guns

[frankendat]

16 hours ago, flatcat19 said:

Or just put a shotgun next to the bed. One shot of some 00...no need for a second. 

 

I'd be fearful of the judge breaking the wrist of SO not being practiced and the thing getting away from her. 

 

 

 

You're not wrong. 00 is tired and true. Points to consider: long guns are easier to wrestle away if charged, 00 will travel through interior walls easily, that's all that come to mind quickly. I am only providing counterpoints. I am of the strong belief that ANY gun is better than NO gun. As I have said, the flash and bang from a .22, in a dark house should make 99% of would be attackers run for the hills. The women in my family are practiced with pistol gripped, pump action, 20 gauge shotguns filled with 00-close quarters/home defense

[dimlight65]

22 hours ago, frankendat said:

Second, the birdshot spread out of that short barrel, increase the chance for a hit.

This was pretty much Taurus' marketing campaign when the Judge came out.  Videos of peppering the (cardboard) face of a car jacker, and other close quarters situations, were all over their website at the time, IIRC.

 

My load in the two I own is a Federal(?) .410 "gimmick" load of three flat copper discs on top of two buckshot balls.  LOL, those have been in the chambers for so long now, I wonder if they will actually eject.  Just kidding.  I unload them and grok the pistols every few weeks because...

On 4/3/2024 at 11:01 AM, datsunfreak said:

It's probably (okay, definitely) one of those "I have one because it's cool" guns. 

 

[dimlight65]

So I was not as correct as I could have been.  My Judge load are Winchester PDX1 Defenders

 

[Ranman72]

I have always been told only pull out a gun if you plan to use it and shoot to kill 

a dead man tells no tails

[datzenmike]

Pulling it out may also act as a deterrence.

 

 

[flatcat19]

2 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Pulling it out may also act as a deterrence.

 

 

 

Which is considered a crime in most of our own states. 

 

It comes out to kill, that's it. 

[frankendat]

18 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Pulling it out may also act as a deterrence.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, flatcat19 said:

 

Which is considered a crime in most of our own states. 

 

It comes out to kill, that's it. 

 

18 hours ago, Ranman72 said:

I have always been told only pull out a gun if you plan to use it and shoot to kill 

a dead man tells no tails

Tactical shooting instruction mirrored the statements of flatcat19 and Ranman72 for most of my life and I believe the advice remains sound. In the last decade give or take, with the rise of Hollywood embracing more and more police drama, two points of fiction and fantasy are creeping into reality. Hollywood considers guns and all who own/use them (with the exception of SOME law enforcement)--scary and tough. So, every plain clothes woman cop must wear tight pants, tight shirts and mount a big pistol on her hip-to show she's serious. Then there are the numerous "Mexican standoffs" (can you still say that?) and my favorite the cocking of the hammer to demonstrate you are REALLY serious. All this bullshit is wrong for police and extra wrong for non police. Ranman has it right, no one should have any idea you are carrying until the shot is fired. 

Hollywood changes but the law for self defense (in free States) hasn't. You do not produce a firearm as a deterrent (flatcat is correct, it is "brandishing" and a crime)

It is very simple--Is your life or are the lives of others in immediate/imminent danger i.e. death or severe bodily injury could reasonably be expected to occur without intervention, then an exception to the laws protecting citizens from harm is available  (justifiable). 

Remember, killing someone, even in the most extreme hypothetical situations, is against (in violation of) the law in any of the United States. The charge must be adjudicated (reviewed) by governing bodies and ruled (decided) justified. So, you shoot the axe swinging psycho path before he gets chopping in the pre school, the police might say "Thank you" as they arrest you and take you downtown, but you're getting arrested--because it is against the law to kill someone. 

I type this out again, because it is life and death or life behind bars-fuck Hollywood. If you have reasonable fear that your life or the lives of others are in imminent danger, produce your weapon and engage until that threat is eliminated. Do not produce your weapon to deter, do no produce your weapon to scare because doing either, in addition to dumb, is evidence that you did NOT believe your life or the lives of others were in imminent danger and it could be used against you to support a brandishing charge or worse to eliminate the exception of justification if deadly force is employed. (The argument--YOU by producing a weapon escalated the encounter and therefore YOU cannot use the exception of justification because without your actions deadly force could have been avoided.) Even if you beat the criminal charges, the family of the attacker (now called victim) Has an excellent civil wrongful death claim to pursue against you.

Conceal your weapon, walk away from conflict/confrontation, run away if possible, but if you believe that your life or the lives of others are in imminent danger-kill. 

[datsunfreak]

46 minutes ago, frankendat said:

Then there are the numerous "Mexican standoffs" (can you still say that?)

 

You mean, also known as, a... standoff...  😄

 

 

 

[datzenmike]

19 hours ago, flatcat19 said:

 

Which is considered a crime in most of our own states. 

