vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) PB - 09/22/2014
I'm pretty naive I guess. I have a NYS carry permit, and wouldn't want, nor would I ever hope to have a confrontation where I needed to defend myself or loved ones with lethal force. But since I have a permit I've always been sort of complacent in the fact that, if I ever do need my gun, it's there. But have never really contemplated the events following, should I be a survivor in a gun battle--that is, until I downloaded some information from usconcealedcarry.com. Now more than ever I hope I never have to use my gun to defend myself.
Does anyone have any actual experience with self-defense and the legal ramifications?
Does anyone have any actual experience with self-defense and the legal ramifications?
2.) DParker - 09/22/2014
[QUOTE=PB;25769]I have a NYS carry permit[/QUOTE]
Oh, so [I]you're[/I] the one? :-)
[QUOTE=PB;25769], and wouldn't want, nor would I ever hope to have a confrontation where I needed to defend myself or loved ones with lethal force. But since I have a permit I've always been sort of complacent in the fact that, if I ever do need my gun, it's there. But have never really contemplated the events following, should I be a survivor in a gun battle--that is, until I downloaded some information from usconcealedcarry.com. Now more than ever I hope I never have to use my gun to defend myself.
Does anyone have any actual experience with self-defense and the legal ramifications?[/QUOTE]
Personally, no...only what I've heard from many others who have, as well as the numerous legal case analysis I've read. But I think it very wise of you to decide to study up on the subject just so you're that much more prepared in the unlikely and unfortunate event that you should find yourself needing to bring deadly force (of any kind, not just with your firearm) to bear...especially given the laws in NYS.
Oh, so [I]you're[/I] the one? :-)
[QUOTE=PB;25769], and wouldn't want, nor would I ever hope to have a confrontation where I needed to defend myself or loved ones with lethal force. But since I have a permit I've always been sort of complacent in the fact that, if I ever do need my gun, it's there. But have never really contemplated the events following, should I be a survivor in a gun battle--that is, until I downloaded some information from usconcealedcarry.com. Now more than ever I hope I never have to use my gun to defend myself.
Does anyone have any actual experience with self-defense and the legal ramifications?[/QUOTE]
Personally, no...only what I've heard from many others who have, as well as the numerous legal case analysis I've read. But I think it very wise of you to decide to study up on the subject just so you're that much more prepared in the unlikely and unfortunate event that you should find yourself needing to bring deadly force (of any kind, not just with your firearm) to bear...especially given the laws in NYS.
3.) Bob Peck - 09/22/2014
[B][U]From the lips of my Father, a 25 year veteran Upstate NY police officer and U.S Army veteran: [/U][/B]
"When you pull your weapon, it should be for one reason and one reason only ... to kill someone. The gun is no deterrent. It is the bullet exiting the muzzle that is the deterrent and there's no recalling the bullet."
[B][U]
From the lips of my neighbor, good friend and Lieutenant with the VA State Police Violent Crimes Investigative Unit after my house was robbed and in answer to what I should do if I had confronted the suspects in the middle of the robbery:[/U][/B]
"Call the police. If that's not possible make sure you kill them inside your home, at close range and under no circumstances do you shoot them in the back."
Virginia is an open carry state which requires no special permit or training so visible firearms are quite common. I have a concealed carry permit which requires the Virginia applicant to either receive expert instruction or watch a 20-minute video and answering some multiple choice questions like "Which is the safest direction to point the muzzle of your firearm?"
I carry everywhere I can legally carry. I will try every available tactic to avoid conflict, including running away and begging for my life. In NYC one night exiting a restaurant with some college buds in the village and under gun point, I fell to the ground and faked an epileptic seizure. Our would be assailants were so weirded out by the guy flopping around on the sidewalk they fled on foot. This real life story is repeated at every class reunion.
When I unholster my handgun it will be to permanently neutralize an imminent threat to myself or my immediate family. This summer I attended a week-long tactical handgun course and it was intense beyond belief. The experience was highly educational and I recommend this type of training to all. It shined a light on the shoot-em-up cowboys in the group and guys like me who really questioned if Joe Citizen could be trained in split second decision making like the our military and law enforcement. We can.
"When you pull your weapon, it should be for one reason and one reason only ... to kill someone. The gun is no deterrent. It is the bullet exiting the muzzle that is the deterrent and there's no recalling the bullet."
[B][U]
From the lips of my neighbor, good friend and Lieutenant with the VA State Police Violent Crimes Investigative Unit after my house was robbed and in answer to what I should do if I had confronted the suspects in the middle of the robbery:[/U][/B]
"Call the police. If that's not possible make sure you kill them inside your home, at close range and under no circumstances do you shoot them in the back."
Virginia is an open carry state which requires no special permit or training so visible firearms are quite common. I have a concealed carry permit which requires the Virginia applicant to either receive expert instruction or watch a 20-minute video and answering some multiple choice questions like "Which is the safest direction to point the muzzle of your firearm?"
I carry everywhere I can legally carry. I will try every available tactic to avoid conflict, including running away and begging for my life. In NYC one night exiting a restaurant with some college buds in the village and under gun point, I fell to the ground and faked an epileptic seizure. Our would be assailants were so weirded out by the guy flopping around on the sidewalk they fled on foot. This real life story is repeated at every class reunion.
When I unholster my handgun it will be to permanently neutralize an imminent threat to myself or my immediate family. This summer I attended a week-long tactical handgun course and it was intense beyond belief. The experience was highly educational and I recommend this type of training to all. It shined a light on the shoot-em-up cowboys in the group and guys like me who really questioned if Joe Citizen could be trained in split second decision making like the our military and law enforcement. We can.
4.) CHRIS - 09/22/2014
very informative bob. thanks
5.) Wild Bob - 09/22/2014
Bob - I would be interested in attending an in-depth course like the one you mentioned...how did you find out about the one you attended? Are similar courses advertised through NSSF or NRA?
Great information! :tu:
Great information! :tu:
6.) DParker - 09/22/2014
I like most of your post, Bob...especially the preference for conflict avoidance. But I do have to quibble with the following (though I realize you might not be espousing it yourself):
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25777][B][U]From the lips of my Father, a 25 year veteran Upstate NY police officer and U.S Army veteran: [/U][/B]
"When you pull your weapon, it should be for one reason and one reason only ... to kill someone."[/QUOTE]
If I ever feel the need to draw my weapon it will be for the purpose of ending an imminent threat, not to kill someone. While the latter may well be a consequence of the former, it is not my goal. If I use my weapon and, as a result my aggressor goes down and is clearly incapacitated then I'm done shooting, unless/until he gives me reason to change my mind about the threat being over. Perhaps your father's point was really that if you draw your weapon you must be prepared to kill rather than that being your reason for drawing, and if so then I retract my quibble. But "shoot to kill" is a dangerous mindset to have when carrying for self-defense. You should shoot to end the threat immediately, which does stand a reasonably good chance of resulting in your target's death...but the two goals are different, and dictate potentially different responses from you depending on the scenario.
