JohnRich 4 #26 February 3, 2004 QuoteI'm more inclined to take the knife away from him and stick it in his ear. Good luck. A firearm is a much more effective tool, and makes you far less likely to be hurt in an attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #27 February 3, 2004 I like Glocks because even if you are a lazy sonofabitch and don't clean them, they'll still fire. SIGs tend to jam up if not cleaned regularly, though I like the feel of them better. My last handgun was a SIG. Cleaned it regularly, so it didn't jam.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rainbo 0 #28 February 3, 2004 And I like my H&K USP 40. RainboRainbo TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything "Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #29 February 3, 2004 QuoteAnd I like my H&K USP 40 Good weapon, hard to go wrong with a H&K USP, just a little bulky to carry, though.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rainbo 0 #30 February 3, 2004 Yeah, she's big but dead freakin' on. RainboRainbo TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything "Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #31 February 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteI guess my non-american logic fails here- that disabling an attacker can be worse than killing him simply doesn't compute. That is a bad idea. First of all, hitting your attacker in the legs is difficult, and increases your odds of being hurt by him, should you fail, which is likely. Shooting things out of people's hands only happens in Hollywood movies. Read the first post again. I'm an expert shot. And, if you noticed Turtlespeed's post, a precedential case already exists for such an incident. If I killed the attacker, his family's lawyer could use it against me. If I just wound him, I might somehow use it against him. So if I ever become an expert shot, own a gun, have a family and find myself with a knife-wielding madman charging at us, I'd still try to wound the guy. Of course, if I was just a mediocre shot and put in such a position, I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who was obviously a threat to me and my family, liberal way of thinking and all... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rainbo 0 #32 February 3, 2004 You know, on a second thought, I would have to say from a sentimental perspective I gotta like my ole S&W Model 59. A real metal gun that not real big and I have never ever had a misfire with it. RainboRainbo TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything "Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #33 February 3, 2004 QuoteI'm an expert shot... So if I ever become an expert shot, own a gun... You're confusing me. Are you an expert shot, or are you someone who doesn't even own a gun and hopes to someday be an expert shot? Either way, I'm all in favor of you having the personal choice to try a leg shot if you want. It's your life, and your choice. But I personally don't think that's a good idea when your life is on the line. And all the self-defense classes I've taken also say that's a bad idea. Good luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 February 3, 2004 Here's something from a right-wing, gun-loving attorney: If you shoot someone in self-defense, which means that you have an honest and reasonable fear of immediate death or great bodily harm, your actions will be justified. If the threat is not immediate, no self-defense. If your fear is honest, but not reasonable, no self-defense. If your fear is reasonable but not honest, no self-defense. If you have a way to flee, no self-defense. Hypotheticals? A man is six feet from you, pulls a knife and runs at you to attack. You put a shot in his gut. Self-defense would likely apply. Same as above only he gets shot and turns to run. You finish him off. No good. No self defense. No immediate threat nore reasonable fear. Ah, but you honestly thought he was gonna come back. No good. Fear not reasonable. A man pulls a knife from the opposite corner of a street (maybe 30 yards) and menaces you. You put a cap in his ass. No good. No immediate threat and you had a chance to retreat. No self-defense. Same as above, only he has a gun. He points it at you and you fire on him. Self-defense will apply. A dude pulls a knife right in front of you and says, "if I didn't think I'd go to jail, I'd carve out your heart right now." You cap him. No good. The threat was not immediate, and the fear of death was not reasonable, since he said he wasn't gonna cut you. A dude stabs you in the gut and runs. You pull your gun and cap him. No self-defense, since the threat was abated. A dude punches you in the face. You cap him. No self-defense, since it's probably not a threat of death or great bodily injury you face from fists. Basically, John Rich is right. Want to stay out of jail? Only shoot if there is an immediate threat of death is gone, so is the self-defense. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #35 February 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteI'm an expert shot... So if I ever become an expert shot, own a gun... You're confusing me. Are you an expert shot, or are you someone who doesn't even own a gun and hopes to someday be an expert shot? We were talking hypothetical situations there. "I'm an expert shot" refers to the first post, where you had to assume you were just that and think about what your reaction would be. I do own a gun, but I a)don't have a permit for it; b)don't have any ammo for it; c)don't have a place to shoot it without arousing suspicion; d)wouldn't want to shoot it anyway, since it's probably last been fired in WW2 (belonged to my great-uncle). With an air pistol, I'm a mediocre shot. Firearms are not really part of our culture, so I never had any serious aspirations to excel at shooting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #36 February 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteI guess my non-american logic fails here- that disabling an attacker can be worse than killing him simply doesn't compute. That is a bad idea. First of all, hitting your attacker in the legs is difficult, and increases your odds of being hurt by him, should you fail, which is likely. Shooting things out of people's hands only happens in Hollywood movies. Second, his lawyer will argue that if didn't feel the necessity to shoot to kill, and had time to try and hit his legs, then you shouldn't have been shooting at him at all. And you're more likely to go to jail for an "unjustifiable" shooting. The advice is not to shoot until you absolutely have to, when you fear for your life. And then you shoot to stop the attack, by aiming center mass. As soon as the threat ceases, stop shooting. That includes if the attacker turns and runs away. Then he's no longer a threat to you, so any shooting is unjustified. John, I wasn't sure about you at first, but I'm definitely starting to like you. You seem to know your stuff. That was a very good explanation of why you NEVER shoot to wound. Also, as most experts will tell you, you never shoot to kill. You always shoot to stop. The most effective way to stop somebody is to shoot them square in the chest, so that's what you do. Personally, I'm going to keep shooting until the perpetrator is down (stopped). The first two are going in his chest. If he's still coming, the next two are going to hit his pelvic bone just above the left and right hip. If a fifth shot is required, it's going between his eyes. If you have trouble with the logic of the shot placements, I'll explain it, but I think it's pretty obvious.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #37 February 3, 2004 QuoteI do own a gun, but I a)don't have a permit for it; b)don't have any ammo for it; c)don't have a place to shoot it without arousing suspision; d)wouldn't want to shoot it anyway, since it's probably last been fired in WW2 Are you required to have a permit for it? If so, does this mean that you are in violation of the law, even though you don't have any ammo for it, and have no intention of hurting anyone with it? You ought to at least get some ammo for it, so that you could shoot it if you wanted to. Aren't there any public shooting ranges where you live? What kind of gun is it? If it is a WWII firearm, it should be safe to shoot with modern ammo. Firearms don't really degrade with age, unless you've let it get rusty or something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #38 February 3, 2004 QuoteA dude stabs you in the gut and runs. You pull your gun and cap him. No self-defense, since the threat was abated. Now that one just plain stinks. I understand why, it still stinks. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #39 February 3, 2004 Quote Are you required to have a permit for it? If so, does this mean that you are in violation of the law, even though you don't have any ammo for it, and have no intention of hurting anyone with it? Basically- yes. I would need an owner's permit to legally have it, buy ammo for it and shoot it at a club. Over here, you need to supply some proof of purchase to get a permit. If my great-uncle ever had any papers for that gun, they are long gone and his will said nothing about it, much less about leaving it to me. Quote What kind of gun is it? If it is a WWII firearm, it should be safe to shoot with modern ammo. Firearms don't really degrade with age, unless you've let it get rusty or something. It's a Browning/FN model 1922 9mm pistol. Second one on this page. It's not exactly rusty, but I doubt it's been taken proper care of while my uncle was alive, and I certainly don't know enough about guns to tell if everything works as it should. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kramer 0 #40 February 3, 2004 Hilarious stuff Dave. I need to buy a gun. -Kramer The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #41 February 3, 2004 QuoteOver here, you need to supply some proof of purchase to get a permit. If my great-uncle ever had any papers for that gun, they are long gone and his will said nothing about it, much less about leaving it to me. That's a good example of a stupid gun law. They've defined you as a criminal simply because you inherited a family member's war firearm. Even though you haven't done anything with it to threaten or harm anyone, you could be a criminal simply for "having it". QuoteIt's a Browning/FN model 1922 9mm pistol. Ohhh, those are nice. Browning "high power" pistols are very popular. It should still work just fine, and safely, with regular modern ammo. It's worth about $200 to $400 in the U.S., depending upon condition and heritage. I will be happy to help you out with your legal predicament with that pistol - send it to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #42 February 3, 2004 QuoteYou are carrying a Glock .40 Southerner's Answer: BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.. Dude, you need to pay closer attention when you load your mags._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #43 February 3, 2004 Quote I will be happy to help you out with your legal predicament with that pistol - send it to me! Thanks for the offer, but I have no idea how far a package containing an unregistered firearm would get if I tried to send it from this semi-balkanic region of the EU to the States, nor who would get in bigger trouble, the sender or the recipient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #44 February 4, 2004 In TX, if someone draws a knife and is threatening within 20ft, then they are a lethal threat. The state did some studies (no idea on the link for sources) finding out that someone could cover that distance to attack you in under 2 seconds. So you basically have 1 second to draw your weapon before things get real bad (well, they're already real bad, but you know what I mean). If you have a way to flee besides on foot, then use it. If you're on foot, then they consider that to not be a viable fleeing method. Every shot has to be done in a danger assesment manner. 1 shot, still in danger, then 2 shots, etc. How long that assesment takes between shots is not set in law. Thus, 2 to the chest would be ok, 2 to the chest and 1 to the head could be seen as excessive and an attorney might try to use that against you. If it takes 10rds to finally be in a safe condition, then it takes 10rds (and you're a shitty shot/the guy was all hopped up on goofballs). Also, TX doesn't think that someone has to have a weapon to be a lethal threat. The first case of a CCW holder having to defend himself in that manner was a road rage case. Apparently in Dallas, the CCW cut a guy off in traffic. Happens, that's life in Dallas traffic. The person that was cut off in turn runs the CCW holder off the road. Gets out of his car and proceeds to beat the shit out of the CCW holder (through the guy's window). The CCW holder wasn't able to drive away, having been run off the road and crashing his car in the median. The CCW holder tried to defend himself w/o his weapon before firing 2 shots and killing the other person. The CCW holder went to the hospital with a broken jaw, a concusion and a cracked skull. The media didn't include the part about the injuries to the CCW holder and the fact that the TX court system upheld his decision to defend himself. Funny how the media works that way.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #45 February 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess my non-american logic fails here- that disabling an attacker can be worse than killing him simply doesn't compute. That is a bad idea. First of all, hitting your attacker in the legs is difficult, and increases your odds of being hurt by him, should you fail, which is likely. Shooting things out of people's hands only happens in Hollywood movies. Read the first post again. I'm an expert shot. And, if you noticed Turtlespeed's post, a precedential case already exists for such an incident. If I killed the attacker, his family's lawyer could use it against me. If I just wound him, I might somehow use it against him. So if I ever become an expert shot, own a gun, have a family and find myself with a knife-wielding madman charging at us, I'd still try to wound the guy. Of course, if I was just a mediocre shot and put in such a position, I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who was obviously a threat to me and my family, liberal way of thinking and all... Even police officers, who are generally considered "expert shots," don't try this type of sharpshooting in the field--It's just too risky. Shooting a gun out of somebody's hand or shooting them in the leg is a Hollywood idea. If the assailant has a gun, they may use the time gained by a missed shot or a non-lethal shot to get off a shot of their own. There have been several incidents where assailants continued to attack police after being shot several times. As to liability issues, past examples in the U.S. have shown that you are more likely to be sued if the assailant him/herself is left alive to sue you.