I see so many posts here that claim they would "blow someone away" given certain circumstances. And I keep asking "why a LETHAL response"? Surely a non-lethal response would effect the same outcome?
It is a fair question, personally I don't believe a firearm has to be fatal. Any criminal that finds himself facing a citizen armed with a firearm would be wise to submit, I have actually herd of many such incidents. Keep in mind many people face more than 1 attacker making a tazer problematic, and mase can be a problem for everyone, especially in tight spaces. The sight of s gun scares anyone, the sound will make you wet your pants and we all know what happens if your shot with it. Why risk it?
However there is a new gun called "active denial" that works on millimetre electromagnetic waves http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...nial-System-the-weapon-thats-a-hot-topic.html
LOL!!! That is pretty cool! Does it come in a size that will fit in my nightstand safe? Or would I have to keep it in the garage mounted to my truck? In time I fully expect technology to make firearms obsolete.
They are developing a rifle sized one at present but there is a lot of discussion relating to the ethics of this
Because we don't want to wind up dead, how about you, do you really want to take the chance??? Try facing a knife, gun, club, etc, with some fool on crack.
And we had a doper break into a house in Tacoma, got himself hit with a .357 Mag, almost took his arm off at the elbow and the fool keep on coming at the homeowner. The next bullet hit the perp in the center of mass and he was stopped. And is there really any of you out there that thinks this fool would not have hurt this family??
http://blog.thenewstribune.com/crime/2011/02/24/intruder-fatally-shoots-man-in-federal-way/ http://www.komonews.com/news/local/106612883.html Your choice, which one do you want to be????
This same line of thinking, using minimal force, is what allowed for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit, the attack on the USS Cole and the assaults on our embassies in Iran and Libya. Putting the life of the attacker above the safety of others often leads to worse outcomes. Anyone who has the gall to invade one's home, carjack or use physical force to rob or attack someone in the commision of a crime deserves the outcome of lethal force. No life of a violent thug is every worth keeping if it endangers the life of an honest citizen. If you want to go spend $25,000 quid on some EM-supergun---then go for it. I've never forked over $800 USD for any gun. I hardly think you could carry around your EM-supergun for day to day protection in public---if even they were legal in your country to carry. In so many cases, smaller women and even men are fighting large, enraged attackers. Look at what OJ Simpson did to his ex-wife and boyfriend. Only a large man trained in self defence could stop a large maniac like that. An average handgun would have probably ended the fight after 6 good hits.
so, you do have a double standard...............you seem to dwell an awful lot on torturing people. Is that your preference to torture people? And you call yourself a nurse................I find that deplorable and contradictory to your "........do no harm" You've just tipped your hand. Tasers, mace, baseball bats, now handheld microwave emitters..........yer a hoot. BB
You can still defend yourself with a gun even with a less than lethal response Which I think indicates the link in many minds gun = lethal response
Arm missing - soon dead personally I would have just kept out of his way until he bled out - the second shot was not necessary, unless you wanted less blood on the furniture . Mind you I would be VERY interested in the time frame between the two shots and am betting it was shorter than estimated by the shooter and the second shot probably had more to do with hysteria than thought
Well, you've never been a police officer, obviously, and think shooting someone in the leg is possible. The truth is that once its clear you have to shoot, you have one option other than the largest mass; torso. Anything else will likely ricochet and endanger bystanders, other officers and possibly you. A gun IS lethal force. Period. What is at issue is WHEN to deploy that force and what are the viable alternatives. Tasers in my opinion are NOT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPe_hf7aBXM This man died at the scene as a result of a precipitous Taser deployment in which the RCMP involved "thought" the Taser was non-lethal. A panel of experts including doctors and use of force experts found otherwise and a judicial inquiry found these Mounties should not be police anymore. What is developing in its place is a more reasoned approach by the officers on the street where back up is immediate when dealing with a psych case and alternative use of force procedures are being used. It is pretty impressive what two small women can do in a threatening situation as opposed to the macho cop who comes in like a swinging dick.
They also have "sound bombing", trucks with huge conductors on them that project high pitched noise at an extreme volume. It is one thing for warfare but another again for demonstrations. Both of these concepts have the potential to do a lot of permanent harm to a lot of innocent people.
When you take a guy over 6 feet tall hopped up on meth you think that cat can't do some damage especially with kids in the house and when the homeowner first fired guess where those kids were headed for. Second shot came within 30 seconds of first shot the homeowner held off until the guy took 2 steps at him then fired again, do you have a problem with that??? First, it eliminated a career criminal (this wasn't the first time the police had heard about this guy), second, it took care of a hospital bill we didn't have to pay, third, we didn't have to pay a lawyer to try and defend him and possibly file charges against the homeowner for crippling him for life (it has been done before in another state), forth, we didn't have to pay to have him housed, feed, and guarded. Now I know you will have a few words about the last few points but you also need to learn to live with it.
Once more, when was the last time you were in a potentially do or die situation?? Come on Bowerbird, put up or shut up. Tell us about it so we can evaluate YOUR response. As I told you before, I have been under fire 5 times with nothing to shoot back with, it will NOT happen again.
According to what i have read "Active Denial System" carries no harm unless someone is repeatedly targeted in the one spot. What is blowing me out of the water is that there is reluctance to use this system based on "ethical concerns" and yet the same people are often wanting to use lethal force.
Who is aiming for the leg? It's simple really. We have on average 600-900 justifiable homicides each year and that includes police. However, there are somewhere between 100k - 2 million instances of firearms being used for defense each year (depending on who's stats you believe). That tells us that firearms are used in a NON lethal manner far more often than not.
And you think that will happen 100% of the time??? think again, once you pick up a gun you had BETTER be ready to use it in a lethal way or someone will take it away from you and use it on you.
LOL! I think you are misunderstanding me. We are arguing the same thing. Bowerbird was asking why we need to use a lethal response. I simply pointed out that a gun is used to defend in a NON lethal manner all the time. But it can be, and is lethal when needed. So why would I use anything but a firearm to protect myself? (I actually have carried a Springfield 1911 since I was attacked and stabbed in the chest, I too will not be caught without a firearm to protect myself and family)
You misunderstood... if the gun is drawn to use lethal force and the perp backs down and/or runs, you no longer can use lethal force unless he returns as a new threat. Sometimes just pulling your weapon is enough to stop an attack.That alone can save your life, a family member or friend and even the perps. This does not mean one would not use lethal force if needed.. The rate of defensive gun use can be projected nationwide to be approximately 2.5M per yearone defensive gun use for every 13 seconds. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during the National Self Defense Survey the defender believed that someone almost certainly would have died had the gun not been used for protectiona life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. In another 14.2% of cases the defender believed someone probably would have died if the gun hadnt been used in defense. In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses the attacker either threatened or used force firstdisproving the longstanding myth that legal gun owners are more likely to initiate violence. In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker. In 64.2% of these gun defense cases the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to. http://americanfreepress.net/?p=7816
Oh! Dear Gods! That freaking Kleck study...................AGAIN It is made up rubbish - discredited to a fare thee well and sorry but two minutes of thought would tell you why The numbers of "defensive uses" outweigh the crimes per year!! I can post link after link that that point alone should make you think! http://propagandaprofessor.net/2012/02/11/make-my-day-mention-gun-defense-statistics/
Dpending on the circumstance, i am willing to take a life. Want to know why? W wlive in a sue happy nation. When a burglar can fall through a skylight and land on a knife resting on a cutting board, and then sue the home owner and win, your damn rit im going to use lethal force. With an intruder, i will not injure them or cause them pain, i do not want to be sued. If i pull my gun and the intruder does not imediately flee or try to get away, he has one option, that would be to get on the ground and wait for the police. Anything else will be taken as a sign of aggression, and i will take his life. I wont shoot once and wait for police so he can sue me later, i will take his life becuase dead men tell no tales.
OOPS, sorry. Yes, we are on the same page. - - - Updated - - - Yes, I agree. - - - Updated - - - Yes, I agree.
