Wave gun at car, get shot

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Just because you think about the practicality of your shot doesn't really change my view on the morality of it...

Well the initial investigation could lead to my holding them for police to arrive. And legally I can't shoot them in the back in Delaware, so I'd have to get them to face me. Which means warning. If I establish it's only one person and I believe I can hold them given my observations, I'll give them a chance.

Like I said every situation is different. I could armchair hundreds of situations where I would and would not fire all night. Doesn't change the fact that in the event of someone breaking into my house, a situation where lethal force could be my only option to end a lethal threat is much more likely to arise. In such an event, I'd like to be prepared.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
An understandable viewpoint, but to my mind there is a difference between owning a kitchen knife and a gun, going out to buy a weapon to kill someone, is irresponsible if you ask me.

Owning a gun and actively looking for opportunities to kill someone are two different things. Having the power to defend yourself and using it irresponsibly are two very different things.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Well the initial investigation could lead to my holding them for police to arrive. And legally I can't shoot them in the back in Delaware, so I'd have to get them to face me. Which means warning. If I establish it's only one person and I believe I can hold them given my observations, I'll give them a chance.

Like I said every situation is different. I could armchair hundreds of situations where I would and would not fire all night. Doesn't change the fact that in the event of someone breaking into my house, a situation where lethal force could be my only option to end a lethal threat is much more likely to arise. In such an event, I'd like to be prepared.

I understand, but my point is by buying a gun you are saying "I'm prepared to kill someone now" and "I'm capable of keeping a deadly weapon, nothing can go wrong" these are two irresponsible viewpoints. If you are saying "something could go wrong" that's even more irresponsible.

Owning a gun and actively looking for opportunities to kill someone are two different things.

Of course they are.

Having the power to defend yourself and using it irresponsibly are two very different things.

I disagree, being prepared to kill is morally irresponsible to me. Saying that you are capable of owning a gun with no negative repercussions is irresponsible.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I understand, but my point is by buying a gun you are saying "I'm prepared to kill someone now" and "I'm capable of keeping a deadly weapon, nothing can go wrong" these are two irresponsible viewpoints. If you are saying "something could go wrong" that's even more irresponsible.



Of course they are.



I disagree, being prepared to kill is morally irresponsible to me. Saying that you are capable of owning a gun with no negative repercussions is irresponsible.

I'm saying I'm not some crazed executioner dying for a kill.

So all that matters are baseless probabilities of my shooting someone wrongly? Probabilities based largely on your irrational fears no less.

Statistically speaking my car is more likely to kill someone wrongly than my guns, given the way I use them. Just because there is another use for it doesn't make the statement less true. Is the value of my owning a car worth more than the lives it may potentially kill, to you?

And just as it is impossible for me to say my guns will always be used 100% with no negative repercussions, it is also impossible for you to say that they will 100% definitely wrongfully harm someone at some point. Personally, given my own proven level of gun discipline I'll gladly roll the dice on that with odds so great in my favor I could bankrupt Vegas with them.
 
Last edited:

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
I disagree, being prepared to kill is morally irresponsible to me. Saying that you are capable of owning a gun with no negative repercussions is irresponsible.

Then cops that carry weapons or a nation's armed forces are morally irresponsible. They are both prepared to kill if the situation requires it to defend themselves or the lives of others. I guess the real question is are you ok with other people making the decision to defend you when you aren't willing to make that decision yourself?
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
I'm saying I'm not some crazed executioner dying for a kill.

So all that matters are baseless probabilities of my shooting someone wrongly? Probabilities based largely on your irrational fears no less.

Statistically speaking my car is more likely to kill someone wrongly than my guns, given the way I use them. Just because there is another use for it doesn't make the statement less true. Is the value of my owning a car worth more than the lives it may potentially kill, to you?

The reason that your car is more likely to kill someone is that you are using it every day, in a public place, if you were wandering around shooting in public places every day your gun would kill a fuck load more people.

And just as it is impossible for me to say my guns will always be used 100% with no negative repercussions, it is also impossible for you to say that they will 100% definitely wrongfully endanger someone at some point. Personally, given my own proven level of gun discipline I'll gladly roll the dice on that with odds so great in my favor I could bankrupt Vegas with them.