I know of multiple relatively recent cases of individuals going to prison on murder convictions because they decided to "finish the job" in what otherwise would have been legally justified self-defense shootings had their goals been to simply end the threat rather than kill their aggressors. And while I do subscribe to the old "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" adage, I also contend that it's better to avoid both if you reasonably can.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25777][B][U]From the lips of my Father, a 25 year veteran Upstate NY police officer and U.S Army veteran: [/U][/B]
"When you pull your weapon, it should be for one reason and one reason only ... to kill someone."[/QUOTE]
If I ever feel the need to draw my weapon it will be for the purpose of ending an imminent threat, not to kill someone. While the latter may well be a consequence of the former, it is not my goal. If I use my weapon and, as a result my aggressor goes down and is clearly incapacitated then I'm done shooting, unless/until he gives me reason to change my mind about the threat being over. Perhaps your father's point was really that if you draw your weapon you must be prepared to kill rather than that being your reason for drawing, and if so then I retract my quibble. But "shoot to kill" is a dangerous mindset to have when carrying for self-defense. You should shoot to end the threat immediately, which does stand a reasonably good chance of resulting in your target's death...but the two goals are different, and dictate potentially different responses from you depending on the scenario.
I know of multiple relatively recent cases of individuals going to prison on murder convictions because they decided to "finish the job" in what otherwise would have been legally justified self-defense shootings had their goals been to simply end the threat rather than kill their aggressors. And while I do subscribe to the old "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" adage, I also contend that it's better to avoid both if you reasonably can.
7.) PB - 09/23/2014
Like I said, my first hope would be never to have a life or death encounter. But I was thinking (since I live in such a liberal state) that, isn't it a shame that a person could be defending life and family, survive the first court, and lose everything he has because of a secondary suit by the perpetrator's family?
8.) Bob Peck - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;25780]But "shoot to kill" is a dangerous mindset to have when carrying for self-defense. You should shoot to end the threat immediately, which does stand a reasonably good chance of resulting in your target's death...but the two goals are different, and dictate potentially different responses from you depending on the scenario.[/QUOTE]
If there is a weapons class somewhere in the United States that teaches students to maim rather than kill I'd be interested in attending just to say I did.
My point, (or at least the point expressed by my Dad) wasn't semantics. If you have made a decision to draw, you have made a decision to kill *not* maim. This is an all-or-none response that should come from training and practice. The use of deadly (not maiming) force is supposed to be a last resort. You're supposed to be so in fear of losing your life that you're willing and able to take the life of someone else. The words "self defense" is soft politically correct language just as "harvesting" a deer is to hunting. Drawing the handgun out of the holster and targeting another human being is killing rather than being killed. This is both legal and practical.
I believe my neighbor (the lieutenant w/ the VA State Police Violent Crimes) was explaining the circumstances in which I would be least likely to be sued or prosecuted.
Look at my reflex in a life and death situation. For some reason, to this day I still cannot explain, I dropped to the pavement and faked an epileptic seizure. Go figure. :laugh:
If there is a weapons class somewhere in the United States that teaches students to maim rather than kill I'd be interested in attending just to say I did.
My point, (or at least the point expressed by my Dad) wasn't semantics. If you have made a decision to draw, you have made a decision to kill *not* maim. This is an all-or-none response that should come from training and practice. The use of deadly (not maiming) force is supposed to be a last resort. You're supposed to be so in fear of losing your life that you're willing and able to take the life of someone else. The words "self defense" is soft politically correct language just as "harvesting" a deer is to hunting. Drawing the handgun out of the holster and targeting another human being is killing rather than being killed. This is both legal and practical.
I believe my neighbor (the lieutenant w/ the VA State Police Violent Crimes) was explaining the circumstances in which I would be least likely to be sued or prosecuted.
Look at my reflex in a life and death situation. For some reason, to this day I still cannot explain, I dropped to the pavement and faked an epileptic seizure. Go figure. :laugh:
9.) Bob Peck - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Wild Bob;25779]Bob - I would be interested in attending an in-depth course like the one you mentioned...how did you find out about the one you attended? Are similar courses advertised through NSSF or NRA? Great information! :tu:[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.universalshootingacademy.com/about-universal-shooting-academy/shooting-instructors/frank-garcia/[/url]
Are those credentials or what?
Pricey? Can be if you are cleared to do the 5-day.
Burn through a ton of ammo? Oh yeah (and ammo isn't included in tuition) "Each course will require 1000 rounds of ammunition per day of training."
Physically demanding? Totally exhausting
[url]http://www.universalshootingacademy.com/about-universal-shooting-academy/shooting-instructors/frank-garcia/[/url]
Are those credentials or what?
Pricey? Can be if you are cleared to do the 5-day.
Burn through a ton of ammo? Oh yeah (and ammo isn't included in tuition) "Each course will require 1000 rounds of ammunition per day of training."
Physically demanding? Totally exhausting
10.) DParker - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25786]If there is a weapons class somewhere in the United States that teaches students to maim rather than kill I'd be interested in attending just to say I did.[/quote]
I doubt that any reputable personal defense course teaches either thing, nor did I say anything even remotely like "shoot to maim", so you're putting words in my mouth. The issue was the reason for drawing your weapon in a self-defense situation. Phrases like "shoot to kill/maim" are misleading nonsense that miss the point, which is that the goal of self-defense is to prevent someone from doing harm to you and/or someone else you're defending...NOT to kill someone, even though that might be a requirement, or at least a consequence of an effective defense. Let's consider a hypothetical that plays out in one of two different ways:
You are attacked and determine that the use of deadly force is called for, so you draw your 6 shot revolver and open fire. You're under stress and your attacker is moving, but you manage to put 3 out of 6 shots in him, whereupon he immediately drops his own weapon and crumples into a heap on the ground, clearly out of the fight. You quickly retrieve a speed loader and reload, just like you've practiced. Then, one of two things happens:
1) You determine that your attacker is dead. Nothing to do but call 911 and your lawyer.
2) You observe that your would-be assailant, although incapacitated, is still breathing.
In the event of outcome #2 do you put one or more additional rounds into him until you're sure that he's dead? Or do you simply make sure the imminent threat is over, secure the dropped weapon and proceed with those phone calls (while keeping your revolver trained on the downed perp, of course)? If the reason for drawing your weapon was "to kill someone" then you need to take the former action and finish the job. However, if your real goal was to effectively defend yourself rather than take a life unnecessarily then you'll probably opt for the latter.
In either case the tactics you employ to stop the effectively stop the attack are going to be exactly the same: Aim for your attacker's center of mass and shoot until he goes down. That's neither "shooting to kill" nor "shooting to maim". It's shooting to end the threat and prevent/minimize harm to yourself. Whether or not your assailant survives your effective use of deadly force is a different issue.
This has nothing at all to do with political correctness. It has to do with recognizing the very critical difference between accepting that your action will likely result in the death of your attacker(s) and that consequence actually being your goal...and the difference begween the two is enormous. Just ask those individuals I spoke of earlier who administered unnecessay kill shots...because their goal for drawing truly was to kill their assailant...and who are now spending most, or even all of their remaining days in prison because of it.
