Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

[Viking Incognito]

Thank you. I thought it was going to be some thread about how wrong MW2 is but this was so much better.

 

[captaincabbage]

WHAT!?!?? What do you mean assault rifles don't have 300 bullets in a magazine!??

 

[Dastardly]

Very well done sir. I agree with everything but one point. Not only do hollow point rounds fracture in their target creating tearing little pieces, but they pancake the instant they hit you and they turn into a razor sharp wide piece of slicing metal. When the round enters your body it then proceeds to spin and rotate and the fact that the impact is spread out makes it tear alot more flesh than, say, an FMJ bullet which tears right through you. Of course, this makes the bullets much less likely to experience any sort of ricochet and is therefore used by cops to avoid collateral damage caused by ricocheting bullets. However, to say hollow points do not cause more damage is not completely correct. They do a different kind of damage, and against unarmored targets they create expansive exit wounds and turn their targets insides into churned pulp. Whereas a FMJ bullet will maintain a relatively straight course through its target and leave a smaller exit wound. Of course I have never seen an actual wound caused by a hollow point and all I have is my research and strange fascination with guns to back up my claims. So by all means, take what I say with a grain of salt.

I think you misunderstood... I completely agreed that the do cause more damage. I was simply saying that's not the reason they are used. For instance, fire can burn down your house, but that's not why we use it. We use it for warmth. The damage is an unfortunate side effect.

So, yeah, they definitely do more damage, but we used them because they keep the round (and the energy) inside the target.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

A very good topic, that should be read by all people on any jury for any lawsuit against the police.

I hate it when the police shoot a criminal, and the family sues. They did their fucking job.

In most cases, definitely.

In other cases, sometimes it's not that the cop was wrong for shooting, but rather that the cop could have acted differently to prevent the situation--like getting too close to a subject before drawing, inadvertently causing it to be a close-range encounter. In cases like this, however, the cop just needs mandatory time off, mandatory training and recertification with the firearm, and perhaps a reprimand on the record.

The cop isn't at fault, but hindsight shows how they could have done things differently. We should create a system in which we allow people to learn from these situations, rather than throwing the blame at their heads. That causes them to be afraid of those situations, and more likely to try to hide it. Not only is it bad for them, it's bad for the people who could have learned from (and prevented) that mistake in the future.

The cases in which a cop clearly draws and fires for no good reason a extremely rare, and the other cops are just as shocked and disgusted as anyone else.

I wonder how many of these lawsuits against them turn out?

There are bad cops, indeed. But when the family says "You could have shot in the leg!" or "You could have tasered him!", they think they know better than the officers.

There was a case in Jersey a few weeks back where the family mentioned stun guns. Guess what?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/new_rules_on_stun_guns_will_lo.html

Jersey law only recently allowed the use of stun guns in more situations than the original, and ludicrous, situations. And many officers still haven't been trained, and they aren't widely available to the force yet, either.

 

[Dastardly]

A very good topic, that should be read by all people on any jury for any lawsuit against the police.

I hate it when the police shoot a criminal, and the family sues. They did their fucking job.

In most cases, definitely.

In other cases, sometimes it's not that the cop was wrong for shooting, but rather that the cop could have acted differently to prevent the situation--like getting too close to a subject before drawing, inadvertently causing it to be a close-range encounter. In cases like this, however, the cop just needs mandatory time off, mandatory training and recertification with the firearm, and perhaps a reprimand on the record.

The cop isn't at fault, but hindsight shows how they could have done things differently. We should create a system in which we allow people to learn from these situations, rather than throwing the blame at their heads. That causes them to be afraid of those situations, and more likely to try to hide it. Not only is it bad for them, it's bad for the people who could have learned from (and prevented) that mistake in the future.

The cases in which a cop clearly draws and fires for no good reason a extremely rare, and the other cops are just as shocked and disgusted as anyone else.

I wonder how many of these lawsuits against them turn out?

There are bad cops, indeed. But when the family says "You could have shot in the leg!" or "You could have tasered him!", they think they know better than the officers.

There was a case in Jersey a few weeks back where the family mentioned stun guns. Guess what?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/new_rules_on_stun_guns_will_lo.html

Jersey law only recently allowed the use of stun guns in more situations than the original, and ludicrous, situations. And many officers still haven't been trained, and they aren't widely available to the force yet, either.

