What would make you draw?

image The Shark Tank Analogy

What are you willing to jump into a shark tank for?
Would I jump in to rescue my children? Yes. But there’s no way I’d jump into a shark tank with a hungry shark for my phone, car, TV, money, or smartwatch. Property is easily replaceable.

Kevin explains it more here:

What would you jump into the shark tank to save?


There’s the what if’s that go with this. What if I see someone breaking into my truck. Can I run towards them yelling “GET AWAY FROM MY TRUCK!!!”? If I do that, am I provoking them into a fight? Do I do nothing except call the police?


In DC you will go to jail unfortunately. :hot_face:


I would say you’re running toward the problem instead of away, so based on that alone I would say if you had to resort use of your gun, you’d wind up in court.

Three things to ask yourself before firing your gun:

  1. Can I safely remove myself from the situation?

  2. Am I in imminent danger of great bodily harm or loss of life?

  3. Is the use of my gun necessary and reasonable to stop the threat?


Same in NJ.

The sad thing is people should not be punished for trying to protect their property. That’s their time and life-investment put into those things. I think people should of course consider of the value of a persons life when considering if they want to draw, but I have a hard time feeling they should go to jail for standing up to a criminal who chooses to steal from another person. Of course if I drew a firearm I would first tell them to get on the ground, if they ran I would probably just let them run, but if they decided to come towards me that in my mind makes them at fault.


If they ran I would not chase or shoot, however, I would love for them to be the latest contributor to “I got TAZED the “F” out” Youtube page.

At the least, criminals need to be subdued for law enforcement, charged, and sued for the damage they inflicted.


We can get really far off into the weeds here playing out “what if” scenarios but it really isn’t necessary.

Drawing your gun is what you do when you have no other choice and all your other skills and senses have failed to keep you or those you care about safe.

It is the last resort and to be used only to stop or prevent a deadly force encounter that you see developing.

Depending on your state it may even be lawful to draw your gun, even level it at a potential threat that has not yet used deadly force on you (think of being backed into a corner by a hostile crowd) to diffuse the situation but even there, it’s the last resort when all else has failed and you end up in a situation you could not, or failed to avoid.

To paraphrase Keven, the only way to guarantee you walk away from a fight unscathed is to avoid it.


Wow. I wish had thought of this scenario for the webinar last week.
The question comes down to: if I didn’t have a sidearm, would I yell at person breaking into my car? Yes, of course I would. The guideline is when something criminal is happening – where others can hear – is to yell. Yell at the criminal; cry for help.
Now, if I did have a sidearm in the same situation, would I act the same? My nature is: yes. But we with the ability to use deadly force are held to a higher standard. This where I wish I could have posed the question: if I have not exposed my sidearm and do not have my hand on the grip, could I act as if I didn’t have an “ace in the hole.” (I want make abundantly clear: I used that idiom for no other reason than I couldn’t think of something more appropriate. When carrying, I feel more a real burden than power.)


Threat to my family or my property. Finding myself in a mob/protest situation where I’m being assaulted.


In Texas – what a great state – I believe that is your right.


Texas may be worth a hard look then.


Direct threat to myself or others where there is no other option…

The most threatened I have been recently, most I did was released my safety on my holstered firearm still concealed.

I was helping a friend control the 400lb sows (3 of them) and 9, 220lb hogs while separating the 10week babies to a separate pen… Just had a fiberglass rod to work as a buffer between 3 angry mommas…

Fortunately, never needed to draw and shoot…

That’s the closest I believe I have come to drawing.


Unless my wife are my children are in the car your question to 1,2, and 3 are no. But their is one problem, my wife has just Shoot Him are Her with a 357 meg. Make sure the car are truck has no one in it bad Guy are Girl. Wrong car are truck to break into.

1 Like

Can we add a twist to this? What if the truck is part of your business? Many of the people I know that are armed have businesses from Jewelry stores to sporting goods stores, pawn shops and liquor stores and some have shot to protect property. The payday loan store close to me has armed security as does the medical Marijuana dispensary because of high volumes of cash.


An imminent risk of death or great bodily harm to me or my loved ones that we could not escape from


@Sean2 @Robert5 in Missouri we are allowed to use force to defend property but use of deadly force is only allowed when it would be considered legitimate without the property question… that is when a person is threatened. (See law text below)

Not a lawyer, but what I think that means is that if someone is breaking into your truck, you can approach and yell at them, threaten them with a stick, punch them, but not draw your gun. However if they then come at you with a tire iron, you can defend yourself as needed with draw or shoot. You can restrain them to await police arrival. BUT both of those latter actions are going to require a LOT of explanation and if you are unsuccessful doing so, you are on the wrong side of the law.

@dawn it would be lovely to have the legal team address this. Or maybe @MikeBKY can comment.

I don’t know what happens when the “can’t be the agressor” part of self defense law bumps up against the "can use physical force to defend property " law.

As to if its wise to do any of the above… that’s a separate question and would depend on the circumstances.

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 563.041. — Use of physical force in defense of property.

  1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
  2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
  3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
  4. Stuff having to do with armed nuclear security guards
  5. Stuff having to do with armed nuclear security guards
  6. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section
1 Like

It’s simple if I see a threat and the threat is armed. No but’s no what if this or that. If human life is in danger I will draw period to protect my loved ones.


@Zee “It’s never that simple.” I love/hate that sentence. Nice and condescending. I regret I must use it here. How do you plan on stopping, say, a car break-in? Yelling at the perpetrator may likely make a difference, since criminals typically are cowards. But yelling is all you can do.

If you approach, if you threaten them, if you get in the way,… all of these scenarios we use to defend our use of deadly force, and the courts --being no respecter of persons-- have to try a case that way.

Worse, you could put yourself in a “provocation scenario” which concealed carry defense lawyers hate. These cases are already shaky.

No, I don’t have a solution. I believe in defending my property too, but laws are as wiley as the politicians who put them in.

1 Like

I agree with the sentence, “It’s never that simple.” Although I don’t necessarily find it condescending - I usually have to see the context. :slight_smile: I guess it’s never that simple. :rofl:

As far as defending your property - here’s how I think about it:
Is he in my home? Call the police.
Is he in my home with my kids/family/loved ones? Call the police and then see if I can get my family out (if he doesn’t know they’re there)
Is he in my car? Call the police and take pictures/video with my cell phone.
Is he in my car with my kids? I find a way to get my kids out of the car and to safety - I would engage somehow.

It all depends…

@Sean2 nope, nothing around either self-defense or the law (pretty much ANY law) is simple.

Not prescribing any actions for people to take - that would be foolish as the individual circumstances ALWAYS impact the “right” choice. Just presenting the Missouri law - as written - and taking a shot at how to apply understanding the conflict between Missouri’s “right to defend your property” and “must not be the agressor” in self-defense.

It creates an inherent conflict, but the only way to come to any understanding of it is to grapple with it.

My current grappling is above - I’d be happy to have you bring your own grappling take on it as well. :smile: Marquess of Queensberry rules, the ring is Missouri Law :grin:

1 Like