Poll: Concealed Weapons among Plain Anabaptists?

[ragpicker]

That's criminal and immoral.

BTW, I am unaware of any state in which it is legal to try to kill someone. That's generally considered to be murder.

The only exception would be capital punishment.

Correct.

[Ernie]

That's criminal and immoral.
BTW, I am unaware of any state in which it is legal to try to kill someone. That's generally considered to be murder.

The only exception would be capital punishment.

Correct.

So if someone aims and shoots "for center mass" in self-defense, how is that different from trying to kill someone?

[steve-in-kville]

The only exception would be capital punishment.

Correct.

So if someone aims and shoots "for center mass" in self-defense, how is that different from trying to kill someone?

Back in my under-cover state trooper days, it was called "neutralizing a threat."

[Ernie]

only shoot to maim?

That's criminal and immoral.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/biden-sug ... n-to-kill/

Is it criminal and immoral if done by a police officer?

[Ernie]

Here is my new question... I'm sure some of you could help me revise this to be the more correct way of asking this in the gun world...

1. Approximately what percentage of Plain Anabaptists who are packing heat to church would use them on humans to neutralize a threat?

[ragpicker]

only shoot to maim?

That's criminal and immoral.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/biden-sug ... n-to-kill/

Is it criminal and immoral if done by a police officer?

Criminal? I assume, but do not know for certain.

Immoral? For sure. All the way.

[ragpicker]

Here is my new question... I'm sure some of you could help me revise this to be the more correct way of asking this in the gun world...

1. Approximately what percentage of Plain Anabaptists who are packing heat to church would use them on humans to neutralize a threat?

I don't know. I'm mostly replying to thank you for the correctly worded question.

[ragpicker]

The only exception would be capital punishment.

Correct.

So if someone aims and shoots "for center mass" in self-defense, how is that different from trying to kill someone?

Saw this on Facebook.

WARNING: LONG POST... A friend of mine asked why cops couldn't just try to disable people instead of shooting to kill. I hear this quite frequently. This is my hastily banged out with fingers flying response. Remember, this is strictly explaining why trying to wound is illegal and a terrible idea and contrasting it to legally using lethal force. As always, please play nice...

"[friend's name] OK, I'm done working for the day...

1. Using a gun as self defense is considered lethal force, so that is the term I will use.

2. There is a high and narrow standard for the legal use of lethal force. If "disabling" is allowed, that standard will automatically be lowered. That would be a terrible thing for various reasons. First, the use of lethal force is a very serious matter. Deadly serious, no pun intended. For the protection of everyone, we cannot afford to lower the high and narrow standard. Second, in my next point, I will address the physical aspects of this. Read that point to see how lowering the standard is actually very dangerous to criminals.

3. Most people would be shocked how difficult it is to hit center mass under high stress situations. There's no way hitting an arm or a leg is even feasible in most of these situations. I bet there ain't 20 people in the USA that could consistently hit an arm or a leg in a shooter scenario. The movies are lying to you about this, and so is the "common wisdom" of every phony "expert" who advocates this. They're fulla poop. It simply doesn't work that way.

So as difficult, even impossible as this is, let's say they made it a law, or even legalized it, and you hit a live shooter situation, physiologically, the good guy with a gun is going to focus on center mass. So even though he might intend to wound, he is going to end up shooting for center mass, which is a kill shot. So now you just killed a guy, when killing wasn't necessary. That's terrible.

Also, if you DO hit a leg, there's arteries there that can let you bleed out in a couple minutes. So even an attempt to disable, if you even could do it, has so many risks of being lethal.

So a firearm is ALWAYS a lethal force. ALWAYS.

4. In most, if not all states, it is illegal to try to wound someone. It's actually a pretty big deal in Texas. The legal reasoning goes like this... there are high and narrow standards to be able to legally use lethal force. IF you try to wound, those standards were not met. Now you have used lethal force (refer to #3), when the standards for its use were not met. That's illegal and immoral. You're going to prison.

5. Remember, it is illegal to have a motive of killing someone. You are not allowed to have an intent to kill. That's murder, and in most states at least, will land you in prison or at least put you at risk. What is legal is shooting to kill (lethal force) to stop the threat in narrowly defined situations.

Pay attention to that term. STOP THE THREAT. If you use lethal force, once the threat is credibly stopped, you must stop shooting. To continue shooting after you believe the threat is stopped is legally and morally considered to be murder, and unless the DA or grand jury is lenient, you're going to prison. I have seen it happen.

6. Wounding and maiming = torture. We as humans should never stoop to being OK with INTENT to torture or maim. Having an extremely high and narrow standard wherein it's legal to use lethal force is one thing, but the lowering of that standard that would come with legalizing shooting to disable would bring a level of barbarianism we cannot allow.

7. Remember, trying to kill is illegal.

Trying to wound is illegal.

Stopping a threat by the use of lethal force (shooting to kill) is legal.

In closing, the idea of allowing disabling by wounding sends shivers down my back. It's a terrible idea that we as a society cannot afford and the idea literally freaks me out. Please don't feel condemned if you thought it was a good idea. I assume it's advocated out of ignorance, and God forbid I look down on my fellowman because they were ignorant. I'm just using the strong language to emphasize how important it is that we never lower ourselves to this terrible idea, no matter how noble it sounds to the unlearned.

Here's the thing I applaud you all that thought disabling through wounding was a good idea for... You went down that road because you are decent human beings who hate to see lives unnecessarily snuffed out. Thank you for that. Just please understand, the idea that you had, instead of being more noble, is actually reprehensible and barbaric."

[Ken]

This whole discussion about "neutralizing threats" frankly sounds a whole lot like military jargon such as "suppressive fire" where machine guns, bombs, and artillery are used without the direct intent to kill, but rather to "degrade the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill its mission." and "shape the battlefield"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

Like any profession, soldiers and law enforcement officers have a lot of jargon to describe what is ultimately using a lethal weapon to kill someone.

Call it whatever you want. The result is the same.

War isn't directly about killing either. It is about attaining tactical and strategic objectives. But a whole lot of people always end up dying.

[ragpicker]

This whole discussion about "neutralizing threats" frankly sounds a whole lot like military jargon such as "suppressive fire" where machine guns, bombs, and artillery are used without the direct intent to kill, but rather to "degrade the performance of an enemy force below the level needed to fulfill its mission." and "shape the battlefield"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressive_fire

Like any profession, soldiers and law enforcement officers have a lot of jargon to describe what is ultimately using a lethal weapon to kill someone.

Call it whatever you want. The result is the same.

War isn't directly about killing either. It is about attaining tactical and strategic objectives. But a whole lot of people always end up dying.

You seem to misunderstand even the definition of suppressive fire and you don't understand the difference between trying to kill someone or trying to neutralize the threat.

Are you interested in understanding and correcting your misunderstandings or are you vested in them?