OMG CCW!!11

Shub wrote: Nuclear wrote: stratoaxe wrote: You're a better man than me-I'm very handicapped to my right side. I'm left handed, schools and such often taught right handed ways so i can do most anything with either hand, quite ambidextrous. I have to back Nuke on that. I am left handed, and I think all left handed people are ambidextrous to a certain degree, because most things are designed in a way to be used right handed.

I am also left handed. I learned how to play guitar righty, hit a baseball righty and hold my lacrosse stick righty ect... We are quite the skillfull people.

have you read any of stratoaxe's posts. THERE IS NO WARNING SHOT!!!! You shoot to kill only when necessary.  Guns are made to kill people not negotiate.

Wrong.  You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge.

Edited by StormyKnight - 07 September 2007 at 5:09am

StormyKnight wrote: Wrong.  You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge.

I'd say stop and kill are pretty interchangeable words in this discussion. As I said before, I'm no expert, but a double tap to the chest with the right ammunition will take down just about anybody, but you stand a good chance of a lethal hit to a vital organ-namely your lungs. Bullets are made to kill, so in technicality (and in court), anytime you fire one or more into a person, you've shot to kill.

Of course, you're absolutely right, you never give the impression of premeditated murder. That's what the court's going to try and throw at you in any case like this-they'll do their best to prove you could have prevented/avoided the escalation, or that you were itching to shoot somebody in the first place.

I'd caution alot of the younger people on my side of the debate to be careful-you go around talking smack about your .44 tucking in your truck, and how you're ready and willing to kill if necessary, and those words will come back to haunt you if you ever use lethal force against another human being. When you kill in self-defense, you walk the line of murder the whole way.

StormyKnight wrote:  You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge.

I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there...

^

brihard wrote: Horsepower wrote: Susan Storm wrote: StormyKnight wrote:  You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge. I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there... I believe the not shooting to kill things is actually more for the Military, its stupid i think they say you shoot to remove them from the battlefield, but if they live they heal and come back.If i made the decision on that matter, they would be shooting some nice hollow points. You wound an enemy, you remove three form the battlefield- it takes two to carry a casualty on a stretcher. you also cause a greater economic ahrm to the enemy, as they then have to care for the wounded. There's a good chance that a wound will result in a person not returning to combat any timesoon, if at all. Since the military almost never uses handguns anyway, whether you would use hollowpoints or not is a moot point. A pistol exists so you can fight your way to a rifle.

Win.

brihard wrote: Horsepower wrote: Susan Storm wrote: StormyKnight wrote:  You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge. I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there... I believe the not shooting to kill things is actually more for the Military, its stupid i think they say you shoot to remove them from the battlefield, but if they live they heal and come back.If i made the decision on that matter, they would be shooting some nice hollow points. You wound an enemy, you remove three form the battlefield- it takes two to carry a casualty on a stretcher. you also cause a greater economic ahrm to the enemy, as they then have to care for the wounded. There's a good chance that a wound will result in a person not returning to combat any timesoon, if at all. Since the military almost never uses handguns anyway, whether you would use hollowpoints or not is a moot point. A pistol exists so you can fight your way to a rifle.

Where did you get pistols from ?

Susan Storm wrote: If somebody is standing two feet from you with a knife, you have a second to evaluate intentions and determine the seriousness of the situation.  With a gun you don't and can't.  You have to decide, basically immediately, whether you want to start the shooting.  No other common hand-held weapon in the history of man has had this ability. Simply due to their ability to create instant death, guns can often create violence that otherwise might have been avoided.  Guns certainly have their place, but I think it is naive to believe that they don't change every situation they enter.

I'm not sure, but from the way this was put together, I took it to mean that you consider a gun to always be more dangerous than other weapons.  This is a common misconception.  The training I went through (quite a while back-perhaps someone with more recent experience can correct/update these statements as necessary) emphasized that an individual with a knife was just as dangerous as an individual with a handgun at ranges of less than 18 feet or less.  Within three feet, the person with the knife was actually more dangerous.  I don't remember the fancy terminology that was used to explain this, but it came down to the fact that most handgun bullets are low-velocity and follow straight trajectories through the body while someone with a knife can do all kinds of nasty twisting/slashing/connecting point A (groin) to point B (ribcage) type of things without ever having to remove the knife.

I actually had the benefit of a being in a career field that received both types of weapons training for the use of deadly force (military engagement and law enforcement), and neither listed warning shots as a viable option.  The key word regarding warning shots was "never."  In a situation where the OPFOR/perpetrator was not inclined to return fire, they may decide that they have no choice if they mistake the warning shot for coming under fire; in a situation where they are inclined to fire, it puts the individual firing the shots off-target.  With this said, I think someone with more recent training (i.e. Dune) should tell us the policies/training he has to work under/received regarding this.

I'm also curious about the training of other military members/LEOs regarding targeting.  (Nuclear's headshot comment brought this up.)  I'm assuming everyone is still trained to aim center of mass?

QUOTE=Susan Storm]What I meant was that firearms alone are "instant death". . . [/QUOTE]

Not necessarily.  Any weapon that is concealed has this potential.  An individual with any concealed weapon that has also masked their intentions to perform violent deeds can easily achieve the "instant death" factor.

The best defense is not CCW/CHL/CCP/whatever, the best defense is being alert and making intelligent decisions regarding where one goes and what one does.

stratoaxe wrote: There is little reason to carry a handgun on you in most places

Depends on where you go.  I used to take one hiking/four-wheeling/mountain biking all the time just in case something decided that I looked like a tasty snack.  Of course, I should have had something heavier than a .357 (like that Desert Eagle from a few pages back), if I ran into a grizzly, all I'd be doing is annoying it with warning shots.


Edited by Mack - 07 September 2007 at 7:56pm

brihard wrote: Horsepower wrote: Susan Storm wrote: StormyKnight wrote:  You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge. I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there... I believe the not shooting to kill things is actually more for the Military, its stupid i think they say you shoot to remove them from the battlefield, but if they live they heal and come back.If i made the decision on that matter, they would be shooting some nice hollow points. You wound an enemy, you remove three form the battlefield- it takes two to carry a casualty on a stretcher. you also cause a greater economic ahrm to the enemy, as they then have to care for the wounded. There's a good chance that a wound will result in a person not returning to combat any timesoon, if at all. Since the military almost never uses handguns anyway, whether you would use hollowpoints or not is a moot point. A pistol exists so you can fight your way to a rifle.

how much do you think the militia that we are fighting care about each other? 

also, the canadian military might be different, but our soldiers are taught to put a round in the head of fallen combatants as they walk past.  something about geneva says you cant turn back to kill them or somethin like that.  anyways, got that bit of info from two seperate soldiers i talked to about their basic training.