Why use guns for killing

Post Reply New Topic

No sh*t?

Speaking of guns I just had an awesome dream that I was firing a fully automatic gun the had a voice activated safety switch lol.

I don't speak for anyone but myself so ask someone else. I was thinking of self-defense scenarios when I said under less than ideal conditions. I haven't even touched on the Government thing myself, so I wouldn't know how effective overthrowing the Government is but the cops like to confiscate guns during riots so that's one case where you could fight back.

Because it reeks of guilt-tripping agenda driven soapboxing. I'm not gonna go into a Pearl Harbour memorial thread and be like "Well what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Herpty derp derp ZOMG starvation in Africa". Typical debates in the event of tragedies don't solve s**t anyways, everyone's riled up with emotions and all it's good for is feeling smug about yourself. It comes across as obnoxious, manipulative, and insincere. Kinda like how people on Facebook like to pull some "I know 97% of you won't post this, but..." crap with their latest cause. Like f**k off and go jizz on your Bono poster, you're not that important behind your computer screen.

It often degenerates to the point where it isn't even about the event anywhere, but about speculating on the morality of the other side. Besides the rudeness, it's just plain futile.

Sure, if the situation gets people pointing fingers, guilt-tripping, psychoanalyzing, acting self-righteous etc... etc. But that doesn't tend to provoke it nearly as much as tragedies do. It's just inherently more prevalent among the gun control crowd since gun control has that "do-gooder" appeal and the fact that it has this underlying theme of being more "civilized" and "sophisticated". This tends to stir up a lot of self-righteous douchebaggery.

I'm sensing some passive-aggressiveness here. It's like you're trying to challenge a double standard I don't have. I don't like insincerity, accusations, and guilt tripping one way or the other. I don't wanna hear someone raving about constitutional rights and how more people need to be armed. I don't think everyone needs to be armed, only the people who take their training seriously and are honest with themselves when it comes to dealing with the legal and psychological ramifications of taking a human life. Even killing someone you consider a complete scumbag can be traumatizing. Human beings for the most part have an innate resistance towards killing other human beings.

They chased him around and tried pepper spray first.
They did what they had to do in the end.

If you read back a few pages, someone basically suggested that pepper was just as good at taking people down and we didn't guns.

I know, I was arguing with said mall ninja, that's why I thought your stating the obvious was so funny.

Because throwing stars and nunchakus (numchucks), despite the hype, just don't do anything but piss people off to the point of having to shoot them. That's why. Develop a better way and we will us it. Right now, guns are the best for it.

Sure but my point was elswere. How many officers were there? 20? More? And they didn't come up with any better solution than firing 12 bullets on the street full of people? Sorry but that shows something about their quality...



Someone basically didn't get it.

He lunged at them. With a knife. Within three feet of the officers. He was backing down a couple of blocks and waving his knife at people. They already tried pepper spraying him 6 times but it didn't work. None of them had Tasers on them.

What did you want them to do? Pistol whip him? Hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

They were pushing him around. When tried to block him, came too close so had to shoot him 12 times in panic. And had no time to aim at leg/arm first because of their mistakes.

When you start trying to hit arms and legs, which were probably in motion, THAT'S when misses happen and bystanders get hit.
I don't know why I'm telling you since I doubt you've ever even touched a handgun let alone fired one.

How many times do I have to say this to get it through your thick skull?
THE ONLY GUARANTEED WAY TO INCAPACITATE SOMEONE INSTANTLY IS A SHOT TO THE CNS

You cry about stray bullets and yet you think they should've went for targets that are much easier to miss than the centre mass .

Why do you think I don't get it?

My point is, there were many cops involved, let's say 20. They had opportunity to spray his face 6 times. (don't know if it's true or not, but lets assume it is). So they also had 5 chances (at least) to shot him in head/neck/CNS. But they did not, because whatever reasons they had. They didn't isolate him and while trying to do that, they f****d up again by coming so close, they had to shoot 12 times. Now all I say is they f****d up. Or do you think they did great?

PS: As you mentioned before, this would be great opportunity for taser. What do you say, Raptor?

Because people who think that targets as ineffective and easy to miss as arms and legs are good ones to go for usually don't.
I don't mean they should've shot him in the head since it's impractical on a moving target. That's my point actually. Since it's hard to hit someone in the head while they're moving, the safest bet is to shoot him in the centre mass til he drops. The spine is a hard target to hit and getting the vital organs doesn't guarantee timely incapacitation so it only makes sense to increase your chances with each bullet.
Could've been, but none of them had one at the moment so they did what they had to do.

I don't know what NYPD taser policy is.
Maybe no one had one on site.
Anyhow, with shootings you shoot center of mass or chest until the threat is neutralized (like on the ground). You Don't fire one round and give it time to "work" before deciding to try follow up shots.

This is what I do not agree with, although it is NYPD policy.
And about tasers, I still want to know why you don't like them.