I doubt that any reputable personal defense course teaches either thing, nor did I say anything even remotely like "shoot to maim", so you're putting words in my mouth. The issue was the reason for drawing your weapon in a self-defense situation. Phrases like "shoot to kill/maim" are misleading nonsense that miss the point, which is that the goal of self-defense is to prevent someone from doing harm to you and/or someone else you're defending...NOT to kill someone, even though that might be a requirement, or at least a consequence of an effective defense. Let's consider a hypothetical that plays out in one of two different ways:
You are attacked and determine that the use of deadly force is called for, so you draw your 6 shot revolver and open fire. You're under stress and your attacker is moving, but you manage to put 3 out of 6 shots in him, whereupon he immediately drops his own weapon and crumples into a heap on the ground, clearly out of the fight. You quickly retrieve a speed loader and reload, just like you've practiced. Then, one of two things happens:
1) You determine that your attacker is dead. Nothing to do but call 911 and your lawyer.
2) You observe that your would-be assailant, although incapacitated, is still breathing.
In the event of outcome #2 do you put one or more additional rounds into him until you're sure that he's dead? Or do you simply make sure the imminent threat is over, secure the dropped weapon and proceed with those phone calls (while keeping your revolver trained on the downed perp, of course)? If the reason for drawing your weapon was "to kill someone" then you need to take the former action and finish the job. However, if your real goal was to effectively defend yourself rather than take a life unnecessarily then you'll probably opt for the latter.
In either case the tactics you employ to stop the effectively stop the attack are going to be exactly the same: Aim for your attacker's center of mass and shoot until he goes down. That's neither "shooting to kill" nor "shooting to maim". It's shooting to end the threat and prevent/minimize harm to yourself. Whether or not your assailant survives your effective use of deadly force is a different issue.
This has nothing at all to do with political correctness. It has to do with recognizing the very critical difference between accepting that your action will likely result in the death of your attacker(s) and that consequence actually being your goal...and the difference begween the two is enormous. Just ask those individuals I spoke of earlier who administered unnecessay kill shots...because their goal for drawing truly was to kill their assailant...and who are now spending most, or even all of their remaining days in prison because of it.
11.) Bob Peck - 09/23/2014
With all due respect (and yes, I mean that) engaging in hypothetical arguments and word play is circular by nature so, respectfully I won't be going there.
Semantics is masking the point and over complicating a fairly straight forward responsibility. We all know owning any firearm involves personal responsibility. The conscious decision to own a handgun which one chooses to legally pack on one's person is preparation and premeditation. Part of that preparation is learning how to use that carry or carry/concealed weapon. "Use" in this case is learning where to aim and where we learn the term center mass. Center mass has the highest likelihood of hitting the human and for "the purpose of ending an imminent threat". Neutralizing is the word used by the people who trained me but that's even more sanitary for what's really going on. You're deliberately and consciously sending a hunk of metal at high speed into the body cavity of another containing heart, lungs and major blood vessels.
Just as "harvesting" a deer is the act of killing a deer so does "ending an imminent threat" the act of lethal force from one human upon another. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
You may choose to psychologically reconcile the drawing and discharge of the weapon for "the purpose of ending an imminent threat" but once you have lost control of the projectile the nano-second it leaves your muzzle the outcome is a matter of physics and Divine Intervention.
Just my .02 cents. Let's be friends. :-)
Semantics is masking the point and over complicating a fairly straight forward responsibility. We all know owning any firearm involves personal responsibility. The conscious decision to own a handgun which one chooses to legally pack on one's person is preparation and premeditation. Part of that preparation is learning how to use that carry or carry/concealed weapon. "Use" in this case is learning where to aim and where we learn the term center mass. Center mass has the highest likelihood of hitting the human and for "the purpose of ending an imminent threat". Neutralizing is the word used by the people who trained me but that's even more sanitary for what's really going on. You're deliberately and consciously sending a hunk of metal at high speed into the body cavity of another containing heart, lungs and major blood vessels.
Just as "harvesting" a deer is the act of killing a deer so does "ending an imminent threat" the act of lethal force from one human upon another. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
You may choose to psychologically reconcile the drawing and discharge of the weapon for "the purpose of ending an imminent threat" but once you have lost control of the projectile the nano-second it leaves your muzzle the outcome is a matter of physics and Divine Intervention.
Just my .02 cents. Let's be friends. :-)
12.) luv2bowhunt - 09/23/2014
PB I've always thought about that too. I talk a good game, but what would I do in a real situation. I thought the same thing as Bob P, eliminate a threat, means to put a bullet into a living, breathing human.
So, you need to stop his muscle movements, his brain waves, his reactions, his blood flow, his breathing. It's not an inanimate object you're dealing with. You need to do the things that make the person stop functioning, which also means you're doing the things that take the life out of a person.
Good food for thought.
So, you need to stop his muscle movements, his brain waves, his reactions, his blood flow, his breathing. It's not an inanimate object you're dealing with. You need to do the things that make the person stop functioning, which also means you're doing the things that take the life out of a person.
Good food for thought.
13.) DParker - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25791]With all due respect (and yes, I mean that) engaging in hypothetical arguments and word play is circular by nature so, respectfully I won't be going there.[/quote]
You're still misrepresenting what I've said Bob, and trying to blow off my quite substantive point as nothing but "semantics". And evading the question of whether or not you make the kill shot in my hypothetical is a real cop-out. That goes to the very heart of your claim. If the reason you draw your gun in that situation is to kill someone then you'll take the anchoring shot and kill your attacker even though he's no longer a threat. Is that what you think you'd do, or not? Or what if he turns tail and tries to get away after you've inflicted a grazing wound on him? Do you try to prevent his escape so you can kill him? I mean, that was the reason you drew your gun, wasn't it? This is important. The answer could very well mean the difference between remaining a free man vs being locked up for the rest of your life, as it has for multiple very real people.
If you think that's nothing more than a matter of "semantics" then I hope you have the world's best lawyer on speed dial if you're ever in that situation.
[Quote]Smantics is masking the point and over complicating a fairly straight forward responsibility.[/quote]
I'm not complicating anything. The question was very simple and straight-forward: Do you make the kill shot on your attacker even though he's down and uncapacitated, or don't you? Quite frankly, if you can't answer that then you aren't ready to carry a firearm, IMHO.
I doubt that anyone here is so childish that they don't understand that using sufficient force to effectively defend yourself with a firearm means using sufficient force to kill someone. That's not even in dispute. But there is a very real difference between saying, "I understand that carrying a firearm for protection means that using it may well involve me killing one or more human beings, and I accept that" and "The only reason for drawing a gun in self-defense is to kill someone". The former accepts killing as a potential (perhaps even probable) consequence of using your firearm, while the latter establishes it as a goal. The difference between them has very real life-and-death consequences, both for your attacker and you.
We haven't even touched on the many, many times in which a PD firearm is successfully used to prevent an attack without ever even firing a shot.
And I'm not sure why you keep citing the "harvesting" vs "killing" deer thing as it's not at all apt here. "Self-defense" or any of the other terms I've used aren't PC euphemisms for less pleasant sounding terms. They're accurate descriptions of what they refer to. While "self-defense" often does involve "killing", the latter is not a synonym for the former.
