quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That since one bullet can kill there is no legal or moral reason to stop a beating before the attacker stops breathing.

Seems to me that someone interested in skill with a firearm could choose to wound without much difficulty.

Shooting instead to kill becomes a choice.

That is not true. Almost any gunshot wound can kill. And the ones that don't are also next to useless for stopping a person from attacking you. If you shoot someone you aim for center mass and you shoot to kill.

Oh hell an infected paper cut can kill.

That's not the point. But you've illustrated mine--the choice is to kill.

That it's not possible to incapacitate an attacker by wounding them is nonsense. Like saying you can't stop someone with a beating unless you kill them. It's a choice.

And in the "right" circumstances, maybe even a good choice, or at least an understandable one made in a difficult situation. But a choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


Oh hell an infected paper cut can kill.

That's not the point. But you've illustrated mine--the choice is to kill. I have to disagree with you on this. The "choice" is to stop someone from harming and possibly killing you or someone you are protecting. The death of the person you are shooting at is a very possible outcome, but NOT necessarily "the choice".

That it's not possible to incapacitate an attacker by wounding them is nonsense. Like saying you can't stop someone with a beating unless you kill them. It's a choice. Yes, it IS possible. But trying to hit a moving arm or leg is considerably more difficult than hitting center mass. Remember, the reason you start shooting anyway (or should be the reason) is to prevent death or serious bodily harm to yourself or someone you are protecting. Every time you try to shoot an arm or leg, and miss, is one more opportunity for that person you are shooting at to harm you...and if they have a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they aren't shooting to simply incapacitate.

And in the "right" circumstances, maybe even a good choice, or at least an understandable one made in a difficult situation. But a choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

For a supposed sailor, Ken, you sure do cuss like a cub scout.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

That since one bullet can kill there is no legal or moral reason to stop a beating before the attacker stops breathing.

Seems to me that someone interested in skill with a firearm could choose to wound without much difficulty.

Shooting instead to kill becomes a choice.

That is not true. Almost any gunshot wound can kill. And the ones that don't are also next to useless for stopping a person from attacking you. If you shoot someone you aim for center mass and you shoot to kill.

Oh hell an infected paper cut can kill.

That's not the point. But you've illustrated mine--the choice is to kill.

That it's not possible to incapacitate an attacker by wounding them is nonsense. Like saying you can't stop someone with a beating unless you kill them. It's a choice.

And in the "right" circumstances, maybe even a good choice, or at least an understandable one made in a difficult situation. But a choice.

If you are using a weapon to stop someone in a life or death situation it is foolish to do anything besides attempt to kill the attacker. Talk to any decent self defense instructor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


Oh hell an infected paper cut can kill.

That's not the point. But you've illustrated mine--the choice is to kill. I have to disagree with you on this. The "choice" is to stop someone from harming and possibly killing you or someone you are protecting. The death of the person you are shooting at is a very possible outcome, but NOT necessarily "the choice".

That it's not possible to incapacitate an attacker by wounding them is nonsense. Like saying you can't stop someone with a beating unless you kill them. It's a choice. Yes, it IS possible. But trying to hit a moving arm or leg is considerably more difficult than hitting center mass. Remember, the reason you start shooting anyway (or should be the reason) is to prevent death or serious bodily harm to yourself or someone you are protecting. Every time you try to shoot an arm or leg, and miss, is one more opportunity for that person you are shooting at to harm you...and if they have a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they aren't shooting to simply incapacitate.

And in the "right" circumstances, maybe even a good choice, or at least an understandable one made in a difficult situation. But a choice.

My point, igor (though I'm also just having a little fun with this), is suggesting people owning firearms perhaps should acquire a level of skill where they can hit a limb at relatively close range.

That this is harder to do in the flurry of the moment is all the more reason for better training.

I mean, if owning/carrying a firearm is so important, makes sense to be good at using it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Seems one way or the other, the guys holding the guns just aren't very good at it.

If they can't shoot to wound, they're not very skilled, and if they're shooting to kill, they're not getting the job done.

