Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If the purpose is to maintain a well-prepared militia, would you also concur that those owning (or even permitted to own) these arms should also be subject to activation as part of a state or Federal militia? 

 

We do have Selective Service though the age range is pretty limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

If your rationale is that firearms should  not be restricted due to their defensive uses, and handguns are not useful defensively, why should there be no restrictions on handguns?  Surely not to encourage a false sense of security in owning one. 

 

[De-snarked] Since you replied, I'll assume you actually want me to clarify things for you. I'll try to give you the short version, though I've posted this info before. So, here's my current thinking on the subject of firearms regulation in the US, in list format, and attempting a logical progression of ideas:

 

1. The right to self defense is a basic human right.

2. In order for one to be able to exercise this right, it may be necessary to use a weapon as a force multiplier.

3. In US law, the 2nd Amendment guarantees (the right) private (of the people) ownership (keep) and ability to carry around (bear) arms (weapons). This is upheld by DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.

4. Also upheld is that self defense is included, and that the government cannot ban weapons commonly used in self defense. The Heller case determined that the total ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional.

5. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good.

6. When considering gun control as an option, it's important that any new laws don't infringe on any of the above. 

7. Any new law (for anything) should be effective, not a feel good measure, not a political posturing.

8. We do not have a general "gun violence" problem in the US that needs to be addressed by gun legislation. The numbers and statistics bear out that the vast majority of gun violence is concentrated in small areas and that the vast majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal.

9. Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms.

10. This leaves the trend of mass public shootings (those not related to gang activity) we have in the US as the final major area of concerns as it pertains to US gun violence.

10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.

10b. Gun control might be worth considering in addressing part of the problem of mitigation of these events. There are other areas that still need consideration as part of mitigation, including improving police responses to mass shootings. We're getting there, but it's going to take time for departments to be pushed into putting good resource officers (like the SWAT team member who eliminated a school shooter) in place instead of cowards.

10c. TIME is the most critical factor in mitigating mass shooting casualties. The area needs to be clear to bring in medical aid as quickly as possible. This is fundamental to trauma care.

 

Now, let's look at [De-snarked] Rifles vs pistols.

 

Rifles send bullets into a body with massive kinetic energy. Not only does the projectile tear through tissue in its path, but the hydrostatic shock from a rifle round is sufficient to destroy tissue, including organ tissue.

 

Handguns of any non-magnum caliber simply drill a hole through tissue, crushing tissue in their path. They typically have poor expansion compared to rifles, so even if the caliber (diameter) of the bullet and weight are the the same or greater than a rifle round, they crush considerably less tissue. Hydrostatic shock from handguns creates a temporary wound cavity that's not sufficient to tear tissue. Tissues stretch and rebound.

 

So, as another document from our activist AG here in WA that I posted way upthread points out: Patients shot in an organ with a handgun end up with an operable wound that's basically a hole in the organ. Those shot in the same organ with a rifle have a destroyed organ.

 

Now, let's look at the problem of limiting the tools of mass shooters in such a way that it helps mitigate the damage they can do, while still preserving the ability of an ordinary citizen to defend themselves. Oh, and don't get confused here and think that I'm talking about general gun control or gun safety measures, like safe storage so that unauthorized persons can't get their hands on a relative or friend's weapon. I am specifically talking about limitations on the tools themselves.

 

The old Assault Weapon Ban limited guns based on their features. These were largely cosmetic or ergonomic in nature, and therefore stupidly easy to engineer around. There was also a magazine capacity limitation component, down to 10 rounds. Pre-existing firearms and magazines were grandfathered in. So, once the law was announced people stocked up. And they've been stocking up ever since.

 

In my professional opinion, the main feature that we should be looking at in regards to mitigation (keeping in mind, I don't believe we should look here first, but that I never said we shouldn't look here . . . one of your apparent points of confusion in the above quote) is the magazine capacity. Now, in that reply you quoted to Old Man, he had said he'd limit both pistols and rifles to single digit magazine capacities. Let's break that down.

 

Does limiting magazine capacities to this low number make the tool so ineffective for self defense that it infringes on that aspect of someone's rights? For a rifle, not so much. For a handgun, possibly. Now, why would I say that?

