login
3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon (Page 8)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-12 2:40 PM in reply to: #4532715 |
 Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in OregonBig Appa - 2012-12-12 12:33 PM tuwood - 2012-12-12 12:31 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 2:27 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:24 PM Left Brain - 2012-12-12 3:16 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 2:13 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 2:54 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM No, it can’t be used to save a life. It can be used to kill someone . You can argue that by killing a particular person, you may be saving the life of someone else, but that doesn’t change what the purpose of the “tool” is, and that is to kill someone. A baseball bat and a stapler and a scalpel, and a paring knife can all be used to kill someone, but that is not their purpose. A gun has a single purpose—to kill. Period. That some acts of killing may be more justifiable than others does not in any way change the purpose of the gun. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. Actually the purpose for the tool, in a self defense realm, is to stop the act of aggression. Once the threat is no longer viable you are no longer "legally" allowed to use the weapon. Now, with that said, when using a weapon in self defense you must be prepared to take a life (i.e. it may be the outcome) but it should NEVER be the intention. Someone attacks me, I draw my weapon and fire. I hit them in the shoulder and they go down writhing in pain, I holster my weapon and call 911. The guy would most likely live. Attacks how? Attacks in a way in which I feel my life is in imminent danger and I have no other means of recourse... they have indicated intent and capability, and I have no other option. Right, and tool you choose when you have deemed deadly force appropriate is a gun... or was it the stapler? I am for the banning of pneumatic assault staplers. They are too efficient and people really don't need anything more than a standard desktop stapler. It's not black therefore not "assault" I can't believe you can load so many staples into this thing at one time! |
| 2012-12-12 2:42 PM in reply to: #4532720 |
Elite  6387    | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon mr2tony - 2012-12-12 1:34 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 2:06 PM Afraid is a perfect word. People are afraid, just the way the NRA and the gun sellers like it. Keeps them all in business. But that's what lobbies do, and the NRA is a perfect example. I live in possibly the most violent city in America and I don't walk down the street thinking somebody is going to attack me. What kind of a way is that to live? That said, I am more afraid of some with a legal gun shooting me than a gangbanger from the south side shooting me. Generally gangbangers want to shoot other gangbangers. Muggers usually don't have guns and I can handle myself despite my half-Japanesiosity, or because of my half-Japanesiosity. But dooshbag frat-boy wannabes who have too much money and have seen Boiler Room too many times are always itchin' for a fight, and they don't really care who it's with. And if they have a gun, someone's going to get seriously hurt. Frankly, though, I just go about my business and don't bother anybody. And in turn, people mostly don't bother me. It's a very happy existence, sans gun. mr2tony - 2012-12-12 2:41 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM And this takes me back to ... what are you SO AFRAID OF that you feel you need a gun to protect yourself? Did something happen to you that makes you so paranoid that you feel you need a firearm to go outside? jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. It's a tool that a 5ft woman can use to prevent a 6ft man from raping, robing or committing other violent acts upon her. It's a tool that can used for sport shooting, hunting, self defense or to commit murder. If a person is killed by a gun, throat slit by a scalpel or run over by a car, they are dead, their family will suffer the same loss either way. A government who passes laws that prevents people from protecting and defending themselves and their loved ones is not a government I want to be a part of. There are governments to our north and south that deny their citizens that freedom, I'm not sure what the immigration polices are for those who so desperately want to part of that type of society. Afraid is a poor choice of words. Prepared, realistic, cautious??? all maybe better options. The 2009 violent crime rate was 429.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2009, the murder rate was 5.0 per 100,000 inhabitants. You've got a waaaaaaayyyyyy better chance of being murdered and/or the victim of a violent crime than you do of winning the powerball, yet so many folks still buy powerball tickets. So we have mass shootings, violent crimes, gang violence... but your biggest fear is a frat boy.... perhaps you should not live by a college. |
| 2012-12-12 2:42 PM in reply to: #4532724 |