Seems like they're just shooting, to listen to you guys! Total Dick Cheney bird hunt approach.



Maybe we just need mandatory/better firearms training.

I realize you are just throwing rocks, Muse, but do you have to pretend to be so stupid when you do it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: surelyujest71

I just read this one page (p4) but I think I've got the gist of where the conversation started, and is now. First: No, it's not OK to beat someone to death, not even in self defense. If you have the ability to beat them that badly, then you can easily stop short of death. The question becomes "Can you control yourself in the heat of passion well enough to keep from killing a weaker opponent." A fight for your life is absolutely one in which every ounce of a person's passion will be brought up out of the depths, after all. Once you've managed to save your own life by incapacitating your attacker, you can either take control of yourself, or be nothing more than an animal as you continue beating the helpless creature before you into his grave. Personally, I believe that we're all capable of being more than animals - at that moment when you realize that your attacker has submitted, and is incapable of harming you is when you make your own choice - to be that feral animal, or to be a true Man, driven by your intellect rather than your passions. If you want to be sure that your attacker is never capable of repeating the incident, call the police. If he's attacked you with intent to kill, then you can be fairly certain that he's done other violent deeds in the past that will help to prove your story to the police.

For those who wish to bring a gun to this discussion, I have no disagreement. If I find myself attacked by someone who wishes to injure or kill me, I absolutely hope to be armed, and to be able to put a bullet into him. I won't fire the weapon with intent to kill, but if the bullet does fatal damage, I won't let that ruin my life - the choice to attack was his, and therefor he also chose to accept the consequences of that attack. I'd prefer that he survive the bullet and spend quite some time in prison, but what happens in the heat of the moment, and what I'm sure would be a semi-random aim (I've never had to fire a weapon at an attacking person, before), would be up to, shall we say, a higher power. If the first bullet kills, then I'll be sorry he died, but not so sorry as I'd be if he'd killed or seriously wounded me. If the first bullet doesn't kill, then he'll probably be on the ground, and I'd still be standing there ready to stop him from getting up. Firing a second bullet at an injured man on the ground would just be murder - just as it would be for someone who chooses to let the feral beast take over and take a man's life.

I'm sure someone out there will try saying "well, what if....." There are plenty of "what ifs" in life. It's how we choose to respond to them that differentiates us from the feral beasts. "What if the guy is hopped up on some crazy drugs and keeps coming?" At least he's slowed down, and you can shoot again, and hope you don't kill him... knowing that if you do, it was still self defense.

The moment your actions turn from self-defense and become an attack, you have already won. After that, it's a choice between tying them up for the police, and committing murder yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


Oh hell an infected paper cut can kill.

That's not the point. But you've illustrated mine--the choice is to kill. I have to disagree with you on this. The "choice" is to stop someone from harming and possibly killing you or someone you are protecting. The death of the person you are shooting at is a very possible outcome, but NOT necessarily "the choice".

That it's not possible to incapacitate an attacker by wounding them is nonsense. Like saying you can't stop someone with a beating unless you kill them. It's a choice. Yes, it IS possible. But trying to hit a moving arm or leg is considerably more difficult than hitting center mass. Remember, the reason you start shooting anyway (or should be the reason) is to prevent death or serious bodily harm to yourself or someone you are protecting. Every time you try to shoot an arm or leg, and miss, is one more opportunity for that person you are shooting at to harm you...and if they have a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they aren't shooting to simply incapacitate.

And in the "right" circumstances, maybe even a good choice, or at least an understandable one made in a difficult situation. But a choice.

My point, igor (though I'm also just having a little fun with this), is suggesting people owning firearms perhaps should acquire a level of skill where they can hit a limb at relatively close range.

That this is harder to do in the flurry of the moment is all the more reason for better training.

I mean, if owning/carrying a firearm is so important, makes sense to be good at using it.

Shooting a limb isn't necessarily non lethal. Each limb has a large artery in it that if it is damaged can cause you to bleed to death in a matter of minutes. The higher up the limb the worse it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


Oh hell an infected paper cut can kill.

