March 29, 2012, 12:18 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
|
Quote:
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member |
|
March 29, 2012, 04:42 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Location: The Woods
Posts: 1,197
|
I suppose another difference between me using less lethal rounds for HD and the police using them, is that the police would be going on the offensive - and therefore more likely to run into a less violent criminal. If I ever shoot someone in my house they would have pretty much had to have already killed my dogs and then come upstairs.
Lots of great feedback and points I hadn't thought of though. Seems like the general consensus is that while less lethal has a role, it's not really home defense. |
March 29, 2012, 09:02 AM | #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
Quote:
When I fire a rifle at a deer my target is the area in the chest cavity where the vitals are concentrated. I do this with the intent of a quick, sure, humane kill. Were I to fire a pistol, shotgun or rifle at a human aggressor my target would be the area of the chest cavity where the vitals are concentrated. I would do this with the intent of a quick, sure kill (there isn't anything humane about shooting a person). The "stopping" part is the incidental byproduct. I do not see a way around the fact that if I fire a deadly weapon at someone I have to admit that I'm intending to cause that persons death. I may not actually cause it, but it must be considered in my intent. I feel it is important not to kid myself as to what I'm preparing, equipping and training for. If others see it differently and it works in their mind that's great. But consider my argument and see if it contains any untruth or inaccuracy. If stopping is the goal we should choose tasers, nightsticks and OC, rather than firearms.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum "A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields Last edited by lawnboy; March 29, 2012 at 09:09 AM. Reason: added a line for clarity |
||
March 29, 2012, 10:09 AM | #29 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
March 29, 2012, 10:50 AM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
However, there is always the possibility that forensic evidence or earwitness or other testimony might cast doubt on whether the defender had used only the amount of force reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent threat. The number and timing of the shots, the condition of the deceased, the location of entry wounds, and so forth could enter into the picture and put the defender's testimony and credibility in question. Should that happen, the defendant's case would not be helped by his or her having made comments in a public forum indicating a possible predisposition toward willfully causing the death of another human being. |
|
March 29, 2012, 11:24 AM | #31 | |||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
However, the important distinction here is that the law does not authorize you to kill anyone. Once the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury subsides, you are no longer legally authorized to use deadly force. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
March 29, 2012, 11:39 AM | #32 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
I've been careful in my comments to avoid poking fun at anyone elses viewpoint. I've been careful to state my thoughts, beliefs and conclusions as just that, not as some type of Recieved Wisdom or special Revelation. You've not been so careful. I suppose I should expect this once in a while but it always comes as a surprise from someone in your position. Quote:
Quote:
I think what may be happening here is a bit of unclearness on my part. I do not intend to say that my self defense plan is to keep shooting until an assailant expires. But my contention is that it must be acknowledged that EVEN A SINGLE SHOT carries with it a strong potential of causing that death. Especially a well aimed shot, with a serious round, fired by a shooter who has taken on the responsibility to get trained. Once again, I think acknowledging this is an important part of preparation. I don't see why acknowledging this strong possibility of the worst case outcome in our thinking is such a problem for some. Law enforcement people have different duties and responsibilities than people merely protecting themselves and their loved ones and property. I'm not in law enforcement. But I can see where less lethal may be part of their plan.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum "A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields Last edited by lawnboy; March 29, 2012 at 11:59 AM. Reason: added a 2 paragraph at the end |
|||
March 29, 2012, 12:10 PM | #33 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Bartholomew Roberts put it beautifully:
Quote:
As far as what a reasonable person might think, the fact that you are so insistent that if you had to shoot someone in self defense you would be intending to kill, I'm afraid says something about you and your values that will not be taken well by those who might later have to decide if your use of lethal force was justified.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
March 29, 2012, 12:41 PM | #34 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The need to draw and fire very quickly at someone who presents an imminent threat and who is most probably moving very quickly most probably completely precludes the taking of a "well aimed shot". Qualified trainers teach firing several times as quickly as possible at center mass. |
||||
March 29, 2012, 01:04 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
As a moderator, is it my job to save people from themselves, from their own bad ideas coming back to bite them later?
Naw, I guess not. Wouldn't be much to talk about around here if it were. But I think if someone who made bad-foolish statements on here ever did get involved in a shooting, I'll be sad that I didn't preemptively scrub the thread ... for him, and for all of us. pax |
March 29, 2012, 01:18 PM | #36 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Location: here
Posts: 551
|
I'll focus on the actual point of contention.
Quote:
Quote:
Given this, I find it impossible to make the separation of intent that some appear capable of making. I don't think this makes me a monster or a mall ninja. I think it makes me thorough. And less likely to use deadly force in an inappropriate situation, since I freely acknowledge all of the possible consequences in advance. Your way of thinking about it is good. But I think my way is better. If I thought your way was better I'd convert. Quote:
I think this pretty much a semantic discussion at this point. My part in it is over now.
__________________
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" --Ralph Wiggum "A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her"-- W.C Fields Last edited by lawnboy; March 29, 2012 at 01:43 PM. |
|||
March 29, 2012, 02:26 PM | #37 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Your changing your mind is not my affair. You're an adult and free to be foolish. The consequences to you of your choices and attitudes is not my concern. However, it's my responsibility to be concerned, and I am concerned, that foolish ideas and attitudes not go unchallenged here so that perhaps others will not be misled to their grief. So for the sake of others who may have been reading your your posts here, I'll point out that your ideas and perspectives have been criticized and rejected by --
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
March 29, 2012, 03:13 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Closed for the obvious reasons.
pax |
March 30, 2012, 08:56 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Despite the righteous close, Pax allowed me to post:
I wanted to add this to the fray: If one is interested in an excellent exposition of the rationales for killing in SD in modern juris prudence and the historical background - I recommend: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199283460.do Killing in Self Defense by Leverick. Mentions many of the issues here and references the RKBA world literature. A dense but good read. It discusses the right to life as compared to SD, property, retreat, rape, killing vs. stopping, etc. Glenn
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|