Concealed Carry Permit Holder Saves The Day

[Diuretic]

OC

Re the bank.

It's a difficult situation because just about anything can happen. Remember there are people outside the teller's area in the bank who could also become victims. I can't read the crook's mind but I have to assume that he is interested in getting the money and getting away. I could be wrong. He could be the type that will get the money and shoot the teller anyway and maybe kill a customer or two just for fun. I don't know that though. I think it's more likely that he will just grab the money and get out of there. So I will have to allow him to get the money and I hope the teller realises it's just money, the bank has plenty and to give it to him and let him go.

If he shoots the teller then I will shoot him.

I asked:

Situation A - I enter a shop at night through the broken glass front door. I have my revolver drawn and I see movement in the darkness ahead of me. There's a man with a rifle pointed at me. I've got my revolver pointed at him. We're both threatening each other's life. Do I kill him?


Your response:



Under which country's gun laws are you posing the hypothetical airy persiflage?
From a glance at the "Business Reason"PDF You linked to, it looks like the rifle holder could be the shop owner, but maybe it's the bad guy.

So listen good please ... if you're not a cop, don't go through the door, and if you are one.

Do not enter a shop with a smashed glass door. Keep your motor block between you and said door, keep revolver pointed at door.

Call for back up and a K9, When they get there, ID yourself and presence, call for anyone in the building to come out or you'll send in the dog, give them another warning, if no answer send in the dog if dogs handler allows.

I'm glad you asked, and I hope I've kept you safe in that situation now.

My response:

Yep you're quite right.

But back to the hypothetical bank.

Now we're getting closer to the subject. Here you are forced into this situation by this criminal. Can you get your gun out without being seen? If you engage him are you at an angle where others in bank can be hit by "Your" gun fire? If you divert attention to yourself can you shoot him before he can shoot you? If you pull your gun will the bank guard shoot you? Is the teller a really fine looking babe or is it just some nerdie looking guy?

Are you really there or are you just hypothesizing you're there with the situation coming out as you the hero, because you know it all?

See above (the first response). I have tried to give a rational response. There are no hero roles.

 

[LOki]

Loki

No you didn't (make an argument ) - and here ordinarily I would insert a YouTube clip of the famous Monty Python argument sketch – but to save bandwidth I'll only make a reference.

I did--I will reprise for you:

Possesion of a license is no assurance that the holder of that license is behaving in a safe or competent manner with a firearm; but much more importantly, being safe and competent with a firearm is in no way contingent upon holding a license. The registration of a firearm is no assurance that the holder of that license is behaving in a safe or competent manner with a firearm; but much more importantly, being safe and competent with a firearm is in no way contingent upon holding registration for a firearm. Licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is unnecessary to establish a reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use.

Basic firearms safety and competent use training, is separate from the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms. They mean DIFFERENT things.

You haven't actually produced any evidence.

The evidence is I bring is understood, because words have meanings that are understood; and you've brought zero evidence to counter the evidence.

I'm quite happy to produce some evidence but I need to know what I'm trying to argue against.

I have already made it clear--see above for the reprise.

You see Diuretic, if you'd like to just ignore the points I made again by acccusing me of simple contradiction, you can telll me again how things work so "differently" in your special country, but (please, correct me if I'm wrong here) even in your special country, the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is no assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use; nor is the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms necessary to establish reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use--basic firearms safety and competent use training are separate from the issues of licensing of individuals and registration of firearms, just like everywhere else.

I'd like to get going but it's a bit difficult to contest “because I said so.”

This is not my position at all, and you've known it from the start.

I mean you've written:

Ignoring the self-evident fact that basic firearms safety and competent use training is separate from the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms....

Assuming the premises a bit there.

Not in the least bit.

"Self-evident fact"? Sounds like, "because I said so."

Not in the least bit.

It's not a self-evident fact at all.

For those with a competent grasp of the English language it is.

In some jurisdictions you can't do one (be licensed to own/use/possess a firearm) without demonstrating basic firearms safety and competent use.

In ALL jurisdictions, being competent and safe does not require a LICENSE. The license is entirely separate from being competent and safe, and being competent and safe NEVER magically produces a license in ANY jurisdiction. They just are not the same thing, and much more importantly, firearm safety and competence IS IN NO FUCKING WAY WHAT-SO-EVER contingent upon holding a license.

The licensing clearly has an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT purpose that is separate from establishing even reasonable firearm safety and competence.

See what I mean?

No.

In NSW, any person seeking to possess and use a firearm must be authorised by way of a licence or permit. The information contained below relates to obtaining a firearms licence.

