| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2012 03:58:33 PM · #676 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
In the examples of the spare tire and fire - no one else is involved. In the case of the firearm, no else needs to be involved either - unless they choose to engage me in a life threatening manner or one involving grave bodily injury to myself or those under my immediate care. The gun doesn't jump out of its holster on its own and start discharging rounds and there zero reason for it to ever leave its holster as long as myself and those under my care are safe and secure. No risk to anyone. With the thousands and thousands of citizens carrying now in 38 states without any injury to the general public - I say that speaks volumes that responsibility is taken seriously and that law abiding citizens generally obey the law. |
I wish you'd quit comparing guns with things that cannot be used as a deadly weapon in the hands of virtually anyone. It simply isn't the same thing.
A spare tire is used to put your car back on the road if another tire goes flat.
A fire extinguisher is used to, hopefully, stop a fire that has started.
When you get your gun out, the chances are, it's to wound or kill someone. And don't even try to tell me that it's as a display of force, you know perfectly well that no one should ever get a gun out unless they intend to pull the trigger.
Cars, toasters, kitchen knives, baseball bats, couches, or anything else that you want to drag into the conversation *can*, or *might* be able to be used as a deadly weapon, but that is not their first and foremost purpose.
Guns are a deadly weapon. |
Your interest in training is good. You should take some. If you did, you would learn that shooting to "wound" is not a good choice. If your intent was to wound then the threat was likley not imminent nor was it grave (crippling) injury. You would learn that your intent is to stop the assault. Yes death may result due to a poor choice of victims on the assailants part, but life is full of choices. As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job.
sp edit |
To be fair, fire extinguishers are less dangerous, even in the hands of a full-on idiot.
Still, as I've said previously, I'm not ok with giving up my rights because other idiots misuse theirs. That's what this boils down to for me.. Stop being so darn risk averse, and stop trying to take away my toys, I didn't like it when I was a kid, and I like it even less now - the difference is that as a kid it usually was something I had done, in this case it's very much nothing to do with me, but it still has a serious effect on me.
FYI - just so we're really clear on how much I actually care, I haven't fired a single round this year, nor do I intend to, but I would prefer to be able to, much like I keep a narcotic painkiller around almost always, it's not that I really want to eat the blasted thing, and I know people abuse them, but darn it, why should I have to suffer because others are idiots? If I hurt myself, I want the painkiller to be available, same as if there was some unforeseen reason that I might find myself in need of a gun.
Oh, and I did receive some really great Columbian death threats this year, but the weapon of choice was a nice framing hammer by the door, the weapons stayed put up, probably a better choice than a gun in a home CQB scenario anyway.
As you can see, I don't really need my guns, nor do I really feel like they're my first choice for self defense, but still, I would very much like to keep my toys.
As a final thought here - fast food kills WAY more Americans a year than guns do... I'd prefer we ban that first, then maybe I'll consider the weapons ban. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 05:53:02 PM · #677 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Your interest in training is good. You should take some. If you did, you would learn that shooting to "wound" is not a good choice. If your intent was to wound then the threat was likley not imminent nor was it grave (crippling) injury. You would learn that your intent is to stop the assault. Yes death may result due to a poor choice of victims on the assailants part, but life is full of choices. As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job.
sp edit |
see i told you guys, shoot to kill.
seriously though, if wounding and incapacitating the assailant will suffice, how is that not the preferred option? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:23:30 PM · #678 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
seriously though, if wounding and incapacitating the assailant will suffice, how is that not the preferred option? |
It takes a far more skillful shot to actually disable them than to kill them. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:30:59 PM · #679 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Flash:
Your interest in training is good. You should take some. If you did, you would learn that shooting to "wound" is not a good choice. If your intent was to wound then the threat was likley not imminent nor was it grave (crippling) injury. You would learn that your intent is to stop the assault. Yes death may result due to a poor choice of victims on the assailants part, but life is full of choices. As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job.
sp edit |
see i told you guys, shoot to kill.
seriously though, if wounding and incapacitating the assailant will suffice, how is that not the preferred option? |
They are still alive to testify! :-) |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 06:32:06 PM · #680 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
They are still alive to testify! :-) |
you are right, shoot to kill.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 18:32:22. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 08:20:07 PM · #681 |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 09:05:13 PM · #682 |
| im reminded by the Simpson's first treehouse of horror, "ahhh, he has a board with a nail!" |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 11:21:03 PM · #683 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
see i told you guy[user]s, shoot to ki[/user]ll.
seriously though, if wounding and incapacitating the assailant will suffice, how is that not the preferred option? |
Sadly, when confronted by an armed individual, one's reaction is not one where options are at the forefront of critical analysis. Mass grouping is what one normally strives for and unfortunately this procedure can and does often result in death.
