Very ,very good Quip from Mr Farnam, from a point of view I had not considered.
Oh, I’ll be doing the Farnam Urban Rifle Course in Virginia, in August, in case any Op-Forians are too.
And the October FPF Training Minute Man Rifle Course too, for that matter.
I have talked with people wanting to get concealed carry permits that at some point they have to “sit down with themselves” and make the conscious decision that if they draw their weapon it can only be for one purpose, and that is to kill. And that if they think you think they’re going to use it to scare someone, or if they hesitate to ponder what they’re about to do and whether they can bring themselves to do that, the other person will, to paraphrase Jesus in “The Big Lebowski”, stick the gun up their butt and pull the trigger until it goes “click”. I usually get a blank look at that point and decide that is one more person who doesn’t need to carry a concealed weapon.
I don’t think “conscious decision” has much to do with it. What a person may think during moments of quiet reflection doesn’t affect what they do in the gravest extreme. Given training and a weapon, if that moment comes, they kill or die trying. The rest is just bullshit.
It goes to training and conditioning. Concealing a pistol seems to indicate someone who will draw if necessary. Carry a pistol openly indicates someone who doesn’t want to be tested in any way.
If the person carrying the weapon intends to kill, basic marksmanship will do, probably a few hours at the range each month.
If the person carrying the weapon intends to wound, extensive and intensive training is necessary each week to bring the person up the standard of accuracy required to wound. I know it took my unit and me quite a while on the range to break the center-of-mass habit (suicide bombers know we’re trained for it, and we become the secondary mechanism for activating the bomb).
Then there’s the follow on action by the wounder: keeping the wounded person from bleeding out. And if they screw up the tourniquet and the wounded individual survives? Expect a lawsuit for exceeding one’s legal medical scope of practice.
IMO, even if one wants to shoot to wound, s/he must expect the wounded individual to bleed out. So the wounding is just to inflict pain, suffering, and humiliation on the wounded person.
Shooting to wound, legally speaking, is an oxymoron. A firearm is a legally recognized lethal instrument. By using it, you are employing lethal force. At that point, you are attempting to kill someone (and damn well better have the justification for it) whether you mean to hit their leg or their face.
That’s why I always have a good laugh at people who ask cops, “why couldn’t you shoot him in the leg?” If I am not justified in using a firearm, then I have other tools at my disposal to effect an arrest (or defend myself). If I am justified in using my firearm, then it will be to put the bad guy down and I will not employ OC spray or my ASP baton against a man with a gun. That is ludicrous.