Subject:
|
Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 03:05:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
540 times
|
| |
|
|
Mostly agree with this post, with one nuance...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
>
> > First, I really (really!) meant consumer firearms. Military contract is a bit
> > different.
> >
> > Now, the purpose (if you mean _my_ purpose) when I travel with a concealed
> > firearm is not to kill people. It is to defend myself. I have defended • myself
> > (my property actually) with a firearm, but I have never shot anyone.
> >
> > Chris
>
> If you aim a gun at me, (as my basic training would say), you'd better have a
> dammed good reason for wanting to kill me-or have you never had formal
> firearms training?
> If you aim at someone, then the ONLY possible reason is that you intend to try
> and kill them.
>
> Nothing else, but to try and kill them.
Well, some would argue that it *is* possible to "aim to wound", but I think
you need to be a far better shot to pull that off. (unless you use rubber
bullets, which often don't work anyway) However:
1) you're still intending to project force
2) you may end up killing anyway
3) I think it muddies your thinking to try to do this. I never do. I aim for
the chest. Bigger target.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) myself (...) If you aim a gun at me, (as my basic training would say), you'd better have a dammed good reason for wanting to kill me-or have you never had formal firearms training? If you aim at someone, then the ONLY possible reason is that (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
