Should New York tourists have their lives destroyed because of concealed carry l

[All4MyDaughter]

I'll take your and D712's word for it as you both seem to have a stronger background than me in that area.

I can't help but remain skeptical though, that of the 10,000 cases per year that SCOTUS declines to hear (99% of them!), the reason they're declining to hear the cases is that they're affirming the lower court decisions.

But that is the de facto result. If you file an appeal and lose, the original decision stands and the law in question is affirmed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Narcotized]

Shotgun in house is totally excessive.

D712

D712, I know of at least one person you will never get to agree with you

http://www.newson6.com/story/164272...ho-shot-killed-intruder-recalls-home-invasion

 

[doctor712]

The point was that no "lecture" makes someone competent with a firearm. I find it hard to believe that an experienced federal LEO would think that he could "lecture" competency into anyone.

Oh COME ON Pgg, first you talk about all the hoops you CCW guys jump through to get permitted, now you're dancing away from your argument. My point with my mom's example is that EVEN WITH a competent discussion, people are people and the situation can get stupid quick. And as far as lecturing competency, please, my father gave basic safety and instructions to mother regarding household guns (and I'd want nobody else to give that lecture to me) and she disobeyed every word. You're not making sense PGG.

Police may tell you, privately, off the record, that they shoot to kill. Put either in front of an investigator, jury, or the press after a shooting, and both will say they shot to stop/end the threat.

Wrong, I know more than one person (including father) who has and would always testify that when life was in threat, they shot to kill. No US Attorney would EVER EVER EVER blame an Agent for using weapon when he/she feared for life. Your information is unfounded. If anything the Agents I know are jokingly "Kojack" about the whole situation, as in, please, give me a reason to kill u (jokingly of course). But they have NO problem doing what they are trained to do.
You could not be any more off base here.

Well, if you're a cop, you'll probably get off, but the point stands.

Then why would a cop EVER testify to anything else. Especially a veteran agent. This is not something taught in training, I asked, you shoot mid mass to stop the threat, or kill the threat? Well, killing the threat stops the threat, but the aim is to Kill. From the youngest age I remember gun lectures with my dad and I would always ask how many times he drew his weapon and when I was surprised with the reply (less than I thought being a kid and thinking the world was like Miami Vice) his answer was ALWAYS, "The only time you pull your weapon out of your holster is when you are intending to kill someone with it." Period. (this was in context of using weapon, there are scenarios where a Cop will draw weapon and not really feel he'll use it). But ask any Cop how they'd testify. Those dudes have so much Sonny Crockett swagger they fear nothing and you better play by their rules or else. Believe me, I've been dealing with this my life. It's annoying as S HIT.

Exempt them from what?

From being criminals I meant. Read back through that post, I think it would make sense, and I also think we passed beyond that debate.

Of course they're a different breed. They're consciously making a genuine effort to follow the law,

Some yes. ABSOLUTELY. And others "want their god given right to carry a weapon concealed because if you mess with me or my dang blasted property I'll shoot your butt and feed it to my militia!!!" Basically, I'm describing a cross-section of the non CCW population as well. Which has been my argument the entire time.

they've passed a background check, their guns are owned legally, and (depending on the state) they've had at least some level of instruction on the laws and/or passed some basic qualifying exam with the gun.

Instruction that you think cannot provide any competence to the student, right? Right.

That's like saying a truck driver with a drivers license is no different than one without a license.

Benign example.

After the multiple times I've specifically pointed out in this very thread that I carry for self defense and have no hero/savior/sheepdog complex - and moreover, that I think that line of thought/justification for CCW is very flawed - you think I have a cop complex?

I'm on the fence.

It's like you're not even reading what I write.

After all the effort I've put into replying, you know I'm reading each and every word!

For a guy who doesn't own guns, doesn't have a carry permit, you have some awfully strong opinions on what sort of people own and carry guns.

Elaborate, PLEASE. Show me my "strong opinions" on people that OWN and CARRY guns? Let me know who you think I say they are... This ENTIRE time I've said they are same as non carriers. YOU are the one who is painting that as a bad picture because you want me to provide some sort of "god complex" to anyone (idiot or competent) with a CCW card. Ain't gonna happen. It's totally IRONIC that I've written nothing strong armed about CCW carriers, (especially GUN OWNERS that don't have CCW!!!)
Are you reading ANYTHING I write?????? :roll eyes:

I come from a family of gun users, carriers, owners, shooters and law enforcers. As a fact, after college I was given COE to ATF, USPIS, AFOSI (civilian) and another agency I had to turn down. I've shot guns (enjoy that very much) and respect them with all that I was taught. Do you realize my (cons law) angle in this discussion whatsoever?
You have CCW and want some label given to you and yours, sorry. You're a cross section of responsible, irresponsible, competent and idiotic dopes that exists EVERYWHERE else. And you know it. How is THAT awfully strong regarding gun owners? It's....middle of the road if ANYTHING.

D712

 

[doctor712]

If no one else lives in the house it's the weapon of choice. You aren't a trained FBI agent with a handgun. Probably pretty useless in the dark in the house. Shotgun on the other hand... it's gonna probably find them one way or another. I played basketball regularly with someone killed in a home invasion. And with 4 more years of the Bush/Obama Plan for Economic Implosion, don't plan on those invasions to do anything but increase.

My argument was ALWAYS for someone living with someone else (family and kids is what I suggested), don't use shotgun and use 9mm. I think you're probably right, shotgun will find someone if you're living home alone. So many variables though, I'd rather have the flexibility of a 9mm to fire off a bunch of rounds while moving well. I'm not a Agent with 9mm training, true. I'm also not an Agent with shotgun training EITHER (and they get that of course). I don't want to wield some annoying shotgun to protect my home, they kick like hell, bruise like hell when you shoot, and I don't think are as accurate as a 9mm (am I wrong about this anyone?)

