When confronted with an immediate threat, are legal repercussions and costs
what should be occupying your mind at the moment? iStock-697763642
"If you go to guns you failed," Steve Tarani writes in American Handgunner. That "means that you failed multiple opportunities to take preventive measures in ensuring your personal security and that of those who you are responsible to protect."
The guy has an impressive CV. He's a subject matter expert, an educator, and an author "specializing in awareness-based training" with decades of experience in both public (CIA, DOE, National Security Institute) and private (Gunsite Academy, Sig Arms Academy) sectors. So, at the risk of ignorantly challenging the professor in a class I have no business even attending without passing some advanced prerequisites, I'm going to call BS on the example he uses to illustrate his point.
I won't argue with the reality that going to the guns should be a last resort and that situational awareness can prevent encounters from occurring in the first place. Those are self-evident truths that go hand-in-hand with avoiding sketchy people, areas, and situations when we can.
But sometimes, the best-laid plans don't work out, and we find ourselves in a fight-or-flight situation—or, as Tarani recounts, fight or surrender.
He tells the story of one of his students who was mugged, admitting, "it was a situation that warranted firearm response and it would have been a justifiable shoot." Instead, the student didn't act and instead mulled over the legal and financial ramifications of doing so: .....