You're still misrepresenting what I've said Bob, and trying to blow off my quite substantive point as nothing but "semantics". And evading the question of whether or not you make the kill shot in my hypothetical is a real cop-out. That goes to the very heart of your claim. If the reason you draw your gun in that situation is to kill someone then you'll take the anchoring shot and kill your attacker even though he's no longer a threat. Is that what you think you'd do, or not? Or what if he turns tail and tries to get away after you've inflicted a grazing wound on him? Do you try to prevent his escape so you can kill him? I mean, that was the reason you drew your gun, wasn't it? This is important. The answer could very well mean the difference between remaining a free man vs being locked up for the rest of your life, as it has for multiple very real people.
If you think that's nothing more than a matter of "semantics" then I hope you have the world's best lawyer on speed dial if you're ever in that situation.
[Quote]Smantics is masking the point and over complicating a fairly straight forward responsibility.[/quote]
I'm not complicating anything. The question was very simple and straight-forward: Do you make the kill shot on your attacker even though he's down and uncapacitated, or don't you? Quite frankly, if you can't answer that then you aren't ready to carry a firearm, IMHO.
I doubt that anyone here is so childish that they don't understand that using sufficient force to effectively defend yourself with a firearm means using sufficient force to kill someone. That's not even in dispute. But there is a very real difference between saying, "I understand that carrying a firearm for protection means that using it may well involve me killing one or more human beings, and I accept that" and "The only reason for drawing a gun in self-defense is to kill someone". The former accepts killing as a potential (perhaps even probable) consequence of using your firearm, while the latter establishes it as a goal. The difference between them has very real life-and-death consequences, both for your attacker and you.
We haven't even touched on the many, many times in which a PD firearm is successfully used to prevent an attack without ever even firing a shot.
And I'm not sure why you keep citing the "harvesting" vs "killing" deer thing as it's not at all apt here. "Self-defense" or any of the other terms I've used aren't PC euphemisms for less pleasant sounding terms. They're accurate descriptions of what they refer to. While "self-defense" often does involve "killing", the latter is not a synonym for the former.
14.) Wild Bob - 09/23/2014
Thanks for the information on the course Bob.
15.) Wild Bob - 09/23/2014
I agree Bob, those are some impressive credentials!
Yes it is pricey too…But you know, my wife is a Life Coach, and one thing that we’ve learned through her years in business offering her services is this: (and I honestly feel this applies to courses such as these as well) Training services offered at cut rate price result in two things 1) the services tend to not be valued and taken as seriously by the attendees and 2) cut rate prices attract skeptical/ill informed attendees that are not willing to put forth the effort to really make the most of ‘their’ training.
So I totally get the cost of this course…besides I’ve always been the kind of guy that feels you get what you pay for.
Yes it is pricey too…But you know, my wife is a Life Coach, and one thing that we’ve learned through her years in business offering her services is this: (and I honestly feel this applies to courses such as these as well) Training services offered at cut rate price result in two things 1) the services tend to not be valued and taken as seriously by the attendees and 2) cut rate prices attract skeptical/ill informed attendees that are not willing to put forth the effort to really make the most of ‘their’ training.
So I totally get the cost of this course…besides I’ve always been the kind of guy that feels you get what you pay for.
16.) Bob Peck - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]And evading the question of whether or not you make the kill shot in my hypothetical is a real cop-out. [/QUOTE]
One shot, one kill. If there is no kill and the threat has been neutralized then my training and conscience dictates I don't follow up with murder.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]I'm not complicating anything. [/QUOTE]
I believe you are and you're not alone so that's why I'm thinking we should just agree to disagree.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]The question was very simple and straight-forward: Do you make the kill shot on your attacker even though he's down and uncapacitated, or don't you? Quite frankly, if you can't answer that then you aren't ready to carry a firearm, IMHO.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean incapacitated and no, as I've already stated when a threat is "neutralized" there is no need to cross over from "self-defense" to murder.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]I doubt that anyone here is so childish that they don't understand that using sufficient force to effectively defend yourself with a firearm means using sufficient force to kill someone. That's not even in dispute. But there is a very real difference between saying, "I understand that carrying a firearm for protection means that using it may well involve me killing one or more human beings, and I accept that" and "The only reason for drawing a gun in self-defense is to kill someone". The former accepts killing as a potential (perhaps even probable) consequence of using your firearm, while the latter establishes it as a goal. The difference between them has very real life-and-death consequences, both for your attacker and you.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should be my lawyer on speed dial. This is some kinda creative and well-written crafty interwoven logic!
[U]Here's the "goal"[/U]:
A well placed single shot or shots to center mass the result of which is likely to be death.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]And I'm not sure why you keep citing the "harvesting" vs "killing" deer thing as it's not at all apt hete.[/QUOTE] My opinion is different than yours which is not to say either is right or wrong, just different. I keep citing it because some people (and you may be one) feel better sanitizing the ugly reality of firing a weapon upon a deer or another human. This sanitizing falls into the "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" category.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800] "Self-defense" or any of the other terms I've used aren't PC euphemisms for less pleasant sounding terms. They're accurate descriptions of what they refer to. [/QUOTE] When referring to the martial arts (sans weapons) I am more comfortable with the words "self defense". However, when it comes to a .45 tucked in my waistband, "self defense" takes on a different meaning because of the lethality. One ends in broken bones, concussions and caved windpipes, the other ends with very big holes in a human that are by design difficult-to-impossible to survive.
I don't know about you but I've enjoyed this rousing discourse however I think I'll tap out and let you carry the torch. I need to finish hanging some stands and clear a briar patch. Our archery opener is a week from this Saturday and I've got some lofty venison donation goals to get to.
One shot, one kill. If there is no kill and the threat has been neutralized then my training and conscience dictates I don't follow up with murder.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]I'm not complicating anything. [/QUOTE]
I believe you are and you're not alone so that's why I'm thinking we should just agree to disagree.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]The question was very simple and straight-forward: Do you make the kill shot on your attacker even though he's down and uncapacitated, or don't you? Quite frankly, if you can't answer that then you aren't ready to carry a firearm, IMHO.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean incapacitated and no, as I've already stated when a threat is "neutralized" there is no need to cross over from "self-defense" to murder.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]I doubt that anyone here is so childish that they don't understand that using sufficient force to effectively defend yourself with a firearm means using sufficient force to kill someone. That's not even in dispute. But there is a very real difference between saying, "I understand that carrying a firearm for protection means that using it may well involve me killing one or more human beings, and I accept that" and "The only reason for drawing a gun in self-defense is to kill someone". The former accepts killing as a potential (perhaps even probable) consequence of using your firearm, while the latter establishes it as a goal. The difference between them has very real life-and-death consequences, both for your attacker and you.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should be my lawyer on speed dial. This is some kinda creative and well-written crafty interwoven logic!
[U]Here's the "goal"[/U]:
A well placed single shot or shots to center mass the result of which is likely to be death.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800]And I'm not sure why you keep citing the "harvesting" vs "killing" deer thing as it's not at all apt hete.[/QUOTE] My opinion is different than yours which is not to say either is right or wrong, just different. I keep citing it because some people (and you may be one) feel better sanitizing the ugly reality of firing a weapon upon a deer or another human. This sanitizing falls into the "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" category.
