Is it really the only right way?

[Buka]

Pretty hard to beat someone to death though.

Obviously untill it isn't.

But you know what I mean

I do know what you mean.

I’ll tell you something that’s always frightened me. Hitting someone and having them go down, hit their head and be seriously hurt. Not from the punch, but from whacking their head.

It doesn’t happen often but I’ve seen it, or read about it, a few times in my life.
When I say “read about it” I mean it happening where I lived.

Even happened out here on Maui about fifteen years ago. Guy started a fight, other guy hit him, guy that started it went down and hit his head on the curb. Died in the hospital.

That scares me a whole lot more than getting
the crap beat out of me.

 

[Mallic]

I haven't seen that mentality here - the intent to take a life, that is.

What I have seen is that if there is no choice but to fight, then fight to end the confrontation as quickly as possible and disengage. Whether or not that ends in a fatality is not part of the equation; it could happen, but it's not the desired outcome. In fact, whether the attacker lives or dies isn't part of the discussion at all. END THE CONFRONTATION. That's what matters.

This is somewhat the same as the training that was given to me when I was a military policeman in the Marine Corps. Avoid shooting anyone, but if you have to shoot, shoot to stop. We aimed for the so-called 'ten ring'. Will that kill them? It very well may, but we are NOT "shooting to kill." We are shooting to stop. Death may well go along with that, but it's not the intent. Get it?

I don't want my attacker to die. I want them to stop attacking me. If that means they stop fighting and run away, I'm perfectly happy to let them do that. If it means they fall down and cry and beg me to stop hurting them, also good. If they cease biological activities as a result of response to their attack, then I'm sorry for that outcome, but they chose it, not me. I did not intend for them to die; I intended for them to stop attacking me.

However, I will not intentionally prolong an attack on myself so that I can use less lethal or brutal methods. I am being attacked. Every moment I am still being attacked, I could be seriously injured or killed. And you know what's more important than my attacker's life? My life.

Fighting is chaotic. There are no set-piece self-defense scenarios. It often comes without warning and goes sideways very quickly. You throw a punch and slip on gravel and hit your head and die; don't laugh, it happens. Every single moment that a fight continues, the risk of serious injury or death goes up. A basic principle of self-defense to get yourself out of danger as quickly as possible; that's the first priority.

I don't want my attacker to die. If they do die, that's entirely on them. They chose to attack me; that ended their choice in how things end up. They don't get a vote after that moment.

I'm not sure I understand. I've been told here and other places that guns and the like are by their nature lethal weapons, so the moment you pull it out the moment they decide not to heed your warning, are their lives not already forfeit?

I agree the goal is to end the confrontation and the quickest way to do so is to make sure they aren't breathing anymore. Maybe it's just me, but this is why I ask for such alternative methods because to me the moment I decide to draw my gun towards someone I've already made up my mind that they will die, consequences be damned.

After all, why should I care for the well being of someone who means me harm despite giving them every chance to walk away?

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure I understand. I've been told here and other places that guns and the like are by their nature lethal weapons, so the moment you pull it out the moment they decide not to heed your warning, are their lives not already forfeit?

I agree the goal is to end the confrontation and the quickest way to do so is to make sure they aren't breathing anymore. Maybe it's just me, but this is why I ask for such alternative methods because to me the moment I decide to draw my gun towards someone I've already made up my mind that they will die, consequences be damned.

After all, why should I care for the well being of someone who means me harm despite giving them every chance to walk away?

It is about time and space. And again opposite to your reality based self defence torture porn model you seem to be more familiar with.

If you stall for time and keep distance from your attacker the more likely someone will come along and help you.

So if you are threatened. You pull your gun out or whatever. Then move behind a barrier. It will be a lot harder for the guy to rush you. It will then be a lot less necessary for you to kill him.

And then you can just sit there. The ball is in your court. It isn't on you to quickly finish that confrontation. You can wait, stall and keep distance.

He might rush you. And then you might have to kill him. But a cop might turn up. Or he might give up and go home.

You are creating options rather than forcing a conflict.


Eg. Attack,retreat,stall untill an oportunity arises.

 

[Mallic]

It is about time and space. And again opposite to your reality based self defence torture porn model you seem to be more familiar with.

If you stall for time and keep distance from your attacker the more likely someone will come along and help you.

