Ideally, most justifiable? That in itself implicates I'd be interested in shooting someone. I understand what you're going for here, but the attitude is all backwards so I'm going to give you a scenario where I would use a firearm and feel justified doing it.

Ideal indicates this event not happening in the first place.

If I was in an area that was a questionable safety setting I'd be alert to the possibility of danger as I usually am in such a situation. With that in the back of your mind, someone approaching you with a knife receives the wallet and right after a "here's my keys" through a jacket hole that reveals a pistol instead followed by 2 shots into the hip and 1 into the chest.

Growing up shooting pistols I'm sure you've done dozens of "Mozambique" or "El Presidente" drills which emulate this concept, sometimes in the case of multiple attackers from various ranges involving different armaments.

Personally, as I've stated before(I believe earlier in this thread) and another gun thread odds are in the favor of a blade weilder when faced with a pistol armed attacker.

Within 20 feet which most occurances that I'm sure people are imaging there's a much higher likelyhood of rapid incapacitation favoring the blade user against the pistol user. Pistols do not propel bullets with enough energy to kill quickly via wound channel, and require very precise shots damaging the central nervous system to incapacitate. This is why practicing is very important for anyone who intends to carry with the intent of protecting themselves.

Firearms make accidents very grave much the same as people driving automobiles. This risk is constantly present, and I can understand your concern, but this is the responsibility of the user and why the more openly people are educated in the use of firearms the better.

As I stated earlier, the situations in which I'd prefer a pistol to my knife are much less likely to happen and therefore I don't carry. An armed attacker shooting at me from several yards away is unlikely but possible.

I could very well regret not carrying were that situation to occur but for now I'm comfortable not worrying about it. However, bet your backside were there a school shooting on my campus or in a public place I'm at I'd be pretty f'ing pissed at myself for not having a firearm while it was happening, case law behind me or not.

For the record, I have used a firearm in a non controlled situation personally, fended off 2(I'm assuming armed but couldn't tell) men from a burglary in my house while I lived in Texas.

On that note I've lost one of my best friends who wasn't prepared for a situation in a small relatively not so scary suburb of Portland, Vancouver Washington.

Details here:http://www.clark.wa.gov/sheriff/news...?pkNewsSeq=348

I have my reasons for my beliefs.

You would seriously kill a man for stealing your wallet? Regardless of the inability of pistol fire to completely stop a man, the Mozambique is intended for situations where the assailant's motive is to kill, without regard for their own life. I can't imagine this being the case other than in war, unless you did something to bring it upon yourself. If a mugger with a knife catches two unexpected shots in the chest, he's not going to do anything other than flee or fall to the ground in shock.

I don't care about my wallet.

We're both relying on one prevailling assumption here. You're relying on the assumption that once you give the person whatever they want, they'll leave you alone with no further threat to your life despite the one currently taking place.

I make the assumption that if someone is willing to threaten my life they've already calculated the risk and cannot be trusted. So, I see not killing them as an unnecessary risk to my own life I'm not willing to tolerate.

While you can't imagine the risk outside of war, the fact is innocent people are murdered every day all around this country. The risk exists. If a mugger with a knife catches two shots, he'll be preoccupied with something other than threatening to kill me. Once he escalated the situation by producing a threat to murder me if I do not comply with his demands he's already taken the risk level to that of a life or death situation, which I would intend to conclude with his death as opposed to my own.

While you may not agree with this logic, it's within my legal rights and I think that's reasonable. I understand you don't, and it doesn't make me think any less of you but it also doesn't mean I think it's fair for you if you do indeed want to take that right away from me.

I have to ask, have you ever traveled on a New York subway and seen all the buck fifties? Would you consider having your face slashed open from lip to ear cause to defend your life? These happen very regularly in some neighborhoods a lot of people wouldn't consider rough and the amount of bloodletting that happens as a result, well I've never heard of anyone dying from it but it's pretty f'ed up. The cut that takes place is usually just inches from Carotid, which would certainly kill you even with rapid medical response. Is that a tolerable threat?

Of course, in most of those neighborhoods I believe concealed carry permits are illegal or very hard to come by I'm not sure which I've only spent time visiting and like I said I don't actually carry myself, just food for thought.