[QUOTE=DParker;25800] "Self-defense" or any of the other terms I've used aren't PC euphemisms for less pleasant sounding terms. They're accurate descriptions of what they refer to. [/QUOTE] When referring to the martial arts (sans weapons) I am more comfortable with the words "self defense". However, when it comes to a .45 tucked in my waistband, "self defense" takes on a different meaning because of the lethality. One ends in broken bones, concussions and caved windpipes, the other ends with very big holes in a human that are by design difficult-to-impossible to survive.
I don't know about you but I've enjoyed this rousing discourse however I think I'll tap out and let you carry the torch. I need to finish hanging some stands and clear a briar patch. Our archery opener is a week from this Saturday and I've got some lofty venison donation goals to get to.
17.) Floyd - 09/23/2014
Philosophy of Use - always interesting.
Try talking with a lady from Michigan why she keeps her snow blower in the San Antonio Area?
Try talking with a lady from Michigan why she keeps her snow blower in the San Antonio Area?
18.) DParker - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]One shot, one kill.[/quote]
You a sniper now, Bob?
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]If there is no kill and the threat has been neutralized then my training and conscience dictates I don't follow up with murder.[/quote]
Eureka!!! So then the reason you drew your weapon was not, in fact, to "kill someone".
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]I believe you are [COLOR="#0000FF"]{complicating things}[/COLOR] and you're not alone so that's why I'm thinking we should just agree to disagree.[/quote]
(Clarifying text in blue added by me.) "There's an important difference between intent and probable consequence." That's it. You think that's "complicated"?
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]I think you mean incapacitated[/quote]
I do. Who put that "u" right next to the "i" on my phone's keyboard?
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]and no, as I've already stated when a threat is "neutralized" there is no need to cross over from "self-defense" to murder.[/quote]
I agree, even though that is completely contrary to your stated "reason" for drawing your gun.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]Maybe you should be my lawyer on speed dial. This is some kinda creative and well-written crafty interwoven logic![/quote]
You're an intelligent guy, Bob...and I know you recognize the obvious simplicity in what I'm saying. Continuing to pretend that what I've said is some complicated exercise in convoluted word-play is disingenuous and beneath you.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814][U]Here's the "goal"[/U]:
A well placed single shot or shots to center mass the result of which is likely to be death.[/quote]
Close, but you're omitting "in order to immediately stop the threat", which is the actual goal, with "the result of which is likely to be death" referring to a probable additional consequence. That's why you stop shooting if/when the perp goes down and out, but is still breathing, rather than continuing on to what you accurately described as "murder".
Again, really quite simple.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]I keep citing it because some people [B][COLOR="#FF0000"](and you may be one)[/COLOR][/B] feel better sanitizing the ugly reality of firing a weapon upon a deer or another human.[/quote]
Considering how many times I've explicitly referred to "killing a human being" as a consequence of using deadly force, that part in parenthesis is terribly disingenuous.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]This sanitizing falls into the "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" category.[/quote]
There hasn't been even a single word of "sanitizing" anything in what I've said. Stop trying to claim that I have.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]When referring to the martial arts (sans weapons) I am more comfortable with the words "self defense". However, when it comes to a .45 tucked in my waistband, "self defense" takes on a different meaning because of the lethality. One ends in broken bones, concussions and caved windpipes, the other ends with very big holes in a human that are by design difficult-to-impossible to survive.[/quote]
Even forgetting the fact that survival of gunshot wounds is quite common, and becoming more common all the time...a term's meaning is not defined by what you may or may not feel comfortable with. If you're carrying and/or use a firearm for the purpose of defending yourself against violent assault then that is quite correctly referred to as "self defense", regardless of the fact that that particular form of self defense involves the use of a weapon designed to inflict deadly force.
Yes, an interesting (and important) topic.
You a sniper now, Bob?
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]If there is no kill and the threat has been neutralized then my training and conscience dictates I don't follow up with murder.[/quote]
Eureka!!! So then the reason you drew your weapon was not, in fact, to "kill someone".
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]I believe you are [COLOR="#0000FF"]{complicating things}[/COLOR] and you're not alone so that's why I'm thinking we should just agree to disagree.[/quote]
(Clarifying text in blue added by me.) "There's an important difference between intent and probable consequence." That's it. You think that's "complicated"?
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]I think you mean incapacitated[/quote]
I do. Who put that "u" right next to the "i" on my phone's keyboard?
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]and no, as I've already stated when a threat is "neutralized" there is no need to cross over from "self-defense" to murder.[/quote]
I agree, even though that is completely contrary to your stated "reason" for drawing your gun.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]Maybe you should be my lawyer on speed dial. This is some kinda creative and well-written crafty interwoven logic![/quote]
You're an intelligent guy, Bob...and I know you recognize the obvious simplicity in what I'm saying. Continuing to pretend that what I've said is some complicated exercise in convoluted word-play is disingenuous and beneath you.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814][U]Here's the "goal"[/U]:
A well placed single shot or shots to center mass the result of which is likely to be death.[/quote]
Close, but you're omitting "in order to immediately stop the threat", which is the actual goal, with "the result of which is likely to be death" referring to a probable additional consequence. That's why you stop shooting if/when the perp goes down and out, but is still breathing, rather than continuing on to what you accurately described as "murder".
Again, really quite simple.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]I keep citing it because some people [B][COLOR="#FF0000"](and you may be one)[/COLOR][/B] feel better sanitizing the ugly reality of firing a weapon upon a deer or another human.[/quote]
Considering how many times I've explicitly referred to "killing a human being" as a consequence of using deadly force, that part in parenthesis is terribly disingenuous.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]This sanitizing falls into the "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" category.[/quote]
There hasn't been even a single word of "sanitizing" anything in what I've said. Stop trying to claim that I have.
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;25814]When referring to the martial arts (sans weapons) I am more comfortable with the words "self defense". However, when it comes to a .45 tucked in my waistband, "self defense" takes on a different meaning because of the lethality. One ends in broken bones, concussions and caved windpipes, the other ends with very big holes in a human that are by design difficult-to-impossible to survive.[/quote]
Even forgetting the fact that survival of gunshot wounds is quite common, and becoming more common all the time...a term's meaning is not defined by what you may or may not feel comfortable with. If you're carrying and/or use a firearm for the purpose of defending yourself against violent assault then that is quite correctly referred to as "self defense", regardless of the fact that that particular form of self defense involves the use of a weapon designed to inflict deadly force.
Yes, an interesting (and important) topic.
19.) DParker - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Floyd;25816]Philosophy of Use - always interesting.
Try talking with a lady from Michigan why she keeps her snow blower in the San Antonio Area?[/QUOTE]
Because she remembers the Alamo?
Try talking with a lady from Michigan why she keeps her snow blower in the San Antonio Area?[/QUOTE]
Because she remembers the Alamo?
20.) Bob Peck - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=DParker;25818]You a sniper now, Bob?[/QUOTE]
As a matter of fact, I am.
[QUOTE=DParker;25818]You're an intelligent guy, Bob...and I know you recognize the obvious simplicity in what I'm saying. Continuing to pretend that what I've said is some complicated exercise in convoluted word-play is disingenuous and beneath you.[/QUOTE]
Clever. Praise mixed with insult. I'm as sincere, candid and genuine as a heart attack. I have a headache. I'm out.
As a matter of fact, I am.
