Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
7cylon7 wrote:No it should not be shoot to stop. It should be shoot to kill. You are missing the point of your own story. If you don' t kill the perp in the initial contact but in doing so the perp is not a threat anymore then your right to continue to use deadly force may be called into question. The idea is the shoot the perp dead all in one event. In the case you presented the event happened and was over and the store clerk then goes away and gets another gun? why? to finish him off? If the perp was still trying to rob or kill him with a gun then getting the other gun and shooting the perp is justified however, if the perp gave up and the gun was not by him and he was "clearly" not a threat anymore then going back over and shooting him could be the wrong action to take.
I think you can see the difference. But never shoot just to stop unless you are a sniper expert in shooting.
The other case to go against your case above is a guy put 12 bullets into a perp and at the trial or at the scene he was asked why you put 12 bullets into the perp? The answer was I ran out of bullets. In this case, he was not convicted of any crime. The shooting with 12 bullets might be excessive since maybe after the 6th bullet the perp was dead. Since this type of shooting happened all in one event it is reasonable that he was just protecting himself and in the heat of the moment who really counts how many bullets you have shot? Now, if this guy shot the perp and he was still alive after 12 bullets, if he then went lets say back into his house and got a reload of 12 more bullets and which takes lets say 5 minutes and then comes back out to the perp who does not have access to a weapon or the weapon he had is clearly seen on the ground away from him. (this is no guarantee that the perp does not have a second weapon) then if you were to shoot him after 5 min of reloading then you could be called in for murder charges.
I think we can see the difference in these instances of what is reasonable action taken to protect ones life. Unfortunately we have a lot of morons out here who do not know the difference.
one4freedom wrote:I think you missed what I was trying to convey. I have no desire to harm anyone, let alone kill anybody. I feel a responsibility to protect my family from threats and so I arm myself and train to meet potential threats. If presented with a threat against myself, or an innocent 3rd party, my priority is to protect the innocent from the threat. I will use deadly force to do so, but not with the intent to kill. I will keep pulling that trigger until the threat is stopped or I am out of ammo. I understand that there are times when a threat may appear to be over only to return. I am not saying shoot once and then re-holster your weapon. What I am saying is that once the threat is clearly over, you are no longer justified legally or morally in using deadly force.
As far as shooting to kill in the first instance I feel the same way: The object is to stop the threat, not kill. Depending on the scenario that could be a shot to the head, or to the hip. If someone was running at me with a knife and I had the presence of mind to do so, I would much rather shoot him in the pelvic bone. He would be physically unable to continue running with a shattered pelvis. If I shot "to kill" in the same instance I would be trying to make a difficult head shot on a moving target, or to shoot for vitals in the thoracic cavity which could take 30-45 seconds to drop blood pressure enough to end the threat even with a perfect mortally wounding shot.
Granted, in most scenarios properly addressing the threat carries a high probability of mortality. I am just trying to dispel the persistent erring concept that it's better to kill than wound (not promoting leg shots or "taking out a knee"). Shoot center mass. It's the biggest target with vital organs without which a baddy cannot fight for long. Once the threat is CLEARLY over, stop shooting.
bobhenstra wrote:I mentioned before that my oldest purchased a Ruger AR. Our gunsmith just finished a trigger job, what a sweet rifle. We fired around a hundred reloads through it just to make sure they worked fine in his rifle, didn't have a single jam or misfire, the reloads cycled perfectly! We fired 55 grain Hornady Z-Max (zombie killers) loaded with 25 grains of 844 I obtained from Widners, along with Wolf primers. The Wolf primers loaded just fine and shot just fine, the load is at about 3100 fps, really smacked the target. At 174 yards we kept the rounds on a paper plate with open apature sights, shooting off hand, not bad for an old man! Gonna fit a small lower power scope!
The Wolf primers cost $16 a thousand and I bought a bunch along with powder. They have a $26 dollar hazmat fee and shipping, but the price remains way under primers I've bought elsewhere.
