Gun free zone = killing spree zone

[Vort]

Something else to remember: if you ever do have to shoot in self-defense, your never shoot to kill.

 

Of COURSE you are shooting to kill. That is the whole point of a firearm -- it's designed to kill. It's not a stun gun; it's a gun gun. If you're using it, you had darn well better want to kill whatever you're shooting. (Unless you're a Jason Bourne-type superspy, trained to shoot the wings off a fly at 50 yards from the hip.)

 

I do not carry, and I have no love for guns. But my philosophy is that if I ever draw a gun on another human being, it will be ONLY because I believe I must kill him. I won't do it to make threats, and if I pull the trigger, it will be because I'm trying to kill the guy. (Technically, I'm trying to disable him, but the fact that I would be using a gun to disable him means I'm trying to disable him through death.)

[askandanswer]

This is my opinion:  I do not see any difference in attitude between a person that says, "I see no need know how to use a gun or to worry about how to defend my self, my family, my friends, community and country when there are professionals in our government and society capable and able to do this for all of us."  Or a person that says, "I see no need to become educated in a profession or to worry about providing for my self and my community when the government is actually responsible, capable and willing to provide for all our actual needs. 

 

It is in my mind a attitude of liberty and freedom in contrast to a enslaved population that must be "taken care" of.   It is the bases of the division in heaven in the pre-existence that began the "war" in heaven that we see continuing during our mortal probation.  Is is part (but not all) of the attitude that separates a Celestial individual from those of other kingdoms.

 

I think an important difference is that we pay for the protection we get from the professionals through our taxes so it is perfectly reasonable that we expect some form of protection from them. 

[NeuroTypical]

Of COURSE you are shooting to kill. That is the whole point of a firearm -- it's designed to kill. 

 

It's an important legal distinction, Vort.   If we could purchase a magic orange button that would stick a bad guy in an impenetrable bubble until the cops came, we'd all have those instead of guns.  Because pushing the button would stop the immediate threat.

 

But we don't have that button, so we own guns.  Not because they kill, but because using it effectively is the most reliable method to immediately stop a threat. 

 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding - are you saying if you had two options to effectively stop an immediate threat, you'd go with the one that kills the person?

[Vort]

It's an important legal distinction, Vort.   If we could purchase a magic orange button that would stick a bad guy in an impenetrable bubble until the cops came, we'd all have those instead of guns.  Because pushing the button would stop the immediate threat.

 

But we don't have that button, so we own guns.  Not because they kill, but because using it effectively is the most reliable method to immediately stop a threat. 

 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding - are you saying if you had two options to effectively stop an immediate threat, you'd go with the one that kills the person?

 

No, I'm saying what you said. But I think your distinction, while valid, is not very meaningful. Those who carry guns do so BECAUSE guns are deadly. That is why they are useful for self-defense. Maybe there is a legal reason to make the distinction.

[Traveler]

I think an important difference is that we pay for the protection we get from the professionals through our taxes so it is perfectly reasonable that we expect some form of protection from them. 

 

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.  Are you saying or implying that it is okay to pay others to do something you believe to be beneath you or it is more noble to pay someone to do the dirty work that is not worthy of you doing yourself?

 

I understand the concept of hiring professional to help you do things - specially for example a doctor to perform surgery that is their specialty.   But I believe you are responsible for your health and seeking enough knowledge yourself to determine if and when surgery is necessary.  My point is - that if you are not willing to pull a trigger and take someone's life - that it is hypocrisy to expect someone else is obligated to do such things for you.

 

But I find the idea of paying someone interesting.  Anciently it was believed (in the worship of Baal) that to pay for someone to do things for you were acceptable - for example you could pay someone to repent or say prayers for you and that in so doing - you do not have to be involved yourself.  Thus if you pay money for something - you get all the credit for it.  But if something goes wrong - you can claim it really was not your fault.  I find it interesting this kind of thinking was apart of the worship of Baal.

[Latter Days Guy]

I'm all for private property rights.  I respect the rights of businessowners, homeowners, private schools and universities and whatnot, to ban guns.

 

But they're stupid if they do so without hardening security.  Because banning guns does squat to make people safe.  They may make people feel safe, but that's it.  

 

Strange as we had two mass shooting incidents in the mid 80's and banned handguns and an assortment of other firearms. We have below 30 gun related deaths a year nowadays.  Seems to have worked fine here.