Master 2725   Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 3:36 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 2:13 PM Oh, c’mon… Last time I checked, the bullseyes on the targets at the shooting range were centered on the head and center of the chest. That’s where you’re trained to shoot, because those are the most likely places where a single shot will kill someone. To say you aren’t “intending” to kill them is disingenuous. It’s one thing to say “I hope that the person who I shoot, however justified I may be, doesn’t die”, it’s another thing to say you aren’t intending to kill them. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 2:54 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM No, it can’t be used to save a life. It can be used to kill someone . You can argue that by killing a particular person, you may be saving the life of someone else, but that doesn’t change what the purpose of the “tool” is, and that is to kill someone. A baseball bat and a stapler and a scalpel, and a paring knife can all be used to kill someone, but that is not their purpose. A gun has a single purpose—to kill. Period. That some acts of killing may be more justifiable than others does not in any way change the purpose of the gun. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. Now, with that said, when using a weapon in self defense you must be prepared to take a life (i.e. it may be the outcome) but it should NEVER be the intention. Center mass is where you aim. Absolutely correct. You have your best chance of hitting your intended target and the best chance of stopping the aggression. Death is simply not the only outcome. I'm not sure what makes you think that you can speak for my intentions if I have to use a firearm in self defense. |
| 2012-12-12 2:44 PM in reply to: #4532727 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-12 2:37 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-12 12:34 PM Afraid is a perfect word. People are afraid, just the way the NRA and the gun sellers like it. Keeps them all in business. But that's what lobbies do, and the NRA is a perfect example. I live in possibly the most violent city in America and I don't walk down the street thinking somebody is going to attack me. What kind of a way is that to live? That said, I am more afraid of some with a legal gun shooting me than a gangbanger from the south side shooting me. Generally gangbangers want to shoot other gangbangers. Muggers usually don't have guns and I can handle myself despite my half-Japanesiosity, or because of my half-Japanesiosity. But dooshbag frat-boy wannabes who have too much money and have seen Boiler Room too many times are always itchin' for a fight, and they don't really care who it's with. And if they have a gun, someone's going to get seriously hurt. Frankly, though, I just go about my business and don't bother anybody. And in turn, people mostly don't bother me. It's a very happy existence, sans gun. Both sides use fear to get what they want you cannot tell me that the anti gun crowd doesn't use fear to help their cause. You're one of the dooshbags I was talking about. |
| 2012-12-12 2:45 PM in reply to: #4532745 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon mr2tony - 2012-12-12 12:44 PM Big Appa - 2012-12-12 2:37 PM You're one of the dooshbags I was talking about. mr2tony - 2012-12-12 12:34 PM Afraid is a perfect word. People are afraid, just the way the NRA and the gun sellers like it. Keeps them all in business. But that's what lobbies do, and the NRA is a perfect example. I live in possibly the most violent city in America and I don't walk down the street thinking somebody is going to attack me. What kind of a way is that to live? That said, I am more afraid of some with a legal gun shooting me than a gangbanger from the south side shooting me. Generally gangbangers want to shoot other gangbangers. Muggers usually don't have guns and I can handle myself despite my half-Japanesiosity, or because of my half-Japanesiosity. But dooshbag frat-boy wannabes who have too much money and have seen Boiler Room too many times are always itchin' for a fight, and they don't really care who it's with. And if they have a gun, someone's going to get seriously hurt. Frankly, though, I just go about my business and don't bother anybody. And in turn, people mostly don't bother me. It's a very happy existence, sans gun. Both sides use fear to get what they want you cannot tell me that the anti gun crowd doesn't use fear to help their cause. I have two guns. |
| 2012-12-12 2:46 PM in reply to: #4532739 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-12 1:42 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 3:36 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 2:13 PM Oh, c’mon… Last time I checked, the bullseyes on the targets at the shooting range were centered on the head and center of the chest. That’s where you’re trained to shoot, because those are the most likely places where a single shot will kill someone. To say you aren’t “intending” to kill them is disingenuous. It’s one thing to say “I hope that the person who I shoot, however justified I may be, doesn’t die”, it’s another thing to say you aren’t intending to kill them. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 2:54 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM No, it can’t be used to save a life. It can be used to kill someone . You can argue that by killing a particular person, you may be saving the life of someone else, but that doesn’t change what the purpose of the “tool” is, and that is to kill someone. A baseball bat and a stapler and a scalpel, and a paring knife can all be used to kill someone, but that is not their purpose. A gun has a single purpose—to kill. Period. That some acts of killing may be more justifiable than others does not in any way change the purpose of the gun. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. Now, with that said, when using a weapon in self defense you must be prepared to take a life (i.e. it may be the outcome) but it should NEVER be the intention. Center mass is where you aim. Absolutely correct. You have your best chance of hitting your intended target and the best chance of stopping the aggression. Death is simply not the only outcome. I'm not sure what makes you think that you can speak for my intentions if I have to use a firearm in self defense. Death may not happen, but when you shoot center mass it most certainly is the intent. You are on your own here. That is just silly. You are stopping the aggression by attempting to have the aggressor bleed out within the next minute. Edited by powerman 2012-12-12 2:47 PM |
| 2012-12-12 3:03 PM in reply to: #4532731 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon powerman - 2012-12-12 3:38 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:33 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 3:18 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:13 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 2:54 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM No, it can’t be used to save a life. It can be used to kill someone . You can argue that by killing a particular person, you may be saving the life of someone else, but that doesn’t change what the purpose of the “tool” is, and that is to kill someone. A baseball bat and a stapler and a scalpel, and a paring knife can all be used to kill someone, but that is not their purpose. A gun has a single purpose—to kill. Period. That some acts of killing may be more justifiable than others does not in any way change the purpose of the gun. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. Actually the purpose for the tool, in a self defense realm, is to stop the act of aggression. Once the threat is no longer viable you are no longer "legally" allowed to use the weapon. Now, with that said, when using a weapon in self defense you must be prepared to take a life (i.e. it may be the outcome) but it should NEVER be the intention. Someone attacks me, I draw my weapon and fire. I hit them in the shoulder and they go down writhing in pain, I holster my weapon and call 911. The guy would most likely live. Seriously, that is some creative gymnastics. A gun is a weapon capable of delivering deadly force. If all you want to do is wound or injure, there are many more tools for that job. Guns are for a purpose... just because some choose to use them as a hole punch does not change what they are. I completely disagree how many times have you heard on the news of someone getting shot and NOT dying? My guess is plenty. Yes a gun is capable of delivering deadly force and since the only time you should use one is in cases where your life is in danger then I say it is the most appropriate weapon use, but death is NOT the only outcome. On the job you have more options and procedure dictates that you follow a use of force continuum but honestly a private citizen should just walk away in all situations that they can... walk away is always the best option. I would suggest that over nearly all other steps. If you can use verbal commands you can walk away. If you can use open hand techniques then you can walk away, if you can use less lethal then you can walk away. That's fine if that's how you want to play it.... but I can tell you, if I was to ever pull a trigger on someone, injuring would not be the intent. If they lived, it would be by chance, and not intent. I deemed that deadly force was justified, and I decided to use DEADLY force. If I decide to use less than lethal force, I can use pepper spray or Bee Gees, or a bat... but a gun is a gun.... Police officers use a gun when deadly force is warranted... not for compliance, not to wound, not for harassment... deadly force. bold one: exactly my point of the other post. If you can use those options as a citizen then you can walk away. bold two: correct, but again that is not the only outcome... deadly force is warranted and a possible outcome, but not the only outcome. If an officer decides to fire their weapon at an aggressor they do so knowing that death may be the outcome, but not to ensure that outcome happens... i.e. if the aggressor goes down writhing in pain they stop shooting. Same should be true for civilian use. |
| 2012-12-12 3:08 PM in reply to: #4532792 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-12 2:03 PM bold one: exactly my point of the other post. If you can use those options as a citizen then you can walk away. bold two: correct, but again that is not the only outcome... deadly force is warranted and a possible outcome, but not the only outcome. If an officer decides to fire their weapon at an aggressor they do so knowing that death may be the outcome, but not to ensure that outcome happens... i.e. if the aggressor goes down writhing in pain they stop shooting. Same should be true for civilian use. So what you are telling me, is that when you hit someone center mass, and they stop their aggression, you holster your weapon and immediately begin giving first aid... because you know the chances of them dying are high, and after all, that is not your intent... just an unfortunate "possibility" of shooting someone in the chest? |
