Re: Re: Killing

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:04:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to all the above problems? Could it be that you're in any way influenced by the circumstance that a majority of all American films have the death of the villain at the end of a thriller as the optimal solution (and emotional tension-relief) and almost never any alternative ending? Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other possible solutions to the problem?

Inger,

Shooting for the legs sounds nice, but it is very hard to do in practice. Unlike in the movies, just because a person is shot in the legs, they are not necessarily out of the fight. They might be immobile, but still able to shoot. Many police officers are actually killed or wounded each year by suspects that had been shot but still able to fight.

Another problem with shooting for the legs is stray rounds. Aiming for the legs would likely mean aiming down, which in the first scenario, would put your own stray rounds toward the ground where people would be taking cover from the shooter, thus putting them at risk.

Statistics also show that gunshot by pistol have a roughly 85% change of survival. So, even if you shot the target, odds are that they would survive.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:21:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

What about non-lethal weapons then? Surely there must be other ways of incapacitating an armed mugger?

Inger

I carry one. I carry a stun gun with me whenever I leave the house. Its a contact weapons that zaps the target with electricity and incapacitates them. I've had to use it one time and it works. The other choice I had was a knife, but I figured shocking the guy would drop him for certain while stabbing him might just make him even more angry and leave me open to legal trouble, especially if he died. Still, the stun gun worked and I got away with just a little thump on the side of the face.

[Guest guest]

> Inger to : "But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to all the above problems? .... Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other possible solutions to the problem?"Thank you Inger for expressing my concern so much more clearly.    Rainbow

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:45:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

> Inger to : "But why is it that you see killing specifically as a solution to all the above problems? .... Surely, as creative as we humans are, there must be other possible solutions to the problem?"

Thank you Inger for expressing my concern so much more clearly.

Because sometimes it is the only option, unpleasant as it may be.

Just to look at the mass shooting incident I mentioned. Trained police officers hit only about 1 in 8 shots in combat conditions, and that's aiming for center of mass. If one were shooting at a moving, firing target and trying to hit the legs with innocent bystanders lying on the floor, one would be far more likely to hit one of them than the shooter. I have also stated that pistol shots aren't always fatal, in fact they rarely are unless one scores a head shot, which would be unlikely. Given both of these and the fact that one could be held liable for any stray rounds that injure or kill an innocent, then it is best to make your shots count on the target.

If that causes moral objections, then don't carry a firearm.

I can't say that I would enjoy shooting someone, I wouldn't. However, if it was a choice between myself, my family, a friend or someone under my protection, then I am on my honor to defend them the best I can. If that means killing an attacker to save them, then so be it.

However, if the attacker were to surrender, they would be taken prisoner or allowed to escape. But, if they continued with intent to kill, rape or otherwise cause harm, then it is as I said: I would try to stop them however I could, even if that included killing.

[Guest guest]

Tom is spot on about shooting. The old west cowboys and others we often hear about making fantastic shots are people who have put in a tremendous amount of trigger time. Every now and then you might see video of a police sniper shooting a gun out of someone's had, but the sniper has the advantage of a precision rifle, dialed in to fit him exactly and is not under the pressure of having someone shooting at him at the same time.

What is it like getting shot at? This has happened once in my life. When I was a teenager, I caught a poacher on a cousin's land, about 30 yards away when I saw him, and just asked if he had permission to be on the land. His answer was to try to blow my head off, and he came within inches of doing just that. When you see that gun come up, you don't believe it at first and, being untrained as I was, you tend to freeze for an instant, stunned. I can still see that muzzle flash and hear the bullet go over my right shoulder and feel the wind from the bullet and hear it zip (that's not exactly right, it was kind of a zip but had a fluttering quality to it) all before the crack of the shot reached me. When you hear that noise, it is like all you innards from the inside top of your skull down turns to mush and sloshes down into your feet.

After that shot, I jumped into a creek bed, which was maybe 3 feet deep with a little stream in the bottom, popped up and fired one shot back, then high-tailed it out of there, crouched low in the stream bank.