So if you are threatened. You pull your gun out or whatever. Then move behind a barrier. It will be a lot harder for the guy to rush you. It will then be a lot less necessary for you to kill him.

And then you can just sit there. The ball is in your court. It isn't on you to quickly finish that confrontation. You can wait, stall and keep distance.

He might rush you. And then you might have to kill him. But a cop might turn up. Or he might give up and go home.

You are creating options rather than forcing a conflict.


Eg. Attack,retreat,stall untill an oportunity arises.

That wasn't the point I was making. It's less is it necessary and more should I care? Cause whether I do or not will determine whether I go out of my way to do so or if I just say screw it and try to get this over with.I agree with pretty much all the tactics you mentioned that being keeping space, so it's less sadism and more apathy towards someone who clearly doesn't care about my life.

It's basically a simple question of why should I consider the life of someone who doesn't consider mine or anybody else's?

 

[drop bear]

That wasn't the point I was making. It's less is it necessary and more should I care? Cause whether I do or not will determine whether I go out of my way to do so or if I just say screw it and try to get this over with.I agree with pretty much all the tactics you mentioned that being keeping space, so it's less sadism and more apathy towards someone who clearly doesn't care about my life.

It's basically a simple question of why should I consider the life of someone who doesn't consider mine or anybody else's?

Because you want to shut down his threats. And to do that in its simplest form is to gain positional advantage.

If you want to hurt someone before that occurs you are putting yourself at risk.

 

[Mallic]

Because you want to shut down his threats. And to do that in its simplest form is to gain positional advantage.

If you want to hurt someone before that occurs you are putting yourself at risk.

So it's not really out of empathy so much as just going for the throat to end things asap puts me at a greater risk?

 

[drop bear]

So it's not really out of empathy so much as just going for the throat to end things asap puts me at a greater risk?

It is your personal choice. Not always a tactical choice.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not sure I understand. I've been told here and other places that guns and the like are by their nature lethal weapons, so the moment you pull it out the moment they decide not to heed your warning, are their lives not already forfeit?

That is the choice they made. Whether or not they lose their lives is now in the hands of chance. If I fire a weapon into another human being, it will be to stop them. I'll aim center mass. If it kills them or not, my intent is not to kill. It's to stop.

If I tell a court of law that I shot to kill, I'll then be asked why did I not shoot to wound? Why did I not shoot the weapon out of their hand? I did none of those things because I shot intending to stop. If death followed that, well, that's what happened.

I agree the goal is to end the confrontation and the quickest way to do so is to make sure they aren't breathing anymore. Maybe it's just me, but this is why I ask for such alternative methods because to me the moment I decide to draw my gun towards someone I've already made up my mind that they will die, consequences be damned.

That is foolish and incorrect reasoning. The goal is to end the threat. The quickest way to do that varies depending on the situation. And if you state in court that you'd predetermined you were going to end your attacker's life, you're going to have the consequences you ignored previously.

After all, why should I care for the well being of someone who means me harm despite giving them every chance to walk away?

You should not. There is a distinct difference between placing the value of your life over theirs, and having the intent to end their life because they threatened you.

 

[drop bear]

That is the choice they made. Whether or not they lose their lives is now in the hands of chance. If I fire a weapon into another human being, it will be to stop them. I'll aim center mass. If it kills them or not, my intent is not to kill. It's to stop.

If I tell a court of law that I shot to kill, I'll then be asked why did I not shoot to wound? Why did I not shoot the weapon out of their hand? I did none of those things because I shot intending to stop. If death followed that, well, that's what happened.

If you think this sounds like rationalization.

It is.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I'm not sure I understand. I've been told here and other places that guns and the like are by their nature lethal weapons, so the moment you pull it out the moment they decide not to heed your warning, are their lives not already forfeit?

I agree the goal is to end the confrontation and the quickest way to do so is to make sure they aren't breathing anymore. Maybe it's just me, but this is why I ask for such alternative methods because to me the moment I decide to draw my gun towards someone I've already made up my mind that they will die, consequences be damned.

After all, why should I care for the well being of someone who means me harm despite giving them every chance to walk away?

I'm confused here about why you're confused because bill makes his position pretty darn clear.