| 2012-12-12 3:10 PM in reply to: #4532792 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-12 3:03 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 3:38 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:33 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 3:18 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:13 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 2:54 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM No, it can’t be used to save a life. It can be used to kill someone . You can argue that by killing a particular person, you may be saving the life of someone else, but that doesn’t change what the purpose of the “tool” is, and that is to kill someone. A baseball bat and a stapler and a scalpel, and a paring knife can all be used to kill someone, but that is not their purpose. A gun has a single purpose—to kill. Period. That some acts of killing may be more justifiable than others does not in any way change the purpose of the gun. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. Actually the purpose for the tool, in a self defense realm, is to stop the act of aggression. Once the threat is no longer viable you are no longer "legally" allowed to use the weapon. Now, with that said, when using a weapon in self defense you must be prepared to take a life (i.e. it may be the outcome) but it should NEVER be the intention. Someone attacks me, I draw my weapon and fire. I hit them in the shoulder and they go down writhing in pain, I holster my weapon and call 911. The guy would most likely live. Seriously, that is some creative gymnastics. A gun is a weapon capable of delivering deadly force. If all you want to do is wound or injure, there are many more tools for that job. Guns are for a purpose... just because some choose to use them as a hole punch does not change what they are. I completely disagree how many times have you heard on the news of someone getting shot and NOT dying? My guess is plenty. Yes a gun is capable of delivering deadly force and since the only time you should use one is in cases where your life is in danger then I say it is the most appropriate weapon use, but death is NOT the only outcome. On the job you have more options and procedure dictates that you follow a use of force continuum but honestly a private citizen should just walk away in all situations that they can... walk away is always the best option. I would suggest that over nearly all other steps. If you can use verbal commands you can walk away. If you can use open hand techniques then you can walk away, if you can use less lethal then you can walk away. That's fine if that's how you want to play it.... but I can tell you, if I was to ever pull a trigger on someone, injuring would not be the intent. If they lived, it would be by chance, and not intent. I deemed that deadly force was justified, and I decided to use DEADLY force. If I decide to use less than lethal force, I can use pepper spray or Bee Gees, or a bat... but a gun is a gun.... Police officers use a gun when deadly force is warranted... not for compliance, not to wound, not for harassment... deadly force. bold one: exactly my point of the other post. If you can use those options as a citizen then you can walk away. bold two: correct, but again that is not the only outcome... deadly force is warranted and a possible outcome, but not the only outcome. If an officer decides to fire their weapon at an aggressor they do so knowing that death may be the outcome, but not to ensure that outcome happens... i.e. if the aggressor goes down writhing in pain they stop shooting. Same should be true for civilian use. If the assailant goes down writhing in pain and doesn’t die because the bullet hit them in the shoulder or leg, it’s because the officer missed his or her intended target. If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn’t have been shooting at them in the first place. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2012-12-12 3:13 PM |
| 2012-12-12 3:13 PM in reply to: #4532800 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon powerman - 2012-12-12 4:08 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 2:03 PM bold one: exactly my point of the other post. If you can use those options as a citizen then you can walk away. bold two: correct, but again that is not the only outcome... deadly force is warranted and a possible outcome, but not the only outcome. If an officer decides to fire their weapon at an aggressor they do so knowing that death may be the outcome, but not to ensure that outcome happens... i.e. if the aggressor goes down writhing in pain they stop shooting. Same should be true for civilian use. So what you are telling me, is that when you hit someone center mass, and they stop their aggression, you holster your weapon and immediately begin giving first aid... because you know the chances of them dying are high, and after all, that is not your intent... just an unfortunate "possibility" of shooting someone in the chest? I'd call 911, sure. Give first aid, maybe not so much, since I doubt I would have proper PPE with me and I can't be sure what that guy is carrying. Flip side question for you.... what your telling me then is that if you shoot someone but flinched a bit and hit them in the shoulder, but they go down writhing on the ground you walk up and put one in the head point blank... because you know... when you decided to pull the trigger your INTENT was to kill them? |
