Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns I don't care about 50 yd accuracy!

You need pictures...Dave

Try to overlook to covert bias.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540


I don't care about 50 yd accuracy either. You have to train under stress. It is a perishable skill.

I am not saying do not carry, or do not defend yourself and others.

What I am saying is that should this happen, the perp has the advantage...and chances are...even with all the bravado...you will be shot.

I just pray that it never happens to myself or family, or anyone else.

I'm done.

You were done two pages back.

AWESOME link!

Rebel yell!




God bless,
Dave

In the states in which you must retreat, you only have to retreat if you can do so safely. There's a lot of reasons, in a gun fight, that you can capitalize on to articulate why you could not have safely retreated.

In the People's Republik of Illinois, the last state to be forced to pass a shall-issue CC law, we have the Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground doctrine. In this liberal mecca there is no duty to retreat if you are legally where you are and someone threatens you. It's such a disconnect - those two doctrines would be the last laws I would have thought Illinois would honor.

There are states where you are required to retreat from your own damned home, if you can do it safely, if someone breaks in. Illinois' Castle Doctrine takes care of that.

If I'm in the mall parking lot and someone pulls a firearm on me from 50 yards away I don't have to retreat; I'm where I am legally, and I can stay there and battle it out with some loony tunes waving a gun around and lobbing rounds my way.

Regarding the court case I mentioned earlier in this thread; I heard back form Mas Ayoob...



"The case was Florida v. Wilburn Brooker, back in the '80s. Brooker and his secretary were terrorized in his real estate office by a 26 year old career criminal named Terry Johnson, who robbed them at the point of a stolen Charter Arms Undercover .38. When Johnson fled, Brooker told the secretary, "Call the police and tell them what I look like, I'm going after him. He grabbed his 12-gauge deer shotgun, a Savage pump loaded with #1 Magnum buckshot, and pursued. Caught up with him a few blocks later, lots of witnesses. When Will shouted for the suspect to stop, the left-handed suspect turned on him aiming the .38 to his rear at Brooker, and Brooker fired one shot, killing him outright.

Dade County, FL had seen a spate of self-defense killings of bad guys by armed citizens. Janet Reno was then state's attorney for the county. Miami Herald had been calling for her to do something about all the armed citizens taking the law into her own hands. Janet and her minions apparently decided that since the shooting was cross racial, Will's shot from behind had "struck the deceased in the back," and the pursuit must have meant he was seeking revenge, she would make an example of him. He was charged with, IIRC, Manslaughter.

During my deposition, the prosecuting ASA suggested that since they were fifty feet apart when the single shot was fired, Brooker was in no danger and "out of range" of a "snub-nose .38." I replied that this was not the case at all. He asked snidely how far away the man would have to be for me to feel safe from him, I almost replied, "Oh, Kenosha" but instead answered that at 100 yards I would still consider myself to be in deadly danger from a man so armed. The ASA was writing furiously in his legal pad at that point, so it was obviously going to be a point when he cross examined me at trial. Shortly after the dep, I took a notary public with me to a 100 yard range with 4 .38 snubs: A Charter Arms like Johnson's stolen gun, a Model 36 S&W, a Model 12 S&W, and my wife's Colt Detective Special. The notary documented 2 hits out of 5 shots on the Colt silhouette at 100 yards with the Charter, the same with the Model 36, 3 out of 6 with the Airweight M&P snub, and 6 out of 6 with the DS.

We also went to the range and videotaped speed of turning and firing at 50 feet left-handed with a Charter 2", using blanks when firing at the camera (Will's perspective) and live ammo so the camera could see the hits to show accuracy potential at 50 feet.

Jeff Weiner, the brilliant lawyer who defended Brooker, wanted to take it to trial and so did I. However, Brooker's doctor said his heart condition was such that the stress of trial would jeopardize his life. Jeff went in with the prosecutors, showed them the evidence we were gong to present, and they decided to plea bargain WAY down. The judge gave a withhold of adjudication, and a couple of years later i was told Will Brooker was again a citizen with a clean record and a carry permit."


Now this is a quote from Mas, but I think he oopsed, Reno was AG in the '90's.

Another point - LR capability and practice can help with closer range shooting.

I practice with my hunting rifles at ranges I'll likely never shoot at game. Why? Because if I can hit a target at 1k, then 300 on a deer is easier. If I can pop small target balloons at 200 with a .22, then a squirrel's head at 50 is an easier shot for me.