844 military powder is H335 from Hornady, you use the same numbers! $89 for 8 lbs. from Widners.
bobhenstra wrote:General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently. Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.
Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time.
It is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters:****
FEMALE Reporter: So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL COSGROVE: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE Reporter: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE Reporter: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE Reporter: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE: Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radiocast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.
one4freedom wrote:Teaser for the next project I'm working on.
r0ck$74r15 wrote:Is that the .300 Blackout? If so, where did you get the barrel to convert your AR and how much was it?
r0ck$74r15 wrote:I am super jealous. I can't wait till I'm done with school and get a real job and can afford more stuff like that. I saved for close to a year to get my RRA Operator 2 Tactical. I love that firearm so much. I'll eventually get to playing with the .300 BLK for sure though.
Fairminded wrote:I'd be interested to hear more about the 300, since this thread is the first I've seen of it (I guess that just shows how ignorant I am about guns). How does it differ from a .308 or .303, pros and cons? Also is ammunition harder to come by for it? (I'm assuming it's not a NATO standard round).
jonesde wrote:Fairminded wrote:I'd be interested to hear more about the 300, since this thread is the first I've seen of it (I guess that just shows how ignorant I am about guns). How does it differ from a .308 or .303, pros and cons? Also is ammunition harder to come by for it? (I'm assuming it's not a NATO standard round).
Wikipedia usually has pretty good articles on round ballistics and such. It looks like the 300 BLK is a larger and slower bullet with similar muzzle energy to the .223. It is kind of like a slightly slower 7.62x39 (AK) round in that the bullet is a similar weight (around 125 grain) but goes slower (2200 versus 2400fps) and so has slightly less muzzle energy (1360 versus 1530 ft-lb). Here are some pages for comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_AAC_Bl ... %9735mm%29
It's interesting, but because it is more common and has similar bullet size and ballistics I'd go with the AK round... and with the differences in design I'd go with the AK rifle too...
Fairminded wrote:Thanks for the links. It looks like they were trying to get all of the benefits of the M4 platform with a higher caliber. From what I got out of reading on it it looks like it was the baby bear caliber...small enough that it can be noise and flash suppressed, big enough to pack a punch, and in the more usual high calibers the M4 platform starts running into technical problems.
I'm guessing ammunition wise you're still going to find .308 and AK-47 rounds a lot easier.
bobhenstra wrote:But I have friends who like messing with every new caliber, I find it unnecessary! I'm going on 71 years, do I need another gun??
one4freedom wrote:Fairminded wrote:Thanks for the links. It looks like they were trying to get all of the benefits of the M4 platform with a higher caliber. From what I got out of reading on it it looks like it was the baby bear caliber...small enough that it can be noise and flash suppressed, big enough to pack a punch, and in the more usual high calibers the M4 platform starts running into technical problems.
I'm guessing ammunition wise you're still going to find .308 and AK-47 rounds a lot easier.
Sounds about right. Ammo isn't a concern for me. I have thousands of .223 cases that can easily be converted to 300 BLK. After converting the brass it's as simple as choosing a .308" projectile for it. Also, it is a factory made round, now. I expect it to increase in popularity over the next few years, and ammo won't be hard to find. I picked up some 300 BLK Remington UMC ammo at Sportsman's Warehouse in Midvale not too long ago.
one4freedom wrote:bobhenstra wrote:But I have friends who like messing with every new caliber, I find it unnecessary! I'm going on 71 years, do I need another gun??
How's that Model T treating you?
All cartridges were new at some point. Don't limit yourself to old technology.
one4freedom wrote:r0ck$74r15 wrote:I am super jealous. I can't wait till I'm done with school and get a real job and can afford more stuff like that. I saved for close to a year to get my RRA Operator 2 Tactical. I love that firearm so much. I'll eventually get to playing with the .300 BLK for sure though.
I really like the operators. I can see why you would love it. You are welcome to come out with me once I get my can in (still forever away).
Users browsing this forum: Hivetyrant and 3 guests