 

Well, the goal of a self defense shooting is to stop the attack. Period. If someone has the means, motive and opportunity to kill you or do you great bodily harm, you have the right to engage them with lethal force. But although the force is lethal, the goal of its employment is to prevent harm to the victim. So, how does that work?

 

In an ideal world, the presence of the firearm makes the assailant reconsider his life's choices an leave.

 

Next best outcome is that a wound is inflicted, which is non-fatal but makes the assailant stop attacking.


These are both called psychological stops. The assailant has only stopped the assault because they have decided for themselves to stop the assault. What if they don't? Then you need a mechanical stop. That means your shot has inflicted enough damage to cause loss of consciousness or ability to act by either blood loss, shock, or a direct CNS hit.

 

So, this [De-snarked] is the difference between limiting capacities of rifles and pistols: Rifles are very good at creating a mechanical stop. You don't need a very large capacity magazine in most self defense situations calling for a mechanical stop for a rifle to get the job done. Pistols, on the other hand, suck at achieving mechanical stops. You need to bring as many rounds to the fight as you possibly can if you're using a pistol for self defense. Limiting the capacity of a service caliber handgun (9mm, .40S/W, .45ACP, .38SPL) severely limits its ability to effect a mechanical stop.

 

So, why is it OK to let potential mass shooters have higher round counts in pistols? Because you have other components to mitigation. Barring a CNS hit, the vast majority of pistol shooting victims (upward of 80%) survive if given prompt medical treatment. It is TIME that is larger factor in handgun shootings.

 

I hope this answers your question.

 

EDIT: It's close to my bed time, and on a re-read it seems my natural sarcasm has rendered some parts of this post as snarky. My apologies for that, and I'll go back over it and de-snark it later, after I've had some sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms

This is inaccurate as written. Restricting individual access to firearms is an established and effective deterrent to suicide, it's one of the reasons for the legal standards around firearm access in 5150 code. If you are indicating that suicide rates are not affected by availability of firearms in society, which I gather by the context of the rest of this, that's entirely possible. I don't have expertise in that area. 

 

I found your list of reasoning around your position thoughtful and articulate, and while I do not reach the same conclusions ("rational minds may differ") I appreciate your explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That clarifies your views, which is helpful.

 

Now, if we believe that individuals, for self-defense, should have access to high-round magazine handguns, what should our police officers be equipped with?  I find it difficult to believe that they should have weapons inferior to those readily available to the general public.  " You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good."  Ensuring that law enforcement officers are equipped to best perform their job, with the least possible risk to their own lives and safety, seems like something in the public good, at least to me.

 

Now, I am not here referring to SWAT teams or other specialized, and more heavily armed, police officers.  Rather, I am referring to the constable on the beat, or the first responders to a police service call, or the guy pulling a speeder over.  It seems reasonable that they should be armed in a manner equal, if not superior, to the individual (who may intend them, or others, bodily harm) on the street.

 

We can, of course, be concerned with rogue officers, but I suggest they are not markedly more likely than rogue elements outside the police force.  If it is not acceptable to restrict access to firearms by the general populace, then there is no greater reason to restrict access to legitimate law enforcement officers.  To the extent systemic issues exist within law enforcement, those underlying issues should be addressed (just as you suggest broader societal issues should be addressed, attacking motive rather than means to commit violent acts).

 

I present this as issues for discussion, and not as any refutation of your points above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

what should our police officers be equipped with? 

 

Well, you Canadians appear to be violent folks according to that chart from the Vox article, so you're definitely going to want a well-armed force. ;)

 

In the US, police officers generally carry a 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP handgun with a double stack magazine. Glock, S&W and SIG are popular brands. (I think the lists there are proper order of popularity.) Locally, and this is typical in most locales here in the US, they also carry selective fire AR-style short barrel rifles (10.5-11" or so barrel length) in their vehicles. They're armored with external body armor. They have less-lethal options including batons, pepper spray and TASERs. Which of those they carry seems to vary, but usually at least one is carried. I haven't seen a local officer without at least a TASER. They also have body armor. One officer I dealt with yesterday morning was also carrying a Gerber fixed bladed knife which looked like either a Strongarm or a Prodigy. So, our guys are pretty well armed while on patrol. They also have pretty decent training, despite all of the negative press they get for recorded miss rates. Certainly enough training to give them the edge in most fights. 