[Latter Days Guy]

I don't feel "safe" in a "gun free zone".  I feel like a sittiing duck.

dc

 

I think I've seen a gun in the UK maybe 4 or 5 times, made me feel very nervous at the sight.  That our police and public don't carry firearms around all the time makes me feel a lot safer than if they did.

[mirkwood]

(Technically, I'm trying to disable him, but the fact that I would be using a gun to disable him means I'm trying to disable him through death.)

 

 

You just said the same thing as shooting to stop the threat.  You just used different words.

[Vort]

You just said the same thing as shooting to stop the threat.  You just used different words.

 

Which was my point.

[askandanswer]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying.  Are you saying or implying that it is okay to pay others to do something you believe to be beneath you or it is more noble to pay someone to do the dirty work that is not worthy of you doing yourself?

 

I understand the concept of hiring professional to help you do things - specially for example a doctor to perform surgery that is their specialty.   But I believe you are responsible for your health and seeking enough knowledge yourself to determine if and when surgery is necessary.  My point is - that if you are not willing to pull a trigger and take someone's life - that it is hypocrisy to expect someone else is obligated to do such things for you.

 

But I find the idea of paying someone interesting.  Anciently it was believed (in the worship of Baal) that to pay for someone to do things for you were acceptable - for example you could pay someone to repent or say prayers for you and that in so doing - you do not have to be involved yourself.  Thus if you pay money for something - you get all the credit for it.  But if something goes wrong - you can claim it really was not your fault.  I find it interesting this kind of thinking was apart of the worship of Baal.

 

You are well aware that this entire society in its present form would fall apart remarkably rapidly if people stopped paying other people to do things. 

 

I think there is a difference between someone who says I will pay my taxes and I'm happy if some of those taxes are used to pay people who accept some of the responsibility of protecting society, and another person who says I don't have to do anything, the government will look after me. My understanding was that you were saying that you don't see any difference between these two people, and I am saying to me, there is.

 

We also think that another important component of our social system is a willingness to allow a diversity of viewpoints. If I think it is wrong to pull a trigger and take someone's life, that is my viewpoint. If someone else feels its ok to do that, that is his viewpoint. I do not expect him to live in accordance with my views and I'm not going to judge him for things that he might do that are inconsistent with my views. That is not hypocrisy, that is a willingness to accept alternative views.    

[kapikui]

Of COURSE you are shooting to kill. That is the whole point of a firearm -- it's designed to kill. It's not a stun gun; it's a gun gun. If you're using it, you had darn well better want to kill whatever you're shooting. (Unless you're a Jason Bourne-type superspy, trained to shoot the wings off a fly at 50 yards from the hip.)

 

I do not carry, and I have no love for guns. But my philosophy is that if I ever draw a gun on another human being, it will be ONLY because I believe I must kill him. I won't do it to make threats, and if I pull the trigger, it will be because I'm trying to kill the guy. (Technically, I'm trying to disable him, but the fact that I would be using a gun to disable him means I'm trying to disable him through death.)

No Vort, you're only concern at the point of engaging a bad guy is to stop him.  You aim for the center of mass, or said more clearly the center of the torso, because when you're under that much stress, you're going to have trouble hitting more precisely.  The fact that some of the most important vital organs are in the center of the chest is merely a big bonus.

 

Once the threat is neutralized, you stop shooting that particular threat.   At the moment, you don't really care if you wounded the individual and they gave up, crippled them and made them unable to continue, or killed them outright. The ONLY goal is making them stop.  If they die then so be it.  If they live, they'll need an ambulance.  

 

You are actually correct however in the idea that you NEVER, NEVER shoot to wound.  

 

Now a lot will refer to what is known as the Mozambique drill.  That is when confronted with such a threat is to give two fast shots to the center of mass (center of the chest).  You can take very quick shots and with practice can get the two shots off and have them hit with about half an inch of one another at 25 feet.  You then stop and assess the situation.  If there is now another more credible threat (such as a second shooter) you might then move to that threat.  If your original threat is is still a problem, he's at least somewhat distracted, so you raise your aim, and take a slower more aimed shot at the head.

 

This however is not shooting to kill.  It's shooting to stop.  You don't want to kill your attacker, you also don't want to leave him alive.  In the moment of being attacked, you don't care what the consequences are for your attacker. You don't want anything other than to make him stop what he's doing completely.  Once that happens, you can worry about if he's still alive and if he needs an ambulance or meat wagon. 