[QUOTE=DParker;25818]You're an intelligent guy, Bob...and I know you recognize the obvious simplicity in what I'm saying. Continuing to pretend that what I've said is some complicated exercise in convoluted word-play is disingenuous and beneath you.[/QUOTE]
Clever. Praise mixed with insult. I'm as sincere, candid and genuine as a heart attack. I have a headache. I'm out.
21.) Floyd - 09/23/2014
Deminshing and insultive
22.) Alex - 09/23/2014
good lord... Its like watching old people have sex.
I have rarely read a thread here where the point of a ridiculous nuance has been pounded so hard.
Here... let me try.
If I pull a gun on someone because I am threatened then [B]I am shooting to kill [/B]because if the situation was dire enough to cause me to draw up on someone, then it is by my definition dire enough to take a life. As such, my intention is to end the situation permanently with my initial shot. Having law enforcement in the family i can assure you the intention is there as well. The first shot is intended to kill. If the result is incapacitation then you're reevaluating your response in real time.
If it turns out that I fail to do so and the assailant is merely wounded, then lucky for him as I was not the shot I endeavored to be.
Will I follow up with a second finishing shot?
Only if I was inclined to cross over into murder...which under some circumstances such as my daughters or wife, I may be inclined to.
But just because I wouldnt follow up for a 'kill shot' after the situation changes doesnt mean for one second that I wasnt shooting with the intent and attempt to kill initially. I was and I would.
Any argument that I was not is purely speculation on your part or anyone else's part.
And as I have announced my clear intentions here... I would consider my intentions not subject for debate.
Good lord..
Like Freakin old farmers arguing about which type of cow has runnier shit.
lol
I have rarely read a thread here where the point of a ridiculous nuance has been pounded so hard.
Here... let me try.
If I pull a gun on someone because I am threatened then [B]I am shooting to kill [/B]because if the situation was dire enough to cause me to draw up on someone, then it is by my definition dire enough to take a life. As such, my intention is to end the situation permanently with my initial shot. Having law enforcement in the family i can assure you the intention is there as well. The first shot is intended to kill. If the result is incapacitation then you're reevaluating your response in real time.
If it turns out that I fail to do so and the assailant is merely wounded, then lucky for him as I was not the shot I endeavored to be.
Will I follow up with a second finishing shot?
Only if I was inclined to cross over into murder...which under some circumstances such as my daughters or wife, I may be inclined to.
But just because I wouldnt follow up for a 'kill shot' after the situation changes doesnt mean for one second that I wasnt shooting with the intent and attempt to kill initially. I was and I would.
Any argument that I was not is purely speculation on your part or anyone else's part.
And as I have announced my clear intentions here... I would consider my intentions not subject for debate.
Good lord..
Like Freakin old farmers arguing about which type of cow has runnier shit.
lol
23.) bluecat - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Alex;25824]good lord... Its like watching old people have sex.[/QUOTE]
So you're into that too...
So you're into that too...
24.) Floyd - 09/23/2014
I wondered about the squeekin noise.
Seems to be a tough call to skin or not skin the hog leg?
Seems to be a tough call to skin or not skin the hog leg?
25.) DParker - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Alex;25824]good lord... Its like watching old people have sex.
I have rarely read a thread here where the point of a ridiculous nuance has been pounded so hard.
Here... let me try.
If I pull a gun on someone because I am threatened then [B]I am shooting to kill [/B]because if the situation was dire enough to cause me to draw up on someone, then it is by my definition dire enough to take a life. As such, my intention is to end the situation permanently with my initial shot. Having law enforcement in the family i can assure you the intention is there as well. The first shot is intended to kill. If the result is incapacitation then you're reevaluating your response in real time.[/quote]
Right, but you're reevaluating your response because you did not draw your gun for the purpose of killing anyone, you drew it for the purpose of ending a threat via the application of the force that the firearm brings to bear, which also has a significant chance of killing your attacker in the process. And the distinction matters. Here was the original claim:
[I]"When you pull your weapon, it should be for one reason and one reason only ... to kill someone. The gun is no deterrent."[/I]
Like I said earlier, the discussion that followed ignored the many, many cases in which simply drawing a weapon was sufficient to cause a would-be assailant to break off an attack, which by itself is enough to render the above statement factually false. But I wasn't even quibbling with that. And the statement was not that, once you begin shooting you should "shoot to kill" (which is really an unfortunate turn of phrase in that it leads to all sorts misperception/miscommunication), it was that killing someone was the only (presumably good) reason for drawing the weapon in the first place. The difference between those two is not one of nuance, it's one of significant substance. Here's the idea more succinctly worded by a couple of self-defense instructors:
[url]http://hawaiiccw.com/hawaii-firearm-laws/shoot-kill/[/url]
[quote]The next point that needs clarification is what is meant by “shoot to kill”. When asked if I would “shoot to kill”, my answer is both yes and no. If presented with a clear and mortal threat to my life or the life of my child, I would shoot to kill; in the sense that my shots would be aimed for the center of the attacker’s chest. Clearly that poses a significant risk of killing him, so yes, I would “shoot to kill”. However, the goal of deadly force is not the death of the assailant; the goal is to force the assailant to cease a behavior (attack) which prompted the use of deadly force. So no, I’m not shooting to kill, I’m shooting to stop.[/quote]
[url]http://lastresistance.com/949/why-are-law-enforcement-officers-taught-shoot-to-kill-and-not-to-wound/[/url]
[quote]"I am a Texas DPS Certified Texas Concealed Handgun Instructor and an NRA Certified Personal Protection Instructor. I also academically study firearms self-defense. My specialty is Deadly Force law and application, not just in Texas but throughout the English Common Law, which in most states is the basis for their deadly force jurisprudence."
:
"As for “Shoot to Kill”- this is a meaningless term.
We don’t shoot to kill, we SHOOT TO STOP an unlawful deadly attack or armed felonious action. Many times this will result in the death of the attacker, but that is truly not a required outcome. If the Bad Guy throws up his hands and surrenders, that’s just as good result- he stopped attacking me, he abandoned his armed felonious action. If he leaves the scene in handcuffs in a deputy’s car rather than in the Medical Examiner’s van, it is all the same to me."[/quote]
You'll note that these both agree perfectly well with what all three of us (you, Bob and myself) have said about the tactics employed to use a firearm to stop a threat. You shoot to incapacitate in the most effective and immediate manner, which also just happens to be what you'd do if your goal was to kill someone. But there's a world of difference between shooting for maximum effect (what is unfortunately termed "shoot to kill") and having killing someone as your "reason" for drawing your weapon. You'll find this distinction being hammered home by most reputable firearms self-defense instructors.
A search on the relative terms yield a lot more. And here's a man in deep-red, guns-and-self-defense-friendly Oklahoma who took to heart the idea that the only reason to draw his weapon in self-defense was to kill someone:
[url]http://newsok.com/former-pharmacist-jerome-ersland-loses-appeal/article/3854619[/url]
He's now a permanent guest of the OK penal system.
I have rarely read a thread here where the point of a ridiculous nuance has been pounded so hard.
Here... let me try.