Yup. Stuff costs money. People need training. And even then, there's a chance someone can get killed.

Tasers aren't perfect, and if the attacker can get in close with the cop, there's a chance that now HE has the gun. Big problem. There's no easy solution...

...EXCEPT DON'T COMMIT GODDAMN CRIMES.

 

[M4A1Sopmod]

Very well done sir. I agree with everything but one point. Not only do hollow point rounds fracture in their target creating tearing little pieces, but they pancake the instant they hit you and they turn into a razor sharp wide piece of slicing metal. When the round enters your body it then proceeds to spin and rotate and the fact that the impact is spread out makes it tear alot more flesh than, say, an FMJ bullet which tears right through you. Of course, this makes the bullets much less likely to experience any sort of ricochet and is therefore used by cops to avoid collateral damage caused by ricocheting bullets. However, to say hollow points do not cause more damage is not completely correct. They do a different kind of damage, and against unarmored targets they create expansive exit wounds and turn their targets insides into churned pulp. Whereas a FMJ bullet will maintain a relatively straight course through its target and leave a smaller exit wound. Of course I have never seen an actual wound caused by a hollow point and all I have is my research and strange fascination with guns to back up my claims. So by all means, take what I say with a grain of salt.

I think you misunderstood... I completely agreed that the do cause more damage. I was simply saying that's not the reason they are used. For instance, fire can burn down your house, but that's not why we use it. We use it for warmth. The damage is an unfortunate side effect.

You will have to forgive me sir. I suffer from an all too common ailment called "The Stupid" and it effects me every once in awhile and I forget to read whole paragraphs and not the first couple words. However, your choice of words in your final reply statement has me curious. I don't believe the catastrophic damage a hollow point can cause is in anyway an unfortunate side effect. If you are in a situation where you need to use deadly force than I, for one, want a bullet that will turn my opponents innards into red paste.
So, yeah, they definitely do more damage, but we used them because they keep the round (and the energy) inside the target.

 

[Spy_Guy]

Good thread.

I know this stuff, but it's good to get a second opinion on it. In other words, it's good to know some people don't belong to the "excessive force" / "evil HP" groups.

 

[Koeryn]

Why is it said that a gun is always loaded? I know it's the first rule of firearm safety, but why?

Because people are stupid and forgetful. A firearm that YOU KNOW you've cleared can still shoot someone if you didn't properly clear it, or if you forgot and thought you did. You, or someone around you can be killed because you or they assumed the weapon was clear.

So it doesn't matter whether you personally cleared it, or someone cleared it before you. THE WEAPON IS LOADED AND DANGEROUS. There are no exceptions. It's just being smart.

 

[sheic99]

Your first rule reminded me of the movie Copycat. In the movie, 2 detectives are at a shooting range and one detective insults the other for using 4 or 5 shots on a target and says you only need 1 shot in the shoulder to take a suspect down. Later in the movie, the first detective gets taken as a hostage, so the second detective goes for that one shot and the suspect goes down and the start celebrating until the suspect grabs the gun with the other arm and shoots the first detective.

Despite being a movie, it's a good example of why you should shoot multiple times to kill someone.

 

[tehfeen83]

Nice thread, it's good to hear rational, well written views from someone who actually knows something about firearms. Cool.

 

[OakTaooper]

That was a very enlightening read, though being raised with firearms I knew most of what was stated. It was still very good though, and reinforced some basic principles that many people forget and/or look over.

 

[Logic 0]

Why is it said that a gun is always loaded? I know it's the first rule of firearm safety, but why?

It's an intentional overstatement of the "Treat every gun as though it is loaded" rule. The idea is that how you safely handle a gun should be reflex, and it shouldn't depend on whether or not you think the gun is loaded.

If you handle unloaded guns a lot, and you aren't careful wear you point it or how you hold your hand near the trigger... and then you start handling a loaded gun? You'll be a danger to yourselves and others. So, when it comes to how you handle a gun, there is no difference between "loaded" and "unloaded"--so, in a sense, there's no such thing as an "unloaded gun."

It would be like you telling someone to handle your prized possessions like they're all full of nitroglycerin--you're telling them, in an exaggerated way, that they should handle them with extreme care.

So it's like Schrodinger's gun then?