That's my point exactly sort of, with a big old shotgun, I'm gonna have less range of movement etc. I'm NOT trained. It's easier to shoot the 9mm, so let me shoot that. But if dad were home? He could do damage with either and my guess is, he'd do just fine with the 9mm. As a matter of fact, of ALL the cops and Agents I know, family and friends, they all use a 9mm or 40 cal to protect their homes. So, it must be easy enough to kill someone with one of these. Stare at a 9mm, my guess is it would stop whoever I'm aimed on - lights on. In the dark, it's Call of Duty time.

In the dark, or a home invasion, or both, I would feel safe as heck using a 9mm. If I was really worried, I'd grab an extra clip. If I cannot stop the criminal with X shots, using two clips, I'm a goner anyway.

D712

 

[BADMD]

If no one else lives in the house it's the weapon of choice. You aren't a trained FBI agent with a handgun.

I'd like to drop a plug right here for action shooting such as IPSC, IDPA and especially 3 Gun. You learn to run, shoot, and transition. I'm not awesome by any stretch, but I've learned faster shooting, finding targets, avoiding tunnel vision and transitioning. Plus, everyone should take a shooting course beyond basic firearms. I'm hoping to take a formal course or two this summer.

Shotgun on the other hand... it's gonna probably find them one way or another.

This is one of the biggest fallacies in home defense. There is no question that dumping a shell of 00 buck can be devastating. However they don't spread that much, especially at home defense distances. You need to be on target and not just close. I have missed enough stationary steel targets to realize that you can miss a man sized target with a shotgun. Plus the recovery from a shell of buck is slow.

I'm starting to fall into the camp that prefers a carbine with a simple red dot. Actually, I like straight up iron sights.

 

[BADMD]

This is not something taught in training, I asked, you shoot mid mass to stop the threat, or kill the threat? Well, killing the threat stops the threat, but the aim is to Kill.

Absolutely not.

From the youngest age I remember gun lectures with my dad and I would always ask how many times he drew his weapon and when I was surprised with the reply (less than I thought being a kid and thinking the world was like Miami Vice) his answer was ALWAYS, "The only time you pull your weapon out of your holster is when you are intending to kill someone with it." Period.

The goal is not to kill the person. At all. Ever. That is murderer mentality. The goal is to stop the threat. To shoot, the threat must be so great that deadly force is warranted and killing the person is a possible/probable outcome. However killing is not the goal. If someone threatens me with a weapon and I shoot, miss and they run away, then I win. I don't need them dead, I need them not hurting me or my family. I'm not chasing them down to kill them. And if they lay bleeding in my house, I'm calling an ambulance...and I don't have a problem with that person surviving.

So no, you don't pull your gun and fire with the intention of killing the other person in self defense. You pull the gun with the goal to stop them from hurting you, knowing that your actions could end that person's life.

 

[Narcotized]

I'm starting to fall into the camp that prefers a carbine with a simple red dot. Actually, I like straight up iron sights.

Gotta say the red dot does look pretty damn cool. You might have sold me on it. Can one be attached to a glock, or does it have to come initially assembled into the gun?

 

[loveoforganic]

Gotta say the red dot does look pretty damn cool. You might have sold me on it. Can one be attached to a glock, or does it have to come initially assembled into the gun?

I know nothing about your background, so I don't mean to come across as insulting your knowledge base if I do in fact come across that way. You asked about red dot sights but posted a picture of a lock with a laser - do you know the difference? I haven't shot a pistol with a red dot, but if I were to set one up for it (and to answer your question, it would have to be aftermarket slide work done by a gunsmith), I would definitely not skimp on the optics - they're slide mounted, so you want a very nice rugged set up that can take all that jarring (and that doesn't come cheap). A good example would be http://www.opticsplanet.com/reviews...ot-sight-led-with-4-0-or-8-0-moa-red-dot.html

 

[pgg]

Gotta say the red dot does look pretty damn cool. You might have sold me on it. Can one be attached to a glock, or does it have to come initially assembled into the gun?

These are the kinds of red dot he's talking about, not a laser. Eotech makes another common red dot / holographic sight. Basically a non magnifying scope that has an illuminated dot instead of a crosshair or other reticle. Fast, good field of view, both-eyes-open aiming. They're not often put on handguns, though some smaller models can be shoehorned atop some handguns.

If it's a laser you want, there are models that'll go on Glocks. These are popular.

 

[loveoforganic]

I don't think are as accurate as a 9mm (am I wrong about this anyone?)

That's my point exactly sort of, with a big old shotgun, I'm gonna have less range of movement etc. I'm NOT trained. It's easier to shoot the 9mm, so let me shoot that.

At normal self defense ranges, I doubt you'd be able to tell much difference. You should be able to routinely punch a baseball sized hole grouping with a 9mm or a bowling ball size grouping with a shotgun at the far end of home SD distance. Shotguns are though, in my opinion, far easier to aim accurately quickly than any pistol (same case for any long gun). This is given a moderate amount of practice. An expert will win out with the pistol just due to inertial differences, but I think for the vast majority of people the increased sight radius improves rate of target acquisition more.

As for comfort shooting, it's a personal thing. Don't shoot anything you're uncomfortable with because you aren't going to shoot it well. However, I'm a fairly small guy, and not in a frame built well for recoil management (5'11, 145), but I don't have any issue with buckshot recoil (coming out of an auto, anyway).

All that said, if you feel good with a 9mm, it's certainly adequate. I can put 15 rounds into an 8 inch group 7 yards away over the course of 5 or 6 seconds. I'd feel plenty comfortable having a 9mm for home defense (it's what my parents have). Regardless of how fast you pull the trigger on a 9mm though, it isn't ever going to compare to a shotgun. So I personally feel more comfortable with that.

 

[doctor712]

Absolutely not.



The goal is not to kill the person. At all. Ever. That is murderer mentality. The goal is to stop the threat. To shoot, the threat must be so great that deadly force is warranted and killing the person is a possible/probable outcome. However killing is not the goal. If someone threatens me with a weapon and I shoot, miss and they run away, then I win. I don't need them dead, I need them not hurting me or my family. I'm not chasing them down to kill them. And if they lay bleeding in my house, I'm calling an ambulance...and I don't have a problem with that person surviving.

