It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Family, Friends Of Dead Home Invaders Say “They Didn’t Deserve To Get Killed.”

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

Good answer. Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to me.


Rev




posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: Rodinus
A question to all US firearm owners.

When you purchase or before you purchase your first firearm, is it obligatory to follow a course on gun safety and general safety conditions?

If so, during these courses, are firearm owners trained as to which points of the body a gun should be aimed at in case of agression in order to incapacitate an eventual aggressor?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


Some states that is yes, others no. However, a federal criminal background check is law in all states.

As far as where to aim... Center mass always (that is how all gun owners are trained, professionally). Just like you don't "kinda punch" someone, you don't kind of shoot someone.

Only in the movies do people aim for the knee (of a moving target) and hit it. 20% is the hit rate in a real gunfight, when adrenaline kicks in.


Thanks Sol.

Much appreciated.

Kindest respects

Rodinus



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rodinus
A question to all US firearm owners.

are firearm owners trained as to which points of the body a gun should be aimed at in case of agression in order to incapacitate an eventual aggressor?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


My training may be a little different but an incapacitating shot is much harder. It is a box from the collar bone to the bridge of the nose and the width of the mouth. Or do you mean something else when you say it over there?



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I was a Guardsman in the Scots Guards, which is one of the household regiments that guard the Queen and march around like sissy's all day. Thank god I was too short for Palace duty.


Rev



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

edit on 6-5-2014 by DeepImpactX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rodinus

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Rodinus
......

If so, during these courses, are firearm owners trained as to which points of the body a gun should be aimed at in case of agression in order to incapacitate an eventual aggressor?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


Not a gun owner, but a gun rights supporter. If I am ever in a situation to use a gun, I will NOT be aiming to incapacitate...... I will be shooting to kill.

I suppose criminals in your land go through the same training..... learning how to responsibly incapacitate their victims? Must be a pretty perfect world over there.


Hey, I was asking a legitimate question there Pavil as I am curious?

I am a gun owner too but would not aim to kill... what is the point of killing the person when you can incapacitate them and then let them live out the jail sentence given and also let them suffer for their wrongdoings for the rest of their life?

Why put yourself down to the level of a criminal?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


Because I disagree with the idea "shoot to wound" vs "shoot to kill." In defense you do neither--you shoot to stop the threat and shoot at center mass because a miss will not only leave you vulnerable but will also endanger people beyond the target.

Unlike in the movies, a shot in the leg can kill quite rapidly through disruption of the femoral artery and a shot in the shoulder can do the same quite rapidly due to disruption of he subclavian artery, so even a shot to "incapacitate" is still deadly force. Even then, even as he is bleeding out from a femoral artery disruption, he still is not incapacitated, he still can shoot or stab you back. There really no such thing as shooting to incapacitate but not to kill.

Either deadly force is justified or it is not. If it is not, then your firearm should not be pointing at anyone--even to "scare them"--because that firearm IS deadly force. If it is justified, then it is justified and you should forget about trying to "wound" them, you need to shoot until the threat is stopped.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus

originally posted by: Rodinus
A question to all US firearm owners.

are firearm owners trained as to which points of the body a gun should be aimed at in case of agression in order to incapacitate an eventual aggressor?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


My training may be a little different but an incapacitating shot is much harder. It is a box from the collar bone to the bridge of the nose and the width of the mouth. Or do you mean something else when you say it over there?


Thanks 200.

Ex services myself, personally for me an incapacitating shot would be at knee level in order to not hit any major organs or arteries.

Maybe I should have used the phrase "Non lethal disabling shot"

Kindest respects

Rodinus
edit on 6/5/14 by Rodinus because: Phrase changed



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties i dont know how the gun topic came up but understand something about americans and their guns, they have kept invading armys out of our country for years, it freed up our army to come stomp our allies problems ( right uk dang those natzis), now execution how many times do people expect us to try to reform these people? you want to hug them post your country and address ill add you to the parole sponsorship program they can come stay with you....yeah just reply to this with your home address and i will sign you up if not then save your comments



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: revmoofoo

Actually, in a very short time, I will be able to carry that tool. Concealed carry permit will soon be in my possession.

So I might be the wrong one to ask that particular question...

But...

Most of those who own these tools are responsible adults who would use it as a last resort.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: revmoofoo
a reply to: NavyDoc

I was a Guardsman in the Scots Guards, which is one of the household regiments that guard the Queen and march around like sissy's all day. Thank god I was too short for Palace duty.


