Is a fast draw the most important skill for deadly force encounters?

[briandg]

Leaf, your logic isn't anywhere near effective.

Any shot to the upper torso under the conditions that you are setting is faster and more certain than a shot to the head. Heart and lungs are about five times larger than the brain, and about twice as large as the head in general. Multi taps to the head aren't anywhere near as simple and automatic as a straight line dump into the chest.

Your assertion is that trying to find the heart is a bad idea, and time consuming, but the truth is that finding the heart isn't the idea. The idea is to just put holes in the CP group and let the immediate damage shock the attacker and possibly halt the attack, and it's much easier in many ways than trying to put a shot into the head that is, in fact, not a guaranteed stop. Bleeding out over five or ten minutes is not the only way that you can disable an attacker, just taking a shot anywhere will stop many people.

There you have it. As you yourself said, you can risk missing his head or you can take a far easier try for a target five times bigger than the brain.

If we want to take it into another direction, which isn't much of an argument either, we have to look at professionals and ask them their preferences.

So far as I know, no police departments have a policy to choose head shots over body shots unless the head is the only possible target.

Take note of this. Arkansas state police, among many others, use the standard B27 target. (below. midway usa.) Passing score is 42 out of 50 hits to the seven ring.



Note that there is no provision for taking head shots, there is not even an outline to show where the brain itself is. A shot that strikes the head is counted as a zero.

One of the most important things that hasn't been accounted for is that the spinal column is the one absolute in a shooting. A shot to the spinal column that hits will buckle the attackers knees at a fraction of the speed of nerve conduction.

You implied that the purpose of your post was to put correct advise out for the public, and countering my implied bad advice. Boy, howdy. I'd like to remind you that in your own words you say that this shot depends on the skill needed to put a good shot into a section of the brain. NOT AN EASY TASK. There are numerous statements of how many 'misses', whatever that actually means during a gun battle. It's usually quoted as more than half of the shots are clear misses. The shooter failed to hit the entire body.

With a properly placed head shot however, deactivation of the main brain housing group is immediate.

Think about what you have said. Making this statement on a forum is easy. Sure, I'm going to shoot the guy in the head and make him fall down immediately. Now, when the time comes, are you really going to draw your gun and take aim for the brain, and plan on several rounds before you are lucky enough to hit it? I doubt it. When faced with an attack, most people default to their lowest capacity. You will probably draw and fire at the chest.

There isn't a whole lot that really supports the case of shooting for the brain during a stressful firefight. there is much to support body shots.

[briandg]

main brain housing group

What does that mean, anyway? the only reference that I can find about it is that it's a sarcastic and casual reference only used by the marines.

[tipoc]

Briandg's points are very good ones. I'll just add that the most folks in a fight, fist fight, gun fight, snow balls, don't stand still. They move around and so does their head. It turns away, it bobs and weaves, it ducks. So the idea that it's easier and better to take a head shot is a mistake.

I forget what Jeff Cooper called that drill, The Rhodesian? Two to the chest one to the head. The idea was that the first two were to the body and slowed the fella down for the third. The COM is the easiest and clearest target when folks are moving.

Of course if a person's sitting down smoking a cigar and enjoying a brandy...

The point though is to stop the immediate threat.

tipoc

[tipoc]

"main brain housing group"
What does that mean, anyway? the only reference that I can find about it is that it's a sarcastic and casual reference only used by the marines.

It's tactical speak I believe.

Where some might say noggin, head, coconut, "that bowling ball sitting on the pencil you call a neck", etc. Trained operators know the correct terms. Don't be ashamed you don't know that we are all ignorant of some things!

tipoc

[briandg]

Of course if a person's sitting down smoking a cigar and enjoying a brandy...

It's interesting that I was doing that very thing yesterday outside of my house at sunset. I've routinely had people complain about it, and seriously, some people have been shot while smoking.

Your point about motion is one that I missed, and it is maybe the grandest point of all. A brain the size of a bocce ball that's bumping around as some guy does his thug song and dance is a shot that no more than a fraction of carriers could hit at even five yards.

I believe that most people could hit a 'mostly' stationary target within the upper chest at 5 yards or less. I believe that 'most' attackers will stop attacking if hit in the chest. I believe that only a fraction of thugs will continue the attack after a chest hit.

I've literally never known anyone who would take a bullet to the chest and press on.

