Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Primer: Realities of Self-Defense With a Handgun

They are inexpensive also Doc, the suggested student price is $25.00 per.

The RTBAV course does not involve handguns or shooting as a rule, that is an advanced course of it's own. The RTBAV is basic awareness and things you can do to avoid confrontations and touches on less than lethal methods of defense. Also things to do around the home to make it less attractive to crooks as well as at work & school.

Would I shoot someone over possessions? no, probably not...but remember the old adage about letting people get close to you. Ayoob I know teaches officers that a man with a knife 15 feet away can likely charge, and reach you before you can draw and fire. The Mythbusters TV show, FWIW a few months ago, tested that theory themselves, and demonstrated just that same scenario.

It's not just Ayoob.

A number of years ago a FTU officer in SoCal (IIRC, it was LAPD) named Dennis Tueller was talking to some guys about the "21-foot rule". Basically, they and most agencies were training their cops to consider anyone inside 21 feet (7 yards) as a potential contact-weapon threat in any police confrontation. Dennis told me at a conference a few years back that he did some "thinking out loud" about how valid that distance was.

So he and the other instructors set up an experiment: one instructor would run, and the other one would draw his pistol and fire a round (not at his buddy, obviously) to see how dangerous 21 feet actually was. The guy drawing and firing was not allowed to start his draw stroke until he saw the runner start toward him.

What they found was an adult male of average cop physical condition could close to contact-weapon distance in about 1.5 seconds. This wasn't good, as the average cop can't draw his sidearm from a retention holster in much under 2.5 seconds, and many cops in my experience are doing well to draw and fire in under 3 seconds.

The "Tueller Drill" has become justifiably famous as a demonstration of the distances and times that may be involved in a deadly force situation where the aggressor/attacker has a contact weapon. LEA's all over the country use this as part of their UoDF training.

The other thing I learned that a surprising number of them will not do what they are told at gun point.

Yeah. Ten feet is maybe livable, but inside of 6 feet a determined attacker can put a knife in your heart in about a quarter of a second.

If your reaction time is average, say 0.3 seconds, you'll be toast.

It's not just Ayoob.

A number of years ago a FTU officer in SoCal (IIRC, it was LAPD) named Dennis Tueller was talking to some guys about the "21-foot rule". Basically, they and most agencies were training their cops to consider anyone inside 21 feet (7 yards) as a potential contact-weapon threat in any police confrontation. Dennis told me at a conference a few years back that he did some "thinking out loud" about how valid that distance was.

So he and the other instructors set up an experiment: one instructor would run, and the other one would draw his pistol and fire a round (not at his buddy, obviously) to see how dangerous 21 feet actually was. The guy drawing and firing was not allowed to start his draw stroke until he saw the runner start toward him.

What they found was an adult male of average cop physical condition could close to contact-weapon distance in about 1.5 seconds. This wasn't good, as the average cop can't draw his sidearm from a retention holster in much under 2.5 seconds, and many cops in my experience are doing well to draw and fire in under 3 seconds.

The "Tueller Drill" has become justifiably famous as a demonstration of the distances and times that may be involved in a deadly force situation where the aggressor/attacker has a contact weapon. LEA's all over the country use this as part of their UoDF training.

Most of us are not natural born killers which is something to consider in self defense. Most of us will try and give the BG a fair chance to surrender.

I know that LEO are required to give the BG a fair chance to surrender but are civilians required to do that too?

Derby,

I know you enjoy using pretend to form thoughts, but what you wrote here is inaccurate.

There is no need by anyone to give somebody a "fair chance". "Fair chance" isn't used in court. i.e. "Officer, did you give him a fair chance?"

All that matters is:

1.)Means

2.)Intent

3.)Opportunity.

So, If I have a shotgun in my hand while bird hunting, and an officer approaches me, do I have the means, intent, and opportunity to kill that officer? Yes, I have the means. Yes, I have the opportunity. But no, I do not have the intent.

Another example:

I have a rock in my hand. Officer approaches me and asks how my day is going. I raise my hand and say "die [bleep], cocksuckin' pig [bleep]" as I begin to attempt my finest fast ball in his direction. The officer at that time can draw, and put three into my chest because the court will acknowledge I had means, intent, and opportunity to cause death, or severe bodily harm.

Got it?


Travis

Derby,

I know you enjoy using pretend to form thoughts, but what you wrote here is inaccurate.

There is no need by anyone to give somebody a "fair chance". "Fair chance" isn't used in court. i.e. "Officer, did you give him a fair chance?"

All that matters is:

1.)Means

2.)Intent

3.)Opportunity.

So, If I have a shotgun in my hand while bird hunting, and an officer approaches me, do I have the means, intent, and opportunity to kill that officer? Yes, I have the means. Yes, I have the opportunity. But no, I do not have the intent.

Another example:

I have a rock in my hand. Officer approaches me and asks how my day is going. I raise my hand and say "die [bleep], cocksuckin' pig [bleep]" as I begin to attempt my finest fast ball in his direction. The officer at that time can draw, and put three into my chest because the court will acknowledge I had means, intent, and opportunity to cause death, or severe bodily harm.

Got it?


Travis

Everything you say is true. But the fact of the matter is most of us will not just up and kill someone. We will attempt to reason with them. That's human nature for most of us. Only natural born killers will just up and kill someone with out saying anything.

I'm not talking about a court defense I'm talking about a killer instinct.

Actually, most of us won't. It's not human nature, it's American culture. Human nature is to protect itself, at whatever the cost. Darwin candidates "attempt to reason" with a BG trying to commit an assault on them. Survivors don't.

LEO's are not required to give ANYONE a "fair chance". If someone commits an act of violence and jeopardizes the life of another, they just volunteered to get shot, Tasered, OC'ed, and/or thumped on, whichever is appropriate.

"Fair" is a word we use to punish our children and our children use to punish us. It has ZERO place in combat.

Everyone is a natural born killer. The circumstances just have to be right for that switch to be flipped.

If you didn't have that ability in your genetics, your line would have died out long ago.

Doc,

I went through one of then Sgt. Teuller's classes long, long ago and learned that the reason he and his fellow officers ran the simulations was because one of his troops shot and killed a knife-wielding man in SLC and the D.A. was bowing to public pressure and was going to charge the officer with homicide. So, Sgt. Teuller and his other shiftmates taped the results of their findings and thus, the "Teuller Drill" was born.
He is a good man and a great supervisor.

Ed