Now I took a cruise up to the Last Frontier and let me tell you. I saw quite a few REALLY BIG Bears & Mooses up there. Now if I was able to go hunting up there. The smallest round I would pack would be the 35 Whelen.
But if the brown sauce hit the fan. Then I would just love to have a 375 H&H in my hands loaded with the heaviest bullets that are made. But that’s just me.
Grumpy
Editor’s Note: This article is presented for discussion only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not a substitute for qualified legal counsel. Every legal matter is unique, and minor variations in the facts may result in substantially different conclusions. Additionally, laws differ by state and local jurisdiction and are subject to change.
In self-defense and law enforcement training, the standard rule is to fire to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and to cease firing the exact moment that specific threat stops. Moreover, the use of force must stop immediately when the assailant surrenders, falls incapacitated, or retreats and no longer presents an active danger.
That seems very cut and dry, but legal experts warn it can leave much room for interpretation, which leads to the following question: How many shots are too many?
Criminal defense attorney Joey Hamby of Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm and “Attorneys On Retainer” (AOR) compared that question to what young lawyers are taught on how to cross-examine a witness in court. “Don’t ask one question too many,” to which the answer is that you might not know the answer until it could hurt your case. The point is that when you are succeeding in a trial, you want to stop talking.
When you are using a firearm in self-defense, you want to stop firing at the comparable point when the threat has been neutralized.
Hamby explained that many self-defense trainers will tell you that you should continue shooting until the threat is neutralized.
“I agree with that statement, and it came from the principles of reasonableness, imminence, and proportionality,” Hamby noted, but said there are three questions that one needs to ask.
“Is it reasonable to believe that the attacker lying on the ground is a threat of death or serious bodily harm? Is that person an imminent, or immediate, threat? Is it a proportionate use of force to shoot that person? It might surprise some people that the answer to that could be yes,” Hamby continued.
If an attack has the means to seriously injure someone, then that individual may be justified in firing again. By contrast, if the answer is “no,” then it could be much harder in court to prove the actions were justified.
There is also no “magic” number of shots.
Depending on the circumstances, one shot could be one too many, whereas multiple shots fired could be completely justified. However, this is unique from case to case, and prosecutors and law enforcement may see it differently.
“This is where getting the best self-defense attorneys and experts is critical. Prosecutors and police officers [may] lack the training and the experience to evaluate these situations and understand the dynamics,” Hamby explained. “A prosecutor may think that the number of bullet wounds to the attacker shows that someone is using an excessive amount of force.”
In a self-defense case, there are endless variables that will come into play, and that can begin with the caliber of the self-defense firearms to the size of the individual.
“There are many variables at play when using deadly force in self-defense. All of those variables, including the caliber of the weapon, need to be viewed through the same legal principles: Reasonableness, Imminence, and Proportionality,” Hamby explained.
“The caliber alone does not control the analysis. If one, well-placed shot from a .22 pistol neutralizes the threat, then you should not continue firing. If three shots from a .44 Magnum still have not neutralized the threat, then it is probably reasonable and proportionate to continue firing until the threat is neutralized,” Hamby emphasized.
It may also seem easy to consider the ways in which the setting can affect the analysis. As an example, it may be much harder to determine if the threat is neutralized in a low-light environment, and that may well affect the number of shots fired.
Still, all of these situations are very fact-specific.
“Each case has to be analyzed separately, based on the facts of that case. You can’t just transfer general principles from one case to another without understanding how the specific facts affect those principles,” Hamby noted.
In addition, the specific location of your actions can matter in a self-defense case. However, simply being in one’s own home may not impact the legality of the number of shots. Then again, there may be situations where it does.
The same legal principles of reasonableness, imminence, and proportionality hold regardless of whether someone opts to use a handgun, rifle, or shotgun as their primary home defense firearm.
Yet, Hamby warned there are reasons why some firearms could present some issues based on appearance and then question whether it was actually proportional in nature.
