Gun free zone = killing spree zone


Str8Shooter
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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 was never trained in this manner.  I was taught to fire until the threat is neutralized.  If that took one shot or an entire magazine.  What you don't want to do is empty your magazine if at all possible.  That's a good way to get killed, which is something I'm allergic to.  However, you are correct that you shoot only to stop a threat.  You also never shoot to simply wound.  That is something a sniper is trained to do depending on the circumstances.  I've seen snipers shoot the gun out of a perp's hand and then I've seen them shoot center mass.  Again, it all depends on the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It depends on the totality of the circumstances.  Cases of outright self-defense are usually cut and dried, and the DA won't do anything.  It also depends on the laws of the state you live in.  If you live in a state with a "castle doctrine," meaning that you do not have a duty to retreat from any place where you have a legal right to be there, then you are pretty much covered.  In Utah, in cases such as burglary, the law presumes that you were legitimately in fear of your life if you shoot the burglar.     What most people don't realize is that a private citizen has just as much right to defend himself as any cop. 

 

Additionally, many states including the socialist state of California, have laws on the books that prevent a criminal or his heirs and assigns from suing a person who uses a weapon legally in self-defense.  I was arresting a man for DUI when he began fighting me.  During the fight, I accidentally broke his arm.  Once he got out of the hospital and then out of jail, he tried suing me.  He tried going to four different attorneys and not one would take his case.  This was near Grass Valley, CA.  So, defending yourself isn't automatically a death sentence.  It all depends on the totality of the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided when I was young that I wanted to understand how to defend myself.  I joined the army, in part for that very reason.  I came away from that experience convinced that there is a lot to understand and learn about how to behave when being attacked.  Sadly as I read many of the opinions - I realize that a great deal of the discussion comes from opinions based entirely in ignorance. 

 

I believe (very strongly) that knowledge is the single most important element in the ability for a society to remain free.  If there is anything to learn from history we should have learned that freedom and liberty is never a default condition and like anything of value it must be maintained or it will be overrun by chaos and the opinions of the strong few will become the rule of the many - ending freedom and liberty.

 

We are seeing what appears as a shift in how those that would destroy us, our liberty and our freedom, will go about doing so.  We are experiencing how a single individual, with very little training, is able to take control of a situation, take several lives and terrorize an entire population.  The single worse response to such an attack is to limit the response of citizens - especially to limit their ability to act defensively to protect themselves.  I am not sure this principle is understood. 

 

Perhaps one of the greatest and famous examples in history is the "Trojan Horse".  The city of Troy thought themselves safe behind their strong walls - walls and thinking that became the means of their defeat and cost the citizens their lives and freedom.  Sadly not only do we have in our midst those unwilling to pull a trigger to defend anything - but their single purpose is to prevent anyone else the means to defend themselves.  This line of thinking gives our enemies such an advantage - I personally believe that the reason we are seeing such doctrine is because of an actual conspiracy by a few working with our enemies - thinking to take some advantage for themselves.  Not that everyone unwilling to defend themselves are engineering the conspiracy but that they are being used.

 

In the art of war the first goal is to create fear that will cause one's opponents to either run or hide.  This does two things - first it causes confusion and the second is that it divides those that can fight from a focus of a coordinated meeting the attack to trying to survive.  Without going any farther into the art of war - I will simply state that I am amazed at the efforts and thinking to demonize any and all resistance.  Not just among the citizen population but a movement to even demonize the police or anyone else that would or should defend - even to the point of limiting requiring that they surrender their weapons to create places of high vulnerability (called gun safe zones) as a display of "good will" that is nothing more than an invitation for an attack.  Then we are horrified when an attack occurs and dream up more way to prevent citizens from defending themselves.

 

Already the stupidly has convinced and confused so many citizens that we are seeing ever increasing examples of ordinary citizens refusing to serve the very police that protect them.  With every mass murder attack - especially in gun free zones - our enemies are learning and planning.  One of the most effective means of conducting a war is the method of attrition.  This is the simple idea of wearing down ones opponent's resources - in a chess game it is trading a pawn for a more valued piece. 

