When 7 rounds just isn't enough.

[ileus]

http://www.wdam.com/story/23973317/robbery-suspect-shot-at-least-10-times-dies

Authorities say a robbery suspect wounded a convenience store owner in Jefferson Davis County but was killed when the owner fired back at least 10 times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Someone should have been happy to take the money and run....but no greed was met with 10 holes.



http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20131114/NEWS/131114024/Alleged-robber-shot-11-times-by-store-owner-in-Bassfield?nclick_check=1

or 11 or 12 maybe 13...

[alfie]

1. He was a pretty lousy shot...

if it took 10 rounds. Just saying.

[ileus]

2. Maybe he was shooting a 9mm....

Took my 9yo son 4 shots to kill a buck yesterday...and that was without pressure. I'll hold my criticism for range shots only, when under the pressure of saving lives even "highly" trained individuals end up spewing more misses than hits on target.

My guess is this clerk wasn't a serious SD shooter, but in the end he got the job done...

I'm having a hard time deciding on my next SD firearm...a sig p227 10+1 of 45 or a M&P 9 17+1 of 9mm.

[Straw Man]

6. Clearly ...

He was a pretty lousy shot...

if it took 10 rounds. Just saying.

... you know nothing about firearms and shooting. Just saying.

[Jenoch]

11. Did you read the story?

The story said the robber had 11 to 13 gunshot wounds. I'd say that was pretty good shooting. If I had already been shot by a robber and the robber returned, I would empty the magazine into him, preferably, all of them in center mass.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. NYPD averages 1 hit for every 4 rounds expended. He hit with 10 out of 13.

So if that's a 'lousy shot', what the fuck do you call the NYPD?

[spin]

18. Many, if not most, civilian shootings occur at arms distance. ...

Cops may shoot at far greater ranges.

[Glassunion]

19. It isn't like the movies.

[Starboard Tack]

3. Nice to hear you're teaching your 9 year old to kill so efficiently

Wouldn't want him to waste any precious ammo during "family fun time". Have a nice day and be safe.

[oneshooter]

5. Mayhaps 3 were misses, and one good hit.

You always tend to believe the worst, even without evidence. Sounds to me like you miss the old country a bit.

[gejohnston]

7. since he is going to eat the deer,

he at least learns where his food come from. It is also more civilized and humane than going to the store. It is also more honest than paying someone else to kill it for you. Just spend five minutes at a factory farm or the killing floor of a slaughter house (euphemistically called "meat packing plants&quot if you think I just went off the deep end.
When you choose the lobster, you are also killing it. Vegans often eat their food alive.

There is nothing civilized about the factory farm/feedlot system.

[Starboard Tack]

12. Couldn't agree more.

[Starboard Tack]

20. You don't actually know he's going to eat the deer, do you?

You're just assuming that. Nevertheless, don't you think it might be healthier if he learned to kill deer with a bow? It would be way more honest, not to mention fair. As much as you or I might enjoy shooting them, I don't find anything progressive about teaching kids to use guns for anything. We're just part of a throwback mentality regarding guns, and we really need to get over it. Kinda like NASCAR, jet skis and the other moronic pastimes that only serve to destroy the environment and whatever quality of life remains in this self-indulgent society.
Let's face it, shooting a deer with a gun is pretty lame, especially an AR.

[gejohnston]

21. I know the hunting

culture. One shot from an AR vs one shot from a bolt action or some other semi-auto using the same round makes no difference. A bow? In a woodland area, range is about the same. If it were a 350 yard shot in Idaho, you would have a point.
If you are saying that the kid could have taken the antlers and left the rest to the buzzards, that's disgusting. That is a crime and very frowned upon.
Cultural imperialism is always wrapped in the flag of progress. Proposing it is not liberal. BTW, regulated hunting does not harm the environment. In fact, the 11 percent tax on all guns and ammo brought many species from near extinction, including reintroducing wolves in Wyoming and Montana.

[Starboard Tack]

23. I didn't suggest he took the antlers or the meat.

I don't assume anything, including the existence of this kid. I didn't use the word liberal, btw. I think bow hunting would help better than an ammo tax, in bringing species from near extinction. American bison are a good example.

[gejohnston]

24. the tax has been in place since 1919

it went into the general fund until 1937, when it was ear marked under the Pittman Robertson Act. The tax has been extended to archery equipment. I think policies that encourage sprawl, like zoning ordnances that discourage walkable neighborhoods, and the oil industry are the greatest threats to wildlife.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

[Starboard Tack]

27. I agree, in addition to a bunch of white guys who enjoy killing animals with guns.

[gejohnston]

28. I know black people who hunt

In fact, when I was in South Carolina, a lot of the folks in my unit, including my boss, were blacks from the rural south. They all owned guns and hunted. My home town's prominent families were ethnic Chinese who's ancestors worked in the mines, they owned guns and hunted. Hispanics, same thing especially in the rural parts of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Bow hunting seems to becoming more popular in the South among rednecks. Might be because they are Ted Nugent fans.