So no, you don't pull your gun and fire with the intention of killing the other person in self defense. You pull the gun with the goal to stop them from hurting you, knowing that your actions could end that person's life.

Sorry Bad. I'm going to go with the Federal Agent's explanation on this. They shoot to kill.
Asked detective and officer as well tonight. All three family members.

Shoot to kill.

Seems you're talking from a homeowners mentality though. Shoot miss u win if they run. (I can only imagine if the DEA were trained on a "they run I win".
An agent pulls the trigger with the entent to protect himself or citizens. The aim, literally and figuratively is to use deadly force. This is called: shooting to kill.
D712

 

[BADMD]

Sorry Bad. I'm going to go with the Federal Agent's explanation on this. They shoot to kill.
Asked detective and officer as well tonight. All three family members.

Shoot to kill.

<snip>

An agent pulls the trigger with the entent to protect himself or citizens. The aim, literally and figuratively is to use deadly force. This is called: shooting to kill.
D712

I doubt he will say that at a hearing. Any cop who says when they shoot they are trying to kill scares me. But don't confuse center of mass shooting (a potentially lethal zone) with trying to kill. I've seen plenty of lethal gunshots that were not immediately disabling and even a few immediately disabling wounds that were not immediately life threatening. Again, one can use deadly force and even hit the target in sensitive zone without the goal being to kill..unless of course those officers decide to deliver a coup de grace once the target is down.

The missing issue may be context. Did you ask "Do you shoot to kill or shoot to wound?" or did you ask "What is your ultimate goal when you shoot a perpetrator with a weapon?" I bet you'll get two completely different sounding answers. "Shooting to wound" is stupid movie crap. But then again, "Shoot to kill" is too. I suspect that all the people you spoke to, if questioned more subtlety, would state they shoot to stop.

 

[BADMD]

Gotta say the red dot does look pretty damn cool. You might have sold me on it. Can one be attached to a glock, or does it have to come initially assembled into the gun?

As mentioned, I'm taking about something slightly different.

What you are looking at are laser aiming devices. I have one on the pistol my wife likes to the most. Turns out she hates it. The one I bought is grip mounted and the parallax is fierce with both horizontal and vertical components. She turned it off after about 10 minutes of using it at the range. There is one brand that replaces the guide rod (no horizontal parallax but hard to turn off and on) and another one that replaces the rear sight (slightly less parallax but with large bulk and still a PITA to turn on and off).

They allow you to use more accurate fire when you can't acquire a good sight picture and they let you keep you eyes focused on the target instead of the front sight post. They also bounce around the target quite a bit as every slight tremor is magnified. They also show you bad habits, as you can see your flinch right as you shoot.

As for the red dots, they can be mounted to Glock pistols. Lone Wolf has an adapter for the Burris Fast Fire or for about $40 you can get the slide tapped for a scope mount. There is also a mount that hooks to the front rail instead of the slide. Red dot sights on pistols are more of a competition thing, but I guess you could do it on a home defense pistol. It would be tough to do it on a carry pistol, however.

 

[doctor712]

I doubt he will say that at a hearing. Any cop who says when they shoot they are trying to kill scares me.

This is a different issue altogether, that Cops who put their lives on the line and shoot to kill scare you. It's funny, the first person you call when you fear for your life, will be those same cops.

But don't confuse center of mass shooting (a potentially lethal zone) with trying to kill.

I cannot believe I'm reading this. Did you just call mid mass shooting a potentially lethal zone? The point of shooting mid mass is to kill someone. (and thus end their lives and their threat).

Again, one can use deadly force and even hit the target in sensitive zone without the goal being to kill..unless of course those officers decide to deliver a coup de grace once the target is down.

Semantics. I could shoot someone in the foot and they could die. On point here: mid mass shooting, as Cops are trained, is to take a life. Sad as it seems.

The missing issue may be context. Did you ask "Do you shoot to kill or shoot to wound?" or did you ask "What is your ultimate goal when you shoot a perpetrator with a weapon?" I bet you'll get two completely different sounding answers. "Shooting to wound" is stupid movie crap. But then again, "Shoot to kill" is too. I suspect that all the people you spoke to, if questioned more subtlety, would state they shoot to stop.

Interesting point, and I thought about it. I asked and pushed and pushed and pushed. And even when I tried to get my father to admit that it's just a stopping power (the bullet) he was adamant, and this is how they train his agency and all 1811s for that matter: when you pull the trigger, the expectation and intention is for that person to die. It's a tough decision but this is why some people can be cops and some cannot.

I think we need a bit of a reality check here. FLEOs and other LEOs have the most legal protection in using their weapons. I've asked, and I'll reiterate, an Agent is not worried about testifying when shooting to protect himself or a citizen. And it's a silly notion that an Agent would have to explain his intent when placing three rounds into mid mass. "Um, Agent X, when you shot the suspect who was aiming at you, three times in mid chest, what was your goal?" Really, BADMD?

I'm curious because you called mid mass a potentially lethal zone and a "sensitive area", what is your take on police shootings, is your hope that when fired upon, or under duress, cops would hopefully not kill? Of course it's situational. But I stand before Law Enforcement loudly, as the son of one, knowing that they put their lives on the line for us. Threaten a Cop, the consequence is, and should be, death. For anyone who will harm a police officer, is the MOST dangerous type of human being, who would clearly harm a non-law enforcement officer.

D712

Edit to Add: So I called El Federale again and pushed him further to your point. (I've named him each of his fave cop characters)

I asked, "When you take out your weapon to shoot, do you aim to Kill?"
Dirty Harry: "(with a chuckle) Why else would I shoot?"