 

The next step our enemies will take is to ambush the responders to a mass killing in a gun free zone.  If this is planned with enough cleverness they will be able to generate crossfire that will result in those protecting to fire on those they are protecting.  Can you fathom the effect on many if under such conditions a citizen is killed by a police round? Not only is a war going on - we are loosing - not just to an enemy that is willing to kill but to our friends that will not stand to defend and seek to prevent us from defending ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided when I was young that I wanted to understand how to defend myself.  I joined the army, in part for that very reason.  I came away from that experience convinced that there is a lot to understand and learn about how to behave when being attacked.  Sadly as I read many of the opinions - I realize that a great deal of the discussion comes from opinions based entirely in ignorance. 

 

I believe (very strongly) that knowledge is the single most important element in the ability for a society to remain free.  If there is anything to learn from history we should have learned that freedom and liberty is never a default condition and like anything of value it must be maintained or it will be overrun by chaos and the opinions of the strong few will become the rule of the many - ending freedom and liberty.

 

We are seeing what appears as a shift in how those that would destroy us, our liberty and our freedom, will go about doing so.  We are experiencing how a single individual, with very little training, is able to take control of a situation, take several lives and terrorize an entire population.  The single worse response to such an attack is to limit the response of citizens - especially to limit their ability to act defensively to protect themselves.  I am not sure this principle is understood. 

 

Perhaps one of the greatest and famous examples in history is the "Trojan Horse".  The city of Troy thought themselves safe behind their strong walls - walls and thinking that became the means of their defeat and cost the citizens their lives and freedom.  Sadly not only do we have in our midst those unwilling to pull a trigger to defend anything - but their single purpose is to prevent anyone else the means to defend themselves.  This line of thinking gives our enemies such an advantage - I personally believe that the reason we are seeing such doctrine is because of an actual conspiracy by a few working with our enemies - thinking to take some advantage for themselves.  Not that everyone unwilling to defend themselves are engineering the conspiracy but that they are being used.

 

In the art of war the first goal is to create fear that will cause one's opponents to either run or hide.  This does two things - first it causes confusion and the second is that it divides those that can fight from a focus of a coordinated meeting the attack to trying to survive.  Without going any farther into the art of war - I will simply state that I am amazed at the efforts and thinking to demonize any and all resistance.  Not just among the citizen population but a movement to even demonize the police or anyone else that would or should defend - even to the point of limiting requiring that they surrender their weapons to create places of high vulnerability (called gun safe zones) as a display of "good will" that is nothing more than an invitation for an attack.  Then we are horrified when an attack occurs and dream up more way to prevent citizens from defending themselves.

 

Already the stupidly has convinced and confused so many citizens that we are seeing ever increasing examples of ordinary citizens refusing to serve the very police that protect them.  With every mass murder attack - especially in gun free zones - our enemies are learning and planning.  One of the most effective means of conducting a war is the method of attrition.  This is the simple idea of wearing down ones opponent's resources - in a chess game it is trading a pawn for a more valued piece. 

 

The next step our enemies will take is to ambush the responders to a mass killing in a gun free zone.  If this is planned with enough cleverness they will be able to generate crossfire that will result in those protecting to fire on those they are protecting.  Can you fathom the effect on many if under such conditions a citizen is killed by a police round? Not only is a war going on - we are loosing - not just to an enemy that is willing to kill but to our friends that will not stand to defend and seek to prevent us from defending ourselves.

I agree with a lot of this. The problem I see is how do we prevent our faith in weapons in becoming a wall of binding rather than being a wall of defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

I was nervous because its so rare, I'm 47 so as you can guess guns are not something that are seen often in the UK.  The guns I saw were with the police, I've only ever seen one hand gun in civilian ownership which was before the ban.  The figures speak for themselves, we have strict gun controls, with low gun ownership and very few gun related deaths, compared with very high gun ownership and rocketing gun deaths in the US.  I certainly know where I would feel safer.

This makes interesting reading: 

 

The US, though, is the only country in the world where, following a mass shooting, the nation has responded with loosening, not tightening, gun laws. After 23 people were killed in a mass shooting in Texas in 1991, the state pushed through a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons. Even the murder of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 saw a call for fewer, not more gun law restrictions. It was reported a year later by PBS that 27 American states had passed 93 laws expanding gun rights, including measures that let people carry concealed weapons in churches and campuses, or even to use them in self-defence when drunk. Some schools even now allow their teachers to go armed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/18/gun-violence-waco-texas-shot

 

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.

 

It fluctuates but averages out at around 30 or so deaths, the site you linked to shows data upto 2013, according to the office of national statistics in 2012/13 there were 30 gun related deaths in UK.