I understand that but the point I'm making is that they are not your dice to roll, buy rolling them at all you are taking a risk with someone elses life that you have no right to take. Even if it pays of, even if it's 99% likely you will never kill someone with it, by taking that chance you are doing something irresponsible.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
Statistically speaking my car is more likely to kill someone wrongly than my guns, given the way I use them. Just because there is another use for it doesn't make the statement less true. Is the value of my owning a car worth more than the lives it may potentially kill, to you?

Statistically speaking, owning a home with a pool is more dangerous than owning a gun.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Then cops that carry weapons or a nation's armed forces are morally irresponsible. They are both prepared to kill if the situation requires it to defend themselves or the lives of others. I guess the real question is are you ok with other people making the decision to defend you when you aren't willing to make that decision yourself?

The difference is that a) they are making decisions based on reason and b) they are trained to make those decisions they are qualified to own those weapons. But personally? No, the police should not have guns with the exception of armed response units, highly trained officers who are called out in the worst case scenario.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
The difference is that a) they are making decisions based on reason and b) they are trained to make those decisions they are qualified to own those weapons. But personally? No, the police should not have guns with the exception of armed response units, highly trained officers who are called out in the worst case scenario.

Lol, my local police are required to shoot 3 times a year to qualify. I shoot at minimum 4 times a month and can personally out-shoot a lot of them (those that don't shoot on their own). I know more about the cops' weapons than they do in many cases. I also know gun law more extensively than some. Plus civilians are more restricted legally. We don't have some organization to help cover our asses if we mess up with our guns. An officer who accidentally shoots a civilian will get off with a slap on the wrist for acting in the line of duty. A civilian will get jailed for manslaughter or even negligent homicide in most cases.

Not saying I'm the norm, but police training only means so much. They are not some lofty elite warrior group, and civilians can be trained just as well or better.

And when seconds matter, the police are minutes away and not legally accountable to be there in time, especial in rural areas where even the fastest travel time can be 20 minutes or more.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Lol, my local police are required to shoot 3 times a year to qualify. I shoot at minimum 4 times a month and can personally out-shoot a lot of them (those that don't shoot on their own). I know more about the cops' weapons than they do in many cases. I also know gun law more extensively than some. Plus civilians are more restricted legally. We don't have some organization to help cover our asses if we mess up with our guns. An officer who accidentally shoots a civilian will get off with a slap on the wrist for acting in the line of duty. A civilian will get jailed for manslaughter or even negligent homicide in most cases.

Not saying I'm the norm, but police training only means so much. They are not some lofty elite warrior group, and civilians can be trained just as well or better.

And when seconds matter, the police are minutes away and not legally accountable to be there in time, especial in rural areas where even the fastest travel time can be 20 minutes or more.

Sorry I wasn't talking about american police.
 

Sa7aN

Senior member
Aug 16, 2010
204
1
0
Lol, my local police are required to shoot 3 times a year to qualify. I shoot at minimum 4 times a month and can personally out-shoot a lot of them (those that don't shoot on their own). I know more about the cops' weapons than they do in many cases. I also know gun law more extensively than some. Plus civilians are more restricted legally. We don't have some organization to help cover our asses if we mess up with our guns. An officer who accidentally shoots a civilian will get off with a slap on the wrist for acting in the line of duty. A civilian will get jailed for manslaughter or even negligent homicide in most cases.

Not saying I'm the norm, but police training only means so much. They are not some lofty elite warrior group, and civilians can be trained just as well or better.

And when seconds matter, the police are minutes away and not legally accountable to be there in time, especial in rural areas where even the fastest travel time can be 20 minutes or more.

oh some of the cops at my range would be lucky to hit the paper at 50 feet, ive also seen some of the worst firearm safety from them (stuff that would get you banned from the range if you were a civilian). a few are damn good shots but most just dont spend the time they should on a tool that they might have to use to defend their life or save another life
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
The difference is that a) they are making decisions based on reason and b) they are trained to make those decisions they are qualified to own those weapons. But personally? No, the police should not have guns with the exception of armed response units, highly trained officers who are called out in the worst case scenario.

Why can't a private citizen make a decision based on reason? Are you unable to make reasonable decisions?

Why can't a private citizen get trained on how to use their weapons?

Also, the idea of having just a few armed response units isn't workable for most areas, especially in the less populated areas of the US. Response time would be much longer. When there's a life or death situation you don't want them to take an extra 20 - 30 minutes to get there.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Why can't a private citizen make a decision based on reason? Are you unable to make reasonable decisions?

