Not defending the guy, but two shots at center of mass is standard self-defense doctrine.I watched that video waiting for either family's reaction to a man actually being shot. There was no screaming, shock, horror, even from the woman in the car that carried on the conversation while her man is lying there.
The man shoots twice, not once. And never at the legs. Straight at the chest. Still no real reaction. Bloody hell America.
apparently there were all kinds of weird incidents leading up to this. Vandalism, severing a deer head on campus….
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Not trying to be unnecessarily contrary, but this argument is rather weak ethically. Assigning blame to people by proxy can be used to condemn anyone for virtually anything. I believe you are an American (as am I). We both pay taxes that fund weapons development that go to the same industry. On your logic, you are to blame for this too. Your money empowers the industry too.
I would agree with your point in all things but guns. Guns have a singular reason to exist, which is to kill. The majority (60+%) of this country wants gun reform, yet nothing meaningful ever happens. The main reason for this is the buckets of cash that gun lobbyists dump into government. That cash come from the sales of ammo and guns. It comes from gun owners donating to orgs like the NRA. I know my opinion is probably wrong but how many more kids need to die? my two eldest nieces are already doing active shooter drills in school. Should my younger nieces and nephews be consigned to a future of fear as well? How many more? How much longer? At what point did owning tool of violence become a bigger right then a child living?
I appreciate your measured response, and I think this statement is a much more promising foundation for a gun reform argument.
The current wife says that because the gun was silenced and there wasn't much reaction from Chad Read she thought it was a bb gun and hadn't realised he was seriously injured.I watched that video waiting for either family's reaction to a man actually being shot. There was no screaming, shock, horror, even from the woman in the car that carried on the conversation while her man is lying there.
The man shoots twice, not once. And never at the legs. Straight at the chest. Still no real reaction. Bloody hell America.
In war right? Not when the other person is literally unarmed and not charging at you. The man with the gun was in no imminent threat to life.
So, even with a BB gun, he was still going to shoot his employee in the fecking face?!?
Not war. It's the standard teaching in CPL (concealed pistol license) and CCW (concealed carry weapons) courses for civilians who carry a gun for self-defense.
So the real guns in this gun store were loaded, with safeties off?
I watched that video waiting for either family's reaction to a man actually being shot. There was no screaming, shock, horror, even from the woman in the car that carried on the conversation while her man is lying there.
The man shoots twice, not once. And never at the legs. Straight at the chest. Still no real reaction. Bloody hell America.
i thought it was a BB gun too just from the sound.
This is how desensitised America is. "Oh, it's just a BB gun. Let me carry on my conversation".
Returning to another issue you raised in your response: DUI's. DUI laws in Wisconsin are a joke and amongst the most lenient in the country. The vast majority of voters in Wisconsin want those laws changed but for decades they stall out when they get brought up for a vote in the legislature. Why? A huge reason is the lobbying effort of the Wisconsin Tavern League, the trade association made up of bars/pubs/taverns/restaurants. That's right, bars don't want tougher DUI laws because they see financial loss in them being in place. I know that if I go to a bar that is a member of the League that my money will, in some amount, make its way into the pocket of a state politician to "encourage" him/her to not vote for tougher laws. So I do the only thing I can, I check out the membership list of the league before going to any new bar/pub/etc. I have not, and will not, patronize those establishments until they not only STOP lobbying against these laws, but until they actively lobby for them.
The guy dropped to the ground and is silent. Even if it was a BB gun that'd have worried me.This is how desensitised America is. "Oh, it's just a BB gun. Let me carry on my conversation".
That's what I was wondering, too.
I imagine the BB gun was unloaded... if his story is to be believed.
This is correct.
