Hampton Roads Chatter

[Laughingdawg]

Originally Posted by DirtViking

Read Massad Ayoob's books. I won't convince you, but he might.

It's not my point I'm trying to make. He's made it a hundred times and supported it by facts (meaning cases.)

Jury's do not like rounds that mean to inflict more damage on someone. Seems silly, but it is what it is.

No ballistic data on hand loads is a real problem. Not for you and I defending ourselves, but in court.

It seems to me in my limited time talking to people who carry, little thought is placed on what happens after you use your weapon. That's really what I'm talking about.

You're correct of course on the ballistic data of hollow-points. Makes sense. Just not in court.

I've actually read a lot of his stuff, and he spends a lot of time talking about the things that a jury or prosecutor could claim, but only had that one example of it actually geing used again someone...and in that guys case it's perfectly possible he was lying through his teeth about her having committed suicide with the gun.

Honestly, if a prosecutor tried to hit you for having hollowpoints, and claims you had them because you're out to kill someone, the simple response is that the police in this area have around 50 hollowpoints on them every day and most of them, by some stroke of willpower I suppose, never even shoot anyone in their entire career. But the best protection in that case is to stick with a carry gun that is the same model as what is used by the departments in the area (which limits you to Glocks or H&Ks around here I think), and use ammo similar to what they carry (which would be hollowpoints)

A lot of the more specific warnings Ayoob puts out might be good advice if you live in NYC, New England, or California. But no one in VA is getting dragged through the wringer by prosecutors because they had a laser grip or have something named a Python or Cobra for a defensive weapon.

BTW, even if you do load your own ammo for defensive purposes, it's not like anyone can actually tell from looking at your magazines. Though the real reason to not use handloads is that quality defensive ammo has a much higher level of quality control in the manufacturing process than your average reloader is capable of duplicating.

[roger123]

Well, unfortunately or (fortunately I guess depending how you look at it) I've reached the drywall stage. Man, I hate doing that, good thing I don't have much. It's just so messy and time consuming.

Vanity came in yesterday so I can get that in place and work out the drain and supply plumbing.

[Henderson757]

Who said floods were no fun

[Nomad]

Originally Posted by Henderson757

Who said floods were no fun

if that's where I think it is, be careful out there man. cops will come down hard on you for riding out there.

[Henderson757]

My " visits " there are over, To many homeless people running around. One almost ended me coming around a corner.

They have a whole " Tent town " around the back of that place. Coleman would be proud

[msgvb]

I guess I meant more, is it best to shoot to kill an assailant or to just shoot enough to "stop aggressive action"?
the question being more along the lines of, what happens to the "victim" in post defensive action litigation typically, if they fire on someone defensively and the assailant survives with injuries and then decides to sue the victim.

prob a can of worms with a question like that, and maybe not really one to pose on a public forum. just something I've always thought about during weapons discussions.

Originally Posted by screamin injin

Center mass of whatever parts of their body are exposed. I've seen lots of police videos where the bad guy is hit several times before going down, so shoot till they stop their aggressive action.

[DAAANG]

[moymurfs]

Originally Posted by msgvb

I guess I meant more, is it best to shoot to kill an assailant or to just shoot enough to "stop aggressive action"?
the question being more along the lines of, what happens to the "victim" in post defensive action litigation typically, if they fire on someone defensively and the assailant survives with injuries and then decides to sue the victim.

prob a can of worms with a question like that, and maybe not really one to pose on a public forum. just something I've always thought about during weapons discussions.

You WILL be sued regardless..whether it's your previous assailant, who is likely to lie, or his family who preaches about how well he was just "getting his life together" well after the incident.

If you say you are "shooting to kill", then you have just stated your intent is not to defend yourself (it's now secondary) but to kill. That ain't gonna fly anywhere.
If you "shoot to stop the agressive action" then you are saying you're intent is protecting yourself (or others) from the assailant's actions.

Death is a secondary, possible by-product of the encounter. It should not be the focus/goal, making 100% sure the assailant ceases his actions is.

[roger123]

Sanded the mud today and put on another coat.

Redid the water supply piping for the new vanity. Will do the drain tomorrow. That granite counter is wicked heavy!

[biker128pedal]

Good strong dark IPA. Made from Dismal Swamp water.

[msgvb]

dicey subject matter.
I'll just stick with this

Originally Posted by moymurfs

You WILL be sued regardless..whether it's your previous assailant, who is likely to lie, or his family who preaches about how well he was just "getting his life together" well after the incident.

If you say you are "shooting to kill", then you have just stated your intent is not to defend yourself (it's now secondary) but to kill. That ain't gonna fly anywhere.
If you "shoot to stop the agressive action" then you are saying you're intent is protecting yourself (or others) from the assailant's actions.

Death is a secondary, possible by-product of the encounter. It should not be the focus/goal, making 100% sure the assailant ceases his actions is.

[msgvb]

Man, I missed a lot of these responses over the past few days. good stuff, fellas, as well as the incidental/tangent discussions, too.

I'd never want to find myself in the position where I had to take any such action, but a couple of recent incidents within 4 weeks of each other had me wishing Charles Bronson lived nearby, and wondering whether I should consider taking steps to ensure that my home/person is safe and protected. For now, I've opted for increased home and vehicle security measures. Considering the other, though, and have considered it in the past for other reasons as well, such as riding alone in remote areas, etc.

I should clarify as well - "best place to shoot someone" was meant more as a tongue-in-cheek comment/question. obviously a very serious matter, but yes, was kind of hoping the LEOs would weigh in with some general info/perspective, as they have, along with some other good input. Esp DAAANG's video response, ha

wasn't soliciting specific advice or instruction.