Trying to be selective and shooting someone in the leg could quite readily lead to your own demise. Given that scenario I know that my reaction would be.
Ray
OOPS... I see that  GeneralE had already covered that.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 23:22:48. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:02:54 AM · #684 |
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. All fights are now gun fights. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:12:22 AM · #685 |
Post #674 Nikon Jeb
Again.....the parallel is nowhere close to the same.
Safeguarding your property or life with your fire extinguisher is not going to have the same resulting loss of life as with the firearm.
I guess I just don't understand if you don't get it or you think some of us are stupid. I honestly don't know how this premise makes sense even to you....
As a fire extinguisher is used to hopefully stop a fire, so is a firearm used to hopefully stop an assault. The parallel is identical. Each is trying to safeguard either property or life. No difference. Only the tool selected for the job.
That's an honest truth to you?
Death and/or grave bodily injury can be the result of both fire and an assault. Stopping each of those before my death or injury is the same. Only the tool used is different. Your continued insistence that the act of stopping death from fire is different from stopping death from an assault is ridiculous in my view. Death is death no matter if it is by fire or bludgeon or knife assault. Stopping it is merely a choice of tools.
Post #675 Nikon Jeb
But if killing another human being
Post #677 Mike_311
see I told you guys shoot to kill
Post #678 GeneralE
It takes a far more skillful shot to actually disable them than to kill them
Post #679 kawesttex
They are still alive to testify
Post #680 Mike_311
you are right, shoot to kill.
The continued use of the word âkillâ is misapplied and misused. Ignorance of applied Judicious use of Force results in persons citing the term âkillâ instead of the more appropriate âstopâ. The âintentâ is not to âkillâ anyone. The reference to testifying is in poor taste as it demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding use of force case law and the myriad of witnesses who will testify at trial â regardless whether the assailant is alive or dead. The intent is to STOP the assault or rape or beating or more appropriately imminent threat of death or grave (crippling) bodily injury. Use of deadly force by a citizen is lawful when that person is under the IMMINENT threat of DEATH or GRAVE BODILY INJURY (meaning crippling injury). You cannot lawfully use deadly force to stop a thief from riding off with your bicycle, or stealing your pumpkins, or even throwing a rock through your window. You cannot lawfully use deadly force against someone who keyed your car, or had an consensual affair with your wife, or bullied your child at school. You cannot lawfully use deadly force on someone who called you names or yelled at you through the internet or cut you off in traffic. You CAN lawfully use deadly force against someone who places you or those under your care in IMMINENT threat of DEATH or GRAVE (crippling) bodily injury.
For anyone to lawfully use deadly force to STOP death/grave injury to themselves or those under their care, it must be imminent.
In times when that criteria is met (like a forced rape as it is defined as equal to crippling injury), then deadly force can be lawfully used. To deny a person the tools to stop an assault is willingly permitting that person to be expendable. Would you deny a person access to Awareness training that gave them better management perception of their surroundings - the color code system of White, Yellow, Orange, and Red? Would you deny a person training that taught them how to carry themselves more confidently and present themselves as a less desirable target in the first place? Would you deny a person hand to hand defense training that allowed them to temporarily disable an attacker so they could escape? Would you deny non- lethal weapons training to a person that included the effective use of OC spray or a Kuboton? Yet you would deny that same person access to a firearm for use against an imminent threat of death to themselves of those under their care. That is where we differ. I leave that choice up to the individual. Thousands and thousands of citizens in 38 states that lawfully carry concealed handguns, have demonstrated that the risk to society portrayed by the frenzied âsky will fallâ crowd is without merit. Lawful use of deadly force is very narrow and those who choose to arm themselves take that responsibility seriously.