As for traditional bison hunting techniques, spears and bows were used to finish off the meals after they were herded off cliffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_jump
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chugwater,_Wyoming#Etymology

edit to add: to disparage an activity by associating with any race or ethnic group sounds kind of racist IMNSOHO.

[Jenoch]

25. You do realize, don't you,

that the near demise of the American Bison had little to do with hunting, don't you?

[Starboard Tack]

26. Right, the native Americans hunted them honestly with bows

Then a bunch of greedy white guys with guns came and slaughtered them by the million. I don't call that hunting, just a form of bovicide.

[Straw Man]

29. Revisionist history much?

Right, the native Americans hunted them honestly with bows

Of course they did. Until they acquired firearms. Guess what they used then?

Bows? Pah. Paleolithic man hunted honestly with atlatls.

[Starboard Tack]

50. And from whom did they acquire those guns?

Regardless, the Indians didn't trophy hunt. They hunted for food, not to get rich.

[Straw Man]

55. Acquisition.

Last edited Wed Dec 11, 2013, 04:59 AM - Edit history (1)

And from whom did they acquire those guns?

From Europeans. Just like horses, which you may have noticed are not indigenous to the Americas.

Regardless, the Indians didn't trophy hunt. They hunted for food, not to get rich.

C'mon, man, read your Marx. Surplus food is the original wealth. In any case, trophy hunting never made anyone rich.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Getting rich is all about trophy hunting

Power and greed are the motivators. Guns and horses are the tools.

[Straw Man]

57. You have it backwards.

Getting rich is all about trophy hunting

Power and greed are the motivators.

No. Trophy hunting is all about being rich.

You said this:

Regardless, the Indians didn't trophy hunt. They hunted for food, not to get rich.

This suggests that trophy hunting leads to wealth. That is not the case. It brings some amount of money into local economies, but that at best provides a middle-class existence for guides and expedition outfitters and a bit of tax and fee revenue to local governments.

Trophy hunting is essentially a vanity sport for those who are already wealthy.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Trophy hunting is a way of life for some.

I use the term in the broadest sense.

[Straw Man]

61. Seeking refuge in vagueness again?

Regardless, the Indians didn't trophy hunt. They hunted for food, not to get rich.

Trophy hunting is a way of life for some.

I use the term in the broadest sense.

Which term? "Trophy hunting" or "way of life"?

Nobody gets rich from trophy hunting. Can we agree on that?

[Starboard Tack]

63. "Trophy hunting"

Trophy hunting is about hubris, greed and indifference to others and the environment. It is not specifically about getting rich, though those obsessed with material wealth are by definition "trophy hunters", be those trophies antlers on the wall, a buffalo hide on the floor of the man cave, a Lamborghini in the driveway, or a silicone enhanced bimbo on one's arm.

[Straw Man]

65. Yes, I know what trophy hunting is.

And I know that it is not about "getting rich," contrary to what you asserted earlier. But if that's as close as you can come to an admission of error, so be it.

[Starboard Tack]

67. I never asserted anything of the sort. You interpreted it that way.

But I think you get my point. Guns have a valid place in this world, but rarely are they necessary for either hunting or self defense. Just like Hummers aren't necessary for commuting or shopping.

[gejohnston]

68. but they are the most effective

less than lethal weapons like pepper spray are over rated and require specific circumstances to work. While the Church and State have no business in telling a woman how to tell a woman how to regulate their reproductive system, neither have any business telling any individual how to best defend themselves from a violent assault. It is a basic human right, in fact a natural right given to all species from nature. Following some gentlemanly code when some sociopath is kicking your door or dragging you in the back alley absurd, but an individual choice. Most people will do what they must to survive, and have every moral right (and should have every legal right) to do whatever it takes.
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article/a-few-moral-problems-with-pacifism-299.html

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ProblemWithPacifism.HTM

[Straw Man]

69. Um ... Yes, you did.

Here's what you said:

Regardless, the Indians didn't trophy hunt. They hunted for food, not to get rich.

The connection between trophy hunting and getting rich is unmistakable. Try this on for size:

"I don't cheat at golf. I play for exercise, not to win."

And you would claim that these sentences don't assert a causal connection between cheating and winning? Puh-leeze...

[Starboard Tack]

72. You can connect the dots any way you like in your own head.

You write your book and I'll write mine. OK

[Straw Man]

74. Connecting the dots.

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

You can connect the dots any way you like in your own head.

You write your book and I'll write mine. OK

Words are the dots. The way they are arranged in sentences delineates the connection. It's called "language." It's a system. It has rules and principles of operation. It has to. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.

I made an obvious logical connection -- arguably the only possible logical connection -- based on the words you used and the way you arranged them in sentences. Please indicate to me exactly where I have erred.

If you want anyone other than yourself to read your book, you have an obligation to a certain degree of objectivity in language use. It doesn't mean just any old thing you want it to mean, as useful as you might find that in avoiding responsibility for your statements.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Fortunately, we live in different worlds.

