To Pull The Trigger, Or Not: That Is The Question
At least some of the time, simply showing a gun to a would be attacker is enough to scare him away. Though this is clearly not always the case, or we’d never have to actually pull the trigger. Sadly, most of the anti-gunners wouldn’t consider this the defensive use of a gun when they shout their anti-gun rhetoric from the roof-tops.
Clearly, it fits the description of a DGU, even though the gun was never fired. A lot of courts would agree that just the simple action of showing the weapon to an attacker constitutes deadly force. However, I do want to be clear that the trigger doesn’t have to be pulled in order for it to be considered deadly force. Simply pulling a gun out is enough. In most courts, pulling it out means that you intend to use it to save your life.
Furthermore, I believe that this is the most common form of defensive gun use. I believe that more often than not, people are not pulling the trigger when they have the option to. After all, taking away one’s life isn’t something that you can give back. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. And that is the main reason, right or wrong, why most people would never actually pull the trigger.
Taking another person’s life is not generally something most people want to deal with.
This is the case in this next video, where a couple of young-ins decided to hold up a jewelry store at gunpoint. It didn’t go as they had planned, because they ran away with their tails tucked between their legs. I’m sure there is something to be learned here, but I want to know something else, instead:
Would you have pulled the trigger? Or, would you have let them leave the way they did?
Here is the video:
Granted, we can’t really hear what is being said. Were these young punks pleading for their lives? Is there something else going on here that we can’t hear? Let me know what you would have done, different or otherwise, in the comments below. When you’re done with that, make sure you share this article on your Facebook Page to show the gun grabbers that defensive gun uses do happen, and not all of them end with someone dying or getting shot.
D. in Mass.
January 24, 2023 at 2:44 PM
Like the Supreme Court said in 1855 – SOUTH Vs MARYLAND 59 US 396 –no crime victim has standing in court to sue for injuries sustained during the commission of a crime at which law enforcement was present and did not or could not keep the victim safe.
You are on your own in the 7 page ruling which stands today.
June 4, 2016 at 5:01 PM
My father was a 1st lieutenant in the Vietnam war. He taught me to respect all guns whether toys (which needless to say can look real enough to get you killed) , air or real ones. I was taught if you pull out a weapon you must be prepared to use it. Granted the owner got lucky, a loaded gun was pointed at his nephew with his niece and grandchild behind him in the line of fire. Personally the gunman would of only noticed the flash of the shotgun and never had time to decide to not pull his trigger and lower his gun. Next time he might not and an innocent will suffer.
May 4, 2016 at 7:26 AM
There are a lot of pre-assault/pre-robbery cues going on here for someone paying attention. Look at how they entered the store. They barely gave any attention to anything in the display cases, walking quickly past them. Not something a genuine customer would be doing. Then there’s the classic one person distract the clerk while the other ducks behind to get his weapon out. He has to rack it first to even get it into action. I don’t know why criminals do this, but he puts the gun right up in front of the store employee’s face where it’s so easy to grab and one handed as well making it much easier to deflect or remove. Clearly, the sign of an untrained fool. Anyone in the store had the right to shoot this dirt bag as soon as the gun came out. The surveillance video would have made it a cut and dry case.
April 29, 2016 at 10:34 AM
I think the owner had the right to shoot as soon as he came out because the thief with the gun was pointing it at the clerk and therefore threatening the clerk’s life. However, when the owner came out with the shotgun, the thief with the gun lowered it and became confused. Then he turned and retreated. The owner knew this was all being recorded. I think he was cool enough to realize that when the handgun was pointed down, the threat was diminished and had he shot at that point, there could have been a legal dispute over the shooting. When the thief turned and retreated, the owner lost the right to fire. All in all, despite all the angry rhetoric here, the owner acted responsibly and for his own benefit. He is to be commended.