Again I want to thank you for a cordial conversation, which is not a given with such an emotional topic. I also appreciate that you are trying to live consistently with your political/reform causes by avoiding businesses that promote things you oppose. I would just point out though, that your couse of action does not prevent you from using alcohol altogether (if it makes it a little inconvenient). Your solution for gun owners effectively makes it impossible for them to use the item at all, which probably won't sit well with them.Returning to another issue you raised in your response: DUI's. DUI laws in Wisconsin are a joke and amongst the most lenient in the country. The vast majority of voters in Wisconsin want those laws changed but for decades they stall out when they get brought up for a vote in the legislature. Why? A huge reason is the lobbying effort of the Wisconsin Tavern League, the trade association made up of bars/pubs/taverns/restaurants. That's right, bars don't want tougher DUI laws because they see financial loss in them being in place. I know that if I go to a bar that is a member of the League that my money will, in some amount, make its way into the pocket of a state politician to "encourage" him/her to not vote for tougher laws. So I do the only thing I can, I check out the membership list of the league before going to any new bar/pub/etc. I have not, and will not, patronize those establishments until they not only STOP lobbying against these laws, but until they actively lobby for them.
Sandy Hook was the moment that a potential gun industry/culture led movement for change died. If the slaughter of 20 children resulted in not only no change, but a doubling down by the industry/culture, we have no hope in any meaningful reform. It doesn't matter if someone is a responsible gun owner, just like it doesn't matter that I never drink and drive. Ultimately our dollars, spent with these organizations, will be used to further block meaningful change for those things we say are important for us. So yes, there is collective guilt for the continued lack of real and meaningful change for people who continue to feed money into the coffers of those who actively prevent that change. The reason someone makes those purchases (hunting, Red Dawn Cosplay, etc.) does not matter. The money still flows in and to convince oneself that you are playing no role in the continued lack of action is denial.
So what does this mean? For me this means I decline going out with friends if they are going to a Pub that is a league member. It means spending more on an Uber to go somewhere further. It means pissing off friends when I ask to go somewhere else. For gun owners? I guess something similar. Stop purchasing ammo. Stop purchasing new guns. Stop contributing to organizations that lobby against reform. Money, and the loss of it, is the only message that will have impact because the blood of THESE kids apparently means feck all.
Hypothetically, if a 14 year old comes at you with a bat, can you just shoot him in the center mass without any consequence. Surely you can't shoot in the center mass in every instance you feel threatened, are there any limitations?
In a state like Texas (or here in South Carolina) with Castle Doctrine + Stand Your Ground laws, "a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.”
I guess if I got hold of a gun and was feeling threatened by someone without a gun I would go for legs but yia if someone with a gun threatened me will have to go for center mass too.
Aaaaand you'd miss. We've really gone through this like 100 times on the Caf by now. That's a thing for the movies, not real life.
I'd just like to say that in many places, particularly in Europe (that's what I'm familiar with, anyway), self-defence is generally not a valid reason for owning firearms, unless you can prove your life is in genuine danger - in practice, this means that say, a politician getting credible death threats or a witness in a high-profile organised crime case might get approval but Average Joe certainly won't. And I'm very much OK with that.
Norwegian police aim for the legs sometimes. It's not just a thing in the movies.
The mindset is very different here in the US for sure. Owning firearms is thought to be a fundamental right (2nd ammendment), and the right to defend your person and in some cases (not all) your property is also seen as fundamental. The Declaration of Independence states that all people have a right to life, and the corresponding assumption is that people have a right to preserve or defend that right to life with deadly force if necessary. Thus, even the idea of getting government approval to have a firearm for self-defense is seen as an infringement of fundamental rights by a huge portion of our population.
Cool. Highly trained Norwegian police aim for the legs in a small number of specific situations.
Sure, I was just pointing it out because it's become a bit of a counterjerk.
What is? The training to not shoot legs or the statement that most people get their ideas of what a shooting is about is from what they see on a tv screen?
The counterjerk is that every time "why didn't they shoot them in the leg" is asked on the internet, a hundred people will descend on them to explain that that's only something that happens in movies, that no one would do it in reality, maybe that no one could do it in reality. It's intimately connected with the idea that every time police shoot, they shoot to kill, because anything else is basically impossible (so center mass, keep shooting until they're down).
It's possible but it's high risk and in a pressure situation it's going to be more prone to errors. With the right weapon and optic combination that's perfectly set up it's definitely doable but when your life is on the line you will take a percentage shot and that's aiming at centre mass. For officers whose primary weapon is a handgun that they might take 50 shots a year with to remain certified a leg shot just isn't viable.
Absolutely agree with this.
The small amount of Norwegian police that are allowed to carry guns shot less than 30 people between 2005 and 2018. Less than half of those were shots to the legs.
Exactly this.