I asked, "Ok, but what is the exact goal, is it to stop the person or kill the person?"
Kojack: "When you use your weapon, the goal is to protect yourself and others from bodily harm. If that means that I fire my weapon, I am separating the suspect from the threat (his gun or knife). And by doing so in that
split second, you are aiming mid mass to kill the person. Now, (I paraphrase) if the person goes down and the threat is over, I stop shooting of course. If he is still a threat, trying to still fire etc, I shoot him until he stops. If that means taking his life, that is the expectation, and that's how we are trained. Pulled the trigger, we expect to take a life."

I further asked, "Why mid mass exactly?"
Crockett: "This isn't the movies, we don't aim to wound, there are no warning shots and there are no wounding shots. When you fire you aim mid mass because it is known as the "kill zone." (almost verbatim). Further, law enforcement officers use hollow point rounds because a) they break up upon impact and do more damage to vital organs, and b) they are less likely, hopefully, to exit the suspect and injure someone else. But we are taught to aim mid mass to kill."

Then I asked, "Ok, what about a Grand Jury or the US Attorney...would you say that you clearly, aimed to kill?
Tubbs: "This would not be in question, as a 30 year Veteran, clearly the person at that point is dead, so nobody will be wondering why I shot him. Further, the USA or Grand Jury would not make me out to be a killer because I would state that I feared for myself or others... As a veteran, nobody would be surprised that with all that training and experience that I actually hit my target. WHAT WOULD be in question, as always, is WHY did I shoot (in the first place.). Once that is established, the rest is quite simple."

I pressed the subject, "So, would it be safe to say that you HOPE the suspect would die?"
Sipowicz (my dad actually got to spend the day (and I mean I had to pull him from the camera and headphones he was given, Kathy Bates was directing that day) on NYPD Blue set when I was writing on Fox lot, man he cherishes photo of him and Sip, wish I could share but who knows which of you has anesthetized my dad, anyway: "Well, I wouldn't say that the HOPE is they die, when you are shooting the aim is for the person to be separated from the threat that they cause. A gun, knife. I just don't want to see that person standing in front of me in any way anymore, that's the general thought. When I pull the trigger, I expect that means the way I will accomplish that goal is by killing the person. That's why we aim for the kill zone."

So, BADMD, I think cops shoot to kill, but not in the assassination manner you described, they shoot to kill when they have to use that deadly force to stop the threat (as you said), with the aim of doing so by death. And they don't worry about the Grand Jury of DA/USA when they pull the trigger or discuss or testify. It's obvious when you shoot mid mass, especially when a trained Cop does so.

Interesting stuff!

I also asked him about 9mm vs. Shotgun, and not surprisingly he'd rather see me with a 9mm. He said a shotgun can do a lot more damage and that's the concern, also depends upon the load you put into the shotgun. he's seen some that have actually cut the person in half (yeah, no thanks on that one). the concern is hurting other people and that's what I thought. he did give the disclaimer to me (when i set up a dark scenario, intruder, lights off, you know he's in the house) that you don't shoot without knowing who you are shooting at, could be your wife (buh sum pish), or kids, further, you have to be aware, even if you DO know the target, what or who is behind the target (i.e. on the other side of the door and wall). He did not, however, mention shooting rounds into the ceiling, floor, cupboards or general vicinity of where two slumbering toddlers were resting in a home. He keeps a couple 9mms and 40 cals at home. I will get a small gun one day and get some practice and training with him for home protection.

Question: can non LEOs get hollow points? what's the law on this? is it federal/state? when I say get i mean legally.
same for non leos and extended clips for Glocks etc. Are these 15 or 16 clips only for the coppers? what's the non-LEO normal clip for a Glock (I've only seen his). State or Federal on this one?
If anyone knows about California or Colorado laws I'd be curious...THANKS!

D712

 

[pgg]

I cannot believe I'm reading this. Did you just call mid mass shooting a potentially lethal zone? The point of shooting mid mass is to kill someone. (and thus end their lives and their threat).

No, the point of aiming center mass is to reduce the odds of missing entirely. It's a general principal intended, in part, to dissuade people from doing stupid things like shooting the leg to "warn" or shooting the knife out of someone's hand.

Because a center mass hit is going to be lethal in many cases, anyone who shoots another person has to be willing to kill, but that's not the same thing as intending to kill.

If the intent is to kill, would they keep shooting if the first shot hit the pelvis and immobilized the guy?

I can't believe we're having this debate. I hope you're just misunderstanding the LEOs you've talked to, or they were giving some cop bravado because they thought that's what you wanted, because it is simply morally bankrupt for anyone, LEO or not, to approach a shooting with the premeditated intent to kill.

also depends upon the load you put into the shotgun. he's seen some that have actually cut the person in half

Geez, one of you is watching too many movies or he's just screwing with you.

Shotguns don't cut people in half. Cars don't blow up when shot, either.

Question: can non LEOs get hollow points? what's the law on this? is it federal/state? when I say get i mean legally.

Sure. Some areas have laws about mail order ammunition, but it's perfectly legal (and recommended) that a self defense pistol round be a hollow point.

same for non leos and extended clips for Glocks etc. Are these 15 or 16 clips only for the coppers?

Depends on state laws. In California you're limited to 10 rounds while LEOs can purchase normal capacity magazines. In free states there are no such limits.

what's the non-LEO normal clip for a Glock (I've only seen his).

Depends on which Glock, a consequence of caliber and design - you can fit a lot more 9mm rounds in a double stack magazine than .45acp in a single stack magazine.

 

[doctor712]

Because a center mass hit is going to be lethal in many cases, anyone who shoots another person has to be willing to kill, but that's not the same thing as intending to kill.

If the intent is to kill, would they keep shooting if the first shot hit the pelvis and immobilized the guy?

morally bankrupt for anyone, LEO or not, to approach a shooting with the premeditated intent to kill.


Shotguns don't cut people in half. Cars don't blow up when shot, either.

Sure. Some areas have laws about mail order ammunition, but it's perfectly legal (and recommended) that a self defense pistol round be a hollow point.

Depends on which Glock, a consequence of caliber and design - you can fit a lot more 9mm rounds in a double stack magazine than .45acp in a single stack magazine.

Uh, he's SEEN the shotgun shoot someone and tear them in half. told me the story ages ago too. Sorry, not a movie. And cars don't blow up when shot and bullets don't deflect off tires and kill its LEO shooter unless in the movies too right? That's why FLEOS are taught not to aim at tires, because it happened and killed a FLEO. He was also a Bomb Expert and has gruesome stories therein as well. Gotta go with the Fed with 30 years exp. over the Doc on this one PGG. I'm sure you don't blame me.

I think you need to actually talk to a Federal Agent PGG. Get square with something you didn't learn in CCW weekend course. The intent, as discussed by a 30 year Federal Agent vet: is to kill the person when you squeeze the trigger. It's lethal force. You aim mid mass to kill. I'm sure you can post some lecture from CCW weekend CRNA course, I cannot do the same with any Fed Agency docs, and I'm sure somewhere down the list will be "more likely to make impact". About 10 steps after: more likely to kill. What about a sniper? They go for head shots to wound when protecting POTUS? DIA sniper goes mid mass to protect Sec of State so he doesn't miss? Dude could shoot your wedding ring off if he wanted. Please, PGG.

And I have to be honest, your knowledge about Law Enforcement is kind of scaring me a bit, talking about pre-meditated shootings by LEOS. WOW, you are really uninformed. Pre-meditated? Cop puts self on line, is shot at, RETURNS fire, and you are going to tell me he is morally corrupt for pulling the trigger (and aiming mid mass to kill)?????? Are you out of your mind?! Please, keep your CCW, and I take back anything I ever said about equating you with a cop envy or what have you. I just hung up with a Fed, learn something from it rather than trying to kick and scream as if you know more. I passed on dialogue verbatim. Mid mass so not to miss extremities? Is this something else they told you in CCW course? Haha. You aim mid mass because it's a lethal kill zone.

Here's a suggestion: you have an area of expertise, medicine. I would never question that. Do I tell you why you inject propofol? Or why and how it works? I would think it's very unwise of you to question the FLEO in the same way. (father or not).

Now, to answer your other backwards comment: if you intend to kill, but miss, and wound like you mention, and disarm or incapacitate the person with your erred shot, you no longer NEED to kill (and thus shoot).

You aim mid mass, Mr. Federal Agent slash Doctor because it is the Kill Zone. Again, Fed vs. CCW card holder.... take your pick people.

Talk to a local cop, an agent, call NCIS if you like, or whomever. Anyone who tells you they "don't aim to kill" by shooting mid mass should be relieved of duty. You're misinformed. Or rather, uninformed.

I can do the same drill with brother or brother in law, both local cops and not feds. the result will be the same.

d712

ETA: if there's anything scarier than a concealed weapon, it's a CCW holder who thinks he knows more than a 30 year Federal Agent... that is some scary shizznit.

 

[doctor712]

From another retired Cop via website... (talking to academy cadets he is training)

""Center mass. It's &#8216;operations central' for your body, houses your heart, a most important muscle that sends blood to all parts of your frame. Your lungs are also here and they are necessary for the balanced exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. You got nerves, lots of nerves that pass through center mass. The vagus nerve for instance represents the golden highway of neurological life sustaining information between your brain and vital organs. This nerve is the master switch for heart rate and blood pressure. Turn off that switch, empty the pump of blood or puncture a lung and a person is likely to die&#8212;quickly. This folks is where we are going to put our bullets."

"Two shots to the body, center mass...follow it with one to the head. The use of a firearm is deadly force, folks and your shots need to stop the threat. Remember, the ultimate responsibility for taking another human life is yours. No one else can make that decision for you. You have to be prepared both physically and mentally. To stop a deadly threat you have to know when and where to shoot. I want to see good target placement and a tight group on your chest shots. Are there any questions? OK... Is the line ready? The line is ready... on the command... draw and fire!"

Deadly force employed to mid mass is meant to end a threat immediately - via killing the suspect. If it ends threat without killing, that works too.

Funny PGG, that many officers are trained 2 to chest, 1 to head. I forgot about that. I guess, ya know, these Agents and Officers are ALLLLLLLLL morally corrupt.

Hey, next time you need a cop...don't dial 911, just pray for divine intervention, ok? If that doesn't work, grab your gun and CCW card and pray some more.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Another quote,

"Center mass shots will likely remain the only target area taught and supported by training in the United States. If we don't have a justification to kill, then we simply teach to not shoot."

Time to upgrade that CCW to a real badge ay PGG?

I probably won't quote anymore because I basically interviewed my father on the topic this am. But these quotes serve to just buttress what Police Officers on a local level are taught to do, and why..

D712

 

[pgg]

Re: the intent to kill

You seem unwilling to distinguish between intending something, and accepting likely consequences of the same act. In practical terms, there's not much difference. It's a semantic/philosophical distinction but it does have both moral and legal implications for both citizens and LEOs.

You don't have to believe me, but step back for a second and consider for a moment that I'm not arguing what you think I'm arguing.

2 to center mass followed by 1 to the head is a common drill to increase odds of stopping an attacker as quickly as possible. CNS hits are instant stops. Yes, most people who catch a bullet in the head will die.

There is a difference between people mentally preparing themselves for the very real possibility that they may kill someone, so they won't (shouldn't) use lethal force unless killing would be a morally and legally justifiable outcome. However many movies you quote, however, stopping the threat is the priority, with killing an acceptable consequence.

At this point we're talking past each other, and you're getting further and further off into the weeds with fabricated strawmen (where did your bullet/tire declaration come from? who said anything about shooting tires? ) ... and your angry CCW/god-complex confabulations are getting tiresome, so I'm just going to let it go.

Again - believe what you like.



Re: shotguns

I'd be quite interested in the details of this alleged "cut someone in half" shotgun story. Unless he's talking about some kind of crazy multiple-shot corpse desecration stunt, there is just no way a shotgun - regardless of load - cuts a person in half.

I've seen, first hand, an awful lot of gunshot wounds from bigger guns than any cops or criminals carry, and people don't get cut in half by small arms. At the end of the day, shotguns are just small arms that fire small projectiles at low velocities. They're not magical talismans that fling torsos left and pelvises (pelvi?) right.

TV shows and movies are horrendously inaccurate and unrealistic when it comes to firearms and their effects, and I'm beginning to understand why.

 

[doctor712]

I think you're in denial here Pgg. it's quite simple, I'm conveying an experts' explanation. Which u refuse to accept because you'd like to be considered the expert here.
I claim no expertise regarding law enforcement. You do clearly. That's your first mistake.

Your second mistake is not accepting that a shot to the head is meant to kill. HAAAA. The fact that u cannot even write these words demonstrates your unwillingness to accept that u don't understand training and protocol when explained by an expert.
You have to write "most" people will die from a headshot. You just cannot say its meant to kill can u? Hahaa. (same for center mass shots).

Other mistakes of yours have been demonstrated in your posts in this thread.
People can listen to an expert or a civilian. A wise choice would be the former.

Hope that's not too strawman for u.
D712

 

[pgg]

I'm done debating semantics with you, there's no point.

Other mistakes of yours have been demonstrated in your posts in this thread.
People can listen to an expert or a civilian. A wise choice would be the former.

Re SCOTUS "precedent" you'll note that I did acknowledge your and A4MD's background in that area and conceded the point. I am more than willing to admit error and be corrected, as you'll see repeatedly in my posts over the years.



But I'm not going to concede that a shotgun hit can "cut people in half" because it's certifiable bull****.

I've probably seen 10x as many non-pistol gunshot wounds (and from more and bigger guns) in my 14 months in Iraq and Afghanistan than LEOs see in 30 year urban careers. Buckshot doesn't cut people in half. 1 oz slugs don't cut people in half. 7.62 doesn't cut people in half. 50 BMG rounds, heavier than 1 oz slugs, and traveling 1000+ fps faster, can remove limbs under the right circumstances, but they don't cut people in half. (Those guys are skinny, but they're not that skinny.) You need to get into explosive munitions before torso-this-way-pelvis-that-way even approaches plausibility.

I don't know what else to tell you. On this specific point, you're wrong.

 

[doctor712]

I'm done debating semantics with you, there's no point.




Re SCOTUS "precedent" you'll note that I did acknowledge your and A4MD's background in that area and conceded the point. I am more than willing to admit error and be corrected, as you'll see repeatedly in my posts over the years.



But I'm not going to concede that a shotgun hit can "cut people in half" because it's certifiable bull****.

I've probably seen 10x as many non-pistol gunshot wounds (and from more and bigger guns) in my 14 months in Iraq and Afghanistan than LEOs see in 30 year urban careers. Buckshot doesn't cut people in half. 1 oz slugs don't cut people in half. 7.62 doesn't cut people in half. 50 BMG rounds, heavier than 1 oz slugs, and traveling 1000+ fps faster, can remove limbs under the right circumstances, but they don't cut people in half. (Those guys are skinny, but they're not that skinny.) You need to get into explosive munitions before torso-this-way-pelvis-that-way even approaches plausibility.

I don't know what else to tell you. On this specific point, you're wrong.

Calm down, Pgg.

D712

 

[pgg]

Calm down, Pgg.

I think you mean settle down.

 

[doctor712]

I was too lazy to look it up.

Called father about the shotgun incident heard round the world.
It was a Remington, pump action model, he cannot recall the exact model as it's not in use anymore. He said that model had a mechanism malfunction that was published whereby if the butt of the gun hit the ground, it could reportedly fire. So they don't use it anymore.
He was unsure of the load, slug versus buck shot, it was a while ago, but said the distance was point blank, very close range. (agent was surprised and fired 2 times). The torso and pelvis didn't go sep ways so you're right in that this wasnt movie kind of stuff. But he said, for all intents and purposes, spine - and everything in the belly was blown away and gone.
He also said they would regularly shoot 2x4 wood pieces at range (and thicker) and blow through that with no problem. Split it in half. So that makes me wonder why u couldn't shoot out ribs and spine (soft tissue is nothing at close range) with 2-3 shots? The load he cannot recall. Whatever the Feds Used in the 80s. Shotguns then were used for crowd dispersal because they didn't have bags them. The technique is gruesome and I wouldn't repeat it here. Though it involved the ground and concrete. It's no longer taught.
D712

 

[Narcotized]

I know nothing about your background, so I don't mean to come across as insulting your knowledge base if I do in fact come across that way.

No offense taken. I've shot a fair share of guns, but never anything with a laser or red dot. Figured that "red dot" was the laser point one of our acton heros puts on someone's forehead. Sounds like neither are too useful in the home, but they sure do look cool in the movies!

 

[periopdoc]

Y'all really are just talking past each other and pgg is right, but d712 is right to some degree, just not seeing the distinction. I'm a gonna try to spell it out and see if it makes sense.

It comes down to a question of ballistic option (what d712 is talking about) vs intent (what pgg is talking about). It is a subtle, but critical distinction. The mantra, shoot to stop not to kill, or some version of that, is the bread and butter of the ethical foundation of the use of lethal force in both personal defense classes and in law enforcement academies across the US. The concept is somewhat unique to the US due to laws regarding use of force.

When I fire my weapon, the intent falls into one of four somewhat distinct categories. Intent to warn, intent to wound, intent to stop a threat, or intent to kill. However, there are only three ballistic options available to me: aim away from the target (at the ground, in the air, etc), aim at the target but away from vital structures (extremities), or aim at vital structures ("aim to kill"). There is no analogous point-of-aim to the intent to stop, as in reality intent to stop encompasses both intent to warn and intent to wound as well as intent to stop itself, but not intent to kill.

