Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Guns Do Not Kill People


Yamato

Recommended Posts

Don't put words in my mouth; that's the reason this discussion is lame. And if this isn't a discussion to you, go find one that is. I have no interest in arguing semantics with people who assign crap to me I never said nor thought.

Conversely, I actually listen and actually respond to the words you say.

If you were trained by police, you weren't trained to respond like police. If you were trained to kill every time you pull a gun, that's absurd. And no, there are plenty of reasons to pull a gun on someone besides your life being in imminent danger. Your house could be getting burglarized. It could be someone else's life that's in danger. I will shoot you to stop you from hurting my dog if you're in my house uninvited. My intention isn't to kill you, it's to stop you. There are Castle Laws in this country and I'm not going to be one of the sugar frosted flakes who doesn't enforce them. The list of possibilities goes on and on. It's delusional and dangerous that you cannot understand that the purpose of shooting someone is to stop them from what they are doing, killing them OR NOT.

And yes, you exposed yourself with the court comment and I'm sorry I find that despicable.

Ok. Find it any way you want.

I'm imparting what I was taught. Didn't put anything in your mouth.

You do what you want. I'll do what the law enforcement officials told me.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Find it any way you want.

I'm imparting what I was taught. Didn't put anything in your mouth.

You do what you want. I'll do what the law enforcement officials told me.

Nibs

Law enforcement didn't tell you to kill people so you don't have to go to court. There should be good reasons why police taught you what they did. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the time police kill on pulling their guns. I would think that well more than 9 out of 10 times, they don't. There must be good reason to teach you such an extreme double standard in firearm usage. And we've yet to find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to know - I never knew that :tu:

We do things different over here, well our police do anyway since the public don't generally carry firearms anyway. Our armed response units are taught to fire at the central mass of a person, it's just to incapacitate a threat, head shots are not taught as general procedure, that might change soon as it's being rethought and debated as we speak. They also have to give a verbal warning of their intention to fire, but that isn't necessary in the case of a suicide bomber.

We were taught to NOT try to shoot some one in the foot or arm or anything like that. :) We were taught that if you pull a weapon the idea is their life or mine. You don't fire a warning shot. Bullets HAVE to land some where. We were taught to not be "cowboys" and try to scare some one or do anything like that. It was stated again and again, if you are using a weapon to protect yourself or your property, you do it to kill. Not necessarily a head shot, in fact this is discouraged because it lessens the accuracy in the situation.

Officials give the verbal warnings but again, we were taught that this isn't something we should do. We were taught that we don't yell "I've got a gun" we are to yell for help and to do it as we have our weapon our or are drawing it out. No warnings.

And as for the court comment that is being twisted beyond recognition...

Again, during the class, we were told that if carry concealed we should notify our attorney right away and have instructions on what to do if we find ourselves in a situation where we have used our concealed weapon. First thing we were told by the deputy and the lawyer is that playing "official" or "cowboy" and trying to slow some one down or fire a warning shot then the situation could and can be considered NOT life threatening and therefore you didn't have the right to fire and guess what? Criminal wins.

Nibs

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law enforcement didn't tell you to kill people so you don't have to go to court. There should be good reasons why police taught you what they did. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the time police kill on pulling their guns. I would think that well more than 9 out of 10 times, they don't. There must be good reason to teach you such an extreme double standard in firearm usage. And we've yet to find one.

Again, missed you in class.

Now, you're missing what I actually said...

I didn't say anything about the procedure of the police. I told you what I was taught. From the law enforcement officers I know they have stated that firing a warning shot or shooting to harm is a big NO NO. If they draw their weapon, the shoot to kill. I never said they always hit their mark.

You're misrepresenting my statements.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There must be good reason to teach you such an extreme double standard in firearm usage. And we've yet to find one.

you don't actually believe any of that do you? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were taught to NOT try to shoot some one in the foot or arm or anything like that. :) We were taught that if you pull a weapon the idea is their life or mine. You don't fire a warning shot. Bullets HAVE to land some where. We were taught to not be "cowboys" and try to scare some one or do anything like that. It was stated again and again, if you are using a weapon to protect yourself or your property, you do it to kill. Not necessarily a head shot, in fact this is discouraged because it lessens the accuracy in the situation.

