Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Fri 03-29-2024 9:52AM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 8:20PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07-08-2005 7:47PM
Posts: 1106
Location: Quad

Source: Holtman Hall
benm wrote:
LostBoyz wrote:
shoot them in the face or knee


But when they're invading your home, as NP said you won't have that great of aim no matter how good you are... Wouldn't it be best to have AP loaded just in case?

I beg to differ tbh.

My house is setup perfectly for me to hide behind the wall in my room and aim around the corner at an intruder. No matter if they come from the back door or front door, they pass the hallway. If I'm low to the ground, chances are I'd hit the guy in the knees before he got a good look.

EDIT: I load my pistol with hollow points when it's just sitting at home so that if I miss, it won't go through the wall and toward my neighbors.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 8:23PM 
Offline
Drowning
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-15-2004 9:36PM
Posts: 4957
Location: ~~~~\o/~~~~~

Source: University PD
fucking campers

and to benm, getting shot in the chest even with kevlar would take down most people, or at least stop them from shooting you enough that you could shoot again (which you probably would anyway)

_________________
Rolla survivor

Join us in IRC, irc.seek42.net


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 8:29PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: Fidelity
benm wrote:
LostBoyz wrote:
shoot them in the face or knee


But when they're invading your home, as NP said you won't have that great of aim no matter how good you are... Wouldn't it be best to have AP loaded just in case?


Any rifle cartridge will penetrate Kevlar, even the frangible or softpoint stuff that won't penetrate much drywall.

AP rounds are only really useful in a pistol. AP pistol ammo would have let Mark Allen Wilson take out David Arroyo instead of just bruising him though his armor. It would have saved Mark's life, and ended the shooting spree a bit earlier.

Guns save lives, and more effective guns make it easier for more disadvantaged good guys to stop better armed and armored bad guys.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 8:31PM 
Offline
post whore
post whore

Joined: Wed 10-05-2005 7:50PM
Posts: 1382
Location: KCMO

Source: Fidelity
berto wrote:
benm wrote:
LostBoyz wrote:
shoot them in the face or knee


But when they're invading your home, as NP said you won't have that great of aim no matter how good you are... Wouldn't it be best to have AP loaded just in case?

I beg to differ tbh.

My house is setup perfectly for me to hide behind the wall in my room and aim around the corner at an intruder. No matter if they come from the back door or front door, they pass the hallway. If I'm low to the ground, chances are I'd hit the guy in the knees before he got a good look.

EDIT: I load my pistol with hollow points when it's just sitting at home so that if I miss, it won't go through the wall and toward my neighbors.


Are you going to use the giant mirror at the end of the hall to catch a glimpse of the intruder?

_________________
I have now been banned three times. Join the club :D


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 8:45PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon 07-26-2004 3:11PM
Posts: 1420

Source: Fidelity
About the 10 clip rule. That last thing you want to do in a fight is reload. Officers reloading during a fight is extremely rare because they have more than 10 bullets. Some fights take 1 bullet, some take more than you have, but the more bullets per magazine that you have decreases the chances that you'll have to reload during the fight. Enough with the cops. What difference does it make to anyone else if I have 10 or 20 bullets in a magazine?

If the badguys wear Kevlar then it seems that you are pretty fucked. I guess since guns can't solve all our problems and do the laundry we should just ban all of them. Uh no. It's all a game of odds and I'm not saying that you'll survive 100% with a gun but boy oh boy does it ever increase your odds, which is what the game is all about.

Shoot at the knees if you want but there's a reason law enforcement is trained to aim for center of mass. That's also assuming that they are standing or creeping. Knees move quite a bit even during slow regular walking.

_________________
Don't do drugs because if you do drugs you'll go to prison, and drugs are really expensive in prison.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 9:00PM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07-08-2005 7:47PM
Posts: 1106
Location: Quad

Source: Holtman Hall
benm wrote:
Are you going to use the giant mirror at the end of the hall to catch a glimpse of the intruder?

No. Remember, I don't have it anymore. Sadface.
Agentzak wrote:
Shoot at the knees if you want but there's a reason law enforcement is trained to aim for center of mass. That's also assuming that they are standing or creeping. Knees move quite a bit even during slow regular walking.

I have two reasons for shooting at the knees:

1) It is guaranteed to immobilize a person (if you doubt me, get shot in the kneecap)
2) Below the waist is not considered attempted murder.

The last thing I want is someone breaking in and then getting hit with some bullshit technicality that puts me away. Oh, and also the bulletproof vest thing. It's either head or knees for me. They're harder to hit, but assuming I have decent aim, then they are guaranteed to stop a person rather than hitting a bulletproof vest.