 

 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-3---weapons.html

Edited by Latter Days Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was nervous because its so rare, I'm 47 so as you can guess guns are not something that are seen often in the UK.  The guns I saw were with the police, I've only ever seen one hand gun in civilian ownership which was before the ban.  The figures speak for themselves, we have strict gun controls, with low gun ownership and very few gun related deaths, compared with very high gun ownership and rocketing gun deaths in the US.  I certainly know where I would feel safer.

This makes interesting reading: 

 

The US, though, is the only country in the world where, following a mass shooting, the nation has responded with loosening, not tightening, gun laws. After 23 people were killed in a mass shooting in Texas in 1991, the state pushed through a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons. Even the murder of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012 saw a call for fewer, not more gun law restrictions. It was reported a year later by PBS that 27 American states had passed 93 laws expanding gun rights, including measures that let people carry concealed weapons in churches and campuses, or even to use them in self-defence when drunk. Some schools even now allow their teachers to go armed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/18/gun-violence-waco-texas-shot

 

 

It fluctuates but averages out at around 30 or so deaths, the site you linked to shows data upto 2013, according to the office of national statistics in 2012/13 there were 30 gun related deaths in UK.

 

 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-3---weapons.html

 

This is all perception.

 

This is exactly the same as people getting full-body scanned at the airport feeling that they are safer from terrorist attacks than they were before.  Or people eating egg whites feeling healthier than when they ate the whole egg.  Or people buying flourescents rather than incandescents feeling safer from global warming.

 

Okay, here are some interesting tidbits for you.

 

In the US, 88% own guns.  In South Africa, there is only 12%.  In Israel 7%, and in the Philippines there is 5%.  All 4 countries have similar gun control laws.

 

Yet, in South Africa, there is a 31 intentional homicide rate.  That is, 31 per 100,000 people got intentionally killed in 2012.  Out of those 31, only 9.41 got killed by guns.

 

In the Philippines, 8.8 in every 100,000 died through intentional homicide.  A significantly lower rate than South Africa.  About 4 per 100,000 died through firearm.  In a 5% gun-ownership population.

 

In the US, 4.7 in every 100,000 died through intentional homicide.  4.7.  A rate that is HALF the Philippine rate and not a smidgen compared to South Africa.  3.5 of it is by firearm.  In a 88% firearm ownership population.

 

In Israel... not counting the 9 deaths in 2012 as a direct result of the Israeli/Palestinian war, the death by intentional homicide is 1.7.  Significantly lower rate than the US.  There were no reports of homicide by firearm.  In a 7.3% gun ownership population.

 

As a matter of fact, the UK, with a rate of 1 homicide in 100,000 had a higher homicide by firearm rate than Israel at 0.05 even with the gun ban.

 

So, clearly, guns have no direct correlation to the number of people that get killed in a country.  And for the US to have an 88% gun ownership rate and have a lower rate of gun deaths than the Philippines that only has a 5% gun ownership rate and with South Africa having a 31 rate of homicides with only 9 by firearm, and with Israel having no significant gun-related homicides with a very low murder rate comparable to UK and Australia, it is demonstrably shown that people who want to kill people will kill people regardless of gun laws.  And in the same token, people will NOT kill people if they don't want to regardless of how many guns they own.

 

Ergo, you are statistically safer in the UK, not because you have gun bans, but because there is not many people in the UK who want to kill you.  You are statistically at risk in South Africa, not because they don't have gun bans, but because there are many people there who may have no problem killing you.

 

Now, when this "wanting to kill you" mood in the UK changes... for example, when ISIS operatives decide they want to kill Christians in the UK, it won't matter if you have a gun ban.  Your murder rate will rise.  Guaranteed.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I was nervous because its so rare, I'm 47 so as you can guess guns ... "

 

The US, though, is the only country in the world where, following a mass shooting, the nation has responded with loosening, not tightening, gun laws. After 23 people were killed in a mass shooting in Texas in 1991, the state pushed through a law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons. Even the murder of 26

 

 

First, as I have said, education can help you.  I go to gun ranges where there are dozens of people with dozens of guns, all with live ammo, all in use.  I am amongst my brothers.  We all follow safety rules stricktly and trust each other.  I feel much safer there than in some areas in the USA.

 

Second, some states respond with more anti gun laws, which don't reduce crime and don't even address what the shooting was.