[David13]

No, I'm saying what you said. But I think your distinction, while valid, is not very meaningful. Those who carry guns do so BECAUSE guns are deadly. That is why they are useful for self-defense. Maybe there is a legal reason to make the distinction.

Basically the legal reason is that you were in fear of your life, and you shot to stop the threat, with no intention to kill.  Just to defend yourself.

(This is a simplified version.)

Now, police are trained to empty their magazine to stop a threat.  You keep shooting til the threat is stopped.  If they are still holding on to their weapon, even tho' they are down, they are still a threat.

But at no time to you intend to kill.  Only to defend yourself.

dc

 

It has to do with your intent.  Most crimes have to do with intent.  Intent can show that you had no criminal intent.

However, if the dead one was one you hated, and threatened to kill many times, and you saw this as an opportunity to accomplish the deed, you may be up a creek.

 

Depending on what you say.  It depends on how you tell the story.  But also what story the evidence tells.

Edited October 12, 2015 by David13

[David13]

I think I've seen a gun in the UK maybe 4 or 5 times, made me feel very nervous at the sight.  That our police and public don't carry firearms around all the time makes me feel a lot safer than if they did.

You are nervous of a thing you don't know, of a thing you have not yet learned about.  Your fear is a fear of the unknown.  Education is the cure.

Because you and your police are unarmed, you are all sitting ducks for the armed.  You are not safer, you just don't have to feel your fear of the unknown.

If you want to feel 100 times more fear, wait until some armed bad guy comes around you.  And then you will also feel helpless, naked, and undefended.

dc

[kapikui]

Now, police are trained to empty their magazine to stop a threat.  You keep shooting til the threat is stopped.  If they are still holding on to their weapon, even tho' they are down, they are still a threat.

But at no time to you intend to kill.  Only to defend yourself.

dc

I'd heard that had changed.  It's kind of a tactically stupid move.  Sure if you know for sure that there's only one threat, you're good.  If there's another you're sitting there with an empty gun and an active threat. 

[JojoBag]

Of COURSE you are shooting to kill. That is the whole point of a firearm -- it's designed to kill. It's not a stun gun; it's a gun gun. If you're using it, you had darn well better want to kill whatever you're shooting. (Unless you're a Jason Bourne-type superspy, trained to shoot the wings off a fly at 50 yards from the hip.)

 

I do not carry, and I have no love for guns. But my philosophy is that if I ever draw a gun on another human being, it will be ONLY because I believe I must kill him. I won't do it to make threats, and if I pull the trigger, it will be because I'm trying to kill the guy. (Technically, I'm trying to disable him, but the fact that I would be using a gun to disable him means I'm trying to disable him through death.)

 

Sorry about that.  As I look at what I wrote, I realize that I should have been a bit clearer.  From a legal standpoint, you never tell a cop that you were shooting to kill.  You were shooting in fear of your life and that you were shooting to stop the threat to your life AND you continued to shoot until the threat was neutralized.  The fact that the perp died as a result of you defending yourself is an unfortunate consequence.  It isn't a pleasant feeling to shoot someone even if you simply wound them.

 

That said, I still would not have it in my head to shoot to kill.  That type of mindset can lead to all sorts of problems like hate, anger and being too quick on the trigger.  Something to consider in regards to this mindset.  While this type of situation isn't war, I still think that something Pres. Heber J. Grant said to the young men going to war during WWII applies.  He said that if you kill with hate in your heart, it is murder.  You can be angry, but still not hate, yet anger can lead to hate.  Capt. Moroni was angry with the Nephite dissenter, Amalickiah, who became the Lamanite king, but Moroni didn't hate while waging war.

[Vort]

I'd heard that had changed.  It's kind of a tactically stupid move.  Sure if you know for sure that there's only one threat, you're good.  If there's another you're sitting there with an empty gun and an active threat. 

 

I apologize for my ignorance, but I thought the days of cops being required to carry service revolvers were over, and that they were allowed to carry firearms with quickly replaceable magazines. Is this so?

[kapikui]

I apologize for my ignorance, but I thought the days of cops being required to carry service revolvers were over, and that they were allowed to carry firearms with quickly replaceable magazines. Is this so?

