Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Gun ownership and the "self defense" argument

Page 4 of 4 [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 11:11 am

vermontsavant wrote:
i did not say that its always possible to just wound an attacker,but deadly force should always be the last option

Deadly force should always be the first option against an attacker. Stop telling people how to die.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 Dec 2012, 11:13 am

Ruveyn wrote:

Quote:
Many people who handle fire arms have rotten trigger technique. They yank on the trigger instead of a slow smooth pull. This means off target shots. For someone with punk trigger handling point blank would be closer rather than farther.

I gather you've done some shooting....


Abacacus wrote:
Quote:
That tells me most people with firearms shouldn't have them.

It looks like this is the conclusion you’d like to come to, regardless.
Too bad because it’s not gonna happen.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

23 Dec 2012, 11:16 am

Raptor wrote:
Ruveyn wrote:
Quote:
Many people who handle fire arms have rotten trigger technique. They yank on the trigger instead of a slow smooth pull. This means off target shots. For someone with punk trigger handling point blank would be closer rather than farther.

I gather you've done some shooting....


Abacacus wrote:
Quote:
That tells me most people with firearms shouldn't have them.

It looks like this is the conclusion you’d like to come to, regardless.
Too bad because it’s not gonna happen.


I have no problem with people who know how to handle a weapon carrying them. My issue is with irresponsible people who don't have any idea how to properly use a firearm carrying one.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 11:16 am

vermontsavant wrote:
let me explain the history about the knife shooting.about 8 years ago in brattleboro,VT a mentaly distraught man went into a church on greenleaf st and started waiving a knife around.after they asked him to drop the knife and he did not they went with department procedure which as you know is a double tap to the chest area and of coarse the man died and the police did as they were trained.

the family of the man said he was mentaly and the police were wrong to shoot him when they could have woulded him.they sued the brattleboro police department for un told amounts of money.
so that why the brattleboro police changed from the standard double tap to the chest and that what prompted the officer 5 years later to try to shoot the knife out of the suspects hand.

You don't define the rule based on an exception.

There is no "standard double tap to the chest". That sounds like something you saw on TV. Law enforcement trains to continue shooting until the target is incapacitated.



adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 11:21 am

abacacus wrote:
I have no problem with people who know how to handle a weapon carrying them. My issue is with irresponsible people who don't have any idea how to properly use a firearm carrying one.

My issue is with people trying to control each other. Unless that person is doing something that threatens or hurts you, it's none of your business what he or she is carrying.

I think it's important for people who carry to learn how to properly hande the weapon, but it's not our right or responsibility to force them to do so.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 Dec 2012, 11:32 am

abacacus wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Ruveyn wrote:
Quote:
Many people who handle fire arms have rotten trigger technique. They yank on the trigger instead of a slow smooth pull. This means off target shots. For someone with punk trigger handling point blank would be closer rather than farther.

I gather you've done some shooting....


Abacacus wrote:
Quote:
That tells me most people with firearms shouldn't have them.

It looks like this is the conclusion you’d like to come to, regardless.
Too bad because it’s not gonna happen.


I have no problem with people who know how to handle a weapon carrying them. My issue is with irresponsible people who don't have any idea how to properly use a firearm carrying one.


I definitely have an issue with irresponsible people with guns. The other issue is that there's no way to weed them out without imposing on everyone.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

23 Dec 2012, 11:44 am

ruveyn wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Gunshots are fairly commonly non-lethal, depending on factors. If it comes down to it you shoot to neutralize, not necessarily to kill. The object being to get them quickly rendered incapable of posing a further threat to you.
It basically boils down to shooting them until the are down.


One doesn't count on stopping a person with non-lethal shots. You are contradicting yourself.
you may not completley stop someone with a leg shot,some people are tough and keep coming.but a non deadly area would slow them down which if your not cornered you can run and get out to a safe place to call police


Most people who have firearms are not sharp shooters or marksmen. The place to aim with the highest probability of a hit is the torso. It is the widest portion of the body and there is less chance of the bullet going astray and hitting someone behind the person targeted.

ruveyn
so if someone was 10 feet away with a knife or baseball bat,you dont think people could hit a leg thigh or knee cap.if you miss the first shot then go for the vitals.all im saying is deadly force shouldnt be the first option if other options exist.

but if you feel they can harm you before a second shot can be fired then you would have no choice but the shoot for the chest.

if there was an intruder in my house i would have a long gun,and i can hit a dime with that,so if they dont have a gun i would shoot the dead center of the knee cap.if that doesnt stop them,then in that case i would hit the heart dead on.i dont have much experience with hand guns


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

23 Dec 2012, 11:50 am

adb wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
let me explain the history about the knife shooting.about 8 years ago in brattleboro,VT a mentaly distraught man went into a church on greenleaf st and started waiving a knife around.after they asked him to drop the knife and he did not they went with department procedure which as you know is a double tap to the chest area and of coarse the man died and the police did as they were trained.

the family of the man said he was mentaly and the police were wrong to shoot him when they could have woulded him.they sued the brattleboro police department for un told amounts of money.
so that why the brattleboro police changed from the standard double tap to the chest and that what prompted the officer 5 years later to try to shoot the knife out of the suspects hand.

You don't define the rule based on an exception.