[briandg]

"that bowling ball sitting on the pencil you call a neck",

Maybe I'll keep that. Last night in an Email i told my son in law that

God wasted a perfectly good head when he put your brain in it!

Well, granted, calling it a perfectly good head was using a great deal of charity. The best way to describe his tater tot is a november jack o lantern.

[TunnelRat]

A lot of good thoughts.

In my experience when someone says something is the "most important" aspect of anything that person often specializes in that thing. Which to a point makes sense if it is that important, but to a point it also becomes a little bit about self promotion.

I do think a fast draw is important, or at least a practiced draw. I remember watching one of the Active Self Defense videos where a man was attempting to draw during an attack and between the clothes he was wearing and the stress he couldn't get the firearm out. He was shot still struggling with the pistol. If your draw is taking you multiple seconds you're in trouble. The attacker could even close on you and kill you with a contact weapon.

That said, the days of quick draw competitions in the streets are mostly over. A lot now seems like ambush tactics when it comes to crime. Do you really want to draw on someone that already has you at a disadvantage (gun out, knife out, etc.)? I don't know. Maybe all that person wants is your wallet or your car, both of which are replaceable. But maybe the attacker is willing to injure or kill you regardless of your level of compliance. I wish I had some magical answer personally.

I think a practiced draw is important, and it's something that can be done with blue guns or with a dry firearm. Is it the most important thing? I don't know.

[FireForged]

Leaf, your logic isn't anywhere near effective.

Any shot to the upper torso under the conditions that you are setting is faster and more certain than a shot to the head. Heart and lungs are about five times larger than the brain, and about twice as large as the head in general. Multi taps to the head aren't anywhere near as simple and automatic as a straight line dump into the chest.

Your assertion is that trying to find the heart is a bad idea, and time consuming, but the truth is that finding the heart isn't the idea. The idea is to just put holes in the CP group and let the immediate damage shock the attacker and possibly halt the attack, and it's much easier in many ways than trying to put a shot into the head that is, in fact, not a guaranteed stop. Bleeding out over five or ten minutes is not the only way that you can disable an attacker, just taking a shot anywhere will stop many people.

There you have it. As you yourself said, you can risk missing his head or you can take a far easier try for a target five times bigger than the brain.

If we want to take it into another direction, which isn't much of an argument either, we have to look at professionals and ask them their preferences.

So far as I know, no police departments have a policy to choose head shots over body shots unless the head is the only possible target.

Take note of this. Arkansas state police, among many others, use the standard B27 target. (below. midway usa.) Passing score is 42 out of 50 hits to the seven ring.



Note that there is no provision for taking head shots, there is not even an outline to show where the brain itself is. A shot that strikes the head is counted as a zero.

One of the most important things that hasn't been accounted for is that the spinal column is the one absolute in a shooting. A shot to the spinal column that hits will buckle the attackers knees at a fraction of the speed of nerve conduction.

You implied that the purpose of your post was to put correct advise out for the public, and countering my implied bad advice. Boy, howdy. I'd like to remind you that in your own words you say that this shot depends on the skill needed to put a good shot into a section of the brain. NOT AN EASY TASK. There are numerous statements of how many 'misses', whatever that actually means during a gun battle. It's usually quoted as more than half of the shots are clear misses. The shooter failed to hit the entire body.


Quote:
With a properly placed head shot however, deactivation of the main brain housing group is immediate.

Think about what you have said. Making this statement on a forum is easy. Sure, I'm going to shoot the guy in the head and make him fall down immediately. Now, when the time comes, are you really going to draw your gun and take aim for the brain, and plan on several rounds before you are lucky enough to hit it? I doubt it. When faced with an attack, most people default to their lowest capacity. You will probably draw and fire at the chest.

There isn't a whole lot that really supports the case of shooting for the brain during a stressful firefight. there is much to support body shots.

Very well said … as usual

[Leaf]

Leaf, your logic isn't anywhere near effective.

From your comments I would suspect the reason for that is that you interpreted my comments in a manner consistent with what you wanted to believe I was saying rather than what I was actually saying.

Any shot to the upper torso under the conditions that you are setting is faster and more certain than a shot to the head. Heart and lungs are about five times larger than the brain, and about twice as large as the head in general. Multi taps to the head aren't anywhere near as simple and automatic as a straight line dump into the chest.