Yours is a world of "obvious logical connections", yet you promote the arming of civilians in public spaces. Try finding the logic there. Your dot connecting skills appear somewhat underdeveloped.

[Straw Man]

80. When words fail you, when logic fails you ...

... just fling some poo.

Again, you avoid addressing the specifics. Why am I not surprised?

[Starboard Tack]

83. Poo? lol

Yep, definitely different worlds.

[Straw Man]

87. Perhaps I judged you too harshly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2068645/Monkeys-throwing-poo-Its-actually-sign-INTELLIGENCE.html

[Bazinga]

70. So what do you suggest for the rare occasion where a gun IS necessary for self-defense?

From what I've gathered you are against concealed carry, at least by the average citizen. What would you say to a widow if your policy deprived her husband of a concealed weapon that could have saved his life? Now I don't normally condone the emotional "if you disagree with me, you must hate baby seals" line of reasoning, but I think this gets to the crux of the matter. Who becomes responsible when we take responsibility away from the individual?

[Starboard Tack]

71. I would say the more guns you put on the street, the more likely you will be shot.

Those who consider themselves honest, upstanding citizens are the unwitting suppliers of guns to those they feel the need to defend themselves against. They become a part of the vicious cycle of fulfilling prophecies.
If you think about it, you will realize that the likelihood of your gun being stolen and used illegally is far greater than the likelihood of you ever needing it for self defense.
The problem is that those who "feel" the need to carry are so wrapped up in their own insecurity that they don't stop to think about the irreparable harm they cause to society as a whole. Fear is a strong motivator, and an easy sell for the gun peddlers. Seeking professional counseling to deal with such fear, rather than the nearest gun shop, would be better for both the individual and society.

[gejohnston]

73. if you think about it,

even the CDC says using a gun in self defense is common. You don't always have to defend yourself from someone with a gun, since most violent crimes don't involve one.

[Starboard Tack]

75. Lots of things are common, like colds. Doesn't make them good or right.

Those who feel the need to defend themselves are either paranoid, or they think they have something others may want to take from them, like money, bling, junk, or their life. Best way to avoid all that nonsense is to look in the mirror before leaving home, imagine you are a "bad guy" and ask yourself "Is there anything I might want to take from this fella?" If the answer is yes, then leave whatever it may be at home. Taking a gun with you would definitely be adding something the "bad guy" would probably want, which means the odds of at least one of you getting shot goes up considerably.
I think that's why you and I and most others, regardless of our views on firearms, choose not to carry.

[gejohnston]

76. false equivelence

Colds are not good, but anytime an innocent person defends him or herself from a predator, it is always good. That is an absolute.

Best way to avoid all that nonsense is to look in the mirror before leaving home, imagine you are a "bad guy" and ask yourself "Is there anything I might want to take from this fella?" If the answer is yes, then leave whatever it may be at home. Taking a gun with you would definitely be adding something the "bad guy" would probably want, which means the odds of at least one of you getting shot goes up considerably.

That is pretty simplistic. That may have been true when you were a cop in the UK, doesn't work that way these days there or here. A lot has to do with culture of where you are at. I felt completely safe walking around dark alleys in South Korea and Japan. I do that in Wyoming and rural Florida. Would I do that in Tampa? Depends on where. Would I do that in London, Grimsby, or Liverpool, ummmm no, given that the UK has more violent crime than we do. In the US most violent crime victims are not rich or upper middle class. If you have concealed gun, the bad guy isn't going to know, and it contradicts what criminologists found is the main reason why home invasions aka hot burglaries are more common in Canada and Europe while US buglers take a lot of time casing the place and waiting for no one is home (if he just wants the TV and junk). The Rossi and Wright study found that robbers fear armed homeowners than the cops. It also contradicts what predators in nature, and the street, they pick out the easy target. When wolves find a herd of wild horses, do they target the stallion or a healthy mare that can defend themselves or their young colts? No. They target one of the herd members in the outer ring that is about to die of old age. Most of the time, they won't bother horses (wolves are the only predators in southern Wyoming that can take a horse) and move on to a herd of sheep where it can overpower the dog and the unarmed Shepperd won't be able to do much.

I think that's why you and I and most others, regardless of our views on firearms, choose not to carry.

That may be your case, but doesn't mean that is the case with anyone else.

[Starboard Tack]

81. What a crock!

Your buddy Zimmerman was a predator and still is, but you think he was justified in killing his prey.
Your points of reference seem limited to geographical areas, rather than personal demeanor and behavior. My friends in Texas tell me home invasions are at an all time peak. Home invasions are extremely rare outside the US, though I don't know what that has to do with the discussion at hand.
Grimsby? Where the hell did that come from?
I've lived in Tampa, Liverpool, London, NYC, LA, Detroit, Toronto, a dozen countries and am now living in Mexico, which I love. I've never felt the need to be armed anywhere, including the US, and btw, I'm by no means a pacifist. I just steer clear of assholes.