If I pull a gun on someone because I am threatened then [B]I am shooting to kill [/B]because if the situation was dire enough to cause me to draw up on someone, then it is by my definition dire enough to take a life. As such, my intention is to end the situation permanently with my initial shot. Having law enforcement in the family i can assure you the intention is there as well. The first shot is intended to kill. If the result is incapacitation then you're reevaluating your response in real time.[/quote]
Right, but you're reevaluating your response because you did not draw your gun for the purpose of killing anyone, you drew it for the purpose of ending a threat via the application of the force that the firearm brings to bear, which also has a significant chance of killing your attacker in the process. And the distinction matters. Here was the original claim:
[I]"When you pull your weapon, it should be for one reason and one reason only ... to kill someone. The gun is no deterrent."[/I]
Like I said earlier, the discussion that followed ignored the many, many cases in which simply drawing a weapon was sufficient to cause a would-be assailant to break off an attack, which by itself is enough to render the above statement factually false. But I wasn't even quibbling with that. And the statement was not that, once you begin shooting you should "shoot to kill" (which is really an unfortunate turn of phrase in that it leads to all sorts misperception/miscommunication), it was that killing someone was the only (presumably good) reason for drawing the weapon in the first place. The difference between those two is not one of nuance, it's one of significant substance. Here's the idea more succinctly worded by a couple of self-defense instructors:
[url]http://hawaiiccw.com/hawaii-firearm-laws/shoot-kill/[/url]
[quote]The next point that needs clarification is what is meant by “shoot to kill”. When asked if I would “shoot to kill”, my answer is both yes and no. If presented with a clear and mortal threat to my life or the life of my child, I would shoot to kill; in the sense that my shots would be aimed for the center of the attacker’s chest. Clearly that poses a significant risk of killing him, so yes, I would “shoot to kill”. However, the goal of deadly force is not the death of the assailant; the goal is to force the assailant to cease a behavior (attack) which prompted the use of deadly force. So no, I’m not shooting to kill, I’m shooting to stop.[/quote]
[url]http://lastresistance.com/949/why-are-law-enforcement-officers-taught-shoot-to-kill-and-not-to-wound/[/url]
[quote]"I am a Texas DPS Certified Texas Concealed Handgun Instructor and an NRA Certified Personal Protection Instructor. I also academically study firearms self-defense. My specialty is Deadly Force law and application, not just in Texas but throughout the English Common Law, which in most states is the basis for their deadly force jurisprudence."
:
"As for “Shoot to Kill”- this is a meaningless term.
We don’t shoot to kill, we SHOOT TO STOP an unlawful deadly attack or armed felonious action. Many times this will result in the death of the attacker, but that is truly not a required outcome. If the Bad Guy throws up his hands and surrenders, that’s just as good result- he stopped attacking me, he abandoned his armed felonious action. If he leaves the scene in handcuffs in a deputy’s car rather than in the Medical Examiner’s van, it is all the same to me."[/quote]
You'll note that these both agree perfectly well with what all three of us (you, Bob and myself) have said about the tactics employed to use a firearm to stop a threat. You shoot to incapacitate in the most effective and immediate manner, which also just happens to be what you'd do if your goal was to kill someone. But there's a world of difference between shooting for maximum effect (what is unfortunately termed "shoot to kill") and having killing someone as your "reason" for drawing your weapon. You'll find this distinction being hammered home by most reputable firearms self-defense instructors.
A search on the relative terms yield a lot more. And here's a man in deep-red, guns-and-self-defense-friendly Oklahoma who took to heart the idea that the only reason to draw his weapon in self-defense was to kill someone:
[url]http://newsok.com/former-pharmacist-jerome-ersland-loses-appeal/article/3854619[/url]
He's now a permanent guest of the OK penal system.
26.) Alex - 09/23/2014
Read your response.
My claim stands... when "I" draw a weapon in self to defense, and pull the trigger I am shooting to kill.
If I fail to do so and thus the situation is now changed, I will not likely shoot again, as I would ONLY be shooting at someone with the intent to kill them.
If my intent was not to kill at the moment I pull the trigger, then I would not be aiming for the part of a body that would likely kill them. Since I will only aim at the vitals, my intention is to kill them.
So again... all the legal speak aside.
For me...
Draw, aim, shoot to kill.
Fail to do so, and the situation now no longer dictates lethal force, then I will not be shooting again as I would ONLY shoot at a person with the intent to kill them.
Period.
Perhaps that means I will be part of the penal system one day.
My claim stands... when "I" draw a weapon in self to defense, and pull the trigger I am shooting to kill.
If I fail to do so and thus the situation is now changed, I will not likely shoot again, as I would ONLY be shooting at someone with the intent to kill them.
If my intent was not to kill at the moment I pull the trigger, then I would not be aiming for the part of a body that would likely kill them. Since I will only aim at the vitals, my intention is to kill them.
So again... all the legal speak aside.
For me...
Draw, aim, shoot to kill.
Fail to do so, and the situation now no longer dictates lethal force, then I will not be shooting again as I would ONLY shoot at a person with the intent to kill them.
Period.
Perhaps that means I will be part of the penal system one day.
27.) DParker - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Alex;25831]Read your response.
My claim stands... when "I" draw a weapon in self to defense, [B][COLOR="#FF0000"]and pull the trigger[/COLOR][/B] I am shooting to kill.[/quote]
Understood. Now, two things: First, contrast your statement above (paying particular attention to the part I highlighted in red) with the one that is the actual subject of disagreement:
[I][INDENT]"When you pull your weapon, it should be for one reason and one reason only ... to kill someone. The gun is no deterrent."[/INDENT][/I]
Your statement refers to the actual tactics employed once you've decided to shoot (with which I'm not disagreeing at all), while the original statement refers to the motivation for drawing the weapon in the first place.
Say you're being approached in a threatening manner by multiple thugs carrying baseball bats, tire irons...whatever. They're far enough away that you have a moment to prepare, but they're young and lanky and you estimate that you probably couldn't outrun them even if you wanted to (even forgetting what a bad idea it is to turn your back on an aggressor). So you draw your concealed handgun in order to prepare for the need to fire it, because waiting until they're so close that you have no other options would be just as unwise. But as soon as you do they decide they've chosen the wrong target, break off and head for parts unknown. Do you shoot anyway (presumably in their backs)? If not, why not? And how does that square with the assertion that the only valid reason for drawing your weapon is "to kill someone"?
[QUOTE=Alex;25831]If I fail to do so and thus the situation is now changed, I will not likely shoot again, as I would ONLY be shooting at someone with the intent to kill them.
If my intent was not to kill at the moment I pull the trigger, then I would not be aiming for the part of a body that would likely kill them. Since I will only aim at the vitals, my intention is to kill them.[/quote]
But the fact that you're aiming at the part of the body that would likely kill them is incidental to the fact that your purpose is to incapacitate them, whether or not that ultimately involves their death. If you had a magical ray gun with an instantaneous stun setting that was guaranteed to drop your attacker on the spot, presumably you'd be willing to use that as a perfectly acceptable alternative, wouldn't you? After all, it would achieve your real goal, which is protecting yourself and/or others from harm. The fact that you must resort to the deadly force of a firearm instead is a side-effect of physics, human biology and the state of technology, not a desire to kill someone.
In fact, that "killing someone" is not the actual purpose of drawing your weapon is the only reason for you to reevaluate your tactics if/when the threat is effectively stopped without killing your attacker. Otherwise you would just keep firing until the job was done, whether they're down or not.
