One of the ideas that anti-2A people like to put forth is that you don’t need a gun because law enforcement will be there in time to save you. And, they’ll say, maybe you should have learned how to fight off an attacker using some kind of self-defense training instead of carrying a firearm that can kill someone.
Never mind that more people are killed by punches than by rifles in, at least, some years according to the FBI. I don’t hear anyone suggesting that we ban hands. Do you?
But to give credit where credit is due, there is truth in the idea that you should know how to fight your way to your gun or fight to be able to get the space and time for you to be able to deploy your firearm should you be caught in a situation in which you would be justified in using it.
To give perspective on this issue, especially for women who carry a firearm (and good for you, if you are), you can watch Tim Larkin discussing and having demonstrated exactly these kinds of situations below.
So, having seen the video (it’s only 5:33), do you still think that having your firearm on your person or within reach is enough? Or do you think that being able to fight to your firearm would be a useful skill set to know?
This is something to seriously consider. As we’ve discussed when talking about the Tueller Drill (the 21 foot rule), an attacker doesn’t have to be far away for you to not have enough time to deploy your firearm in order to protect yourself or someone else. So, it would be smart on your part to be able to defend yourself if you can’t deploy your firearm or, at least, to be able to fight to your firearm.
The life you save by learning that skill set could be your own.
Concealed Carry. I’m too old and it takes too long to heal to go toe to toe with some A$$hole.
Comments are closed.