. assuming that AOJP is met - that it's not a toddler dressed up as Jason from Friday the 13th and armed with a paring knife, coming at me, a 6', 250" able-bodied man), the proportionate response of lethal force is logically reasonable and necessary.

It's not about two equally sized and aged men duking it out in Fight Club nor the recruitment of a champion for Trial by Combat. Lethal force is by-definition lethal, and it does not matter if that is achieved via a gun, a knife, or a motor vehicle (it's interesting and informative to look up various institutional Use of Force policies towards this).....or via bare hands/feet.

It's about understanding the legal requirements of the use of force in self-defense, so that we not only prevail in the dire encounter, but also survive the legal and civil quagmire that may well unjustly follow due to politically motivated prosecution and vengeful parties who cares not who was the true victim of a crime or who was actually in the right.

The legal principles of AOJP (detailed in the author's "What is Considered Self Defense?" section) and "proportionality of response" are areas that every person looking to exercise their right of self-defense - armed or otherwise - should be familiar with, as we've now seen well-publicized trials where those involved have been properly acquitted under the law (Zimmerman and Rittenhouse, to name the two most well known)...and we also know well of cases where the rightful defender whose action abridged these considerations, and have ended in tragedy (Claude Werner's Tactical Professor blog routinely tracks "Bad Outcome" instances).

 

[Jfal]

I understand what you're saying, @Ranger715 , but in the language, reasonable and necessary are intertwined in this context - it's typically "reasonable force that's necessary to protect oneself (and/or one's property, depending on locale)."

So then the question arises, logically....



The issue here is whether a lethal response is reasonable and necessary - and given that the threat presented is a lethal one (i.e. assuming that AOJP is met - that it's not a toddler dressed up as Jason from Friday the 13th and armed with a paring knife, coming at me, a 6', 250" able-bodied man), the proportionate response of lethal force is logically reasonable and necessary.

It's not about two equally sized and aged men duking it out in Fight Club nor the recruitment of a champion for Trial by Combat. Lethal force is by-definition lethal, and it does not matter if that is achieved via a gun, a knife, or a motor vehicle (it's interesting and informative to look up various institutional Use of Force policies towards this).....or via bare hands/feet.

It's about understanding the legal requirements of the use of force in self-defense, so that we not only prevail in the dire encounter, but also survive the legal and civil quagmire that may well unjustly follow due to politically motivated prosecution and vengeful parties who cares not who was the true victim of a crime or who was actually in the right.

The legal principles of AOJP (detailed in the author's "What is Considered Self Defense?" section) and "proportionality of response" are areas that every person looking to exercise their right of self-defense - armed or otherwise - should be familiar with, as we've now seen well-publicized trials where those involved have been properly acquitted under the law (Zimmerman and Rittenhouse, to name the two most well known)...and we also know well of cases where the rightful defender whose action abridged these considerations, and have ended in tragedy (Claude Werner's Tactical Professor blog routinely tracks "Bad Outcome" instances).

Remember the prosecution in Rittenhouse. They told the jury that Kyle should have taken his beating, rather than defend himself. They told the jury it was illegal to defend yourself with a firearm from someone who is not displaying a firearm. Government "employees" were telling the jury absolute lies about the law. It's such a mess we have now that politics have corrupted our legal system so thoroughly...all this garbage has to be considered now when making decisions about defending yourself. Puke.

Sorry about that post...it appears to be a rant of sorts. Next round of beers is on me...

 

[TSiWRX]

^ Agreed.

To be sure, we must all be ready for this kind of viciousness from the prosecution.

And remember that since it is upon our defense lawyer to counter these unfair tactics, our choice there becomes crucial, too.

Aside from the legalities, I think that this is what various authors and SMEs in this sector mean, when they address the idea of having the "spiritual fitness" to see ourselves through a lethal force encounter and then the aftermath thereof. That we must have faith that we will be proven right in the court of law, if only we were righteous in our actions to begin with.

 

[youngolddude]

I can no longer run from a threat. A serious threat would have to have a serious response.

 

[Keystone19250]

I find it interesting we talk all the time of civil lawsuits brought by the families of the “bad guy” when he gets killed by someone defending themselves but never discuss a counter suit against those families for the action of their family member who was the aggressor.
I think that if more counter suits were brought that would slow the flow of civil lawsuits. Just a thought.

 

[wmg1299]

I find it interesting we talk all the time of civil lawsuits brought by the families of the “bad guy” when he gets killed by someone defending themselves but never discuss a counter suit against those families for the action of their family member who was the aggressor.
I think that if more counter suits were brought that would slow the flow of civil lawsuits. Just a thought.

I actually looked into this when I first passed the bar after working my way through law school as a police officer. I thought it might be a noble effort to turn the tables on criminals and their families when they sue cops, business owners, and uncooperative victims when their attempted crimes go sideways. Unfortunately, there is no way to cover your costs, much less make any money, with these lawsuits. If I ever get rich enough to not worry about the money, I'd love to take a few of these cases for the public good.

 

[Ranger715]

I understand what you're saying, @Ranger715 , but in the language, reasonable and necessary are intertwined in this context - it's typically "reasonable force that's necessary to protect oneself (and/or one's property, depending on locale)."

So then the question arises, logically....