The only conditions I was stating was that you were very close to your assailant as that impacts your assailant’s ability to respond in a manner not conducive to your ongoing good health. In the close-up scenario and even taking into account the mobility one might reasonably expect in that manner of close-up combat; accurate head shots are not as difficult as you seem to think. One’s failure to take into account their ability to make an effective head shot or even multiple effective head shots will leave your assailant with his/her chest wound plenty of time to send you to your maker. And by the way, a “straight line dump into the chest” will still leave your assailant with the 10 to 15 second opportunity to ruin your upcoming weekend itinerary.

Your assertion is that trying to find the heart is a bad idea, and time consuming, but the truth is that finding the heart isn't the idea. The idea is to just put holes in the CP group and let the immediate damage shock the attacker and possibly halt the attack, and it's much easier in many ways than trying to put a shot into the head that is, in fact, not a guaranteed stop. Bleeding out over five or ten minutes is not the only way that you can disable an attacker, just taking a shot anywhere will stop many people.

I did not say that trying to hit the heart is necessarily a bad idea. I said that doing so may leave your assailant with plenty of time to send you to your maker.

There you have it. As you yourself said, you can risk missing his head or you can take a far easier try for a target five times bigger than the brain.

Yes, there you have it. Falsely presuming you’re going to be alive afterward by having made that choice to take your assailant out by hammering home on his/her chest at the cost of your own life does not constitute a good decision in my estimation. You will have made the “easy” choice at the cost of your own life.

If we want to take it into another direction, which isn't much of an argument either, we have to look at professionals and ask them their preferences.

I am one of those professionals and I’m giving you my opinion. You can take it or leave it. Admittedly, there are those professionals who would disagree with my input. But then again, I know for a fact there are also those who if I had taken their advice I wouldn’t be typing in this forum right now.

So far as I know, no police departments have a policy to choose head shots over body shots unless the head is the only possible target.

“So far as I know” speaks volumes and I don't mean that in an insulting way.

One of the most important things that hasn't been accounted for is that the spinal column is the one absolute in a shooting. A shot to the spinal column that hits will buckle the attackers knees at a fraction of the speed of nerve conduction.

Something maybe you haven’t read or considered is that a below the belly button shot, regardless of whether or not you’ve struck the spinal column is very effective at ceasing the assailant’s advance.

Think about what you have said. Making this statement on a forum is easy. Sure, I'm going to shoot the guy in the head and make him fall down immediately. Now, when the time comes, are you really going to draw your gun and take aim for the brain, and plan on several rounds before you are lucky enough to hit it? I doubt it. When faced with an attack, most people default to their lowest capacity. You will probably draw and fire at the chest.

Doubt as you will, at close range yes I will. I know exactly what if feels like to face an attack, how I respond, AND survive. Maybe you should give yourself a little credit and recognize you can survive a close-up attack and effectively disable your assailant without sacrificing your own life if only you were inclined to accept some useful advice from a fellow who may have also inadvertently hurt your feelings in the process of providing said advice.

[Leaf]

By the way, Briandg. If you were to someday die by sacrificing your own life to take out a predatory assailant, I would nonetheless thank you for your service however unnecessary the loss of your life may have been due to having selected the "easy way" option.

And yes, "main brain housing group" is generally Marine-speak. Guilty as charged.

[stephen426]

@tipoc,

Two shots to the chest followed by a shot to the head is called the Mozambique Drill or a failure to stop drill.

There have been multiple accounts where simply dumping lead into the chest did not stop the attacker. The attacker was mortally wounded, but able to fight on. Failure to stop may also be due to drugs or body armor. Some say to shoot for the pelvic girdle which can stop the attacker's advance. Others swear by two to the chest and one to the head. I don't know everyone else's background, but head shots are possible at close distance. I did the Tueller drill on a rolling dummy, where I was able to draw, fire two rounds to the center of mass, and then side step for a head shot. While the double tap was a bit high and left (basically took out the shoulder), the head shot was taken from only five or six feet away. It went pretty much straight through the temple. The two center of mass shots may indeed stop the attack, but if not, go for the head.

[Leaf]

The two center of mass shots may indeed stop the attack, but if not, go for the head.

Stephen426, the only problem with that is while at close range (meaning you can practically slap the sucker or spit in his/her face) the time it takes to stop the assailant precludes the defender from taking the additional time to determine whether or not your attacker has been stopped by your two chest shots. During the pause is when you will be killed. It HAS to be almost muscle memory after the decision to fire to stop the assailant has been made.