LOki: Well right here it is; being safe and competent doesn't give you a license, NSW police does.​

All persons wishing to obtain a firearms licence in NSW must have a genuine reason for obtaining the licence.

LOki: Well, what do you fucking know? Licensing in NSW has NOTHING to do with being safe and competent in firearms use, but rather NSW's police's feelings about one's "genuine reason for obtaining the licence."​

Applicants must provide proof of their genuine reason and must meet a range of legislative requirements relating to their genuine reason.

LOki: HOLD THE FUCK ON! I thought this was all about proof of safety and competence and not "proof of their genuine reason."​

Licence holders are only authorised to possess and use the category of firearm for which the licence has been issued and only for the purpose established as being the genuine reason for holding a firearm licence.

LOki: HOLD THE FUCK ON! I thought this was all about safety and competence, and not the "genuine reason for holding a firearm licence."​

Firearms Safety Training Courses


If you are applying for a licence for the first time you will need to complete a Firearms Safety Training Course for longarms or pistols. Refer to each genuine reason FACT Sheet for information regarding available courses

Looks to me Diuretic, that safety and competence in firearm use is explicitly INCIDENTAL to licensing--even in the jurisdiction of NSW.

But you have made a point which I must respect, I did say that "the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people", and I was wrong. It is clear that another pupose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to make burdensome the ownership of firearms for law-abiding, responsible, competent people.

So, allow me to amend and rephrase my point: The ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to make burdensome the ownership of firearms for law-abiding, responsible, competent people, and then ultimately to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

OC

Re the bank.

It's a difficult situation because just about anything can happen. Remember there are people outside the teller's area in the bank who could also become victims. I can't read the crook's mind but I have to assume that he is interested in getting the money and getting away.

And it's RIGHT HERE where the mindset of the Leftist is revealed.

He can't read the crooks mind... The crook has a SHOTGUN pointed at the head of the teller and he needs to read someone's mind... There's NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO THIS POINT IN THE SCENARIO TO MAKE A JUDGMENT.

Now he's got PLENTY OF INFO TO MAKE A JUDGMENT TO STRIP YOU OF YOUR LEGAL PROTECTIONS TO CARRY A FIRE ARM IN DEFENSE OF YOUR LIFE... But can't make a judgment on the guy with a shotgun pointed at the head of the bank teller.

I mean just because this crook has a firearm pointed at the head of the teller... presently and indisputably threatneing HER life and the lives of everyone else present... the mere usurpation of one's RIGHTS is not enough to determine his intent... BECAUSE THE INTENTIONAL USURPATION OF ONE'S RIGHT MEANS NOTHING TO THE LEFTIST!

Does anyone ELSE need anything else to recognize that to the leftists, RIGHTS ARE NOT REAL? Ya see in Australia, they don't believe that you have a right to defend yourself... They MOUTH a right... and they'll tell you that you don't have a right to use a GUN in defense of your life, but you can still defend your life without a gun... OR that you can use a gun, as long as you do not possess the gun for defense purposes...

BLISSFULLY IGNORANT OF THE SIMPLE FACT THAT WHERE THERE EXIST A RIGHT TO DEFEND ONE'S LIFE, THE MEANS THROUGH WHICH ONE DOES SO IS IRRELEVANT. And we see here that in her own scenario... that there's just no way to know when one's life is being threatened... even WHEN ONE HAS THE MUZZLE OF A SHOTGUN IN ONE'S FACE...

Remember that the rationalization to disarm Australia was an incident where some fool used a firearm to murder numerous people... using this scenario we see how that rationalization played out...

BAD GUY MURDERS INNOCENT PERSON #1...

Hey, Mate, There's a bloke over there wasting innocent people, what's to do?

BUGGER! I don't know, he's only killed one and there's all those other folks, if we use a firearm to defend them, we could easily cause him to kill another...

BAM!

Oh my... he's murdered another one, shouldn't we do something?

No Mate, we don't understand what's going through his mind... he might be there to just kill those two... and of we try to interfere we could easily cause a blood bath, what if we try to shoot him and hit an innocent bystander like that little girl?

BAM...

BUGGER! He just shot that little girl...

I saw that... it's a shame, someone should do something... but we're not trained in psycho-analysis, we're not professionals who understand the intricacies of the criminal mind... I mean that bloke could just be having an off day and who are we to judge his actions? If we take his life, are we any better than him? And what about the innocent people standing over there with that gun in their faces? We could cuase them additional anxiety through the presence of our own fire arm! We really just don't know enough about that situation to do much about it at this point...

