I think this book falls under the "Training" category, hopefully this is the right sub-forum.... So I bought OFF's book "Oregon Gun Laws. A Guide In Plain English" and while there are some good bits of info in there if I had to do it again, I would not buy the book. First, I support the OFF 110% and send them donations from time to time. They are a better ally to our rights in Oregon than the NRA. So don't take my opinion of this book as my opinion of the OFF in general. It seems like they spent a lot of time on subjects that don't apply to most of us... ie: felon in possession of firearms, getting your rights back after a felony, domestic violence, etc, etc. Open carry issues and the grey area of carrying in car, etc, etc.. Buying guns at gun shows, private sales, background checks, etc, etc. And then we get to the area where I wanted to know the most: use of deadly force. And what does the book say? "There are a lot of different ways of interpreting the law, so here is the ORS- read it" Umm, I have read the ORS. I read it online for free, but I wanted some of the legal talk deciphered in the way that they deciphered buying guns in Oregon and gun show laws, etc. I wanted to hear about different case law, etc. Half the book is ORS printed out... I understand that judges, lawyers, and juries can have their own interpretation of the use of deadly force laws - but I would have liked to hear what OFFs interpretation of the laws were. For example, this law: That "third person" line is something I've wondered about... When I took my CHL class it was right after that under-21 nightclub shooting in Portland and someone asked the instructor what they would have done in that situation. And he said it was a tough case on multiple levels. He said that if you were walking downtown and heard gunshots but didn't see the incident, run the other direction or wait, hide, observe to then give cops information. Because you don't know the story of the incident - who is the victim, etc- it could have been a gang shooting, etc -- it could have been another CHL defending themselves, etc. BUT! He said that if you witnessed a random act of violence and had enough information to know that it was not caused by someone antagonizing the shooter, etc -- then you defending that third-party would justified. BUT! He then said that what if one of the other spectators saw you do that - they might see you with a gun and shoot you... so it is a tough situation to be in. For me, my primary concern is the safety of myself and those whom I care for. If I can safely evade a situation that involves someone else - I will. I don't ever, ever, ever want to draw my gun. That said... there are some situations where you defending a third-party might be the right thing to do... sadly those situations have so many variables it is hard to come up with a scenario that you can put in a book... ... boy, I kinda took a side road from talking about the book... In summary, there were some useful chapters in the book - but there was also a lot of information that does not apply to a lot of shooters and I wish there was a little more information about use of force.