Justice

[kleinboet]

Sportsman - for your information: A handgun is for PROTECTION, on most (there are exeptions) occasions the person/s wishing to do you harm will change their minds when they see a handgun pointed at them (ask policemen who have had that unfortunte experience).

A handgun is USUALLY not used for killing people, but stopping them. The problem is, modern firearms are of such a calibre and power that even shooting a person in the hand can cause death by shock.

Ammunition is another thing, a lead bullet will pierce the skin and flatten in the body, but a steel bullet fired at say, the fleshy part of the leg, will pass right through.

The main problem is that the wrong people get hold of these guns and, after watching all the violent films, will just shoot at random, leaving the victims in the condition you say you have seen on many occasions.

[GlennB]

Sportsman - for your information: A handgun is for PROTECTION, on most (there are exeptions) occasions the person/s wishing to do you harm will change their minds when they see a handgun pointed at them (ask policemen who have had that unfortunte experience).

A handgun is USUALLY not used for killing people, but stopping them. The problem is, modern firearms are of such a calibre and power that even shooting a person in the hand can cause death by shock.

Ammunition is another thing, a lead bullet will pierce the skin and flatten in the body, but a steel bullet fired at say, the fleshy part of the leg, will pass right through.

The main problem is that the wrong people get hold of these guns and, after watching all the violent films, will just shoot at random, leaving the victims in the condition you say you have seen on many occasions.

 

KB this reply confuses me to hell.

I'm reasonably sure that all standard firearms instructions to police require any shot to be at the centre of the torso. This is designed, specifically, to kill. As I understand it the reason is that aiming for the leg could lead to the suspect being merely injured (or missed entirely) but able to continue on their intended course of action (be it shooting, detonating a bomb etc). The rationale being that if you're going to shoot in the first place, you need an overwhelming reason to do so, so "disabling" the suspect is not an issue.....

[*Ant*]

but I have treated too many gun shot injuries to be impressed.

 

Here he goes again.

[Sportsman]

Sportsman - for your information: A handgun is for PROTECTION, on most (there are exeptions) occasions the person/s wishing to do you harm will change their minds when they see a handgun pointed at them (ask policemen who have had that unfortunte experience).

A handgun is USUALLY not used for killing people, but stopping them. The problem is, modern firearms are of such a calibre and power that even shooting a person in the hand can cause death by shock.

Ammunition is another thing, a lead bullet will pierce the skin and flatten in the body, but a steel bullet fired at say, the fleshy part of the leg, will pass right through.

The main problem is that the wrong people get hold of these guns and, after watching all the violent films, will just shoot at random, leaving the victims in the condition you say you have seen on many occasions.

 

I wouldn't argue with most of that. A hangun is for protection only when it used used for protection, it can also( and often is) be used aggressivly.

My point is that I don't see a distinction between stopping them and killing them. To stop someone you have to hit them in a place on the body where the effect will be to instantly prevent them from continuing with their attack. The result of hitting anyone in such a place is probably death, and if it isn't, that is just down to luck. The problem with shooting someone, say, in the leg, is that it may not stop them shooting you, so it didn't work. If you are in such danger that shooting your attacker was your only option then you are in trouble. If you shoot them in the leg and hit major arteries or bone then he will probably die of blood loss and shock anyway.

Then of course you have the adrenaline reaction. Even hardened soldiers and law officers, who may be expected to know how to handle themselves in a firearm situation find control difficult. The case of a crack firearms unit in London some years ago springs to mind. They had surrounded a suspect they thought was armed and dangerous (it was mistaken identity ) sitting in a Mini and proceded to take no risk. They riddled the car with gunfire from just a few feet away, shooting through open windows. I don't know how many round s were fired but it was an obscene amount. The "suspect" was hit twice, once in the hand and once in the foot!

If they couldn't do it what chance a civilian who has never fired a gun in anger?

The best way to prevent people watching violent movies and then just shooting people at random is not to let them have a gun in the first place.

 

Here he goes again.

 

I was talking to someone else D.H. You obviously having nothing to contribute

Edited May 23, 2006 by Sportsman

[blankedagain]

If anyone is in doubt about the damage a gun can do look here:-

 

http://antiotter.livejournal.com/144625.html

 

I can think of no reason to carry a handgun in public other than to kill/maim someone,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[*Ant*]

Hey sportsman - tell us all about that time when you took on Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris with your arms tied behind your back and beat them both to pulp.

[Sportsman]

Hey sportsman - tell us all about that time when you took on Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris with your arms tied behind your back and beat them both to pulp.

 

Like I said, you obviously have nothing to contribute, in any way

[*Ant*]

Like I said, you obviously have nothing to contribute, in any way

 

Absolutely no point. you know everything, and you've seen, been and met everyone on the planet (and probably on other planets aswell), how possibly could I compete with that?

[Sportsman]

Absolutely no point. you know everything, and you've seen, been and met everyone on the planet (and probably on other planets aswell), how possibly could I compete with that?

 

Just saying the same thing over and over isn't having and argument, it's just tedious.

If you want to call me a liar, why don't you, just for once in your life, act like a man and have the B*lls to stand up and say it.

Not your way though is it, sarcasm and innuendo is more your style. I'm sure you think you are clever, I know what I think.

 

Just a small but pertinant question, do you think you would have ever started this thread, with this title, if the two killers had been white?

[Guest tigger]

Absolutely no point. you know everything, and you've seen, been and met everyone on the planet (and probably on other planets aswell), how possibly could I compete with that?

 

Told you, he's from Planet Gallifrey!