Now, I have talked to police that have been pulled on, and the ones I have spoken to have said they felt the same way. These are trained officers mind you. So, Joe Average in a combat situation is going to be under that same stress, probably feeling like I described and still trying to shoot back. Unless one has fired hundreds of thousands of rounds, like a Navy Seal or something, it is going to be hard to hit much of anything more than a couple of feet away with a pistol. My friend in the Special Forces told me that many of the men preferred to carry cut down shotguns rather than pistols for close fighting for that reason.

Anyway, my point is that when someone is trying to hurt or kill you, especially if they have a weapon and are close, you don't feel very good, like I described. Fear can paralyze you or make you panic, either of which can get you dead in a hurry. Fighting back isn't easy either, and you can just forget about all that Jackie Chan and Wayne stuff, it ain't gonna happen.

[Guest guest]

Strict:

> I'm guessing you've never shot a gun

My dad let me try an air-rifle when I was a kid. Apart from that, your guess

is correct.

> (I don't recall if you've ever mentioned going hunting for food) based on

> your replies.

I've gone fishing with my dad but now I usually pick it up at the local

supermaket. :-)

> If the opponent has a gun, if you're lucky, you'll be able to take them

> down (whether that means they're shot dead or merely wounded is not

> stated) and convince them to stop their progress. Let me repeat that

> point: " If you're lucky " is a very important thing to remember. Contrary

> to´what you may see on the old westerns, a handgun is *not* easy to shoot

> precisely at a human body more than about 10 feet away for most

people: for one thing, they simply don't have nearly that kind of accuracy

in real-life conditions. Even if you manage to hit them, there's a lot of

places you can hit that will be fatal shots with even one shot, given a

sufficiently powerful weapon.

OK.

> A rifle or a shotgun is easier to hit the target and be sure you got

them, assuming you have the room to move around to use it, and you

have it ready.

Which in itself would be a hazard if you have other family members who may

get their hands on it.

> Still more effective is something like an uzi, if only

because it sprays a bunch of bullets all over, almost ensuring you'll

at least hit the target once, along with everything else nearby.

Including something that might ricochet it back into oneself too, I assume?

I wouldn't want to come near an uzi anyway.

> Once again, though, things are far from exact, at least for the typical

person who isn't a natural marksmen. Aiming for an arm or a leg has a

rather low chance of hitting the person at all: that's a suicidal shot

to go for if you fear for your life.

OK.

> Even if you did manage to hit them without killing them, for some

bizarre reason, most people that are intent on causing you such harm

where defending yourself with a gun is considered logical probably

aren't amenable to your pleading, and they're likely at least as good

of a shot as you are, if they already have a gun, and if you don't

manage to hit them sufficiently hard to keep them from getting to you

(if your adrenalin is going and you're scared, if you thought it was

hard to aim before, try doing it under those conditions), they'll most

likely attempt and perhaps succeed at taking the weapon away from you

and using it on you, or those you care about.

OK. But I still don't think I could kill an intruder.

> So, in an ideal world, you wouldn't need to be concerned with killing

someone in these conditions because you'd have such perfect

conditions, but then again, in a truly ideal world, you'd never have

these conditions ever happen anywhere, making this a purely academic

exercise left for ethics classes as a bonus question.

Atcually, I live in Sweden. Here, private ownership of weapons is still

practically unheard of. I have never had to worry about being shot or even

assaulted. Sure, this last decade or so a lot of weapons have come in from

Russia, and we've had the odd shooting and violent crime, but it's still so

rare as to be negligable.

> Oh, as to the enemy invasion of the US? There have been little-known

episodes of the Japanese in WWII on the west coast attacking the

mainland, that didn't get much play in the history books. My Dad was

living there at the time, and remembered what happened; too bad I

can't talk to him and have him type something up: if I could, there'd

clearly be.... a ghost in the machine...

That's still a very small episode, compared to all the offensive wars the US

has fought all over the world.

Inger

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 2:10:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Strict actually posted that.Tom is spot on about shooting.