 

Edit: For clarification of my background on this, I currently work as a Security Lead in a hospital in Seattle and deal both with the police and with the criminals they send us on a regular basis. I'm also a former Military Police officer.

 

Edit the Second: Our police also have one other important weapon: Numbers. If any potential for a violent encounter is expected, they show up in force. If an unexpected violent encounter unfolds, they radio for backup, which responds rapidly. Speaking of arrival, their vehicles are very well-equipped SUVs, which are themselves an important defensive tool. In other words, the police have many, many advantages in handling violent encounters.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing folks refer to guns as defensive weapons.  I'm curious where you come up with this definition. 

 

Guns are one of the most singularly offensive weapons you can attain (as a civilian). Their sole use as defense is a deterrent -- raising your offense capabilities to what you hope is further than your opponent is willing to go.  That's not a defensive weapon - that's a highly offensive weapon.

 

Note:  offensive here as in "offense vs. defense"/attacking not annoyance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Simon said:

I keep seeing folks refer to guns as defensive weapons.  I'm curious where you come up with this definition. 

 

IMO, this is splitting hairs. There are no "defensive" or "offensive" weapons. They are all just weapons. If you use them when you're trying to prevent someone from harming you, then you're committing assault or homicide with the mitigating factor of the action being required for self defense. In this case, you're making an affirmative defense. This means you're admitting to inflicting harm on someone else, but are arguing that self defense exemptions in your local use of force laws will mean  you don't get charged or will be acquitted if you go to trial. An affirmative defense shifts burden of proof onto the defendant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, on a similar vein to Simon's post about terminology, I have a pet peeve. A lot of gun writers, and posters on gun forums, refer to criminals as "goblins" or the like. As in, "That guy shot two goblins who broke into his house. Good riddance." That really  bothers me. If you aren't mature enough to deal with the fact that you may kill another human in self defense if you chose a firearm for the purpose, then you're probably not mature enough to own a gun. I think this originated with ex-military gun writers, who go back to old school dehumanization tactics as part of their indoctrination. My generation didn't get that so much, but go not too far back and you're into the era of referring to enemy combatants by racial or ethnic slurs. Which is just distasteful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.

 

Firstly, I really enjoyed the thorough nature of your lengthy post.  Well thought out ideas all the way through.

 

Red flag laws, however, are incredibly dicey.  Read up on the process to get off a no-fly list for an example of how incredibly inefficiently and unfairly a government process can be implemented (info below).

 

I don't see how anyone in good conscience would forfeit their natural right to self-defense to the same bureaucrats that came up with the unbelievable garbage below.

 

Imagine this scenario.  You make a snarky comment on Trump's twitter feed because he's making his usual buffoonish tweets.

 

Suddenly you can't fly anywhere - ever again.  And if Red Flag laws are tied to no-fly lists - You can't own a firearm either.  Ever.  With no legal recourse (or at least any that is financially feasible for 99% of us).

 

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-youre-no-fly-list/

 

Snippet:

If you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, and the TSC determines that you are on the No Fly List, DHS TRIP will send you a letter informing you of your status on the No Fly List and providing the option to submit and receive additional information. If you choose that option, DHS TRIP will provide a second letter identifying the general criterion under which you have been placed on the No Fly List and possibly including an unclassified summary of the reasons for your inclusion on the list. You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the list, and in some cases the government will choose not to provide any summary at all. The government also will not provide you any of the evidence it relied upon in deciding to place you on the list, and it may also withhold information in its possession that undercuts its basis for putting you on the list. Finally, the government does not provide a live hearing at which you could testify or give you an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

IMO, this is splitting hairs. There are no "defensive" or "offensive" weapons. They are all just weapons. If you use them when you're trying to prevent someone from harming you, then you're committing assault or homicide with the mitigating factor of the action being required for self defense. In this case, you're making an affirmative defense. This means you're admitting to inflicting harm on someone else, but are arguing that self defense exemptions in your local use of force laws will mean  you don't get charged or will be acquitted if you go to trial. An affirmative defense shifts burden of proof onto the defendant.

