login
3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon (Page 10)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-13 10:13 AM in reply to: #4531540 |
Regular  1023  Madrid |  Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in OregonTrue story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? |
| 2012-12-13 10:15 AM in reply to: #4533623 |
Pro 15655    | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Because you may find yourself bringing a tazer to a gun fight. |
| 2012-12-13 10:16 AM in reply to: #4533615 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:08 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:58 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 10:53 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:51 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:33 AM How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place" What the he!! kind of logic is that? By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor. I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention. The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor. The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat. They are two very, very different things. What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them. The difference is critical. If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor. If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch. My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time. However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center. I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them. Either way doesn't matter to me. I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated. Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting. Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits. There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun. The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store. Both were perfectly legal uses of force. The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times. He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction. Here's a news story on it: Exactly my point. He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did. That is, and always will be murder. As it should be, LE or Civ. But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine. Just saying. No it wouldn't. I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges. But as long as that person says, "I fired until I thought the threat was gone" it's fine. Again, semantics. The word you should have underlined is SAYS....not intention. This kind of stuff drives anti-gun people crazy.....I know why. I see... sorta like the old saying if you kill the guy while he's running out your front door, make sure you drag him back inside before the cops come... I get it. Stay safe. |
| 2012-12-13 10:17 AM in reply to: #4533628 |
Regular 1023 Madrid | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:15 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Because you may find yourself bringing a tazer to a gun fight. So it comes down to matching force ? |
| 2012-12-13 10:18 AM in reply to: #4533623 |
Extreme Veteran 502 Tucson | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gr33n - 2012-12-13 8:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? First, I don't want them getting close enough for me to have to use a taser. In addition, some people also have variable tolerances to tasers, maybe drug induced sometimes. There are multiple police videos of having to taze people multiple times, who are still violently resisting in the process. My father in law is a cop and he's tazed a couple people (separate times) who just kept running away. When you're talking home defense of my family, I'm not taking any chances. I have multiple guns in multiple (safe) locations. |
| 2012-12-13 10:20 AM in reply to: #4531540 |
Regular 1023 Madrid | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Thanks. Responses appreciated. |
| 2012-12-13 10:21 AM in reply to: #4533634 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:17 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:15 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Because you may find yourself bringing a tazer to a gun fight. So it comes down to matching force ? For me, yes, it's the only reason to have a gun if you're not hunting. |
| 2012-12-13 10:24 AM in reply to: #4533628 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:15 AM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Because you may find yourself bringing a tazer to a gun fight. Exactly. As some of the other post eluded to using a club, a tazer, OC spray, etc. For someone wanting weapon for self defense a firearm is the best option. I mentioned in a previous post that I think that in any situation where you would/could use any less lethal weapon you should walk away. Obviously your home is a bit different, you have no requirement/ability to retreat. But the point is the same. Sorry about your break in... hope everything works out and you and your family aren't too spooked about it. |
| 2012-12-13 10:25 AM in reply to: #4533641 |
Regular 1023 Madrid | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:21 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:17 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:15 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Because you may find yourself bringing a tazer to a gun fight. So it comes down to matching force ? For me, yes, it's the only reason to have a gun if you're not hunting. Yep there's nothing like standing in someone elses shoes to get a different view. After yesterday I could probably be more open to owning a gun. Even less doubt that I'd be able to use it. |
| 2012-12-13 10:25 AM in reply to: #4533631 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-13 10:16 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:08 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:58 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 10:53 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:51 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:33 AM How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place" What the he!! kind of logic is that? By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor. I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention. The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor. The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat. They are two very, very different things. What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them. The difference is critical. If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor. If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch. My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time. However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center. I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them. Either way doesn't matter to me. I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated. Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting. Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits. There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun. The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store. Both were perfectly legal uses of force. The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times. He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction. Here's a news story on it: Exactly my point. He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did. That is, and always will be murder. As it should be, LE or Civ. But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine. Just saying. No it wouldn't. I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges. But as long as that person says, "I fired until I thought the threat was gone" it's fine. Again, semantics. The word you should have underlined is SAYS....not intention. This kind of stuff drives anti-gun people crazy.....I know why. I see... sorta like the old saying if you kill the guy while he's running out your front door, make sure you drag him back inside before the cops come... I get it. Stay safe. Actually, no, not at all. The problem with playing word games is that many times people act in a proper way, for that moment, and then fail when they try to explain it. The unfortunate fact is that you almost NEVER utter the words, "I was trying to kill him" without facing some type of peril, so in that regard you are 100% correct. "Stopping the threat" is always OK to say....even if it's the same action. |
| 2012-12-13 10:30 AM in reply to: #4531540 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Why are you guys still debating shot location? |
| 2012-12-13 10:30 AM in reply to: #4533654 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:25 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 10:16 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:08 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:58 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 10:53 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:51 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:33 AM How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place" What the he!! kind of logic is that? By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor. I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention. The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor. The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat. They are two very, very different things. What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them. The difference is critical. If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor. If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch. My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time. However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center. I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them. Either way doesn't matter to me. I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated. Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting. Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits. There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun. The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store. Both were perfectly legal uses of force. The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times. He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction. Here's a news story on it: Exactly my point. He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did. That is, and always will be murder. As it should be, LE or Civ. But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine. Just saying. No it wouldn't. I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges. But as long as that person says, "I fired until I thought the threat was gone" it's fine. Again, semantics. The word you should have underlined is SAYS....not intention. This kind of stuff drives anti-gun people crazy.....I know why. I see... sorta like the old saying if you kill the guy while he's running out your front door, make sure you drag him back inside before the cops come... I get it. Stay safe. Actually, no, not at all. The problem with playing word games is that many times people act in a proper way, for that moment, and then fail when they try to explain it. The unfortunate fact is that you almost NEVER utter the words, "I was trying to kill him" without facing some type of peril, so in that regard you are 100% correct. "Stopping the threat" is always OK to say....even if it's the same action. Sorry... should've used sac font... was really kidding. But I agree with you 100% and that was exactly the point I've been trying to make. Intent is very difficult to prove however some actions will certainly help... and admitting it will help even more so. I guess my point is that IMHO you should never intend to kill someone... if it happens and its justifiable so be it. |
| 2012-12-13 10:31 AM in reply to: #4533623 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gr33n - 2012-12-13 9:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Like others said. I don't want to be close enough to someone who has ill intent for me to be able to use the tazer. What if they have a decent sized knife on them? They are gonna do more damage to me than I am to them if I am packing a tazer and close enough to use it. If the other person is not armed (ie where a tazer would be appropriate) I am guessing that me pointing a gun at them is going to have the same effect, they are gonna stop what they are doing or get the heck out. |
| 2012-12-13 10:31 AM in reply to: #4533551 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-13 10:29 AM TriToy - 2012-12-13 7:11 AM psych testing is a little more involved that just asking an obvious question. Yes I am aware of the difference between full auto and semi auto. No I am not afraid. I am a paintball player - that is as close to firing a gun as I will get. They are nothing alike and most of your posts sound like you are afraid of guns (and you won’t shoot them) and that’s why you want the changes.
you are mistaking my anger and outrage of senseless loss of life as fear I am a physician. My JOB is to heal people and hopefully PREVENT disease. I have had to be the one in the ER digging bullets out and trying to stabilize the person shot one too many times. |
| 2012-12-13 10:32 AM in reply to: #4533663 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-13 11:30 AM Why are you guys still debating shot location? I'm not, never have been. I'm debating what someone's intention is... shot placement is used to merely illustrate my points. |
| 2012-12-13 10:35 AM in reply to: #4533663 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-13 9:30 AM Why are you guys still debating shot location? Shhh... don't slow them down. When I heard the news story the morning after it happened I was betting on at least 15 pages in CoJ on the topic. Getting close! |
| 2012-12-13 10:35 AM in reply to: #4533671 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon TriToy - 2012-12-13 8:31 AM Big Appa - 2012-12-13 10:29 AM TriToy - 2012-12-13 7:11 AM psych testing is a little more involved that just asking an obvious question. Yes I am aware of the difference between full auto and semi auto. No I am not afraid. I am a paintball player - that is as close to firing a gun as I will get. They are nothing alike and most of your posts sound like you are afraid of guns (and you won’t shoot them) and that’s why you want the changes.
