Home Defense : Othor Games

» Sun May 13, 2012 12:28 pm

eff the police.... they're only good for sorting out the details after the fact.

You're on your own in this world.

The sooner you realize that and take responsibility for it, the better.

Get trained. Get confident. Lose fear.

Lose fear? Sounds more like you're the one who needs that advice.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:24 am

excuse me????

How is there no such thing as shooting to wound?

Because it's easily possible to kill somebody regardless of where in the body they've been shot, assuming you actually have the luxury of deciding, which itself is unlikely. Anybody who seriously thinks they can "shoot to wound" should never be in possession of a firearm, IMHO.

Edit: unless you're talking of a victim who's already restrained, which is a scenario I'd find more than a little disturbing.

» Sun May 13, 2012 1:19 pm

Always aware... and I would defend myself with that statement in court.

"I had an option to NOT kill my attacker, and so while I was legally entitled to use of deadly force in self defense, I took a riskier path in the hope to prevent unnecessary death and he now lives and stands before you to accuse me today."

If they want to convict me after that *shrug*

This is also why I put no faith in the legal system... far to often... it's simply wrong.

» Sun May 13, 2012 12:19 pm

Because it's easily possible to kill somebody regardless of where in the body they've been shot, assuming you actually have the luxury of deciding, which itself is unlikely. Anybody who seriously thinks they can "shoot to wound" should never be in possession of a firearm, IMHO.

Edit: unless you're talking of a victim who's already restrained, which is a scenario I'd find more than a little disturbing.

a clear and level head can easily point at someones leg as well as their chest.

» Sun May 13, 2012 12:54 pm

but the law of just and right.

At the risk of being called out by the Mods on grounds of Philosophy; there is no such thing. That's simply opinion.

» Sun May 13, 2012 1:04 pm

a clear and level head can easily point at someones leg as well as their chest.

I sure hope you don't own a gun.

» Sun May 13, 2012 3:11 pm

a clear and level head can easily point at someones leg as well as their chest.

I'd suggest that's rather unlikely: it's hard enough hitting a moving man-sized target let alone choosing which bit of it to hit, and even were that possible, there's a high risk of hitting an artery which could easily result in death from blood-loss.

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:27 am

At the risk of being called out by the Mods on grounds of Philosophy; there is no such thing. That's simply opinion.

Of course right and wrong are relative... but you have to have faith in your belief or what point is there?

I sure hope you don't own a gun.

I don't, but for the record I've been trained to put a bullet on target.

Of course, they train for center mass... but at the same time, in war.. you really do want to kill the enemy.

I'd suggest that's rather unlikely: it's hard enough hitting a moving man-sized target let alone choosing which bit of it to hit, and even were that possible, there's a high risk of hitting an artery which could easily result in death from blood-loss.

at 10-20ft?????

» Sun May 13, 2012 10:29 am

Of course right and wrong are relative... but you have to have faith in your belief or what point is there?
I don't, but for the record I've been trained to put a bullet on target.

Yeah but what you basically said was that 'I don't live by the established law because it's wrong, Instead I live by my own law'. Which is pretty stupid in any society.

Also, out of interest, trained by whom?

» Sun May 13, 2012 6:20 pm

Even after you hit a person 10-20ft away in the leg, somehow, momentum will still be in effect, and they will be right there at your face. For someone who has trained to put a bullet on a target, you sure seemed to have forgotten a few key things. Everywhere where I have been, it's center of mass (even though they did train for hostage situations), be aware of momentum, remember how many times you fired, and what to do afterwards when it comes to legal matters.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:31 pm

at 10-20ft?????

If you think you can selectively hit a moving target even at that range (and don't care about whether or not you puncture an artery when you're "shooting to wound") then I can only echo sbr's sentiment.

» Sun May 13, 2012 2:48 pm

Yeah but what you basically said was that 'I don't live by the established law because it's wrong, Instead I live by my own law'. Which is pretty stupid in any society.

Also, out of interest, trained by whom?

US Army

"My own law" sounds willy nilly.... I live by a code of honor, what's best the greater good, etc etc. Doesn't come into most day to day affairs really. What's best for me is not a major factor and only consequential at best.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:01 am

If you think you can selectively hit a moving target even at that range (and don't care about whether or not you puncture an artery when you're "shooting to wound") then I can only echo sbr's sentiment.

I already said for any other person I would recommend aiming center mass.

Myself? Yes... I would risk my life to attempt a non-lethal shot.... and expect myself to succeed in the matter at that.

as for their momentum causing them to finish stumbling into me... I really wouldn't be overly concerned with them at that point.... other than making sure they don't bleed to death.... get them a shirt they can tie around their leg to staunch bleeding, etc.

» Sun May 13, 2012 7:27 pm

Actually it can be illegal to wound and not to kill, just so you know.

What? No. You're confusing many different issues.

» Sun May 13, 2012 12:23 pm

What? No. You're confusing many different issues.

The argument used is that if you didn't feel sufficiently threatened that you had to instantly kill them, then you shouldn't be using a weapon capable of lethal force....

or some such BS...

it's nonsense of course, but you know how lawyers are.

» Sun May 13, 2012 9:47 pm

but you know how lawyers are.

Legally educated?

» Sun May 13, 2012 11:22 am

The argument used is that if you didn't feel sufficiently threatened that you had to instantly kill them, then you shouldn't be using a weapon capable of lethal force....

or some such BS...

it's nonsense of course, but you know how lawyers are.

Have you ever killed anybody/thing?

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:29 am

Legally educated?

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:47 am

I've been in firefights with roughly twenty feet between us and them and not even the side of a barn was hit.

my creds; 0311, 0321, 8541, usmc. sgt.

I can see what being said here, but imo, it's being said wrong.

And currently my head is soo congested I can't think straight either, so it'll have to wait.

» Sun May 13, 2012 9:07 am

The argument used is that if you didn't feel sufficiently threatened that you had to instantly kill them, then you shouldn't be using a weapon capable of lethal force....

or some such BS...

it's nonsense of course, but you know how lawyers are.

Lawyers don't make laws. Governments, as given a mandate by voters, do. If you want to point fingers at someone for crappy laws, point them at your government officials, or at your fellow citizens. Lawyers have little to do with what laws are promulgated.

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:31 am

Lawyers don't make laws. Governments, as given a mandate by voters, do. If you want to point fingers at someone for crappy laws, point them at your government officials, or at your fellow citizens. Lawyers have little to do with what laws are promulgated.

You're right.. It's the lobbyists!

and they're usually lawyers. :cold:

» Sun May 13, 2012 5:35 am

Close enough to post limit to lock this one. I found some of the posts a tad disturbing and we don't encourage real-life gun threads here. In the game forums,if you want to talk about FO3 weapons or Brink weapons, by all means, go ahead.