EDIT: grammar fix.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 9:47PM 
Offline
Drowning
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-15-2004 9:36PM
Posts: 4957
Location: ~~~~\o/~~~~~

Source: EE Building
berto wrote:
benm wrote:
Are you going to use the giant mirror at the end of the hall to catch a glimpse of the intruder?

No. Remember, I don't have it anymore. Sadface.
Agentzak wrote:
Shoot at the knees if you want but there's a reason law enforcement is trained to aim for center of mass. That's also assuming that they are standing or creeping. Knees move quite a bit even during slow regular walking.

I have two reasons for shooting at the knees:

1) It is guaranteed to immobilize a person (if you doubt me, get shot in the kneecap)
2) Below the waist is not considered attempted murder.

The last thing I want is someone breaking in and then getting hit with some bullshit technicality that puts me away. Oh, and also the bulletproof vest thing. It's either head or knees for me. They're harder to hit, but assuming I have decent aim, then they are guaranteed to stop a person rather than hitting a bulletproof vest.

EDIT: grammar fix.


castle doctrine my friend, no worries

_________________
Rolla survivor

Join us in IRC, irc.seek42.net


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 10:43PM 
Offline
post whore
post whore

Joined: Wed 10-05-2005 7:50PM
Posts: 1382
Location: KCMO

Source: Off Campus
the naked prophet wrote:
benm wrote:
LostBoyz wrote:
shoot them in the face or knee


But when they're invading your home, as NP said you won't have that great of aim no matter how good you are... Wouldn't it be best to have AP loaded just in case?


Any rifle cartridge will penetrate Kevlar, even the frangible or softpoint stuff that won't penetrate much drywall.

AP rounds are only really useful in a pistol. AP pistol ammo would have let Mark Allen Wilson take out David Arroyo instead of just bruising him though his armor. It would have saved Mark's life, and ended the shooting spree a bit earlier.

Guns save lives, and more effective guns make it easier for more disadvantaged good guys to stop better armed and armored bad guys.


But won't more effective guns also make it easier for the now disadvantaged bad guys to stop better armed and (potentially) armored good guys? Aren't we just looking at a huge arms race?

_________________
I have now been banned three times. Join the club :D


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Mon 11-10-2008 10:52PM 
Offline
Drowning
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-15-2004 9:36PM
Posts: 4957
Location: ~~~~\o/~~~~~

Source: University PD
bad guys dont have a problem getting that stuff as is

_________________
Rolla survivor

Join us in IRC, irc.seek42.net


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Tue 11-11-2008 1:35AM 
Offline
post whore
post whore

Joined: Wed 10-05-2005 7:50PM
Posts: 1382
Location: KCMO

Source: Off Campus
Well yeah, but you have to figure the bad guys will always have what's legal +1, so upping the legal limitations seems to make the situation worse...

_________________
I have now been banned three times. Join the club :D


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Tue 11-11-2008 3:31AM 
Offline
bertowned
bertowned
User avatar

Joined: Sun 08-20-2006 4:26PM
Posts: 2118

Source: Off Campus
Except right now we're talking about making whats legal now less by 1. Then the bad guys will have Legal+2. We're talking about opposing / supporting a legislative ban that has previously been shown ineffective at fighting any crime (also the crime it was supposed to stop was nonexistent).

Assume that the bad guys always have access to the best there is. Why shouldn't I have access to it too? I already know they have no limitations, the good guys shouldn't be limited in how they can fight back either.

-----

And Berto - I've been told It's a very bad idea to shoot in the knee. A prosecutor or civil lawyer for the plantiff (burglar) will be able to easily show that you did not fear for your life, or someone else's life. But if you shoot at a person (at all) the law says you've just used deadly force (even if you aim for their knee). But a lawyer will later say that you doubted whether deadly force was necessary (since you had the prescience to not shoot to kill), but that you used deadly force anyway (since you shot at another person) - and that you were not within your right to kill.

So in the unfortunate event that you ever do find it necessary to defend yourself in such a manner - shoot to kill, or don't shoot at all. Because firing upon another human being is always considered deadly force - and you are only permitted to do this if you fear for your life, or the life of another person.

_________________
BigPeeOn wrote:
Here's the deal: chemistry is the devil.
Anything beyond balancing an chemical equation is black magic.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Tue 11-11-2008 8:24AM 
Offline
awesome yet humble
User avatar

Joined: Fri 08-04-2006 9:39AM
Posts: 1373
Location: Boston

Source: Fidelity
amd2800barton wrote:
And Berto - I've been told It's a very bad idea to shoot in the knee. A prosecutor or civil lawyer for the plantiff (burglar) will be able to easily show that you did not fear for your life, or someone else's life. But if you shoot at a person (at all) the law says you've just used deadly force (even if you aim for their knee). But a lawyer will later say that you doubted whether deadly force was necessary (since you had the prescience to not shoot to kill), but that you used deadly force anyway (since you shot at another person) - and that you were not within your right to kill.