Post #684 BrennanOB
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
You may want to look up Dennis Tueller. He is the one given credit for developing the âTueller Drillâ that demonstrates the result of an assailant with knife in hand, stabbing an officer with a holstered sidearm from 21 feet away. This is part of nearly all LEO training to reinforce the threat potential from a seemingly âsafeâ distance. In all actuality, a knife in hand from 21 feet is more lethal than a holstered firearm, as the reaction time required to perceive the threat, analyze the threat, decide on a course of action against the threat and implement that action against the threat will take approximately 1.5 to 2.0 seconds. The time required to travel 21 feet with a knife in hand is about 1.2 to 1.6 seconds. At best there will be a draw. At worst, the officer or civilian is getting stabbed. That is why when teaching reaction time, creating distance is paramount in the defensive tactic employed.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:41:26 AM · #686 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Death and/or grave bodily injury can be the result of both fire and an assault. Stopping each of those before my death or injury is the same. Only the tool used is different. Your continued insistence that the act of stopping death from fire is different from stopping death from an assault is ridiculous in my view. Death is death no matter if it is by fire or bludgeon or knife assault. Stopping it is merely a choice of tools. |
I never said a thing about death from a fire. I also did not imply that a fire extinguisher is any kind of guarantee that you can eliminate the fire. A fire extinguisher, especially the typical extinguisher for home use, is more appropriately used as a way to get out of the house, garage, whatever, and to get clear of the fire than as any sure way to put out the fire. If you can, great, but that's not necessarily the main objective. So again, your analogy fails.
Originally posted by Flash:
The continued use of the word âkillâ is misapplied and misused. Ignorance of applied Judicious use of Force results in persons citing the term âkillâ instead of the more appropriate âstopâ. The âintentâ is not to âkillâ anyone. |
Okay......so your suggestion to "stop" someone with your gun works exactly how?
Originally posted by Flash:
The reference to testifying is in poor taste as it demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding use of force case law and the myriad of witnesses who will testify at trial â regardless whether the assailant is alive or dead. The intent is to STOP the assault or rape or beating or more appropriately imminent threat of death or grave (crippling) bodily injury. Use of deadly force by a citizen is lawful when that person is under the IMMINENT threat of DEATH or GRAVE BODILY INJURY (meaning crippling injury). You cannot lawfully use deadly force to stop a thief from riding off with your bicycle, or stealing your pumpkins, or even throwing a rock through your window. You cannot lawfully use deadly force against someone who keyed your car, or had an consensual affair with your wife, or bullied your child at school. You cannot lawfully use deadly force on someone who called you names or yelled at you through the internet or cut you off in traffic. You CAN lawfully use deadly force against someone who places you or those under your care in IMMINENT threat of DEATH or GRAVE (crippling) bodily injury. |
Please explain the difference to me between "lawful use of deadly force" and "kill". Regardless of whether in your "lawful use of deadly force" you "kill" or "stop" the assailant, which I'm assuming would be by a crippling wound, the gun is used for that application of deadly force. To me, there's a distinct difference between this defensive use of a weapon, and a tool to enable you to clear the area due to a fire.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 12:38:59 PM · #687 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay......so your suggestion to "stop" someone with your gun works exactly how? |
A round is discharged into center mass of the assailant. The energy from that round is transferred into the torso thus incapcitating the asssailiant and stopping the assault. You then dial 911 to both report the assault and get medical help for the incapacitated assailant.
Your firearms training should have taught you that. Mine did. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 12:42:03 PM · #688 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay......so your suggestion to "stop" someone with your gun works exactly how? |
A round is discharged into center mass of the assailant. The energy from that round is transferred into the torso thus incapcitating the asssailiant and stopping the assault. You then dial 911 to both report the assault and get medical help for the incapacitated assailant.
Your firearms training should have taught you that. Mine did. |
To be fair... It doesn't really work quite that well
Your attacker will live 30 seconds if shot in the heart, a couple of minutes if shot in the lungs/chest...
The only shot that stops is the one that destroys the brain or spinal cord.
In a fight, the man with a knife is usually surprisingly dangerous. (see the previously mentioned 21ft rule)
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 13:01:26. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 12:51:59 PM · #689 |
We tend to just head butt people over here, what's with all the extremism ;-)
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 12:58:50 PM · #690 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay......so your suggestion to "stop" someone with your gun works exactly how? |
Originally posted by Flash:
A round is discharged into center mass of the assailant. The energy from that round is transferred into the torso thus incapcitating the asssailiant and stopping the assault. You then dial 911 to both report the assault and get medical help for the incapacitated assailant.