BAM BAM BAM BAM,... BAM... BAM!... BAM!BAM!BAM!

Well now see there... it seems that he's killed the rest, turned the gun on himself and that's that... had we interfered we could have easily missed him killed or seriously injured an innocent bystander and caused that poor misguided bloke to run down the street and done some REAL damage!

The problem you see, was not the crazy bloke, but that gun he was holding and you can't stop a gun Mate... They're a mechanical device with no feelings... what we need to do is to get all the guns out of Australia , including these two... I mean LOOK at all the blood and death which the gun this poor fellow had, caused... there should be a LAW!

ROFL... Now re-read that little scenario and exchange the GUN the idiot used, for a BAT! or a board, or a spoon... and you'll readily see that the problem there was NOT the gun... but the intent to USURP THE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE AND THE FAILURE OF THE TWO ABLED BODY ON-LOOKERS TO DEFEND THAT INNOCENT LIFE... TO MAKE A JUDGMENT WHERE THERE IS INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF SOMEONE USING THE POWER WHICH THEY POSSESS TO INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WITH INSUFFICIENT MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES...

PERIOD!

Now Bobo and Chris... aal that means is the the PROBLEM IS NOT GUNS, but the Left-think which clouds the mind from recognizing bed-rock principle, from which sound judgments can and MUST BE MADE. You see girls, when the culture fails to respect and hold to bed-rock principles its very easy to turn into something that looks a lot LIKE AUSTRALIA... where the LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY AND PRESENTLY BEING THREATENED BY PEOPLE THAT DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS and the SOLUTION IS TO DISARM THE INNOCENT PEOPLE!

 

[Diuretic]

Loki

No you didn't (make an argument ) - and here ordinarily I would insert a YouTube clip of the famous Monty Python argument sketch – but to save bandwidth I'll only make a reference.

I did--I will reprise for you:

Possesion of a license is no assurance that the holder of that license is behaving in a safe or competent manner with a firearm; but much more importantly, being safe and competent with a firearm is in no way contingent upon holding a license. The registration of a firearm is no assurance that the holder of that license is behaving in a safe or competent manner with a firearm; but much more importantly, being safe and competent with a firearm is in no way contingent upon holding registration for a firearm. Licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is unnecessary to establish a reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use.

Basic firearms safety and competent use training, is separate from the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms. They mean DIFFERENT things.

You haven't actually produced any evidence.

The evidence is I bring is understood, because words have meanings that are understood; and you've brought zero evidence to counter the evidence.

I have already made it clear--see above for the reprise.

You see Diuretic, if you'd like to just ignore the points I made again by acccusing me of simple contradiction, you can telll me again how things work so "differently" in your special country, but (please, correct me if I'm wrong here) even in your special country, the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is no assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use; nor is the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms necessary to establish reasonable assurance of basic firearms safety and competent use--basic firearms safety and competent use training are separate from the issues of licensing of individuals and registration of firearms, just like everywhere else.

This is not my position at all, and you've known it from the start.

Not in the least bit.

Not in the least bit.

For those with a competent grasp of the English language it is.

In ALL jurisdictions, being competent and safe does not require a LICENSE. The license is entirely separate from being competent and safe, and being competent and safe NEVER magically produces a license in ANY jurisdiction. They just are not the same thing, and much more importantly, firearm safety and competence IS IN NO FUCKING WAY WHAT-SO-EVER contingent upon holding a license.

The licensing clearly has an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT purpose that is separate from establishing even reasonable firearm safety and competence.

See what I mean?

No.

In NSW, any person seeking to possess and use a firearm must be authorised by way of a licence or permit. The information contained below relates to obtaining a firearms licence.

LOki: Well right here it is; being safe and competent doesn't give you a license, NSW police does.​

All persons wishing to obtain a firearms licence in NSW must have a genuine reason for obtaining the licence.

LOki: Well, what do you fucking know? Licensing in NSW has NOTHING to do with being safe and competent in firearms use, but rather NSW's police's feelings about one's "genuine reason for obtaining the licence."​

Applicants must provide proof of their genuine reason and must meet a range of legislative requirements relating to their genuine reason.

LOki: HOLD THE FUCK ON! I thought this was all about proof of safety and competence and not "proof of their genuine reason."​

Licence holders are only authorised to possess and use the category of firearm for which the licence has been issued and only for the purpose established as being the genuine reason for holding a firearm licence.