you are mistaking my anger and outrage of senseless loss of life as fear I am a physician. My JOB is to heal people and hopefully PREVENT disease. I have had to be the one in the ER digging bullets out and trying to stabilize the person shot one too many times. So you have a anger and outrage over criminals that shoot people. |
| 2012-12-13 10:37 AM in reply to: #4533665 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-13 10:30 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:25 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 10:16 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:08 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:58 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 10:53 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:51 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:33 AM How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place" What the he!! kind of logic is that? By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor. I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention. The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor. The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat. They are two very, very different things. What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them. The difference is critical. If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor. If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch. My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time. However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center. I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them. Either way doesn't matter to me. I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated. Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting. Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits. There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun. The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store. Both were perfectly legal uses of force. The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times. He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction. Here's a news story on it: Exactly my point. He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did. That is, and always will be murder. As it should be, LE or Civ. But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine. Just saying. No it wouldn't. I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges. But as long as that person says, "I fired until I thought the threat was gone" it's fine. Again, semantics. The word you should have underlined is SAYS....not intention. This kind of stuff drives anti-gun people crazy.....I know why. I see... sorta like the old saying if you kill the guy while he's running out your front door, make sure you drag him back inside before the cops come... I get it. Stay safe. Actually, no, not at all. The problem with playing word games is that many times people act in a proper way, for that moment, and then fail when they try to explain it. The unfortunate fact is that you almost NEVER utter the words, "I was trying to kill him" without facing some type of peril, so in that regard you are 100% correct. "Stopping the threat" is always OK to say....even if it's the same action. Sorry... should've used sac font... was really kidding. But I agree with you 100% and that was exactly the point I've been trying to make. Intent is very difficult to prove however some actions will certainly help... and admitting it will help even more so. I guess my point is that IMHO you should never intend to kill someone... if it happens and its justifiable so be it. Thanks, I had a feeling you were being sarcastic. While we are very close to agreeing.....for mindset purposes, I look at it as trying to kill them.....to ultimately stop the threat. That's why we train as we do. If they live, so be it, as long as the threat is over. |
| 2012-12-13 10:38 AM in reply to: #4533682 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-13 11:35 AM TriToy - 2012-12-13 8:31 AM Big Appa - 2012-12-13 10:29 AM TriToy - 2012-12-13 7:11 AM psych testing is a little more involved that just asking an obvious question. Yes I am aware of the difference between full auto and semi auto. No I am not afraid. I am a paintball player - that is as close to firing a gun as I will get. They are nothing alike and most of your posts sound like you are afraid of guns (and you won’t shoot them) and that’s why you want the changes.
you are mistaking my anger and outrage of senseless loss of life as fear I am a physician. My JOB is to heal people and hopefully PREVENT disease. I have had to be the one in the ER digging bullets out and trying to stabilize the person shot one too many times. So you have a anger and outrage over criminals that shoot people.
pretty much oh and in addition to paintball I have shot rifles - at clay pigeons. |
| 2012-12-13 10:38 AM in reply to: #4533663 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-13 10:30 AM Why are you guys still debating shot location? I'm debating words.........I think. |
| 2012-12-13 10:40 AM in reply to: #4533686 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:37 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 10:30 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:25 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 10:16 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 11:08 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:58 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 10:53 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:51 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:33 AM How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place" What the he!! kind of logic is that? By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor. I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention. The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor. The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat. They are two very, very different things. What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them. The difference is critical. If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor. If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch. My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time. However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center. I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them. Either way doesn't matter to me. I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated. Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting. Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits. There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun. The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store. Both were perfectly legal uses of force. The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times. He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction. Here's a news story on it: Exactly my point. He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did. That is, and always will be murder. As it should be, LE or Civ. But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine. Just saying. No it wouldn't. I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges. But as long as that person says, "I fired until I thought the threat was gone" it's fine. Again, semantics. The word you should have underlined is SAYS....not intention. This kind of stuff drives anti-gun people crazy.....I know why. I see... sorta like the old saying if you kill the guy while he's running out your front door, make sure you drag him back inside before the cops come... I get it. Stay safe. Actually, no, not at all. The problem with playing word games is that many times people act in a proper way, for that moment, and then fail when they try to explain it. The unfortunate fact is that you almost NEVER utter the words, "I was trying to kill him" without facing some type of peril, so in that regard you are 100% correct. "Stopping the threat" is always OK to say....even if it's the same action. Sorry... should've used sac font... was really kidding. But I agree with you 100% and that was exactly the point I've been trying to make. Intent is very difficult to prove however some actions will certainly help... and admitting it will help even more so. I guess my point is that IMHO you should never intend to kill someone... if it happens and its justifiable so be it. Thanks, I had a feeling you were being sarcastic. While we are very close to agreeing.....for mindset purposes, I look at it as trying to kill them.....to ultimately stop the threat. That's why we train as we do. If they live, so be it, as long as the threat is over. Ok I can accept that... I guess in the end its the same thing. |
| 2012-12-13 10:42 AM in reply to: #4533422 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon TriToy - 2012-12-13 7:26 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 12:54 AM TriToy - 2012-12-12 6:54 PM he stole the gun from someone he knew " armed himself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle he stole from someone he knew, and went on a rampage that left two people dead."
to me that says we need fewer weapons out there period. Why was this semiautomatic rifle not locked up safely??? Well, you said it, so tell me how we make that happen? We have roughly 400,000,000 guns "out there".....how would you reduce that number?