[gejohnston]

82. Sorry, nothing you said is based on the facts of the case

Talk Left has been one of the very few outlets that has been accurate and responsible
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/14/145748/759/Colo_News/The-Legacy-of-the-George-Zimmerman-Trial
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/11/22341/3139/crimenews/Benjamin-Crump-Who-Screamed-Doesn-t-Matter
If you want to cling to disinformation from a PR firm hired by some POS ambulance chaser, that's your business. I only go with the facts and the truth proven in court and by the empirical evidence.
So are you saying that if someone larger and stronger than you are pounding your head in the sidewalk that you don't have the right to defend yourself using the best means possible?

our points of reference seem limited to geographical areas, rather than personal demeanor and behavior.

you missed the point. Any predator looks for what he thinks is easy prey. Who is easy prey? Old, wheel chair, someone with their face in their smart phone while walking down the street.

Where did Grimsby come from? I thought Newark was the shithole of the industrialized world until I went to Grimbsy.
What crock? Good for you. Most people don't feel the need, until they are in the wrong place/wrong time.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Your buddy Zimmerman was in the wrong place at the wrong time with a gun

He was there because he is a predator. Problem was, he didn't expect to be attacked by his prey. Bullies rarely do. So he had to resort to his lil old gun, which he carried for just those occasions when he'd misjudged the situation. I have not seen or read any editorials on the case, but apparently you have. I have only read brief news stories about the facts, plus a few news items since about his behavior. Quite a model citizen our Georgie boy.

You want empirical facts?
1. He was and probably still is a predator
2. He is a bully and a coward
3. He carries a gun to back up his bullying when things don't go his way.

For Georgie, Trayvon was easy prey. Black kid with a hoodie in a white neighborhood. Wow, what a trophy for Georgie when the sirens scream and the haul his black ass away. Our hero, Georgie boy, give him a medal. Hell, make him an honorary white man. After all, he's only half hispanic.
That's the monster your racist, gun happy society helped create and that's the monster you now defend. I thought you had more integrity.

[gejohnston]

85. you are free to have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Based on Miami Dade police records and TM's phone data dump, TM was a drug dealer, thief, and violent bully.

You want empirical facts?

Those are not empirical

1. He was and probably still is a predator

he was the crime victim

2. He is a bully and a coward

based on what? What racist/homophobic/anti semitic POS Al Sharpton said? I first

3. He carries a gun to back up his bullying when things don't go his way.

Who has he bullied? The ex wife? He didn't have a gun that day, and her daddy's McMansion cameras caught her in her lie. Oh the latest? Umm, that turned out to be false too.

For Georgie, Trayvon was easy prey. Black kid with a hoodie in a white neighborhood. Wow, what a trophy for Georgie when the sirens scream and the haul his black ass away. Our hero, Georgie boy, give him a medal. Hell, make him an honorary white man. After all, he's only half hispanic.

Actually, half white his mother is half South American Indian and black. It was a mixed neighborhood. About 20 percent of the neighborhood was black.

That's the monster your racist, gun happy society helped create and that's the monster you now defend. I thought you had more integrity.

He isn't a racist. Google Sherman Ware. His business partner is black. Sorry, you bought into a false meme created by a PR firm, as the Talk Left explained. I am not defending him, I am defending the truth and the reality as it actually exists. If you can't handle the fact that both of us have been lied to by the media, that's your problem. It was never about justice, it was about money and political opportunism. Did he say anything racist? Who said he was racist? Al Sharpton who has a history of making racist/anti Semitic/homophobic rants himself? From a false prophet/profit who makes money off of racial division?
Some said this case was comparable Emmett Till. It really is closer to Twana Brawley.

[Starboard Tack]

89. You sure like to throw in those red herrings, don't you?

Al Sharpton? Tawana Brawley? WTF?
Oh, he has a token black guy in his life? Whoopee-doo! What a hero! Talk about buying the garbage spewed out by the media. You're starting to sound like more of a ditto-head with every post.

The guy stuck a fucking shotgun in his girlfriend's face. I guess she asked for that and he was just defending himself. Oh, right, she said she didn't want to press charges, so he must be a victim. Well, it looks like he's leaving the fine State of Florida for greener pastures. Unfortunately, he will probably be armed and not required to register with local LE as a fucking sociopath.

[gejohnston]

90. Al Sharpton was the leading propagandists

That isn't a red herring, that is Sharpton's track record.
As the Talk Left, hardly a right wing source, put it best.

The legacy of this case will be that the media never gets it right, and worse, that a group of lawyers, with the aid of a public relations team, who had a financial stake in the outcome of pending and anticipated civil litigation, were allowed to commandeer control of Florida's criminal justice system, in pursuit of a divisive, personal agenda.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/14/145748/759/Colo_News/The-Legacy-of-the-George-Zimmerman-Trial
the left knocks the media quite often too, as it should call out the corporate media when it gets things wrong. Truth has no politics, nor should it. It is what it simply is. I look at the evidence provided in court, and not as ideological sources like Talk Left.