LOki: HOLD THE FUCK ON! I thought this was all about safety and competence, and not the "genuine reason for holding a firearm licence."​

Firearms Safety Training Courses


If you are applying for a licence for the first time you will need to complete a Firearms Safety Training Course for longarms or pistols. Refer to each genuine reason FACT Sheet for information regarding available courses

Looks to me Diuretic, that safety and competence in firearm use is explicitly INCIDENTAL to licensing--even in the jurisdiction of NSW.

But you have made a point which I must respect, I did say that "the ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people", and I was wrong. It is clear that another pupose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to make burdensome the ownership of firearms for law-abiding, responsible, competent people.

So, allow me to amend and rephrase my point: The ONLY purpose for the licensing of individuals and registration of firearms is to make burdensome the ownership of firearms for law-abiding, responsible, competent people, and then ultimately to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people.

I'll try and list the points you've made and then respond to them. But rather than assume I've interpreted them correctly I'll list them and then wait for confirmation or correction and then I'll counter.

1.Licensing of an individual and/or registration of a firearm have no bearing on competent use and safety.
2.See 1.

 

[Otter_Creek]

Diruetic ; OC

Re the bank.

It's a difficult situation because just about anything can happen. Remember there are people outside the teller's area in the bank who could also become victims. I can't read the crook's mind but I have to assume that he is interested in getting the money and getting away. I could be wrong. He could be the type that will get the money and shoot the teller anyway and maybe kill a customer or two just for fun. I don't know that though. I think it's more likely that he will just grab the money and get out of there. So I will have to allow him to get the money and I hope the teller realises it's just money, the bank has plenty and to give it to him and let him go.

If he shoots the teller then I will shoot him.

See above (the first response). I have tried to give a rational response. There are no hero roles.

I cannot argue the (Hope)/ logic behind your tactic, non of us really know until we are faced with the situation what may or may not be the best course of action, if any.

My main point at the time was You were not there, but neither was I, maybe the ccw knew
something we didn't read in the news report.
The PD saying the ccw may have saved a lot of lives, instead of calling him a vigilante who should have followed your instructions leads me to believe it was good he acted when he did, and not without great peril to himself also.

If he shoots the teller then I will shoot him.

Nerdy guy then, no problems

 

[Burp]

Diruetic ; OC

Re the bank.

It's a difficult situation because just about anything can happen. Remember there are people outside the teller's area in the bank who could also become victims. I can't read the crook's mind but I have to assume that he is interested in getting the money and getting away. I could be wrong. He could be the type that will get the money and shoot the teller anyway and maybe kill a customer or two just for fun. I don't know that though. I think it's more likely that he will just grab the money and get out of there. So I will have to allow him to get the money and I hope the teller realises it's just money, the bank has plenty and to give it to him and let him go.

If he shoots the teller then I will shoot him.

See above (the first response). I have tried to give a rational response. There are no hero roles.

I cannot argue the (Hope)/ logic behind your tactic, non of us really know until we are faced with the situation what may or may not be the best course of action, if any.

My main point at the time was You were not there, but neither was I, maybe the ccw knew
something we didn't read in the news report.
The PD saying the ccw may have saved a lot of lives, instead of calling him a vigilante who should have followed your instructions leads me to believe it was good he acted when he did, and not without great peril to himself also.

If he shoots the teller then I will shoot him.

Nerdy guy then, no problems

You are too kind.

If he has been trained and can use his firearm accurately - and he is in this bank while a robbery is going down - the BG is pointing a gun at the teller, and the only pre-requisite for him firing his weapon is if the teller gets shot....

Well, I have a different word than nerdy.

 

[Otter_Creek]

Diruetic ; OC

Re the bank.

It's a difficult situation because just about anything can happen. Remember there are people outside the teller's area in the bank who could also become victims. I can't read the crook's mind but I have to assume that he is interested in getting the money and getting away. I could be wrong. He could be the type that will get the money and shoot the teller anyway and maybe kill a customer or two just for fun. I don't know that though. I think it's more likely that he will just grab the money and get out of there. So I will have to allow him to get the money and I hope the teller realises it's just money, the bank has plenty and to give it to him and let him go.

If he shoots the teller then I will shoot him.

See above (the first response). I have tried to give a rational response. There are no hero roles.

I cannot argue the (Hope)/ logic behind your tactic, non of us really know until we are faced with the situation what may or may not be the best course of action, if any.

My main point at the time was You were not there, but neither was I, maybe the ccw knew
something we didn't read in the news report.
The PD saying the ccw may have saved a lot of lives, instead of calling him a vigilante who should have followed your instructions leads me to believe it was good he acted when he did, and not without great peril to himself also.