| 2012-12-12 3:15 PM in reply to: #4532807 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 4:10 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 3:03 PM If the assailant goes down writhing in pain and doesn’t die because the bullet hit them in the shoulder or leg, it’s because the officer missed his or her intended target. If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn’t have been shooting at them in the first place. powerman - 2012-12-12 3:38 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:33 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 3:18 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:13 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 2:54 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM No, it can’t be used to save a life. It can be used to kill someone . You can argue that by killing a particular person, you may be saving the life of someone else, but that doesn’t change what the purpose of the “tool” is, and that is to kill someone. A baseball bat and a stapler and a scalpel, and a paring knife can all be used to kill someone, but that is not their purpose. A gun has a single purpose—to kill. Period. That some acts of killing may be more justifiable than others does not in any way change the purpose of the gun. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. Actually the purpose for the tool, in a self defense realm, is to stop the act of aggression. Once the threat is no longer viable you are no longer "legally" allowed to use the weapon. Now, with that said, when using a weapon in self defense you must be prepared to take a life (i.e. it may be the outcome) but it should NEVER be the intention. Someone attacks me, I draw my weapon and fire. I hit them in the shoulder and they go down writhing in pain, I holster my weapon and call 911. The guy would most likely live. Seriously, that is some creative gymnastics. A gun is a weapon capable of delivering deadly force. If all you want to do is wound or injure, there are many more tools for that job. Guns are for a purpose... just because some choose to use them as a hole punch does not change what they are. I completely disagree how many times have you heard on the news of someone getting shot and NOT dying? My guess is plenty. Yes a gun is capable of delivering deadly force and since the only time you should use one is in cases where your life is in danger then I say it is the most appropriate weapon use, but death is NOT the only outcome. On the job you have more options and procedure dictates that you follow a use of force continuum but honestly a private citizen should just walk away in all situations that they can... walk away is always the best option. I would suggest that over nearly all other steps. If you can use verbal commands you can walk away. If you can use open hand techniques then you can walk away, if you can use less lethal then you can walk away. That's fine if that's how you want to play it.... but I can tell you, if I was to ever pull a trigger on someone, injuring would not be the intent. If they lived, it would be by chance, and not intent. I deemed that deadly force was justified, and I decided to use DEADLY force. If I decide to use less than lethal force, I can use pepper spray or Bee Gees, or a bat... but a gun is a gun.... Police officers use a gun when deadly force is warranted... not for compliance, not to wound, not for harassment... deadly force. bold one: exactly my point of the other post. If you can use those options as a citizen then you can walk away. bold two: correct, but again that is not the only outcome... deadly force is warranted and a possible outcome, but not the only outcome. If an officer decides to fire their weapon at an aggressor they do so knowing that death may be the outcome, but not to ensure that outcome happens... i.e. if the aggressor goes down writhing in pain they stop shooting. Same should be true for civilian use. Sorry that is just plain wrong, incorrect... no other way to say it... simply wrong. |
| 2012-12-12 3:16 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon sorry gotta go, gotta pick up the wife in 15 minutes. |
| 2012-12-12 3:16 PM in reply to: #4532815 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-12 3:15 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 4:10 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 3:03 PM If the assailant goes down writhing in pain and doesn’t die because the bullet hit them in the shoulder or leg, it’s because the officer missed his or her intended target. If the officer’s intention was not to kill the person, he/she shouldn’t have been shooting at them in the first place. powerman - 2012-12-12 3:38 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:33 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 3:18 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 1:13 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 2:54 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM No, it can’t be used to save a life. It can be used to kill someone . You can argue that by killing a particular person, you may be saving the life of someone else, but that doesn’t change what the purpose of the “tool” is, and that is to kill someone. A baseball bat and a stapler and a scalpel, and a paring knife can all be used to kill someone, but that is not their purpose. A gun has a single purpose—to kill. Period. That some acts of killing may be more justifiable than others does not in any way change the purpose of the gun. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. Actually the purpose for the tool, in a self defense realm, is to stop the act of aggression. Once the threat is no longer viable you are no longer "legally" allowed to use the weapon. Now, with that said, when using a weapon in self defense you must be prepared to take a life (i.e. it may be the outcome) but it should NEVER be the intention. Someone attacks me, I draw my weapon and fire. I hit them in the shoulder and they go down writhing in pain, I holster my weapon and call 911. The guy would most likely live. Seriously, that is some creative gymnastics. A gun is a weapon capable of delivering deadly force. If all you want to do is wound or injure, there are many more tools for that job. Guns are for a purpose... just because some choose to use them as a hole punch does not change what they are. I completely disagree how many times have you heard on the news of someone getting shot and NOT dying? My guess is plenty. Yes a gun is capable of delivering deadly force and since the only time you should use one is in cases where your life is in danger then I say it is the most appropriate weapon use, but death is NOT the only outcome. On the job you have more options and procedure dictates that you follow a use of force continuum but honestly a private citizen should just walk away in all situations that they can... walk away is always the best option. I would suggest that over nearly all other steps. If you can use verbal commands you can walk away. If you can use open hand techniques then you can walk away, if you can use less lethal then you can walk away. That's fine if that's how you want to play it.... but I can tell you, if I was to ever pull a trigger on someone, injuring would not be the intent. If they lived, it would be by chance, and not intent. I deemed that deadly force was justified, and I decided to use DEADLY force. If I decide to use less than lethal force, I can use pepper spray or Bee Gees, or a bat... but a gun is a gun.... Police officers use a gun when deadly force is warranted... not for compliance, not to wound, not for harassment... deadly force. bold one: exactly my point of the other post. If you can use those options as a citizen then you can walk away. bold two: correct, but again that is not the only outcome... deadly force is warranted and a possible outcome, but not the only outcome. If an officer decides to fire their weapon at an aggressor they do so knowing that death may be the outcome, but not to ensure that outcome happens... i.e. if the aggressor goes down writhing in pain they stop shooting. Same should be true for civilian use. Sorry that is just plain wrong, incorrect... no other way to say it... simply wrong. How do you figure? BTW - your intitial post about being attacked had you shooting the person in the shoulder to stop the attack.....there was no flinching. |
| 2012-12-12 3:20 PM in reply to: #4532813 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-12 2:13 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 4:08 PM Sous - 2012-12-12 2:03 PM bold one: exactly my point of the other post. If you can use those options as a citizen then you can walk away. bold two: correct, but again that is not the only outcome... deadly force is warranted and a possible outcome, but not the only outcome. If an officer decides to fire their weapon at an aggressor they do so knowing that death may be the outcome, but not to ensure that outcome happens... i.e. if the aggressor goes down writhing in pain they stop shooting. Same should be true for civilian use. So what you are telling me, is that when you hit someone center mass, and they stop their aggression, you holster your weapon and immediately begin giving first aid... because you know the chances of them dying are high, and after all, that is not your intent... just an unfortunate "possibility" of shooting someone in the chest? I'd call 911, sure. Give first aid, maybe not so much, since I doubt I would have proper PPE with me and I can't be sure what that guy is carrying. Flip side question for you.... what your telling me then is that if you shoot someone but flinched a bit and hit them in the shoulder, but they go down writhing on the ground you walk up and put one in the head point blank... because you know... when you decided to pull the trigger your INTENT was to kill them? No, more than likely I put 3 in him until he is down and I know it's over. Unlike Hollywood, people do not just get hit and fall to the ground "in pain". If deadly force is justified, then that is what you do. Walking up and putting a bullet in somebody's head on the ground is called an execution... I'm not an executioner. If I never intend to inflict a wound able to cause death, then I would never carry a gun... I would carry a tazer, or pepper spray. Or load my gun with rubber bullets or shot. It's really simple. I really can't comprehend your reasons to defend this position. |
