Orlando mass shooting

[ka9q]

One thing I've never understood is why there's hardly any discussion of body armor. If the world is so dangerous that you have to arm yourself, wouldn't you at least start by wearing body armor? It's purely defensive, so issues of use of force simply don't arise. It works passively and automatically, even if the attack is an ambush, and won't accidentally injure bystanders.

Certainly at least some of those who have objectively reasonable concerns about being shot do wear it, whether or not they also carry offensive weapons; soldiers going into battle and US presidential candidates, to pick an example of each.

[revmic]

Rather than DGU or other clinical terminology, can we agree call it shooting people? Defensive Gun Use is another euphamism, as firing at someone is not defensive- it's a counterattack (please note I am resisting the urge to hyperbolicly ask if you expect your bullet to defensively deflect the attacker's shot) No issue with that per se, I am an advocate of violence as a problem solving measure and am comfortable calling a spade a spade.

No, I'm quite comfortable sticking with DGU since it is more accurate than your suggestion.  "Shooting people" is a subset of successful DGUs.  "Defensive shooting" and "counterattack" are not mutually exclusive terms, however, the latter encompasses both non-lethal and lethal use of force.  The former is a commonly used term in the literature when referring to DGUs during which the weapon is fired, so I will continue to use it.

Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?

1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.

No, "expendability" is not a consideration and things often happen far to fast for such a thought intensive process.  The nutshell version is more like, (1) identify and access the threat and (2) respond with the appropriate level of force.  If it's a non-lethal threat, respond with The degree of non-lethal force necessary to stop the attack.  If it's a threat that puts you in reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death, respond with lethal force.  In either case, if retreat offers the better chance of going home, go home.

Now before I hear the "judge, jury, and executioner" comment again, responding with lethal force does not mean the goal is to "shoot to kill".  The goal is to stop the attack.  Now.  Definitively.  While it's true that putting rounds on the center of observable mass has a high chance of being lethal, death is not strictly required so long as the attack is stopped.  In other words, if the assailant reconsiders his life choices after taking one round to the chest that doesn't kill him...well...as I wrote earlier: success.  If I choose to keep shooting after that, I am no longer defending myself.

Ok, if were doing philosophy of self defense, I'm game. Couple things to clear up, maybe avoid asking each other what the hell the other is talking about:

Self defense is a broad subject, including psychological, unarmed physical, improvised weapons, etc.  I have only heard you refer to concealed carrying, drawing, or firing a gun, which is a comparatively rare use of self defense (also, I believe that self defense includes reasonable defense of others; I gather from your posts that you do not?). I suggest using 'philosophy of conflict' as phraseology that should satisfy us both. I object to the term 'DGU', unless you clarify specifically what it entails. As far as I know, you can show or draw a gun (threatening attack or counterattack) or fire it. Unless there is another significantly different use for the gun that you could explain, then DGU is a euphamism, and dishonest.

When I mentioned 'expendability' earlier, I was trying to keep the post short and used poor wording. Fleshed out: you have to assess honestly how physically, mentally, emotionally, and technically prepared you are to engage in violence. You have to assess, prior to conflict, how far you are willing to go and who has priority in terms of survival (if I am with my kids, they are first. If alone, I am first, etc). Honest self evaluation is by far the most important element in any philosophy of conflict. Quick anecdote: my sister took a job in Philly, asked me if she should carry a gun or knife. I said no way, she was in no way prepared to actually use either.

Regarding being judge, jury, and (possibly) executioner, you are in point of fact doing exactly that. Don't bob and weave, that is what you are doing by shooting with lethal force. No sugar coating, babe. Own it.

[Allan F]

Bodyarmor - not good for tomcatting around the leather bars, though. It is also quite uncomfortable to wear.

[PetersCreek]

One thing I've never understood is why there's hardly any discussion of body armor.

Body armor types are pretty specific to the type of threat they're intended to counter.  While many can offer decent protection to the front and rear torso against some typical handgun rounds, side protection is typically far less (or practically nonexistent) and they offer far less protection from stabbing attacks.  They provide little to no protection from brute force attacks involving knives or blunt objects, especially at grappling distances.  The neck and the good old brain pan remain vulnerable.

Additionally, body armor is restricted or outright banned for civilian use on some jurisdictions, if my knowledge is up to date.

[PetersCreek]

I have only heard you refer to concealed carrying, drawing, or firing a gun, which is a comparatively rare use of self defense (also, I believe that self defense includes reasonable defense of others; I gather from your posts that you do not?).

Various studies (including one by the CDC) estimate that there are 500,000 to 3 million DGUs per year, which outnumber gun injuries and fatalities combined.  "Comparatively rare" depends entirely on the basis of comparison.  My commitment to armed self defense includes myself, my family and others in need.