If he shoots the teller then I will shoot him.

Nerdy guy then, no problems

You are too kind.

If he has been trained and can use his firearm accurately - and he is in this bank while a robbery is going down - the BG is pointing a gun at the teller, and the only pre-requisite for him firing his weapon is if the teller gets shot....

Well, I have a different word than nerdy.

Well actually I was referring to the teller, but I do get told I'm too kind an awful lot.

Now we're getting closer to the subject. Here you are forced into this situation by this criminal. Can you get your gun out without being seen? If you engage him are you at an angle where others in bank can be hit by "Your" gun fire? If you divert attention to yourself can you shoot him before he can shoot you? If you pull your gun will the bank guard shoot you? Is the teller a really fine looking babe or is it just some nerdie looking guy?
Are you really there or are you just hypothesizing you're there with the situation coming out as you the hero, because you know it all?

 

[Burp]

I cannot argue the (Hope)/ logic behind your tactic, non of us really know until we are faced with the situation what may or may not be the best course of action, if any.

My main point at the time was You were not there, but neither was I, maybe the ccw knew
something we didn't read in the news report.
The PD saying the ccw may have saved a lot of lives, instead of calling him a vigilante who should have followed your instructions leads me to believe it was good he acted when he did, and not without great peril to himself also.



Nerdy guy then, no problems

You are too kind.

If he has been trained and can use his firearm accurately - and he is in this bank while a robbery is going down - the BG is pointing a gun at the teller, and the only pre-requisite for him firing his weapon is if the teller gets shot....

Well, I have a different word than nerdy.

Well actually I was referring to the teller, but I do get told I'm too kind an awful lot.

Now we're getting closer to the subject. Here you are forced into this situation by this criminal. Can you get your gun out without being seen? If you engage him are you at an angle where others in bank can be hit by "Your" gun fire? If you divert attention to yourself can you shoot him before he can shoot you? If you pull your gun will the bank guard shoot you? Is the teller a really fine looking babe or is it just some nerdie looking guy?
Are you really there or are you just hypothesizing you're there with the situation coming out as you the hero, because you know it all?

LMAO...my bad.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Again, as is only to her tacitcal advantage Duir RUNS from the opposition who takes her argument by the teeth and responds to it's specific listed points and it's implied essence.

WHERE THERE IS A GUN BEING POINTED AT AN INNOCENT PERSON, THE MEANS OF THAT PERSON TO EXERCISE HER HUMAN RIGHTS ARE INSIPUTABLY BEING USURPED...

PERIOD...

The individual usurping those rights HAS FORFEITED HIS RIGHTS, through their overt disregard for the rights of ANOTHER...

Now Diur wants to project that not taking action to strike down this right usurping individual, in the name of DOUBT, which DIUR claims provides for the potential that the miscreant will not take the life of the teller, and depart the area without taking the life of the teller, DESPITE THE ACTIONS WHICH SHE, DIUR HERSELF ILLUSTRATED: THE INDIVIDUAL IS POINTING A DEVICE DESIGNED FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN THE TEAR MUSCLE FROM SHATTERED BONE AND RIP INTO USELESSNESS VITAL ORGANS... BEING DEMONSTRATED RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER...

She instead argues that she will wait until the innocent person is MURDERED, THEN take action...

I submit that this is a lie, that she would never take action and that where she WOULD... she does so ONLY on the overiding likelihood that the assailent is that much MORE likely to harm HER!

She's a leftists who rejects unalienable human rights, advocates for the disarming of innocent people and she does so because she cannot accept the responsibility inherent in the divine endowment of our human rights...

Thus Diur is, as most Australians ARE... PART AND PARCEL OF THE PROBLEM.

They're moral and physical cowards... and it's just no more complex than THAT.

It is the DUTY of every free sovereign to DEFEND to the extent of their physical means, up to and including the sacrifice of their very LIVES, the lives and rights of the innocent within their sphere of influence... where such a responsibility is rejected, then the rights which rest upon those responsibility is thus equally rejected.

Left-think rejects that responsibility and in so doing CANNOT POSSIBLY ASSERT THAT IT ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, AT ANY LEVEL...

What Diur and the left on the whole advocate for is tryanny... solely, wholly and without exception and this despite the deceptive rationalizations which they chronically advance, to the contrary.

 

[Diuretic]

The breakers in the sports shop wasn't a hypothetical.

The bank robber is hypothetical.

Now, the responses are getting a bit personal but they're essentially mindless responses so no point in getting cranky. But anyway this is my reasoning.