So in the unfortunate event that you ever do find it necessary to defend yourself in such a manner - shoot to kill, or don't shoot at all. Because firing upon another human being is always considered deadly force - and you are only permitted to do this if you fear for your life, or the life of another person.


Wow. I did not know that... damn lawyers these days. They just have to ruin every chance you have to protect yourself. I would say that if a person (let's say a mormon) didn't want to kill somebody, but there was a threat against the life of another person, it would still be that person't right to shoot the attacker wherever it would incapacitate him/her so that a getaway could be had. It seems so harsh of our legal system to say that if you don't shoot to kill you shouldn't protect yourself at all (although that's probably a rough way of putting it)

_________________
I'm just that freakin awesome.

And then, the monkey died.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Tue 11-11-2008 9:29AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: Fulton Hall
berto wrote:
I have two reasons for shooting at the knees:

1) It is guaranteed to immobilize a person (if you doubt me, get shot in the kneecap)
2) Below the waist is not considered attempted murder.

The last thing I want is someone breaking in and then getting hit with some bullshit technicality that puts me away. Oh, and also the bulletproof vest thing. It's either head or knees for me. They're harder to hit, but assuming I have decent aim, then they are guaranteed to stop a person rather than hitting a bulletproof vest.

EDIT: grammar fix.



You really need to talk to a lawyer if that's your plan.

First off, shooting at the knees will most likely result in a miss. If you do manage to miraculously hit such a tiny (about 2" circle) target, while it's moving wildly, in the dark... why didn't you just shoot the gun or knife out of the guy's hand anyway? Seriously though, people with broken bones have continued fighting (and if you think they can't take a few steps on a shattered knee, you haven't talked to folks who have been there and done that) and can shoot quite well from the ground. A shot in the knee is far from a guaranteed stop.

If you're worried about your ammo penetrating walls, and worried about an intruder with armor, get a rifle. An AR15 chambered in .223 with the right kind of ammo will penetrate fewer walls than any pistol caliber. Hollowpoint pistol bullets don't expand on drywall, only wet things like flesh or gelatin or water. A standard 55 grain expanding .223 bullet will penetrate fewer walls than any pistol bullet, but penetrate more kevlar.

In terms of the law, any time you fire a gun towards a person (or even a "warning shot"), that is considered deadly force. If you're authorized to use deadly force (ie you or an innocent third party are threatened with unauthorized force, or there is an intruder in your house, you witness a felony such as a kidnapping or arson and you believe deadly force is necessary to stop it, etc.), you should shoot to stop the threat. If you aren't authorized to use deadly force, even having a gun in your hand will send you to jail at least for the night.

If you don't believe me, believe Kevin L. Jamison, Missouri's foremost expert on firearms and self-defense law. The legal information above came straight from him. I've studied Missouri's firearms and self defense law under him, and I'm actually in his instructional video on the subject (click on "history in the making" and scroll down to the bottom picture - yes, my hand is on a real, loaded gun under that coat).

If someone is in your house and you shoot them - whether it's in the knee, through the heart, or a miss/warning shot - you're in exactly the same legal boat.




benm wrote:
the naked prophet wrote:
Guns save lives, and more effective guns make it easier for more disadvantaged good guys to stop better armed and armored bad guys.


But won't more effective guns also make it easier for the now disadvantaged bad guys to stop better armed and (potentially) armored good guys? Aren't we just looking at a huge arms race?


The bad guys have the advantage to begin with. Bad guys have the advantage of surprise, the advantage of numbers or strength (they wouldn't attack otherwise, would they?). If a bad guy attacks you, it's because he knows he can overcome you. You've already lost, unless you have something to equalize the disparity in strength. Even if he's a huge bodybuilder with a huge friend and you're a scrawny 90 lb female, when you pull a gun, you have the ability to fight them off. If they pull guns too, you've still got a chance. If all of you are unarmed, you have no chance.

And a chance is all I'm asking for.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Tue 11-11-2008 9:49AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 01-24-2003 7:13PM
Posts: 1652
Location: down the hill

Source: Fulton Hall
el_lorenzo wrote:
Wow. I did not know that... damn lawyers these days. They just have to ruin every chance you have to protect yourself. I would say that if a person (let's say a mormon) didn't want to kill somebody, but there was a threat against the life of another person, it would still be that person't right to shoot the attacker wherever it would incapacitate him/her so that a getaway could be had. It seems so harsh of our legal system to say that if you don't shoot to kill you shouldn't protect yourself at all (although that's probably a rough way of putting it)


That's not really how it works.

