In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Firearms are not for Killing....

leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
edited May 2002 in General Discussion
This is what we were taught recently in use of force class, thought it may be of important use for my fellow gun bearing free Americans.

When you use a gun on a person never say you used it to intentionally kill that person. Take the word kill completely from your vocabulary. Take the word gun out too. A gun from now on is a deadly force weapon, use to stop aggression and/or neutralize threats. Again stop aggression, neutralize threats. We use deadly force to neutralize threats and stop aggression.

Deadly force means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious * injury. (Texas PC9.01.3)

So next time an antigun person tells you that handguns are only used for killing people, tell them their wrong. They are inteded to protect life, and to stop aggression or neutralize threats. Also some of the most popular competitions are done using handguns, such as IPSC, USPSA, IDPA, and even SASS.

And it would also probably help not to say that a military firearms intented production was to kill a person, especially when talking about some of their lack in sub MOA accuracy, just say that they shoot good enough for their intended purpose of a weapon of deadly force, or to stop aggression or neutralize threats.

Maybe if we start using these terms in our vocabulary, it will come to our advantage.

If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    Man, that sounds way to PC. Can't we just call it like we see it? If a criminal attacks me or mine; I will kill him. See, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a dang duck. If we change our tactics so will the anti's. Good news is, we appear to be winning most of the time lately.


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You're right. That's got nothing to do with politics. It has to do with justified self defense. The proper language is not I wanted to kill them, it is I fired to stop the attack, then I called 911 to get the guy an ambulance.

    Any macho stuff will give the other lawyer all the ammo he needs to put you away for manslaughter at minimum, rather than your lawyer being able to get you off on a justified self defense shooting.

    Again, this is not a PC issue. This is proper gun handling behavior. We only fire when in fear of a life, and then only until the attack stops and/or the threat has been neutralized. Then we call 911. That is all that is justifiable in a shooting. If the lawyer asks you if you wanted to kill the person, you can honestly say no, I wanted to STOP the assault. I'm sorry the attacker died, but I'm not sorry I fired to protect a life; he forced me to take action and gave me no choice.

    - Life NRA Member
    If dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You're right. That's got nothing to do with politics. It has to do with justified self defense. The proper language is not I wanted to kill them, it is I fired to stop the attack, then I called 911 to get the guy an ambulance.

    Any macho stuff will give the other lawyer all the ammo he needs to put you away for manslaughter at minimum, rather than your lawyer being able to get you off on a justified self defense shooting.

    Again, this is not a PC issue. This is proper gun handling behavior. We only fire when in fear of a life, and then only until the attack stops and/or the threat has been neutralized. Then we call 911. That is all that is justifiable in a shooting. If the lawyer asks you if you wanted to kill the person, you can honestly say no, I wanted to STOP the assault. I'm sorry the attacker died, but I'm not sorry I fired to protect a life; he forced me to take action and gave me no choice.

    - Life NRA Member
    If dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    ..........so the now disabled criminal can now sue me? Forget it! Dead criminal file no lawsuits! "I felt threatened and could not fire to disable in this circumstance." That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    And if that's the case, why do you train to aim center mass? Because that's where the vitals are, the ones that make you dead when a bullet enters them.

    Now let's look at hunting rifle's, or do we really need to go there?


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Even if you kill him, if he has any family they can sue you. Even if you were in the right, there is no defense from civil liability.

    Anyone can sue you for anything civily, but they won't win, unless of coarse your in Kalifornia.

    If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You don't train to shoot center mass because thats where the vitals are, it is because thats the largest target, the easiest part to aim for.

    If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    On what basis can they sue? It's my word against a dead person. I reckon my word is more credible.


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    His family could sue you because you killed their main sorce of income.

    Like I previously mentioned, in civil court you can be sued for anything.

    If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    And I will countersue for some frivilous reason like "mental anguish caused by the criminal they raised." It goes both ways, just can't ever give up. And of course, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thats my moda too will, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6...

    If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    BTW, my views here are not what I would tell the police in this situation. Call me a hipocrit(sp), I don't care, I've been drinking tonight.