I suggest using 'philosophy of conflict' as phraseology that should satisfy us both. I object to the term 'DGU', unless you clarify specifically what it entails. As far as I know, you can show or draw a gun (threatening attack or counterattack) or fire it. Unless there is another significantly different use for the gun that you could explain, then DGU is a euphamism, and dishonest.

This is the second time you've applied that term to my words.  It concludes our conversation.

[ka9q]

Body armor types are pretty specific to the type of threat they're intended to counter.

I can understand that. I can understand that it doesn't protect every part of the body. And I can also understand that it's uncomfortable.

But isn't some protection better than nothing? Even if you also carry an offensive capability?

And isn't getting shot even less comfortable than wearing body armor?

Additionally, body armor is restricted or outright banned for civilian use on some jurisdictions, if my knowledge is up to date.

Unless the materials are toxic or otherwise hazardous to bystanders, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that many highly effective offensive weapons are not (currently) restricted or outright banned. Does it?

[PetersCreek]

But isn't some protection better than nothing? Even if you also carry an offensive capability?

The conclusion of a cost/benefit analysis depends on the situation.  Risk exposure in the LE and military environments is markedly different than in the civilian world.  Carrying 2 or 3 pounds of steel on your waist is one level of commitment.  Carrying that and another few pounds of bulky Kevlar and the attendant clothing requirements goes beyond that.  In practicing CCW, I'm planning for the rare exigency.  If the risk was more immediate and chronic, I would certainly give greater consideration to body armor.  However, I'm not LE and my military career is behind me by almost 18 years.

Unless the materials are toxic or otherwise hazardous to bystanders, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense given that many highly effective offensive weapons are not (currently) restricted or outright banned. Does it?

Making sense rarely seems to influence public policy in these matters.  Automatic knives are still virtually banned due to hoodlum hysteria dating back to the 1950s, fueled I think by Hollywood sensationalization.  Yet I have a couple of perfectly legal knives that deploy just as quickly because the spring mechanism is my finger, rather than internal.  Suppressors are similarly subject to severe restrictions due to their popular association with Mafia hitmen and the Hollywood myth that they make firearms effectively silent.  Go figure.

[gillianren]

True, but context is a factor you are ignoring. The context of this thread is not self defense generally, it is specifically about the use of a firearm. A gun is an 'equalizer' as they say, which means your defensive action is roughly equal to the attacking force, so more appropriately a counterattack. If you are hung up on definitions, note that the definition you cite says refers to the 'right', in the context of a legal justification. I am talking about the specific action.

And it's only roughly equal to the attacking force on the assumption that the criminal has a gun, which is not in any way a certainty.  I'm not saying a defense has to limit itself to exactly the same force as the attack; it's perfectly reasonable to use the level of force required to successfully counter the attack.  However, you will never know going in what that level of force will be, and carrying a gun assumes, at least to me, the permanent necessity of lethal force.

Not a valid comparison. I am talking about generally assessing what you are willing to do, and to who, and under what circumstances, before being faced with a specific threat. Contemplating realistically how prepared you are to commit to violence. The time to think about that is before the situation comes up, unlike your example with the car (no brainer btw, son lives). Are you seriously saying you don't do that? You'll just wing it? Please sell your guns if so.

In this analogy, are we assuming that the brakes don't work?  Because the sensible thing to do is to hit the brakes.  Not that the scenario in question bears any resemblance at all to a thing that would actually happen.

[Ranb]

Additionally, body armor is restricted or outright banned for civilian use on some jurisdictions, if my knowledge is up to date.

The only laws I've read on body armor in the USA are restrictions on possession by criminals and use while committing a crime.  As far as I know anyone can buy it.

Ranb

[PetersCreek]

The only laws I've read on body armor in the USA are restrictions on possession by criminals and use while committing a crime.  As far as I know anyone can buy it.

I thought I had read of locales where it is/was more restricted but as I hinted, I'm really not sure.  I haven't even looked into it in my state since I don't consider it practical for my needs.

[VQ]

Not a valid comparison. I am talking about generally assessing what you are willing to do, and to who, and under what circumstances, before being faced with a specific threat. Contemplating realistically how prepared you are to commit to violence. The time to think about that is before the situation comes up, unlike your example with the car (no brainer btw, son lives). Are you seriously saying you don't do that? You'll just wing it? Please sell your guns if so.

No, you didn't ask about general assessment. What you said was:

...it seems that you would have to determine in advance who is most important to defend and the collateral damage you can accept. Priority of those involved, like if I am with my family, their safety comes before mine. Do you shoot through bystanders in order to take out a mass shooter who is actively firing?

