Nasty no trespassing signs

[HeyBub]

Good question. As a civilian I've never shot another civilian. I have, however, displayed my firearm three times in the past 14 years* (interestingly, twice in a Home Depot parking lot!) and mentally committed myself to using deadly force if the mope took one more step forward or raised his tire iron. Inasmuch as we have very discerning and rational squints, goblins, cut-purses, four-flushers, and goat-petters in my state, a fourth kind of close encounter was never necessary.

------

• It's been 14 years since my state passed a concealed handgun law.

[Oren]

That's a fair question. As a civilian I've never shot a person. I have ordered two men to be SHOT, if they jumped from a building, even ordered the person to chamber her round of buck shot.

I'm not a tough guy, but I have been in hand to hand combat with a real Nigerian Prince before.

[mike]

I haven't been tough-talking, but I have shot in the general direction of a person up to no good. I wasn't sure where they were, but they didn't know that. It happened to achieve the desired result very well. ;)

[aemeijers]

(snip)

Firing without having a target? Firing a warning shot without a known safe backstop (like the ground or a hillside)? Okay, gotcha.

Hope you don't live around here, and that your neighbors are very far away.

-- aem sends...

[SteveB]

Such places do exist. I can fire 270 degrees and not hit anything. The CLOSEST house in the 270 degree arc are five miles, and on many parts of the arc, there are no houses at all. Shotgun pellets do not fly far at all, anyway.

Steve

[HeyBub]

This is one of the first techniques a warrior learns.

It's official name is "covering fire" or "suppressive fire" and its purpose is to force the adversary to remain under cover and not return (what's known as) "lethal fire."

When faced with both a 100% armed assailant and an unquantifiable, but vanishingly small, probability of collateral damage, the warrior has no question and no hesitation.

[aemeijers]

He didn't say he was TAKING fire at the time, or even that the assailant was armed. Agreed, that would be a different situation. And if you are out in the boonies, the issue is probably irrelevant. In town, on the other hand, as any local LEO will attest, collateral damage is a significant issue. Hence light loads and frangible bullets being imposed in many departments.

-- aem sends...

[Jim Yanik]

aemeijers wrote in news:RZednRHEqdKGHnHXnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

what are these police departments that require frangible bullets and/or "light loads"? Often police WANT to shoot thru a door,car door,inside wall.

[SteveB]

Would that be the good guy or bad guy department?

Steve

[C & E]

Webster doesn't recognize that word, Chris. What is the meaning?

[C & E]

After reading robb's post below I believe that I get it.

[Stormin Mormon]

It's been a LONG time since I read that. I likely mis spelled it. Anyhow, it's some kind of plant.

[HeyBub]

I used to be an LEO and never heard of such as you claim:

1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of gunfire is closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of gunshots in urban environments every day, there's maybe one or two innocent people hit in a year.
2. No department is going to demand, suggest, or even allow frangible bullets or "light" loads - that would be evidence sufficient of insanity. In fact, most departments frown on anything but factory-loaded, ball ammunition. Even these are often insufficient to corral the freak. Consider cold-weather clothing, topped off by a heavy-duty leather jacket. An ordinary 9mm or .38 bullet will merely bother the squint with a nasty bruise. If the mope is hopped-up on crack, shooting him is liable to make him angry!

[Kurt Ullman]

In article , Jim Elbrecht wrote: lf?

AT least on Yahoo you get the band the video game and the song. include kill or death and you get more but it is real hard to figure out who got hit by a stray bullet because somebody hosed the place down and those who got hit a bullet gone astray as in the discussion.

[Jim Elbrecht]

I forget that google stacks your results according to links you went to in the past- so I get lots of newspaper stories from all over the world.

This seemed to give me more signal than noise; bystander gunshot cities

I've picked a few nits in my day- but I'm not sure I see a significant difference of "stray bullets" and "bullets gone astray".

The statement that rattled my cage was Heybub saying; "1. The chances of hitting an innocent person in an exchange of gunfire is closely adjacent to zero. Of the literally thousands of gunshots in urban environments every day, there's maybe one or two innocent people hit in a year."

Sounds to me like he's counting all the thousands of bullets.

Jim

[Kurt Ullman]

Yep. The earlier part was about someone taking a potshot at an intruder. I missed the transition to more narrow focus.

[Oren]

Check, double check and so forth.

Sir, "he got passed my knife defense."

[Don Klipstein]

There is a news item, slightly old, that Philadelphia police officers will soon (likely already did) get the option of purchasing larger caliber alternatives for their service weapons:

Glock 22 and 35, .40 caliber, magazine capacity 15 rounds.

Glock 21 and 21 "slim frame", standard rails only, .45 ACP, magazine capacity 13 rounds.

Philadelphia Police Department officers carrying these larger caliber weapons on duty have the requirement of carrying certification cards for such larger caliber weapons.

This item has a date of December 4 2008. It appears to me that the perps in Philadelphia have the tide turned against them a bit.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[The Daring Dufas]

Here's an interesting source:

TDD

[waltm]

I'd suggest the sign which spells out the response time of cops, being so many minutes. Compared to the response time of a bullet. Thousands of feet/second.