"21 foot rule"

I was thinking about some things a new poster from across the pond has been saying.

The idea was the possibility of a having a firearm taken away from you duirng a fistfight and used against you.(The idea that won't go away)

Another idea expressed was that if you shot someone from 15ft/5M away it would be hard to claim "self defense" with that distance, and you would be facing "the death penalty."

The 21 ft/7M rule, in a nutshell, is that a person with a knife can close that 21ft/7M distance and stab you faster than you can react, draw your firearm from a holster, and shoot them.

If you can't legally shoot someone far away, and anyone within 21 feet is too close for you to do anything about, why bother having a firearm? :shrug:

It's late -I'm going home . . .

Gee, I'm still trying to figure out why the people who claim that they HAVE TO tote a concealed firearm every minute of the day also publicly claim to live in Peaceful Hollow.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=12457&mesg_id=12457

the people who don't feel they have to but do so because they want to? Myself being an example. I don't feel I have to carry a firearm I just do so because I feel more comfortable doing it.

I'd want to know why you feel more comfortable. Do you really live in so unsafe a place? How often do you find you need to use it? Were you acquited every time?

Just wondering.

I'd want to know why you feel more comfortable.

I feel more comfortable because I can effectively defend myself against someone intent on hurting me. I train with my pistol and am confident in my skills.

Do you really live in so unsafe a place?

I live in a place I like to call reality. For the most part reality is a pretty safe place but on occasion very bad things can happen and happen quickly. I hate the feeling of hopelessness and that is exactly what I would feel if a 250lbs man was attacking me or worse yet someone I care about and there was nothing I could do about it because I wasn't prepared. These types of things happen everyday.


How often do you find you need to use it?

By use it do you mean actually shoot it or just brandish it? I've never had to fire a shot in defense (thank God) and I hope I never will. I have had to pull it on someone who I believe was determined to attack me but never had to fire a shot. Like most cases the situation is resolved without a shot ever being fired.

Were you acquitted every time?

Not quite sure what you mean by this? I live in a state that doesn't require you to make ever attempt to get out of a situation before you have to use deadly force but my general rule is if I had a chance to escape then I will most definitely escape. I don't want to deal with all the things that come with shooting someone in self defense unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. I would fire a shot as a last resort only.

I hope I satisfied your curiosity.

the security blanket or teddy bear that a 3 year old carries?

me making a personal decision? How does it affect you in anyway shape or form unless of course you are the one about to assault me. I'm confident in my skills with a firearm and would only use it when I was presented with no other choice. I don't think I would refer to that as a false security as you tried to point out. If I just owned a gun and never trained with it then yes I can understand your point.

In the U.S., citizens have the "inalienable right to defend self and property". SCOTUS has ruled that government is not obligated to defend an individual. SCOTUS has also ruled that a citizens right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is restored as one the civil rights when civil rights are restored without exception, i.e. RKBA is a civil right.

Neither criminals nor law enforcement officers have an inalienable right to bear arms as a condition of their status, note a law enforcement officer’s right to bear arms is granted by government. Handguns are the tools of choice for criminals and law enforcement officers.

Because citizens as potential victims have the inalienable right to oppose crime, why should they be banned from using the same tools used by those who commit crimes and those who try to solve crimes?

some of my guns are more like the fire extinguishers in my home and cars or my spare tires for my truck.

Damn useful if I should need them.

It has nothing to do with teddy bears or security blankets. It's all about penis size!
Yes, it's true. All gun owners are hung like a hamster. Female gun owners have penis envy.
3 year olds? LOL!!! I wish I was endowed like one.

Excuse me now while I head to the bathroom with a bottle of CLP and the latest copy of Shotgun News.

You'll notice that these same doofi who claim to need to parade around with guns hidden in their pocket at all times NEVER ever want any sort of body armor...although you'd think if they were truly worried about safety they'd be howling for kevlar day and night.

a four year olds security blanket?
The more I hear the more I realize no one should have guns.

"So your Big Bad Gun is kinda like a four year olds security blanket?"
:eyes: My aren't you the smart one. I guess the police haven't gotten that memo because they seem hell-bent on keeping their "security blankets" with them, even when they're off duty.


The more I hear the more I realize no one should have guns.

The more hear, the more I realize that anti-gun-owner types should not have guns.

A few weeks back, some of these "enthusiasts" were SERIOUSLY claiming that they needed to carry guns at all time because terrorists might make civilization disappear overnight.

depts, many police departments are training their officers not to let a person armed with an edged weapon get within 21 feet of them. If they get within that distance and the officer makes the decision to shoot he is backed by his training. I can't see it being any different for a civilian shooting going to court in a jurisdiction that trains their officers in this manner.

I would think that the shooter would have to raise that at their trial. "Reasonableness" is the defense argument. In an anti-gun owner jurisdiction like Montgomery County, MD, (where I live) it is a sure bet that the prosecutor won't tell the grand jury about that tidbit.

But what do I know, I'm just a kebab vendor.:shrug:

The "Tueller drill" is named for Sgt. Dennis Tueller, Salt Lake City Police, his tests showed that, with people of various ages, weights, and heights, they could on average close a distance of 21 feet in about 1.5 seconds. Tueller concluded that a person armed with a knife or club at the so called "intermediate range" of 21 feet was a potentially lethal threat.

it's also possible that a person who has sustained a bullet wound to center mass still has enough forward momentum
too cause bodily harm to their intended victim. If that's true, it makes sense to shoot out your assailants hip and take their legs out from underneath them.

Center mass center mass center mass, front site, press trigger repeat as needed.

it's how some of the SpecialOps boys in Afghanistan were engaging targets
(dropped the enemy like a bad habit).
It would be a situational sort thing, but hell; I'm from Massacusetts.
Self defense rules here favor the criminal.

What circumstances/factors that are justifiable in one state could bring a manslaughter charge in another.

Your scenario only address' self defense. There are situations (allowable under law), where
a person legally permitted to carry a handgun, can come to the defense of another.