The robber's objective is to get money. I assume that the bank has trained its tellers to hand over the money and not to react in a manner which would cause the robber to shoot them.

Do I take the risk of shooting at the robber? What if I miss? He shoots the teller dead and then turns the shotgun on me. As he is lining me up I get a second shot at the robber and kill him, bit of bad luck for the teller though.

It's about making sound decisions under pressure and not reacting out of panic.

Oh and it's easy to assume bravery, expert marksmanship, icy self-control and all the rest of it, but in real life it's different.

 

[Burp]

The breakers in the sports shop wasn't a hypothetical.

The bank robber is hypothetical.

Now, the responses are getting a bit personal but they're essentially mindless responses so no point in getting cranky. But anyway this is my reasoning.

The robber's objective is to get money. I assume that the bank has trained its tellers to hand over the money and not to react in a manner which would cause the robber to shoot them.

Do I take the risk of shooting at the robber? What if I miss? He shoots the teller dead and then turns the shotgun on me. As he is lining me up I get a second shot at the robber and kill him, bit of bad luck for the teller though.

It's about making sound decisions under pressure and not reacting out of panic.

Oh and it's easy to assume bravery, expert marksmanship, icy self-control and all the rest of it, but in real life it's different.

If you feel that you won't/can't hit the BG, then of course you don't shoot.

But if you have a CC permit, you train so when you are put into these situations, you know you can effectively neutralize the BG.

You would be on the floor, watching the situation. Perhaps, you wait for him to walk away from the teller with the money then evaluate the situation.

And if you have a clear shot, with no risk of hitting someone else, you don't just fire one shot. You shoot minimum five times, in case one or two miss.

 

[Diuretic]

The breakers in the sports shop wasn't a hypothetical.

The bank robber is hypothetical.

Now, the responses are getting a bit personal but they're essentially mindless responses so no point in getting cranky. But anyway this is my reasoning.

The robber's objective is to get money. I assume that the bank has trained its tellers to hand over the money and not to react in a manner which would cause the robber to shoot them.

Do I take the risk of shooting at the robber? What if I miss? He shoots the teller dead and then turns the shotgun on me. As he is lining me up I get a second shot at the robber and kill him, bit of bad luck for the teller though.

It's about making sound decisions under pressure and not reacting out of panic.

Oh and it's easy to assume bravery, expert marksmanship, icy self-control and all the rest of it, but in real life it's different.

If you feel that you won't/can't hit the BG, then of course you don't shoot.

But if you have a CC permit, you train so when you are put into these situations, you know you can effectively neutralize the BG.

You would be on the floor, watching the situation. Perhaps, you wait for him to walk away from the teller with the money then evaluate the situation.

And if you have a clear shot, with no risk of hitting someone else, you don't just fire one shot. You shoot minimum five times, in case one or two miss.

Focus on the real objective. The real objective is to minimise harm to the innocents. One of the methods of minmising harm to innocents is shooting the robber. Another method is not shooting the robber. It's difficult to list all the variables here, heck it's difficult to do it in a face to face discussion. I think I'd have to be in a situation of not having chosen to shoot or not shoot the robber, I think I'd be ready to shoot the robber, by that I mean I would be mentally and physically prepared to do it, you know it works, the imagining of action so when you do act you follow what you've planned. But I'd be ready not to shoot the robber as well. That might sound a bit confusing but there's a point at which it's possible and desirable, perhaps even necessary, to place yourself in that sort of mental situation.

The problem is complex. Either way there will be second guessing.

Just one point. If the robber has got the money and hasn't harmed anyone and is heading for the door then if I shoot him as a fleeing felon I would be in trouble with the criminal law where I am. That won't be the case in many other jurisdictions but here there is no fleeing felon law, it was repealed some years ago. Unless he was threatening someone I can't shoot him. So, paradoxically, I would be legally okay if I shot him while he had the shotgun trained on the teller and even if the teller was killed by the robber because I'd shot at him then my shooting of the robber would be righteous.

 

[Burp]

The breakers in the sports shop wasn't a hypothetical.

The bank robber is hypothetical.

Now, the responses are getting a bit personal but they're essentially mindless responses so no point in getting cranky. But anyway this is my reasoning.

The robber's objective is to get money. I assume that the bank has trained its tellers to hand over the money and not to react in a manner which would cause the robber to shoot them.

Do I take the risk of shooting at the robber? What if I miss? He shoots the teller dead and then turns the shotgun on me. As he is lining me up I get a second shot at the robber and kill him, bit of bad luck for the teller though.