I don't know we start with much longer waiting periods - 10 days is ridiculously short. We need standardization across the country, since the right to bear arms is in the constitution it should be ruled by federal law not state law IMO. And yes stricter licensing. Maybe even with psychiatric evaluation. And I do NOT feel that auto/semi auto weapons belong in the hands of untrained people. I know some states require training just to have a handgun - I think ALL states should do that. and yes you should be required to lock them in a box/cabinet. way too many accidents If you want to kill someone today, a waiting period MIGHT calm you down... 10 days isn't enough??? ya 20... 30... What the heck will that solve.... Here's an idea... plenty of studies have indicated these types of shooters are out for the publicity... lets put a 30 day waiting period on the "Freedom of Press" going on and on about the idiot that that did the shooting. But that's right... a waiting period to be allowed your rights is ridiculous. You are a reporter correct? Journalist.... what licensing procedure do you have to go through to show your ability to use your freedom of speech? What licensing procedure do you have to go through to vote? What requirements and applications do you have to file to not have your stuff seized by the state? Are you sane enough to be allowed to speak on a subject, perhaps you need an evaluation so we can deem you are. I live in a house with 3 adults and two dogs. The MIL is home all the time. Neither her or my wife care about my gun in the drawer. We do not have any grand children come over.... exactly why am I buying a safe again? If you require safes... then who is going to check that... you certainly are not coming into my house and inspecting it.... so if and when it does get stolen, then I can be charged with not locking it... but just like every other law... it does not actually stop a person from breaking it, it just punishes them for doing so. Edited by powerman 2012-12-13 11:12 AM |
| 2012-12-13 10:52 AM in reply to: #4533689 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon TriToy - 2012-12-13 8:38 AM Big Appa - 2012-12-13 11:35 AM TriToy - 2012-12-13 8:31 AM Big Appa - 2012-12-13 10:29 AM TriToy - 2012-12-13 7:11 AM psych testing is a little more involved that just asking an obvious question. Yes I am aware of the difference between full auto and semi auto. No I am not afraid. I am a paintball player - that is as close to firing a gun as I will get. They are nothing alike and most of your posts sound like you are afraid of guns (and you won’t shoot them) and that’s why you want the changes.
you are mistaking my anger and outrage of senseless loss of life as fear I am a physician. My JOB is to heal people and hopefully PREVENT disease. I have had to be the one in the ER digging bullets out and trying to stabilize the person shot one too many times. So you have a anger and outrage over criminals that shoot people.
pretty much oh and in addition to paintball I have shot rifles - at clay pigeons. Ok than our focus should be on how to change the people that commit the crimes. Even if we took away all the guns (yes there would be less gun crime but still crime) you would still be healing the people were the victims of crime. The pain of crime is what you are angry about it seems not guns. |
| 2012-12-13 10:58 AM in reply to: #4533601 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-13 8:58 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 10:53 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 9:51 AM tuwood - 2012-12-13 9:57 AM Sous - 2012-12-13 8:33 AM How I figure is this... what was said is "If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn't have been shooting at them in the first place" What the he!! kind of logic is that? By that reasoning every single officer involved shooting should end up with a dead aggressor. I'm not sure what academy you went too, but I'd be pretty sure that most don't teach an officer that they should intend to kill someone if they fire their weapon... they are taught that death is a likely outcome but it is NOT the intention. The former means that an officer would be taught that when they fire their weapon they should continue to fire until the aggressor is likely dead regardless of the threat imposed by the aggressor. The latter implies that, when justified, you should fire your weapon until the aggressor is no longer a threat. They are two very, very different things. What I'm trying to get across is that the intention to fire a weapon at someone should NEVER be to kill them. The difference is critical. If you intend to kill someone then you will regardless of the threat posed by the aggressor. If you intend to stop the aggression then you stop when the threat is removed. BTW.. I was giving the shooter the benefit of the doubt and didn't want to imply that they'd miss their target when they fired the weapon, thus the flinch. My point remains the same... yes I'd aim and fire center mass all the time every time. However, I understand that in that high stress environment the shot may not hit dead center. I'd also contend that I would still stop firing when the threat was removed... that may mean the aggressor is dead, it may mean that they are on the ground with a hole or two in them. Either way doesn't matter to me. I know in the military they always taught