Your firearms training should have taught you that. Mine did. |
Oh, I'm quite well aware of how it works.
I'm just having trouble making the leap as to how this is similar to clearing a path to the door with a fire extinguisher whilst escaping a fire.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:00:09 PM · #691 |
Originally posted by Cory:
You attacker will live 30 seconds if shot in the heart, a couple of minutes if shot in the lungs/chest... |
Don't forget that Mr. Flash advocates hollow points.....
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:01:58 PM · #692 |
| NikonJeb and any others who may truly be interested in this topic. Please get a copy of Massad Ayoob's book In the Gravest Extreme. It will answer many of your questions regarding the Judicious use of Deadly Force and if anything will likely confirm your decision to NOT carry a firearm. If you don't want to read it from me, then perhaps you'll understand it clearer when presented by an international instuctor on the Judicious Use of Deadly Force. You really should read the book. The liabilities associated with use of force law are reviewed and explained. The consequences of uninformed actions are reviewed and explained. And considering the number of students he has taught over his career and the number of books sold and read by millions of readers, there is a pretty safe bet that lots and lots of people know what I know. Unfortunately, if you have'nt been exposed to this information and only read/hear the anti-gun rehortic, then your perception of the issue versus the reality is inaccurate. Just read the book. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:08:01 PM · #693 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Cory:
You attacker will live 30 seconds if shot in the heart, a couple of minutes if shot in the lungs/chest... |
Don't forget that Mr. Flash advocates hollow points..... |
Hollowpoints, despite the popular myth, are not RPG rounds or yellow tipped airburst rounds.
They do make a bigger hole, but if that bigger hole just damages non-critical bits, then they'll still be able to damage you.
Guns are ok for defense, but really arguing that as their primary purpose is a little silly anyway, since I've used many guns, and self defense clearly ranks, for me, as the least likely scenario in which I will need a gun... There are far more reasons to own one, and I'm not sure why we always tend to concentrate on this aspect of it...
Give me a leaded pipe, now that has some stopping power. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:08:02 PM · #694 |
| Just simplify everything and go for the headbutt. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:09:25 PM · #695 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Just simplify everything and go for the headbutt. |
I have proximity issues with this solution. :) |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:13:31 PM · #696 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Okay......so your suggestion to "stop" someone with your gun works exactly how? |
A round is discharged into center mass of the assailant. The energy from that round is transferred into the torso thus incapcitating the asssailiant and stopping the assault. You then dial 911 to both report the assault and get medical help for the incapacitated assailant.
Your firearms training should have taught you that. Mine did. |
To be fair... It doesn't really work quite that well
Your attacker will live 30 seconds if shot in the heart, a couple of minutes if shot in the lungs/chest...
The only shot that stops is the one that destroys the brain or spinal cord.
In a fight, the man with a knife is usually surprisingly dangerous. (see the previously mentioned 21ft rule) |
You are referencing the electrical signals and the potentially resultant "electrical storm" that can allow an assailant to empty a magizine while technically dead. That is not what I was asked about and given Nikon Jeb's remark that he already was familiar with how the incapacitation process worked and that he's already had firearms training and that he already knows everything, than I'm baffled why he keeps asking me questions. Perhaps it is to obtain a "gotcha" moment rather than understand the issue at hand.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:25:57 PM · #697 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Cory:
You attacker will live 30 seconds if shot in the heart, a couple of minutes if shot in the lungs/chest... |
Don't forget that Mr. Flash advocates hollow points..... |
Hollowpoints, despite the popular myth, are not RPG rounds or yellow tipped airburst rounds.
They do make a bigger hole, but if that bigger hole just damages non-critical bits, then they'll still be able to damage you.
Guns are ok for defense, but really arguing that as their primary purpose is a little silly anyway, since I've used many guns, and self defense clearly ranks, for me, as the least likely scenario in which I will need a gun... There are far more reasons to own one, and I'm not sure why we always tend to concentrate on this aspect of it...
Give me a leaded pipe, now that has some stopping power. |
A lead pipe? Try explaining that to a jury. And why was it you were carrying that lead pipe Mr Cory? In case you had to defend your self? The law forbids you from carrying that lead filled pipe as it is classified as a weapon. Ignorance of the law is no defense for violating te law. Lead sewn into leather was called a Sap. Also illegal to carry.