[Leaf]

Maybe there has been a misunderstanding here, folks. I haven't been talking about upward of five yards. I've been talking about close up and personal. You better be prepared for that because in a civilian scenario that is in all probability what you are going to be dealing with in your fight for your life. It will be very fast and you'll probably be point shooting. For those further distances you need to be taking cover and/or otherwise getting the hell out of the area.

[HiBC]

I'm not a professional,I've never been in a gunfight or shot anyone.

But I'm OK with that.

If you choose a gun/cartridge with sufficient penetration (IMO<Overpenetration in 9mm and 45 is over rated)...if you have sufficient penetration, while you have a frontal shot,the spine/cns is midline.

Sternum,navel,etc,all have spine about a foot behind them. On big game,I've dropped an animal flat just nicking the dorsal rib like projection at the whithers.Maybe hi vel rifle played a part,but IMO the blow of a 9mm/45 hitting a rib near where it joins the spine certainly might drop ME,

The vena cava and abdominal aorta lie on each side of midline,near the spine. I know a punch to my floating rib impedes my progress. Disturbing my diaphram is really distracting. I have a kidney on each side of my spine.

Pain from a kidney can be immediately disabling.So can the femoral sinus area and where the trochanter of the femur joins the pelvis.

I'm thinking keep whacking the 8 in wide stripe from crotch to chin till you have a better idea. It seems a target rich environment for trauma.

[tipoc]

One of the issues with these sort of discussions is that folks generally have opinions based on either limited experience, some degree of training, reading and discussion or scenarios either from training or invented in their minds. It's also the case that opinions are often based on favored scenarios. Often these are abstract. So debates like this get sterile quick. Sometimes juvenile.

It's the same problem with saying that fast draws are "the most important skill for deadly force encounters." The only answer is: sometimes, probably most often not. But it's an important skill to work on, smooth steady draws.

Is a shot to the head better? Sometimes but most often not.

Leaf has said, if I understand correctly, that shots in the head are better in very close encounters because they are more likely to guarantee an immediate stop. Well OK. It may be true. But in many cases, shots to the head do not produce a one shot stop. A good hit that penetrates the skull depends on a number of factors that the shooter has little to no control over. A solid hit for example. But there are other exceptions as well.

In many cases it may not be possible, for a number of reasons, to get the gun up high enough, or at the right angle, for a shot to the head. This may often be the case when the distance is inches and not yards. In these situations you may have to shoot what is available to hit that can do the most to stop the attack, not in the abstract, but in the heat of that precise moment.

The best shot to take is the one that you can take. One that is most likely to produce an immediate stop or a rapid end of the attack, disable the attacker, or buy you time for another shot that can end the fight. Whether 5 inches, 5 yards, or 20 yards. In a specific situation. Not in a sterile abstraction. It may not be the one you think, abstractly, will be best but the one that can be made at that moment, that produces results at that moment, that change the relationship of forces in your favor.

If blowing a fellas great toe off helps you live a bit more, and that's what you got, do that. If a head shot, do that.

The old timers stressed body shots, not because they guaranteed a stop. But because they were the most likely to be able to make a hit with and they knew the importance of that.

tipoc

[Leaf]

One of the issues with these sort of discussions is that folks generally have opinions based on either limited experience, some degree of training, reading and discussion or scenarios either from training or invented in their minds. It's also the case that opinions are often based on favored scenarios.

My experience is far from limited and I have far more than “some training." I do in fact have a creative mind but that is not particularly relevant in this discussion. A close up confrontation with an attacker intent on ending my life is not in my opinion a “favored scenario.” It is one of the worse kind of attacks one can experience. If your response isn’t focused on immediately stopping the threat, that’s it for you. Odds are you will be dead, gone, no longer existing but for the fond memories of your loved ones.

Leaf has said, if I understand correctly, that shots in the head are better in very close encounters because they are more likely to guarantee an immediate stop. Well OK. It may be true. But in many cases, shots to the head do not produce a one shot stop. A good hit that penetrates the skull depends on a number of factors that the shooter has little to no control over. A solid hit for example. But there are other exceptions as well.

And a shot to the chest or even a bucket full of shots to the chest is far, far from adequate and almost guaranteed to not stop the threat even if it has become a "soon to be dead person" in his/her last moments. You will probably be dead at the end of the attack too. That shot to the head is far more likely to instantly take out the assailant than your shots to the chest. And yes, accuracy counts. The more you place up there into the main brain housing group the better your chances of survival.

