After all that you've told me, I feel that carrying a
gun is double-edged sword.
It would be great if everytime you pull out a gun the threat backs
off.
But if I'm cornered and the (unarmed) thugs aren't impressed even
if I point a gun at them, and I can't fire a warning shot, and if I
shoot them I'll be in trouble cos they're not armed...
wow...
Precisely. That's why it should only be employed as the very
last resort in self-defense.
It is a double-edged sword because the use of deadly force, even if
justified, can potentially land you in a legal nightmare. Your
firearm will most likely be confiscated by the police and never
returned to you. During the trial, the prosecuting attorney will
likely try to paint you as a trigger-happy gun-toting maniac who
shouldn't even be allowed to carry a mechanical pencil, let alone a
firearm. You'll have to hire a competent criminal lawyer, at a cost
of several thousands of dollars, to defend you. And even if the
trial clears you, the family of the deceased bad guy will most
likely institute a wrongful death civil lawsuit against you, and
you'll once again have to retain a lawyer to defend you.
The instructor in our handgun safety class pointed out that a
permit holder who had used his gun in self-defense would, on
average, spend upwards of US$20,000 in legal expenses in the
aftermath.
Damn lawyers...
However, he also pointed out that the overwhelming
majority of confrontations involving permit holders drawing their
pistols in self-defense, ended without shots being fired (as was
the case with my confrontation in the parking ramp).
So if I'm cornered, no escape route, being approached by
2 men, at what distance can I consider myself in grave danger and
open fire in self defense?
That would depend on the distance the bad guy would have to be
at to inflict bodily harm on you. If you're cornered and the bad
guy pulled a gun and pointed it
at you from a distance, you'd probably be justified in
employing deadly force in defending yourself. If he pulled out a
knife at that same distance, the court will likely take a dim view
of your shooting him when he wasn't within range to do you harm.
However, if he continued to advance towards you with the knife
drawn and ignored demands from you to back off, I'd say you would
be within your purview to use deadly force.
For someone nervous enough to pull out a gun, that's a
lot of computing to do. I defintely think the mace/pistol
combination is a good idea.
Can you carry/conceal a taser in the US?
This might come as a surprise to you, but the variety of mace
available to the general public in the US legally
cannot have the same potency as the mace used by
LE agencies. Instead of incapacitating the aggressor, you'd just
end up agitating him more, increasing the likelihood of his
inflicting grievous bodily harm on you.
Yes, tasers are available to civilians. However, most self-defense
experts do not recommend using them, for the simple reason that you
need to be in contact with the aggressor to use it.
Despite all the drawbacks, I would not give up legally carrying a
pistol for my personal protection and safety. It has already
possibly saved my life once, without requiring a shot to be fired.
If, however, I find myself in a situation in which I have to pull
the trigger as a last resort to save my life, I would not hesitate
to do it. After all, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by
6.
MG
