What gun do you carry for your protection?

[Phanuel]

So you're saying that 3 shots is overkill? If so, lol. If I'm shooting someone my intent is to kill them, and I'll shoot until they're dead.

Rofl, I hear the same load of bull from instructors and other civilians. "You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the aggressor!"

Right, cause in a time is life situation I'm going to do careful, precise shots to limbs and areas without vital organs. Additionally, I will know right when my attacker has decided to stop and then I'll stop.

No, I'm going to put rounds into center mass until they're on the ground and no longer a threat, be that living or otherwise. If someone turns and runs, I won't pursue or shoot them in the back but beyond that, you've made yourself fair game for equal application of force.

Stop being asinine Alkemyst.

 

[pontifex]

Rofl, I hear the same load of bull from instructors and other civilians. "You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the aggressor!"

Right, cause in a time is life situation I'm going to do careful, precise shots to limbs and areas without vital organs. Additionally, I will know right when my attacker has decided to stop and then I'll stop.

No, I'm going to put rounds into center mass until they're on the ground and no longer a threat, be that living or otherwise. If someone turns and runs, I won't pursue or shoot them in the back but beyond that, you've made yourself fair game for equal application of force.

Stop being asinine Alkemyst.

shooting to stop doesn't mean precise leg or arms shots.

there's a legal reason for saying you shot to stop and not to kill. saying you shot to kill implies that it was a pre-meditated thing or you weren't really defending yourself.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

He took another's firearm from him it appears.

Jamie Foxx firearm or not was fucked.

I don't totally agree with 3 shots...now you are getting way beyond simple self-defense.

If you have "pros" on a manhunt for you, then perhaps.

A tripple tap is acceptable for self defense. 1 shot wonders rarely happen under stress.I'm pretty sure NRA and other groups promote double and tripple taps as being necessary in self defense.

Nick: yeah that's s good price if I was buying in bulk but I just bought another 50 golddots for ~35 bucks so I'm set 🙁 I wish that shipping wasn't so expensive

 

[alkemyst]

shooting to stop doesn't mean precise leg or arms shots.

there's a legal reason for saying you shot to stop and not to kill. saying you shot to kill implies that it was a pre-meditated thing or you weren't really defending yourself.

QFT...I don't think that poster knows shit, because he is setting himself up for a lawsuit talking like that.

 

[alkemyst]

A tripple tap is acceptable for self defense. 1 shot wonders rarely happen under stress.I'm pretty sure NRA and other groups promote double and tripple taps as being necessary in self defense.

Nick: yeah that's s good price if I was buying in bulk but I just bought another 50 golddots for ~35 bucks so I'm set 🙁 I wish that shipping wasn't so expensive

This whole triple tap shit is just that. One-upping the tried and true double-tap to center mass.

Two to the body on most is putting them down. Also a double tap usually is one good shot and one 'miss' for most.

I am sure you are one that feels you'd be 100% accurate in a street shootout.

 

[irishScott]

QFT...I don't think that poster knows shit, because he is setting himself up for a lawsuit talking like that.

I don't think you know shit. In a lethal force encounter I am legally entitled to defend my life with lethal force. I have no legal obligation to disable, wound, give a 2nd chance, or do what Jesus would have done. I will shoot until the threat is neutralized. That could take anywhere from one shot to a full mag depending on the situation.

Assigning arbitrary round counts and saying "x rounds is all you need and anything more is overkill" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Every situation is different. If someone's coming at me with a knife, maybe a double or triple tap would do it. If we're wrestling around point blank and I just managed to reach my CCW, I'm going to put all 8 rounds into my attacker to be sure.

The only way I could get a lawsuit is if there's evidence of overkill, like he was on the ground dead and I went up and emptied the rest of my mag into him. Fact is, if I ever have reason to draw and fire rest assured it will be a legally bulletproof situation.

 

[Phanuel]

I don't think you know shit. In a lethal force encounter I am legally entitled to defend my life with lethal force. I have no legal obligation to disable, wound, give a 2nd chance, or do what Jesus would have done. I will shoot until the threat is neutralized. That could take anywhere from one shot to a full mag depending on the situation.

Assigning arbitrary round counts and saying "x rounds is all you need and anything more is overkill" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Every situation is different. If someone's coming at me with a knife, maybe a double or triple tap would do it. If we're wrestling around point blank and I just managed to reach my CCW, I'm going to put all 8 rounds into my attacker to be sure.

The only way I could get a lawsuit is if there's evidence of overkill, like he was on the ground dead and I went up and emptied the rest of my mag into him. Fact is, if I ever have reason to draw and fire rest assured it will be a legally bulletproof situation.

If the victim has several rounds in a combat effective center body mass, falls to the floor and you stop shooting, this is fine. However, if I then proceed to shoot them in the head while they're on the floor and the ballistics prove that I deliberately shot them two separate times with separate trajectories, then yes. I am going beyond simple self defense.