In many cases it may not be possible, for a number of reasons, to get the gun up high enough, or at the right angle, for a shot to the head. This may often be the case when the distance is inches and not yards. In these situations you may have to shoot what is available to hit that can do the most to stop the attack, not in the abstract, but in the heat of that precise moment.

Now you’re just making excuses. You either go into these kinds of situations with both eyes open or you say goodnight, Gracie. Like I’ve said before, you can either take my advice or leave it. It’s your life, your decision. I’ll nonetheless honor you for relieving this world of the criminal predator even if it was needlessly at the cost of your own life.

The old timers stressed body shots, not because they guaranteed a stop. But because they were the most likely to be able to make a hit with and they knew the importance of that.

Makes me wonder just what “old timers” you’ve been listening to mutter their theories because they sure don’t sound like they have much real-world experience.

[FireForged]

Makes me wonder just what “old timers” you’ve been listening to mutter their theories because they sure don’t sound like they have much real-world experience

That is a truly odd ball thing to say. I really had to chuckle

In this circumstance that you describe ( close enough to practically slap) and considering that a drawn weapon typically moves upward , I could be mistaken but you are seemingly suggesting that a person forego the near universal target zone and continue upward to what seems to be considered a "better" target zone.

[if] that is the suggestion, here's the problem with that:

1. It takes longer and you have already stressed that delay can be critical

2. Unless you are going to half-hip shoot at a smaller target zone, you will have to raise or extend your arms in a manner which is much easier(in CQB) to grapple, slap, away, deflect or otherwise grab a hold of. This also "takes more time".

3. How large is the target zone you are talking about and how much SMALLER is that zone vs a traditional zone?

Would you care to offer some math which demonstrate which is easier to shoot and how stress and the exigencies of the moment might compound the difficulty of landing shots on a much smaller target?

4. How does commonly accepted hit to miss ratio's figure into your opinion regarding where to shoot? Do you accept that missing a smaller target is an issue?

The bottom line is that what some might consider the most overall effective zone is not always the most prudent ( all things considered). Absolute speed can be a factor, likelihood of landing a hit can be a factor, The stray bullet risk to others in the area can be a factor, confidence in marksmanship can be a factor, The fact that head, arms, legs, hands, feet all articulate and move much quicker and with greater ease, agility and suddenness when compared to a much larger mass- can be a factor, closeness of the enemy can be a factor, risk of being disarmed can be a factor.

Its not always about absolute science ( in a bubble). There are reasons why a "traditional" target zone exists.

[TunnelRat]

If you were to someday die by sacrificing your own life to take out a predatory assailant, I would nonetheless thank you for your service however unnecessary the loss of your life may have been due to having selected the "easy way" option.

It’s your life, your decision. I’ll nonetheless honor you for relieving this world of the criminal predator even if it was needlessly at the cost of your own life.

There is a lot of thanking and honoring going on here over the death of forum members from not following your advice. I guess we should be thankful for your oracle like abilities.

[Lohman446]

You aim for center of mass.

A) Your "entire" central nervous system is about protecting your head. Ever watch anyone in any type of physical "fight". Watch how much their head moves. A lot. Watch someone flinch when startled - their head moves and their arms often come up to protect the head (and yes they do protect the body to some degree). An opponent facing you as a gun comes up or even as they have the slightest notice of the impending shot is going to put any natural reactionary movement into protecting their head.

B) The idea of the "headshot" being this instant kill is probably overblown. Absent a pretty central hit to the head an individual can function reasonably well if not survive some pretty gruesome shots to the head with a handgun (think of most failed suicide attempts)

C) If you are in need of a pulling the trigger and the assailant who is capable of doing you grave bodily harm has not already done so you have already got tremendously lucky. The training for COM shots is because those are the most likely to be successful (actually hit) and effective for most people.

[FireForged]

come on Lohman.. don't start throwing common sense into this.

[aarondhgraham]

Time Enough For Love by Robert A. Heinlein

Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long

Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to let you
make your second shot perfect.

'nuff said?

Aarond

.

[FireForged]

because they sure don’t sound like they have much real-world experience

on the contrary... the traditional target zone (as we know it today) was developed based on exactly that. Real-world experience.

[briandg]

SOME POINTS.

