moot1337

You two have taken martial arts classes, right? Or are you gleaning information from Hollywood?

Practically the first thing they teach you when addressing knife and other weapon disarms is that no matter how talented a martial artist you are, there's an incredible likelihood that you'll be seriously injured when performing l33t ninja disarms like this, especially when your attacker isn't caught by surprise... You're also making assumptions that said attacker is definitely not experienced in any combat, and will be easy to disarm - this is a potentially deadly mistake. It's often best to err on the side of caution.

You also don't address the issue in this scenario of the reactions of the bystanders - what are they going to do and where will they be when in about 2.5 seconds you and a raging crackhead with a knife struggle in an epic melee? That is, if you can engage him - nobody ever said (and you don't know) who his target is. Will you put them at risk and accept the consequences of doing so? What if your kids or wife are gravely injured as a result of your refusal to defend them using the deadly force you're being attacked with? I don't see it as terribly unlikely in the ensuing brawl that one of them gets in the way and ends up hurt or dead.

It seems to me, will, that you're out to prove yourself better than everyone else, on the basis that you wouldn't kill someone trying to kill you or others. You're trying to hold all life to the same level of value, and would put yourself and others in danger because of it. Sure, they might make a movie about you if you were able to pull it off, but what if you don't? You'll either be the hero or the shame of the city, so I'd suggest you be damn well prepared, and remember it still might not help you.

Further, what would your answer be if you weren't involved in this scenario, and it were up to a woman to choose what to do? Would you have her be a martial arts expert, and put herself and her children at risk to attempt to disarm someone with a weapon? Perhaps have them run (and be subsequently outran) or lay down and beg for mercy? As hedwigstrange pointed out earlier, guns happen to be great equalizers. Most strong women, let alone an ordinary woman, are still not as strong as a man. I'm not trying to be sexist, but it's a fact of life. Would you still hold them to your standard of not responding to force with the same level of force?

Nobody ever said you have to not announce your ability and intention to defend yourself. You are not required to kill in cold blood. You're not even required to shoot, or shoot to kill. Here's my response, once deadly force and intent has been shown:

1: draw concealed pistol - check for response from attacker.
2: YELL: FREEZE! I HAVE A GUN! or something of that nature, with gun clearly visible in low ready position (aimed near attacker's kneecaps/groin) - check for response from attacker (it's likely that FREEZE will be the only part to get off before the distance is closed - that is sufficient.)
3: if no response: aim for center of mass, fire twice. hopefully two low torso hits - check for response from attacker.
4: if still no response, and attacker persists despite being shot, then an immediate killing blow is necessary. people hopped up on drugs can often continue to attack, despite being shot. This is why the Mozambique drill exists.

All this has to happen in that minuscule amount of time between the attacker and myself and family - checking for responses is something you have to do on the fly because it happens so fast, but I wrote them out to emphasize a point: if the attacker desists in his actions, so will I. I will only use deadly force if it's the only action which will bring the incident to a stop before anyone else is hurt, once deadly force has been shown on the attacker's end. It's still not my intention to KILL anyone. It's my intention and duty to STOP them before they harm myself or my family, and killing may be the only way to stop them. That's something which has to be accepted before carrying/using ANY lethal weapon to defend oneself.

I, personally, will not risk the wellbeing of anyone to prove myself somehow better than a thug on the street. I don't see it as "stooping to the thug's level" if I respond to deadly force with deadly force, because I'm not the one going around attacking people with no provocation. I find you naive, will, for making such an assumption, and for being willing to put others at risk because you have such faith in your martial arts abilities to stop others intent on harming you and yours. You value a hoodlum's life more than you value your own, and I think that's far too dangerous for everyone else, and giving the hoodlum far too much credit at being human. I pray (despite being an atheist) that nobody is ever forced to rely on you to keep them from imminent harm, and I also hope beyond hope that you're never put into that position, and never go into politics.

This is not to say that I wish to be exposed to such situations - as I said before, it's every gun owner's worst nightmare to be forced to use their weapon. However, I will prepare to the best of my ability to respond to such situations, and those around me will be all the better for it. I'll make every attempt not to use my weapon, and to use non-lethal means before using lethal ones - but, if it comes to it, anyone attempting to infringe upon the safety of myself or those around me will end up with nothing more than a belly full of lead and a pool of their own blood to drown in.*

I don't think that killing another human "sits right" with anyone. I do think, however, that sometimes that's the only option, and the array of possible alternatives would sit with me far less well than having put an end to the life of someone trying to do me or my family harm.

*quote shamelessly ripped off from Sargent Johnson in Halo 1

__________________
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be
banana-shaped.
This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again
how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
Oh, certainly, sir.