The guy stuck a fucking shotgun in his girlfriend's face. I guess she asked for that and he was just defending himself. Oh, right, she said she didn't want to press charges, so he must be a victim. Well, it looks like he's leaving the fine State of Florida for greener pastures. Unfortunately, he will probably be armed and not required to register with local LE as a fucking sociopath.

If you listen to the 911 call, she also said he unloaded it an put it in a case. She is also yelling out of anger, not fear. He is heard in the background calmly telling her to chill out. Before this happened, she was shopping for media outlets to buy her story. Needless to say, those charges are dropped, and the DA wouldn't have a case anyway.

Thom Hartman once said that the "undecided" voters who decide at the last minute are "low information" voters. I disagree with him. I would like to think that those are the ones who are doing their own research to make an informed decision. The low information voters, really sheeple, are among the base of each party. They blindly buy whatever nonsense their favorite pundits or ideology, which is where the term "ditto head" comes from, to describe those sheeple on the right. They exist on the left as well. I have equal respect for both varieties. People don't listen to Rush (not the band) and Hartman not for information, but to confirm their own biases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Persistence_of_discredited_beliefs
While both sides will claim that gun sales/gun ownership has something to do with the dropping violent crime, I think it has more to do with corporal punishment being less socially acceptable, and an aging population.

[Starboard Tack]

92. You associated my remarks with Sharpton and the media

Apart from what you tell me, I'm unaware of any media punditry or sensationalism surrounding the case. I get my news via basic news outlets like Reuters and BBC. I don't have or watch TV or radio apart from NPR. Sounds to me like you consume all the garbage the networks throw out there and cherry pick the "facts" that align with your POV. You constantly quote sources I'm unfamiliar with and have no interest in.

[gejohnston]

93. no, I watched the

Trial first hand. I knew a guy that was on the Chicago Seven jury. He said the media got that wrong too. Reuters story was directly from the PR firm and even said it was.

[Bjorn Against]

94. There is NO evidence that Trayvon Martin was a drug dealer

There is no evidence he is a thief or a violent bully either, race baiting by bringing up Al Sharpton and Tawana Bradley does not make your lies any more true.

Your post is sick, it is disgusting, it is racist, and it is a lie that smears a crime victim. You deserve a pizza for this racist filth.

[gejohnston]

95. Watch the hearings.

Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 04:34 AM - Edit history (4)

It was surrounding evidence found on his phone. That is the impression I got. Please show me where I got the wrong impression. Actually, one of the local papers reported that he was busted in Miami Dade for possessing stolen jewelry and burglary tools. What evidence did you base your opinion on?

eye witness John Good
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-beaten-prosecution-witnesses/story?id=19517236
BTW, there is no evidence GZ is a racist.
No, that was not race baiting. Perhaps I should have included some of his more recent homophobic and anti Semitic rants? I detest Sharpton for the same reason I detest Glen Beck. I detest all charlatans and hucksters regardless of their race or ideology.

[Bjorn Against]

96. When was Trayvon Martin even charged with a crime?

Give me the dates in which Trayvon Martin was arrested for drug dealing, theft, or any sort of violent crime. I know you will not be able to provide that information because it is a fact that Trayvon Martin was never even charged with a crime.

Produce the evidence or retract your racist lies.

[Bazinga]

78. I think you missed the point.

Say you get your way and guns are banned from the street? What would you say to the widow whose husband got stabbed?

To boil it down you have argued that guns are really never necessary, because the only reason you would ever need one is because you have one. Get rid of your own gun, and you get rid of the threat that would necessitate its use.

But can you truly eliminate that threat, particularly when that threat is not armed with a gun? If not, then someone has to take responsibility for an individual's safety, no? If not the individual, then who?

I also take issue with the idea that I should have to look in the mirror every morning and decide if I look like the kind of person who could get mugged. It sounds an awful lot like telling a woman she should look in the mirror and ask herself if she looks like the kind of girl who could get raped.

edit to add:
in essence all you've told the widow is, "your husband may be dead, but at least he didn't get shot."

[Starboard Tack]

79. No, I didn't miss the point

But first, let me clarify my position. Firstly, I do not advocate banning guns from the street. I am not a banner of anything, including stupidity. Your hypothetical about the widow is pointless. All situations are different. Guns are necessary only in situations when one person intends to shoot another, period. That does not mean that having a gun might be advantageous in the most remote of circumstances, but that hardly justifies the routine carrying of a handgun, just in case one is attacked by some unknown assailant bent on taking your life for some inexplicable reason. Unless you are involved in a life of crime, or are engaged in some extremely high risk activity, then carrying a gun for self protection is absurd. In fact, such behavior makes you far more vulnerable.
If you carry a gun, then you obviously think you also carry something else worth killing for. If that something is your life, then either you have a highly inflated sense of your self worth or you have made some real enemies. Otherwise, you feel justified in shooting someone over stuff you carry on your person, including your gun. So, which is it?
I always love how guys who carry guns like to justify their absurd behavior by comparing themselves to women who might be victims of rape, or else they carry to protect their precious family, as though they spend 24/7 following the wife and kids around.