 

As an RPGer if nothing else you know better than that.

A shield is a primarily defensive weapon. It has some offensive capabilities, but it is designed first and foremost as a defense.

A gun is a near-exclusively offensive weapon. It has no defensive capabilities (apart from a very poorly-advised potential to be used as a shield/blocking device).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

Red flag laws, however, are incredibly dicey. 

 

I agree on the dicey-ness of said laws, which is why that comment came with a caveat in the prior post. But there's a very large gap in legal interventions for all sorts of situations. When a close female friend came to work one day covered in bruises up and down her arms and face from her drunken boyfriend, her restraining order was looking pretty thin compared to the jackass's gun collection. Not to mention the number of times mass shooters were correctly identified before the act was committed (that gap between the inciting incident and the shooting discussed in the Beau video up thread), but went on to shoot for lack of legal intervention. So, this is an area where if the law is written in a way that has enough provisions for due process, I'm OK taking the risk to my rights. At the end of the day, I'd rather have my friends and people like her, and other shooting victims alive than have my firearms. Losing a friend is a heck of a lot worse than losing an object.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Simon said:

As an RPGer if nothing else you know better than that.

 

As a former soldier, I know the differences between a weapon and armor.

 

17 minutes ago, Simon said:

A shield is a primarily defensive weapon. It has some offensive capabilities, but it is designed first and foremost as a defense.

 

A shield isn't a weapon at all, though it has some offensive use.

 

17 minutes ago, Simon said:

A gun is a near-exclusively offensive weapon. It has no defensive capabilities (apart from a very poorly-advised potential to be used as a shield/blocking device).

 

This makes me think you think I said a gun was a defensive weapon. Guns are simply weapons. Weapons are things intended to inflict harm. The whys and the justifications for inflicting that harm aren't related to the design of the object. If the primary function of a thing is to inflict trauma on living tissue, it's a weapon. There's no need to label it as offensive or defensive. Some people may own weapons primarily to use in self defense situations, but that doesn't change the nature of the weapon.

 

Edit: Although I don't like using dictionaries to make a point, in this case the dictionary agrees with me, so I'll use it to make my point (search result for a define:weapon google search):

 

weap·on

/ˈwepən/

Learn to pronounce

noun

noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons

a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

"nuclear weapons"

a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.

"resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armory"

 

shield

/SHēld/

Learn to pronounce

noun

noun: shield; plural noun: shields

1.

a broad piece of metal or another suitable material, held by straps or a handle attached on one side, used as a protection against blows or missiles.

 

Edit: Aside from the shield bit, I don't really disagree with you here. I'm just thinking that didn't come through in my prior response. Probably the lack of sleep thing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that throughout our society there is a general use of guns as defensive weapons that is both pervasive and misleading.  They are not good at self defense -- there are much better ways to defend oneself from an attack.  The presentation of guns as defensive is extremely pervasive throughout our society and a large part of the reason (IMO) that we can't get past the 2A (and we really only pay attention to the second half of it) to actually address the problem that the US has with firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just say two things. First, I agree that firearms are problematic choices for self defense and not without drawbacks. Every option has its pros and cons. Second, I'll say that I know you have a martial arts background and experience in working with your local PD (IIRC, those old conversations have probably been pruned by now), so I respect that you have an informed opinion, though I don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not commente3d on the gun discussion because I have no competence in any of the relevant issues. Pattern Ghost's explanation of the different effects between rifles and handguns makes me feel a bit less ignorant, though, so thank you PG.

 

(OK, at least I know that cops can't really just shoot the gun out of the perp's hand. That's fiction. And impossible. A friend of mine once encountered a coworker who did not know that!)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I have not commente3d on the gun discussion because I have no competence in any of the relevant issues. Pattern Ghost's explanation of the different effects between rifles and handguns makes me feel a bit less ignorant, though, so thank you PG.

