Knife vs. Gun: I think we have a winner...

ignorant wrote: this thread needs the internets armchair bravado dialed down a bit.. Regarde ca

It didn't work the first time, maybe give it another shot? [/pun]

aussiesmg wrote:

spdracer315 wrote:

aircooled wrote: . Question: Is there any difference to the above two? In both cases the perp is dead, in both cases you shot him, in both cases you intent was to kill him (which is pretty much the rule that cops use, shoot to kill). The reason I ask is, it is likely a cop would get investigated for that second one, even though the intent and result are the same.

Actualy cops are trained shoot to disable. You want them to cease whatever they are doing, but still take them alive. Now, real world, the most efficient way for them to stop is a kill shot

I would like to know where you go that from, I was a cop and was trained to shoot at center mass, every time. No if, but or maybe, center mass

Learned it AF Securty Forces tech school.

yes, center mass, not some spectacular head shot or a whole clip. I didnt mean shoot out their leg or arm or something, and should have clarified. But you hit them in the chest, they drop their weapon, your done at that point. You shot them so they cease their threatning activity, not to kill. If that means it takes 1,2, 15 rounds and they die, oh well, they should have gotten the hint.

Maybe thats just the new, happy, politicaly correct way of teaching it, idk...haha.

aircooled wrote: I don't know the specifics, but it does seem a little strange that a guy with a gun needs to shoot a guy with a knife to defend himself.

you're right you/we don't know the specifics, but as to NEEDS to shoot I think the act by the criminal ... excuse me... the alleged criminal ,,, suggests the NEEDS .. glad he did it, wish more would

The dumbass brought a knife to a gunfight.

Having been on the wrong end of a gun (actually several guns) as well as a knife I can tell you it changes you.

There are 2 types of people in the world, those that will and those that won't. After you've been there - YOU WILL! And you won't hesitate either. INTENT TO SURVIVE is very strong. As well as outrage.

BTW I'm the only person these 2 guys didn't shoot and kill out of 11.

Dr. Hess wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: Criminals love nothing more than a disarmed populace.

Politicians too.

There's a difference?

Bobzilla wrote: ^ Don't go putting up troof in this argument. You silly silly person.

I assume you meant proof. For starters...

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7068

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7070

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7229

Weird, it says there was a comment but I can't find it.

The problem with gun owners is not the responsible, trained gun owner or carrier. The problem is with the people who need a firearm to compensate for their own real or perceived inadequacies, & or with the people who get a gun & just stick it in their purse or pocket as some sort of magic talisman to ward off evil. The other issue of course is that bullets, especially high powered ones have a killing power often far beyond their intended target. In a townhouse or apartment environment this can mean shooting at & scaring off an intruder but with collateral damage in a different location.

I actually have scars from a knife attack and another from a near miss with a bullet. I was walking home from school in the second grade and some kid across the street was playing with a gun I ended up getting hit. The knife scars are from a fight when I was a teenager, guy pulled a knife on me and my girl friend.

If attacked I would not hesitate to draw any weapon I had at my disposal to stop the attack. At the very minimum I ALWAYS carry a knife (Rule 9). I also practice regularly as any fire arm owner should especially anyone with a concealed carry.

On the topic of being sued for using excessive force (using a larger caliber weapon than deemed necessary by the "law") I have tried to, for the most part follow a rule. That is to find out what the issued side arm of your local PD and caliber right down to the types of ammunition used. This way you are not exceeding the fire power of local law enforcement and it makes it more difficult for them to claim "excess".

I like rebelgtp's logic on quizzing the lawmen. I often ask officers what they carry and why. Most are ok with it but some act as if I have sawdust for brains.

purplepeopleeater wrote: The problem is with the people who need a firearm to compensate for their own real or perceived inadequacies

Hmmm. Well, I do have a short penis with the girth of a pop can. If I was comfortable in my own skin I'd think that should dictate a huge bore snub nose and here I carry a 6" barreled "normal" weapon. I think I need a psychiatrist.

(heh, heh... I said dictate)

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

You said "huge bore".

