Who thinks the clerk.....(vid)

[Science Abuse]

Originally posted by Drunky McDrunk:

Call up Dave Yost and ask him how much more often a person is found to have been firing in self defense when they fired 5 or more shots rather than the person that fired 2 shots

percieved self defense. There is also a tried and true statistic to consider in these arguments.There are 2 ways to get yourself shot, when normaly you wouldn't be:

Have a gun.

Be a cop.

Cops aim for center mass and go for the kill because people want to kill them simply because they're cops. They are at hightened risk because thay have a badge on, you do not.

If you are being held up, and are seen to posses a gun, you are getting shot, period. Sadly, guns are shitty self defense weapons, since they dont stop bullets. Had you not had the gun, 99 out of 100 times you would have only been out a wallet. That 1 time out of 100, you'll be shot before you'd have a chance to pull it.

 

Originally posted by Drunky McDrunk:

So you wouldn't be scared with someone holding you at gunpoint?! HA! bullshit

try it

I wouldn't. 2 reasons;

1-I've never done anything to anyone to warrant intense kill worthy anger. I've never made anyone nearly mad enough to kill me. Its been nearly 10 years since I've irked some one to take a swing at me. So, the only reason I see myself in that situation is a robbery. In which case, they get what they want, I act calm, they're less likely to panic and think they have to shoot me. trying to act like a clint eastwood wanna'be hard ass escelates those situations. Most murders are crimes of percieved neccesity. Anyone who wants to kill me is going to do it before I have any say in the matter.

bringing me to 2 - I dont get scared when there's no point to it. If you cant control yourself, you have no hope of controling anything. Considering the things I do, though, I face threatening situations differently, its nothing new to me. I dont need a weapon to feel like I'm in control. My last life/death immediate "gotta be made now" descision was only a couple months ago.

 

 

And I stand by my point, anyone prone to panic or fits of anger should not posses a fire arm. Gun hobbiests I have no problem with, because its just a hobby, they can live without it. I'm not ignorant on the subject. Considering my minute experience, I'm actualy a decent marksman.

Anyone who lobbies congress for the right to carry one on the street bothers me. Anyone who throws a fit because they cant own an assault rifle bothers me. Anyone who quotes Chuck Heston's "cold dead hands" speach worries me. These are people who are clearly beond "hobby", and have centered their lives around a device made soley for killing human beings. These people are sad, insecure little people, and do not deserve to wield the power to take another life.

[Guest rperry74]

Originally posted by Mr. Old Mans Cars AKA GonneVille:

Most law-enforcement agencies train for center-body-mass/three shots.

Actually, it is twice, and it is called a "double tap". Two shots, center mass, asess continuing threat, repeat if necessary. Those who are properly trained, and most people arent, wont have to do it a second time. The problem with the arguments here are that people are talking about being trained and such, and as I said, most people arent. So they will duck and fire, rather than fire at a clearly defined target. If you are being shot at, run and find cover, not have a standoff shootout with some idiot. I have been in a very serious situation in which some friends of mine were leaving my house and the "homies" across the street started giving the girls a hard time. A friend of mine went out to handle it and three of them started shooting at him and the girls. I quickly instructed one of my guests to dial 911 and whipped out my 300 Savage (which will kill just about anything on the North American continent). It took less than a minute to retrieve my ammunition and load the weapon and as I began to take aim, the police arrived in force, so I withdrew. After giving a statement to them they asked why I did not shoot, and I told them why, to which they responded it would have been justified. No one was hurt thankfully, but you have to stay calm, and most people can not. It is them that should not have access to firearms of any kind.

[Doug1647545489]

That video is pretty old. I believe its some kind of training video.

[street pilot]

Originally posted by Drunky McDrunk:

Plus, when you make the decision to pull the trigger (when you feel your life is in immediate danger) you better kill the person, because if you don't, they are going to sue you for everything you have.

True. Although his/her family will probably still take everything you own if you kill their son/daughter... Even if it was justified.

[Lustalbert]

2 shots, center mass.

[Science Abuse]

Originally posted by TheManWhoSellsParts:

Actually, it is twice, and it is called a "double tap". Two shots, center mass, asess continuing threat, repeat if necessary. Those who are properly trained, and most people arent, wont have to do it a second time. The problem with the arguments here are that people are talking about being trained and such, and as I said, most people arent. So they will duck and fire, rather than fire at a clearly defined target. If you are being shot at, run and find cover, not have a standoff shootout with some idiot. I have been in a very serious situation in which some friends of mine were leaving my house and the "homies" across the street started giving the girls a hard time. A friend of mine went out to handle it and three of them started shooting at him and the girls. I quickly instructed one of my guests to dial 911 and whipped out my 300 Savage (which will kill just about anything on the North American continent). It took less than a minute to retrieve my ammunition and load the weapon and as I began to take aim, the police arrived in force, so I withdrew. After giving a statement to them they asked why I did not shoot, and I told them why, to which they responded it would have been justified. No one was hurt thankfully, but you have to stay calm, and most people can not. It is them that should not have access to firearms of any kind.

