(NSFL) Man shot and killed by father-son duo in Abilene Texas - General

https://www.shadowspear.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Gunshot-leg-3.png https://images.tmz.com/2018/03/02/kyle-laman-gunshot-wound-graphic-photos-1.jpg https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/494506d1383596439-brutal-gunshot-wound-hand-hand-20was-20shot-20in-20melbourne.jpg NSFW https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/71/bd/3a71bd56fff5472d26737c84a041bbb3.jpg If a gunshot hits any of the large veins you can die very quickly. Your main blood-vessels and head are the most fatal points, and the center mass is larger which means its less likely to be hit directly, its also soft which means the bullet breaking a bone is less likely to slice them open.

The level of retarded you are physically pains me and i'd feel much safer at even a gun range let alone in a stressful situation with pretty much anyone else in this thread but you. I genuinely cannot wrap my mind around how someone can have something so intricately and simply spelled out for them so many times without gleaning even a fraction of the point of it. If that's for real all you're getting out of this almost 20-page discussion, please god remove yourself from it and go outside for a little while then put yourself back through school. If someone is running at me with a knife or commiting an armed robbery, that's not just "scaring me" you mongoloid, that's the intent to hurt me and potentially numerous other people. They're nothing to me, if they make it out of the situation they won't be able to give anything back, let alone to anyone that might love and depend on them. How can you simultaneously completely downplay life threatening situations and entirely fail to grasp basic concepts.

Good example of self defense done right.

Wow this thread turned into an absolute dumpster fire quickly. The people saying “shoot him nonleathally in the leg/arm!” need to stop getting their gun knowledge from video games and Hollywood movies though.

Firing """"""warning shots"""""""" is not and never will be a responsible use of a firearm in self defense.

Remorse comes after you've dealt with the intense and sudden life-or-death situation that requires quick thinking and faster decisions.

No. If you get three or four shots off and the guy is on the ground and no longer posing a threat to you there's no reason to keep shooting. You're not supposed to execute the person. May dumping comes as a result of the high adrenaline situation where you shoot till the person is down. If the person is still alive but incapacitated after you shoot them you do not go and kill them.

The warning shots meme is the pro-gun version of the non-lethal limb shot. Don't fucking pull the trigger if you don't have the intention to kill.

It's more like "try to avoid killing your target when you can" but okay, yeah.

It's not "shoot until they're dead" it's "shoot until they are no longer a threat" A single gunshot isn't always enough to make someone stop being a threat. Especially someone who's hopped up on adrenaline or external chemicals like PCP. If you take only 1 shot and they don't go down, you're still at risk--take another shot. Once they stop being a threat, you can come down from the live-or-die adrenaline and try to get them medical treatment, but if you try thinking about that while your life is still actively at risk, you are going to get killed by someone who clearly doesn't care about taking you down non-lethally. If you're not morally-comfortable with the knowledge that your tool can kill, that's fine. That's one of the core tenants of gun safety: Don't point a gun at anything you're not willing to destroy. You would opt for something that is deliberately designed to not be lethal, but you'll still need to make accommodations for the fact that humans can still die from things that are otherwise not lethal.

Okay...saying that criminals can't change. Yeah, alright.

Yes.

Why not both?

That's really all you picked out of that? Seriously? People with long histories aren't gonna wake up one day and just think "man i'm a piece of shit i should stop that." This isn't the movies, situations like that aren't intensely common and when they do happen, relapse is entirely possible and having a large support base is pretty much necessary for most people. It isn't a matter of just pullin' up your bootstraps and turning everything around, if someone is coming at me with a knife or armed robbing me, they've pretty much made their choice. Don't get me wrong, people can change and humans have a miraculous capacity to make the most out of any situation, but if someone wanted to change, they wouldn't go at someone else with a knife or commit an armed robbery. It doesn't take much common sense to piece that together.

I'm not saying you shouldn't shoot em or anything like that, if they made the choice to attack you with a knife or rob you with a knife then yeah they made the choice to have a chance of dying. I'm just saying that you should not want to kill them, you should, in fact, want to not kill them. If you disagree with that, then...we won't see eye to eye D:

Because when you're defending your life all that is irrelevant. If you hesitate you increase your own chances of dying.

First of all you've not seen eye to eye with basically anyone in this thread, so good job there, secondly numerous people here have made it clear to you that few people, least of all any of us, WANT to kill someone and if we wanted to not kill someone, we wouldn't use a fuckin' gun, because non-lethal gunshots pretty much don't exist.

