Shooting at Virginia Tech

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

What the hell is so funny? I'm sure the gun owners here did not buy them because they aim to kill anyone. They probably bought it for PROTECTION.

How are they going to "protect themselves"? Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?

And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?

[SadistSecret]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself"

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

But don't try it this way unless you want to do all the dying. Center of mass ONLY, front sight -- press trigger. Those are the fundamentals. Hitting someone in a limb is strictly a matter of chance, and verily I say unto you you don't want to gamble with your life doing that. Limb hits do not necessarily disable; what you must do is disrupt something immediately important, like the central nervous system. You cut his spine or blow out his brains, he's done, and that problem's over. But there are a couple of useful secondary target areas: the heart is in the center of mass and it's lethal about all the time (there have been a couple-three miracles, but they took place on the operating table and not the field of battle) though it may take some seconds for the perp to collapse rather than the instant switch-off of a brain hit; and also there is the pelvis. Bust that with a bullet and the perp's on the ground without hope of movement and in immediate danger of dying of shock. If you've double-tapped him there and hit him in the balls too, he's in even worse danger. To hit him in the pelvis you aim at his nuts. Aiming low generally works in close firearms combat anyway, particularly with pistols: most people get excited and take too much front sight, which points the pistol considerably higher than what the shooter thinks is his aim point. A nut-shot can end up being a central nervous system hit right between the eyebrows.

By now some readers will have gone all squeamish. While that is proof you have the full measure of human feeling, try this for a human feeling: "He's dead, I'm alive, and that's the way I wanted it."

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by SadistSecret

No you don't. You can shoot someone in the arm or the leg. That generally disables a potential attacker, and if nothing else, makes them think twice about coming after you. Your enemy cannot fire his gun if you disable his firing hand/arm.

Sure he can. A truly committed criminal will keep trying to kill you until you kill him. Ultimately, this will happen.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Sure he can. A truly committed criminal will keep trying to kill you until you kill him. Ultimately, this will happen.

Then he shall die.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Then he shall die.

Oh, no... the hand-holders want to disarm you... and did disarm the students, so over thirty of them died.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Oh, no... the hand-holders want to disarm you... and did disarm the students, so over thirty of them died.

And all the gun holders want to kill you, arm all the students so at least half of them may die.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Oh, no... the hand-holders want to disarm you... and did disarm the students, so over thirty of them died.

I am not against total disarmament in society but there should be at campuses. If students and faculty were allowed to carry guns it wouldn't have done anything except for the one in a million chance that someone with a weapon would be close, calm, and skilled enough to do anything. Campuses have many other resources to prevent crime, rape, etc, that normal society doesn't so there is no reason to have a gun for protection. I wouldn't be too against police having guns but I don't see how it would help much since most crime doesn't occur with an officer nearby.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Campuses have many other resources to prevent crime, rape, etc, that normal society doesn't

Not very effective resources, however. It's hard to really say, since a lot of college campuses don't report crimes to the local municipality, since they aren't involving the "townies", and don't make their internal crime statistic information available.

Things have probably changed, but on starting college, I went to a seminar in which the Campus police explained "how to say no to a rapist and survive," which primarily consisted of instructions on how to disable or kill your attacker. This was 1980 and the campus police were admitting they were powerless to stop crime on campus. (this was even a few years after they were allowed to carry their guns on the campus after 4pm. Yes, that was a real regulation. The place I went, the campus police were actually sworn police officers, not just security guards)

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

1. False.
2. Yes. Because your first premise is incorrect.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Then he shall die.

I think those two posts are in direct conflict. Nice try, though.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I think those two posts are in direct conflict. Nice try, though.

Wrong, nice try though.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

How are they going to "protect themselves"? Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?

What I've got is your number, Spexx: ninety-seven percent of all defensive gun uses end satisfactorily without a shot fired. Of the remaining three percent, less than half have a lethal outcome.

You never did know shit about self defense, Spexx, so your opinion shouldn't even count with yourself. The conclusion you've drawn is resolutely at variance with the reality.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Seriously, follow it out to it's logical conclusion - ultimately, you have to kill someone to "protect yourself". Anything short of that leaves you unprotected. Got it?

And if you're not "protecting" yourself or a loved one, is it worth killing for?

1. False.
2. Yes. Because your first premise is incorrect.