Are You Too Stupid ... for Concealed Carry?

Amsdorf said:
If you are referring to the "If you draw, you have decided to kill someone."

I can see how that comment has caused concern. What I'm trying to get at with that comment is the "mindset" issue. If you are unwilling/unable to use lethal force, you should not be carrying. Perhaps I should have added that very comment after the "kill someone" remark.

When we talk about "stopping a threat" we are talking about "stopping" a threat, not "scaring" a threat, "wounding" a threat, "slowing down" a threat, but actually stopping, and you can only definitively STOP a threat by putting bullets into vital organs and areas: heart, brain stem, brain, spine, etc.

That means, we shoot to kill, etc.

Apologies, if this is not the point you are referring to.

Does that help?
Click to expand...

I must disagree. If I draw my gun from it's holster, I have decided that lethal force is imminently necessary to prevent or end the use of force which I reasonably believe will cause grave bodily harm or death against me.

The ultimate fate of my adversary is not my goal, is not even my consideration. I must cause them to cease the actions that I believe are deadly to me. Nothing more. They may live, they may not. It is inconsequential.

I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to make them stop.

The fact that the shots that stop them are very likely to kill them is coincidental. That is, the shot placement coincides with shot placement that is likely to kill my attacker.

This is an important legal principle that has been discussed here on The Firing Line many, many times. It is not trivial and it is not semantics. It is critical to acting and speaking in a way that keeps you on the right side of the law.
 
What happens if you can draw fast enough that the BG has no time to surrender or run for the hills before you shoot? So being well trained may not be good? I'll need to practice a fumbled draw cycle to be sure to let the BG know I'm armed and give him time to run away or kill me? Maybe being untrained would be better in this case then? :confused:
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
I must disagree. If I draw my gun from it's holster, I have decided that lethal force is imminently necessary to prevent or end the use of force which I reasonably believe will cause grave bodily harm or death against me.

The ultimate fate of my adversary is not my goal, is not even my consideration. I must cause them to cease the actions that I believe are deadly to me. Nothing more. They may live, they may not. It is inconsequential.

I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to make them stop.
Click to expand...

You could not have put this any better. It's a much better wording than in my post.


Tapatalked via my highly abused iPhone
 
"This is an important legal principle that has been discussed here on The Firing Line many, many times. It is not trivial and it is not semantics. It is critical to acting and speaking in a way that keeps you on the right side of the law."

Point very well taken, thanks.
 
It's a good essay, though I would agree with the stopping-the-threat vs decision-to-kill difference that others have already discussed. It is a huge difference.

I'm not a big fan of slang like gat, heater, etc., if you are trying to present a logical essay. I'd stick to gun, firearm, weapon.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
...I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to make them stop...
Click to expand...
Massad Ayoob recounts a story in his class. A defendant on trial for manslaughter and pleading self defense is being cross-examined by the prosecutor:
The prosecutor looks the defendant on the stand in the eye and asks, "Did you shoot to kill?"

The defendant replies in a firm, but soft, voice, "No, sir. I shot to live."
Click to expand...
The defendant was acquitted.
 
Using the word stupid is,,, well,,, stupid!

As for the word "stupid" ... that was not idea, my editor wanted to make it "snappier" hence the stupid preface and conclusion were actually written by him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have a talk with your editor,,,
This is not a wise way to get people to accept the tenets of your article.

I agree with some of the points and disagree with some of the points,,,
But to imply that someone is "stupid" for not abiding by them,,,
Well my friend, that's insulting and garners no respect.

It may have been your editor writing those words,,,
But it does have your name is on it.

I would reconsider the entire tone of the essay.

Aarond

.
 
I am siding with most Of the criticisms Of the article.

Take out some of the stupid and edit the intent to kill.

We all realize that if we shoot someone in self defense that they may very well die. I don't think that most people strap on a pistol with hopes of using it, much less kill someone.

There is a certain coolness about owning and carrying a gun, so we can't deny that fact exists or should we feel shameful because we like our gun choices and they can be fun.
 
If the gun comes out of its holster, you must already have decided to kill somebody. Period.
Click to expand...

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00421.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition
A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force...
D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:
1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.
Click to expand...

Not all laws are the same. According to people like Criminologist Gary Kleck, Defensive Display has possibly saved more lives than actually shooting.

