[ninenot]

I'm supposed to let the guy put a bullet through my brain BEFORE shooting him

As long as you are nagging ME on this thread, that's an acceptable outcome.

Seriously, let's get this straight. If you mean that the other party has locked/loaded/aimed and has the safety off, BUT HAS NOT FIRED, you have two immediate and valid options: 1) run away; and 2) aim to disable. The moral rules of self-defense allow you to fire first (given all the above) but only to disable the opponent.

The procs apply, mutatis mutandis, to national self-defense as well. You will notice that Israel, the posterboy for a nation under attack by terrorists, NEVER initiates the action. There's a reason for that.

[Poohbah]

Seriously, let's get this straight. If you mean that the other party has locked/loaded/aimed and has the safety off, BUT HAS NOT FIRED, you have two immediate and valid options: 1) run away; and 2) aim to disable. The moral rules of self-defense allow you to fire first (given all the above) but only to disable the opponent.

Death is extremely disabling.

It's called DEADLY FORCE for a reason.

[rdb3]

The moral rules of self-defense allow you to fire first (given all the above) but only to disable the opponent.

"[O]nly to disable" my foot. In such a situation, I shoot to kill, not disable. Let's see. It's my life versus my assailant's. Well, my assailant loses if I don't get killed first.

You will notice that Israel, the posterboy for a nation under attack by terrorists, NEVER initiates the action. There's a reason for that.

Maybe if Israel preemptively mopped the floor with her enemies she wouldn't be continuously under attack.