Umm, yeah. About that. Maybe not so much.
Jonathan appears to be an active duty Army officer, so this might color his perception here a little, what with combat training and familiarity with weapons and all that. But dealing with armed intruders by trying to run them over? In our area a very nice suburban fellow tried that with his wife and kids in the car a few years ago, and was killed by a bullet to the head.
Try shooting a moving target with a pistol--it's very difficult. Scoring a headshot past 15 meters when the target isn't moving is challenging for me, and I consistently qualify Expert. Doing so on a moving target is much harder, and adding in the stress of having a vehicle about to run your ass over puts that firmly in the "dumb luck" category for the shooter.
I'm all for not putting oneself in danger unncecessarily in the first place, and avoiding confrontation involving lethal weapons as much as possible. There's little to gain beyond bragging after about the 8th beer when you're older and wiser. Presuming you haven't been incarcerated for running down someone with your car before realizing it was just a Jehova's Witness trying to force the Watchtower through your window while you slept.
I'm not suggesting that you should dally in the area if you're in a vehicle and someone is shooting at you so you can try to run the shooter over. Being elsewhere quickly should be your top priority. But if the shooter is between you and getting the hell out of dodge, trying to avoid hitting him will increase
your chance of being injured, for two reasons.
First of all, maneuvering to avoid hitting the shooter is going to slow you down, meaning you're spending additional time in the danger zone. This is always a bad idea. Second, swerving to avoid the shooter increases the odds you're going to lose control of the vehicle and either roll it over, crash into a tree or other obstacle, get stuck in a ditch, drive over an embankment, or something else along those lines. This poses a high risk of injury from the vehicle crash, with the prospect of either being trapped in the vehicle or having to escape from the vehicle and then deal with the shooter while injured as the rotten cherry on the excrement sundae.
The same logic applies here as when unexpectedly encountering a deer in the middle of the road--it's far better to hit the deer then to swerve to avoid the deer. If you hit the deer, your vehicle will be damaged, but the odds of you being injured in the incident are very small. But if you try to swerve or brake radically to avoid the collision, the odds of hitting something more substantial than the deer or rolling the vehicle go way up, and the odds you will be injured go way up as well. Replace "deer" with "armed criminal" and the argument for not avoiding the collision becomes even more compelling--if you hit the criminal, the odds of him shooting you or engaging in any further hostile action toward you drop to near zero. But if you swerve to avoid the collision and lose control of the vehicle and crash, now you're probably trapped in a disabled vehicle on top of being injured, and the criminal can pretty much do whatever he likes to you.
And if you're too stupid to tell the difference between a JW offering you a Watchtower magazine and an armed assailant shooting at you with a firearm, you shouldn't be wasting oxygen, let alone driving.