“It is possible that police officers, prosecutors, judges, or jurors may have a bias or preconceived idea about guns that may look ‘scary’ … . These types of beliefs may drive an investigation or even charges,” suggested Hamby.
“This is why getting the right defense team in place is vital. Here at Attorneys For Freedom, our focus is on self-defense cases. We are very familiar with these types of biases, and we know how to defuse them,” he added. “We can explain to a skeptical officer or prosecutor how a rifle or shotgun may well be the best tool for the job. It may well increase accuracy, which means it is safer for innocent bystanders. It may also be more effective with fewer shots fired … . These concepts have to be understood and have to be part of your defense team’s knowledge base.”
There are also some significant misunderstandings with the general public, such as a widely held belief that one can’t or shouldn’t bring a gun to a knife fight, or a fist fight. Such a misconception is understandable, as it is somewhat linked to the principle of proportionality. However, that is a misapplication of the principle of proportionality.
“The correct analysis is whether the attacker can cause death or serious bodily injury,” explained Hamby. “One easy example is where a very small, physically frail, 85-year-old in a wheelchair is being attacked by a large 20-year-old. Can that attacker seriously injure, or even kill the victim with just fists? Of course. And the 85-year-old may have no options except a firearm.
“Whether the attacker is large or small, armed with a rifle, shotgun, pistol, knife, rock, broken bottle, or just fists, the same questions have to be asked, and the same analysis has to be completed,” Hamby added.
“Unfortunately, many people are misinformed by movies and video games, and they believe that you can easily see when a bullet strikes a person. That is simply not real life. It is the rare exception to be able to tell … ,” Hamby acknowledged. “It is very common for a person to fire multiple times and to have no clear recollection of how many times they fired, and to have no idea of how many times they actually hit … . The main visual indicator you will normally have is when the threat is neutralized.”
The most important takeaway is that there is no “approved” number of shots because every self-defense incident has its own facts and its own unique issues. Whether one fires once or 10 times, the actions must be based on sound reasoning, in response to an imminent threat, and proportionate to the threat.
“Once the threat is neutralized,” said Hamby, “Further shots create a risk that you can be faced with criminal and civil liability.”
An armed private citizen chased down a school shooter at a Bend, Oregon, elementary school on Thursday afternoon, shot him inside the building, and ended the attack before officers had cleared their vehicles.
Three children and a teacher are still dead. Two more — a seven-year-old child and a 54-year-old teacher — are in critical condition at St. Charles Medical Center. The suspect, a 16-year-old Bend resident with a long gun, was killed where he fell. What the armed citizen prevented is the counterfactual nobody will put a number on.
Bend Police Chief Mike Krantz laid out the timeline at a Thursday press conference, as KTVZ reported in its officials’ update. The first 911 call came in at 12:59 p.m. A caller in a vehicle reported that someone with a long gun had fired at them multiple times. Dispatch then took dozens more calls in quick succession.
Silver Rail Elementary School went into lockdown at 1:01 p.m. The shooter forced his way inside by firing at the locked doors. According to Krantz, a community member saw the suspect enter the school, followed him in, and shot him before officers made entry. Krantz said the citizen “saw the suspect enter the school and pursued him and engaged him.”
Officers arrived shortly after, confirmed the suspect was dead, and swept the building room by room. Students and staff were bused to a nearby church to reunite with their families. Investigators were still working to determine whether the shooter had any connection to Silver Rail.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek praised the unidentified citizen in a Bend press conference that evening, saying the person “heroically intervened to stop further loss of life.” She added, “All Oregonians mourn this loss today.”
“Your actions carry a heavy emotional burden,” Kotek told the citizen, “and I just want you to know my thoughts are with you as well.”
FBI Director Kash Patel said agents were on scene assisting Bend PD and that the Bureau would provide whatever resources were needed.
A 16-year-old shot his way through locked doors into an elementary school with the clear intent of killing children. He killed three of them and a teacher before the three-minute mark. He didn’t get further because a civilian with a legally carried firearm chose to run toward the gunfire instead of away from it. By the time police were on scene, the threat was already down.