I agree, your editor needs a slap upside the head - "stupid" should NEVER be addressed to your readership, unless you don't WANT any readership. Thank you for sharing your work.
 
Well, I think "stupid" is an excellent, I would even say inspired, choice of words. It does tend to antagonize people which in my opinion in this context is a good thing, it will provoke more people to read the essay and challenge them to see how they measure up against the writer's standard of "stupid." I think it is a darn good essay, despite my objection to the phrasing of one sentence, and the provocative title is part of what makes it good.

But then I am weird in other ways, too :D
 
I disagree with the premise that you have already decided to kill someone if you draw, also. I've had to draw a couple times and...essentially, it was not my decision, but someone else. It was reflexive action for me with no conscious decision being made.

Luckily, I was fast enough drawing, to then take control of the situation and guide it to where no one was killed or shot. He could have made me shoot him, but again, it would not have been a decision that I made.

The essay is otherwise good and thought provoking. The stupid comments destroy a portion of the validity of the article, and add nothing. The question should be are you emotionally stable enough for concealed carry. One should ponder if they are willing to take another life, if their hand is forced. Before you start carrying. If one is too eager or to hesitant, perhaps they should reconsider.
 
Last edited:
skadoosh is right. Just because you draw your weapon does not mean you have to shoot and/or kill someone. You need to be ready for this if you draw a weapon, and drawing the weapon should be the absolute last resort and/or when you are conceding that you are willing to fire upon someone lethally. Brandishing a weapon to scare or intimidate someone obviously does not fall in this category.
 
" Well, I think "stupid" is an excellent, I would even say inspired, choice of words. It does tend to antagonize people which in my opinion in this context is a good thing, it will provoke more people to read the essay and challenge them to see how they measure up against the writer's standard of "stupid." I think it is a darn good essay, despite my objection to the phrasing of one sentence, and the provocative title is part of what makes it good."

Yes, that's precisely why the editor felt it was a good lede. And, it seems to have worked.
 
Just because people are reading it and discussing it doesn't make it effective.

It is a well and proven concept of debating tactics that using incendiary and/or offensive language tends to cause both your opponent and objective listeners to "turn off" to any potential logic of your argument. In other words, you lose before you have any chance to win.

And what's this about the 3rd person "the author" and "my objection to the phrasing..."? YOU wrote it!
 
Brian, you'll notice the quotes ... I was quoting what another contributor posted.

And...I was agreeing with him.

Happy to clarify.
 
...incendiary....
Click to expand...

^That

Antagonism, incendiary language, inflammatory remarks, etc., work great in newspapers or other entertainment venues, but have no place in an instructional setting.

Not a bad read though.
 
I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to live.

Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:

I must disagree. If I draw my gun from it's holster, I have decided that lethal force is imminently necessary to prevent or end the use of force which I reasonably believe will cause grave bodily harm or death against me.

The ultimate fate of my adversary is not my goal, is not even my consideration. I must cause them to cease the actions that I believe are deadly to me. Nothing more. They may live, they may not. It is inconsequential.

I do not shoot to kill. I shoot to make them stop.
Click to expand...

The defensive shooter's creed right here...
 
Just to clarify people's thinking, let me ask a few questions here.

Should there be an intelligence test to vote? True, it's not a life or death matter but it's terribly important.

Do we not have the right to kill in self-defense? I think avoiding the word "kill" is quibbling and an attempt to avoid facing the serious consequences of "stopping" someone. Otherwise, you should be using something that doesn't have the ability to kill but merely "stop." Don't ask me what that is. Alternatively, you could shoot them in the hand like the Lone Ranger did. Works every time.

Concerning the moral and ethical implications, anyone who owns a firearm for self-denfense purposes has already decided those considerations are unimportant for basically selfish reasons. Likewise, there are numerous references throughout this forum that self-defense considerations overrides any legal considerations concerning carrying a firearm, in the opinion of some.
 
"Do we not have the right to kill in self-defense?"

Nope. It could be a byproduct of protecting yourself and stopping the threat to your life, but no, you don't have a 'right to kill'. If there was a 'right to kill' then when your life was in danger you could keep shooting until well after the threat was neutralized. And you can't. You can't stand over them after they're down and out of the fight and keep pumping slugs into them until they are dead.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top