If someone attacks me, I don't want that person to die. I want them to deal with the consequences of attacking me, but I'm not actively looking for death. When it's necessary, yes, I will main or kill them. Particularly if I have a gun, and that is my main way of protection. But even if I pull out a gun, I'm not killing immediately. I don't think most people are capable of killing someone point blank like that, which will result in weird misses in the accurate population (if you're curious, there's documentation of this happening in Vietnam)

 

[drop bear]

I'm confused here about why you're confused because bill makes his position pretty darn clear.

If someone attacks me, I don't want that person to die. I want them to deal with the consequences of attacking me, but I'm not actively looking for death. When it's necessary, yes, I will main or kill them. Particularly if I have a gun, and that is my main way of protection. But even if I pull out a gun, I'm not killing immediately. I don't think most people are capable of killing someone point blank like that, which will result in weird misses in the accurate population (if you're curious, there's documentation of this happening in Vietnam)

The thing is shoot to stop has been the accepted mantra for so long that people forget it is kind of dumb.

I mean I get it. For litigation purposes. You never intend to kill someone because that is murder. But you hit someone with bullets and you will very likley kill them.

And you ment to hit them with bullets.

So you will quite often get blank looks when you try to sell that to people who haven't been brought up on it.

 

[Mallic]

The thing is shoot to stop has been the accepted mantra for so long that people forget it is kind of dumb.

I mean I get it. For litigation purposes. You never intend to kill someone because that is murder. But you hit someone with bullets and you will very likley kill them.

And you ment to hit them with bullets.

So you will quite often get blank looks when you try to sell that to people who haven't been brought up on it.

Exactly to me it just sounds like semantics and wording it in a way so they won't feel as bad about it afterwards.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm not sure I understand. I've been told here and other places that guns and the like are by their nature lethal weapons,

Not really. Guns used in self defense are actually fired only about 25% of time time. So obviously a significant majority of gun-uses are non-lethal. And that assumes that each of the 25% is a fatality. A false assumption. I don't have stats off the top of my head, but most gun shot wounds are not lethal.

 

[Mallic]

Not really. Guns used in self defense are actually fired only about 25% of time time. So obviously a significant majority of gun-uses are non-lethal. And that assumes that each of the 25% is a fatality. A false assumption. I don't have stats off the top of my head, but most gun shot wounds are not lethal.

Huh? Then why do people talk about guns as if you can just point them at someone and they just instantly drop dead?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Huh? Then why do people talk about guns as if you can just point them at someone and they just instantly drop dead?

Mostly you hear this tripe from people who are ignorant and/or anti-gun. Or, to quote our own @Bill Mattocks
'People are booger eating idiots".

 

[Mallic]

Mostly you hear this tripe from people who are ignorant and/or anti-gun. Or, to quote our own @Bill Mattocks
'People are booger eating idiots".

I mean to be fair a piece of lead traveling at mach 2 doesn't sound like something you should survive easily.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I mean to be fair a piece of lead traveling at mach 2 doesn't sound like something you should survive easily.

And yet, the fact remains that most people who are shot do, in fact, survive. And since most gun shot wounds are inflicted by handguns, they certainly are not traveling at Mach 2.

 

[Dirty Dog]

For what it's worth, I did a quick search. The overall mortality rate for gun shot wounds (including those with multiple wounds) is just under 15%.
So out of 100 defensive gun uses, 25 will actually involve the trigger being pulled. Some of those will miss, but for this let's assume such great marksmanship that ever shot hit.
Out of those 25, 15% will die. Or 3.75 people. That's less than 4 per 100 uses. A pretty small number, really.

 

[Mallic]

For what it's worth, I did a quick search. The overall mortality rate for gun shot wounds (including those with multiple wounds) is just under 15%.
So out of 100 defensive gun uses, 25 will actually involve the trigger being pulled. Some of those will miss, but for this let's assume such great marksmanship that ever shot hit.
Out of those 25, 15% will die. Or 3.75 people. That's less than 4 per 100 uses. A pretty small number, really.

...well damn. I have to imagine the number has to be inflated in some way but even then a 1/20 chance of getting outlined with chalk says a lot

 

[Dirty Dog]

...well damn. I have to imagine the number has to be inflated in some way but even then a 1/20 chance of getting outlined with chalk says a lot

Mostly it says "don't be the sort of douche that puts people in the position of shooting you."