My mistake. Strict is the only other person that comes up in my email as "no_reply". Since he has just started posting again, I'm used to seeing that coming from Tom.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 6:52:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

I was just asking a simple question. If human inventiveness is not able to come up with a non-harmful alternative that really works, then I don't think much of it. Surely there must be something that temporarily blinds the intruder? Or some gooey stuff that makes it impossible for them to move?Inger

The US military is working on things like that but they don't work very well. They have this kind of sticky goop developed to subdue people, but the problem is that the sprayer only has a range of a few feet. It works fine if your target is standing still and cooperating, but from the demonstrations I have seen, if the target were charging, they would be on you before they were stuck.

There is a laser weapon that uses a lasers pulse to disorient a target without permanently blinding them. However, the field is small, like a flashlight, and I would guess a target could dodge or close their eyes and still reach their target or could fire blindly if they had a gun.

A microwave weapon exists that causes intense pain in the skin but no permanent damage, but it is large and has to be mounted on a vehicle. It works, but the problem is lawyers for rights groups who have threatened to sue if it is used. I suppose they would rather see a dangerous crowd machine gunned than driven off.

Civilians have tear gas, pepper spray and stun guns. Tear gas and pepper spray can work but are dangerous to the user. I've tried pepper spray (I used to have a key chain sized sprayer) but the one time I used it, in a test, the stuff blew all around and affected me as much as it would have the target (a trashcan). I was still able to function, but it was unpleasant and not easy. As I've said, I have used a stun gun with success, though I would prefer something with more reach. Going virtually hand to hand with someone about a foot taller and maybe 40 pounds heavier is not a good situation.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 7:46:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

I live in a country where you are not allowed to shoot an intruder - what then?

,

You've said you live in England right? If not, that certainly sounds like it. The laws in England have been changing radically in the last few decades. It used to be that one could kill or fight off intruders in the home, but not anymore. Bobbies didn't carry guns because in the 1800's and up to the 1920's they could usually borrow one off of a citizen in the street if they needed one.

What changed was something that happened during WWI. That was first the Communist Revolution in Russia; second, the uprising in Ireland; and third, the Communist rumblings in the laboring classes in England. The government feared that all the firearms out in the populace could be turned against them if the communists staged an uprising as they had in Russia. So, they began rounding up weapons and imposing penalties on them. Because of this, England had to ask the US for weapons to help defend itself from a potential Nazi invasion 20 years later and Englishmen were being trained to use spears against gun wielding Nazis.

It has gone much farther today. Now, going by the laws, it seems to criminal class is enshrined as sacred. I've read a lot about this and it seems that the, I can't think of the office but the one in charge of domestic policing and courts, wants citizens to leave their doors open for the criminals to waltz in and take whatever they want. It appalls me to read of how citizens who resist are taken up on charges and held while the criminal is back out on the streets. The pendulum has swung much too far over there and hopefully it will come back to more of a balance.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:04:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

But perhaps you already knew that and just wanted to know about the chance of a gun backfiring anyway? :-)Inger

That would be very rare especially with a gun in working order. The term also originated with black powder weapons which were much less reliable than today's guns. Most likely what will happen is a cartridge that fails to fire. In that case, you keep the gun pointed in a safe direction for 15 to 30 seconds. If the round does not go off in that time, carefully eject it and dispose of it somewhere it won't hurt anyone if it explodes. Also, check the round and weapon to make sure the primer didn't fire and send the bullet into the barrel. If it did and you fire another shot without clearing it, it very likely will backfire or explode on you.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 11:57:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

If humans were electronic in nature, it'd be much easier, but humanphysiology is sufficiently complex and varied from person to personthat I find it highly doubtful that we will ever come up withsomething that's both guaranteed to always be non-fatal (things gowrong every so often in the best of circumstances) and is guaranteedto stop them (someone's physiology can surprise you, especially whenthey're high, or have an unusual tolerance for pain). Even blindingsomeone temporarily/permanently (there's no way to know for certainwhich -- if either -- will succeed, and will it possibly do the sameto the one using it?) may not stop them, but merely -- send them intoa blind rage....

