Originally Posted by
Sharpshin
Could it have actually been two misses (one a lucky ricochet) and one that just happened to hit the legs? Hard to imagine a guy being attacked, let alone by three assailants, would have the time to make the deliberate decisions you said occurred.
Could have, though I believe the story. Just like any chest shot could have been a missed warning shot.
Originally Posted by
Sharpshin
One practice drill is to take a handgun, stand 10 feet or less from a combat sihouette target, and attempt draw from concealment and fire two shots onto the target inside of two seconds. WARNING, one should BE SURE their feet are out of the way and that the gun is pointed downrange when the trigger is pulled, one had better try this drill with an empty gun several times first.
Now imagine doing that when you are facing imminent death, remember, you have two seconds to react.
Exactly. That's why I almost never carry. Takes me at least 2 seconds to draw and fire first round - too much IMO. 2 seconds is plenty of time to RUN - I'm a good runner.
Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
99% of the time when the shooter is a LEO, the shootee is either unarmed or armed with far less lethal potential than the shooter. That's where guns excel. When the shooter has the control of the situation already. Under those circumstances I wonder why said shooter shouldn't face the full force of the law and be made to give a full account of their actions in a legal proceeding.
I also believe that if the attacker has a gun, he will not give victim a chance (enough time) to draw theirs, even if they had one.
However, in some situations, even if an attacker doesn't have a gun, you should be allowed to use yours. Imagine two big thugs attacking a middle aged man, or a WOMAN. They could have no weapons, but still one should be allowed to defend themselves. The only positive thing I see about firearms is giving the small, weaker people some chance... though I'd still ban guns for ANY use.