 

It comes out to kill, that's it. 

 

4 hours ago, frankendat said:

 

 

Tactical shooting instruction mirrored the statements of flatcat19 and Ranman72 for most of my life and I believe the advice remains sound. In the last decade give or take, with the rise of Hollywood embracing more and more police drama, two points of fiction and fantasy are creeping into reality. Hollywood considers guns and all who own/use them (with the exception of SOME law enforcement)--scary and tough. So, every plain clothes woman cop must wear tight pants, tight shirts and mount a big pistol on her hip-to show she's serious. Then there are the numerous "Mexican standoffs" (can you still say that?) and my favorite the cocking of the hammer to demonstrate you are REALLY serious. All this bullshit is wrong for police and extra wrong for non police. Ranman has it right, no one should have any idea you are carrying until the shot is fired. 

Hollywood changes but the law for self defense (in free States) hasn't. You do not produce a firearm as a deterrent (flatcat is correct, it is "brandishing" and a crime)

It is very simple--Is your life or are the lives of others in immediate/imminent danger i.e. death or severe bodily injury could reasonably be expected to occur without intervention, then an exception to the laws protecting citizens from harm is available  (justifiable). 

Remember, killing someone, even in the most extreme hypothetical situations, is against (in violation of) the law in any of the United States. The charge must be adjudicated (reviewed) by governing bodies and ruled (decided) justified. So, you shoot the axe swinging psycho path before he gets chopping in the pre school, the police might say "Thank you" as they arrest you and take you downtown, but you're getting arrested--because it is against the law to kill someone. 

I type this out again, because it is life and death or life behind bars-fuck Hollywood. If you have reasonable fear that your life or the lives of others are in imminent danger, produce your weapon and engage until that threat is eliminated. Do not produce your weapon to deter, do no produce your weapon to scare because doing either, in addition to dumb, is evidence that you did NOT believe your life or the lives of others were in imminent danger and it could be used against you to support a brandishing charge or worse to eliminate the exception of justification if deadly force is employed. (The argument--YOU by producing a weapon escalated the encounter and therefore YOU cannot use the exception of justification because without your actions deadly force could have been avoided.) Even if you beat the criminal charges, the family of the attacker (now called victim) Has an excellent civil wrongful death claim to pursue against you.

Conceal your weapon, walk away from conflict/confrontation, run away if possible, but if you believe that your life or the lives of others are in imminent danger-kill. 

 

 

Only in America is it more important to kill someone if you have a gun and are confronted, than not. Just how could your life NOT be in danger if you saw fit to pull your gun out?????? Are you saying that if you draw, but circumstances change, you are obliged to shoot to kill??? If there is a suspected intruder do you search through the house with gun in holster or carry it in your hand?

[john510]

Where does this guy come up with this shit ? 

[datzenmike]

Asking for a friend. Having a gun changes everything.

[Dguy210]

12 minutes ago, john510 said:

Where does this guy come up with this shit ? 

You'd be butthurt too if a blackfaced drama teacher outlawed your handguns too 🤣

[datzenmike]

27 minutes ago, john510 said:

Where does this guy come up with this shit ? 

 

I mentioned pulling out a gun as a visible deterrence, but it was stated that that would be brandishing it, which is illegal and that once pulled you should shoot to kill. So I was asking some questions on this, like is this always the case?   

[flatcat19]

I'm not revealing mine unless it's going to get used. And if it is...the intent is to fully stop the threat until no threat exists. 

 

My preference would be to walk away from a conflict, as stated by Frank. If an unavoidable situation arises, with seconds to react...I'm rooting for me alone. 

 

An injured assailant gets to sue me for injuries and damages. 

A dead assailant needs nothing but a coffin. 

Edited April 8 by flatcat19

[frankendat]

6 hours ago, datsunfreak said:

 

You mean, also known as, a... standoff...  😄

 

 

 

In my often wrong mind, a standoff is two guys (I mean two "persons") are talking smack to each other, but staying on their respective side of the street. A Mexican standoff is the same except each guy has a gun pointed at the other talking smack and staying on their respective side of the street.

[Skib]

A Mexican stand off is mutually assured destruction...

 

 

[Skib]

3 hours ago, datzenmike said:

Only in America is it more important to kill someone if you have a gun and are confronted, than not. Just how could your life NOT be in danger if you saw fit to pull your gun out?????? Are you saying that if you draw, but circumstances change, you are obliged to shoot to kill??? If there is a suspected intruder do you search through the house with gun in holster or carry it in your hand?

2 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

I mentioned pulling out a gun as a visible deterrence, but it was stated that that would be brandishing it, which is illegal and that once pulled you should shoot to kill. So I was asking some questions on this, like is this always the case?   