[Jenoch]

86. Huh?

"If you carry a gun, then you obviously think you also carry something else worth killing for. If that something is your life, then either you have a highly inflated sense of your self worth..."

Huh? Do you really believe this?

I don't carry a gun. If I was in a high crime area, I might get a permit to do so. If I did, would I believe my life is worth killing for? Of course. My wife and children are worth killing for as well. If you had a wife, would you not attempt to protect her by taking the life of somebody intent on taking hers?

[Starboard Tack]

88. Of course my life and the lives of my loved ones are worth defending.

Even worth killing for, if it came down to that, but routinely carrying a gun everywhere is beyond nutty. Situational awareness is the best form of defense. You apparently adhere to that POV, as you don't carry. Obviously, when one enters a war zone, one should be armed. If one has a choice, though, avoid war zones and if you can't avoid them, then blend in, become invisible.

[Jenoch]

91. The words I quoted from you are in disagrement with the post to which am now replying.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

97. "And from whom did they acquire those guns?"

How could they have acquired guns? The government had strict gun control laws concerning the selling of firearms to Native Americans and all right-thinking people know that once you pass a law forbidding the trafficking of firearms then all firearm trafficking ceases.

[Jenoch]

30. The 'buffalo hunters' weren't even about hunting.

It was a way to drive the Native Americans themselves to extinction.

[Starboard Tack]

51. And they used the best tools for the job. I guess it was all about self defense and SYG

Shooting a buffalo from a pony, at high speed, with either a bow or a Winchester, was working fora living.

[Jenoch]

53. I grew up in what was

the land where the Dakotah were hunting bison, how about you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. You need to be better informed about buffalo hunting:

Native Americans hunted via buffalo jumps and buffalo pounds before the Spanish introduced horses to North America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_pound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_jump

In one of his journals, Meriwether Lewis describes how a buffalo jump was practiced during the Lewis and Clark Expedition:

"one of the most active and fleet young men is selected and disguised in a robe of buffalo skin... he places himself at a distance between a herd of buffalo and a precipice proper for the purpose; the other Indians now surround the herd on the back and flanks and at a signal agreed on all show themselves at the same time moving forward towards the buffalo; the disguised Indian or decoy has taken care to place himself sufficiently near the buffalo to be noticed by them when they take to flight and running before them they follow him in full speed to the precipice; the Indian (decoy) in the mean time has taken care to secure himself in some cranny in the cliff... the part of the decoy I am informed is extremely dangerous.

They used horses from the 15th C. onwards, but the white buffalo hunters preferred stand hunting:

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/dxb01

On a normal day's run, the hunters would locate the herd, single out a small group, and approach as near as possible from downwind. Once close to the group, the hunters formed a "stand" if possible, so that the buffalo were shot in such a way that the rest were not frightened away. The hunter shot at a slow rate so that his gunbarrel did not overheat and expand; he shot at the outside buffalo only, or at any that started to walk off; and he would try to drop each one with one good shot, as a wounded buffalo would soon cause the whole group to bolt. Finally, the group would break, and the surviving animals would wander off, the hunter following and shooting stragglers. When it was impossible to form a stand, the hunt progressed on a trail-and-shoot form, the hunter following a wandering band of buffalo, shooting at intervals as the opportunity presented itself. This method was feasible because the buffalo was a notoriously stupid animal that evidently recognized danger only when he could smell it. He also nearly invariably traveled into the wind so that a hunter could follow with little possibility of detection. These two techniques of hunting were the most desirable and common.

[oneshooter]

58. They were very much about hunting.

Hunting buffalo for their hides. Thousands of buffalo, for their hides. But that did not cause the demise of the buffalo, although it helped. It is believed by many historians that brucellosis was a major factor in the decimation of the herds.


This is but one shipment of hides

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4602629920131683&w=253&h=177&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

And when there were no more buffalo, they collected the bones to make into fertilizer.

In August 1867, Grant appointed Sheridan to head the Department of the Missouri and pacify the Plains. His troops, even supplemented with state militia, were spread too thin to have any real effect. He conceived a strategy similar to the one he used in the Shenandoah Valley. In the Winter Campaign of 1868–69 he attacked the Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Comanche tribes in their winter quarters, taking their supplies and livestock and killing those who resisted, driving the rest back into their reservations. Professional hunters, trespassing on Indian land, killed over 4 million bison by 1874, and Sheridan applauded: "Let them kill, skin and sell until the buffalo is exterminated". When the Texas legislature considered outlawing bison poaching on tribal lands, Sheridan personally testified against it, suggesting that the legislature should give each of the hunters a medal, engraved with a dead buffalo on one side and a discouraged-looking Indian on the other.[44]

It was military policy at the time to deny the Plains Indians the buffalo.

It was this rifle, and others like it, that the hunters used.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4877894350474142&w=214&h=169&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

[Jenoch]

60. Towards the end, many of the'buffalo' 'hunters' only cut out the tongue

and left the rest. The point was to starve the Plains Indians.