| 2012-12-12 3:44 PM in reply to: #4532751 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon I don't know if it was self defence or not but Sous sure did kill this thread. |
| 2012-12-12 3:54 PM in reply to: #4532860 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-12 3:44 PM I don't know if it was self defence or not but Sous sure did kill this thread. It was not his intention. |
| 2012-12-12 3:59 PM in reply to: #4532590 |
Elite 4435 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon crusevegas - 2012-12-13 6:36 AM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. It's a tool that a 5ft woman can use to prevent a 6ft man from raping, robing or committing other violent acts upon her. It's a tool that can used for sport shooting, hunting, self defense or to commit murder. If a person is killed by a gun, throat slit by a scalpel or run over by a car, they are dead, their family will suffer the same loss either way. A government who passes laws that prevents people from protecting and defending themselves and their loved ones is not a government I want to be a part of. There are governments to our north and south that deny their citizens that freedom, I'm not sure what the immigration polices are for those who so desperately want to part of that type of society. I think unless you've lived somewhere where this is the norm it's difficult to have an objective point of view - same for me I have not lived in a country where carrying a gun is something lots of people do. However I will say I have lived in the UK (34 years) Greece (5 years) Australia (9 years), Only in Greece did I see guns not on police - the boss where I worked had three private security guards who carried weapons as the nightlife there is corrupt with protection rackets etc. I felt less safe around those guys than anywhere else. I dont think our society here is less violent, bad guys still get hold of guns. A mass murderer will do what he/she has to do. However I think when you have in excess of 1 billion firearms in the US - it's gonna be tough to suddenly change that law. Australia may have changed their laws but we are a small nation of 20million. I am sure all the good guys handed in their guns, I am also sure the bad guys didn't. Both sides of this argument have pros and cons. You just gotta hope the services that are there to protect civilians are armed and well trained. |
| 2012-12-12 4:07 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Personally I would shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand and then twirl my gun on my finger and blow the smoke off the end of the barrel. |
| 2012-12-12 4:48 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon I think the important thing here is we need to make driver's license's much more difficult to get. Have you seen the incompetent people who are allowed to drive around drinking coffee, texting, smoking a cigarette and not paying attention? That's my first action as POTUS |
| 2012-12-12 6:14 PM in reply to: #4532895 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon tuwood - 2012-12-12 4:07 PM Personally I would shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand and then twirl my gun on my finger and blow the smoke off the end of the barrel. Don't forget the catchphrase. Something like, "You just got taken to the tuwood-shed, hombre." Or something. |
| 2012-12-12 6:32 PM in reply to: #4533009 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 6:14 PM tuwood - 2012-12-12 4:07 PM Don't forget the catchphrase. Something like, "You just got taken to the tuwood-shed, hombre." Or something. Personally I would shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand and then twirl my gun on my finger and blow the smoke off the end of the barrel. /like |
| 2012-12-12 6:54 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
Champion 6046 New York, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon 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??? |
| 2012-12-12 6:57 PM in reply to: #4533039 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon TriToy - 2012-12-12 6:54 PM Uhh, don't know, but there goes your background checks and safety tests. It's like someone stealing a car and hitting someone with it. 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??? And does that URL also have an article on cheese??? Oh and if you go back a few pages, you'll see me thank God that it was a semi auto. Semi auto and automatic weapons jam. Bolt actions and revolvers virtually never jam. |
| 2012-12-12 8:21 PM in reply to: #4533039 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon 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??? define locked up safely. The owner could have had it locked up in a safe but the person stole his key chain etc... I do think this turns out to be a great example of more laws and restrictions not stopping idiots like this. Get rid of all rifles and he just steals somebodies handgun. Do all the background checks and mandatory wait periods in the world and it doesn't prevent any of this. The idiot who chose to break the law and kill people is the problem. period. |
| 2012-12-12 8:49 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Today, over 20 people were killed by drunk drivers in the US. We need to get cars out of the hands of citizens! I feel for the victims and their families of any crime. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK