dmccarty
Super Star Member
Bob,
Lots to say. I'm sure I"ll forget something but here it goes....
Deadly Force is Deadly Force. There is none of this crap of
"I'll shoot him in the leg." and everything will be ok that people
are indoctrinated by the morons on TV. First of all one can
only use Deadly Force to when one has a reasonable belief
that a life is in danger. Now there is more to it depending
on state laws but ** I ** would NOT use Deadly Force in
any other situation. Its just asking for legal trouble at a
minimum and prison time as a likely result.
So a BadGuy is in someone's house. The BadGuy has a gun. The
GoodGuy thinks the BadGuy going kill him or his family. So he
shoots the BadGuy in the leg. Hmmmm. Does shooting the
BadGuy in the leg prevent him from shooting anyone else? No.
He is still a threat. And he has likely shot our GoodGuy.
People get shot all the time. Sometimes they drop dead. Most
often they still keep going. Even with wounds that will eventually
kill them. People who have been shot do NOT always drop to the
ground and stop their deadly actions. In fact they MOST OFTEN
do NOT.
Its not logical to shoot someone in the "arm" or the "leg" when they
are trying to kill you. Most people are going to miss shooting an arm
or leg anyway which will give the BadGuy more time to hurt the Good
Guy. Using Deadly Force is Deadly Force. If the BadGuy is NOT a
threat to GoodGuy's life then GoodGuy had better not use Deadly Force
otherwise GoodGuy is going to be treated like a BadGuy. If a life
is not at risk dont use Deadly Force.
If GoodGuy catches BadGuy trespassing on his land and then shoots
BadGuy in the leg the court is going to consider that a use of Deadly
Force. Telling the judge that "I only shot him in the leg." ain't going
to do a thing except be taken as an admission of guilt. Shooting AT
someone is a use of Deadly Force. Even if you intend to miss. If they
ain't threatening someone's life. Don't shoot....
Hope I cleared that up! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Dr. John Lott, who I believe is at the University of Chicago has done
lots, no pun intended, /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif of research on firearm use. He used
to be at the University of Florida but I'm pretty sure he has moved. The
liberals hate him because his research is so good they have to attack him and
not his results. I have an early book he wrote that said there are about
a million uses of a firearm to prevent a violent crime every year. His
latest research says two million uses. Most of the uses do NOT require
the firing of the firearm. Usually just the sight of the weapon causes
the BadGuy to run away.
Again YOU are responsible for YOUR family and only YOU can decide what
to do. I know the county where my property resides might only have 10
deputies on duty to cover the entire area. Response times are NOT
going to be very fast if I have a problem.... If you have law enfocement
that can respond quickly then maybe you are ok. But maybe you are not.
YOU do need to ask if you and your wife could use the weapon. If the
answer is no that tells you something. I was in a class once where the
instructer asked if the trainees could shot someone. He set up a situation
that was black and white. No if, ands or butts. You shoot BadGuy or
BadGuy shoots YOU. Only about a third of the class said they could shoot
the BadGuy. I was horrified. My reaction was you people need to leave.
And NOW! If you can't do this then I and the public do not need you on
the streets. But there it is...
There is another book called "On Killing." The author escapes me. Its
a very good read and I think the author is right on the money about
most of what he talks about. He sites a bunch of different books that
I have read but I never connected the dots like he did. The basic
premiss of "On Killing" is that most people are not condition to kill.
That Killing is very hard and difficult. Unless people are condition
to kill they find it difficult or impossible to do. "On Killing" provides
lots of evidence to back this up. And if you think about the statements,
the movies/TV shows, music, video games, etc., that we bombard our
kids with it should scare the heck of people....
But I digress! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Martial arts classes are good if they are the right classes. There
is a lot of crap in some classes. I studied for three years in
a school that was very good and did get into "street" fighting
techniques. Defending against knive and gun attacks for example.
There are many schools that don't teach such things. And maybe
they should not for all I know. But if our BadGuy is 22 feet away
from me with a gun pointed at me and I'm a 300 degree black belt
I think I'm gonna die if he shoots! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif I might have a slight
chance since I'm a 300 degree black belt but frankly I would rather
have my SW 4506-1. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I picked 22 feet for a specific reason that maybe we will get into
later.
On the other hand a firearm is not always the right answer either. They
can be a liability as well.
BUT, it certainly is easier to learn to be proficient with a firearm than it is
to be proficient at a martial art. NC requires 40 hours of firearms training
during a Police Academy. Florida in the 80's was also 40 hours. That 40
hours include handguns and shotgun. So in a week and maybe a 1,000 rounds
someone is proficient.
After a year or so I was proficient in my martial arts. Maybe. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Seemed
like the more I learned the more I knew I had to learn. Every month I would
think, "Wow, I really am getting to know what I'm doing." Which implies that
the previous month I did not. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Of course martial arts are FAR more than what we are talking about. And if
one is profiecient in a martial art and firearms, well, thats the cats meow!
/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Guess I had better wrap this up. I know I'm forgeting something but
I can always add to TBN! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Later...
Dan
Lots to say. I'm sure I"ll forget something but here it goes....
Deadly Force is Deadly Force. There is none of this crap of
"I'll shoot him in the leg." and everything will be ok that people
are indoctrinated by the morons on TV. First of all one can
only use Deadly Force to when one has a reasonable belief
that a life is in danger. Now there is more to it depending
on state laws but ** I ** would NOT use Deadly Force in
any other situation. Its just asking for legal trouble at a
minimum and prison time as a likely result.
So a BadGuy is in someone's house. The BadGuy has a gun. The
GoodGuy thinks the BadGuy going kill him or his family. So he
shoots the BadGuy in the leg. Hmmmm. Does shooting the
BadGuy in the leg prevent him from shooting anyone else? No.
He is still a threat. And he has likely shot our GoodGuy.
People get shot all the time. Sometimes they drop dead. Most
often they still keep going. Even with wounds that will eventually
kill them. People who have been shot do NOT always drop to the
ground and stop their deadly actions. In fact they MOST OFTEN
do NOT.
Its not logical to shoot someone in the "arm" or the "leg" when they
are trying to kill you. Most people are going to miss shooting an arm
or leg anyway which will give the BadGuy more time to hurt the Good
Guy. Using Deadly Force is Deadly Force. If the BadGuy is NOT a
threat to GoodGuy's life then GoodGuy had better not use Deadly Force
otherwise GoodGuy is going to be treated like a BadGuy. If a life
is not at risk dont use Deadly Force.
If GoodGuy catches BadGuy trespassing on his land and then shoots
BadGuy in the leg the court is going to consider that a use of Deadly
Force. Telling the judge that "I only shot him in the leg." ain't going
to do a thing except be taken as an admission of guilt. Shooting AT
someone is a use of Deadly Force. Even if you intend to miss. If they
ain't threatening someone's life. Don't shoot....
Hope I cleared that up! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Dr. John Lott, who I believe is at the University of Chicago has done
lots, no pun intended, /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif of research on firearm use. He used
to be at the University of Florida but I'm pretty sure he has moved. The
liberals hate him because his research is so good they have to attack him and
not his results. I have an early book he wrote that said there are about
a million uses of a firearm to prevent a violent crime every year. His
latest research says two million uses. Most of the uses do NOT require
the firing of the firearm. Usually just the sight of the weapon causes
the BadGuy to run away.
Again YOU are responsible for YOUR family and only YOU can decide what
to do. I know the county where my property resides might only have 10
deputies on duty to cover the entire area. Response times are NOT
going to be very fast if I have a problem.... If you have law enfocement
that can respond quickly then maybe you are ok. But maybe you are not.
YOU do need to ask if you and your wife could use the weapon. If the
answer is no that tells you something. I was in a class once where the
instructer asked if the trainees could shot someone. He set up a situation
that was black and white. No if, ands or butts. You shoot BadGuy or
BadGuy shoots YOU. Only about a third of the class said they could shoot
the BadGuy. I was horrified. My reaction was you people need to leave.
And NOW! If you can't do this then I and the public do not need you on
the streets. But there it is...
There is another book called "On Killing." The author escapes me. Its
a very good read and I think the author is right on the money about
most of what he talks about. He sites a bunch of different books that
I have read but I never connected the dots like he did. The basic
premiss of "On Killing" is that most people are not condition to kill.
That Killing is very hard and difficult. Unless people are condition
to kill they find it difficult or impossible to do. "On Killing" provides
lots of evidence to back this up. And if you think about the statements,
the movies/TV shows, music, video games, etc., that we bombard our
kids with it should scare the heck of people....
But I digress! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Martial arts classes are good if they are the right classes. There
is a lot of crap in some classes. I studied for three years in
a school that was very good and did get into "street" fighting
techniques. Defending against knive and gun attacks for example.
There are many schools that don't teach such things. And maybe
they should not for all I know. But if our BadGuy is 22 feet away
from me with a gun pointed at me and I'm a 300 degree black belt
I think I'm gonna die if he shoots! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif I might have a slight
chance since I'm a 300 degree black belt but frankly I would rather
have my SW 4506-1. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I picked 22 feet for a specific reason that maybe we will get into
later.
On the other hand a firearm is not always the right answer either. They
can be a liability as well.
BUT, it certainly is easier to learn to be proficient with a firearm than it is
to be proficient at a martial art. NC requires 40 hours of firearms training
during a Police Academy. Florida in the 80's was also 40 hours. That 40
hours include handguns and shotgun. So in a week and maybe a 1,000 rounds
someone is proficient.
After a year or so I was proficient in my martial arts. Maybe. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Seemed
like the more I learned the more I knew I had to learn. Every month I would
think, "Wow, I really am getting to know what I'm doing." Which implies that
the previous month I did not. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Of course martial arts are FAR more than what we are talking about. And if
one is profiecient in a martial art and firearms, well, thats the cats meow!
/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Guess I had better wrap this up. I know I'm forgeting something but
I can always add to TBN! /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Later...
Dan