Shooting at a kneecap, while likely to miss entirely is also likely to miss the knee and hit the femoral artery, which will kill the person very shortly (well, shortly in terms of how quickly help can arrive - even bleeding out like that, a person can run 100 yards and still kill you with a knife). Any gunshot wound to any part of the body has the potential to be deadly. That is why firing a gun at any part of a person (or in that persons direction) is considered deadly force.

If your house is invaded and you shoot at the bad guy's kneecap, that would be completely legal. Under Missouri law, you couldn't even be sued for that.

The problem is, if you feel queasy about killing someone who means to kill you, you're unlikely to be able to pull the trigger without hesitation. You've heard anti-gun-rights folks say "a gun will just be taken away and used against you" before? While that is extremely rare (it actually is far more common, around 100:1, for an unarmed victim to take the gun away from an attacker), it does happen. And in every case, it was because the armed victim hesitated, or was afraid to use deadly force.

It takes a huge emotional toll on a person to take a life. The human psyche is hardwired against homicide. Criminals must work themselves into a state of mind where they feel it's justified ("I deserve this money/woman/power" "they're keeping me down" "it's their fault I'm poor" etc.). Similarly, if you haven't already crossed that emotional bridge ("they're trying to kill me" "I'm a good person, and I'll kill a murderer if I have to to survive" etc.) then you will have to cross it when the time comes to pull the trigger. Cross that bridge now, rationally understand the abstract moral concept that it's morally acceptable to kill a bad person to save a good person (yourself), deal with the emotions now, have a cry or talk to a pastor/priest/rabbi. When your life is in danger is not the time to deal with that stuff. You will still suffer a tremendous emotional toll after the deadly force event... but you'll be alive.

Planning to shoot for the knees is a good way to get yourself killed.

_________________
heretic^ stars as Samuel Jackson in the summer's newest thriller: Owls on a Forum!

http://web.umr.edu/~ikellogg/heretic%5E-owls.gif


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject: Re: Gun control
PostPosted: Tue 11-11-2008 10:07AM 
Offline
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Fri 07-08-2005 7:47PM
Posts: 1106
Location: Quad

Source: Holtman Hall
the naked prophet wrote:
That's not really how it works.

Shooting at a kneecap, while likely to miss entirely is also likely to miss the knee and hit the femoral artery, which will kill the person very shortly (well, shortly in terms of how quickly help can arrive - even bleeding out like that, a person can run 100 yards and still kill you with a knife). Any gunshot wound to any part of the body has the potential to be deadly. That is why firing a gun at any part of a person (or in that persons direction) is considered deadly force.

If your house is invaded and you shoot at the bad guy's kneecap, that would be completely legal. Under Missouri law, you couldn't even be sued for that.

The problem is, if you feel queasy about killing someone who means to kill you, you're unlikely to be able to pull the trigger without hesitation. You've heard anti-gun-rights folks say "a gun will just be taken away and used against you" before? While that is extremely rare (it actually is far more common, around 100:1, for an unarmed victim to take the gun away from an attacker), it does happen. And in every case, it was because the armed victim hesitated, or was afraid to use deadly force.

It takes a huge emotional toll on a person to take a life. The human psyche is hardwired against homicide. Criminals must work themselves into a state of mind where they feel it's justified ("I deserve this money/woman/power" "they're keeping me down" "it's their fault I'm poor" etc.). Similarly, if you haven't already crossed that emotional bridge ("they're trying to kill me" "I'm a good person, and I'll kill a murderer if I have to to survive" etc.) then you will have to cross it when the time comes to pull the trigger. Cross that bridge now, rationally understand the abstract moral concept that it's morally acceptable to kill a bad person to save a good person (yourself), deal with the emotions now, have a cry or talk to a pastor/priest/rabbi. When your life is in danger is not the time to deal with that stuff. You will still suffer a tremendous emotional toll after the deadly force event... but you'll be alive.

Planning to shoot for the knees is a good way to get yourself killed.

While it can go the direction you mentioned, it can also go in the direction of the burglar surrendering, especially if he only has a knife.

Anyway, my reasoning for shooting at the knee was a) because I didn't want to take the time to see if the burglar had a weapon (obviously I should feel my life is being threatened if somebody breaks into my house with myself and my family in it, right?) and b) I thought it would be looked upon lighter than a kill shot. Since I have verified that b) is not true, I won't hesitate to just aim at the person and hit them where I may.

Before I bought my gun, I thought long and hard about if I could pull the trigger when it came down to it. My answer was yes which was the deciding factor on getting the gun. Don't misconstrue trying to protect oneself legally for hesitation (me as an example). I understand that a lot of people hesitate when the moment comes, but a lot of people don't as well.

IMHO, I think anyone that purchases a gun should come to a decision as to whether or not they can pull the trigger in the moment of truth before they get it.


Top
 Profile  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group