I think Alkemyst is confusing me with a moron. And no, there are numerous reports of police encounters (the FBI has done research and compiled statistics on combat 'shots fired', wherein an officer's average hit % at 10 yards was less than 4% of rounds fired) where the officer puts 7+ rounds center mass into a perpetrator with no noticeable effect and then was shot 2-3 times and killed while the criminal survived.

2-3 rounds is just 2-3 rounds, it means absolutely nothing. Outside of a critical shot to the spinal cord that shuts down motor control, adrenaline will keep a person functioning at nearly 100% for minutes even with mortal wounds having been inflicted. Everytime I watch a movie and one shot takes out a bad guy, I just shudder at the absolute absurdity of that happening in real life.

If you, say mountain bike, the first thing you do when you crash is check yourself for injuries. Because once you crash, adrenaline floods your system and dulls all of your senses. And you're perfectly capable of getting up and continuing riding with broken ribs and bones and not noticing until the adrenaline is removed from your system.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

This whole triple tap shit is just that. One-upping the tried and true double-tap to center mass.

Two to the body on most is putting them down. Also a double tap usually is one good shot and one 'miss' for most.

I am sure you are one that feels you'd be 100% accurate in a street shootout.

I didn't say id be 100% accurate, and no a double tap to center of mass will not always put them down, this has been proven again and again.

 

[alkemyst]

I don't think you know shit. In a lethal force encounter I am legally entitled to defend my life with lethal force. I have no legal obligation to disable, wound, give a 2nd chance, or do what Jesus would have done. I will shoot until the threat is neutralized. That could take anywhere from one shot to a full mag depending on the situation.

Assigning arbitrary round counts and saying "x rounds is all you need and anything more is overkill" is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Every situation is different. If someone's coming at me with a knife, maybe a double or triple tap would do it. If we're wrestling around point blank and I just managed to reach my CCW, I'm going to put all 8 rounds into my attacker to be sure.

The only way I could get a lawsuit is if there's evidence of overkill, like he was on the ground dead and I went up and emptied the rest of my mag into him. Fact is, if I ever have reason to draw and fire rest assured it will be a legally bulletproof situation.

Good luck with that. Make sure you go on record saying you wanted him dead and planned to kill him from the start.

 

[alkemyst]

I didn't say id be 100% accurate, and no a double tap to center of mass will not always put them down, this has been proven again and again.

yeah, just empty your clip to be sure right?

 

[nick1985]

yeah, just empty your mag to be sure right?

ftfy

 

[irishScott]

Good luck with that. Make sure you go on record saying you wanted him dead and planned to kill him from the start.

Lol put words in my mouth much? How does the fact that I shoot with intent to kill my attacker (who is threatening me with immediate lethal force) translate into 1st degree murder?

If I took offensive/preemptive action you'd have a point. However, if I ever have to draw and fire it will only be because I feel my life is immediately threatened, and the attacker will already have made the (unprovoked) first move. That makes it legitimate self defense unless I take it too far (ie: unneeded execution or mutilation of the corpse). No court is going to convict me of 1st degree murder because I shot the drunk guy running at me with a knife with 5 rounds center of mass instead of 2.

 

[alkemyst]

Lol put words in my mouth much? How does the fact that I shoot with intent to kill my attacker (who is threatening me with immediate lethal force) translate into 1st degree murder?

If I took offensive/preemptive action you'd have a point. However, if I ever have to draw and fire it will only be because I feel my life is immediately threatened, and the attacker will already have made the (unprovoked) first move. That makes it legitimate self defense unless I take it too far (ie: unneeded execution or mutilation of the corpse). No court is going to convict me of 1st degree murder because I shot the drunk guy running at me with a knife with 5 rounds instead of 2.

Like I said, go on record stating you PLANNED TO KILL and WANTED TO KILL the perp.

Good luck with that. I never said you'd get hit with 1st degree murder. You'd not get off lightly though.

Many many honest defense cases have been made difficult by the shooter's words on the scene. This is why in many training classes they talk about proper explaination and response to LEO questions and the press on one's actions.

Now you adding that you knew the guy was drunk and coming at you with just a knife you further fucked yourself.

I don't agree with it, but the law would be against you on that 100%.

 

[alkemyst]

ftfy

good luck with the clip vs magazine debate. It's even worse than the parking/emergency brake discussion.

I am willing to bet you place a store catalog and a magazine next to each other at a gun range and ask 100 people to grab you that magazine over there...most will bring you the store catalog.

 

[irishScott]

Like I said, go on record stating you PLANNED TO KILL and WANTED TO KILL the perp.

Good luck with that. I never said you'd get hit with 1st degree murder. You'd not get off lightly though.

