We’re like The Internet!
Pistol ammo.
The last time I saw the FBI stats (couple a years ago), pistols are only lethal approx 25% of the time. Taking into consideration how fast 1st responders appear and how well trained they are. Rifles and shotguns were lethal around 75% of the time.
I recall reading somewhere that in the Old West, while gunfights were much less common than in popular imagination, in those that did happen it was not uncommon for both duelists to die. It is possible to be shot fatally, and then get off your own shot before you even notice you have been shot.
I see your point if there was a systematic problem and not just the one incident you cited. And the flames have been stoked by “witnesses” spreading fake stories and wild rumors. However even if there are legitimate concerns that does not excuse the lawless behavior.
Not quite. smapti said the only way to ensure that you have stopped an attacker is to kill them.
That’s not the same as saying it was the only way an attacker could no longer be a threat.
A dead attacker can’t attack you. A live mugger/rapist/murderer might be faking their injuries just to draw you in or get you to drop your guard. The police or EMTs can take his pulse better than I could.
As a general statement, this one suffers from a flaw: it addresses Oklahoma law, apparently. Shouldn’t you be asking yourself what Missouri law says on the subject?
Of course, it may be that Missouri law is no different. I haven’t checked.
I’d be interested in hearing your take on the Boston Tea Party.
Call me crazy, but I think college kids smoke more dope than anybody.
Well, what happened to the officers who did it? If the answer is “not much”, would that suggest to you that a systematic problem exists? Perhaps we can devolve into a semantic nitpick over “condone”, “encourage” or “accept”.
We’ve all been paying attention, trying to grasp facts, but its like standing in a wind tunnel with a shredded novel being blown about, and trying to assemble the story. But, you, you’ve got the facts! Huzzah! Bring please, with ample citation, that we may separate the real truth from all these lying “witnesses” and “wild rumors”!
Be a cite for sour eyes, it would!
Of course not. But are citizens to be barred from protest they believe necessary because thugs may interfere? Because, what, its their fault that thugs exist?
Seriously? You’re seriously arguing that there’s no systemic racial bias in policing? You’ve never witnessed it? Ever?
Even on the part of the police?
Edit: Sorry, cite. Reality has a liberal bias, I know, I know.
Legitimate protests don’t include Molotov cocktails and looting. I think that’s the point you’re missing.
Maybe somebody ought to make that clear to them, the legitimate protestors assembling to petition for a redress of grievances (I stole that last bit, guess where?) Let them know if that they proceed with their protest, and somebody does something violent and stupid, its their fault.
That seems to be the point they are missing.
doorhinge I believe that we’re talking semantics here, but just to keep things clear, but the distinction is there, yes. I believe that if you use a handgun in self defense it is done so to compel someone to stop doing what they are doing. Smapti believes it is done to kill someone, because that is the only way to ensure the threat is gone.
I was under the impression that Smapti and I were speaking in generalities, not referencing one specific state over another.
Missouri laws are listed here:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm
While I’ll admit that legal interpretation is not my strong suit, they appear to be similar to what has been previously referenced.
You can look back in this thread to see the cites about how he was on his knees and with his back turned when he was executed. All coming from supposed witnesses. Those were the rumors that fueled the flames. I hope you realize none of that is true now.
Let’s see you’ve got systematic attempts to keep blacks out of the political power structure:
and essentially taxation without representation:
This whole thing reads like a second amendment advocate’s wet dream. Why aren’t the conservatives on the side of the rebels in this one?
I had three objections to what you posted, you answered the one you are most comfortable with? Well, OK, may we fairly assume you agree with the other two? Excellent! You’re coming along nicely!
Now, these horrid rumors that started all the trouble. Let me get this straight: if the patchy information we have now were known to the public at large, then these horrible rumors would have been prevented. Brown is still dead, shot at least six times, but probably not from the back and certainly not in a kneeling position (this last one is news to me, I had not heard any such rumor, mind giving us the source?).
Then they wouldn’t have been all pissed off, no protest, no problem? That’s an interesting opinion. And that’s all it is.
You mean like in Prague, Budapest and Dublin? Uprisings are messy by definition, the history books clean them up.
(post shortened)
Unfortunately, killing your attacker does ensure that the imminent danger/threat is gone.
There are other ways to use a handgun for self-defense to compel someone to stop doing what they are doing. Brandishing a weapon can compel compliance. Brandishing a weapon is also illegal in many states. Do you feel like playing States Attorney roulette? Firing a weapon thru a closed and locked door can also compel compliance (another Joe Bidenism) proving that you do indeed have a weapon. However, if you are behind a closed and locked door, you are not actually in imminent danger and could be consider to be endangering the public. Hopefully, the SA decides to give you a break and not have you arrested. You could fire warning shots in the direction of the imminent threat intending to show that you mean business. But that isn’t a legally justified use of deadly force to end an imminent threat. You’re just endangering the public, again.
I too, have a true story to tell. Forgive my thousand-yard stare, as this experience was very…difficult.
This Saturday I was out dancing at one of my favorite clubs, mostly by myself and with some friends, when a cute little college girl came up and asked me to dance with her. We danced close, we danced apart. We danced slow, and we danced fast. She loved to move in close and put my hands around her neck as she ground against my thigh.
Then one of the club boys came by. He was dressed in nothing but bunny ears, a g-string, and Sketchers, and was carrying a tray of jello shots. My dance partner grabbed two shots, and tossed one back. She gave me a sly grin, and then pulled her top down to her tummy, freeing a surprisingly awesome pair of 22 year-old breasts. She leaned back and poured the jello out onto her left breast, just above the nipple.
The jello was green. It quivered with the promise of ecstasy.
I almost sobbed as I told her, “I’m sorry, I’m the designated driver tonight.”
And on that bleak and unforgiving Saturday, I did not take the shot.
Now I’m confused, as I have not advocated for any of those. The point I was making is that the defensive use of a handgun involves making center of mass hits on your attacker until he either disengages or is unable to continue attacking you. I contend that the death of my attacker isn’t the goal, where as others sate his death is the goal.