Originally Posted by lesthemess

In my opinion...
If you are justified in using a firearm to repel an attacker, Center of Mass until threat is gone. Repercussions may or may not follow...

Originally Posted by lesthemess

To clarify...
I would never admit to either shooting to kill, nor shooting to wound.
I had to shoot to end the threat to my life or my loved ones' life

Originally Posted by moymurfs

Les has it pretty much down.
As far as the Police are concerned when deadly force with a firearm occurs;
We shoot to stop the aggressive action.
We are trained to shoot center mass.
(That's it. No wounding wording, No killing wording,,, simply, WHAT HAPPENS-HAPPENS)
The only time a specific body part might be targeted would be something like a hostage situation or body armor drill.

Originally Posted by BlakKrauStudios

I'd like to think the rack of my 20-guage would be enough to deter most people. If not, I figure 6-shot should do the trick. I also have slugs.
My shotgun is for home defense. If I'm in public, my two working legs and whatever blunt object is within reach will be my defense. This may get me flamed, but nothing scares the shit out of me more than being in a situation where a bunch of armed and untrained people feel throwing lead around is the safest form of response to a threat.
Ever see that bar shoot-out video in Ohio from a couple years ago? The one where almost everyone had a gun, and the place looked like that scene from the movie Heat? Not one single person was shot. Conceal and carry at it's worst.

Originally Posted by moymurfs

You WILL be sued regardless..whether it's your previous assailant, who is likely to lie, or his family who preaches about how well he was just "getting his life together" well after the incident.
If you say you are "shooting to kill", then you have just stated your intent is not to defend yourself (it's now secondary) but to kill. That ain't gonna fly anywhere.
If you "shoot to stop the agressive action" then you are saying you're intent is protecting yourself (or others) from the assailant's actions.
Death is a secondary, possible by-product of the encounter. It should not be the focus/goal, making 100% sure the assailant ceases his actions is.

Originally Posted by klrva

In most self defense situations we will be reacting to a threat, so we will already be at a disadvantage. Under extreme stress we will lose some of our fine motor skills and we will experience tunnel vision. Aiming for center mass gives us the best chance of successfully hitting the target and stopping the threat. Hopefully, we will be better prepared and have better shooting skills than the average adversary.

Originally Posted by DirtViking

Read Massad Ayoob's books. I won't convince you, but he might.
It's not my point I'm trying to make. He's made it a hundred times and supported it by facts (meaning cases.)
Jury's do not like rounds that mean to inflict more damage on someone. Seems silly, but it is what it is.
No ballistic data on hand loads is a real problem. Not for you and I defending ourselves, but in court.
It seems to me in my limited time talking to people who carry, little thought is placed on what happens after you use your weapon. That's really what I'm talking about.
You're correct of course on the ballistic data of hollow-points. Makes sense. Just not in court.

Originally Posted by Laughingdawg

I've actually read a lot of his stuff, and he spends a lot of time talking about the things that a jury or prosecutor could claim, but only had that one example of it actually geing used again someone...and in that guys case it's perfectly possible he was lying through his teeth about her having committed suicide with the gun.
Honestly, if a prosecutor tried to hit you for having hollowpoints, and claims you had them because you're out to kill someone, the simple response is that the police in this area have around 50 hollowpoints on them every day and most of them, by some stroke of willpower I suppose, never even shoot anyone in their entire career. But the best protection in that case is to stick with a carry gun that is the same model as what is used by the departments in the area (which limits you to Glocks or H&Ks around here I think), and use ammo similar to what they carry (which would be hollowpoints)
A lot of the more specific warnings Ayoob puts out might be good advice if you live in NYC, New England, or California. But no one in VA is getting dragged through the wringer by prosecutors because they had a laser grip or have something named a Python or Cobra for a defensive weapon.
BTW, even if you do load your own ammo for defensive purposes, it's not like anyone can actually tell from looking at your magazines. Though the real reason to not use handloads is that quality defensive ammo has a much higher level of quality control in the manufacturing process than your average reloader is capable of duplicating.

Originally Posted by screamin injin

Center mass of whatever parts of their body are exposed. I've seen lots of police videos where the bad guy is hit several times before going down, so shoot till they stop their aggressive action.

[DAAANG]

Originally Posted by msgvb

Esp DAAANG's video response, ha

wasn't soliciting specific advice or instruction.

Just trying to lighten the mood. All this gun/killing/political stuff is depressing.

[BlakKrauStudios]

Ended up having a pretty good year at the shop, sales and service wise. Today is our last day, as we're shutting down for the holidays. But we ended up winning the #1 Ducati sales award... AGAIN... and our Amazon store seems to be taking off like crazy.

Just thought I'd share a few of the photos from the year.



















Hope to see you all next year!

[screamin injin]

Originally Posted by moymurfs

you will be sued regardless..whether it's your previous assailant, who is likely to lie, or his family who preaches about how well he was just "getting his life together" well after the incident.

If you say you are "shooting to kill", then you have just stated your intent is not to defend yourself (it's now secondary) but to kill. That ain't gonna fly anywhere.
If you "shoot to stop the agressive action" then you are saying you're intent is protecting yourself (or others) from the assailant's actions.

Death is a secondary, possible by-product of the encounter. It should not be the focus/goal, making 100% sure the assailant ceases his actions is.

+1

I don't think you guys are sadistic or anything, so do really want to KILL another person? Defending yourself is one thing, but shooting someone until you know they are dead is another.
Unless of course they are a zombie...... then cut their F....n head off!