It can still take 2-3 seconds to reload.  That's a long time if someone is shooting a you. 

[Vort]

It can still take 2-3 seconds to reload.  That's a long time if someone is shooting a you. 

 

Sure, but unless you have a fifteen-round magazine (and a handgrip a foot and a half long), I don't see how that can be avoided.

[kapikui]

Sure, but unless you have a fifteen-round magazine (and a handgrip a foot and a half long), I don't see how that can be avoided.

Exactly, which is why they don't shoot until slidelock anymore.  They shoot until a threat is neutralized, and check for other threats. They may even reload during a lull before the mag is empty, known as a "tactical reload". 

[David13]

I'd heard that had changed.  It's kind of a tactically stupid move.  Sure if you know for sure that there's only one threat, you're good.  If there's another you're sitting there with an empty gun and an active threat. 

You have to carry additional mags.  If you have no additional mags, no, you wouldn't do that if you had perceived any possibility of a second shooter. 

As to revolvers, I just saw a post about an old cop in Arizona what carries an old revolver.

Speed loaders.  Using a speed loader, these revolvers can be reloaded as fast as an auto (which means SEMI auto).

Usually a lot less than 2 to 3 seconds. 

A lot of cops today carry Glocks with a double stack which will give you 16 or 17 rounds. 

But in many cases they have indeed emptied the mag. 

I can post two videos of actual shootings where one, he emptied the mag, then approached the car apparently without reloading.

And a second where he empties the first mag, then reloads, and empties the second mag, which is the only thing stopping the shooter.

dc

 

kapikui

There is cop training and there is cop training.  It's all different.  Some is basically non existent, and some is rather extensive and varied.  It all depends on the agency.

Edited October 13, 2015 by David13

[NeuroTypical]

Another way to put it - Vort, if you ever actually use violence to defend your life, you'll most likely go to court.  A good prosecuting attorney will search for stuff you've said online, and all this stuff you've been saying here about shooting to kill being the sole motivation, will be read to a jury.  And they'll go off and think about whether you were just defending yourself, or trying to kill someone using a situation as an excuse.

Edited October 13, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[kapikui]

 

kapikui

There is cop training and there is cop training.  It's all different.  Some is basically non existent, and some is rather extensive and varied.  It all depends on the agency.

Makes sense.  That's why we see stories of cops doing remarkable things with marksmanship under pressure and also stories of cops getting into protracted gun battles at less than 5 feet and hitting nothing. 

[David13]

Another way to put it - Vort, if you ever actually use violence to defend your life, you'll most likely go to court.  A good prosecuting attorney will search for stuff you've said online, and all this stuff you've been saying here about shooting to kill being the sole motivation, will be read to a jury.  And they'll go off and think about whether you were just defending yourself, or trying to kill someone using a situation as an excuse.

I wouldn't say you are likely to go to court. 

First, there are DAs and there are DAs.  But they all have to go by the evidence.  So at their review and based on the police investigation they may or may not find a basis for criminal charges being brought against Vort.   It all depends on how the thing has played out. 

In wacky land, here in Los Angeles, you are far more likely;  perhaps rural areas in Texas and Florida, less likely.  But they will look at what the evidence shows before the file any court charges.

dc

[Anddenex]

Strange as we had two mass shooting incidents in the mid 80's and banned handguns and an assortment of other firearms. We have below 30 gun related deaths a year nowadays.  Seems to have worked fine here.

 

Where are you gathering your statistics: http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

 

Everything I read online, is above 30.  Still a lower number, but definitely not below 30.

[NeuroTypical]

I wouldn't say you are likely to go to court. 

First, there are DAs and there are DAs.  But they all have to go by the evidence.  So at their review and based on the police investigation they may or may not find a basis for criminal charges being brought against Vort.   

 

Three CC trainers in two states all tell me the same thing.  You use your firearm to defend yourself, you should count on losing 1-3 years of your life and at least $10,000 fighting through the court system.  If the police/DA don't bring you up on charges, the 'victim' or his family will be found by a civil rights lawyer who keeps an eye on local news for such opportunities. 

 

These days (at least here in Colorado), the CC training includes a lot of draw-gun-to-final-lawsuit walkthroughs.  They've come up with a way to offer conceal-carry insurance to folks.  

 

Yeah, you're likely to go to court.

Edited October 13, 2015 by NeuroTypical