Of course you could carry a lead hammer in a tool bag - but you'd still have to explain why you had it when you used it - or else it could look like premeditation.
Regarding hollowpoints - there is no popular myth. They have a proven street record based on data compiled form years of police shootings. There is a reason why law enforcement decided upon that bullet form. It is the most effective at transferring energy from the projectile to the torso without exiting and endangering innocents. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:32:41 PM · #698 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Cory:
You attacker will live 30 seconds if shot in the heart, a couple of minutes if shot in the lungs/chest... |
Don't forget that Mr. Flash advocates hollow points..... |
Hollowpoints, despite the popular myth, are not RPG rounds or yellow tipped airburst rounds.
They do make a bigger hole, but if that bigger hole just damages non-critical bits, then they'll still be able to damage you.
Guns are ok for defense, but really arguing that as their primary purpose is a little silly anyway, since I've used many guns, and self defense clearly ranks, for me, as the least likely scenario in which I will need a gun... There are far more reasons to own one, and I'm not sure why we always tend to concentrate on this aspect of it...
Give me a leaded pipe, now that has some stopping power. |
A lead pipe? Try explaining that to a jury. And why was it you were carrying that lead pipe Mr Cory? In case you had to defend your self? The law forbids you from carrying that lead filled pipe as it is classified as a weapon. Ignorance of the law is no defense for violating te law. Lead sewn into leather was called a Sap. Also illegal to carry.
Of course you could carry a lead hammer in a tool bag - but you'd still have to explain why you had it when you used it - or else it could look like premeditation.
Regarding hollowpoints - there is no popular myth. They have a proven street record based on data compiled form years of police shootings. There is a reason why law enforcement decided upon that bullet form. It is the most effective at transferring energy from the projectile to the torso without exiting and endangering innocents. |
I agree about the hollowpoints being more effective, it's just that there is a myth that persists that hollowpoints are somehow magic killing bullets. They are better, but nothing like the movies would have the general population believe.
As for the leaded pipe? That was really just an example of a blunt object that is sufficient to cause trauma, the hammer or a rock would also be fine, basically what ever is at hand.
Let's just pretend I said Gitmo tripod ok? No doubt the head on mine could do more damage than a pipe. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:34:15 PM · #699 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is the most effective at transferring energy from the projectile to the torso without exiting and endangering innocents. |
It is also most effective at causing widespread internal damage leading to a fatal outcome. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:46:36 PM · #700 |
Originally posted by Flash:
That is not what I was asked about and given Nikon Jeb's remark that he already was familiar with how the incapacitation process worked and that he's already had firearms training and that he already knows everything, than I'm baffled why he keeps asking me questions. Perhaps it is to obtain a "gotcha" moment rather than understand the issue at hand. |
Oh, I *quite* understand the issue at hand. You have yet to substantiate your ridiculous claims of how a fire extinguisher's use and a firearm's use remotely coincide.
I never claimed to know anything more than what *you* verified by stating, and I quote: A round is discharged into center mass of the assailant. The energy from that round is transferred into the torso thus incapcitating the asssailiant and stopping the assault. .
What I don't know, and you don't answer, which is *why* I keep asking, is how you can correlate the use of deadly force on another human being to using a fire extinguisher. Or how shooting someone becomes "tool usage".
I don't know if you've ever shot a human being or not, under any circumstances, but that is also a consideration that needs to be made. Part of why I don't have a firearm is I really don't ever want to have to do that, regardless of the circumstances, and because of the way I live my life, my chances of being exposed to random, or intentional violence, is fairly low. I've had a gun pointed at me in a less than desirable situation, got robbed and felt graced to just have lost money, but I don't even know if I would have preferred to have been armed even at that time.
I'm also of an age that many of my friends went off to war, and I can truthfully say that those of them that took human life, even that justified by being "The Enemy" came back forever changed. And not necessarily for the better. These were young men of sharp eyes, and fast reflexes that were taught by their country, to kill for their country. But first and foremost, they were friends, relatives, neighbors......and they get to live with what they did for the rest of their lives. So I guess part of what bothers me about this whole issue is the semi-clinical point of view of "stopping an assailant" when what you're doing is shooting another human being. Regardless of whether or not it's legally justified, you get to live with what you've done, and I hope with all my heart that no one ever has to find out whether or not they have what it takes to shoot another person and kill him.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 13:48:03.
|
|