First, a defender may be able to sucker punch the guy when he doesn't see it coming, but this guy has already assaulted you or you wouldn't be drawing a gun and preparing to kill him. A good draw time is two seconds. a draw time from a completely unaware status is going to take a lot more time. Anyone can instinctively duck a defender's poking muzzle in his face with that time. An armed attacker can absolutely hit you in the gut with a bullet before you can put a bullet in his head unless you are a champion gunslinger.

Here is a very simple fact. Unless the defender is highly skilled several rapid instinctive hits to the chest can be made before a single aimed round can hit a disabling part of the brain. A single aimed round fired at the brain is going to be far slower than the guy who already has a gun in his hand aimed at your belly. A defender can literally unzip a guy from sternum to throat in less time than it will take to get an absolutely certain shot to the brain or spinal section of the head.

If a defender gets the first rounds in on an armed attacker, there is a chance that an armed attacker can still fight back and kill the defender. Sure, a defender may be so incompetent that he can get the first round into the target at arm's length and still fail to disable the attacker. If the defender fails, he was either outclassed completely or he failed to follow up on his instantaneous advantage.

Even body armor can't fully prevent a disabling hit. There are plenty of rounds that will penetrate standard vests. There are plenty of places that can be hit other than the vest. Even a shot in a vest that is actually blocked will put a physical and mental shock that has been known to temporarily disable people.

The claim has been made and rabidly defended that when facing an armed and prepared attacker at arm's length, shooting into center torso is tantamount to suicide, while shooting at the head is the logical and most likely to be successful attack, since since (in your words) numerous hits to center torso WILL NOT DISABLE AN ATTACKER and leave him with as much as fifteen second window of opportunity during which he can still get the advantage over a defender who has already put a number of rounds through the attacker's cp area. You stated this as a solid fact.

a “straight line dump into the chest” will still leave your assailant with the 10 to 15 second opportunity to ruin your upcoming weekend itinerary.

Without any evidence that it is true you are stating as fact that when presented with an armed attacker a person can draw,point (aim) and fire lethal rounds into the brain before that armed attacker can respond, whereas you state as a fact that a defender cannot use chest shots to disable the attacker in a timely manner.

I really don't care at all about your beliefs as I know that they are only your opinions, but you are declaring your beliefs as facts in a public forum where people may believe that your statements are indeed absolute fact.

Numerous times now you have declared that you are experienced and well trained, and said that other trained individuals disagree. You talked about old timers (clint smith, massad Ayoob I guess are old timers) who mumble nonsense into their beards.

Before anyone should even consider giving your statements anything but disbelief and disregard, show us all who you are and what your qualifications are. You're stating widely discounted tactics as facts and dismissing the tactics that have been in use for centuries.

Show us anything that proves that you are qualified to be teaching these people to ignore training and advice given by literally thousands of professionals and semi-professionals.

[tipoc]

Makes me wonder just what “old timers” you’ve been listening to mutter their theories because they sure don’t sound like they have much real-world experience.

Some of the old drooling geezers I've learned from are not well known to others , some have passed on, etc. So quoting them means more to me than to anyone else.

But any one can pick up Jeff Cooper, Bill Jordan, Massad Ayoob, Andy Stanford, Charles Askins, Ken Hackathorn, Farnham, Applegate and Sykes and many others, and read what they emphasize and what they did/ and do, and taught. These are the old timers I was thinking of. A person can also take training.

Leaf, thank you for your concern and the three references to me being dead for not taking your advice in your last post. Good to know someone cares.

tipoc

[briandg]

Leaf, thank you for your concern and the three references to me being dead for not taking your advice in your last post. Good to know someone cares.

You can sort of take it for granted that you won't see any tears on my face if you are dead. I have no idea who you are, won't hear about your death, or even the incident that killed you. Just in case you happen to die because you did something really dumb or reckless, I'm probably going to say 'what an idiot' and move on to the funny pages. When a drunk dove head first into a shallow kiddy pool and broke his stupid head, I barely wasted an incredulous shake of my head. I don't think that I'm alone, I doubt that anyone here is going to know or weep for your death unless close friends share the news.

Despite promises of crocodile tears, I'd not hire an extra limo just to take the expected metric fartload of flowers home from your funeral.

Ehhh, who am I kidding. I love you all and will seriously feel terrible if one of you went to meet elmer or jack. If anyone dies because a bad guy murdered him it's not going to make a bit of difference why you lost, I'm going to grieve for the fact that a (probably) good man was removed from this earth at the hand of a bad guy, and I will also grieve for the fact that some bad guy will, at best, probably just be removed from gentle society for a few years.