It's about making sound decisions under pressure and not reacting out of panic.

Oh and it's easy to assume bravery, expert marksmanship, icy self-control and all the rest of it, but in real life it's different.

If you feel that you won't/can't hit the BG, then of course you don't shoot.

But if you have a CC permit, you train so when you are put into these situations, you know you can effectively neutralize the BG.

You would be on the floor, watching the situation. Perhaps, you wait for him to walk away from the teller with the money then evaluate the situation.

And if you have a clear shot, with no risk of hitting someone else, you don't just fire one shot. You shoot minimum five times, in case one or two miss.

Focus on the real objective. The real objective is to minimise harm to the innocents. One of the methods of minmising harm to innocents is shooting the robber. Another method is not shooting the robber. It's difficult to list all the variables here, heck it's difficult to do it in a face to face discussion. I think I'd have to be in a situation of not having chosen to shoot or not shoot the robber, I think I'd be ready to shoot the robber, by that I mean I would be mentally and physically prepared to do it, you know it works, the imagining of action so when you do act you follow what you've planned. But I'd be ready not to shoot the robber as well. That might sound a bit confusing but there's a point at which it's possible and desirable, perhaps even necessary, to place yourself in that sort of mental situation.

The problem is complex. Either way there will be second guessing.

Just one point. If the robber has got the money and hasn't harmed anyone and is heading for the door then if I shoot him as a fleeing felon I would be in trouble with the criminal law where I am. That won't be the case in many other jurisdictions but here there is no fleeing felon law, it was repealed some years ago. Unless he was threatening someone I can't shoot him. So, paradoxically, I would be legally okay if I shot him while he had the shotgun trained on the teller and even if the teller was killed by the robber because I'd shot at him then my shooting of the robber would be righteous.

Perhaps where you are from, you are right.

Here you have to satisfy three criteria: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy.

Does the BG have the Ability to hurt you. Does he have the opportunity to hurt you? Do you feel in Jeopardy of serious bodily injury or death.

If the answers are yes, which they would be in your scenario, then you are justified.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The breakers in the sports shop wasn't a hypothetical.

The bank robber is hypothetical.

That's as Super as it is irrelevant... the principles remain the same for theory and application.

Now, the responses are getting a bit personal but they're essentially mindless responses so no point in getting cranky.

The responses only feel personal because they're exposing your most closely held feelings to be sad rationalizations of the mamby pamby, feminized variety...

The robber's objective is to get money.

The Robber's objective is the robber's problem... his ACTIONS are that he is threatening the life of an innocent person... an act that is your DUTY to defend against... which is YOUR PROBLEM.

I assume that the bank has trained its tellers to hand over the money and not to react in a manner which would cause the robber to shoot them.

The robber has overtly taken the position that his problems are more important than the rights of anyone else... that he has the muzzle of a firearm pointed at an innocent person is a fair clue that he intends to shoot someone... if you're in a position to stop him from doing so, it is your responsibility to do so. If you're armed with a firearm, it's within your means to do so... Now all the tall thinkin' is done... draw your weapon, seek out and close with this idiot and shut his lights off...

Do I take the risk of shooting at the robber? What if I miss? He shoots the teller dead and then turns the shotgun on me.

Well there's you're problem... you've a firearm and you've failed to master the use of that firearm... so you've failed to live up to your responsibility as an able-bodied citizen...

Now let's compare and contrast mindsets of that which your position reflects and that of an American...

"This is my Firearm. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my Firearm is useless. Without my Firearm, I am useless. I must fire my Firearm true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My Firearm and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit. ... "

Notice how that mindset doesn't waste time rationalizing doubts, which would be better spent MASTERING THE FIREARM!

As he is lining me up I get a second shot at the robber and kill him, bit of bad luck for the teller though.

Yes, in the span of one moment the teller has been exposed to TWO PEOPLE who failed to live up the responsibilities inherent in the UNALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS... which is hard on everyone in that culture.

It's about making sound decisions under pressure and not reacting out of panic.

Hey GOOD JOB... even a blind nut finds a squirrel now and then... and sound decisions under pressure come from what? Proper training born of the determination to MASTER ONE'S FIREARM UNDER PRESSURE!

Oh and it's easy to assume bravery, expert marksmanship, icy self-control and all the rest of it, but in real life it's different.

Courage is never easy... if it were, the civilian populations of Australia and Western Europe would not have rejected their responsibility to master the use of firearms for the purposes of defending the lives and rights to which they are justly entitled...