You need to find out about a lady in Texas who brought about the carry law there, who had to hide under a table while her parents were shot to death because the law told her to leave her gun in her car.  She could have saved her parents life but for a stupid and cocamamie law that ENABLEd AND HELPED the criminal shooter to, in cold blood, total stranger, murder her parents before her eyes, and DID NOT reduce crime.  Listen to her story and you might see why they changed that law.

 

Further, in many cases the "statistics" are loaded for the agenda.  Suicides are included.  Most of the murders continue to be inner city, thug, drug, and alcohol people who iike to kill with an ILLEGAL (owned against the law) gun.

 

They have this funny thing where they don't follow the laws, can you imagine that.

 

As Anatess has pointed out you have a great many other misconceptions in your post.

dc

Edited by David13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was never trained in this manner.  I was taught to fire until the threat is neutralized.  If that took one shot or an entire magazine.  What you don't want to do is empty your magazine if at all possible.  That's a good way to get killed, which is something I'm allergic to.  However, you are correct that you shoot only to stop a threat.  You also never shoot to simply wound.  That is something a sniper is trained to do depending on the circumstances.  I've seen snipers shoot the gun out of a perp's hand and then I've seen them shoot center mass.  Again, it all depends on the circumstances.

 

 

Jojo

Maybe we only disagree on semantics.  Sometimes you have no opportunity to stop to determine if you have neutralized the threat.  So you keep going til you can safely find out.  It could cost a lot to stop and find out the perp is still shooting.

I can give you a link to two videos which you probaby/may have seen.  In both the mag (16 or 17) is emptied.  In one, twice, as the threat is still firing, even with a second leo shooter shooting.  Here was a guy who took maybe 30 rounds before going down still shooting.  All in what, 10 seconds?

The other, his 16 or 17 fly as fast as possible, and he still can't tell a thing about the threat.  He then approaches to see WITHOUT reloading.  One of those heat of the moment mistakes that could have hurt him but didn't.

I'm talking about Middlefield Ohio, and Akron Ohio, bb gun.

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Luby's shooting in Killeen -

Among the survivors was a woman named Suzanna Gratia Hupp. Hupp and her parents were at Luby's that day, and her parents were among the dead.

Hupp claimed that because of Texas' then-existing concealed carry laws, she was forced to leave her gun in her vehicle. If she had been allowed to carry her weapon into the facility with her, she argued, then she could have dropped the shooter before he was able to kill as many people as he did.

It was through Hupp's efforts, first as a speaker and then later as a member of the Texas House of Representatives, that the state CCW laws were overhauled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was through Hupp's efforts, and also the fact that the political climate had been changing the nation since the late '80's and more and more states adopted 'shall issue' or other conceal-carry laws.    There are Hupps in every state, every other year, all the time.  It takes a political wind to make grabbing a Hupp-type story and running with it worth the effort.

 

This is a horrible minimization of human life.  It's also how politics work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jojo

Maybe we only disagree on semantics.  Sometimes you have no opportunity to stop to determine if you have neutralized the threat.  So you keep going til you can safely find out.  It could cost a lot to stop and find out the perp is still shooting.

I can give you a link to two videos which you probaby/may have seen.  In both the mag (16 or 17) is emptied.  In one, twice, as the threat is still firing, even with a second leo shooter shooting.  Here was a guy who took maybe 30 rounds before going down still shooting.  All in what, 10 seconds?

The other, his 16 or 17 fly as fast as possible, and he still can't tell a thing about the threat.  He then approaches to see WITHOUT reloading.  One of those heat of the moment mistakes that could have hurt him but didn't.

I'm talking about Middlefield Ohio, and Akron Ohio, bb gun.

dc

 

Gunfights involving the police are a very interesting subject.  One of the reasons cops train constantly is that in a typical gun fight, 80% of all shots are missed, which is why you need a high capacity magazine.  You get a little nervous when someone is trying to kill you, along with both you and your target moving around.  In these situations, putting steel on target is difficult even though the average distance in a gunfight is only 21 feet..  When I went through the police academy we trained to shoot from distances of 5 to 150 feet.  We concentrated, though, on distances from the 5 to 21 feet range.

 

Something else that's interesting is that the caliber of the bullet doesn't really matter when it comes to stopping the perp unless you are using a magnum round, a rifled slug, or a .50 BMG.  I read a study of 20 years of police involved shootings from NYC.  The results of the study was that caliber had no bearing on stopping a suspect.  It was shot placement; another reason to constantly train with firearms.  This is why I use only with a 9mm.  I also don't do much in the way of using the sights.  I'm a point shooter and I train only for shooting at the 5 to 21 feet range.  This is because I'm no longer a cop and my purpose is not to arrest a perp.  If something goes down, it most likely will be up close and personal.