Officials give the verbal warnings but again, we were taught that this isn't something we should do. We were taught that we don't yell "I've got a gun" we are to yell for help and to do it as we have our weapon our or are drawing it out. No warnings.

And as for the court comment that is being twisted beyond recognition...

Again, during the class, we were told that if carry concealed we should notify our attorney right away and have instructions on what to do if we find ourselves in a situation where we have used our concealed weapon. First thing we were told by the deputy and the lawyer is that playing "official" or "cowboy" and trying to slow some one down or fire a warning shot then the situation could and can be considered NOT life threatening and therefore you didn't have the right to fire and guess what? Criminal wins.

Nibs

Ah right - interesting to see how different countries approach this issue :)

Our legal process is wrapped up in something called 'reasonable force', so assuming i'm a legal gun owner and I use it I have to prove the opposite to what you have to..i.e I have to show that I had no other choice then to shot him/her dead. Why I didn't incapacitate them first will be the Crown Prosecution Servies first route of enquiry when trying to mount a case for prosecution against me.

So for example, if they are in my house, 12" knife, just killed my dog, and make it clear i'm next, then assuming there is space (time) between me and them i'll have to find a good reason why I didn't blow his knee cap off first...then wait for help..

If they have a gun, and it's pointed at me but I get the first shot off - no case to answer...

There is no procedure over here of not firing warning shots etc..infact given the 'reasonable force' claim, you have to go a long way to show you couldn't have acted differently.

Edited by Sky Scanner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were taught to NOT try to shoot some one in the foot or arm or anything like that. :) We were taught that if you pull a weapon the idea is their life or mine. You don't fire a warning shot. Bullets HAVE to land some where. We were taught to not be "cowboys" and try to scare some one or do anything like that. It was stated again and again, if you are using a weapon to protect yourself or your property, you do it to kill. Not necessarily a head shot, in fact this is discouraged because it lessens the accuracy in the situation.

Officials give the verbal warnings but again, we were taught that this isn't something we should do. We were taught that we don't yell "I've got a gun" we are to yell for help and to do it as we have our weapon our or are drawing it out. No warnings.

And as for the court comment that is being twisted beyond recognition...

Again, during the class, we were told that if carry concealed we should notify our attorney right away and have instructions on what to do if we find ourselves in a situation where we have used our concealed weapon. First thing we were told by the deputy and the lawyer is that playing "official" or "cowboy" and trying to slow some one down or fire a warning shot then the situation could and can be considered NOT life threatening and therefore you didn't have the right to fire and guess what? Criminal wins.

Nibs

That's exactly what they teach you in the CCW permit class. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent explanation from Hawaii

That definition is nearly universal in the United States, and what it means is that warning shots, wounding shots, and shots to the chest all fall into the same group. If you are not justified in using deadly force against an assailant, you are not justified in firing a warning shot or “just winging him”. Shots are not fired until the situation has been elevated to a point where killing is justified.

The next point that needs clarification is what is meant by “shoot to kill”. When asked if I would “shoot to kill”, my answer is both yes and no. If presented with a clear and mortal threat to my life or the life of my child, I would shoot to kill; in the sense that my shots would be aimed for the center of the attacker’s chest. Clearly that poses a significant risk of killing him, so yes, I would “shoot to kill”. However, the goal of deadly force is not the death of the assailant; the goal is to force the assailant to cease a behavior (attack) which prompted the use of deadly force. So no, I’m not shooting to kill, I’m shooting to stop. Once the attacker ceases being a threat, whether because he runs or is incapacitated, continued application of deadly force is no longer justified. Because of the wonderful resiliency of the human body, there are very, very few ways to reliably force someone to stop. If there were a more reliable means of accomplishing the goal of stopping an attacker before he has a chance to do harm, I would sell all my defensive firearms to purchase it. Unfortunately, for the time being, the only reliable way to stop an attacker is by placing bullets into vital organs.

