I’ve always been told to fire until they’re absolutely dead and argue in court that you were fearing for your life, but I guess it can’t hurt to put a band-aid over a bullet wound.
That's why most lawyers and gun experts will tell you to dump your mag until they're not breathing.
There's been a significant amount of testing with PLA frames, and as long as you don't leave them in a hot car (and they're printed correctly) or shoot more than ~400 consecutive rounds without stoppage they can be used like a regular Glock frame. Still wouldn't carry one for my main EDC or anything, but CFPC and CF Nylon can be used just like a regular Glock frame if printed and annealed correctly.
You'd need to print it on a perfectly calibrated printer for it to last 400 rounds. Like autistically configured to print the most durable print possible.
Not true at all. I'm a retard and I've shot that many rounds consecutively out of multiple PLA frames printed with a .4 nozzle and 6 walls 99% infill. As have the people who created and tested the models for those frames.
That's actually homicidal intent and can bite you in the ass. The whole magdumping when they are out of the fight is a horrible idea. Shoot> assess> "No longer a threat to me" >provide first aid and call 911, your lawyers, collect evidence. That's the way things are done correctly and within the legal framework. Now, again, depending on who's your judge, DA, state, you might get away with a lot, or will have to fight it out. Magdumping needlessly just will make things harder for you in court, due to accusations of homicidal intent. A G17 carries 17 bullets+1. Making Swiss cheese out of someone won't help your case, that you were "just defending yourself".
Somebody tried to kill you>you clearly stopped the threat>you put more bullets into the person>you eat a murder charge. That's the way things go in citizen involved shootings. Today, with all the phone cameras, CCTV, security cameras etc. recording all the time, it's a good idea to just use the minimum amount of force needed and avoid any suspicion of homicidal intent.
No lawyer on the planet is going to tell you to shoot to wound. If you are pulling the trigger you are shooting to kill, because you feared for your life.
A prosecutor will try to legally violate your anus regardless of what you do. It’s their job.
I'm not a legal expert and don't claim to be, but everything I've ever heard from people who know infinitely more than I do is that if you're pulling the trigger you are shooting to kill, otherwise the threat wasn't great enough for you to pull the trigger in the first place. Disabled people can shoot guns at you. People writhing in pain on the ground can shoot guns at you. Why do you think cops mag dump every single time?
police (my own training, classes i've taught and attended, et c) are instructed to fire to end the imminent threat to yourself or to others, then render aid ASAP once the situation is under control. this is also why we handcuff "obviously dead" people, both for procedure and because we cannot be sure they are dead or incapacitated completely. drugs do a lot to people and knives can be hidden in all kinds of places. "mag dumping" isn't dumping the magazine, it's getting off more shots to establish a continuum of violence and use that to establish control over the situation. it's also part of the action of shooting from the hip first and bringing the pistol to bear while still firing (CHP, DEA, et c). FLETC (for federal law enforcement) teaches a slightly different method where you bring the gun to your armpit rather than rotating at the wrist, same idea though.
I'd love to see you post a video of a cop rendering aid to someone they shot. Never once seen it myself. In my experience they stand back with their gun pointed at the dead guy until more cops and an ambulance shows up.
i don't happen to have handy the video evidence you requested, but i'll submit that it is apparently a top hit on quora "why police give first aid when they shot someone", but sure here's a try at it from facebook: (https://www.facebook.com/tulsapolice/videos/officer-involved-shooting-8132023/1097644164928745/), both of these are first hits on google.
Regardless of what procedure is, you can find literally hundreds of videos of American police "mag dumping" suspects, sometimes with multiple cops "mag dumping" the same suspect, and rendering no aid (I posted a few, one of which 600+ rounds were fired.) Regardless that isn't a requirement for civilians, and legally if you pull the trigger with your gun pointed at someone, you better be fearing for your life and you better be shooting to kill so that threat is ended, otherwise you will more likely be legally fucked.
Here's one 8:50 minutes "Trauma kit up". The problem with many shooting footage is that they skip the aid part and cut when the suspect is cuffed. But if you see that they approach the suspect with gloves, it means they are there to provide aid.
They skip the aid part because 99% of the time when officers mag dump into a suspect they're dead and aid is pointless. I'm really not trying to argue here and I have no desire to be "right" but if you talk to just about any good lawyer they will say to shoot to kill or don't shoot at all, law enforcement aside, and that is because the only time you should point a weapon at someone is if you intend to kill them. I'm out for now, I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate you guys not being total faggots in this thread.
that's the part i have trouble with and i have interacted with many many lawyers, judges, baliffs (and was a baliff for a number of years), and have what i think is a pretty decent personal and professional background in dealing with shooting people. i've never heard the advice be literally "shoot to kill" - colloquially maybe, sure, i'll agree that it's an adage that sounds good. the consistent actual advice is to shoot to stop the threat, center mass until threats pass, immediate vs imminent danger, good shoot evaluation, threat response control and evaluation, situational awareness, et c. that's across multiple decades, states, agencies, even countries.
well, it's a lot of money to dump on gear all at once. are you familiar with firearms and working with tactical gear? you might want to consider a few classes. body armor generally isn't much of a thing unless you expressly believe that you may be attacked by firearm-wielding opponents (instead of a bat, knife, car, et c) and that confrontation is in a position where you can both put on your gear and fight wearing that gear effectively. sustainment gear for prolonged fights probably is a bit much for the typical defense scenario for the average person, even if they live in a dangerous neighborhood.
I had a few gripes with the M4 that were all expensive to fix. Because it's an import you have to deal with it being sporterized for 922r compliance. Swapping out the parts is easy, but they're all fucking expensive whether they're OEM or aftermarket. The large tube and spring was 220, the collapsing stock was 280, a larger charging handle was 40, and a velcro sidesaddle kit was another 40.
Shotguns are a meme. Get an AR-15.
Well that is fair, but the money I look like I'm about to lose from the rental agreement is more than the cost of gear, and I've realized how unsafe things really are. I cannot make any money while dead.
Thank you for your post.
You are right in a tactical sense in terms of what use it provides in a normal gunfight where each side basically knows what is going on. But there may be many a scenario where I have no clue what the hell is happening.
I considered both of these things but I have the problem of thin walls and people surrounding me. This means I need to hesitate in a situation to think about is it worth putting the people next to me at risk in X,Y, or Z scenario.
I can say with a small amount of experience that doing things correctly becomes extremely difficult under pressure especially if that pressure lasts a long time.