Many many honest defense cases have been made difficult by the shooter's words on the scene. This is why in many training classes they talk about proper explaination and response to LEO questions and the press on one's actions.

Now you adding that you knew the guy was drunk and coming at you with just a knife you further fucked yourself.

I don't agree with it, but the law would be against you on that 100%.

I would not go on record saying I planned or wanted to kill the guy, because I would certainly not have planned any part of the event and I sure as hell don't want to kill anyone. Where the hell are you getting that from?

And what are you smoking that knowing the guy was drunk and coming at me with a knife makes me culpable? Last I checked being drunk is no excuse for trying to kill someone in cold blood. If anything that justifies my use of higher level of force as, being drunk the guy would be less vulnerable to pain.

So what exactly would I be charged with?

 

[GoofyGoofT]

Right and buying a gun and practicing with .40 cal at least is probably going to cost about $200/month or so. For $200/month that's probably an upgrade or two to your living arrangement.

I'd have found a campus martial arts club and joined that too esp if I got served in my own house.

The gun was worth it! Yes!

I know martial arts already
tie quan do
submission fighting
grappling
Jiu-Jitsu

I use to fight in tournaments in my home state.

But all the martial arts in the world can't stop a bullet.

 

[nick1985]

But all the martial arts in the world can't stop a bullet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE

 

[GoofyGoofT]

Collateral is a great movie, and that technique (I can't remember the name) is actually really easy to do with practice and a good holster. You don't even need to practice with live ammo at self defense distance.

In that dark ally way I would have just shot both and laid them out as if they were in an attack mode and sold it to the police that way. They already had a gun out.

But that would be a neat move to learn how to do.

 

[GoofyGoofT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE

not even a blade could block that.

such a great clip that works for this discussion.

 

[alkemyst]

The gun was worth it! Yes!

I know martial arts already
tie quan do
submission fighting
grappling
Jiu-Jitsu

I use to fight in tournaments in my home state.

But all the martial arts in the world can't stop a bullet.

tie quan do??

stop lying now.

 

[alkemyst]

I would not go on record saying I planned or wanted to kill the guy, because I would certainly not have planned any part of the event and I sure as hell don't want to kill anyone. Where the hell are you getting that from?

And what are you smoking that knowing the guy was drunk and coming at me with a knife makes me culpable? Last I checked being drunk is no excuse for trying to kill someone in cold blood. If anything that justifies my use of higher level of force as, being drunk the guy would be less vulnerable to pain.

So what exactly would I be charged with?

now you are backpeddling.

So you aren't really shooting to kill then.

I don't think it's worth arguing with you on this as you think the law is pro-killing outlaws.

 

[shortylickens]

I think the only gun thread I've seen go well was locked after one post.

 

[irishScott]

now you are backpeddling.

So you aren't really shooting to kill then.

I don't think it's worth arguing with you on this as you think the law is pro-killing outlaws.

huh? No, I think you're just reading too much into "shooting to kill".

Shooting to kill means nothing more than aiming, to the best of one's ability, for vital organs/CNS if possible. This ends the threat in quickest, most efficient manner possible.

Shooting to wound would be shooting for limbs (good luck with that). Shooting to deter would be shooting into the ground or air (which could, ironically, get you in more legal trouble than killing the guy).

My original point is that a gun used defensively has one purpose: to kill your attacker before he/she kills you. If you're shooting at them with the intent to do anything but kill them, you're either in some very rare circumstances or just being stupid.

 

[alkemyst]

huh? No, I think you're just reading too much into "shooting to kill".

Shooting to kill means nothing more than aiming, to the best of one's ability, for vital organs/CNS if possible. This ends the threat in quickest, most efficient manner possible.

Shooting to wound would be shooting for limbs (good luck with that). Shooting to deter would be shooting into the ground or air (which could, ironically, get you in more legal trouble than killing the guy).

My original point is that a gun used defensively has one purpose: to kill your attacker before he/she kills you. If you're shooting at them with the intent to do anything but kill them, you're either in some very rare circumstances or just being stupid.

you win. like I said good luck with that thought pattern.

 

[irishScott]

you win. like I said good luck with that thought pattern.

Whatever man. Apparently we were just arguing over semantics.

In any case, all you've done is put words in my mouth and then called me out on things I've never said (that I planned to kill someone, that I want to kill someone, and that I think the government supports the killing of outlaws) all of which you completely pulled out of your ass.

So... yeah in light of that kind of argument I will hold on to my mentality that a deadly weapon should be used only with deadly purpose in mind, barring some very special circumstances. And no, the law wouldn't support my killing of the guy. It would support my right to defend myself against an unprovoked deadly assault with deadly force. If that concept, which has been proven time and again in countless court cases, is too much for you to handle... good luck.