Rev



There is a lot of respect for the Scottish Fighting man.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I agree with most of what you say Doc, but however (a big however), this also depends on what type of firearm you are using.

Personally I have a shotgun and rifle... IF i was unfortunate enough to have to use a firearm it would be the shotgun at below knee level which would be more than enough to stop someone in their tracks with one cartridge (grade 6 buckshot) and make them think twice before pointing an eventual firearm at me making me have to fire again.

Below knee level is a lot less risky when it comes to hitting the femoral artery.

Kindest respects

Rodinus



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Just feel i needed to add to this from the UK.

If thieving scum entered my property whilst i was at home with my wife and kids although I don't and can't legally own a firearm. The police needn't bother turning up at all. Just call the morgue instead and cut out the middle man.

I would take a life or give my own to protect my wife and kids.

regardless on being armed or not there is no difference imho. they are scum and regardless of age race or gender the intent to steal was there.

They would still be alive now if they hadn't decided to do what they did.

M.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Aye, my countrymen fight with skill and honour and I'm proud to call myself Scottish.

Rev



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rodinus
a reply to: NavyDoc

I agree with most of what you say Doc, but however (a big however), this also depends on what type of firearm you are using.

Personally I have a shotgun and rifle... IF i was unfortunate enough to have to use a firearm it would be the shotgun at below knee level which would be more than enough to stop someone in their tracks with one cartridge (grade 6 buckshot) and make them think twice before pointing an eventual firearm at me making me have to fire again.

Below knee level is a lot less risky when it comes to hitting the femoral artery.

Kindest respects

Rodinus



I would say that if you kneecapped someone with buckshot, you've a bleeding situation just as bad as a femoral artery disruption and he still isn't brought down immediately so still has opportunity to shoot you if he has a gun or use another weapon if he's within reach. Now you've got a situation where you've admittedly intentionally maimed someone (crippled for life maybe) and that actually might cause you more legal and litigation hassle than a simple justified self defense shooting.

Back to my original philosophical stance. Anytime you point a firearm at someone, you could kill him , even if you only intended to kneecap him. Given this, you should never point a firearm at anyone unless you are justified in using deadly force (because, regardless your intent, it may turn out that way--what if he trips and takes a face full of that buckshot) and emotionally and mentally prepared to deal with that decision. Otherwise, best leave the gun in the case and take your chances.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rodinus

originally posted by: 200Plus

originally posted by: Rodinus
A question to all US firearm owners.

are firearm owners trained as to which points of the body a gun should be aimed at in case of agression in order to incapacitate an eventual aggressor?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


My training may be a little different but an incapacitating shot is much harder. It is a box from the collar bone to the bridge of the nose and the width of the mouth. Or do you mean something else when you say it over there?


Thanks 200.

Ex services myself, personally for me an incapacitating shot would be at knee level in order to not hit any major organs or arteries.

Kindest respects

Rodinus


I'm glad you brought up the knee (and it's why I used it as example earlier). Have you ever tried to shoot at something the size of the average human knee, while it moved side to side, as well as continually closing the distance toward you?

Doc gave a much more detailed account of the training, although I'll add that in many instances even center mass or head shot will not immediately down someone. An attacker can continue, up to 5 minutes, after a "fatal" shot (even longer if that person is deranged, on drugs, very determined, etc.).

Personal anecdotes don't equal strong evidence, but . . . I knew of a guy (old friend of a new friend) that was killed in a home invasion. He was well trained in firearms (ex-Marine and avid shooter). Two meth addicts used a parking block to batter down his door . . . he went to his study, grabbed his 1911, and his wife ran upstairs and called the cops. Before the police got there, they breached the doorway. He gave verbal commands that he was armed. One rushed him with what was described as a "machete" . . . He fired twice at the legs of the intruder and missed both times. As he moved his sights up, the attacker was on him and cleaved him twice, as he got off one more shot . . . hitting the attacker in the left shoulder. After being shot in the shoulder, almost point blank with a .45, he ran out of the house and walked to the nearest hospital. The homeowner died from the injuries received.

If the first two were center mass . . . the attacker MAY not have made it to the homeowner.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

We need more people like you around.

Good stuff.




posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rodinus

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Rodinus
......