 

(OK, at least I know that cops can't really just shoot the gun out of the perp's hand. That's fiction. And impossible. A friend of mine once encountered a coworker who did not know that!)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

You can if you have three things, Dean. You have to have thousands of hours on the range, like shooting every day for eight + hours straight, reflexes like a cat, and the luck of the leprechauns that the guy isn't moving fast. I say this because it's been done, but the officer reported he was shooting center mass and hadn't realized the guy had moved his hand

CES  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Well, you Canadians appear to be violent folks according to that chart from the Vox article, so you're definitely going to want a well-armed force. ;)

 

In the US, police officers generally carry a 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP handgun with a double stack magazine. Glock, S&W and SIG are popular brands. (I think the lists there are proper order of popularity.) Locally, and this is typical in most locales here in the US, they also carry selective fire AR-style short barrel rifles (10.5-11" or so barrel length) in their vehicles. They're armored with external body armor. They have less-lethal options including batons, pepper spray and TASERs. Which of those they carry seems to vary, but usually at least one is carried. I haven't seen a local officer without at least a TASER. They also have body armor. One officer I dealt with yesterday morning was also carrying a Gerber fixed bladed knife which looked like either a Strongarm or a Prodigy. So, our guys are pretty well armed while on patrol.

 

My question here comes down to "how does that compare to what an individual taking full advantage of his Second Amendment rights can possess and carry?"  Practically, law enforcement has to step up their own armaments to meet or beat the "bad guys".

 

6 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

They also have pretty decent training, despite all of the negative press they get for recorded miss rates. Certainly enough training to give them the edge in most fights.

 

So if they are well trained and have significant miss rates, how great a shot are all those average individuals, much less the elderly or small female individual who bought into owning a gun for their own self-defense?  Bullets that miss their intended target don't just disappear, as we all know.

 

5 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I agree on the dicey-ness of said laws, which is why that comment came with a caveat in the prior post. But there's a very large gap in legal interventions for all sorts of situations. When a close female friend came to work one day covered in bruises up and down her arms and face from her drunken boyfriend, her restraining order was looking pretty thin compared to the jackass's gun collection. Not to mention the number of times mass shooters were correctly identified before the act was committed (that gap between the inciting incident and the shooting discussed in the Beau video up thread), but went on to shoot for lack of legal intervention. So, this is an area where if the law is written in a way that has enough provisions for due process, I'm OK taking the risk to my rights. At the end of the day, I'd rather have my friends and people like her, and other shooting victims alive than have my firearms. Losing a friend is a heck of a lot worse than losing an object.

 

Amen to that.

 

This is as good a place as any to note that I appreciate your factual, reasonable approach to this discussion.  We clearly agree that restrictions to firearm access should err on the side of the potential victim, not the wannabe gun owner, among other items.  What this issue really needs is  more people like yourself - both reasonable and knowledgeable - assessing the issues objectively.  Sadly, that's something sorely lacking in most areas that even touch on the political these days, on both sides of the border.

 

4 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I'll just say two things. First, I agree that firearms are problematic choices for self defense and not without drawbacks. Every option has its pros and cons. Second, I'll say that I know you have a martial arts background and experience in working with your local PD (IIRC, those old conversations have probably been pruned by now), so I respect that you have an informed opinion, though I don't agree.

 

So, if firearms are a poor choice for self-defense, is there not some logic to restricting these poor choices and directing people to better choices?  I recall a somewhat tongue in cheek article many years back noting the time had never been better for gun control (shortly after the death of John Lennon and the Brady incident, providing left and right wing examples, so not exactly recent) suggesting the "solution" was to de-emphasize guns in favour of swords.  Not in any way practical, of course, but could the "right to bear arms" be satisfied by items which have a superior ability in self-defense, and a reduced ability to inflict harm on others?  All those less-lethal options our law enforcement personnel are expected to favour, perhaps, might include such items?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I have not commente3d on the gun discussion because I have no competence in any of the relevant issues. Pattern Ghost's explanation of the different effects between rifles and handguns makes me feel a bit less ignorant, though, so thank you PG.