Ditto the same with handguns. If I can keep rounds in the chest of a silhouette target at 50 (or further), and ring a 12" gong at 100, then if need be I've got a better chance of making a shot under pressure - and possibly on a head or other small target - at much closer range.

Oh, and unlike the OP, I have a much better grasp on the laws in this area, don't pay for classes from some buffoon that doesn't know the law, and don't live in a schit hole that requires me to run away.

Travis

I love when a good story includes some self-fellating by the way.






Travis

Yes, but in those states there's a legal presumption that you should have retreated, which you then have to overcome by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that you could not do so safely. In stand your ground states, not only is there no such legal presumption, but the question cannot even be asked, as you are presumed to have had a right not to retreat, whether you could or not.

Preponderance of evidence is a civil litigation bar. Reasonable doubt is criminal. Duty to retreat therefore would only require a reasonable doubt as to whether one could have retreated safely.

Some jurisdictions, like New York State for example, use the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof for an affirmative defense in a criminal case, where the burden is on the defendant. Self defense is an affirmative defense. Other states, after an affirmative defense is proffered by the accused in a criminal case, place the burden of proof on the state (i.e., to prove the self defense claim defective), and in those jurisdictions, the standard is, as you say, beyond a reasonable doubt. It varies by jurisdiction. There's no single rule on this. The must-attempt-retreat-where-possible states, however, also tend to be the states that place the burden of proof (by preponderance of the evidence) on the defendant when an affirmative defense of self defense is proffered.

Ah, you're citing NYS. I was citing American jurisprudence. Obvious deviation in law between the two.

We're in agreement on that.

LMAO...

Damned shame that the home of Timothy Murphy, and the patriots of Ticonderoga and Saratoga, as well as the martyrs of Cherry Valley and others, has come to define all that isn't American.

Of course, that has everything to do with the down state counties and Burroughs...

True enough.

You argue just to argue. What you've posted here is no different than what I posted. You're splitting hairs in a vain attempt to appear knowledgeable and better informed than all of us poor hillbillies. The only difference in what I posted and what you tried to refute is the language you used. The meaning/content is no different than what I wrote.

Actually, I wasn't arguing, so much as agreeing while making an additional point that might be of interest to readers here. Sorry I came across as being argumentative.

At best, TRH has pumped the neighbor's cat.

That first question is a doozy...

Soft body armor typically covers from the upper/mid sternum, down to roughly the belly button. On most folks the lower 1/3 of the body is completely exposed. This includes the critical pelvic girdle.

Consider this like a Tank.

When you take out the tracks/main body of the tank, the turret can spin and function to a degree, but the tank is going NOWHERE.

If you are not getting the desired results after making a couple of good controlled pairs center mass, go for the head or groin.

Hammer someone with a pelvic girdle shot and they are going DOWN.

They may still be a major threat (most likely not), but they are not going to be mobile. Close the distance if possible and take a good solid shot to the computer.

The reality is that pelvic girdle shots are phenomenally painful. Most people who take a hit in this region are completely done with any fight, and are going to be in very bad shape.

Consider this, the pelvic region, is basically the load bearing platform. If you break this down, the target goes down.

Most big game hunters have seen the difference between lung shot and a shoulder shot animal. Not too much different here.

Beside skeletal structure, this area is also where the aorta feeds the iliac arteries, which feed the femoral arteries in the legs. You also have the very bottom of the intestines.

Pelvic Girdle shots are generally total fight stoppers.

Most body armor does not cover this.

Body armor also does not usually completely cover the center, upper chest, as well as the neck and head.



"How would being able to shoot longer distances with a hand gun have helped?"

The ability to shoot in a precise manner, targeting one of the above described areas, should be self evident.


Giving up because you "only have a handgun" and the range is beyond the "magical/typical average 3 yards" is really not an option for a determined defender.

BTW, I sure as hell don't want to rely on just being in a statistically "average" fight.

Personally I know a whole bunch of guys who if they only had their issued handgun and a bad guy started shooting people, or shooting at them, with a rifle, they would not even slightly hesitate to get into the fight.

The objective still remains the same. Close with, engage and destroy the enemy/neutralize the threat, utilizing the concept of speed, surprise, and violence of action.


If you choose to give up and die because you are engaged by a person with a rifle, or you are leaking fluid somewhere, that is your prerogative. To each their own.

I have had my bell rung more than a couple times in a fight, I did not just curl up and call it quits.

Mac, as always excellent response from someone who has been there and done that... A guide for us less experienced souls..