General Categories > General Firearm Discussion
Rules for a gun fight
Mudinyeri:
--- Quote from: SS_N_NE on January 06, 2015, 06:22:48 PM ---Semantics....lethal force is...lethal. Shooting a person has a decent chance of killing them. Even a shoot that may not normally be lethal could result in bullet fragment travel or other complications leading to death.
It is unfair that mincing of words somehow changes a situation of defense.
(Yeah...mostly for the sake of discussion.
--- End quote ---
Rather than viewing it as "mincing of words" view it as accurately expressing your primary intent. If, indeed, your primary intent was to kill someone ... then, by all means, clearly communicate that. "He needed killin'" ;)
sjwsti:
--- Quote from: SS_N_NE on January 06, 2015, 06:22:48 PM ---Shooting a person has a decent chance of killing them.
--- End quote ---
Not really. Depending on the study referenced the mortality rate from gunshot wounds ranges from 20-30%. So between 70-80% of people who suffer GSWs survive. There are a number of reasons for this. The primary being that there are more places on your body that you can add an extra hole that wont kill you than will. Another is better emergency medical treatment. We regularly transport patients who have suffered previous gunshot wounds and lived to tell about it.
- Shawn
JTH:
--- Quote from: SS_N_NE on January 06, 2015, 06:22:48 PM ---Semantics....lethal force is...lethal.
--- End quote ---
Actually, not normally. (Most people who are shot don't die.) Not really important to the argument at hand, but if people are going to keep saying that lethal force means killing (which it doesn't as a definition, as I said clearly before) I thought I'd at least point out that use of lethal force mostly DOESN'T kill anyone.
--- Quote ---Shooting a person has a decent chance of killing them. Even a shoot that may not normally be lethal could result in bullet fragment travel or other complications leading to death.
--- End quote ---
"May" kill someone and "is likely to" kill someone are two very different things, and both are wildly different from "will kill" someone.
You'd be surprised how often people DON'T die from gunshot wounds. Non-fatal gunshot injuries from violent assaults occurred about 55,500 times in 2011, according to (fairly poor) CDC estimates. And those are the ones that the CDC could find reports on based on a small sample size, so it is highly likely the number is far higher.
--- Quote ---It is unfair that mincing of words somehow changes a situation of defense.
--- End quote ---
You know, if people can't tell the difference between a stated
A) goal of killing someone else
versus a
B) goal of stopping someone else from harming or killing them
...then you are correct, there isn't much else to say.
I personally don't find it to be mincing words, and find that not only is there a semantic difference, I find important conceptual and goal-oriented differences between those two statements.
Apparently, not everyone does.
Sure, MY goal may end up with me killing my attacker. Stated the other way, however, the goal will result in a person killing their attacker, even if it wasn't necessarily justified at the time. I personally find that a bad way to set goals, plan for situations, and train.
GreyGeek:
--- Quote from: sjwsti on January 06, 2015, 09:39:45 PM ---Not really. Depending on the study referenced the mortality rate from gunshot wounds ranges from 20-30%. So between 70-80% of people who suffer GSWs survive. There are a number of reasons for this. The primary being that there are more places on your body that you can add an extra hole that wont kill you than will. Another is better emergency medical treatment. We regularly transport patients who have suffered previous gunshot wounds and lived to tell about it.
- Shawn
--- End quote ---
And the probability is that between 20-30% of the patients you transport are dead. From my POV 20-30% IS a significant chance. If, when you went to the airport to fly somewhere, the ticket agent told you that there was a 20-30% chance your plane may crash and kill all on board would you fly anyway? I wouldn't.
As it turns out, the survival rate of civil plane crashes, which include fatalities and is carrying ten or more passengers, is also between 20-30% since 1950. The odds of dying in a plane crash is 1 in 19.8 million for the top 39 airlines and 1 in 2 million for the bottom 39.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
dkarp:
--- Quote from: depserv on January 06, 2015, 08:51:13 AM ---Yes of course, shoot to stop the threat, and I guess if the person you shoot happens to die it's a totally unrelated and unfortunate coincidence. I think this says something about our so-called justice system.
So if shooting a person in the leg might stop the threat, is that what's recommended?
Or maybe a warning shot will stop the threat, because it shows that you're really really serious about pulling the trigger. Kind of like drawing a red line. So should warning shots be encouraged?
--- End quote ---
More power to you if you have the presence of mind to aim and hit someone's leg or other extremity, when the adrenaline is pumping. I don't think any self defense instructor encourages "shoot to wound". What if you hit a major artery, what do you tell the police then? "I wasn't in fear of my life enough to kill him/her, just enough to shoot to wound." It ain't like TV, folks.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version