WeaponsMan asks what went wrong with a particular defensive gun use (DGU). (Hat tip: WRSA) He summarizes, "In our opinion, it’s often a mistake to display a firearm in hopes of de-escalating a situation." Yeah.
So, would you pull your pistol in warning, like that guy Pannaman did? I sure wouldn't. In fact, I would seriously consider whether to use lethal force in self-defense at all.
This doesn't mean Ol' Backwoods don't carry a piece or two; let me explain.
In post-Trayvon America, self-defense is the only real crime (besides disrespecting the tyrants). The Powers That Be will make sure you that YOU AND I who defend ourselves with deadly force will pay for it, in money, possible jail time, and ruination of our lives and good name, and probably our families’. The God-hating, lawless thugs that attacked us will not pay for it; they will go free, and be coddled, fed, and taken care of by Fed.gov for the rest of their lives.
Drawing a gun in self-defense? Most of the time, the answer is “it is not worth it”.
I definitely would not defend someone not in my family or immediate circle of friends. (And I SURE wouldn't defend sea turtles with a gun like Pannaman did!) Sorry, I know that doesn't sound too Christian, but I have to think of my family first. Are the third-party individuals going to come up with the $100,000 – $1,000,000 to defend me in court? Are they going to replace my weapon that the police most assuredly will take, and allow to rust and ruin in a musty evidence room, or will be “lost” (pocketed by a cop), never to be seen again? Are they going to protect me when the media makes me into the latest George Zimmerman, to be stalked, shot at, and attacked at every turn, while the media gleefully reports each attack, as if I deserved it? When every cop that pulls me over and realizes who I am wants to just shoot me in the face and get it over with?
The answer is no.
Trainers like Massad Ayoob and Andrew Branca make every effort to convince their readers and students that YOU WILL LOSE should you defend your life with deadly force. Even if you are released by the police without charge, even if you are no-billed by the grand jury, even if you are declared innocent of any charge, YOU WILL STILL LOSE, because the civil suits will come from the defenders of the lawless thugs who attacked you. And even if your state precludes civil suits in cases of self-defense (like mine does), it doesn’t matter– the thug defenders, Progressives, and their media allies will mark you down in their little black book, and they will get you, sooner or later, one way or another. If they have to send a chick to accuse you of rape, if they have to off you in a dark alley, if they have to use the media to ruin your good name; they WILL get to you.
Here's the underlying reason for all this: the Powers That Be need to stop self-defense, because self-defense (per Heller and McDonald) is the raison d’etre for "allowing" (the tyrants' view of rights) the proletariat to carry a gun, and even gun ownership itself, and they cannot allow the subject populations to be armed.
Yes, Ol' Backwoods still carries. I guess I just never learn. I carry because there might be a direct threat to my or my family’s life that I have no way out of except to kill the attacker.
But I will seek every way out before I even draw my weapon. I will run away if I can, like the coward my noble ancestors would consider me to be. I will even allow myself to be shot or wounded before drawing and returning fire. I might be killed by the attacking thug, but if I am, at least my family will have my life insurance. If I live, the media and the powers that be will destroy not only me, but my family as well.
And I haven't even gotten into the psychological impact of killing another human being.