That's not the point. But you've illustrated mine--the choice is to kill. I have to disagree with you on this. The "choice" is to stop someone from harming and possibly killing you or someone you are protecting. The death of the person you are shooting at is a very possible outcome, but NOT necessarily "the choice".

That it's not possible to incapacitate an attacker by wounding them is nonsense. Like saying you can't stop someone with a beating unless you kill them. It's a choice. Yes, it IS possible. But trying to hit a moving arm or leg is considerably more difficult than hitting center mass. Remember, the reason you start shooting anyway (or should be the reason) is to prevent death or serious bodily harm to yourself or someone you are protecting. Every time you try to shoot an arm or leg, and miss, is one more opportunity for that person you are shooting at to harm you...and if they have a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they aren't shooting to simply incapacitate.

And in the "right" circumstances, maybe even a good choice, or at least an understandable one made in a difficult situation. But a choice.

My point, igor (though I'm also just having a little fun with this), is suggesting people owning firearms perhaps should acquire a level of skill where they can hit a limb at relatively close range.

That this is harder to do in the flurry of the moment is all the more reason for better training.

I mean, if owning/carrying a firearm is so important, makes sense to be good at using it.

Shooting a limb isn't necessarily non lethal. Each limb has a large artery in it that if it is damaged can cause you to bleed to death in a matter of minutes. The higher up the limb the worse it is.

Again, that's not the point being debated.

He could trip and snap his neck too. Shit happens, Ken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this.

You are a fucking liar.
I do not oppose using a weapon in defense of myself or others. I just find most of the cases that make the news to be crap. Shooting old men wandering around in the dark is not self defense.

But when it comes right down to it you insist on giving them first shot.
No I am not you are just too stupid to understand the ramifications of your "ideas"

No, you fucking liar. The law says that you can't act until you have to. Just because someone makes you nervous or you think they might be a danger to you, you can't attack them legally. they have to be an actual threat.

For instance, If a crazy old bastard starts yelling at yell to stop pissing in his woods you can't do anything. However if he leaves and comes back waving a gun around and then shoots at you, you are then free to kill him to keep him from killing you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

For a supposed sailor, Ken, you sure do cuss like a cub scout.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
that woman who went nuts at the McDonald's drive thru .

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Someone (they oppose the use of firearms for self defense) in another thread argues that if self defense allows you to shoot and kill someone it allows you to (when unarmed) to continue beating a helpless attacker until the are dead. Does anyone else see hypocrisy in this.

You are a fucking liar.
I do not oppose using a weapon in defense of myself or others. I just find most of the cases that make the news to be crap. Shooting old men wandering around in the dark is not self defense.

But when it comes right down to it you insist on giving them first shot.
No I am not you are just too stupid to understand the ramifications of your "ideas"

No, you fucking liar. The law says that you can't act until you have to. Just because someone makes you nervous or you think they might be a danger to you, you can't attack them legally. they have to be an actual threat.

For instance, If a crazy old bastard starts yelling at yell to stop pissing in his woods you can't do anything. However if he leaves and comes back waving a gun around and then shoots at you, you are then free to kill him to keep him from killing you.

Name one just one thread where you supported the shooter.
The law is much more liberal in it's definition of imminant danger as evidenced by the number of time you get it wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

For a supposed sailor, Ken, you sure do cuss like a cub scout.

Did you notice that civility went out the window the moment kendom showed up.
Give him a break, he cusses as well as he does anything else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

For a supposed sailor, Ken, you sure do cuss like a cub scout.

Did you notice that civility went out the window the moment kendom showed up.
Give him a break, he cusses as well as he does anything else.

Look you expect civility don't start pathetic passive aggressive threads to continue arguments you lost in other threads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: surelyujest71

I won't fire the weapon with intent to kill

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

For a supposed sailor, Ken, you sure do cuss like a cub scout.

Did you notice that civility went out the window the moment kendom showed up.
Give him a break, he cusses as well as he does anything else.