When you combine intent and ballistic option, some of these clearly line up and then there is some blurring. Obviously intent to warn equals aiming away from subject, intent to wound equates to aiming at a non-vital structure, and intent to kill involves aiming at vital structures. Intent to stop theoretically could include aiming at lethal or at non-lethal targets, and the lethal point of aim is the only overlap between intent to stop and intent to kill. The person acting with intent to kill will continue to shoot until the target is dead, even after the threat has been neutralized (e.g. placing two shots into the target's head after the target no longer presents a threat). The person who is acting with intent to stop the threat would stop shooting when the target no longer represents a threat. This can and has occurred without the subject even being hit (police officer shoots center mass, misses, but target drops to his knees in fear and surrenders), with the subject being wounded, or with the subject being killed. The death of the subject is not the necessary end point of acting with intent to stop, even though the ballistic option utilized was a lethal point of aim.

So why the center mass/ lethal point of aim if the intent is not to kill? This whole screwy concept of intent to stop has come about because in most American Jurisdictions a gun cannot be legitimately fired with the intent to warn or the intent to wound, although it may be drawn with the intent to warn if it is not fired. This is not the case in other countries where a lethal weapon can be used with non-lethal intent (i.e. the intent to wound in Czechoslovakia from that website you referenced/ quoted above). In most US jurisdictions a lethal weapon (gun) may not be employed unless lethal force is justified and non-lethal remedies have been exhausted (lethal force is your only option), therefore it must be employed in a lethal manner.

So when your LEO friends and relatives say they shoot to kill, yes they use a lethal point of aim or else the use of lethal force cannot be justified. However, after the threat is stopped, they would stop shooting whether the suspect is dead or not, or even if the suspect was not hit. That proves that they are acting with the intent to stop and they would never state that their intent was to kill or else they would face prosecution for murder or attempted murder depending on the results.

A bit of a screwy concept, but a critical concept to understand if one ever plans to carry.

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

No offense taken. I've shot a fair share of guns, but never anything with a laser or red dot. Figured that "red dot" was the laser point one of our acton heros puts on someone's forehead. Sounds like neither are too useful in the home, but they sure do look cool in the movies!

Au contraire. Both are great for home defense. The red dot especially as it encourages you to have a full field of view when aiming and does not reveal your position as readily as the laser sight.

A great option, the FN tactical that comes from the factory with the mount for the red-dot.

The sight picture through a red dot mounted on a Glock. It doesn't reproduce well, but you can see the red dot on the target.

A virtual red dot sight picture. This is more like what it looks like in real life.

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

Who Here has:

1) Been Assaulted?

2) Feared for their Life? (during an assault or similar sticky situation, not bad turbulence on a Delta flight is what I mean)

3) Please share the story if you feel comfy.

4) Your position on Gun Rights and Laws...

Go.


D712

Those of you who have known me for a while know that I lost both of my parents and my grandmother to gun violence while in residency. My sister and I are still firm believers in the second amendment. I own firearms, lots of them, and my sister chooses not to as she no longer feels comfortable around guns.

- pod

 

[doctor712]

Y'all really are just talking past each other and pgg is right, but d712 is right to some degree, just not seeing the distinction. I'm a gonna try to spell it out and see if it makes sense.

It comes down to a question of ballistic option (what d712 is talking about) vs intent (what pgg is talking about). It is a subtle, but critical distinction. The mantra, shoot to stop not to kill, or some version of that, is the bread and butter of the ethical foundation of the use of lethal force in both personal defense classes and in law enforcement academies across the US. The concept is somewhat unique to the US due to laws regarding use of force.

When I fire my weapon, the intent falls into one of four somewhat distinct categories. Intent to warn, intent to wound, intent to stop a threat, or intent to kill. However, there are only three ballistic options available to me: aim away from the target (at the ground, in the air, etc), aim at the target but away from vital structures (extremities), or aim at vital structures ("aim to kill"). There is no analogous point-of-aim to the intent to stop, as in reality intent to stop encompasses both intent to warn and intent to wound as well as intent to stop itself, but not intent to kill.

When you combine intent and ballistic option, some of these clearly line up and then there is some blurring. Obviously intent to warn equals aiming away from subject, intent to wound equates to aiming at a non-vital structure, and intent to kill involves aiming at vital structures. Intent to stop theoretically could include aiming at lethal or at non-lethal targets, and the lethal point of aim is the only overlap between intent to stop and intent to kill. The person acting with intent to kill will continue to shoot until the target is dead, even after the threat has been neutralized (e.g. placing two shots into the target's head after the target no longer presents a threat). The person who is acting with intent to stop the threat would stop shooting when the target no longer represents a threat. This can and has occurred without the subject even being hit (police officer shoots center mass, misses, but target drops to his knees in fear and surrenders), with the subject being wounded, or with the subject being killed. The death of the subject is not the necessary end point of acting with intent to stop, even though the ballistic option utilized was a lethal point of aim.

So why the center mass/ lethal point of aim if the intent is not to kill? This whole screwy concept of intent to stop has come about because in most American Jurisdictions a gun cannot be legitimately fired with the intent to warn or the intent to wound, although it may be drawn with the intent to warn if it is not fired. This is not the case in other countries where a lethal weapon can be used with non-lethal intent (i.e. the intent to wound in Czechoslovakia from that website you referenced/ quoted above). In most US jurisdictions a lethal weapon (gun) may not be employed unless lethal force is justified and non-lethal remedies have been exhausted (lethal force is your only option), therefore it must be employed in a lethal manner.

So when your LEO friends and relatives say they shoot to kill, yes they use a lethal point of aim or else the use of lethal force cannot be justified. However, after the threat is stopped, they would stop shooting whether the suspect is dead or not, or even if the suspect was not hit. That proves that they are acting with the intent to stop and they would never state that their intent was to kill or else they would face prosecution for murder or attempted murder depending on the results.

A bit of a screwy concept, but a critical concept to understand if one ever plans to carry.