[oneshooter]

62. The money was in the hides, and later the bones.

Tongue was considered a delicacy.

[Jenoch]

64. They sold the tongues to the railroad.

[oneshooter]

66. So, can anybody hazard a guess what was done with the hides? n/t

[Packerowner740]

8. It's hunting, you are supposed to train to kill efficiently.

That's the only sort of killing there should be. The store owner could have stopped the robber by wounding him.

[gejohnston]

9. it is possible that he intended to

There was a case in in Del Ray Beach where the deli clerk handed over the cash and didn't move for her gun until the robber decided to take a 18 month old hostage. She shot the robber in the leg, but the bullet hit the femoral artery, killing him.

[Starboard Tack]

13. I agree.

[petronius]

16. That's pretty much the same idea (albeit from the opposite direction) as

the last mistake this robber made:

The man shot the store owner in the leg before all the money had been surrendered, investigators say.

Authorities say Young walked outside, then returned to get the rest of the cash. By that time the owner had fetched a 9 mm pistol.

I have zero experience in these matters, but the outcome here suggests that it's a bad idea to assume that a wounded opponent is done fighting, or that a wound will automatically remove the threat...

[Straw Man]

22. Wounding.

The store owner could have stopped the robber by wounding him.

Why on earth would you imagine that the man who had already shot you would refrain from shooting you again merely because he was wounded? Or is this one of those "hit him in the gun hand and incapacitate him" Hollywood fantasy scenarios?

[oldhippie]

52. Shoot the gun out of his hand .....

... like all the really good guys do. Then the Sheriff arrives and drags the bad guy off to jail.

Jeebus.

[ileus]

14. Thanks, we're hoping to get him on at least one more this season.

All his friends have harvested 2 or 3 deer already, along with most having taken a turkey or two. So the pressure was on me to get him on something. We'll be heading to my brothers farm in WV with the AR this TG and Friday so he may get another chance pretty soon.

Well to be honest he missed the first deer that come by twice at 50 and then 75 yards. The one he took was at 15 yards head on looking at us, great shot with the 7mm08.

We did get a little family time in with the new 9mm and my DW's 38 on Saturday. It was also my 11yo daughters first time shooting the centerfire pistols. She's starting to enjoy shooting the "bigger boom" pistols.

Last year I finally got her to shoot the AR's this year the centerfire pistols. She's still a little shy of shooting my 45 but I can't convince her it doesn't have the recoil her mothers 38 or my new 9mm have.

My 9yo son on the other hand loves shooting anything I let him, he's not gun shy at all.

[Shrike47]

4. The robber shot the store owner first. If I had to shoot a man who shot me first, I'd keep shooting

until I ran out of ammunition.

[rrneck]

10. Old straight line: "Why'd you shoot him seven times?"

"I ran outta bullets".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

[sir pball]

31. Anything more than three rounds is amateur and incompetent.

Any properly trained SD shooter better know the Mozambique Drill and have practiced it ad nauseam.

[Straw Man]

32. Armchair commando stuff.

Anything more than three rounds is amateur and incompetent.

Any properly trained SD shooter better know the Mozambique Drill and have practiced it ad nauseam.

Since a head shot is significantly harder to make than a center-mass shot, and since one should never pause when exchanging fire with an assailant until the assailant is down and inert, the Mozambique Drill is of questionable use for anyone but a highly-trained professional in a combat scenario -- where the opponent can be assumed to be wearing body armor, which is the whole rationale behind the Mozambique Drill anyway.

[Bazinga]

33. Right, cuz I know I NEVER miss when I do a Mozambique drill.

There are three things you can never have enough of in a gun fight.

Time, Training, and ammunition!

on edit: Oh and you've practiced the Mozambique ad nauseum, right? Until it's muscle memory, right? Well what do you think the odds are that a real head is in the same place when you break the third shot as it was when you broke the first shot? That means your Mozambique drill is gonna put a shot past his ear into low earth orbit to land who knows where. Amateur indeed.

[sir pball]

34. On thought, I'm actually serious. LEO or civvie, if you carry you must be that skilled.

Reply to all.

That was a semi-tongue-in-cheek remark, but reflecting on it...yes, any person, military, law enforcement, civilian, or otherwise, carrying a firearm in public, must absolutely be well-enough trained with it to put every round on target, every time.

It's one of the reasons I don't carry anymore - even practicing with 1-200 rounds a week I didn't feel that I could, under the stress of a combat situation, make sure every bullet out of my gun either went into a bad guy or an inanimate object. "Great power, great responsibility" and the like. I have neither the time nor money to go to Gunsite and become competent, so I feel I have no business carrying.

I've said for a long time that LEOs need a lot more training with their weapons, honestly 60-70% of their time, as they're most likely to need to be able to accurately place shots in a "collateral-heavy environment" (frankly they should all carry compact shoulder-fired weapons instead), but quite a while back, after witnessing a nasty fight in the mall where I possibly would have drawn, I realized anybody at all who picks up a gun needs that level of competency and while I wouldn't say it should be mandated to get a CCW, I do know you're responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun and should be held at least partially so - would you shoot with innocents in your field of fire?

(Trivia, the Mozambique actually wasn't developed against armored targets, just determined, angry, armed hostiles at close range, where the 7 to 10 second incapacitation of COM shots might not be enough)

[gejohnston]

35. While I agree with you in theory,

most if not all self defense shooting are at very close range. Personally, if they are across a street the threat isn't imminent. If in a mall, take cover and call the cops if possible. If not, a good laser and/or train to point shoot up to 20 feet until it becomes muscle memory.
I don't carry because, well, I live in Mayberry.

[Jenoch]

36. "...any person, military, law enforcement, civilian, or otherwise,

carrying a firearm in public, must absolutely be well-enough trained with it to put every round on target, every time."

This is a lofty goal, but to expect that kind of proficiency from anyone except special forces is bordering on ridiculous.

[sir pball]

38. Month and a half of proper training at the academy would be fine for LEOs

By proper training I do mean SpecOps level, ten hours and 1200 rounds a day for six weeks straight. Sure, it would be expensive, but I'd rather pay for that than have eight bystanders take bullets. I'm seriously more afraid of being collateral damage than a victim these days.

[gejohnston]

39. do you live in NYC?

given the Empire State shooting.

[sir pball]

40. Yup

I'm too pale to worry about mistreatment, but if I ever saw a cop so much as reach for his gun I'd drop.

[Jenoch]

41. You said civilians...keep moving that goal post.

[sir pball]

46. I never said anything about civvies, I was talking cops.

They're a captive audience, we get to force training on them...and as I said it needs to be quite comprehensive.

As for civvies...well, personally I think the DOJ needs to set a national standard more or less equal to this. Exceptions for urgency.

[Jenoch]

49. You certainly have a short memory.

Go back and read post #34. You wrote it.

[Skeeter Barnes]

43. For a department with 100 officers, you'd be looking at half a million dollars just for ammo to

complete your six week program. Not to mention all the guns that will have to be replaced after shooting over 50,000 rounds. And all the people out on disability with carpal tunnel syndrome from all that shooting.

[sir pball]

45. So your cost/balance is different than mine, your point?

I live in NYC. I WANT the NYPD to spend a cool MILLION per officer on firearms training...honestly, having lived here for three years as a former CCW and (I like to think) talented marksman...holy hell, you need nerves of steel and even more skill to take a shot here.
Eight collaterals at the Empire State Building, three in Times Square (and that was a miracle - we're literally packed like sardines there)...I expect every single goddamn New York Police Department officer to be as competent with his firearm as the FBI HRT. Anything less, in that crowded environment, is criminally negligent and should be paid.

Yup. Training to European counterterror levels is expensive, but it's just how American police need to be,

[Skeeter Barnes]

47. Actually that was an extremely low estimate.

Around here premium self defense / duty ammo like Federal HST costs 25.99 per 25 round box for 9mm+p. Let's say the 100 man force can get it for 50 cents per round since they're buying so much. That's 25 grand per officer, 2.5 million dollars for the entire force just for six weeks of ammo if they can even find that much to buy.

I don't think you've given much thought to how much money that is and how much shooting that is. You're talking about shooting up what would be a 15-20 year supply of ammo for most enthusiasts in just six weeks. For a huge department like NYPD, they'd have to get bulldozers to scoop up all the spent brass and dump trucks to haul it out.

Keep in mind that these skills are perishable. Even if these officers could reach your high standards by the end of six weeks, they'd have to train at or near the same level constantly to maintain that kind of speed and accuracy. So that's even more money on ammo, guns and even more time spent away training for other aspects of the job and from patrolling the streets.

I don't know about you, but my hands are fatigued significantly after shooting 300 rounds of 9mm in one range session. After shooting that much, my hands feel a bit strained the next day. You'd have them shooting four times that much on a daily basis for weeks on end. There would be a significant number of people develop repetitive motion injuries, IMO.

Proposing that cops as well as regular citizens shoot decades worth of ammo in six weeks practicing mozambique drills is silly. I really don't think you've given this much thought and if you have, that's even more sad. The pinpoint accuracy and lightning speed you expect isn't going to be possible to reach and then maintain except for a few people.

[oneshooter]

48. But what would they do with all of those 12# Glock trigger springs?

[Straw Man]

37. COM

That was a semi-tongue-in-cheek remark, but reflecting on it...yes, any person, military, law enforcement, civilian, or otherwise, carrying a firearm in public, must absolutely be well-enough trained with it to put every round on target, every time.

All the more reason to go for center-of-mass, not risky headshots.

[Skeeter Barnes]

42. That is absurd. I'm glad you don't carry.

[Lurks Often]

44. And depending on what state you live in, your advice might just get a person charged with murder.

Absent some unusual scenario, such as body armor, a hostage situation or an attacker seriously whacked on drugs, many prosecutors would view the Mozambique Drill as an execution and charge you with murder.