TexasCHLforum.com

Dont know if I care for the way he handled the Firearms on TV but good on him for his actions otherwise.

http://video.nbc5i.com/player/?id=207916

Wildscar wrote:Dont know if I care for the way he handled the Firearms on TV but good on him for his actions otherwise.

http://video.nbc5i.com/player/?id=207916

You mean his finger on the trigger of the revolver? They took the shot while he was decocking it. His finger appeared to be in the right place on the shotgun.

NcongruNt wrote:

Wildscar wrote:Dont know if I care for the way he handled the Firearms on TV but good on him for his actions otherwise.

http://video.nbc5i.com/player/?id=207916

You mean his finger on the trigger of the revolver? They took the shot while he was decocking it. His finger appeared to be in the right place on the shotgun.

But it's muzzle passed over the legs of the camera man.

Wildscar wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:

Wildscar wrote:Dont know if I care for the way he handled the Firearms on TV but good on him for his actions otherwise.

http://video.nbc5i.com/player/?id=207916

You mean his finger on the trigger of the revolver? They took the shot while he was decocking it. His finger appeared to be in the right place on the shotgun.

But it's muzzle passed over the legs of the camera man.

That makes many assumptions about the location of the cameraman's legs. The cameraman could have been holding the camera to the side while looking down on the viewfinder. That would explain the shakiness of the shots.

Bad Guys in Texas should figure it out by now.......

They do not have to fear the Police, who they have counted on not being able to be everywhere at once (take the chance).

Private Citizens in Texas will KILL them without hesitation!

What happened to ...shoot to STOP and NOT shoot to kill

Call it what you want. The bottom line is we are eliminating the scum.

In my opinion, it's not shoot to stop OR shoot to kill. It's shoot to end the threat. Whatever outcome that may be.

Target1911 wrote:What happened to ...shoot to STOP and NOT shoot to kill

There's no difference between the two in terms of when you shoot, why, and at what. When you shoot to stop, you shoot until the bad guy ceases his criminal activity. Whether that's because he's taken a gut or shoulder shot and is doubled over in pain or because he's taken a headshot and is unlikely to take any other action ever again, he has ceased his criminal activity. Deliberately aiming to be non-lethal is not only a legal and practical misnomer (when you pull the trigger, you are using deadly force regardless of whether that force actually resulted in a death), it is self-defeating as a hit that is not quickly incapacitating leaves the BG on his feet and able to continue doing his evil deeds. When you pull that trigger, you are making the decision to kill in order to protect your own life or that of others. Whether you actually do kill or not is dependent on your aim, caliber, how fast EMS gets there, and a bit of random chance, but there is no practical or legal difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill, and really there's no moral difference. If you shoot at the BG's leg to try to stop him non-lethally, you can still sever the femoral. Same with a shoulder shot and the brachial. Are you any less morally justified or condemned because you did or did not cause a fatal injury to the BG? I say no; your moral justification or condemnation comes from the reasons behind your decision to pull the trigger.

The Brady Bunch say differently. They say Castle Doctrine and enhanced justifiations of self-defense encourage what amounts to capital punishment for attempting a crime that, even if committed successfully, would not result in being executed. It also violates due process. However, think of the flip side; Even a simple burglary can turn into felony murder. The victim has committed no crime and yet they were "punished" by death simply for being there and having nice things that someone else wanted. That dead person had exactly the same rights as the BG (in fact, more rights; they had the right to the property the BG killed for when the BG had no right whatsoever), and those rights were taken away. Somebody's gotta lose, and I much prefer it to be the BG.

Well put, Liko. That's what I meant as well, you just said it more eloquently with a better explanation.

If he didn't notice the Bad Guys stealing his stuff the last 2 times, how is a gun going to help?

Liko81 wrote:

Target1911 wrote:What happened to ...shoot to STOP and NOT shoot to kill

There's no difference between the two in terms of when you shoot, why, and at what. When you shoot to stop, you shoot until the bad guy ceases his criminal activity. Whether that's because he's taken a gut or shoulder shot and is doubled over in pain or because he's taken a headshot and is unlikely to take any other action ever again, he has ceased his criminal activity. Deliberately aiming to be non-lethal is not only a legal and practical misnomer (when you pull the trigger, you are using deadly force regardless of whether that force actually resulted in a death), it is self-defeating as a hit that is not quickly incapacitating leaves the BG on his feet and able to continue doing his evil deeds. When you pull that trigger, you are making the decision to kill in order to protect your own life or that of others. Whether you actually do kill or not is dependent on your aim, caliber, how fast EMS gets there, and a bit of random chance, but there is no practical or legal difference between shooting to stop and shooting to kill, and really there's no moral difference. If you shoot at the BG's leg to try to stop him non-lethally, you can still sever the femoral. Same with a shoulder shot and the brachial. Are you any less morally justified or condemned because you did or did not cause a fatal injury to the BG? I say no; your moral justification or condemnation comes from the reasons behind your decision to pull the trigger.

The Brady Bunch say differently. They say Castle Doctrine and enhanced justifiations of self-defense encourage what amounts to capital punishment for attempting a crime that, even if committed successfully, would not result in being executed. It also violates due process. However, think of the flip side; Even a simple burglary can turn into felony murder. The victim has committed no crime and yet they were "punished" by death simply for being there and having nice things that someone else wanted. That dead person had exactly the same rights as the BG (in fact, more rights; they had the right to the property the BG killed for when the BG had no right whatsoever), and those rights were taken away. Somebody's gotta lose, and I much prefer it to be the BG.

Well said!