[QUOTE=Alex;25831]So again... all the legal speak aside.[/quote]
And also again, it's not legalese (well, certainly the law is a huge factor in all this, but it's not exclusively law-based). It's a practical distinction that is what spells the difference between shooting until the threat is over vs. shooting until the threat is dead, even though they will sometimes/often end up being the same result.
Reader's Digest Condensed version:
If it's true that the only reason to draw your weapon is to kill someone (the claim under dispute) then once drawn you should fire unconditionally and continue firing until your attacker(s) is/are dead, whether he/they are incapacitated or not. If you don't plan on doing both of those things then your real reason for drawing must be something else.
My claim stands... when "I" draw a weapon in self to defense, [B][COLOR="#FF0000"]and pull the trigger[/COLOR][/B] I am shooting to kill.[/quote]
Understood. Now, two things: First, contrast your statement above (paying particular attention to the part I highlighted in red) with the one that is the actual subject of disagreement:
[I][INDENT]"When you pull your weapon, it should be for one reason and one reason only ... to kill someone. The gun is no deterrent."[/INDENT][/I]
Your statement refers to the actual tactics employed once you've decided to shoot (with which I'm not disagreeing at all), while the original statement refers to the motivation for drawing the weapon in the first place.
Say you're being approached in a threatening manner by multiple thugs carrying baseball bats, tire irons...whatever. They're far enough away that you have a moment to prepare, but they're young and lanky and you estimate that you probably couldn't outrun them even if you wanted to (even forgetting what a bad idea it is to turn your back on an aggressor). So you draw your concealed handgun in order to prepare for the need to fire it, because waiting until they're so close that you have no other options would be just as unwise. But as soon as you do they decide they've chosen the wrong target, break off and head for parts unknown. Do you shoot anyway (presumably in their backs)? If not, why not? And how does that square with the assertion that the only valid reason for drawing your weapon is "to kill someone"?
[QUOTE=Alex;25831]If I fail to do so and thus the situation is now changed, I will not likely shoot again, as I would ONLY be shooting at someone with the intent to kill them.
If my intent was not to kill at the moment I pull the trigger, then I would not be aiming for the part of a body that would likely kill them. Since I will only aim at the vitals, my intention is to kill them.[/quote]
But the fact that you're aiming at the part of the body that would likely kill them is incidental to the fact that your purpose is to incapacitate them, whether or not that ultimately involves their death. If you had a magical ray gun with an instantaneous stun setting that was guaranteed to drop your attacker on the spot, presumably you'd be willing to use that as a perfectly acceptable alternative, wouldn't you? After all, it would achieve your real goal, which is protecting yourself and/or others from harm. The fact that you must resort to the deadly force of a firearm instead is a side-effect of physics, human biology and the state of technology, not a desire to kill someone.
In fact, that "killing someone" is not the actual purpose of drawing your weapon is the only reason for you to reevaluate your tactics if/when the threat is effectively stopped without killing your attacker. Otherwise you would just keep firing until the job was done, whether they're down or not.
[QUOTE=Alex;25831]So again... all the legal speak aside.[/quote]
And also again, it's not legalese (well, certainly the law is a huge factor in all this, but it's not exclusively law-based). It's a practical distinction that is what spells the difference between shooting until the threat is over vs. shooting until the threat is dead, even though they will sometimes/often end up being the same result.
Reader's Digest Condensed version:
If it's true that the only reason to draw your weapon is to kill someone (the claim under dispute) then once drawn you should fire unconditionally and continue firing until your attacker(s) is/are dead, whether he/they are incapacitated or not. If you don't plan on doing both of those things then your real reason for drawing must be something else.
28.) Swamp Fox - 09/23/2014
[QUOTE=Alex;25824]...Will I follow up with a second finishing shot?
Only if I was inclined to cross over into murder...which under some circumstances such as my daughters or wife, I may be inclined to...
[/QUOTE]
Driving you nuts, huh? Wimmins! :wink
Take a deep breath and count to ten before you do something rash, Alex. That's what Crookedeye always does...
LOL
Only if I was inclined to cross over into murder...which under some circumstances such as my daughters or wife, I may be inclined to...
[/QUOTE]
Driving you nuts, huh? Wimmins! :wink
Take a deep breath and count to ten before you do something rash, Alex. That's what Crookedeye always does...
LOL
29.) billy b - 09/23/2014
My head hurts............:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
I resemble those old people, how did you know Alex?:groan::shocked::omg::rage:
I resemble those old people, how did you know Alex?:groan::shocked::omg::rage:
30.) Floyd - 09/24/2014
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;25849]Driving you nuts, huh? Wimmins! :wink
Take a deep breath and count to ten before you do something rash, Alex. That's what Crookedeye always does...
LOL[/QUOTE]
Really? :tap:
Tar Heel couthness.
Take a deep breath and count to ten before you do something rash, Alex. That's what Crookedeye always does...
LOL[/QUOTE]
Really? :tap:
Tar Heel couthness.
31.) crookedeye - 09/24/2014
i like how dparker highlights the important parts in red, so as we can better understand...lol
I always count from 10 backwards, it keeps me dialed in...plus it takes my mind off stuff because I have to think harder...
I always count from 10 backwards, it keeps me dialed in...plus it takes my mind off stuff because I have to think harder...
32.) luv2bowhunt - 09/24/2014
Wow, get the microscopes out so we can see the differences of opinion. Might even need the Hubble telescope for this one.
Gen. Thomas Jackson said it best. "Kill 'em, kill 'em all."
Gen. Thomas Jackson said it best. "Kill 'em, kill 'em all."
33.) Deerminator - 09/24/2014
here's some thoughts;
I sure don't want some criminal healing up in the hospital for 6 months planning revenge.cause I mamed when I should have killed.
Since the perp has no concern for me I will have even less for them.
The less perpetrators the more law abiding upstanding citizens there will be.
Don't poke the bear. ( or mess with Russa )
I just renewed my NYS concealed carry permit. Got one of the new plastic card ones.I have never had to use it in a self defence situation.( [I]THANK GOD [/I])
Since it is unlawful to discharge a weapon in most all municipalities there will be charges brought against you for defending your self. AND [B]you[/B] can only defend [B]yourself[/B]. Your not allowed to use a gun to rescue or defend your fellow man. It all depends on the circumstances, the judge, and your attorney.
check out the web site NY fIREARMS.com lots of info there with some attourneys on the form.
I sure don't want some criminal healing up in the hospital for 6 months planning revenge.cause I mamed when I should have killed.
Since the perp has no concern for me I will have even less for them.
The less perpetrators the more law abiding upstanding citizens there will be.
Don't poke the bear. ( or mess with Russa )
I just renewed my NYS concealed carry permit. Got one of the new plastic card ones.I have never had to use it in a self defence situation.( [I]THANK GOD [/I])
Since it is unlawful to discharge a weapon in most all municipalities there will be charges brought against you for defending your self. AND [B]you[/B] can only defend [B]yourself[/B]. Your not allowed to use a gun to rescue or defend your fellow man. It all depends on the circumstances, the judge, and your attorney.
check out the web site NY fIREARMS.com lots of info there with some attourneys on the form.