Dumb handgun remark

[justice4all]

I agree with firestar; I've said many times here and on TFL that I'm much more concerned about dogs running loose than BGs. A handgun is designed to stop whatever threat arises. K9, BG, ObL, etc. And most of the time, from what I read, display is all that's necessary. So it would be more accurate to say that handguns are for threatening serious bodily injury, and if that doesn't stop the assault, then for carrying out the same.

 

[themic]

agree with napattack...

you shoot to STOP, not to kill. if the dude happens to die, well, that's his fault.

i'm still in a personal debate about the load "I HAVE A GUN" warning. in many situations, yes. in some, no.

handguns are desinged to launch projectiles at high speeds. they are tailored to the wants of the market, which in theory would like to launch said projectiles at humans. invisible hands at work.

Still, though, years have gone by, and still, I have not seen the Smith and Wesson Cam move on its own.

 

[caz223]

You DO shoot to stop the attack, but it's not like you're shooting a water pistol.
You still have to accept the consequences of using lethal force before you consider using a handgun in self defense.
That's all I'm saying.
Many people I talk to seem to think the BG will be frightened away when you present your gun.
You can always hope for this, but if life were always this easy, you wouldn't need to prepare for it.

 

[Handy]

When you shoot to stop, and you're shooting a "lethal weapon", you're shooting to kill and mincing words.


What the hell were you learning at Frontsite? Was there a big section on hitting shoulders and kneecaps? 100 yard sillouette?


The brother in law made a generalization about the PRIMARY use of the combat handgun (notice the term "combat").

This is just like saying that the Army exists to kill people. It does! But you have to ask yourself why.

With certain exceptions, a reliable .45 is not a target gun. You can shoot targets with it, just like you can race your Camaro. You can also use it as a bottle opener. But let's not kid ourselves, combat guns are mainly for combat. If all you cared about was bullseyes, you'd be better off with something else.

I would have pointed out that my .45 is a decent target gun, but can protect my family as well. His .22 is not so flexible.

 

[jimcon]

Shooting to kill

Handy:
It is you who should be thinking more clearly. When I shoot, if it ever happens, I will shoot to stop the threat. I clearly realize the death is one of the possibe results. The language that you "shoot to kill is" a very dangerous thought process, which you could express to the wrong person at the wrong time.
You asked what I learned at Frontsight. It was 2 shots to the COM and, if necessary one to the ocular cavity. I am a First Family member of Frontsight and am there frequently, because I learn to shoot better each time. No we do not shoot for "shoulders and kneecaps" and longest shots are 25 yards

You mentioned that my .45 ACP can kill and that could happen. Before you think that I am agreeing with you, please take a look at hospital statistics relative to handgun wounds. For example, over 80% of those admitted for a gunshot wound are released the same day and less than 5% die of their wounds. A handgun is a very poor weapon for self defense. The best use of a handgun, to quote Clint Smith, is to fight your way to your long gun.

 

[caz223]

It sounds like you are agreeing.
If you accept the fact that death may result, and shoot to center of mass, and failure drill to the head, then that's not shooting to frighten, or being afraid to use the gun properly.
The problem is that today, the average person who has a gun seems to think that they don't need to use it, or want to fire a warning shot, or shoot to scare or wound.
We are in agreement, and the statement I would give to my lawyer, and we would give to the police would not include the word kill, if at all possible. But that's wording after the fact.

Basically, if you're shooting a defensive gun caliber, and are shooting to COM, you're not shooting to give the BG a stomachache.
And as for your stats, the gunshot wounds that make it to the hospital usually live.
If you connected with two to COM, and one to the head before they went down, they aren't going to the hospital. They are going to the coroner. They wouldn't be included in your stats.

 

[Strings]

ok, I KNOW...

... that I'm not the only person here familiar with the 4 rules...

1: treat every gun as if it's loaded
2: never point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy (in human terms, that's kill, people)
3: always be sure of your target and what's beyond it
4: keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot

Now, some may state #2 differently, but that's the way *I* was taught (and the way I teach). YMMV

 

[Teufelhunden]

The way I see it, most men have instincts for hunting, war, and defense of himself, his family, friends, and neighbors. Ever since the first man figured out that a stick/club was more effective than his fist, the arms race has been on .

Men aren't allowed to operate off of instincts anymore--didn't you get the memo? We might offend or oppress someone in the course of succumbing to our primitive urges...

[/sarcasm]

-Teuf

 

[arinvolvo]

I own handguns for two reasons...

1. recreation...they are fun to shoot.

2. to protect myself and my family..if that means someone will die...so be it. I will have to live with the consequences, and as long as those consequences are lesser than my death, or the death of a loved one...then I will consider it a victory.

 

[themic]

"shoot to stop" means, essentially, that you aren't out to kill BG's and aren't out for vigilante justice. it's a term used to indicate that you aren't out to kill the dude specifically, you are out to stop his/her violent imminent attack. you are using lethal force to do so. so, although you recognize that you are using lethal force, your overall intent is to stop the attack. sometimes a shot to the head is the best way to do so.

this is more than a legal subtlety in the event of a self defense scenario.. if you're shooting to kill, then if you shoot a BG once in the chest, and he collapses or is incapacitated, you do not continue to shoot the dude.

remember the legal rules of self defense, they're written quite well:

in the opinion of a reasonable human being,
1) the attacker must have the ability to threaten your life
2) the attacker must have the opportunity to threaten your life
3) the attacker must have the intent to threaten your life

where "you" means yourself or members of your immediate family

if the following are all present, then you may use lethal force to stop the attack.

at least, that's how they're done in virginia

 

[caz223]

Well put.

