The comment in the "are you going to jail?" thread about not understanding holding the perps with the firearm trained on them got me wondering.
I personally believe that a firearm is not limited in its effectiveness as an offensive protection tool. I believe that the knowledge of what it can do and the self-preservation of most humans will often garner the desired results without having to fire it. But I have never seen any stats on the breakdown of defensive firearms uses between those that involved a discharge and those that simply involved a show of force via display.
So here's my unscientific effort to see if my theory has any validity.
Answers are anonymous in case OPSEC is a concern. And if you qualify under both answers, use the latest incident.
Edit: Oh, yeah, LEOs, you can only use personal encounters, not those experienced in the line of duty. Can't have you skewing the answers for the "blowed 'em away" side.
I personally believe that a firearm is not limited in its effectiveness as an offensive protection tool. I believe that the knowledge of what it can do and the self-preservation of most humans will often garner the desired results without having to fire it. But I have never seen any stats on the breakdown of defensive firearms uses between those that involved a discharge and those that simply involved a show of force via display.
So here's my unscientific effort to see if my theory has any validity.
Answers are anonymous in case OPSEC is a concern. And if you qualify under both answers, use the latest incident.
Edit: Oh, yeah, LEOs, you can only use personal encounters, not those experienced in the line of duty. Can't have you skewing the answers for the "blowed 'em away" side.
Last edited: