Quandary

[Cyber Soldier]

Why would I shoot someone who doesn't have a ranged weapon?

I'm guessing knife fights don't happen much over there.

[Guest Captain J Wesker]

Im A Southerner

[Desolation mkII]

I'm so sorry to hear that. My thoughts are with you.

[Sledge]

My thoughts are with Samm in this difficult (and anally painful) time.

 

[irish.hermit]

I think that's probably about the stupidest thread ever invented...and u all don't deserve the right to a personal computer.

[Cyber Soldier]

If you knew half the things I do on this machine you would think a court order disallowing me from using it would be a good idea.

[Jagdraben]

And whenever target shooting (with my kimber, mind you) I load six shots instead of seven for two reasons:

 

1) Even number for double taps.

 

2) Loading a mag a round or two short of its full capacity will improve its life expectancy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Here's an idea: Load the mags to seven rounds (or, better yet, get eight round magazines) and practice two double taps and one double tap with a Mozambique drill.

 

Why would I shoot someone who doesn't have a ranged weapon?

I'm guessing knife fights don't happen much over there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why? Because it's the most humane and expedient manner to kill a person under the circumstances.

 

See also.

[Cyber Soldier]

Dammit Jagd, I'm eating! I've been cut and stabbed before but I'd rather get cut and have a clear consience than shoot someone.

[Jagdraben]

Mercy is for the weak.

 

®

[Sledge]

How will killing someone with a knife give you a clearer conscience than killing them with a gun?

 

[amateurstuntman]

You don't just kill them.

 

You gut them, wear their *albatross* as a hat and skip with their intestines.

 

That way you have a much clearer conscience than just shooting them.

[Cyber Soldier]

Breaking their face with a fist is far more satisfying than just pulling a trigger.

[Sledge]

You don't just kill them.

 

You gut them, wear their *albatross* as a hat and skip with their intestines.

 

That way you have a much clearer conscience than just shooting them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, I see what you mean. Like, not just killing the animal to eat the best bits, but using the whole thing as a mark of respect. I could go for that.

 

"Mrs Smith? Police. We regret to inform you that your son was shot and killed whilst trying to mug someone on their way home. However, it's not all bad news. We've been asked to pass along this charming hat made out of your son's left butt cheek. Oh, and here's the dry cleaning bill to get your son's blood out of the victim's clothes."

 

*sigh* I can dream...

 

[Lord Blackgoat]

Well, I don't know about the UK, and apparently it's the case in the US (at least some states) but in France if someone attacks you with a knife, you cannot defend yourself with a firearm.

If the attacker is bare handed, you cannot use a knife, baton etc. or a firearm. The agressor would have to have a firearm for you to legally shoot him, and that is only if he is directly menacing your or someone's life. That goes for policemen or soldiers during territory security missions. They could also shoot at a car driver forcing a control for instance, IF someone's life is directly endangered. Otherwise you'd have serious troubles in court. Anyway civilians aren't allowed to carry firearms or knives (apart from very rare and specified circumstances) ouside their homw, so the problem of such self defense situations is largely simplified: learn some form of martial art if you feel menaced...

[amateurstuntman]

In the UK we have the legal concept of "reasonable" force which means that if the person who is attacking you is clearly much harder than you you can use a weapon to defend yourself.

 

Examples:

Bruce Lee is trying to kick an 8yr old girl to death, it is "reasonable" for the girl to shoot Mr. Lee with a shotgun.

 

An 8yr old girl is trying to kick Bruce Lee to death, Bruce is stuck and can't really do anything except parry the blows and call the police.

If he is careful he could restrain her but he can't use too much force.

[Md0ggyd0g]

thankfully it's not like that here. in a few states (I know florida is one) you can shoot if you feel reasonably threatened or something. Hard to prove, but you don't even need to be attacked first.

[Jagdraben]

In the UK we have the legal concept of "reasonable" force which means that if the person who is attacking you is clearly much harder than you you can use a weapon to defend yourself.

 

Examples:

Bruce Lee is trying to kick an 8yr old girl to death, it is "reasonable" for the girl to shoot Mr. Lee with a shotgun.

 

An 8yr old girl is trying to kick Bruce Lee to death, Bruce is stuck and can't really do anything except parry the blows and call the police.

If he is careful he could restrain her but he can't use too much force.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner. Contrary to what the Wachowski Brothers would have you believe, no amount of karate gimmicks is any match for guns and the bullets they spit. And no amount of karate gimmicks can get a small, light person out of a jamb involving a large, heavy person: A petite woman cannot possibly know enough karate gimmicks to keep herself from being raped by a large, 300 lb thug. She needs a force multiplier. She needs a gun.

[Ragnar27]

An 8yr old girl is trying to kick Bruce Lee to death, Bruce is stuck and can't really do anything except parry the blows and call the police.

If he is careful he could restrain her but he can't use too much force.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Further to scenario 2 Mr Lee is blasted by the Sun as being a paedophile, the fact that an 8yr old girl was trying to kill him is totally lost by the media and he has to go into police protection

[my_plague_666]

thankfully it's not like that here.  in a few states (I know florida is one) you can shoot if you feel reasonably threatened or something.  Hard to prove, but you don't even need to be attacked first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

that idea scares me, i hope they look REALLY closely into the circumstances otherwise i can see it being fairly easy to use that to get away with murder.