This is true. I've exposed to tear gas (a "prank" by some neighbor kids when I was a teen) and it hurt and was nasty, but really made me angry. I was still able to function enough to get hold of one of them though. The pepper spray had much the same effect. Both of those materials do come with a warning that a percentage of people won't be affected like you expect and could still be dangerous. Stun guns also come with a warning like that. There is a percentage of people that won't be too badly affected by it and will still be able to function.

Shooting someone with a gun might not kill them, but it does have the expectation of being killed. This is why people freak when they see a gun, especially if it is pointed at them. So firing shots at someone will probably send them running, unless they were very intent on getting to you or are well trained. Most people though will run just from the sight of a gun that might be used in anger, including criminals. I know three people that have permits to carry concealed weapons, two of them have had to pull their weapons at least once. In every case, the criminal ran away without a shot being fired. This is also commonly reported around the country. This expectation is something of a fallacy though since most people can't hit anything of 10 feet away with a pistol under good condition, let alone a gunfight and the odds of dying from a pistol hit are low. In South Africa, they often treat pistol shot (at least from 9mm) by putting a bandage over the entry and exit wounds and leaving it at that and the patients survive.

[Guest guest]

Re:

> Surely there must be something that temporarily blinds the

> intruder? Or some gooey stuff that makes it impossible for them to move?

Actually, some of today's police forces and armies have begun trials

of exactly that - both the things that Inger mentions. I saw this

about a week and a half ago on a cable-TV science show about new

inventions for war and crime-fighting. (The " gooey stuff " shot out of

fire-hoses and looked like pink foamy bubble-gum.)

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 12:26:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

I know I have within me the capability to kill and might well do so if put under extreme circumstances - to me there is no point in denying it.

The police say that anyone is capable of anything under the right conditions. Psychological research as also shown this to be true, that the majority of people will go along with experiments that cause pain or could even kill other people. Other tests have shown that anyone can be driven to kill under the right circumstances.

I've been pushed close to killing people before. A common instance was when my former best friend in the neighborhood would gang up on me with some of his friends and taunt and harass me until I could get back in my house, or when they were outside torturing my dogs to try to get me to come out so they could do the same to me. It came close a couple of times, but there was always this kind of, its hard to describe, but you might call is a circuit breaker that interrupted the killing attack. Just for an instant, but enough to cause me to back off.

Now, there have been life threatening times, like the poacher, the mugger and a burglar I caught in the house, where that impulse did not interfere or was more of a suggestion. The poacher it did not interfere with, but then I had nearly been killed myself and fear was a great motivator. The mugger I didn't kill because I had the option of the stun gun, though without it I probably would have at least hurt him very badly because there was no other option. The burglar ran because I let out this "war cry" that nearly gave my mother a heart attack (she was just outside the front door and about to enter the house behind me) and I charged the man while drawing my knife. He ran and jumped out the back window he had come in through before I could reach him. Would I have killed him? Maybe since he was in my house and had my mother been there alone or gone in the door first, she might have been hurt or killed by him.

The rest of the time though, I avoid problems. Mouthy people make me angry, but I don't have the urge to do more than op them in the mouth, which I don't do of course. Bullies don't bother me much anymore, and muggers and ne'er-do-wells have scoped me out but left me alone.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/8/2006 12:31:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

But if you make something that, say, 99% of the time just incapacitates an armed intruder instead of almost guaranteed either killing or seriously maiming them, and they still happen to die on rare occasions, I'd still say that still gave them a lot better odds.Inger

There is research into this, but right not nothing has come up. One thing that is being research is less than lethal bullets made of rubber, like the ones fired from shotguns. I know they exist for pistols, but I have read nothing about their effectiveness. Another thing I read about it a lightweight bullet with a peizio (sp.) electric crystal in it. The idea is that the light bullet would not penetrate to a lethal depth and that the electric shock would incapacitate them like a taser.

However, I don't know that either of these would gain wide acceptance. Human Rights groups have been suing police agencies for using tasers and tear gas to subdue suspects, claiming they violent Human Rights. I suppose those groups favor just plain shooting the suspects and inflicting the damage and long recovery of a gunshot over the temporary pain of an electric shock.