Damn decent of you. You did save yourself some paperwork and a few court appearences.keeping a name clear, even when justified, is a pain in the ass.

[LJ]

Originally posted by TheManWhoSellsParts:

Actually, it is twice, and it is called a "double tap". Two shots, center mass, asess continuing threat, repeat if necessary. Those who are properly trained, and most people arent, wont have to do it a second time. The problem with the arguments here are that people are talking about being trained and such, and as I said, most people arent. So they will duck and fire, rather than fire at a clearly defined target. If you are being shot at, run and find cover, not have a standoff shootout with some idiot. I have been in a very serious situation in which some friends of mine were leaving my house and the "homies" across the street started giving the girls a hard time. A friend of mine went out to handle it and three of them started shooting at him and the girls. I quickly instructed one of my guests to dial 911 and whipped out my 300 Savage (which will kill just about anything on the North American continent). It took less than a minute to retrieve my ammunition and load the weapon and as I began to take aim, the police arrived in force, so I withdrew. After giving a statement to them they asked why I did not shoot, and I told them why, to which they responded it would have been justified. No one was hurt thankfully, but you have to stay calm, and most people can not. It is them that should not have access to firearms of any kind.

The new law is you only have the right to shoot when you don't have an out. ie, guy has you in a corner with a gun to your head. With the new law that passed along with the concealed carry law, you would have been charged with a number of things depending on where you live

[Clifford Automotive]

Originally posted by Drunky McDrunk:

Call up Dave Yost and ask him how much more often a person is found to have been firing in self defense when they fired 5 or more shots rather than the person that fired 2 shots

well there are more homicide reports then self defense reports so what exactly are you trying to prove?

 

you guys all have so many opinions and so many your wrongs and you dont know.

 

people that carry guns are insecure?

so the repo guy that carrys a gun for "self defense" when hes taking cars back and being shot at is insecure. i dont totally agree with that one.

 

im not here to debate this topic, just to throw in a word or so...

 

when it happens to you let us know how many times you pulled the trigger

[Science Abuse]

Originally posted by 360 IROC:

people that carry guns are insecure?

so the repo guy that carrys a gun for "self defense" when hes taking cars back and being shot at is insecure.

yes, He is insecure. He feels that he will be in a situtation that his words and his hands cant get him out of. He feels vulnerable to attack, therefore he does not feel secure.

[SPLN SUX]

Originally posted by Tenzig:

yes, He is insecure. He feels that he will be in a situtation that his words and his hands cant get him out of. He feels vulnerable to attack, therefore he does not feel secure.

I always did enjoy a good stand up fight

 

Twinkle Twinkle BABY!!! TWINKLE TWINKLE!!!

[verse]

If it were real, I doubt he'd be going to jail. I think Drunky is pretty close to correct on this subject. One of my friends killed his stepdad. The guy was beating his mom had a gun, and my friend shot him, I think it was 7 times. Spent a month with the county. Never did anything after. It's in self defense, he's scared, he doesn't know if he is going to pick up that gun again and shoot him.

[ancientmysts]

Originally posted by 86 Eh?:

If it were real, I doubt he'd be going to jail.

IMO I think he would go to jail. First shot, fine, protecting himself. Second shot, man reached for his weapon, still defending his life. Third shot, not needed, intended to kill the man. Not to mention, he moved the body. That's tampering with evidence, which he would deff. go to jail for.

[LJ]

Originally posted by Myst:

IMO I think he would go to jail. First shot, fine, protecting himself. Second shot, man reached for his weapon, still defending his life. Third shot, not needed, intended to kill the man. Not to mention, he moved the body. That's tampering with evidence, which he would deff. go to jail for.

With the new law in Ohio he would be going to jail for the 2nd shot. After he injured the guy, he could've taken a way out. He decided to shoot him again, therefore he would be going to jail

[Guest rperry74]

Originally posted by Drunky McDrunk:

The new law is you only have the right to shoot when you don't have an out. ie, guy has you in a corner with a gun to your head. With the new law that passed along with the concealed carry law, you would have been charged with a number of things depending on where you live

 

It was in California and the law clearly states the use of deadly force is justified when there is a clear and present danger of loss of life to yourself or others. Under the circumstances, my friends were being faced with a "clear and present danger" that would have definitely resulted in loss of life. But this has nothing to do with the thread, so I digress.