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    Hey, for every ridiculous accusation, there's a defense to match.

    "I was having a very vivid dream in which I was a Viet-Cong soldier in a fierce firefight. This is the reason why, after I was suddely wakened by the dope-fiending prowler in my house, I bump-fired a 40-round magazine from my AK-47 into his chest and * area from 10 feet away. This lack of sense caused by my vivid dream and subsequent sudden awakening were also the reason why I proceeded to sever his head with my KA-BAR fighting knife after I had shot him."

    Or, how about:

    "Due to a pre-existing mental condition caused by being abused by a circus clown at a young age, I instinctively wring my hands near my face in a gesture of supplication in any stressful situation. This is why my aim was so very high, when I ended up shooting the amphetamine-crazed mugger 5 times in the head with my Desert Eagle .50AE. This instinctive hand-wringing is also why I was found with my hands wrapped tightly around his lifeless throat when the police arrived."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • beachmaster73beachmaster73 Member Posts: 3,011 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not bad bullzeye. Beach
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • leeblackmanleeblackman Member Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    There's always the classic "The voices in my head made me do it...."

    If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    I like the voices idea, I wonder if it would make me ineligible to keep owning guns?


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • JustCJustC Member Posts: 16,056 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Then there is always the personal sacrifice method, Take an old knife, cut yourself, wipe off prints, apply criminal prints, call 911.

    I told him to stop or I would shoot, he cut me once, and then I knew my life was in danger. Any one of yall know how to get all this mess off my walls?

    A great rifle with a junk scope,....is junk.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • He DogHe Dog Member Posts: 51,593 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Will270, the problem with your approach is that only the lawyers make out on the deal. I know they deserve permanent applications of deadly force weapons, but that just gets other lawyers envolved. Like you, if I should ever need to resort to my deadly force weapon to defend myself or family against an aggressor, I want to be sure the application of deadly force is permanent. You just don't want the bad guy getting up again. Personally, I think deadly force weapon is a pretty aggressive term for a personal defense device, such as I have, which is off course only to be used in the extreme, and terribly unfortunate circumstance when reasoning and supportive conversation fail to make a conversion in his aggressive attack. Then, after using the personal defense device as gently and sparingly as possible (say three rounds to center thorax), I will immediately call 911, and say "I thought he was going to kill me!" After which I will call my attorney and have him start civil proceedings against the family of the attacker for compensation for great duress and mental anguish.

    And remember, guns were made to shoot paper targets and hang on the wall.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    Point well taken.


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • interstatepawnllcinterstatepawnllc Member Posts: 9,390
    edited November -1
    Bullz, five times in the head with the .50, you would be firing at particulate after the first shot. The clown bit was good.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AlpineAlpine Member Posts: 15,092 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Please put these two phrases into you vocabulary now. Because if something happens, and you don't use these two phrases when giving details to reporting parties you will never get to post here at this forum again for many years.

    "Center of Mass" If this center of mass happens to be between the running lights, so be it. But that is what you were aiming at.

    "Instantious Incapacition" Is what you were trying to achieve. Do not use the "K" word. Do not even think it.

    We want you back here to tell us the story, and offer you thoughts on the .223 debate (you know the one where everyone offers their 2 cents on whether the .223 round should be used by the miltary).
    ?The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.?
    Margaret Thatcher

    "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
    Mark Twain
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    will --
    You misunderstand me. I said nothing about "shooting to wound." That's a Hollywood concept. We always train to shoot at the "boiler room" because that's where you're most likely to a) hit your target and b) stop the assailant from continuing his mayhem.

    The intent is the thing. We intend to stop an attack. We do so by shooting the assailant, usually in the chest if we can, which is the use of deadly force. We even select rounds with the best "stopping power." It's "hoping he dies" that will get a shooter in trouble, because you don't need a perpetrator to die to save your family, you just need him to collapse. This is what is taught in responsible self defense shooting classes. You do not "execute" an assailant. You shoot him in the chest or head or someplace which hopefully guarantees the attack is ended -- if he lives, he lives.

    - Life NRA Member
    If dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    I am starting to see what is being said.


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.