THATS WHAT SHE SAID!

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Hmmm. Well, I do have a short penis with the girth of a pop can. If I was comfortable in my own skin I'd think that should dictate a huge bore snub nose and here I carry a 6" barreled "normal" weapon. I think I need a psychiatrist.

You need one of these:

I am in no way implying that you have a high tendency to miss fire or be a flash in the pan...

alfadriver wrote:

Is he flossing with guide wires or trying to eat the iStockphoto logo? Or both?

I actually went and looked at the Sig P226 and P220 today for a new concealed carry.

spdracer315 wrote:

aircooled wrote: Question: Is there any difference to the above two? In both cases the perp is dead, in both cases you shot him, in both cases you intent was to kill him (which is pretty much the rule that cops use, shoot to kill). The reason I ask is, it is likely a cop would get investigated for that second one, even though the intent and result are the same.

Actualy cops are trained shoot to disable. You want them to cease whatever they are doing, but still take them alive. Now, real world, the most efficient way for them to stop is a kill shot

NOT true. At least not here in the US. My firearms training (as a peace officer) is to shoot to STOP THE THREAT. Once the threat is neutralized, then scan for any other threats (yes, even bad people have friends) and make the area safe (as safe as possible, given circumstances).

Then, call for / render assistance for the wounded.

When I was training with the police department they told us to empty the clip or cylinder and in all cases make sure the attacker was dead. At least when you were on the defensive.

Reasoning?

If the guy was doing something that scared me enough to shoot him, then I must have been scared enough to keep on shooting until I couldn't do it any more. If I empty the gun, and there's on one alive to offer up a counter argument, than obviously I was just that scared.

If I shoot once and kill the guy then obviously I was in control of the situation and had no reason to be scared, and I shouldn't have been shooting. In that situation I should have run, called the cops, or winged the guy, there was no reason to kill him at all.

Deadly force is only justified if you are scared for your own life, and how do you prove you were scared without dumping a whole lot of lead?

Now, reloading might be too much.

And on the home defense front, I still want one of those .410 pumps with the laser sight. Everyone recognizes the cha-chick of a pump, and the red dot of the laser, but the .410 usually doesn't have enough spread to go through sheetrock at shallow angles so you're family's a little less likely to get any friendly fire.

I saw a clip on selecting a home defense weapon. They had set up several mock walls in a row on a firing range, then discharged a few common home-defense rounds through the walls.

In the end, the only round they showed that wouldn't penetrate across a hallway and into another bedroom (i.e. 3 walls) with enough force to still injure someone was 12 gauge birdshot. Other rounds demonstrated were 9mm and 12 gauge buckshot, I believe .40 and .45 were as well.

And this whole "small caliber better" thing just reeks of BS and ignorance. A .45 is a much slower round with less penetration than a .40. Heck, it won't even go through a typical car windshield. It's actually suggested AGAINST as a home defense round as the perp is much more likely to survive being shot.

oldopelguy wrote: Deadly force is only justified if you are scared for your own life, and how do you prove you were scared without dumping a whole lot of lead?

Nowhere does the law state that you must be freaking out.

It is possible to be frightened and levelheaded. You shoot to neutralize a threat. It is justified if a threat is present. Your emotional state is irrelevant except that it can influence your judgment and response time. That is why you should practice until operating the weapon is muscle memory.

Dr. Hess wrote:

ReverendDexter wrote: Criminals love nothing more than a disarmed populace.

Politicians too.

• about a thousand

spdracer315 wrote:

aircooled wrote: . Question: Is there any difference to the above two? In both cases the perp is dead, in both cases you shot him, in both cases you intent was to kill him (which is pretty much the rule that cops use, shoot to kill). The reason I ask is, it is likely a cop would get investigated for that second one, even though the intent and result are the same.

Actualy cops are trained shoot to disable. You want them to cease whatever they are doing, but still take them alive. Now, real world, the most efficient way for them to stop is a kill shot

FBI are taught to hit center mass. If you miss a little, you're still hitting something vital. If you want to wing 'em don't use a gun.