That gap has a name in the training world: time to effective resistance—how long it takes someone capable of stopping the threat to reach it and act—is the only number that matters once the shooting starts. Police response time is a measure of how long before an officer can intervene. The armed citizen’s time to effective resistance in Bend was the time it took him or her to see the shooter, close the distance, draw, and fire. Krantz has officers on scene at 1:02. The threat was already down.
The polling has moved. The media coverage has moved. The country has moved. More Americans are carrying — more women, more first-time owners, more people from communities that didn’t carry a generation ago — and the reason is the one playing out in Bend today. When someone decides a classroom full of children is a target, seconds count when first responders are minutes away. That is why law-abiding Americans keep buying guns, and why they keep carrying them.
Three children. A teacher. Two more fighting for their lives. And a civilian who did what the moment required, who will carry the weight of that act for the rest of his or her life. That person saved an unknown number of kids. The country owes them more than a thank-you.
James Talarico wants a seat in the U.S. Senate, and the National Rifle Association is making sure Texas gun owners know what he wants to do with it: ban commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines.
The NRA has released a new 30-second ad targeting the Democrat’s support for so-called “assault weapons” bans. Titled “Yes Absolutely,” the spot uses Talarico’s own words to put his gun-control positions before voters ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.
The Texas ad is part of the NRA’s broader multi-million-dollar investment in congressional races nationwide, aimed at protecting and expanding pro-gun majorities in the House and Senate.
According to the NRA’s announcement, the ad features a video in which Talarico endorsed banning “assault weapons” and commonly owned magazines. It pairs that footage with a more recent NewsNation appearance.
Asked whether an “assault weapons” ban remained “on the table,” Talarico answered: “Absolutely.”
For Texans who own the firearms and magazines targeted by those proposals, that answer leaves little room for comforting campaign spin. Talarico supports federal restrictions on arms that law-abiding Americans choose for defending themselves and their families.
“James Talarico has been coming for our guns for years,” the ad states. “He would outlaw the most popular firearms in Texas.”
The NRA has dubbed Talarico “Beto 2.0,” invoking another Texas Democrat whose gun-control agenda became a defining feature of his political identity. Talarico’s continued embrace of firearm bans gives gun owners ample reason to take the comparison seriously.
The Second Amendment protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It does not give politicians authority to reduce that right to a list of firearms they find politically acceptable.
NRA-PVF Chairman John Commerford said Talarico’s support for a federal ban should disqualify him in the eyes of Texas gun owners.
“By vowing to vote for a so-called assault weapons ban if elected to the Senate, James Talarico kicked a hornet’s nest. Nearly half of Texas households have guns, and millions of law-abiding Texans own the very rifles and standard-capacity magazines he would ban. Gun owners will decide this election—and Talarico just gave them another reason to vote.”
The NRA’s release also points to Talarico’s legislative record, including his vote against constitutional carry and support for stricter gun-control measures.
Taken together, those positions show opposition to both carrying firearms without a government permission slip and owning categories of arms targeted by gun-ban advocates. Texas voters deserve to weigh that record when considering who will represent them in Washington.
The NRA is pairing its advertising campaign with its Gun Bus battleground tour and traditional get-out-the-vote operation.
The organization says the bus will make multiple Texas stops, giving members and gun owners opportunities to learn about candidates’ records, receive issue updates, and participate in local voter outreach.
The broader operation includes millions of NRA Orange Cards, targeted text messages, and door-knocking efforts across Texas and other battleground states.
Commerford said the organization is combining advertising with “boots-on-the-ground outreach” to mobilize gun owners while control of the Senate hangs in the balance.
Talarico has supplied the central issue himself. Asked whether banning commonly owned firearms remains an option, he said “Absolutely.” Gun owners should take him at his word. Electing a senator who supports those bans would give Washington’s gun-control bloc another vote against their rights. Texans have every reason to remember that when they cast their ballots on November 3.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.