Okay, I don't understand this concept. There are varying degrees of lethality when you use a gun. If I shoot him in the head 10 times, he's FUCKING DEAD EVERY TIME. If I shoot him in the stomach twice he doesn't die every time, he will eventually die, but not instantly, not every time. I'm just saying, on that spectrum, you should want to reduce it. And in that should be some consideration for the humanity of your assailant for you to decide where you want to be on that spectrum.

No one ever wants to kill someone. That sort of shit can and does haunt people long after the fact. What's important is that--in the moment--they had to fight with lethal force to match lethal force being exerted upon them. Live or die. They took actions that allowed them to live but the asailant was no lucky enough to survive the inflicted wounds. Someone living after a fight that involved lethal tools is a bonus, not an expectation. The grim reality is that you don't get to make non-lethal takedowns by intent--it's literally impossible to extend your intention to your bullets or shells--you just are concerned about your own survival. You hope they survive, but once you point a gun at someone (regardless of who they are), you've already come to terms with the fact that they will probably die from it.

"shoot to kill" basically means that when you discharge a gun towards someone you're accepting the fact that your actions could and likely will kill them. It means that you should always discharge your gun with the assumption that the person will die from it. It doesn't mean you shoot them till they're Swiss cheese. To shoot someone with the assumption that you're doing it non-lethally is reckless and not being responsible with the power you hold in your hands. Shooting should be the ultimate decision. That's what you have to weigh when you pull the trigger. You can't assume they'll live. Also when you shoot someone you should ask yourself the question, would I rather be dead or in debt? Because even in a lawful shooting you'll be sued forever and your life will change. So you better be aware that it's either that or you're dead before you decide to make that ultimate decision. Imo lethal force should always be leveraged as "if I didn't kill him he would've killed me. And I'd rather be in debt and alive." That's what they tell you when you take a LTC class.

Are you fucking even sure that no one wants to kill someone when they use their gun to defend themself? Are you really sure?

If i wanted to reduce it, I WOULDN'T USE A GUN. If a gunshot managed to be "non-lethal" it WILL ruin their life and they WILL sue you out of everything you know and love, shooting him in the stomach and hoping he doesn't die then applying a tourniquet like some kind of video game does not fucking work. Consider the humanity of my assailant? Where their consideration for me? If they've made their decision to kill me, why should i consider fuck-all about them?

Either you’re trolling at this point, or completely brain dead. Either way I think it’s time for the rest of us to move on. I don’t think castle doctrine should apply to this situation since it seems like they didn’t have a right to be there and if what someone else said was true, it sounds like the Millers were committing a crime by removing the guy’s mattress from the dumpster. But even if castle doctrine did apply here, they weren’t just standing their ground, they were borderline taunting the aggressor and seemed to intentionally escalate the situation into this result from what we can see IMO. Granted there’s a lot of disputable information and things I don’t know which could have taken place before the shooting, but from what I can tell so far it seems like the Millers pretty much abused the “stand your ground” protections as an excuse to act like hot shit when confronted for doing legally questionable activities. They should absolutely be held responsible for this person’s death and lose their guns.

Are you fucking' kidding me with this? "If you're defending yourself clearly you WANT to kill someone" shut the fuck up dude that's the most ridiculous thing i've heard in years.

I sorry, we have opposite morals.

Of course not literally everyone wants to have moral fiber, there are plenty of fucked up individuals who have reckless disregard for life and those who have twisted revenge fantasies who are wholly unjustified in trying to stir shit. How about you actually acknowledge the meat of mine and others' posts instead of trying to deflect with a stupid "gotcha" response.

advancedlamb has argued in the past that there's no reason to own a gun if you don't want to kill people so just be aware that that's what you're up against

Apparently the main use of a gun (self defense) is an inherently 100% lethal (and should not be avoided in any way in terms of lethality) so how exactly is that inaccurate?

We don't have opposite morals, neither of us want to inflict harm on someone period. The difference is, you live in a fantasy universe full of sunshine and rainbows where firearms shoot marshmallows and hospitals and bandages are magical cure-alls. I live in reality, where shooting anyone anywhere is life threatening but if someone's made the decision to try and end my life, i WILL defend myself to save my own.

You're purposely not paying attention now.