There is no "standard double tap to the chest". That sounds like something you saw on TV. Law enforcement trains to continue shooting until the target is incapacitated.
im not a rule maker and im not telling anyone what to do.but if you have a possibility to wound and not kill why not take.in most states you cant buy a handgun without firearms instruction and that is your best advice.but if one has a safe,valid non lethal option why not take it


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

23 Dec 2012, 11:54 am

Raptor wrote:
abacacus wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Ruveyn wrote:
Quote:
Many people who handle fire arms have rotten trigger technique. They yank on the trigger instead of a slow smooth pull. This means off target shots. For someone with punk trigger handling point blank would be closer rather than farther.

I gather you've done some shooting....


Abacacus wrote:
Quote:
That tells me most people with firearms shouldn't have them.

It looks like this is the conclusion you’d like to come to, regardless.
Too bad because it’s not gonna happen.


I have no problem with people who know how to handle a weapon carrying them. My issue is with irresponsible people who don't have any idea how to properly use a firearm carrying one.


I definitely have an issue with irresponsible people with guns. The other issue is that there's no way to weed them out without imposing on everyone.


I don't think it'd be overly difficult to mandate a minimum requirement of training to obtain a CCW. A weekend course for a reasonable fee (I'm fairly sure private companies would hop on that one for some extra revenue) with a test at the end, part written and part practical at the range. You pass, good for you, go carry whatever you want. You fail, too bad so sad come back again next weekend.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

23 Dec 2012, 11:57 am

adb wrote:
abacacus wrote:
I have no problem with people who know how to handle a weapon carrying them. My issue is with irresponsible people who don't have any idea how to properly use a firearm carrying one.

My issue is with people trying to control each other. Unless that person is doing something that threatens or hurts you, it's none of your business what he or she is carrying.

I think it's important for people who carry to learn how to properly hande the weapon, but it's not our right or responsibility to force them to do so.


Idiots and irresponsible people carrying guns is most definitely a threat to me! That's someone who is much more likely to do something stupid with a gun (like pulling it on someone over minor s**t to make themselves look big) or miss their target completely if they need to use said gun.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 12:01 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
so if someone was 10 feet away with a knife or baseball bat,you dont think people could hit a leg thigh or knee cap.if you miss the first shot then go for the vitals.all im saying is deadly force shouldnt be the first option if other options exist.

but if you feel they can harm you before a second shot can be fired then you would have no choice but the shoot for the chest.

if there was an intruder in my house i would have a long gun,and i can hit a dime with that,so if they dont have a gun i would shoot the dead center of the knee cap.if that doesnt stop them,then in that case i would hit the heart dead on.i dont have much experience with hand guns

It takes less than a second to cross 10 feet of distance. Go look up the "21 foot rule".



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 Dec 2012, 12:02 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
01001011 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Gunshots are fairly commonly non-lethal, depending on factors. If it comes down to it you shoot to neutralize, not necessarily to kill. The object being to get them quickly rendered incapable of posing a further threat to you.
It basically boils down to shooting them until the are down.


One doesn't count on stopping a person with non-lethal shots. You are contradicting yourself.
you may not completley stop someone with a leg shot,some people are tough and keep coming.but a non deadly area would slow them down which if your not cornered you can run and get out to a safe place to call police


Most people who have firearms are not sharp shooters or marksmen. The place to aim with the highest probability of a hit is the torso. It is the widest portion of the body and there is less chance of the bullet going astray and hitting someone behind the person targeted.

ruveyn
so if someone was 10 feet away with a knife or baseball bat,you dont think people could hit a leg thigh or knee cap.if you miss the first shot then go for the vitals.all im saying is deadly force shouldnt be the first option if other options exist.

but if you feel they can harm you before a second shot can be fired then you would have no choice but the shoot for the chest.

if there was an intruder in my house i would have a long gun,and i can hit a dime with that,so if they dont have a gun i would shoot the dead center of the knee cap.if that doesnt stop them,then in that case i would hit the heart dead on.i dont have much experience with hand guns


Maybe if they stand perfectly still and wait for you to line your shot up. Look how often cops miss in the heat of the moment and that's when aiming for center mass.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

23 Dec 2012, 12:05 pm

adb wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
i did not say that its always possible to just wound an attacker,but deadly force should always be the last option

Deadly force should always be the first option against an attacker. Stop telling people how to die.
if anyone ever feels a shot to the vitals is there only hope they have to take that option.

if i was coming back from the range with my 6.5-55 rifle and i saw a someone threatening someone with a knife and i could see a clean line of fire where if a bullet went through someone or richorched it wouldnt hit a bystander.at 25yards i would try to shoot at the knife,at 50yds or more i would go for the hand.

if they were close enough to a person that they could take a hostage before i could get another shot.i would go for the heart and i would hit it straight on with with one shot and they would be dead and dead is forever and some people are evil and others need help.

survey all options and make a wise choice


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

23 Dec 2012, 12:07 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
im not a rule maker and im not telling anyone what to do.but if you have a possibility to wound and not kill why not take.in most states you cant buy a handgun without firearms instruction and that is your best advice.but if one has a safe,valid non lethal option why not take it

Because it's less effective in stopping an aggressor. The safety of someone who is attacking me is not even remotely interesting.

You don't need instruction to purchase a gun. I think you meant that in most states, you need firearms instruction to get your CCW.