The final question is whether or not I feel an attacker deserves to die for his actions, and it’s one that I don’t have an answer for. Frankly, it’s irrelevant. The bottom line is that a criminal who attacks a peaceful citizen for their money, body, or life has taken almost every choice out of the hands of that citizen. He has chosen the setting, the time, his weapon, his approach, literally everything. Most importantly, he has decided to force a peaceful citizen into a scenario where someone will be seriously injured or killed. The only question left is who that person will be, and for those of us who have made the decision to take responsibility for our own defense, the answer is, “NOT ME!

Deadly force is not a judgment of the assailant’s character, punishment for his crimes, or vengeance for the victim. It is simply the level of force necessary to immediately stop an imminent threat to innocent people.

Nibs

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what they teach you in the CCW permit class. :tu:

:) thank you!

Nibs

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is not exactly how i was tought,

you pull out the gun to shoot, there is no such thing shoot to kill, you shoot to stop a threat, you shoot untill it stops moving, even if he still moving on the floor you keep shooting untill he stops ALL movements.

also pulling out a gun doen't not mean you have to shoot, if threat retreats, or surrenders, you just don't shoot. hold him untill cops come.

you only shoot when it is a threat to your life, more likely than not, you will have to prove you had a reason to shoot him\her in court. even if your drunk neigbour desides to relive himself on your house you don't have any right to kill him, even in states with hold your ground, and castle doctrine, you will be asked questions, and when you do, don't evey say to were trying to kill him, you shot to stop a deadly harm done to you. NOT TO KILL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is not exactly how i was tought,

you pull out the gun to shoot, there is no such thing shoot to kill, you shoot to stop a threat, you shoot untill it stops moving, even if he still moving on the floor you keep shooting untill he stops ALL movements.

also pulling out a gun doen't not mean you have to shoot, if threat retreats, or surrenders, you just don't shoot. hold him untill cops come.

you only shoot when it is a threat to your life, more likely than not, you will have to prove you had a reason to shoot him\her in court. even if your drunk neigbour desides to relive himself on your house you don't have any right to kill him, even in states with hold your ground, and castle doctrine, you will be asked questions, and when you do, don't evey say to were trying to kill him, you shot to stop a deadly harm done to you. NOT TO KILL.

Interesting. That is about opposite of what we were taught. You don't keep shooting if the threat is gone. NRA taught our classes.

No one said anything about shooting for anything but a threat to lives.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. That is about opposite of what we were taught. You don't keep shooting if the threat is gone. NRA taught our classes.

No one said anything about shooting for anything but a threat to lives.

Nibs

Our police department is in charge of the CCW classes and an officer always teaches it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, missed you in class.

Now, you're missing what I actually said...

I didn't say anything about the procedure of the police. I told you what I was taught. From the law enforcement officers I know they have stated that firing a warning shot or shooting to harm is a big NO NO. If they draw their weapon, the shoot to kill. I never said they always hit their mark.

You're misrepresenting my statements.

Nibs

You're misrepresenting my statements. First of all, I never even thought about shooting someone in the foot in light of anything I said. That's not even relevant. You're claiming that you can't pull a gun unless you INTEND to KILL. That is absurd.

Whether killing is justified is different from whether or not killing is intended. You shouldn't even be thinking about whether or not you kill someone when it's time to draw a firearm and shoot. If you were accurately describing what you were allegedly trained to do, if you actually intended to kill every time you drew your firearm, you'd keep pumping your target full of bullets to make sure you killed them, rather than using sufficient and even deadly force to stop them in their tracks.

What you're bolding and posting doesn't even speak to anything I've said. I have no argument that killing isn't justified when I pull my gun and use it, whether I kill you for being in my house uninvited or not. You better be prepared to kill someone if you pull a gun on them and shoot them. I'm trying to make you understand the nuance between doing this and this absurd assertion of necessary intentional killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. That is about opposite of what we were taught. You don't keep shooting if the threat is gone. NRA taught our classes.

No one said anything about shooting for anything but a threat to lives.