 

[Handy]

Jimcon,

Not sure what you meant about thinking more clearly.

The term "stop" is a tool we use to discuss defense shooting without setting ourselves up for a second degree murder charge. We all want to "stop" the attack, and we're going to do it by imposing death on the attacker, because there aren't many options at that point. Your training especially underlines that point. ("Is he going to be all right?" "Sure, it was just an ocular wound.")

If you object to me breaking the polite code of calling head shots "stops", I apologize. But this is just a form of political correctness that the gun community practices and it sounds like your in-law was mainly guilty of breaking that code, rather than stating an un-truth.

 

[jimcon]

I think that enough has been said on this subject. All that we are argueing now is symantics. In closing, I will offer his other dumb remark. He insisted that the only proper way to hold a handgun is with the support side thumb wrapped around to the firing side. When I explained that this could be painful, he commented that he shoots his .44 Magnum this way and it is the only correct way to do it. He said that he was taught to shoot this way in the Navy. Could someone post a list of top Navy shooters who use the technique.

 

[Handy]

That sounds like how we were shown (I'm Navy). If the thumb is low and behind (rather than on top of) the web area it is well out of the way of the slide and hammer.

Obviously, not the "only way to do it", but it is an effective method that helps control muzzle rise.

 

[jimcon]

"If the thumb is low and behind (rather than on top of) the web area it is well out of the way of the slide and hammer."
I his case the thumb was high and very close the the hammer and slide

 

[Handy]

Well, if he's getting hit by the hammer or slide I'm sure he'll see the error in his ways.


So, no closure on my lack of "clear thinking"?

 

[jimcon]

Handy:

When I used the phrase "clear thinking" I was refering to your words about shooting to kill. If ever you had to use a handgun in self defense and used those words or anything even like them near a witness or a police officer, you could be in a world of hurt.
What people have said after a shoting, while trying to cope with an attack and a death, could very well hang them in court.

Mas Ayoob had a column a few months ago that mentioned a few police officer's comments that caused them a great deal of grief.

While I dispise the phrase "politically correct", there are times when it is best to bite the bullet and say the right words. The wrong words could , at best, significantly lighten your wallet and, at worst, cause you to spend time in a very unpleasant resort.

I guess that my message that if you do not think the words then you will not say them. Hopefully, this is advise that you will never need.

 

[TheMariner]

Interesting that there is discussion on whether shooting to kill and shooting to stop are different or the same.... I would assume that shooting to kill, in this case, does not main chasing the BG out the door just cause he isn't dead yet...

WIth this in mind, given the statement that handguns are not effective lethal weapons, comapred to other weapons (I'd like to go of the record as saying this paraphrase is grossing understated), I would shooting to kill as mandatory... it being an ineffective weapon for killing then it must be ineffective for wounding and causing a will to cease and desist aggressive activities...

Unfortunely, a handgun is very lethal. It is, also, the most difficult to control, even under the best conditions. Under the duress of combat, it becomes a STATISTICALLY inefficient weapon.

 

[cratz2]

I can't abide a man that wouldn't stand ready to kill to protect the innocent.

Ditto... that would extend to women as well.

I would not be comfortable with my sister being married to someone not willing to shoot, stab, batter, beat, tackle and die for my sister and their children.

My wife's differing outlook on shooting to stop didn't bother me much until we had our first child... maybe even out second child. She made the comment on more that one occasion that she didn't know if she could shoot someone that had broken into the house. I put it in very unpleasant terms whey she should shoot said someone. I asked her how she would feel if, through some unlikely twist of fate, someone broke in the house, encountered her with the gun went up stairs and raped and butchered our 6 year old and 2 year old. I painted it in a very very ugly manner.

Now the bad guy would have a couple rounds of 12 gaugs in him before he touched the first step.

Call me whatever you want to call me but if I were home alone and someone happened into the house and made a threatening move or declaration, I'm not entirely sure what I would do. On a conscience level, I don't fully think that I would be comfortable witih taking a life if mine was only casually threatened... From someone not visibly armed 7 yards away. But that darn muscle memory may kick in and he'd get a double tap COM before I had a chance to really think about it. I'm not sure I'd have a problem with either response.

On the other hand, I stay up pretty late most nights and if the wrong guy walked through the door with the wife and kids up stairs, I really don't think he'd have a chance to turn around. Where we live, it isn't likely he was drunk and wandered into the wrong house. And if lights didn't come up the driveway and he didn't knock or ring the bell, he's up to no good. If he was 14 or 15, it would probably be different, but if you live to be 30 years old and don't realize to knock on a stranger's doorbell, then this one just might be the last one you walk through.

 

[zpo]

I really need the knocking on a strangers doorbell thing clarified...

 

[Erik]

Several dumb remarks, actually.

 

[Boiler_G]

First off, Caz, I agree with everything you said! Second, Hunter Rose, those are my rules too, and every shooter, new or old that shoots with me, hears those 4 rules.

Now, for my statement ... I think everyone is missing the point here. I don't think it is about WHY you shoot, or WHEN to shoot, or whether you are STOPPING or KILLING. I think it has to go back to why the original gun/handgun was invented. That was to kill, plain and simple. Whether you use it for that, that is up to your own conscious and definition.

 

[bad_dad_brad]

Don't be so hard on the guy (future brother in law). Take him to the range and educate him on the differences in caliber and gun.

Shooting is fun.
It is zen.
It is impowering.
It is an art and yet, a science.
And, yes, it can defend your (and more importantly - your loved ones lives).

I have oft been amazed how a calm explanation, coupled with a hands on demonstration, can change an opinion. Every caliber has a reason and many are equal when it comes to target shooting and/or defending.

 

[P95Carry]

BDB .... succinct logic ......