[amateurstuntman]

In Texas (I think) a few years ago a tourist from Aberdeen got minging drunk, and got lost, he went into someones garden and hammered on their front door at 3am shouting for help and directions.

The homeowner shot him dead through the door with a shotgun and escaped prosecution.

 

There was a big stink in Scotland over that one.

[hardboiledcop]

I think if you're being attacked you should be able to do whatever you can to protect yourself with whatever you have to hand, after all you can't rightly send someone to jail for using their own instincts of self-preservation.

If you are threatened, that should not give you the right to kill someone, they should have to be endangering yours (or anothers) life.

 

--

 

However, I do feel very strongly that if someone breaks into your home you should be able to do whatever is necessary to protect yourself and those you love.

 

eg. A burglar breaks into a farm house, if he has a modacum of sense he should know it is highly likely there will be guns in the house, hence he is taking that risk by entering.

Also, if the farmer has a modacum of sense, he knows that the burglar may be armed as a precaution, and therefore he should be able to kill said burglar.. after some form of warning ( ie "I have a shotgun, if you do not leave my premises I will shoot you") or something.

[Lord Blackgoat]

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner. Contrary to what the Wachowski Brothers would have you believe, no amount of karate gimmicks is any match for guns and the bullets they spit. And no amount of karate gimmicks can get a small, light person out of a jamb involving a large, heavy person: A petite woman cannot possibly know enough karate gimmicks to keep herself from being raped by a large, 300 lb thug. She needs a force multiplier. She needs a gun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

She needs to kick him in the nuts, repeatedly. And a handgun can be neutralised if its holder is too close, like holding the gun against the other person's chest, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have any problem carying a gun around, since I have proper military training and 16 years of experience of handling guns etc, same for many people I know. However, I wouldn't trust that much people, including some of the people at my shooting club, to carry. They're simply not confident, responsible and trained enough to be trusted. And more than that, I believe not that many people have enough discernment to make the right choice of shooting/drawing/not using his weapon depending on the "agression", AKA, the story of the guy who shoots blind through a door because of some noise.

And how can you be sure that under stress you will be able to shoot only the bad guy in the street, and not shooting some passer-by? OK, you can practice shooting every week end, with practical shooting, special classes etc. Maybe more important to you, how can you be sure the passer-by will be accurate enough to shoot his bad guy, without hurting you or your cute 7 years old daughter?

Hell, even when we were in military deployment in anti-terrorism protection on the national territory, with assault rifles we were correctly trained to use, we were wondering what would happen if we were faced a situation where we would have to open fire in a train station full of civilians...

And the culture of firearms here is so different from the US... you should have seen the looks the civilians were giving us when we were patroling in the city center, because we were carrying rifles... An average American would probably have noticed that we didn't have our magazines in most of the time, but there people were actually scared by the simple presence of weapons among them, even hold by professional soldiers!

Anyway, in France, if you kill someone, even in a bare-handed fight with the presence of witnesses to testify of your complete right to self-defense, you're in deep trouble.

[Kraut]

She needs to kick him in the nuts, repeatedly. And a handgun can be neutralised if its holder is too close, like holding the gun against the other person's chest, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have any problem carying a gun around, since I have proper military training and 16 years of experience of handling guns etc, same for many people I know. However, I wouldn't trust that much people, including some of the people at my shooting club, to carry. They're simply not confident, responsible and trained enough to be trusted. And more than that, I believe not that many people have enough discernment to make the right choice of shooting/drawing/not using his weapon depending on the "agression", AKA, the story of the guy who shoots blind through a door because of some noise.

And how can you be sure that under stress you will be able to shoot only the bad guy in the street, and not shooting some passer-by? OK, you can practice shooting every week end, with practical shooting, special classes etc. Maybe more important to you, how can you be sure the passer-by will be accurate enough to shoot his bad guy, without hurting you or your cute 7 years old daughter?

Hell, even when we were in military deployment in anti-terrorism protection on the national territory, with assault rifles we were correctly trained to use, we were wondering what would happen if we were faced a situation where we would have to open fire in a train station full of civilians...

And the culture of firearms here is so different from the US... you should have seen the looks the civilians were giving us when we were patroling in the city center, because we were carrying rifles... An average American would probably have noticed that we didn't have our magazines in most of the time, but there people were actually scared by the simple presence of weapons among them, even hold by professional soldiers!

Anyway, in France, if you kill someone, even in a bare-handed fight with the presence of witnesses to testify of your complete right to self-defense, you're in deep trouble.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the USA, we have this saying "Innocent until proven guilty". In saying you don't trust people with the ability to defend themselves, you might as well say they don't have the ability to make their own decisions and shouldn't be allowed to vote, or voice their opinion, or any number of other things. Accordingly, people need to be told what to do by those who happen to know better. After all, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Here, the 2nd amendment protects the 1st.

 

And your scenario with the girl and the handgun, she wouldn't let him get that close. It's not the movies were the women always start crying and get the gun taken away.

[Jagdraben]

And kicking an attacker in the nuts is a surefire way to get him to tear off both your arms and beat you to death with them.

[hardboiledcop]

And kicking an attacker in the nuts is a surefire way to get him to tear off both your arms and beat you to death with them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

especially if said attacker = Bruce Lee, who will probably have drawn said nuts into his pelvis prior to fighting, just in case.