The issue here is whether a lethal response is reasonable and necessary - and given that the threat presented is a lethal one (i.e. assuming that AOJP is met - that it's not a toddler dressed up as Jason from Friday the 13th and armed with a paring knife, coming at me, a 6', 250" able-bodied man), the proportionate response of lethal force is logically reasonable and necessary.

It's not about two equally sized and aged men duking it out in Fight Club nor the recruitment of a champion for Trial by Combat. Lethal force is by-definition lethal, and it does not matter if that is achieved via a gun, a knife, or a motor vehicle (it's interesting and informative to look up various institutional Use of Force policies towards this).....or via bare hands/feet.

It's about understanding the legal requirements of the use of force in self-defense, so that we not only prevail in the dire encounter, but also survive the legal and civil quagmire that may well unjustly follow due to politically motivated prosecution and vengeful parties who cares not who was the true victim of a crime or who was actually in the right.

The legal principles of AOJP (detailed in the author's "What is Considered Self Defense?" section) and "proportionality of response" are areas that every person looking to exercise their right of self-defense - armed or otherwise - should be familiar with, as we've now seen well-publicized trials where those involved have been properly acquitted under the law (Zimmerman and Rittenhouse, to name the two most well known)...and we also know well of cases where the rightful defender whose action abridged these considerations, and have ended in tragedy (Claude Werner's Tactical Professor blog routinely tracks "Bad Outcome" instances).

I just brought this up because one sees the "minimum necessary force" language pretty often, and I think it gives people the wrong impression. Changing it to "reasonable and necessary" seems redundant, since it probably isn't reasonable if it's unnecessary. I think reasonableness implies necessity.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be contentious or argumentative. I take no joy in picking nits and splitting hairs. I just think we should think in terms whether our actions are "objectively reasonable" (which implies a wide array of lawful choices), rather than whether they are the "minimum necessary force" (which implies there is only one correct course).

 

[Keystone19250]

I actually looked into this when I first passed the bar after working my way through law school as a police officer. I thought it might be a noble effort to turn the tables on criminals and their families when they sue cops, business owners, and uncooperative victims when their attempted crimes go sideways. Unfortunately, there is no way to cover your costs, much less make any money, with these lawsuits. If I ever get rich enough to not worry about the money, I'd love to take a few of these cases for the public good.

I’m not talking about covering cost or making money I’m talking about about making them go on the defensive when you bring them to court and make them explain why their family member thought it was ok to Victimize people?

 

[Bassbob]

I’m not talking about covering cost or making money I’m talking about about making them go on the defensive when you bring them to court and make them explain why their family member thought it was ok to Victimize people?

Seems to me if you have already retained counsel to defend you against a BS civil suit it wouldn't be much of a stretch to counter sue.

 

[TSiWRX]

I just brought this up because one sees the "minimum necessary force" language pretty often, and I think it gives people the wrong impression. Changing it to "reasonable and necessary" seems redundant, since it probably isn't reasonable if it's unnecessary. I think reasonableness implies necessity.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be contentious or argumentative. I take no joy in picking nits and splitting hairs. I just think we should think in terms whether our actions are "objectively reasonable" (which implies a wide array of lawful choices), rather than whether they are the "minimum necessary force" (which implies there is only one correct course).

Agreed - but sadly, from what little I understand of the law as a layman, it's often nit-picky and redundant! Glad I am not the lawyer in the family (even though my own job is itself nit-picky and redundant, too! ).

Definitely, the language can cause confusion...I sometimes think that it is specifically to create confusion.

I actually looked into this when I first passed the bar after working my way through law school as a police officer. I thought it might be a noble effort to turn the tables on criminals and their families when they sue cops, business owners, and uncooperative victims when their attempted crimes go sideways. Unfortunately, there is no way to cover your costs, much less make any money, with these lawsuits. If I ever get rich enough to not worry about the money, I'd love to take a few of these cases for the public good.

Like in the Amazon Prime series Goliath ! That would be so cool, on so many levels.

I can no longer run from a threat. A serious threat would have to have a serious response.

^ Disparity of force is always a huge factor.

 

[wmg1299]

I’m not talking about covering cost or making money I’m talking about about making them go on the defensive when you bring them to court and make them explain why their family member thought it was ok to Victimize people?

That is an incredibly difficult task. The type of people who sue when their career-felon relative gets shot by someone justifiably defending themselves (police or citizen) are a special breed. These people have the "Victim Culture" so deeply imbedded in their minds that they honestly believe that society owes them millions of dollars. They never "go on the defensive" because they thrive on the idea that they are being attacked. Unfortunately, they consider someone disagreeing with them or telling them to take responsibility for themselves to be an attack. I'd honestly prefer if they were just grifters.

 

[TSiWRX]

^ That's an excellent post, @wmg1299 .

We should remember the late Dr. William Aprill's words - that "they are not [us]." Their thinking is distinctly different from ours, and from their perspective, they are entitled to the compensations that we are depriving them of, that they are the one's that are being attacked.

For those who are interested, quite a bit of Dr. Aprill's "Unthinkable" lecture material have been preserved in his tribute page on the Personal Defense Network - https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/williamaprill/# Those who were lucky enough to have attended his workshops prior to his untimely passing near unanimously said that it was among the best -and often life changing- mindset lectures that they'd attended. It really is worth the time to view this material, particularly as with the way PDN is presenting it, it's chopped into discrete blocks that's easy to fit into a few spare moments' in one's busy lifestyle.