Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

[GiglameshSoulEater]

I just want to point out that because of guns being much rarer here in the UK most of us never encounter firearms and as such have little or no understanding of them other than what we pick up from the media. Which is the cause of a lot of ignorance.

Having said that I am glad we have the restrictions in place we do here but I am very much aware that how things work in this country would not work in the US.

Still the article was a highly interesting read, especially considering I would like to try my hand at some variety of shooting at some point.

Yeah, the police here often dont know the gun laws themselves, so a concerned citizen sees a guy (legally) in a field in camoflauge with a gun and calls the fuzz.
More than one shooter has spent a night in a cell because of that. ¬_¬

OP: OP is credit to team.

 

[Stuntcrab]

Well I didn't know that hollow points keep it from going past the target and that someone could cross 21 ft in 1.5 seconds. This thread helped me.

 

[Dastardly]

A lot of these seem like Bullshit or at least biased to me, for example, yes every bullet has the POTENTIAL to kill, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter where you shoot, or that you shouldn't try to be nonlethal. I'm not going to entertain the notion that shooting someone in the arm is as deadly as shooting them in the face.

Who on earth said it's "as deadly?" No one in this thread. But I'll say this anyway:

Go on out to a shooting range. Set your target at 10 yards. Try to see if you can get three shots to be within a 4-5 inch square of each other dependably. It's tricky, but eventually you can get it, right? Definitely.

Okay, now get all of those shots within two seconds. Not so easy now--the recoil alone will have your shots spreading a few inches each time. Now try it with the same four-inch-wide spot while it's swinging wildly back and forth. Remember, you've got two seconds.

I don't care how awesome you are, that is hard as hell. And that's what it would take to hit someone in the arm. Most folks' arms are only about 4-5 inches wide (unless pretty muscular). It may look bigger because of clothes, but hitting a sleeve isn't going to deter a determined attacker. You don't aim for "center mass" because it's more lethal (though it is). You aim for "center mass" because you can hit it far more dependably. Less chance of wasting bullets and seconds, and more chance you'll stop the target.

Also, you don't need to actually physically stop someone to stop them, if someone has a knife, and they hear you fire a gun at them twice, why the FUCK would they keep running toward you? You're acting as though they can't see, hear, or feel that they just got shot.

If they choose to stop, that's fine. But until they do, it's up to you to stop them. We covered this already, try to keep up. Most folks, though, once they're charging? They don't even realize they've been hit with the first one or two shots. Seriously. Look it up. Some people have been accidentally shot and it's been hour before they even realized it. You've got a lot to learn about firearms and their effects before you can make claims the way you're making them...

Lastly, saying "nobody has a right to take something that's rightfully yours" should be followed with "but you don't necessarily always have a right to end someone's life". A lot of what you wrote hear could get you convicted of murder in some cases.

What you're saying simply isn't true. There's no argument I can make against it but that. It'd be like me saying, "The sky is made of pudding." There's not even enough sense in the statement to form a coherent argument against it. The things I'm saying are used to keep people from being convicted of murder. On a daily basis, they're using this stuff.

 

[Danpascooch]

A lot of these seem like Bullshit or at least biased to me, for example, yes every bullet has the POTENTIAL to kill, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter where you shoot, or that you shouldn't try to be nonlethal. I'm not going to entertain the notion that shooting someone in the arm is as deadly as shooting them in the face.

Who on earth said it's "as deadly?" No one in this thread. But I'll say this anyway:

Go on out to a shooting range. Set your target at 10 yards. Try to see if you can get three shots to be within a 4-5 inch square of each other dependably. It's tricky, but eventually you can get it, right? Definitely.

Okay, now get all of those shots within two seconds. Not so easy now--the recoil alone will have your shots spreading a few inches each time. Now try it with the same four-inch-wide spot while it's swinging wildly back and forth. Remember, you've got two seconds.

I don't care how awesome you are, that is hard as hell. And that's what it would take to hit someone in the arm. Most folks' arms are only about 4-5 inches wide (unless pretty muscular). It may look bigger because of clothes, but hitting a sleeve isn't going to deter a determined attacker. You don't aim for "center mass" because it's more lethal (though it is). You aim for "center mass" because you can hit it far more dependably. Less chance of wasting bullets and seconds, and more chance you'll stop the target.

Also, you don't need to actually physically stop someone to stop them, if someone has a knife, and they hear you fire a gun at them twice, why the FUCK would they keep running toward you? You're acting as though they can't see, hear, or feel that they just got shot.

If they choose to stop, that's fine. But until they do, it's up to you to stop them. We covered this already, try to keep up. Most folks, though, once they're charging? They don't even realize they've been hit with the first one or two shots. Seriously. Look it up. Some people have been accidentally shot and it's been hour before they even realized it. You've got a lot to learn about firearms and their effects before you can make claims the way you're making them...

Lastly, saying "nobody has a right to take something that's rightfully yours" should be followed with "but you don't necessarily always have a right to end someone's life". A lot of what you wrote hear could get you convicted of murder in some cases.

What you're saying simply isn't true. There's no argument I can make against it but that. It'd be like me saying, "The sky is made of pudding." There's not even enough sense in the statement to form a coherent argument against it. The things I'm saying are used to keep people from being convicted of murder. On a daily basis, they're using this stuff.

What you said implied that if a man punched me, I can shoot him dead on the assumption that he has a weapon he hasn't drawn yet.

You have to reasonably suspect that your life is in danger, in the case of an unarmed assailant, you are allowed to defend yourself, but not with excessive force.

If that was legal, anyone in a fistfight could just whip out a gun and shoot someone a dozen times.

 

[mr_rubino]

A very good topic, that should be read by all people on any jury for any lawsuit against the police.

I hate it when the police shoot a criminal, and the family sues. They did their fucking job.

If you ask me, if you are breaking the law, and the police are forced to intervene? Your rights to sue or file a lawsuit should be completely, and totally forfeit. Provided of course that there is clear evidence that you are guilty of something.

However, its important to note that if the police do open fire on you, 9/10 times, you deserved it. Police aren't just going to pull out their pistol and start firing on you unless you provoke the response.

In short? Don't argue with cops or fight them if you don't want to get shot. Listen to them, don't do anything stupid, and you should be fine.

You realize there's no criminal trial if there's no "criminal", right? So if the guilty's estate should not be allowed its day in court because... something, when in this process was the person's guilt determined? When was the "clear evidence" established? Outside trial? Ouch. That's a bad slippery slope to start playing on.
Practically speaking, the Blue Knights would never have to justify their actions to unbelieving family as long as they make sure he/she is dead. That's an interesting position to take, because it seems to make a lot of assumptions.

 

[StBishop]

What exactly warranted this topic? There was not a single thing here that wasn't obvious.

As an Australian who cannot legally own a gun without going to see a judge and giving a good reason, having a background/police check, and having documentation proving my claim (ie. I'm in a club for rifle collection and would like to start collecting, I own a farm and feral animals are destroying my crops etc.) and paying an annual licencing fee I knew not much of this.

I understood some of the obvious stuff like the distinction between mugging and being attacked but I didn't even know what a hollow point bullet was. I'd never even heard of them.

This thread was informative for me so it's pretty good I guess.

 

[Dastardly]

What you said implied that if a man punched me, I can shoot him dead on the assumption that he has a weapon he hasn't drawn yet.

If this attack was unprovoked, then yes, you do. It's different if you two were arguing back and forth and then he hit you. There was a prior altercation, so this is not "an attack." It's also different if it can be shown that you provoked it. Doesn't mean you hit first, but maybe you were insulting him and egging him on.

But if you're going about your business, and someone comes out of nowhere and assaults you? You're being attacked. It's not your responsibility to "get to the bottom of it." It's your responsibility to not be killed by this random, unprovoked attacker. And you don't know what he has, what he'll use, or when he'll stop. Lethal force is justified in these cases.

You have to reasonably suspect that your life is in danger, in the case of an unarmed assailant, you are allowed to defend yourself, but not with excessive force.

An unarmed person can still kill you. Happens all the god-damned time. And maybe he reaches down and picks up a scrap of wood. Now he's armed. You can't assume that all unarmed people are created equal. If a person is attacking you, you may defend yourself. You don't know how skilled or strong they are. You don't know if they have a hidden weapon.

You do know that they initiated an unprovoked attack with the intent to cause you grievous bodily harm that could, in fact, result in your death. You have the right to not be attacked in that way.

Now, why is it that police are told to use "proportionate response?" This is because they are trained in hand-to-hand combat--throws, locks, pins, etc. But even then, a cop can use lethal force if someone continues to attack. Why? Because that person could get possession of the cop's gun, and use it to hurt the cop and others.

So even with cops, your claim doesn't hold up. If someone is physically attacking you, and you did not provoke this attack, you're within your rights to drop them. They don't have to be armed in order to be a threat to your life.

 

[Danpascooch]

What you said implied that if a man punched me, I can shoot him dead on the assumption that he has a weapon he hasn't drawn yet.

If this attack was unprovoked, then yes, you do. It's different if you two were arguing back and forth and then he hit you. There was a prior altercation, so this is not "an attack." It's also different if it can be shown that you provoked it. Doesn't mean you hit first, but maybe you were insulting him and egging him on.

But if you're going about your business, and someone comes out of nowhere and assaults you? You're being attacked. It's not your responsibility to "get to the bottom of it." It's your responsibility to not be killed by this random, unprovoked attacker. And you don't know what he has, what he'll use, or when he'll stop. Lethal force is justified in these cases.

You have to reasonably suspect that your life is in danger, in the case of an unarmed assailant, you are allowed to defend yourself, but not with excessive force.

An unarmed person can still kill you. Happens all the god-damned time. And maybe he reaches down and picks up a scrap of wood. Now he's armed. You can't assume that all unarmed people are created equal. If a person is attacking you, you may defend yourself. You don't know how skilled or strong they are. You don't know if they have a hidden weapon.

You do know that they initiated an unprovoked attack with the intent to cause you grievous bodily harm that could, in fact, result in your death. You have the right to not be attacked in that way.

Now, why is it that police are told to use "proportionate response?" This is because they are trained in hand-to-hand combat--throws, locks, pins, etc. But even then, a cop can use lethal force if someone continues to attack. Why? Because that person could get possession of the cop's gun, and use it to hurt the cop and others.

So even with cops, your claim doesn't hold up. If someone is physically attacking you, and you did not provoke this attack, you're within your rights to drop them. They don't have to be armed in order to be a threat to your life.

Maybe you should include the distinction between a prior altercation and being ambushed in your original post, because that's where the confusion stems, of course if someone surprises you and suddenly starts beating the shit out of you you can take the shot, I was under the impression the original post included escalating altercations, such as a barstool argument that turns into a fistfight.

 

[Dastardly]

Tasers and stun guns are indeed sold as civilian self-defense tools. And they are in fact best at close range, though you can also get about fifteen feet of range with a taser.

Yes, they're sold as self-defense tools. And after-school karate is marketed as a self-defense class. Doesn't mean either of them are effective. In either case, I think we need to clarify what I mean by "close range."

With a stun gun, it means "in arms' reach." You're grappling with the opponent. The gun can be turned on you in a scuffle, and you can stun yourself. Or the opponent can take it and stun you. You're close, meaning you're in contact. That's what I mean by close range.

As for tasers, they're good for non-lethal apprehension, but not self-defense. You get one shot (for most tasers). We've already discussed how hard it is to hit with one shot. There's also more to deal with on a taser, since it's a powered device.

Pepper spray is not good at close range, because you're in contact with your attacker. You want a few feet between you. Also, again, it requires hitting them in the face with it--a steady stream of it.

None of these are very dependable for on-the-spot self defense. Plenty of women carry pepper spray in the purse or on a key chain (which goes in the purse). They're attacked, guess what gets grabbed? The purse. Then the woman. No time to get in, find the key ring, find the spray, and spray the attacker. Same for the stun gun or the taser. They're simply not some magical substitute for a handgun for self defense.

Firing multiple shots is proper use of a handgun, regardless of "cop or not." One bullet won't stop anyone. Even a headshot.

So again: if multiple shots are necessary and we're assuming the range advantage of the pistol is moot, why are we preferring the riskier handgun to something that's easier to use, poses no risk to bystanders and has roughly the same chance of stopping the assailant in the same amount of time?[/quote]

You're simply stating that it's "easier to use," and that it has "roughly the same chance" of being effective. These things simply are not true. Even the fact that you have to qualify that statement with the word "roughly" shows your lack of faith that they can be depended on in these situations.

 

[Drakane]

Great OP.

Yes, they're sold as self-defense tools. And after-school karate is marketed as a self-defense class.

Yeah, with rather less justification, innit.

With a stun gun, it means "in arms' reach." You're grappling with the opponent. The gun can be turned on you in a scuffle, and you can stun yourself. Or the opponent can take it and stun you. You're close, meaning you're in contact. That's what I mean by close range.

And which of these risks are you not running with a hand gun? You can't shoot yourself with it? The opponent can't take it and shoot you? I don't see how these risks are unique to a stun gun, they're just part of the nature of close range encounters.

As for tasers, they're good for non-lethal apprehension, but not self-defense.

Most tasers are convertible to stun guns for close encounters. Takes the same amount of time it takes to draw and aim a hand gun.

You would obviously want to keep it in easy reach, whatever you're using. But there's no law stating "you must keep your stun gun / pepper spray out of easy reach."

And for fuck's sake leave the "magical" straw man at home. It's a clear sign of desperation.

Pepper spray is not good at close range, because you're in contact with your attacker.

Again, I have seen pepper spray used effectively in close combat. In fact it's specifically recommended for close range, again because of the potential wind factor. I'm starting to suspect you simply don't know what you're talking about as regards either spray or stun guns; dispelling myths about handguns is salutary, disseminating myths about the alternatives certainly isn't.

You're simply stating that it's "easier to use," and that it has "roughly the same chance" of being effective.

No, its being easier to use is a fact. It does not take a large amount of training to use a stun gun, it does take a far larger amount of training to effectively use a hand gun. Anyone in the least familiar with both tools knows this and would know there is no point arguing about it.

The only reason for the qualifier "roughly" is that I acknowledge the outside chance of a lucky shot with the handgun. But going by your rules that we should absolutely never count on this and that it's impossible to stop an assailant with one shot (which you're overstating but are fundamentally sound) I don't see a reason not to prefer the stun gun. There is no tool that magically* eliminates all risk.

(* See what I did there?)

Won't lie, I didn't read all of the thread and the back and forth but, another potential draw back with tazers is they can be ineffective against highly muscular people. I believe this to be more relevant in the hand held ones that don't shoot the barbs into the attacker than the type that discharges probes, but I can't promise that. This dampened effect occurs based on the conductivity principles off muscle vs. fat.

just a bit of food for thought.

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

an armed & educated society is a polite society.

But a polite and educated society does not need to be armed. My biggest problem with guns isn't with the guns as such, its the people who feel a need to carry them.

I understand the self-defence argument, I just find it hard to agree with.

You're making the assumption that everyone in the society will be polite and educated. This is rarely if ever the case.

I'm not making any assumption because I know it will never be the case. Not without reason is one my my maxims in life "everyone is an idiot"

I'm just pointing out that if a society that was entirely polite and educated was ever to come into existence then members of that society would have no need for personal weapons.

Surely trying to become such a society is something we should be striving towards? But as usual humanity lets itself down with its own arrogance/stupidity/fear/aggression(insert reason for apocalypse of your choice here)

 

[almostgold]

Awesome thread. Having been brought up around firearms and heavily coached by my dad in self-defense when I was growing up, I've always been amazed at people ignorance of firearms. Thanks, OP.

 

[Blobpie]

Depending on how far away they are i would warn hem first, then if necessary i would shoot them... and keep shooting until they either stopped or dead.
I don't want to kill anyone, but i will if i have to... i just hope i don't have to.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I disagree about hollowpoint bullets (or rather, an FBI report I read from the 90s does). You lose penetration.

Yes, less chance of over-penetration, but then many of your shots are going to miss anyways. On the other hand, if you can avoid stray rounds going round, you should...firing a weapon into the air is a bad idea, as things come down the same speed they went up (neglecting air resistance, but bullets are made to be reasonably aerodynamic anyways).

Also, if you are significantly (meaing military) trained, you can choose which parts of the target to (hopefully) hit. In which case, 2 to the chest and one to the head is used for a reason...if the heart is totally destroyed, voluntary movement can continue for up to 10 seconds. "Shooting to incapacitate" means destroying the brain or central nervous system (ok, you don't need to totally destroy either, you can hit the brain in the sweet spot and leave the rest of it intactish). Actually, it's 2 to the chest and 1 to the head for each target and then start again till they all go down, IIRC.

Apparently, people going down right away is not only a movie thing, it happens in real life. Because people have seen movies and think they are "supposed" to do so. No guarantee of knocking them down that way, often people don't notice being hit, and that's without drugs.

Bullets knocking people down due to impact...not strictly speaking impossible, but as mentioned, conservation of momentum means the same force is used on the firer. Unless the firer is using a rocket, recoilless rifle or is significantly larger than the target, it's rather unlikely.

As for tazers...important point I've not seen raised. If your first shot misses with a firearm, that's not good, but you've got the rest of the magazine (only clip if you are using rather old fashioned weaponry). You miss your first shot with a taser, you don't get another.

...

Alternatively, you can forget all that, and live somewhere with much less violent crime. works for me.