|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 10, 2017, 10:52 AM | #151 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
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 |
|
May 10, 2017, 12:00 PM | #152 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Perhaps you are thinking about officers who are apprehending suspects, which is something that civilians cannot lawfully use deadly force to do except in a few jurisdictions and in very limited circumstances. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
May 10, 2017, 12:11 PM | #153 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The criminological literature - such as the work of Foxx and the victim selection literature indicates that economical driven criminals take into account victim resistance. That's not the issue of 'guidelines' causing criminals not to worry about the police.
I guess I wasted my time at the ASC meetings all those years. Being a trained scholar, as I said - I'm waiting for an analysis based on the literature from law, criminology and law enforcement on the issues of guidelines and the laws of lethal force. If not - then - well, you can guess what I think of the analysis.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 10, 2017, 12:32 PM | #154 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Some time back there was a study based on interviews with incarcerated criminals who had shot police officers.
Some of the high points that I recall:
|
May 10, 2017, 01:03 PM | #155 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
In the Wright and Rossi study published as Armed and Considered Dangerous (Second Edition, Aldine Transaction, 2008), one of the conclusions reported (ibid, pg 158) based on the analysis discussed in the chapter, "Confronting the Armed Victim" is: "In general, encounters with armed victims seemed to be about as worrisome to these men as encounters with the police."
__________________
"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 |
May 11, 2017, 08:38 AM | #156 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
That's right, it was the Wright and Rossi study.
One finding was this: "...34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”...That's a far cry from "...criminals interviews stating that while they didn't fear the cops, because they kept to a set timetable, and always handled things in a predictable manner, civilians pop up out of nowhere, at any time, and not having the uniform police code to follow, could do anything?......"One might wonder why being shot by a victim might be regarded by some criminals as posing a greater risk than running into the police, but nothing was said about a "set timetable" (where did that come from?). predictability, civilians "popping out of nowhere" ((victims "popping out of nowhere"?), or a "uniform police code". One might, however, reasonably conclude that the uniformed constable on patrol is very visible and can be avoided before a crime is initiated, and the possibly armed victim is not. |
May 11, 2017, 08:52 AM | #157 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,390
|
At one time in the 1960s or so there was a school of thought that a shot to the pelvis was the way to go for police officers, especially a shot to the hip, as it would immediately immobilize the bad guy.
At least that was the theory. As with a lot of theories, though, when people tried to put it into practice, it simply didn't work out as the theory said it should. Actually hitting a part of the hip that would cause structural immobilization is about as hard as putting consistent headshots into a moving target. Hitting the femoral artery is even more luck because it's an even smaller target. Hitting the base of the spine is, again, more luck than not as it's a narrow target. It generally will result in PARTIAL incapacitation. Legs won't work, but arms are still capable of wielding a gun. After a couple of shootings in which police officers were killed after putting several shots into a bad guy's intestines, with no measurable effect, people rightfully woke up and decided that yeah, the people who were advocating for shooting at center of mass are actually making one hell of a lot of sense.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
May 11, 2017, 09:24 PM | #158 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Mike, right.
I have said this before and I will say it again...few people have any real understanding of where they would need to actually shoot a person anatomically in order to hit the very small target areas needed to "break the pelvis," much less to be able to do that on a clothed person for which there are virtually no external landmarks that could be used to make such a precision shot.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
May 12, 2017, 03:15 PM | #159 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
The very persuasive posts above from Mike Irwin and Double Naught Spy can bring us to a close on a seven page thread.
Should anyone have anything substantive to add, contact one of the moderators. For now, it's over and out. |
|
|