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #46 February 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI answered that I'd blast his knees Dude, you in the mafia or something? Kneecapping...WOW! That's horrible. Sure is, but I'd be stopping the bastard without killing him and doing him a favor, since he'd probably never be able to run at anyone with a knife again and so his chances of being killed someday by a conservative or a southerner would be somewhat diminished... Fine, if you enjoy getting hauled into court by the same criminal scum who tried to rob/kill you and your family to answer some bogus frivolous lawsuit in which he seeks $10,000,000 from you for pain and suffering and medical expenses. Why does someone who would attack you deserve for you to use the gentlest possible effective response? By law, you are entitled to end the threat. You are not entitled to pump bullets into a wounded attacker who cannot continue an attack. But nothing says that your first shot cannot be lethal, or that you can't pump two or three out rapidly before you see whether you stopped the attack. Besides, I take umbrage at the liberal attitude that it is somehow better to wound the guy lightly to stop the attack so that he can live to try the same shit again on some OTHER victim, who may NOT be armed to save the lives of himself and his family. It's like when a person declines to file charges against someone who harmed him, for example, a woman who is too embarrassed to have her rapist charged. What she is effectively doing is giving him the open opportunity to victimize someone else. I believe that our social duty, if we are victimized, is to endeavor to nullify the threat that attacked us not just for our own sake, but for those future victims. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #47 February 4, 2004 Well, that was a pretty well-put statement. As I have said numerous times in the past, the laws vary from state to state. I gave a common law description of the self-defense rule. Interestingly, your stories verified my rule. The knife at 20 feet away. If there is no reasonable means of retreat, self-defense is justified. Also, in the case of the guy beaten within an inch of his life, that certainly seems to stand up to the theory of "death of great bodily injury." After a concussion and broken jaw, it seems there to be an honest and reasonable fear. Plus, he had no way to retreat. So much of this is subjective. And, yeah, I'm glad the guy got off. Great stories, though. They give lawyers like me cause to smile. Most people like dirty sex talk. I like legal stuff. My lady is a lawyer. I love when she talks about defensivee nonmutual collateral estoppel. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #48 February 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess my non-american logic fails here- that disabling an attacker can be worse than killing him simply doesn't compute. That is a bad idea. First of all, hitting your attacker in the legs is difficult, and increases your odds of being hurt by him, should you fail, which is likely. Shooting things out of people's hands only happens in Hollywood movies. Read the first post again. I'm an expert shot. And, if you noticed Turtlespeed's post, a precedential case already exists for such an incident. If I killed the attacker, his family's lawyer could use it against me. If I just wound him, I might somehow use it against him. So if I ever become an expert shot, own a gun, have a family and find myself with a knife-wielding madman charging at us, I'd still try to wound the guy. Of course, if I was just a mediocre shot and put in such a position, I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who was obviously a threat to me and my family, liberal way of thinking and all... Would you please list the benefits to society that leaving this kind of psychotic criminal attacker alive gives us? C'mon, give us a compelling argument as to why this guy deserves to live and be given another chance to pull the same shit on a different family that doesn' t have the benefit of a gun for defense. Most people answer this by saying that they just feel it is wrong to kill, and killing should be done ONLY when it is "ABSOLUTELY" necessary. I don't have a tremendous problem with that, but sometimes it seems as though they are putting the life of a criminal scumbag on the same level as ordinary, honest, law-abiding and peaceful citizens -- as though we'd be losing the guy who was gonna cure cancer or something if you killed the knife-wielder. Puhlease. ----Jeffrey P.S. Just to show I'm not utterly humorless, I really did enjoy the first post. I chuckled quietly to myself so as to not alert my coworkers.-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #49 February 4, 2004 So when yall are naughty, instead of a spanking, she ties you up and serves you papers? Wow, and I thought *I* was odd.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #50 February 4, 2004 so question - is this a good purchase for stopping power? http://www.davidsonsinc.com/dealers/prod_images/de50.jpgI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