 

(OK, at least I know that cops can't really just shoot the gun out of the perp's hand. That's fiction. And impossible. A friend of mine once encountered a coworker who did not know that!)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

There was a guy in Germany running around attacking people with a sword a few years back.  Cop brought him down by shooting him in the leg.  Here all cops are trained to shoot center of mass.  But it is possible to disable an attacker with a nonlethal shot, you just have to be a really good shot, esp. under pressure. Most American cops aren't trained for that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that partly an artifact of the American legal system?  If you're not shooting to kill, then you're not frightened enough to justify using lethal force?  Something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Isn't that partly an artifact of the American legal system?  If you're not shooting to kill, then you're not frightened enough to justify using lethal force?  Something like that?

That is a possibility.  Generally sentiment is pushing towards narrowing/tightening the circumstances under which lethal force use is justifiable--de-escalation attempts and a clear/reasonable sense of an immediate threat rather than any fear at all.  Cops get a loophole you can fly a helicarrier through.  It's why so few are charged and even fewer are convicted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Practically, law enforcement has to step up their own armaments to meet or beat the "bad guys".

 

They don't.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So if they are well trained and have significant miss rates, how great a shot are all those average individuals, much less the elderly or small female individual who bought into owning a gun for their own self-defense?  Bullets that miss their intended target don't just disappear, as we all know.

 

Yet we have many shootings every year, and very, very few cases of bystanders being hit by stray shots. It does happen. It's a serious consequence of a gun fight. But you also can't directly compare civilian defensive gun use directly to police engagements. There are similarities, but there are significant differences in situation and in police vs. civilian tactics. As far as these hypothetical elderly and small female individuals go, I'd hope that part of the "buy in" for them is getting appropriate training. (I can go into the miss rate question in more detail if you want, but I'd rather take more time with that one than I have at the moment.)

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

This is as good a place as any to note that I appreciate your factual, reasonable approach to this discussion.

 

Thank you.

 

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

So, if firearms are a poor choice for self-defense, is there not some logic to restricting these poor choices and directing people to better choices? 

 

I used the term problematic, not poor. Firearms are excellent choices for self defense. If someone is actively trying to kill you, you need to bring as much force to bear as you can. I will tell you that if you use a less-lethal force option against someone using lethal force against you, that you are running a serious risk. TASERs are unreliable -- the company's own certification materials spend more time talking about ways they can fail than ways they can succeed. Pepper spray is completely useless against some people, including many ex-military and people on drugs. Melee weapons, whether bludgeons or knives, just aren't as good as firearms. You need to remember that the last thing you want if someone is trying to kill you is a fair fight. If you can avoid the fight at all, you're better off, but if you're forced into it, you want as overwhelming an advantage as you can give yourself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

There was a guy in Germany running around attacking people with a sword a few years back.  Cop brought him down by shooting him in the leg.  Here all cops are trained to shoot center of mass.  But it is possible to disable an attacker with a nonlethal shot, you just have to be a really good shot, esp. under pressure. Most American cops aren't trained for that.  

 

Shooting other than center of mass is f-ing reckless and a public endangerment. It is precisely because American cops are well trained that they don't shoot other than center of mass. I'm trying to be civil, but this statement shows your utter lack of understanding of use of force issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Old Man said:

Isn't that partly an artifact of the American legal system?  If you're not shooting to kill, then you're not frightened enough to justify using lethal force?  Something like that?

 

It's because it's freaking hard to hit the more mobile extremities of the human body in a dynamic situation, including for the best shots on the planet. You put the public at risk from both a missed shot and overpenetration if you start shooting for extremities. If the cops walked up to dangerously close range to ensure the hit on the leg in that situation, then they needlessly put themselves at risk. There's never a tactically sound situation for taking other than a center of mass shot, unless you're talking about a sniper situation. Even then, snipers are generally trained to shoot center of mass.

 

EDIT: I got caught up in refuting the tactical advisability of leg shots here. You are in fact right that if you are trying to use lethal force in this way, it could be construed as you not thinking the threat was serious, which could harm your claim of an imminent threat. Though it's not as large an issue for law enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...