Are You Stupid for Concealed Carry?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good article. Not too many people (especially on this particular forum) are willing to say things like that. Too much political correctness and not enough outright honesty.
 
"If the gun comes out of its holster, you must already have decided to kill somebody"

And all these years I thought it was shoot to stop the threat.

John
 
Tell me about how you shoot to stop the threat.

If you are shooting to stopping the threat you had better have decided to kill somebody.
 
PTMCCAIN said:
Tell me about how you shoot to stop the threat.

If you are shooting to stopping the threat you had better have decided to kill somebody.
Click to expand...
No, rather I have accepted that the death of the assailant is a possible consequence of my use of lethal force to stop him.

That is a fundamental difference between shooting with the intent to stop and shooting with the intent to kill. If I'm forced to shoot someone to protect my life of the life of an innocent, my purpose is served if the assailant stops, even if he doesn't die.

The assailant's death may be a natural result of my use of lethal force to stop him, and I must accept that; but his death is not my intended result. If it were, I would continue shooting even after he stopped. But ask how well that worked out for Jerome Ersland.

Shooting to stop is more than just "politically correct." It is the legal limit on your justified use of lethal force. If you have stopped the threat, you are not justified in continuing to use lethal force against the aggressor, even if he is still breathing.

And by the way, this distinction is recognized in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (footnotes omitted, emphasis added):
Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."...

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.... ​

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility....
Click to expand...
 
I think a lot of times where this conversation breaks down is the difference between accepting the mindset that your actions are likely to result in the death of another person and the incorrect idea that your goal is to kill the other person. Those are two different concepts but on the Internet anyway, many people do not distinguish between them well.
 
Easy.

I don't not want to kill somebody, Period, End of statement.

What I DO want to is to for the attacker to stop their action which has placed me or someone I care for in fear of losing ther life.

So I AM going to use a) verbal commands, i.e. STOP, b) display of force, i.e. drawing my gun and c) finally firing my gun. If my round hits the attacker in his little finger and he stops his attack then I am NOT going to keep firing until one of my rounds kills him.

My ONLY goal is to cause the attacker to stop his actions.

Hey that is the same thing police officers are trained to use.

Big difference. If you don't understand it I am sure you will after a few years in prison.
 
With respect, gentlemen, if you are shooting for the purpose of STOPPING a person from killing you or your loved ones, I hope/trust you are shooting to put a bullet in their heart, brain, or brain stem.

Thus, I believe we are speaking of distinctions without a difference.

If you are NOT shooting to kill, you are simply not defending yourself.
 
If you have decided to kill somebody and nobody dies, then you have failed.
 
" If you have decided to kill somebody and nobody dies, then you have failed. "

Care to elaborate?
 
The goal of self defense is to bring the danger to oneself to an end, definitively. It might be achieved by hitting, running away, screaming, blowing a whistle....or shooting.

Using a gun should always be the last resort, and doing so should still be only with the intent to definitively bring an end to the danger. If I determine that shooting is all I have left, that means my assailant is determined and that stopping him will take a CNS shot if I can get one, or a heart/lung shot if I can't. And it will mean follow-up shots if he keeps coming.

I know these shots may well kill the assailant, and if he dies, that is unfortunate. But he will have died as a result of my attempt to stop him, not my attempt to kill him.
 
PTMCAIN, if your attacker stops, drops and passes out from a shot in the chest, what's your next move? A finisher to the brain?
 
My experience during the First Gulf War, in Iraq, and in holding a burglar in my home at gun-point until the police arrived taught me that guns are useful for much more than killing someone.
 
My experience during the First Gulf War, in Iraq, and in holding a burglar in my home at gun-point until the police arrived taught me that guns are useful for much more than killing someone.
Click to expand...

Words of wisdom from someone that has actually used a gun, as opposed to all the 'educated' folk that lecture us on the interwebs...
 
God forbid I am ever in the situation where I am in danger and I must draw and discharge my firearm, I am doing it only to get myself out of danger. I care not what happens to the aggressor, I care that the threat stops. I am not God, nor to I want to be God. I merely want the threat to stop.
 
Highly doubt that a guy who was facing down a threat to his life was simply trying to disarm him, but...party on Wayne!!!

: )
 
Let me say it again:

If you are NOT shooting to kill, you are not shooting to stop the threat.
 
Shoot 'til the threat stops. If you run out of bullets and that aint enough, rack in another magload and keep shootin'.

I do see a difference between enough and killing. But in the heat of the moment and the height of adrenalin enough is likely to be when the gun is empty.
 
I'm not missing the point. I'm simply able to distinguish between intent to kill and intent to stop which may result in death.

So are juries.

But please enlighten us all--what is your point, and why are the rest of us wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Read article at Des Moines Register web site
Replies
3
Views
385
Dionysusigma
D
M
  • Locked
The Planetary Bill Of Rights Project
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Melissa2006
M
Z
  • Locked
PA now honors VA CCW
Replies
8
Views
431
Shovelhead
Shovelhead
Pyro
  • Locked
Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
Replies
4
Views
464
stickhauler
S
S
  • Locked
(UK) Why Britain needs more guns
Replies
3
Views
1K
Blackhawk
B
Back
Top