Posted on September 7, 2026
Understanding the Longer-Term Emotional Impact of a Defensive Shooting
By: Joel T. Nadler
Effective self-defense training should address the immediate aftermath of a defensive-force incident, including how to interact with responding law enforcement and what steps to take during the first 24-72 hours to support legal counsel. These lessons are essential because anyone forced to use defensive force should understand the likely psychological and physiological effects of a life-or-death encounter, both during the incident and immediately afterward. It is also important to plan how to respond to law enforcement and to understand common post-incident mistakes that can create unnecessary legal problems. Less commonly addressed is the lasting psychological impact of being forced to use deadly force in self-defense.
The following discussion examines the longer-term impact of using deadly force from three complementary, though sometimes competing, perspectives. First, we will consider what science and statistics suggest about the likely effects of such an act. Then we will review the psychological issues. Finally, we will examine the legal issues.
The Science
Estimates suggest that the proportion of Americans who have taken another person’s life—through police action, self-defense, military action, or homicide—falls somewhere between .01% (1 in 1,000) and .001% (1 in 10,000). This means very few people have faced the psychological consequences of taking a life. This rarity is important when compared with estimates of civilian uses of force, which are approximately 61,000 per year in the United States, or about 1 in 5,600 people1. Of those incidents, current estimates suggest that in 82% of cases involving a gun, the attacker yields before a shot is fired, placing the annual odds of defensively firing a gun at roughly 1 in 31,200 (less than .001%)2. As a result, it is extremely rare for someone both to face a situation requiring deadly force and to have prior experience with its aftermath. Finally, sociopaths may be less likely to experience this type of psychological fallout, but they are uncommon, making up only about 1 to 2% of the population3.
In his books “On Killing” and “On Combat,” Dave Grossman argues that humans are wired to resist killing other people and that doing so in a personal, face-to-face encounter can cause severe psychological trauma. Grossman suggests that, in addition to “fight” or “flight,” which better describe responses to non-human threats, people may also “posture” or “submit” when confronting another person. These responses help explain many behaviors seen in potentially life-or-death situations. Although some of Grossman’s claims, including the data underlying parts of his theories, have been questioned, few dispute that his observations about how people respond to extreme decisions have some validity.
Grossman also states that the U.S. military has taken several steps to increase individual soldiers’ willingness to fire on other people. Many of these methods resemble civilian self-defense training. One tactic is the use of more realistic, photorealistic targets. Although person-shaped silhouettes are still used in our earlier self-defense classes, photorealistic human-threat targets are used in later classes. Supporting the differences between training and reality, students often report greater difficulty shooting at targets that look like real people. A second factor is the use of drills that better simulate real-world applications. These first two factors are clearly reflected in many civilian self-defense classes. The final two involve diffusing responsibility to the group (“we were all shooting”) and to command (“we were ordered to shoot”). Although those rationales are less likely to apply in civilian use-of-force cases, it remains important to recognize the choices the attacker made that forced a person to use defensive force.
Psychological Issues
The data clearly show that taking, or attempting to take, another life increases a person’s risk for several psychological issues. These may include guilt-based PTSD, intrusive thoughts, moral injury, emotional numbing, and hypervigilance45. Guilt-based PTSD and intrusive thoughts are among the most common and often involve repeatedly reliving the incident, including through dreams and nightmares. They may also include second-guessing the actions that led to the use of force. Understanding the role the attacker’s choices played can help a person process these issues. Moral injury refers to a form of cognitive dissonance that occurs when a person struggles to reconcile their beliefs, such as “killing is wrong,” with their actions, such as acting in self-defense. Morals may be influenced by religious convictions, but they are not the same thing. Most non-sociopaths understand that taking a life should be avoided whenever possible. Emotional numbing occurs when a person withdraws from feelings about the incident and becomes less emotionally connected to others, including family and friends that they might normally rely on for support. Finally, hypervigilance is reflected in the belief that because something happens once, it can and will happen again, leading the person to constantly scan for potential threats.
No one can know in advance how they will react after a defensive use of force, but the evidence strongly suggests that most people will experience some form of psychological trauma. These effects can be reduced by training for the possibility and recognizing the warning signs. Other mitigating factors include past experiences, perceptions of violence, a strong support system of trusted friends and family, and access to counseling. Although counseling carries far less stigma than it once did, modern data suggest that fewer than half of military personnel who need PTSD-related assistance utilize such services.
Legal Issues
A final consideration is the need to protect yourself and your family legally after a use-of-force incident. Working through perceived guilt and “what if” scenarios may support psychological healing, but the same process could call the self-defensive nature of the incident into question in court. A person must balance awareness of these issues, continued involvement of legal counsel, and seeking help in a way that does not jeopardize legal standing. I have always said that the worst time to find a good lawyer is while searching “good defensive shooting lawyer” with an attacker down and police arriving. Anyone concerned with self-defense should know who they will call in the rare event they must use force. In the past, this meant building a relationship with a lawyer and keeping that lawyer’s card available. Today, many jurisdictions have lawyers who specialize in civilian use-of-force cases, as well as organizations such as CCW Safe that can help balance these issues.
Conclusion
“Knowing where the trap is—that’s the first step in evading it” -Thufir Hawat in Dune by Frank Herbert
Training for and understanding the potential longer-term psychological impacts is the first step in creating a plan that extends beyond the immediate aftermath of a defensive incident. Research on combat soldiers can help us estimate possible issues and identify ways to reduce their effects if they occur. We often prioritize the skills needed to survive a defensive incident, along with the immediate aftermath and legal steps. To be truly prepared, however, we must also recognize the possible longer-term psychological issues, train to reduce their likelihood, and have a plan that balances needed support with legal defense.
1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39298697/
2 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4109494