Maybe just shoot him in the foot?

likeaHorse,

thanks for mocking my last name when you couldn't think of anything else to say. playground tactics work well when combined with guns.

love,
"pazzymore"

I'm not interesting in taking anyone's rights, I'm simply explaining why I think it's a bad choice. To me, attempting to justify killing an incapacitated person based a step by step logic progression regarding their level of commitment to the situation cheapens human life, regardless of whether or not innocent people die in separate instances. In my eyes, that third shot would be murder. Killing someone who had at one point intended to take your life, but is no longer able to inflict harm is inexcusable.

That was unintentional, and if it was intentional I'm sure I could come up with something better than simply misspelling it by one letter, c'mon I may have had a few snide comments but I don't think I've really drawn down on anyone and just thrown senseless insults have I?

Anyhow I edited the post and spelled your name correctly I'd no intent of calling you Pazzymore.

I can understand and appreciate your viewpoint you make sense and you're explaining a concept to me I'm very familiar with, we just have a different foundational belief which has led us to this point in conversation.

I honestly believe that in an instance of someone threatening my life, they've already accepted the consequence of forfeiting their own subconsciously and are prepared to die. If not they've atleast contemplated the risk and are therefore pre-selecting themselves out of the gene-pool should they lose the encounter. If I die as a result I'm the lesser and don't end up having any kids.

Either way the stronger supercedes the weaker is a natural occurence should the gamble of life find itself in play.

I believe this is how it works, and I don't think I have any less respect for life than you do, just a respect for life and death equally. Life is short enough as it is, I'm not willing to let someone else make mine shorter on the account of their wanting to accumulate my possesions or their lack of appreciation for my life.

I prefer to be in charge of the result. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, I definitely understand where you're coming from.

no mistakes allowed when carrying a loaded gun

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/0...nt-060213.html

You're right, our views of the world are different at such a fundamental level that no amount of discussion will get us any further.

I don't carry, speaking of playground logic.

I must say, I read thru this thread and there were some interesting and thought out arguments on all sides. I don't have much to contribute because my gun experience is limited, and to be quite honest they are not a device that really interests me that much currently. The one thing I want to add though is while a lot of the posts were good, people need to realize there are no absolutes in this world. Saying things like "there is no situation you would need a gun", "guns are only for cops", "guns solve all problems", "all pie is delicious" are absolutes and lack depth and will almost always have an exception. So with that in mind I try and keep an open mind about guns even though personally they are not a tool I want to use.

Just my two cents.

What about paint ball guns? With irritant ammo. You wouldn't need a bulky gun, as this is for short range and a low pellet count.

I only kill cops.

ya, and u are an absolute riot!

... and you've made it so much better, too.



:)

yawn... awww, you are suddenly boring now!

obvious troll is obvious

While I'd hardly call the internet public in anyway as there's noone associating anything you say with who you are personally, obviously you missed the 14-15 posts that each individually pointed out that avoiding neighborhoods or situations where you'd face this kind of problem in the first place.

I haven't called anyone names the entire thread, but I'm going to go ahead and label you a (mod Edit).

This has already been discussed, and you obviously haven't read this thread and are now contributing your pointless drivel.

Welcome to the internet.

Our arguments have already decided that avoiding the situation doesn't always work and dealing with unexpected situations is not so uncommon.

Go back to martial arts planet and talk about kung-fu or tai kwon do, or Rex-fu or whatever it is you're into belt system man.

I only kill sandwhiches.

"Shortening the gene pool"? As logical as your examples of when you would use lethal force have been, after that sentence your logic seems shaky. How about you drop your plans to do the gene pool a service and just leave the guy incapacitated instead of dead? If your life is no longer in danger, why would you choose to kill?

Ooh, I know the answer to this one! (Mod Edit) should be shortened from the gene pool!

(j/k, but my first point is serious)

P & R
P & R

people who carry guns are hella paranoid, in my opinion.

I wouldn't be so sure about that... in this case, true enough, but there have been other threads on here, of a similar nature, where the person has said enough to identify themselves and the other party involved that 2 and 2 could be connected. Remember, when you're bragging on the internet, you never know who's on the other end (general admonition).