Single stack vs single stack?

[Ron Burgundy]

At which point the prosecution will hit you hard on the fact that you were shooting to kill, not to stop the threat.

Zombies are already dead, moot point.

FTW!!!!!!

[Tronster]

In SD the only shots that count are hits.

The only hits that count are accurate hits.

If im more accurate and faster with a 9 than a 45 in a given pistol size then im going with the 9 regardless of any perceived notions about its effectiveness.

If one listens to the above linked interview, the gunfight was stopped when the police officer, aiming for the pelvis- hit the badguy in the knee.
Not accurate, but ultimately effective.

exactly my point, he was accurate in knee cappin em!

[MasonK]

Are you certain about the toxicology?
Not saying your wrong, I've been listening, somewhat inattentively, and apparently missed that. I assumed he was on heroine, pcp or some such thing.

11:40 in the interview- .05 BAC, no drugs.

[XDM45]

At which point the prosecution will hit you hard on the fact that you were shooting to kill, not to stop the threat.

I've heard this stated many times, but I don't think it's true. If a person is legally authorized to defend themself with lethal force, why would shooting to destroy the brain be any different than shooting to destroy the heart or other internal organs? If lethal force is authorized, then lethal force is authorized. Does anyone know of any court cases anywhere in the country where this argument was actually made?

The reason the head is considered a secondary target is that it is smaller, and potentially a more moving target than center mass. If you miss center mass, you're likely to hit a shoulder, belly etc. where if you miss the head you hit poor little Sally on her tricycle.

Many law enforcement agencies train on the Mozambique Drill, or failure to stop drill. This is to place 2 shots to upper center mass, assess, and then place 1 head shot if the threat remains. This would be very difficult to do under stress, and requires training, but I don't believe that it would expose a person to additional legal risks considering the technique has/is taught to law enforcement as a way of stopping a threat.

I'm not a lawyer though, so blah blah blah....

I have to agree. Lethal is lethal. (ala "concealed is concealed" as so many here like to say). If tapping them in the chest fails to stop the threat, a headshot will. You more more likely to hit the head (since you can see it directly) than you are the spine. IANAL either. I think shooting to stop the threat is fine, if it's legal, but even in that, there is a line you don't cross, like you walk by the downed person and give them a double tap of love to the head to make sure. Lethal? Yes, but that would cross some legal lines I think.

[xd ED]

Are you certain about the toxicology?
Not saying your wrong, I've been listening, somewhat inattentively, and apparently missed that. I assumed he was on heroine, pcp or some such thing.

11:40 in the interview- .05 BAC, no drugs.

effin' animal...
I'll listen again to see what else I missed.

[jshuberg]

I think shooting to stop the threat is fine, if it's legal, but even in that, there is a line you don't cross, like you walk by the downed person and give them a double tap of love to the head to make sure. Lethal? Yes, but that would cross some legal lines I think.

Once an attacker ceases to be a threat, and you shoot them, it is no longer self defense, it's murder. Being a threat meaning that they still poses the means, intent, and opportunity to cause great bodily injury or death.

[XDM45]

I think shooting to stop the threat is fine, if it's legal, but even in that, there is a line you don't cross, like you walk by the downed person and give them a double tap of love to the head to make sure. Lethal? Yes, but that would cross some legal lines I think.

Once an attacker ceases to be a threat, and you shoot them, it is no longer self defense, it's murder. Being a threat meaning that they still poses the means, intent, and opportunity to cause great bodily injury or death.

We agree. That's basically what I was saying.

[Pat Cannon]

Are you certain about the toxicology?
Not saying your wrong, I've been listening, somewhat inattentively, and apparently missed that. I assumed he was on heroine, pcp or some such thing.

11:40 in the interview- .05 BAC, no drugs.

But they limit us to .04! Is that fair?

[MasonK]

But they limit us to .04! Is that fair?

Like they say- make the law .04, and only criminals will be .05 and higher!

[FJ540]

But they limit us to .04! Is that fair?

We can't have the undead switch either.

[20mm]

Yep, the military likes 9mm because it's cheaper and easier to train, and mainly because they don't think handguns are important.

Using that logic they should have adopt .22mag, .22lr, 7.62x25 or 5.57x28.

You guys crack me up.

The military doesn't field handguns as offensive weapons. They are what they are: something to help you fight to a rifle.

What military document states that handguns shouldn't or can't be fielded offensive weapons? Do they also train troops to ignore people with pistols since they're only defensive shouldn't be used offensively?

Here is a picture of a 9mm being called in on Taliban positions in Afghanistan. It's obviously far superior to .45 because of it's range and knockdown power.

[goalie]

What military document states that handguns shouldn't or can't be fielded offensive weapons?

In the Marines, we damn sure didn't carry a pistol when we were likely to be in combat as infantry troops.

Anyone that knows they are going into combat as an infantryman and takes either a .45 or a 9mm handgun over a rifle is not carrying their issue weapon, or it is their secondary weapon, or they have bars on the collars.

But, hey, maybe you can point to the standard infantry troops that DO carry handguns as their primary offensive weapon?

[MNGunGuy]

What military document states that handguns shouldn't or can't be fielded offensive weapons?

When I was in the pistol was basically called the replacement for the bayonet. I asked the DI if there was a lug to attach it to the front of my rifle once. He didn't see the humor.

[grousemaster]

What military document states that handguns shouldn't or can't be fielded offensive weapons?

In the Marines, we damn sure didn't carry a pistol when we were likely to be in combat as infantry troops.

Anyone that knows they are going into combat as an infantryman and takes either a .45 or a 9mm handgun over a rifle is not carrying their issue weapon, or it is their secondary weapon, or they have bars on the collars.

But, hey, maybe you can point to the standard infantry troops that DO carry handguns as their primary offensive weapon?

I don't think anyone ever thought they were primary offensive weapons. But, if you look into war history, they have been used plenty...and being as effective as reasonably possible should be the primary concern.

[Mellonhead]

The only handgun I ever sold from my personal stash were 9MM's. One day we went out shooting at water bottles and they seemed to be performing the same as the Buckmark, recoil wasn't much different either . Just paid more for ammo. That was the day I became a .45 fan. Like the old saying goes " shooting twice is just silly"