 

[Vryyk]

I like this thread. I'm sick of hearing "shoot to wound" and all that rubbish about tailoring response to meet the threat (in under 10 seconds no less). You'll notice that it's always the people who have never been in a situation where they may not be going home who scream "ban guns!" the loudest. Very well said sir.

 

[Therumancer]

One of my favorite sayings is "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six" and that pretty much summarizes my atttitude about situations like this. In this kind of a situation if I have any doubts about my safety or survival I intend to put the other guy down, I'm not going to risk myself by trying to be merciful. As much as I fear the idea of going to prison, I won't be dead, and I do get a trial. Never been there, probably never will be, but if I kill someone by any means, chances are my defense is going to largely consist of "If I didn't kill him, I wouldn't be here right now. I believe that, and none of your second guessing is going to change it" and it's doubtlessly going to be true.



A lot of the stuff in the original post seems like it came from some kind of left wing rally. A gun is an insturment of death, you don't go waving one around for fun, or try and wound people or do as little damage as possible if you find yourself using one.

I'll also be blunt, use of force policies can vary from state to state, and can depend on your job. Property owners for example have more rights in some states than others, and that can extend to various security professionals as representitives of the property owner. As a general rule however there is no need to respond only with equal force when your threatened, after all "equal force" is subjective to begin with, I mean if some guy is younger and in better shape than you, fighting him unarmed isn't going to allow you to protect yourself. Besides, what if he has combat training and you don't? By the same token two guys acting in concern is differant than a single assailant (think of the guy who shot the teen covered in another post here, when the kid and a friend tried to mug him).

 

[Le_Lisra]

2. ...and the attacker has a knife, they are not a threat.

Myth. We think it's true because you have to be close to stab someone, but not to shoot them--distance is the advantage, right?

While I don't care much for the rest (guns are not easily available over here in socialist heaven and the advice is mostly void) THIS is important. That so many people underestimate a knife is just baffling to me. At a short distance a knife is more dangerous than a gun, especially if the gun is not pointed, or worse, not drawn.

If you are unarmed and someone has a knife, get the fuck away. If you are armed, shoot them. It will safe your life, and yours is a bit more important than theirs.

 

[Dastardly]

That was a very enlightening read, though being raised with firearms I knew most of what was stated. It was still very good though, and reinforced some basic principles that many people forget and/or look over.

There really seem to be a lot of people on the board that actually do not know a lot of this, as evidence by replies in the thread about the UK guy that shot a mugger.

People believe so many things about firearms because movies told them so, and they use that "knowledge" to make judgments about people in the real world. It's upsetting.

 

[Nerdygamer89]

Snip

I usually don't say this to other men... but I love you.

Heh, joking aside I am so goddamn tired of people bitching and moaning about guns/police/self defense while citing these fallacies. This thread should be stickied IMO.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

Very well done, dastardly. Well-structured OP and good responses to all replies that needed a response.
Mind, I already knew this stuff beforehand, but I too occasionally see some specific people on this site showing off their incredible lack of knowledge on this topic, so I practically want this thread stickied.

 

[Manicotti]

Outstanding and ridiculously informative post, Mr. D. I reposted it on my Facebook and linked it back here to make sure this information gets out.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

I think the biggest two that get me are the "just shoot the leg!" or "just fire a warning shot!" people. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how firearms work, what sort of damage they can do, and just how hard it is to hit a moving target the width of a human leg even with extensive training.

Other than that, it's all the hindsight bullshit where people say, "Look! He wasn't even armed!" Yeah, good luck spotting that in the heat of the moment with panic in your brain. You're being attacked, you don't have time to scour the surface of his body for potential weapons. If he's attacking you, he means to hurt you badly. That's all the "weapon" you need to see to know it's better him than you.

However, I would caution you never to use the phrase "shoot to kill." Not because it isn't true or anything, but because it could destroy your case in a court of law. The best way to shoot is in a way that you know will stop the attacker. That just happens to be firing repeatedly into center mass, which is the most lethal way to do it. But for the purposes of legalese, it is important for the court to know that you were intending only to stop the attacker, and that you had no goal beyond that. You weren't out to kill him, just to make sure he could not take any further action toward you.

Technicalities like that can change a juries mind from "panicked victim" to "ruthless vigilante" in a heartbeat, because they don't understand that while the method is the same, the intent is something else entirely.

Shooting to stop is shooting to kill... but be sure to call it "shooting to stop" if you end up in court.