- pod

Hey Pod,

The distinction isn't lost on me at all, I wish you'd see that. And I agree PGG and I are talking past one another now. To be clear, something very important happens when you shoot someone and they are incapacitated, if you don't feel the threat anymore, you don't shoot to kill (or at all) again. BUT, and I stand by this, when you aim and pull the trigger, you are using force to stop the threat by killing someone. Thus the training to hit mid mass, head etc. I understand, clearly, that this is not an assassination whereby you shoot until the person, threatening or not, is deader than a doornail. That's not what I said. Actually, I pointed out way above, that "of course" the Agent will not shoot to kill a non-threatening suspect that was disabled and not originally killed. Semantics, but as you say, a very important distinction.

I didn't know that about losing your family to crime, I'm sorry to hear that.


D712

 

[doctor712]

A virtual red dot sight picture. This is more like what it looks like in real life.

- pod

Not to mention Call of Duty at 3am.

 

[loveoforganic]

Hey Pod,

The distinction isn't lost on me at all, I wish you'd see that. And I agree PGG and I are talking past one another now. To be clear, something very important happens when you shoot someone and they are incapacitated, if you don't feel the threat anymore, you don't shoot to kill (or at all) again. BUT, and I stand by this, when you aim and pull the trigger, you are using force to stop the threat by killing someone. Thus the training to hit mid mass, head etc. I understand, clearly, that this is not an assassination whereby you shoot until the person, threatening or not, is deader than a doornail. That's not what I said. Actually, I pointed out way above, that "of course" the Agent will not shoot to kill a non-threatening suspect that was disabled and not originally killed. Semantics, but as you say, a very important distinction.

I didn't know that about losing your family to crime, I'm sorry to hear that.


D712

You're talking about killing to stop like people talk about wanting to die a natural death (not of a heart attack or something!). Death has to occur by a process.

Stopping (physiologically) occurs by incapacitation of the CNS (brain/spinal cord damage), damaging the musculoskeletal system, or causing enough hemorrhage (large vessel damage) to deprive the brain. People don't just die when they're shot - one of these things happen. A headshot would be the only thing that could reasonably be conceived as approaching "instant death." All of the others leave a time period between "stopped" and "dead" in which there's the opportunity to express what your intent is (call 911/render aid/etc., or walk up to the now "stopped" person and put additional rounds into him).

 

[doctor712]

Or, as my father said over Chinese food at dinner tonight, "I want the suspect to disappear in front of me when I shoot. Whatever that means, at that moment I decide to pull the trigger, up to and including death, is fine with me. So, i shoot to kill. As I've told my team many times, "we're going home tonight, we can talk to the grand jury in the morning."

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

The economic impact of the firearms industry is up 66 percent since the beginning of the Great Recession, providing an unexpected shot in the arm for the economy, according to a new study.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation says the economic impact of firearm sales &#8212; a figure that includes jobs. taxes and sales &#8212; hit $31 billion in 2011, up from $19 billion in 2008.
Jobs in the firearms business jumped 30 percent from 2008 to 2011, when the industry employed 98,750.
The industry paid $2.5 billion in federal taxes in 2011, up 66 percent in three years.
"Ours is an industry with a rich history and heritage that remains vital and important to the American economy today," NSSF Senior Vice President Lawrence G. Keane said in a statement. "To millions of Americans our industry's products represent liberty, security and recreation."
Some in the industry attribute the jump in sales to fears the Obama administration will tighten gun control laws in a possible second term.
"There's a concern that in the second term the Obama administration would lead an attempt to restrict gun ownership," Mr. Keane said.
That concern, known in the industry as "the Obama factor," has led many gun owners to purchase now in hopes of avoiding more restrictions and regulations later.
"Some people jokingly refer to [President Obama] as the salesman of the year for the industry," Mr. Keane said.
Mr. Keane said the president doesn't deserve all the credit for the sales growth.
He said more young people and women are getting into gun ownership.
"You cannot attribute all the increase simply to the Obama factor," he said. "It's a factor, it's an important factor, but it's not the only reason."
Although there is no single indicator that tracks the number of firearms sold in the country, the FBI reported that a record 14.4 million criminal background checks were requested for gun purchases in 2010, and that preliminary numbers project the figure to be above 16 million for 2011.
According to the NSSF's numbers, requests for gun-related background checks was up some 17.3 percent for the month of January 2012 compared to the same period a year earlier &#8212; the 20th straight monthly increase in background check requests.
FBI officials say that just over 1 percent of such background checks result in denials, and not every background check results in a final gun purchase. But the numbers are widely considered a reliable proxy for gun sales trends generally.

 

[periopdoc]

concealed too.

and the sight picture

nicely cosighted

rockin with tritiums even though the cosighting is off. (I actually prefer my cosighting to be a little off like this if possible)

One more

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

I haven't yet heard of a case of one of these gun rampage mass murderers begin (sic) taken out by an armed citizen. Fear of that happening doesn't seem to stop these people either.

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake Grocery Store .

...before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled a gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's subdued him.

By the time officers had arrived, the suspect had been subdued by employees and shoppers. Police had high praise for the gun carrying man who ended the hysteria...

Dozens of other shoppers, who too could have become victims, are also thankful for the gun carrying man.

-pod

 

[kazuma]

Here's another shooting rampage that could have been worse if an armed citizen wasn't close to the scene. Although, the citizen that stopped the rampage until the swat team showed up was an off duty police officer from a different city.

The gunman's rampage was stopped after trading shots with off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden City Police Department and Sgt. Andrew Oblad of the Salt Lake City Police Department. The final confrontation, in which Talovi&#263; was killed, occurred in the Pottery Barn Kids home furnishing store.[5] Hammond was at Trolley Square having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his pregnant wife, 911 dispatcher Sarita Hammond, when they heard gunshots. Sarita Hammond borrowed a waiter's cell phone to call 911.[6] Talovi&#263; was cornered and was shooting at officers, until an active shooter contact team composed of Salt Lake City PD SWAT team members arrived and shot him. Salt Lake City police officials on February 13, 2007, thanked Hammond as a hero for saving countless lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting

 

[periopdoc]

I excluded that from my analysis earlier in this thread because it was an off-duty cop and didn't want to be accused of biasing the results since there is a distinct difference between civilian and off-duty carry.

- pod