Is it really the only right way?

[Wing Woo Gar]

WAIT WHAT?! a 38 cal is not a small gun! How the hell do you get hit by one of those right in the head and not at the very least fall unconscious?

I have seen a pit bull take 5 that’s right 5 .38 special hits to the head at 6 feet distance. On x ray exam not a single bullet made it to the skull through the very thick temporalis muscle. We dug out lead and sewed him up. My buddy got home invaded and pistol whipped, his pit bull Smokey nearly killed one of the invaders. There was a lot of blood on Smokey. In the early morning the cops realized that Smokey was bleeding too, he had 7 9mm bullets in his back, neck, and one through his cheek. He was seemingly no worse for wear. Everybody thought all the blood was from the crook who ended up in the hospital with severe bite wounds to his arms, hands and face.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

On shooting to stop versus shooting to kill.

If my intent is to stop the attack, and I shoot someone and the attack stops, I stop shooting. Even if I did not kill them. Even if I missed them. Even if the gun misfired. If they stop being a deadly threat to me, I stop shooting. That's a basic premise of self-defense, and usually a lawful position as well. A person is often (in the USA, anyway) permitted to defend themselves with deadly force if a mythical 'reasonable man' would be in fear of their life or serious bodily harm. Whether or not a threat is valid to engage deadly force is a different discussion, which I will leave out. Let's say someone comes after me with a knife and says they are going to kill me as an example. In most states, I'm permitted to defend myself with deadly force.

However, my right to defend myself with deadly force ends when the threat ends. Assuming that the person drops their knife and runs away, I can't fire after them as they run away - not legally. The threat has ended; I must stop trying to stop a threat that no longer exists.

Now, say my intent is to 'shoot to kill' instead. Assuming the person doesn't die when I shoot them, but does stop trying to attack me, I would then continue to shoot them until they are dead because that's my intent, right? In the eyes of the law, that's probably going to be a no-no.

Again - if you are shooting to stop the attack and the person dies, I would not feel badly about that. It happens sometimes. Perhaps the person who attacked should have made better choices and not attacked me. I'm not overly concerned with the life of a person who wants to seriously injure or kill me. But if the threat is over, my response with deadly force is also over. It's as simple as that. Anything beyond that would make a criminal of me as well as them.

 

[HighKick]

I’d love to read more about that if you can share some links to your data. I’ve not seen these before and it’s interesting. Are you saying that there are records of how many times a gun is brandished in self defense without being fired?

I have shared mortality rates for guns in the past. That’s pretty easy to get from the cdc. I’m specifically talking about your Asse regarding the frequency a gun is brandished vs fired in self defense.

Thanks.

Edit to add: it was a bit longer ago than I thought… way back in 2011, lol. FWIW, I still think gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance, but that’s a discussion for another day.

“According to the CDC, there were 18,610 non-fatal, unintentional gunshot injuries in 2009. In 2007 (the last year available for mortality statistics), there were 613 unintentional, firearm fatalities.”

10 round clip controversy

With the congress trying to pass a ban on all clips with 10 rounds or more what is your stance? Do people only need 10 rounds to protect themselves? If so, do think that police officers should have to do the same in their guns. Should Obama make his Secret Service Officers use 10 round...

www.martialtalk.com

Are your 2007 and 2009 sources the same? If so, those are unimaginable numbers given the steep difference. The only thing that could make sense is using more inputs, which will of course increase the output.

For example, if the CDC used the occurrence of someone holding a gun in their hand (not just brandishing) as an input, of course the number is going to go up.

This is a good example of how statistics get skewed, and the CDC is infamous for this. You really have to peel back the layers to understand statistics.

 

[Steve]

Are your 2007 and 2009 sources the same? If so, those are unimaginable numbers given the steep difference. The only thing that could make sense is using more inputs, which will of course increase the output.

For example, if the CDC used the occurrence of someone holding a gun in their hand (not just brandishing) as an input, of course the number is going to go up.

This is a good example of how statistics get skewed, and the CDC is infamous for this. You really have to peel back the layers to understand statistics.

While you may be correct, just pointing out that you speculate anbove about what the CDC might have done, and then draw a definitive conclusion based on your speculation. It’s a specious line of reasoning.

it’s been a long time. I try always to post links to the data. Rather than speculate about what they might have done, I encourage you to go and take a look. You can probably also get more recent data. This was a post from over a decade ago.

 

[drop bear]