Nibs

how is it opposite?, that is exactly what i said, you shoot untill he stops moving. you have no idea if the threat is gone if he stil moves. you're welcome to take that chance, but i wouldn't not. and looking at all nypd shootings, that is exactly what they do.

pll on drugs are not easy to stop or even kill, we had a guy on pcp, cut open his stomach, and threw his own intestants at cops. i'm sure you can find this story on line, if you don't believe me.

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our police department is in charge of the CCW classes and an officer always teaches it.

We had an NRA rep, County Sheriff (always present) and a lawyer teaching our class.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I ever have to pull a weapon on anyone and pull the trigger, I'm going to aim for the torso, center of mass. I'm not even going to think about killing because it's irrelevant to the entire exercise of protecting myself. I want to stop the attack on me, not take a life. Thus the "purpose" of my action is not killing.

"Shoot to kill" is just rhetoric. And it allows us to misunderstand, even our own formal training apparently.

This isn't a warzone for God's sake. These cases that the gun controllers love to pounce on top of aren't a matter of pulling and using our weapons to kill. I have at least some discretion in how I'm going to defend myself. If I pull my weapon and chamber a round on my Marlin lever or Mossberg pump, and I hear the home intruder start to leave, I'm not going to chase him down, running out of the house, blasting him through the back and making sure I kill him because A) I kinda missed but saw a little blood on the wall or B) I have to shoot to kill every time I draw my firearm or C) I don't want to go to court. Nice try, but no spliff. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it seem like Yamato wants to completely disassociate guns and shooting from killing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it seem like Yamato wants to completely disassociate guns and shooting from killing?

No you're not alone. It's me, too.

I associate guns with killing in circumstances where killing is the purpose; such as war.

We actually allow our war-making federal government to control our guns for us. I might as well allow a moonshiner to prohibit our alcohol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does it seem like Yamato wants to completely disassociate guns and shooting from killing?

It seems so lol..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's the term 'shoot to kill' that causes disagreements in opinion here, since it implies a motive at first reading, rather then 'shoot to protect (and killing may be an outcome)'

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's the term 'shoot to kill' that causes disagreements in opinion here, since it implies a motive at first reading, rather then 'shoot to protect (and killing may be an outcome)'

Bingo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo.

But when you need to deter a mass shooting, you did say blow his head off, so no it is not just in a war ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I ever have to pull a weapon on anyone and pull the trigger, I'm going to aim for the torso, center of mass. I'm not even going to think about killing because it's irrelevant to the entire exercise of protecting myself. I want to stop the attack on me, not take a life. Thus the "purpose" of my action is not killing.

"Shoot to kill" is just rhetoric. And it allows us to misunderstand, even our own formal training apparently.

This isn't a warzone for God's sake. These cases that the gun controllers love to pounce on top of aren't a matter of pulling and using our weapons to kill. I have at least some discretion in how I'm going to defend myself. If I pull my weapon and chamber a round on my Marlin lever or Mossberg pump, and I hear the home intruder start to leave, I'm not going to chase him down, running out of the house, blasting him through the back and making sure I kill him because A) I kinda missed but saw a little blood on the wall or B) I have to shoot to kill every time I draw my firearm or C) I don't want to go to court. Nice try, but no spliff. ;)

Of course you don't. The threat is gone and that is murder. We are only talking about imminent danger here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is it opposite?, that is exactly what i said, you shoot untill he stops moving.

If he stops moving, what do you think could be the problem? Has he A - Stopped to take a wee rest .. OR B - Dead ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But when you need to deter a mass shooting, you did say blow his head off, so no it is not just in a war ..

Yes, that was for the gun controllers. If I do shoot and I do blow his head off, it DOESN'T MATTER. It's a disassociation of killing from the act of defending myself, yes. It's meeting a threat to my life or that of a loved one including my beloved dog with equal or greater force to a home invader. Killing has absolutely nothing to do with it. If I was Joe Rogan in a bulletproof vest I might try to subdue my opponent with kicks and choke holds. If I ever had to shoot anyone to protect myself, and the intruder lives after going to the hospital, I will thank God in my semi-Catholic prayers I didn't have to kill anyone that day. And that I'm alive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.