 

At the same time, you are right about the number of rounds it sometimes takes to put a perp down.  In the Miami-Dade shootout involving the FBI and two bank robbers, one perp was hit twice with 2 non-survivable wounds,  He lived for two full minutes, wounding and killing two or three more agents before he died.  Another example is Cole Younger.  He was shot 11 times and lived.  It also works the opposite way.   

 

While in the academy, a 911 tape was played of an undercover officer who lost his radio and had been shot.  I don't remember all the circumstances, but he made it to a pay phone and reported in.  You could hear the absolute desperation in his voice.  He was fully convinced he was going to die.  He told the operator to tell his family goodbye and to tell his wife he loved her.  You could hear him fade away in spite of everything the operator could do to encourage him to hold on.  The officer died while on the phone.  The autopsy revealed something very tragic.  The officer's wound was non-life threatening.  He should have lived through the shooting, but he was so convinced that if you get shot, you automatically die, so, he died.

 

In any type of emergency situation, your mental preparedness is vital.  If you aren't mentally ready for a situation, you get surprised and that will kill you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching several hours of a documentary called Burn Notice, I can state with confidence that a handgun fired at a target more than 20 feet away or behind cover will always miss. If the target is a fleeing car, the round may hit, but in all cases it will hit only the rear window or a taillight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching several hours of a documentary called Burn Notice, I can state with confidence that a handgun fired at a target more than 20 feet away or behind cover will always miss. If the target is a fleeing car, the round may hit, but in all cases it will hit only the rear window or a taillight.

 

That's news to me.  It all depends on your training.  Most cops only train with stationary targets.  I've shot at moving targets, which is not easy, but can be done consistently with enough practice.  In the police academy, one of the drills is to shoot at targets 50 feet away.  I fired a perfect score of 300, which means I had to keep all my shots in an area of about 5-6 inches from that range.  I couldn't do it at first, but after a week, I was able to consistently keep my rounds in the kill zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching several hours of a documentary called Burn Notice, I can state with confidence that a handgun fired at a target more than 20 feet away or behind cover will always miss. If the target is a fleeing car, the round may hit, but in all cases it will hit only the rear window or a taillight.

I miss that show, kind of jumped the shark last season, but it was one of my favorite shows for a while. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And for the US to have an 88% gun ownership rate...

Anatess,

 

I need to clarify this statistic.  The term "gun ownership rate" gives the impression that 88% of the people own at least one gun.  That is obviously not true.

 

This statstic means that there are 88 private guns in circulation per 100 people.  Since most gunowners own multiple guns, about 33% of the population owns a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a handgun fired at a target more than 20 feet away or behind cover will always miss...

"Always"???  Perhaps a moving one, yes.  

 

While I really appreciate the "real world" aspects that Burn Notice tries to put into its shows, I don't accept that statistic.  

 

I practice on an 8-1/2 x 11 piece of paper (with a prairie dog printed on it) at 10 yards.  I have a greater than 50% accuracy rate on the paper.  I'm still early in my training, so it takes me about 30 seconds to fire each round.  But my father-in-law who has much more training gets the same rate when firing every 2 to 3 seconds.

 

Other people at the range get a slightly smaller percentage when shooting at 15 yards.  But they hit the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Always"???

 

Yes, always. In watching several hours of the aforementioned documentary, I do not recall even one clean hit, certainly not a kill, in dozens or hundreds of instances of small-arms fire beyond about 20 feet. Now, the scoped sniper rifle had much greater success, approaching 100% -- unless the target was behind bullet-proof glass, in which case the success probability nosedived. But in that case, C-4 seemed to have good success in a wide variety of circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, always. In watching several hours of the aforementioned documentary...

 A-Hem...  Are you being facetious or are you talking about some other show that was indeed a documentary -- also called Burn Notice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, always. In watching several hours of the aforementioned documentary, I do not recall even one clean hit, certainly not a kill, in dozens or hundreds of instances of small-arms fire beyond about 20 feet. Now, the scoped sniper rifle had much greater success, approaching 100% -- unless the target was behind bullet-proof glass, in which case the success probability nosedived. But in that case, C-4 seemed to have good success in a wide variety of circumstances.

 

Maybe you should watch a different documentary.  I personally know different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share