Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
I think pepper spray would have done the job. If that didn't take the guy down then shoot him. Center of mass as they say. Plus, at the ranges that tazers and pepper sprays are typically designed to be deployed at, any malfunction or failure-to-perform leads to a very small window of opportunity for firearms to be brought to bear without significant chance of harm to the defender. No matter the cause, it's a sad story. |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
What I don't like is the fact that private security guards are in possession of, and using firearms; surely that should be reserved for properly trained and regulated government agencies. |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
I don't understand this everybody wins stuff. I own a jewelry store and have carried a pistol for years. I have had an armed robbery and take comfort in the fact that if my robber decided to start shooting, or stabbing, or baseballbatting I could have a chance to survive by killing him. The second to last thing I ever want to do is hurt someone, the last is to have them do harm to me so I can't be there for my family. I want to win so he has to lose if it comes to life or death. life is good, and I hope to cross shinai with my friends for years to come. It is hard, if not impossible to say what I'd do in a life or death, me or him situation. I'm honestly torn between the desire to be there and take care of my family and to save my own skin versus my faith. But that's for me to work out. At the moment, I attempt to live wise enough so I'm don't find myself in those situations. That said, I realize one cannot control everything. Still, I see and deal with the fallout of these kinds of situations years later where even more lives have been destroyed (on both the victim's side and the offender's), marriages ripped apart, children left fatherless (predominantly) and the cycle perpetuated into the next generation. Hip-deep in this experience, I'm left to wonder, is there a situation in which everyone can 'win'. Yes, win is a terrible descriptor; perhaps it's better stated as 'where everyone loses less.' Even that's not ideal and certainly not clear as how do you distribute who loses how much. But the end solution doesn't matter to this discussion so much as the perspective I'm coming from with regards to 'everyone wins'. |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
What I don't like is the fact that private security guards are in possession of, and using firearms; surely that should be reserved for properly trained and regulated government agencies. You're not allowed to use a gun if you are not in immediate danger, and if you are in that sort of danger it is unwise to try risky things like using killing tools to "disable" people. Real life is not the movies, and it takes someone HIGHLY trained, even beyond your average armed professional, to use a firearm to do such a thing, and even then only under certain conditions. Many people unfamiliar with firearms or situations requiring their use assume that such knowledge be common and practical to "trained professionals", but this is simply not the case. In a situation where you have seconds to react to someone threatening you with lethal force, the proper reaction is to aim center mass and put out lead until the threat is neutralized. It is expected that one do this with as much restraint and good judgment as possible, but it is understood that anyone who presents such a threat has placed their own life at risk by doing so. And I'm not just talking out of my ass here, I formerly carried a firearm for a living. Tasers also sometimes kill people, on top of often not being enough to stop the truly agitated. |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
|
Wonder what the li'l ol' lady who owned that liquor store in Oklahoma would feel about Big Cheeze's situation. There's this TRUE story that had made the rounds in CNN about said L-O-L that got held up by two big 'uns in the middle of the night. One of the big goons stuck a S&W .357 Mag in her face and demanded that she clean out her cash register. Now, she was alone in that store (how freakin' crazy is THAT?!?
![]() Unbeknownst to the big-un's... she's got a fully-loaded (with double-ought shot) shotgun pointed at his... human species perpetuation mechanism ![]() ![]() The guy survived (the other one took off like a scared cat!), and later sued the lady for "deprivation of [his ability to enjoy] sexual intimacy"... ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
You're not allowed to use a gun if you are not in immediate danger, and if you are in that sort of danger it is unwise to try risky things like using killing tools to "disable" people. I agree that Tasers do sometimes kill and are sometimes less than ideal, but when used the mortality rates are less than that of a regular firearm. Are they not also reguarly used by US Police officers as well? Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you shouldn't have the 'right to bear arms' or anything like that; but I do think it odd when a private citizen can be placed in a position of authority with a gun to back it up. |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
What I don't like is the fact that private security guards are in possession of, and using firearms; surely that should be reserved for properly trained and regulated government agencies. Immediate danger is subjective, and whilst I am not implying that the guard did not feel he/she was in immediate danger; I do believe there were possibly other options available. The report said there were three guards, but only one felt threatened to such a degree that they opened fire. Does this imply that the other two did not feel threatened? Who knows? The majority of you Countrymen (and/or women) think it odd that a private citizen should be in possession of a weapon of war from times past. "First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." Martin Niemoeller |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
Well you can shoot him in both shoulders. Or in both legs. Anyone with good aim can disable a man without killing him. Just cause someone is clearly deranged doesn't mean he deserves to die. I can't really fault the guards at that point for using lethal force to stop him. You might only get a single shot off and if you try to aim for something like a shoulder or a leg, you might miss or graze him. Even if you hit him, he might get still off a desperate lunge and get you. That's not to say the guards are completely off the hook. There's not enough detail to really decide if they really handled it in the best way possible. Was there a way to incapacitate him at farther range? If he were far enough away, maybe I would try to shoot him in the legs and drop him. I don't know. I haven't been in a "me or you" situation before, so it's not fair for me to judge. |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
Immediate danger is subjective, and whilst I am not implying that the guard did not feel he/she was in immediate danger; I do believe there were possibly other options available. The report said there were three guards, but only one felt threatened to such a degree that they opened fire. Does this imply that the other two did not feel threatened? Who knows? As far as a private citizen being placed in a position of authority with a gun to back it up, this sort of thing is related to private property. You don't generally see armed private citizens patrolling public spaces, but American law is based on individual ownership concepts and "natural rights of man" philosophies. The Scientology Church is not a public space, the Scientologists have a right to defend their property and to hire people to defend their property, and the guards have a right to defend their own lives. It's not as if this guard was just taking it upon himself to wander the streets with a gun righting wrongs and fighting injustice. Believe it or not even the U.S. has laws against that. Except for maybe Texas, I don't know, they're kind of their own thing down there. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
Actually, centre of mass is used because #1 it is the easiest, largest area to hit, #2 in the military you are trained to hit that area because it will not kill the enemy as easily and therefore the psychological effects of seeing your buddy lying there in his blood screaming and writhing in pain help distract/defeat/demoralise the enemy AND it takes around 12 soldiers to deal with the wounded individual and the amount of supplies and time it takes help weaken the enemy. ![]() This got kinda wordy and now I lost my train of thought... oh well. Basically what I'm trying to say is, yes it is easier to hit center mass, which as you stated is one of the reasons it is trained as the point of aim. Given the amount of training anyone who carries a firearm for a living goes through, and the stress of the situation they train for, one can see why they would be less inclined to go counter their training and fire for a limb instead. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests) | |
|