If so, during these courses, are firearm owners trained as to which points of the body a gun should be aimed at in case of agression in order to incapacitate an eventual aggressor?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


Not a gun owner, but a gun rights supporter. If I am ever in a situation to use a gun, I will NOT be aiming to incapacitate...... I will be shooting to kill.

I suppose criminals in your land go through the same training..... learning how to responsibly incapacitate their victims? Must be a pretty perfect world over there.


Hey, I was asking a legitimate question there Pavil as I am curious?

I am a gun owner too but would not aim to kill... what is the point of killing the person when you can incapacitate them and then let them live out the jail sentence given and also let them suffer for their wrongdoings for the rest of their life?

Why put yourself down to the level of a criminal?

Kindest respects

Rodinus


Rodinus, I gave you an honest answer. The point once the use of a gun is needed is to eliminate the threat. I would not try to incapacitate, I will eliminate the threat. If I am using a gun, it is for self defense at that point and I will let a jury of my peers decide my innocence or guilt on my legal use of that weapon.

I'm not being flippant, merely stating that those who break into peoples home's rarely follow laws. I will not put my life at further risk by just trying to incapacitate. If I am to use a gun, I would have felt my life or the life of my family in danger, I would not hesitate to Kill someone in that kind of scenario. Sorry if you feel otherwise.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Rodinus
a reply to: NavyDoc

I agree with most of what you say Doc, but however (a big however), this also depends on what type of firearm you are using.

Personally I have a shotgun and rifle... IF i was unfortunate enough to have to use a firearm it would be the shotgun at below knee level which would be more than enough to stop someone in their tracks with one cartridge (grade 6 buckshot) and make them think twice before pointing an eventual firearm at me making me have to fire again.

Below knee level is a lot less risky when it comes to hitting the femoral artery.

Kindest respects

Rodinus



I would say that if you kneecapped someone with buckshot, you've a bleeding situation just as bad as a femoral artery disruption and he still isn't brought down immediately so still has opportunity to shoot you if he has a gun or use another weapon if he's within reach. Now you've got a situation where you've admittedly intentionally maimed someone (crippled for life maybe) and that actually might cause you more legal and litigation hassle than a simple justified self defense shooting.

Back to my original philosophical stance. Anytime you point a firearm at someone, you could kill him , even if you only intended to kneecap him. Given this, you should never point a firearm at anyone unless you are justified in using deadly force (because, regardless your intent, it may turn out that way--what if he trips and takes a face full of that buckshot) and emotionally and mentally prepared to deal with that decision. Otherwise, best leave the gun in the case and take your chances.


Great posts and info from you Doc!

What you are stating is pretty much just an extension of the "5 rules of gun safety" that any gun owner should have emblazoned in their mind.

I personally like Jeff Cooper's version where statements like "never cover anything that you are not willing to destroy" are added.
edit on 5/6/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Just goes to prove one fact..a lot of gun owners are the most cowardly people alive. Shooting unarmed individuals..is one of the most cowardly act one can do.

Also a lot of bloodthirsty gun owners have reared their head as usual..intruder breaks into home...gun owner has him/her in sights....kill..no warning or hold them till police get there..just shoot.

So tell me who are you supposed to be better than..because it sure as hell is not murderers, rapist and such..since they also consider human life to be worthless.

What I find ironic is the number of threads and replies about police brutality where they shoot first and ask questions afterwards.......what's the difference. Or put it another way every person defending the right to shoot to kill an apparent criminal can never complain about police behaviour without being a hypocrite. NB courts decide who is a criminal otherwise you have anarchy and the person with the biggest gun is sheriff (or lord of the manor) just like the world in medieval times.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
This is tragic ...but invading someone's home ... even if a teenage adrenaline thrill rather than a habitual career choice... is dangerous and mean.

To the folks saying "I'd shoot them in the legs" ... well, when someone is in your house unexpectedly, the reaction is visceral and aiming might not be the first thing on your mind... and something called hydrostatic shock can kill someone shot anywhere on their body... it's not like the movies.

I had the unfortunate luck to have three guys with knives break through my front door one late night and without a pistol and my dog, it would have been even more of a nightmare than it was... they were hardcore and desperate career criminals.

Luckily, I didn't have to pull the trigger. They left and not before my old dog taught them a lesson. I hope someday there's no economic reason to break into other people's houses... the sad fact some have to says much about us, and it is not good.




top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join