us to shoot until the threat was eliminated. Kind of like I believe you mentioned earlier if you shoot somebody in the shoulder (intentional or not) and they drop to the ground reeling in pain then the threat is eliminated at that point and there would be no need to continue shooting. Now there's a huge grey area there so it's not like you'd necessarily go to jail if you kept shooting, but there are limits. There was a case a few years back of a guy working at a pharmacy and two guys came in to rob him with a gun. The worker rightfully shot one of the robbers and chased the other one out of the store. Both were perfectly legal uses of force. The worker then came back into the store and shot the unconscious guy on the floor five times. He was charged with and convicted of 1st degree murder and I totally agree with the conviction. Here's a news story on it: Exactly my point. He (the store guy) intended to kill the other person, and he did. That is, and always will be murder. As it should be, LE or Civ. But if he would have shot the guy 20 times before he ran out of the store and came back in it would have been fine. Just saying. No it wouldn't. I'm not saying that their isn't a grey area here, all I'm saying is that if someone says their intention is to kill someone, and then acts that intention out by firing 20 rounds or shooting someone lying on the floor there is a pretty good chance that person is going to face murder charges. This is where you really are talking in circles and have nothing to stand on. A police sniper, permission granted to take the suspect out... a bullet straight to the brain... I most certainly grantee you his INTENTION was to kill the suspect. People are taught to shoot center mass... that is where the highest percentage for a shot to take someone down. Much much bigger target, vital organs to hit, high degree of bleeding out. A head shot has a much greater chance of working, but is much harder to hit under stress. It is a much riskier shot... yet it is the more effective shot. In court, I have demonstrated deadly force was necessary. I used deadly force, the person died, I have ZERO responsibility intention or not. If the subject died and I INTENDED for him to die, that is not murder... MURDER is unjustified. Every single police shooting I have ever seen dissected... everyone want to know why the officer didn't just wound him... every single police department says the same thing... deadly force was warranted...thats what we did. Guns are only used to shoot people with deadly force. If deadly force is not justified, less than lethal means are deployed. Your distinctions in your mind make absolutely not one bit of difference in the real world, or a court room. |
| 2012-12-13 11:07 AM in reply to: #4533653 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gr33n - 2012-12-13 9:25 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:21 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:17 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 5:15 PM gr33n - 2012-12-13 10:13 AM True story. I admitedly know very little about guns. I think most people that own one act responsibly. I have no strong feelings about them although probably fall a little more against then pro except when it come to random acts of violence that involve guns and then I have very strong feelings. As I'm sitting here reading all this debate yesterday and finding it all pretty interesting, my wife calls in a panic. She had just gotten home and our house had been broken into. I fly home and the place was a disaster of a mess. Stuff broken and closets emptied and stuff scattered all over. The guy took some small cash that was laying around and barely anything else. Thank god no one was home at the time. My first thought after that was oh my god, I gotta get a gun. Here's the question. Its a serious question so please serious answers if anyone chooses. If one wants a gun for home self defense why choose a gun and not something like a taser ? Because you may find yourself bringing a tazer to a gun fight. So it comes down to matching force ? For me, yes, it's the only reason to have a gun if you're not hunting. Yep there's nothing like standing in someone elses shoes to get a different view. After yesterday I could probably be more open to owning a gun. Even less doubt that I'd be able to use it. I don't have a gun to shoot someone in my house. I have one "incase". The point is for them not to be in my house in the first place. I have had dogs my entire life... not blood thirsty attack dogs... just dogs. Medium to large, good bark, alert and don't like strangers.... no house I have ever lived in has ever been broken into. Perhaps just a statistical chance... but I firmly believe with all my heart, it is because I have dogs. The gun in the drawer does me no good if a wake up with someone over me. Does me no good if I have to fight to get to it. Does me no good if I am not home. My first advice to you would be get a dog. Most criminals do not want to mess with a barking dog. Not because they are afraid they will get bit... dog might not even do anything. But they do not want the noise or the alert... and all they have to do is go next door where there isn't one. Dogs solve 99% of the problems. The gun is for the 1%.... and simply because I believe in exercising my rights. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK