Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumOn the viability of Stand Your Ground laws pertaining to RKBA and our image.
Good morning to you, RKBA folks and lurkers!
After doing a bit of homework and research, I think that I am comfortable in saying that Stand Your Ground laws are both superfluous and unnecessary in relation to the free exercise of self-defense and, in general, the practice of the Second Amendment, and trending data suggests that SYG, regardless of how well-intended, is a burden on both the state and gun owners in general.
An analysis of current data, courtesy the GCRA group (Thanks guys!), suggests that the increase in SYG cases and subsequent decrease in overall convictions may indeed corroborate the need for such a law in theory, but as it stands, public perception and reaction to Stand Your Ground is an albatross around the necks of RKBA folks as a whole.
My thought on Stand Your Ground laws, as they stand, is that they are redundant when taken in stride with existing Self Defense laws, and it is my opinion that outside the "Duty to Retreat" clause, SYG is unnecessary, and is a weak point in the defense of the Second Amendment and those who practice it.
My questions to you, RKBAers, are as follows:
Is Stand Your Ground a viable alternative to current Self Defense laws in non-SYG states?
If "Duty to Retreat" were removed from Self Defense laws, would Stand Your Ground be necessary at all?
In relation to legislation, if SYG is deemed unnecessarily redundant, could we campaign against it alongside a removal of Duty to Retreat in current Self Defense laws?
And finally,
Given that every citizen should have the right to defend themselves against threats, both real and perceived, how can we alter existing legislation to both take advantage of that right while simultaneously reducing potential abuse and improving public image of gun-owners in general?
As always folks, thank you for your time, and let's see if we can keep the discussion civil, please.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Bravo Fenris (I thinks), going out on a limb. Coinky dinky, I was about to x-post this to somewhere, this is a serendipitous 'somewhere' (or albatross, depending): Murders by firearms {florida} have increased dramatically since 2000, when there were 499 gun murders, accdg Fla Dept Law Enf.. Gun murders since climbed 38% with 691 murders with guns in 2011.. {only} partial numbers available 2012, Jan to June 479 murders in Florida — 358 with a gun.. an 8% increase compared to same period 2011. http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/042313_fl_gun_violence/as-firearm-ownership-rises-florida-gun-murders-increase/ .. Guns are now the weapons of choice in 75% of all Fla homicides. That’s up from 56% 2000... The rise in gun homicides in Fla comes when overall murder rate has {SLIGHTLY} declined in Florida, & violent crime dropped statewide..
Y .. Popu .. totalcr.. violcr.. propcr.. murder
2000 16.0m- 5,694.7-- 812.0- 4,882.7-- 5.6
2001 16,3m- 5,577.5- 798.3- 4,779.2- 5.3
2002 16,7-- 5,427.6- 771.2- 4,656.4- 5.5
2003 17.0-- 5,188.4- 731.1- 4,457.3- 5.4
2004 17,3-- 4,894.3- 711.8- 4,182.5- 5.4
2005 17,7-- 4,721.7-- 708.9- 4,012.8- 5.0 SYG in Fla
2006 18,0-- 4,694.7-- 712.0- 3,968.1- 6.2
2007 18,2-- 4,811.9-- 722.6- 4,089.3- 6.6
2008 18,4-- 4,804.4-- 685.3- 4,119.1- 6.3
2009 18,5-- 4,453.3-- 612.5- 3,840.8- 5.5
2010 18,8--- 4,092.7-- 541.3-- 3,551.4 --5.2
2011 19,0--- 4,037.3-- 515.3-- 3,522.0-- 5.2
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm
Violent crime has declined significantly since sygfla (along with national trend), propertycrime slightly, but murders have shown no improvement, & gunmurders as outlined above, have dramatically increased. Florida could subscribe to former DC mayor marion barry saying 'Take away the murders & DC-(Fla) is a pretty safe place'.
The {national} household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50% in the 1970s to 49% in the 1980s, 43% in the 1990s and 35% in the 2000s, http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/Download/SPSS+Format/
.. half american hhlds had guns during 70's & 80's, then gunownership started to decline in the mid 90's along with declining gun-homes, & crime kept declining right along with declining gun-homes throughout the oughts (00's). Could be said better Less Guns in Homes, Less Crime.
National gunstock increased of course, but were personally owned less, percentage-wise.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)+/- about 200 over the last 2 decades.
russ1943
(618 posts)Relative to Florida, the first full year after SYG went into effect (2006) saw the numbers (+28%) and rates of murders (+27%) and firearms murders (+42%) and firearms murder rate (+38%) increase significantly from the previous (2005) year. Since then they’ve declined modestly but for the most recent statistics available (2012) both murders and murders with firearms are still higher in numbers and rates than 2005. http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/332e1b3d-2648-4b06-8be5-d322f340c95d/1971_fwd_murder_firearms.aspx
Florida Statewide Murder by Firearm, 2005, 2006 & 2012.
Year Population Total Murders Murder Rate per 100,000 Total by Firearm
2005 17,918,227 881 4.9 521
2006 18,349,132 1,129 6.2 740
2012 19,074,434 1,009 5.3 721
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)From about 175/year to about 350/year.
That table specifies 'murder', and murder != homicide, so I'm not sure the disconnect.
Still, given the increase in population, that murder by firearm rate is pretty flat/slightly declining over time.
Could be worse.
(I still prefer WA's use of grand juries, over the florida SYG law, personally)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...one effect of SYG laws was to prevent the (very rare) unfortunate instances of lawsuits by or on the behalf of home invasion criminals who are killed or injured in the course of their illegal activities by persons defending themselves. I think other laws (castle doctrine) mostly cover this issue adequately. If DTR is removed from self-defense laws, I see no reason for SYG.
Just my take but perhaps others are better informed.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Duty-to-retreat is an appalling violation of a person's basic rights anyway. Remove any such provisions in the unfortunate states that have them, and SYG becomes redundant. It would also remove a useful target and talking point for the control extremists.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)All SYG means is there is a lack of Duty to Retreat.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)and a Stand Your Ground law?
I thought Stand Your Ground was basically "Castle Doctrine" (i.e. No duty to retreat) anywhere you had the right to be.
(with NO element of "Presumption of reasonable fear", whch is something different)
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)A middle-ground of such could be covered with a simple "Try to retreat if you can", not "You absolutely must attempt to run away at all costs."
As it stands in legislation currently, I believe (I may be wrong) that it's simply "Run as dictated by law" or "Shoot if you think you need to." Elimination of the latter while softening the wording on the former may end up in a more reasonable compromise without idiots invoking SYG at the drop of a hat.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)based on media claims that SYG are magic words that will be taken at face value and end any investigation.
Two examples from Florida:
the asshole who went off about the car stereo, shot the guy because "he felt threatened by a shotgun on the back seat" and drove off. He drove off and the cops found him the next day. Not a SYG nor self defense case, but he thought those magic words would help him.
In Tampa last year, a lady turned herself in for a killing of a store clerk the week before. She said she was "standing her ground". Problem was that cameras show a guy and she was three counties away that day.
The problem isn't the law, the problem is misinformation from a lazy and stupid media.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)until a few years ago, Wyoming didn't have any self defense statute, just common law. When the Castle Doctrine and SYG bill passed, but the SYG part was removed and was replaced with civil immunity if ruled self defense.
My theory: the common law is already SYG, federal and many state common law is. My guess is that it occurred to someone that they, like California and Washington, already had SYG, just not a statute saying it.
petronius
(26,603 posts)ethical thing to do is to avoid harming another person (i.e. to retreat) whenever possible, I don't think retreating should be codified into the law for subsequent second-guessing. If a person has a legitimate need to use self-defense - they are facing a genuine and imminent threat of death or harm - then I think they have the right to deploy that defense in the time and manner that best protects them.
However, it seems that having SYG articulated in the law perhaps can lead to problems. On the one hand, it may distract individuals from the actual question of self-defense - there have been news articles in which people who have wounded/killed seem more concerned with their right to stand their ground than with the question of whether self-defense was justified in the first place. Of more concern, it seems to encourage LE to drop investigations too early, on the presumption that a ground-stander must have been defending themselves.
So the point I'm at now is thinking it's better for the law to be silent on both SYG and DTR (as is the case here in CA). Focus entirely on the legitimacy of the self-defense itself: was the putative defender reasonably in fear of imminent and serious harm? (The exception I would keep is that civil suits should not be allowed to use non-retreat as a basis for a wrong-full death claim, in cases where the self-defense was found to be justified...)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)have such, I have no objection to repeal of SYG laws.
As I understand FL's law, SYG allows for a hearing which can let stand a SYG defense or deny it. Do "regular" hearings have a yea-or-nay provision that addresses the question of "no duty to retreat?"
All this would, it seems, have no bearing on the Zimmerman outcome since SYG was not employed.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)No duty to retreat, no SYG.
Any lawful use of lethal force in self defense can be reviewed by a grand jury. That gives a potential victim, being played off as the aggressor, a voice even though they are dead, and cannot verbally state their story as to what happened.
So I think we do it right. One thing SYG laws offer is civil immunity if the person who used deadly force in self defense is not charged with a crime in connection to the incident. I do wish we had that.
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)I have read my states law many times and still don't understand it completely. If laws were written in a simpler language so those who are to follow the law understands it would help.
It may help those who are to enforce the law too. It might even help the lawyers except for the fact the loop holes would disappear.
I remember as a small child before SYG or Castle Doctrine as I understand it we had Duty to Retreat. During a PTA meeting a law enforcement officer gave some suggestions to protect your home, due to some home owners being charged and convicted of murder for defending their homes, they included;
have a safe room/area in your home where you could retreat,
this room should have a solid wood or steel door with multiple locks,
a separate phone line to place an emergency call,
and if possible a way out of the house.
If someone broke in you were to get your family in this area and allow the intruder to do as they will and only if they actually break through the door could you defend your self and property.
Also, in defending your self once the intruder started to retreat themselves your were to stop all actions and under no circumstances were you to defend any area out side you actual house, not property.
I remember this so well even though I was young is because of the outrage this caused all of the attendants to the meeting.
Two or three years later we got the Castle Doctrine.
A simple self defense law without stand your ground or duty to retreat but common sense may work much better.
anomiep
(153 posts)Why people are trying to make a distinction where somehow you can have no DTR and it magically be 'not SYG'.
SYG is, at the base of it, 'no DTR', at least as far as the general public's understanding (see wikipedia's entry on syg for evidence of that)
Treating it otherwise is just going to make people go ????
None of the above should be construed to mean that I think every single provision of what has ever been termed a syg law is necessary.
(I think I just argued myself into thinking that a distinction does need to be made, I just don't think that claiming 'no dtr' and 'syg' are different is the right distinction - it should be syg vs something that means 'too far beyond no dtr')
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)fenris: Lacking Duty to Retreat does not necessarily mean "Stand your Ground." A middle-ground of such could be covered with a simple "Try to retreat if you can", not "You absolutely must attempt to run away at all costs."
I thought it was 'duty to retreat if you have superior force' - like guns (exception in home then castle fortress).
When you write 'you absolutely must attempt to run away at all costs' you imply cowardice. Not that that was your intent, you appear to be only defining terms. If there is equal especially non deadly force I dunno if dtr applies.
Of course if a naked man attacks you with his fists no sane jury would convict you of punching his lights out.
I believe that it's simply "Run as dictated by law" or "Shoot if you think you need to." Elimination of the latter while softening the wording on the former may end up in a more reasonable compromise without idiots invoking SYG at the drop of a hat.
Here you are again implying 'cowardice' vs 'bravery' when that wasn't the intent of the laws. What you are suggesting there is the nra spin of things, that 'duty to retreat' equates to cowardice, while 'standing your ground' is manly bravery. That spin is part of the problemo.
Still I agree with the premise of your OP.
HiDemGunOwner
(173 posts)How hard should you try to retreat? What constitutes a "reasonable" effort? What if you didn't see that door behind you because you were focusing your attention at the imminent threat before you? If you didn't see that door and then employed deadly force, would that use of deadly force be deemed unreasonable because you didn't retreat through said door, even if you hadn't seen it at the time? The point of SYG laws are that during the heat of a potentially life threatening event, one where you may need to employ lethal force, that overzealous prosecutors (like the Zimmerman case), or those with a anti-self defense bias, cannot, after the fact and in the clarity of hind-sight, question your perception of whether it was "safe" to retreat or not, or whether the option to retreat was available to you at that time.
And if a naked man attacked you, could you use deadly force or would you be limited to just "punching his lights out?" What if said naked man attacked my elderly mother or my 5'2" girlfriend, would they be limited to "punching his lights out?" Would it matter that in my experience anyone running around naked and acting aggressively is likely on illegal stimulants such that their perception of pain was severely muted, and therefore my ability to control him physically (or "punch his lights out" ) would be greatly reduced?
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Hidem: The point of SYG laws are that during the heat of a potentially life threatening event, one where you may need to employ lethal force, that overzealous prosecutors, or those with a anti-self defense bias, cannot, after the fact and in the clarity of hind-sight, question your perception of whether it was "safe" to retreat or not, or whether the option to retreat was available to you at that time.
Of course what happens in a courtroom is generally dependent upon jury perception, & yes prosecutorial skill v def skill, but that will remain with syg law as we've seen. Which would more likely exacerbate a murky situation, standing your ground or tactically withdrawing? to safety?
Your above point is generally valid, but syg per se creates more problems of a more serious nature than it solves.
hidem: And if a naked man attacked you, could you use deadly force or would you be limited to just "punching his lights out?" What if said naked man attacked my elderly mother or my 5'2" girlfriend, would they be limited to "punching his lights out?"
Naked was simply to infer that aggressor was unarmed, against someone armed. Yeah if he came at your gals & seeing their guns or mace they could shoot him if he didn't stop & they had no timely egress. I'd shoot him in the leg first tho, despite the macho rule shoot to kill; normal reaction to being gunshot, like 90% (iirc) of the time even if in the hand, is to drop to knees in shock or confusion (I know I know, drug crazes tend to override).
HiDemGunOwner
(173 posts)Anyone who suggest that you should just "...shoot him in the leg first..." looses all credibility in terms of talking about guns for self defense or what may or may not be tactically sound.
You obviously speak from a knowledge base of television and movie fiction rather that any sense of reality or tactically sound reasoning. And it is people like you that I, and many like myself, are afraid of when the possibility of having our judgment with respect to retreating evaluated in the courts. People like you would apply your own faulty logic to the evaluation of whether or not my decision to retreat was or was not was reasonable, and based on what appears to be a clear bias against self defense, coupled with a serious, possibly willful, misunderstand of the very basics of the use of a firearm in self defense, would likely come up with a set of criteria that almost no one would satisfy if involved in a self defense shooting.
SYG would no more create "more problems than it solves" than the rather widely accepted concept that if you rear-end someone in your vehicle, then you are most likely at fault.
Oh, and to further illustrate your ignorance (not a pejorative, but simply a statement of your lack of knowledge about the subject at hand) on the "rules" of self defense, one does not "shoot to kill" but rather to stop the threat. Once the threat has been stopped, then you stop shooting. And the normal "reaction to being shot..." is not necessarily to "drop to [your] knees in shock or confusion..." either. There are far too many stories of individuals, drugged and not drugged, who kept advancing on the guy (or girl) with a gun to intimate that a single shot to an extremity would end the majority of such encounters. If you have such statistics to back up such a claim then provide them, otherwise I will assume it is just an attempt to pass off your "feelings" as facts.
Here's one from a LEO perspective. Note that no drugs or alcohol was found in the subjects system. http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/?source=newsletter&nlid=6198334%2F%2F
And, finally, since you were gracious enough to suggest that my women folk might be justified shooting the unarmed, naked guy, what about me? Just because I am a guy I should be forced to go mano y mano with said naked guy and just punch his lights out? That my options should be limited because I am not small, female or elderly? I can tell you from personal experience that taking on a naked guy (in such a circumstances as we understand it to be in this discussion...) is fool hardy and will almost certainly end up causing you to be injured, or worse. Which, by another illustration, is why the police office in this video used a Taser instead of immediately going "hands on" with this naked jogger, even if he (the naked jogger) wasn't actively engaged in any physical aggression toward the officer.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)hidem gunowner: Anyone who suggest that you should just "...shoot him in the leg first..." looses all credibility in terms of talking about guns for self defense or what may or may not be tactically sound
I'm not as cold blooded as you are; depending on circumstances I see no problem with shooting low or warning shot if you have gun & other guy doesn't.
hidem: ..the normal "reaction to being shot.." is not necessarily to "drop to knees in shock or confusion..." either.. If you have such statistics to back up such a claim then provide them, otherwise.. attempt to pass off your "feelings" as facts.
I didn't say it was 'necessarily' so. Just most of the time, I est'd 90%, qualified by 'iirc'. Couldn't find any source with statistic specifics, just non specific wiki: Emotional shock, terror, or surprise can cause a person to faint, surrender, or flee when shot or shot at. Emotional fainting is the likely reason for most "one-shot stops", and not an intrinsic effectiveness quality of any firearm or bullet; there are many documented instances where people have instantly dropped unconscious when the bullet only hit an extremity, or even completely missed. Additionally, the muzzle blast and flash from many firearms are substantial and can cause disorientation, dazzling, and stunning effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power .. Unless a bullet directly damages or disrupts the central nervous system, a person or animal will not be instantly and completely incapacitated by physiological damage. However, bullets can cause other disabling injuries that prevent specific actions (a person shot in the femur cannot walk) and the physiological pain response from severe injuries will temporarily disable most individuals..
.. if a person is sufficiently enraged, determined, or intoxicated they can simply shrug off the psychological effects of being shot. Therefore, such effects are not as reliable as physiological effects at stopping people. But, ordinarily people are not sufficiently enraged, that determined, or drug crazed.
So if you're actually shot the typical reaction is to drop either in confusion, pain, or unconsciousness - psychological.. an opinion from a blog: I've seen a number of people shot in my 20-something year career in law enforcement.. you can shoot ten different people with the same gun and get ten different results. As a rule though, (unless you are using an unusually high powered firearm or a shotgun) a person appears to be knocked back a foot or two and falls unconscious. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=467321
hidem: Just because I am a guy I should be forced to go mano y mano with said naked guy and just punch his lights out?
Given 3 options with your gun, is it best to 1 shoot to kill/stop him? use it as blunt instrument? - (risky in itself) 2 toss gun & duke it out? 3 shoot to wound in the leg, handicapping him? I think 2 or 3 the better option myself, if it's just a spur of the moment attack & not a life or deather. Much depends on the circumstances & if you think you can hold your own in a fistfight.
HiDemGunOwner
(173 posts)It is not "cold blooded" to look at facts and real training curricula to determine your actions in a given scenario. Name one, just one, legitimate LE, Security, military, or civilian firearms training curricula that says it's OK to shoot a warning shot or to try and shoot an extremity in any instance where your firearm is presented in a self defense situation. Go ahead, give me one....or, once again, do your "feelings" trump facts and longstanding, core firearms training concepts? What were your expert credentials again?
Here's a couple of problems with your "shooting low" or a "warning shot:" In a situation where you need to pull your firearm, you most likely will experience an "adrenalin dump" and your hands will be shaking and your ability to hit something decreases dramatically. Aiming at much smaller, rapidly moving arms or legs means that you likely won't hit anything and instead your projectiles will fly behind your target and possibly impact innocent bystanders. Which, by the way is why we train to aim for center mass...larger, more stable target with a much greater likelihood of stopping the threat.
Getting back to your premise that shooting someone in the extremity will cause "90%" of those so shot to stop and fall to the ground: Even the wiki source you provide is unsourced (hint, that's what "citation needed" means...) and is therefore presumed to be just someone's opinion, sort of like you...so until you can actually provide some credible evidence, you still fail miserably in trying to argue your point.
In my 30+ years in trauma care I can tell you from first hand experience that the majority of GSW victims do not die, and are able to fight and resist at the scene and in the ED. For part of my career I was a paramedic and picked up more GSWs than you have probably seen on TV and movies. And again, in my personal experience, most didn't die, and most didn't not drop instantly when shot, regardless of where they were shot.
Again, your ignorance is showing. First, only an idiot would throw their gun to the ground where it was not useful for the intended purpose of self defense, and where it could be picked up by either the attacker and used against you, or by some other bystander. Such a statement is the epitome of stupidity and conflicts with all recognized gun safety rules. I have already addressed your wrongheaded notion of shooting to wound, especially in the extremity.
And to your point about such a naked man not presenting a life threatening situation, you are again entirely wrong. I have been witness to many such encounters, both in the field with EMS and LE, and in the ED. Most of these individuals require multiple people to control them, and most LE agencies and hospitals have policies that any "hands on" attempt must be done with multiple responders. The obvious exception is when a fight is inevitable and there aren't others to assist in defending yourself.
Oh, and to add one more thing: I can, and have, "held my own" in a number of "fistfight[s]" and am quite comfortable with full contact sparing for training. I would wager that I am probably able to "hold my own" against most folks. But, even given that level of training and fitness, I would still not choose to go "hands on" with a naked guy unless there was absolutely no other option. But hey, if you think you can, go right ahead...I'll see you in the ED afterwards, if you make it.
Until you can provide some real facts, you still lack any credibility as you try to pass off your "feelings" as a substitute for facts or real world experience.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)robber knocked over deli. Clerk/owner emptied the cash register and gave it to him. Had he just left with the money, she would have reported it to the cops and insurance company and called it good. Instead, he grabbed someone's 18 month old child as a hostage. This prompted the clerk to draw her gun and shot him in the leg. The bullet went through the femoral artery, killing him before the cops got there.
Overshot. What goes up, must come down, possible on some kid walking out of the library a mile or two away. The otherwise justifiable homicide just became manslaughter of an innocent.
HiDemGunOwner
(173 posts)What was it you were saying about shooting to wound, or in the extremity??
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/6014016-Shoot-to-kill-or-shoot-to-wound/
http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/03/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=34041
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-cop-doc/2011/04/14/thecopdoc-shoot-to-wound
http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/shoot-to-wound-no-way/
That took, oh, I don't know, 45 seconds to find, copy and post.....
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)hidem: Name one, just one, legitimate LE, Security, military, or civilian firearms training curricula that says it's OK to shoot a warning shot or to try and shoot an extremity .. in a self defense situation. Go ahead, give me one..
How about gun guru gary kleck? his famous 'dgu study', where 'warning shots' kleck classified as defensive gun uses. Is kleck a fraud by you?:
SCHULMAN (interviewer) : Let's talk about how the guns were actually used in order to accomplish the defense. How many people, for example, had to merely show the gun, as opposed to how many had to fire a warning shot, as to how many actually had to attempt to shoot or shoot their attacker?
KLECK: 54% of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. 47% involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. 22% involved the gun being fired. 14% involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.interview.html
hidem: Here's a couple of problems with your "shooting low" or a "warning shot:" In a situation where you need to pull your firearm, you most likely..
.. blah blah; save your 2ndA mythological scenarios for the gunnutted crowd.
In my 30+ years in trauma care I can tell you from first hand experience that the majority of GSW victims do not die, and are able to fight and resist at the scene and in the ED.
That's not surprising, wasn't contesting that first part at all; handgun bullets hit the target only about 18% of the time, & then are generally not fatal.
hidem: Again, your ignorance is showing. First, only an idiot would throw their gun to the ground where it was not useful for the intended purpose of self defense, and where it could be picked up by either the attacker and used against you..
.. this time it's your ignorance & obvious prejudice which is showing, for I clearly said it was risky & that such actions depended upon the circumstances, & 'toss it' was written metaphorically as in 'not use it'; in the future don't make your extreme specious portrayals based on your own 'idiotic' misconceptions & then try to apply that description to me. Thanks.
Such a statement is the epitome of stupidity and conflicts with all recognized gun safety rules. I have already addressed your wrongheaded notion of shooting to wound, especially in the extremity.
Since it was your 'wrongheaded' portrayal of what I'd said, you're describing your very own alteration of what I'd said, as the 'epitome of stupidity'.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)hidem: And to your point about such a naked man not presenting a life threatening situation, you are again entirely wrong. I have been witness to many such encounters, both in the field with EMS and LE, and in the ED.
Can't stop laughing. I'd'a thunk unarmed naked encounters 'out to kill' were maybe once or twice a lifetime. And these multiple instances they were really life threatening to you or others that you'd want to shoot? Geez, most trained women could give him a nutkick & end it right there!
hidem: What was it you were saying about shooting to wound, or in the extremity??
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/6014016-Shoot-to-kill-or-shoot-to-wound/
http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/2006/03/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=34041
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-cop-doc/2011/04/14/thecopdoc-shoot-to-wound
http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/shoot-to-wound-no-way/
That took, oh, I don't know, 45 seconds to find, copy and post.....
45 seconds is not surprising to bring up flotsam jetsam - I don't pay much heed to your rightwing blogs they're biased. - blogtalkradio, cheaperthandirt, leelofland?, & biased right policeone which creates fraudulent polls & tries to fob them off as scientific. ForceScience? hidem trying to create the illusion of support from phantom credibility.
I did click on a couple, cheaper than dirt is worthy of it's name, gonzo journalism with a scary scenario.
.. a biased source can report factuality tho (policeone): Most recently, in 2010, two Brooklyn assembly members introduced a “minimum force” bill that would require officers to “shoot a suspect in the arm or leg” and to use firearms “with the intent to stop, not to kill.”
joe biden alleged to have said: Joe Biden quipped that the proposed Brooklyn bill might better be called the “John Wayne Bill” because of the unrealistic, movie-like sharpshooting skills it would require of officers -- nothing but rightwing sources appear on a google for this quote, I'd have to see it in context, I suspect biden was referring to RW spin of it.
the awkward hidem: But, even given that level of training and fitness, I would still not choose to go "hands on" with a naked guy unless there was absolutely no other option.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you can't provide a legitimate argument by someone who knows what they are talking about.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)hidem: Getting back to your premise that shooting someone in the extremity will cause "90%" of those so shot to stop and fall to the ground: Even the wiki source you provide is unsourced (hint, that's what "citation needed" means...) and is therefore presumed to be just someone's opinion, sort of like you...so until you can actually provide some credible evidence, you still fail miserably in trying to argue your point.
How about the fbi? (hint - fed bur inv - no more hints tonight tho).
pg 13, link below, fbi 1989, Handgun Wounding Factors & Effectiveness:
Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location, and is beyond the control of the shooter.. It requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and don't.
Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber and bullet is essentially irrelevant.
People largely fall down when shot, and the predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin.
The problem, and the reason for seeking a better cartridge for incapacitation, is that individual who is not predisposed to fall down. Or (under alcohol, drugs, narcotics etc).
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf
hidem: .. so until you can actually provide some credible evidence, you still fail miserably in trying to argue your point
I guess this means, by your own reasoning, you were ignorant - in the non pejorative sense of course (cough) - that most people fall down, when shot. Now you know.
HiDemGunOwner
(173 posts)Actually I am quite familiar with the publication (The FBI"s Handgun Wounding Factors & Effectiveness) as it has been on my Kindle for some time now.
Unfortunately I don't have time to respond to your comments point by point, but here is the full statement from the aforementioned document:
Further, it appears that many people are predisposed to fall down when shot. This phenomenon is independent of caliber, bullet, or hit location, and is beyond the control of the shooter. It can only be proven in the act, not predicted. It requires only two factors to be effected: a shot and cognition of being shot by the target. Lacking either one, people are not at all predisposed to fall down and don’t. Given this predisposition, the choice of caliber and bullet is essentially irrelevant. People largely fall down when shot, and the apparent predisposition to do so exists with equal force among the good guys as among the bad. The causative factors are most likely psychological in origin. Thousands of books, movies and television shows have educated the general population that when shot, one is supposed to fall down.
The problem, and the reason for seeking a better cartridge for incapacitation, is that individual who is not predisposed to fall down. Or the one who is simply unaware of having been shot by virtue of alcohol, adrenaline, narcotics, or the simple fact that in most cases of grievous injury the body suppresses pain for a period of time. Lacking pain, there may be no physiological effect of being shot that can make one aware of the wound. Thus the real problem: if such an individual is threatening one’s life, how best to compel him to stop by shooting him?
So the issue is that, as the excerpt suggests, attempting to rely on the extremity shot to incapacitate cannot be predicted and therefore all training for LE, Military, Security, and civilians, teach center mass shot placement.
As for Kleck, he reported on incidents after the fact and was not promoting a training regime. Fail again.....
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)hidem: So the issue is that, as the excerpt suggests, attempting to rely on the extremity shot to incapacitate cannot be predicted and therefore all training for LE, Military, Security, and civilians, teach center mass shot placement.
Which has what to do with what I'd said? here you are assuming every single naked man is high on drugs or determined to kill you so you gutshoot or put bullets in his chest. If I saw a naked man running towards me I wouldn't first think he was threatening my life, but strange & easily parried. You'd make a poor police captain, unable to properly assess a situation in most cases.
As expected, you blow smoke with extreme cases while disregarding the predominance, where people largely. fall. down. when. shot.
Reread what I/we wrote & note how innappropriate your reply above is: 1) hidem said: .. I should be forced to go mano y mano with said naked guy and just punch his lights out? 2) Jimmy replied: Given 3 options with your gun, is it best to 1 shoot to kill/stop him? use it as blunt instrument? - (risky in itself) 2 toss gun & duke it out? 3 shoot to wound in the leg, handicapping him? I think 2 or 3 the better option myself, if it's just a spur of the moment attack & not a life or deather. Much depends on the circumstances & if you think you can hold your own in a fistfight.
I never, ever, said a shot to the hand would certainly incap anyone. I said most of the time people fall to the ground after being shot & est'd 90% - disincluding crazed nutjobs oblivious to pain.
hidem wrote - I should be forced to go mano y mano - correct spanish is 'mano a mano' or hand to hand, "mano y mano" is Spanish for hand AND hand. Used for comedic effect, to imply mental simplicity, in several films. (variant "mono y mono", for monkey and monkey) -urbandictionary. Comprende' ahora?
hidem: As for Kleck, he reported on incidents after the fact and was not promoting a training regime. Fail again..
I Failed? in your, um, mind, is all. I don't feel compelled to disprove subjective nra mentality. Let me get this straight - bona fide defensive gun uses, allegedly included in klecks dgu study, are tactically wrong about the effectiveness of warning shots?
(kleck est'd approx 8% of dgus were 'gun fired' but not 'shooting at anyone'. 8% could include accidentals, property shots, warning shots, & what else? 2.5mill x 8% = 200,000. Say half are warning shots or diversionary shots to scare (aka warning shots). 100,000 warning shots per year (cough) acc'd kleck, classified as dgus, is not testimony for effectiveness of warning shots?
.. As well, the 'minimum force' bill profferred by the two legislators had support from at least some law enf so you are down for the ten count, now at 8. Hope for the bell.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)Don't get me wrong Jimbo, I don't think that every conflict should end in a shootout of epic proportions. However, Duty to Retreat, while theoretically a positive bit of legislation on paper, results in conflicts of interest in implementation. The very concept of Duty to Retreat establishes a necessity to attempt to run until you are no longer in a conflict, which when taken in the context of a trial, must be evidenced. In essence, Duty to Retreat, to my knowledge, must be proven, and largely it is a case of subjective view. Oftentimes, what may be apparent to a jury or a judge may not be seen as an option in the heat of a conflict, rendering Duty to Retreat variable dependent on judge and jury. My objection is one of practicality, not of manliness or courage.
As SYG laws have proven, simply having a subjective point of reference as opposed to a concrete objective that eliminates the need for legislative and prosecutorial variables allows for a more lenient/flexible legislation that does not put undue burden on the accused. Granted, this wiggle room can be abused in the manner of SYG, but I would rather have wiggle-room on the favor of the defendant as opposed to the state on almost any issue.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)fenris:The very concept of Duty to Retreat establishes a necessity to attempt to run until you are no longer in a conflict, which when taken in the context of a trial, must be evidenced.
There ya' go again, fenris, you're making it sound like RBC - retreat before combat - run away hide, cower in a corner, deserter, shame (will this morph into an 18th century militia thread?). When it's not cowardice - you could walk backwards slowly & cautiously with your gun pointed at the aggressor. You aren't retreating before combat you are making a tactical withdrawal because you have the upper hand, armed. We even tell children to walk away from bullies. You aren't ignoble, you are wise in doing so.
In essence, Duty to Retreat, to my knowledge, must be proven, and largely it is a case of subjective view. Oftentimes, what may be apparent to a jury or a judge may not be seen as an option in the heat of a conflict, rendering Duty to Retreat variable dependent on judge and jury.
Then it seems we're trading one subjective conundrum for another, robbing peter to pay paul, for syg presents the same subjectivity predicament from the converse (ie GZ), where at an extreme the stander can take pot shots at the offender, even if offender's backing off from what might've ended up a 'non incident' anyway. The victim turned aggressor seeking vengeance with a temporary license to shoot (extreme case).
DTR isn't intended to deny self defense, or make crime victims more vulnerable, or to make cowards, it's purpose is an effort to defuse the situation, make it less violent. Citing particular if/then scenarios demonstrating ways DTR can backfire pretty much cancels out syg extremes.
Given the two, DTR will probably result in less carnage over the long run, the better way to judge this imo, rather than using isolated backfires as underlying rationale.
My objection is one of practicality, not of manliness or courage. Granted, this wiggle room can be abused in the manner of SYG, but I would rather have wiggle-room on the favor of the defendant as opposed to the state on almost any issue.
I agree with the latter, but think you're applying your reasoning moreso to those extreme backfire cases, not the general 'success' of DTR vs SYG. You actually wrote the better tack, which is how I interpret DTR laws anyway: A middle-ground of such could be covered with a simple "Try to retreat if you can", not "You absolutely must attempt to run away at all costs." ... But how'd you like it if I phrased it 'try to run away at all costs, if you can'.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)When you explain that the opposite of SYG is a duty to retreat, a law that makes a victim responsible for doing everything in their power to protect the life of their attacker before they use potentially lethal force in their own defense.
Most people calling for the repeal of SYG don't even comprehend what a repeal means- when you ask them what they want instead, most don't know. When you explain it means that you must consider the well being of your attacker and try to get away before defending yourself, and if you defend yourself and a prosecutor second guesses your judgement that you couldn't retreat, you can end up on trail and in jail.
When you break down just what a duty to retreat law means, most people don't want that.