Why can't a private citizen get trained on how to use their weapons?

Also, the idea of having just a few armed response units isn't workable for most areas, especially in the less populated areas of the US. Response time would be much longer. When there's a life or death situation you don't want them to take an extra 20 - 30 minutes to get there.

Because police are being objective, they aren't emotionally involved in the decisions made.

The response time wouldn't be an issue if you guys didn't have guns. :D
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Because police are being objective, they aren't emotionally involved in the decisions made.

The response time wouldn't be an issue if you guys didn't have guns. :D

Wow, you really are naive. Police are people too, and if you think police acting up in the heat of the moment is uncommon... lol. There's a reason when police tell you to put your hands up you don't put your hands on your hips and bitch about how illegal it is. You let them do what they want and invoke your right to a lawyer when the time comes.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Wow, you really are naive. Police are people too, and if you think police acting up in the heat of the moment is uncommon... lol.

The difference is they can arrive at a situation and not care more about one person than another they can look at the situation and decide what to do without thinking "That's my wife" etc. Obviously they get involved in the heat of the moment but they are more unbiased than you would be if someone broke into your house.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
Because police are being objective, they aren't emotionally involved in the decisions made.

The response time wouldn't be an issue if you guys didn't have guns. :D

If somebody attacks a cop or a cop sees someone else get attacked the are emotionally involved. They are people, not some detached robot.

The response time would still matter. Like I said before, there's plenty of things that aren't guns that can easily kill a person. A few minutes with a knife or a sledge hammer is plenty long to kill someone.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
If somebody attacks a cop or a cop sees someone else get attacked the are emotionally involved. They are people, not some detached robot.

True, but they are more emotionally detached than a Dad coming down in the night in his boxers with a pistol to find someone in his house.

The response time would still matter. Like I said before, there's plenty of things that aren't guns that can easily kill a person. A few minutes with a knife or a sledge hammer is plenty long to kill someone.

In those cases they don't need a gun.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
If somebody attacks a cop or a cop sees someone else get attacked the are emotionally involved. They are people, not some detached robot.

The response time would still matter. Like I said before, there's plenty of things that aren't guns that can easily kill a person. A few minutes with a knife or a sledge hammer is plenty long to kill someone.]

Less than that. A blow above the shoulders with a blunt instrument is considered lethal force in almost every court, and with good reason.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
In those cases they don't need a gun.

Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure shooting a guy with a knife or baseball bat is less risky than engaging him in a hand-to-hand fight, in the dark, during a break-in. If I'm in a fight for my life and/or family's life I'd like superior firepower thank you.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure shooting a guy with a knife or baseball bat is less risky than engaging him in a hand-to-hand fight, in the dark, during a break-in. If I'm in a fight for my life and/or family's life I'd like superior firepower thank you.

Don't care if it's "less risky" it's also less moral.
 

Numenorean

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2008
4,442
1
0
Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure shooting a guy with a knife or baseball bat is less risky than engaging him in a hand-to-hand fight, in the dark, during a break-in. If I'm in a fight for my life and/or family's life I'd like superior firepower thank you.

He would rather you watch your wife die than you own a gun.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
True, but they are more emotionally detached than a Dad coming down in the night in his boxers with a pistol to find someone in his house.

That dad should have every right to defend himself and his family.

In those cases they don't need a gun.

Yes, they do. Why shouldn't an officer have an advantage over a criminal? If somebody is attacking with something that can kill them why can't they attack back with something that is more effective?
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Don't care if it's "less risky" it's also less moral.

ROFL. Alright, go tell your fiancee that if you have a loaded gun and someone breaks in an attacks you, you'll put the gun aside and "fight him morally" knowing full well that if you lose she'd be at his mercy and you'd be dead.

Seriously Hal, just stop it already. You just said you'd submit to a Darwin award. :D
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
He would rather you watch your wife die than you own a gun.

Would I? :hmm: That's news to me.

That dad should have every right to defend himself and his family.

And so he does.

Yes, they do. Why shouldn't an officer have an advantage over a criminal? If somebody is attacking with something that can kill them why can't they attack back with something that is more effective?

He should! He should have backup, a nightstick, a stun gun, some pepper spray and a radio.