 

 

Having your weapon drawn and brandishing arnt the same thing. 

 

Shooting to kill pertains to a situation where the trigger has to be pulled... if you have to pull the trigger,

its because that person poses serious threat of injury or death to you or those around you.  So make sure that threat is thoroughly eliminated. 

 

Im not sure if some of those questions are tongue in cheek. Every scenario is going to have an appropriate level of use of force dependent on the circumstances. 

 

[frankendat]

3 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

 

Only in America is it more important to kill someone if you have a gun and are confronted, than not. Just how could your life NOT be in danger if you saw fit to pull your gun out?????? Are you saying that if you draw, but circumstances change, you are obliged to shoot to kill??? If there is a suspected intruder do you search through the house with gun in holster or carry it in your hand?

You are grasping the silliness and confusion created with the obsession and fear of the firearms by the political party that has majority control of media and entertainment and ability to enact law. And, some general public dumbassary, the Constitution governs all Americans and in a group of "all" well, TikTok and Youtube can provide examples. 
 

Your conclusions are wrong because you begin with faulty premise:  "Just how could your life NOT be in danger if you saw fit to pull your gun out?" Guns are drawn every single day in America, where rational people could agree the life of the individual producing the firearm was NOT in danger. On the flip side, firearms are not drawn when life or lives are objectively in danger. Tiktok and Youtube can provide examples again, mostly police and government.
 

I would not produce a firearm unless my life was in danger and then only to use it. I say "produce" intentionally, I might hear something in the yard, late at night and go out in my bathrobe to investigate. A bathrobe with a pistol tucked inside. I caught some drunk kids once and told them to move along, pistol remained hidden, no drama. "Produce" is what is now common place with police and in all situations in television and movies--guns drawn and commands issued. I find this to be a destructive influence on people and bad policy by police (but how police policy has developed in America is a very long discussion) The reason this is bad policy is it leaves no where to go, the produced firearm gives the message "Comply or be shot." but in many, (the majority) of situations where there is not compliance there is not shooting. The danger of a produced firearm has become so diluted, Hollywood added the extra steps e.g. racking the slide or cocking the hammer sound to demonstrate "Comply or be shot, really". During this same time in history "spanking" young children and other forms of consequence at all age levels was/is discouraged. 

So, as a practical and legal matter, only "produce" your weapon when in fear for your life and it is time to use it. Is there a possibility that some group of individuals encountered on your property late at night would have scattered and fled instead of escalating the threat had you displayed a firearm in a threatening manner? I will leave that one to the philosophers because if they come for my family we will never know.

[datzenmike]

Make no mistake I know nothing about guns and I'm not anti gun nor a gun nut. (no offense) I would love to have the assurances a gun might provide if I was ever in a position of threat but that threat just doesn't exist for me, hasn't and probably, hopefully will not.

[frankendat]

3 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

Make no mistake I know nothing about guns and I'm not anti gun nor a gun nut. (no offense) I would love to have the assurances a gun might provide if I was ever in a position of threat but that threat just doesn't exist for me, hasn't and probably, hopefully will not.

It makes you a good person to talk too. I have lived with guns, been around people carrying guns my entire life. It is hard for me to understand those without such experience, especially in America where such debate is instantly heated. 

 

It is true statistically, the threat to you is small and if you were not serious enough to learn and train, then a firearm in your house would increase the chance for harm. But I know the threat is exists, even for you and when you see it and know it, you cannot unknow it

[datzenmike]

Well let me ask this. Have you ever used your gun on someone? I mean is there justification for the fear and needing it for protection? If you never use it, was it worth lugging it around other than feeling naked without it? I have one or two fire extinguishers but never had a fire and the risk is very low. It's nice to know they are there.

 

I could probably find some places that are sketchy but normally there is little to no risk other than the hype generated by Hollywood and the NEWS.  

[flatcat19]

Should I drop my car insurance too? 

 

As to your question though...no. Not against a person. 

 

[datzenmike]

Car insurance protects the other guy also.

[Skib]

50 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

 I mean is there justification for the fear and needing it for protection? If you never use it, was it worth lugging it around other than feeling naked without it? I have one or two fire extinguishers but never had a fire and the risk is very low. It's nice to know they are there.

 

 

I keep a fire extinguisher in the cars, all over the shops, strapped to the tractor, in the house ect....  just in case.

But I also dont leave a bucket of open acetone sitting where im going to blast grinder sparks...

best way to not have a fire is to take steps to avoid high probability scenarios. But the odds are never zero, Iv got them in many useful locations to prevent the worst.

Same with my guns.

 

But guns are more fun to shoot recreationally than fire extinguishers lol unless your shooting a fire extinguisher with a gun... but that makes a hell of a mess.

[MikeRL411]

On 4/6/2024 at 6:33 PM, Ranman72 said:

tails

tales