 

[garyd]

Any military worth a spit in the ocean spends as much time as possible in training for combat situations. If you aren't going to spend a few bucks sending bullets down range on an at least monthly basis there is no reason to buy a fire arm. Further, if your primary purpose is to defend your home train yourself so that you know the best firing lines to use so that you will endanger as few of your family members as possible. Learn how to get around your house in the dark without running into things. If you are going for a C&C permit, I'd highly reccomend you spend some time at a combat shooting range Using the weapon you intend to carry.

 

[Diuretic]

Integrating the ability to use the firearm properly with the various contexts in which someone might reasonably expect to have to use it is extremely important. Combat shooting is good practice, thinking about how to act in a given context is also extremely important. That's why I like the simulator training with Simunition as well as range training. It gives an additional set of contexts.

 

[LOki]

1.Licensing of an individual and/or registration of a firearm have no bearing on competent use and safety.

Correct. Issuing a license to someone does not make them competent or safe. Registering a gun does not make it safe, nor does it make it's owner competent or safe. The license and registration serve an entirely different purpose than assuring competence and/or safety for the gun owner.

 

[Diuretic]

1.Licensing of an individual and/or registration of a firearm have no bearing on competent use and safety.

Correct. Issuing a license to someone does not make them competent or safe. Registering a gun does not make it safe, nor does it make it's owner competent or safe. The license and registration serve an entirely different purpose than assuring competence and/or safety for the gun owner.

Licensing - this is where I am - is about regulating use/possession/ownership. Before someone can be licensed they have to have a basic competence in firearms safety. That's not a guarantee of their expertise, just so they know not to do things like climb through the wire strands of a fence while carrying a loaded firearm. Their competence with the firearm is up to them. And the general psychological rule is that 50 hours are needed for the acquisition of a range of basic skills, 100 hours is needed for mastery and ten years to become an expert.

Registration - it's about inspecting the weapon for safety and for compliance with the law - eg a dangerous, unsafe or prohibited firearm won't be registered and its possession is an offence.

 

[Otter_Creek]

Diu,
Okay, Back to the un hypothetical sports shop. Since you foolishly went in there and found yourself facing a rifle, what did you do?

 

[LOki]

1.Licensing of an individual and/or registration of a firearm have no bearing on competent use and safety.

Correct. Issuing a license to someone does not make them competent or safe. Registering a gun does not make it safe, nor does it make it's owner competent or safe. The license and registration serve an entirely different purpose than assuring competence and/or safety for the gun owner.

Licensing - this is where I am - is about regulating use/possession/ownership.

And that's the end of it. More precisely, it's about regulating use/possession/ownership only for those who obey such laws. Licenseing has nothing to do with being safety or competence in firearm use. Period.

Before someone can be licensed they have to have a basic competence in firearms safety.

I have no issue withthe notion that some authority might require basic competence and safety before they issue a license, I'm saying that the license has nothing to do with being safe or competent if firearm use.

That's not a guarantee of their expertise, just so they know not to do things like climb through the wire strands of a fence while carrying a loaded firearm. Their competence with the firearm is up to them. And the general psychological rule is that 50 hours are needed for the acquisition of a range of basic skills, 100 hours is needed for mastery and ten years to become an expert.

I have no issue with the notion that training, and practice in safe and competent use establishes and can enhance safe and competent practice--I have issue with any notion that firearm safety and competence is in any manner contingent upon the possession of a license; I have issue with the notion that licensing is necessary to establish safe and competent practice.

Registration - it's about inspecting the weapon for safety . . .

I regularly inspect my weapons (whether they've been fire or not), and there's no registration involved, or required. You don't need to put anyone, or anyone's guns, on a list to promote operationally safe weaponry. Such "registration" applies only to those who obey such laws, and these folks are most likely of the sort that already possess an aversion to bad consequences--particularly those apputentant to poorly maintained firearms.

. . . and for compliance with the law - eg a dangerous, unsafe or prohibited firearm won't be registered and its possession is an offence.

Registration - it's ONLY about putting the law-abiding owners of guns, and their guns, on a list for identifying criminals and confiscating guns in anticipation of an eventuality where gun ownership is outlawed outright.

You can obsfucate the issue all day long Diuretic, by administratively attaching firearm safety and competence to licensing and registration, but that does not change the objective fact that licensing and registraion are in no way necessary to establish reasonable firearm safety and competence; that firearm safety and competence are the rationalizations tendered for actions specifically and intentionally designed for the express purpose to make burdensome the ownership of firearms for law-abiding, responsible, competent people, and then ultimately to remove firearms from (otherwise) law-abiding, responsible, competent people.