That is not general assessment; it is tactically specific. You make several unsupported assertions and then treat them as fact:

1. That there is a plausible scenario, unique to CCW, that involves choosing between loved ones.
2. That such a scenario is sufficiently predictable that it can be planned in advance.
3. That such a plausible, predictable scenario is sufficiently likely that it would be irresponsible not to plan it in advance.

Such assertions and your ignorance of the subject makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Regarding being judge, jury, and (possibly) executioner, you are in point of fact doing exactly that. Don't bob and weave, that is what you are doing by shooting with lethal force. No sugar coating, babe. Own it.

Wrong, and quite hyperbolic. The legal system carries out due process in criminal cases - there is no imminent threat from the accused; the focus is their prior alleged actions. Lethal force in self defense is solely focused on what the attacker is doing right now, and the right to use lethal force stops as soon as the assault does.

One thing I've never understood is why there's hardly any discussion of body armor. If the world is so dangerous that you have to arm yourself, wouldn't you at least start by wearing body armor? It's purely defensive, so issues of use of force simply don't arise. It works passively and automatically, even if the attack is an ambush, and won't accidentally injure bystanders.

Certainly at least some of those who have objectively reasonable concerns about being shot do wear it, whether or not they also carry offensive weapons; soldiers going into battle and US presidential candidates, to pick an example of each.

Body armor is less convenient (heavier, bulkier, and more detectable) than a handgun and also only useful in some situations (ie, mostly useless against sharp or blunt weapon attacks).

Odds of getting shot aside, body armor is more useful for groups than for an individual. For a civilian by themselves a nonlethal but incapacitating injury not prevented by body armor (ie a bullet to the knee or, for that matter, a bullet to the body armor) could easily turn into a lethal situation because the ability to fight or flee is impaired. Soldiers and presidential candidates will be surrounded by allies that can protect them in such a situation.

[LunarOrbit]

Additionally, body armor is restricted or outright banned for civilian use on some jurisdictions, if my knowledge is up to date.

The only laws I've read on body armor in the USA are restrictions on possession by criminals and use while committing a crime.  As far as I know anyone can buy it.

Ranb

Wasn't the FBI alerted about the Orlando shooter by a gun shop because he wanted to buy armour? We'll sell you assault rifles and more ammo than a typical person could use in a lifetime, but wanting to buy body armour is suspicious. 

[revmic]

No, you didn't ask about general assessment. What you said was:

I believe this was the original comment you are referring to?

Regarding philosophies of self-defense, I have not studied it but am I correct in reasoning these broad generalities?

1. Establish order of expendability, both in general beforehand and situationally.
2. Take whatever neutralizing action, starting with the least destructive, that is at your disposal to preserve your life and well-being while inflicting as little damage as possible to others, in order of their expendablity.

Please read the first one, the stuff in bold. I have explained that 'expendability' was poor word choice and have since clarified. Some of the clarifications are what you are quoting now.

...it seems that you would have to determine in advance who is most important to defend and the collateral damage you can accept. Priority of those involved, like if I am with my family, their safety comes before mine. Do you shoot through bystanders in order to take out a mass shooter who is actively firing?

That is not general assessment; it is tactically specific.

No, those are a couple (of many) general things to consider before you end up in a situation when you don't have time to think about it. Those two things are not tacticly specific. At all. I'm not theorizing some shootout. Valueing my kids above all is in not a specific tactic. Willingness to accept hurt bystanders is something to carefully consider beforehand; I used a concrete example of that and now you're reading a whole novel into it. Do you understand that using a concrete example is not imagining a scenario or theorizing a tactic?

You make several unsupported assertions and then treat them as fact:

1. That there is a plausible scenario, unique to CCW, that involves choosing between loved ones.
2. That such a scenario is sufficiently predictable that it can be planned in advance.
3. That such a plausible, predictable scenario is sufficiently likely that it would be irresponsible not to plan it in advance.

Such assertions and your ignorance of the subject makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Respectively:

1. I make absolutely no assertion of a plausible scenario involving choosing loved ones, unique to CCW or not. The 'unique to CCW' add-on is really weird. Take a look at the quote up there again, not a word about CCW or guns in the family example. Just the assertion that I consider them more important than me.
2. Again, there is no hypothetical scenario. Do you seriously think those two utterly unrelated examples i used (family more important, possibility of hurt bystanders) constitute a scenario?
3. Dear god in heaven- there is no plausible predictable scenario anywhere but in your head.

The 'assertions' you accuse me of do not exist. Please explain, if you don't mind, what I am ignorant of, and for that matter, specifically what subject (self defense, CCW, what?). And please tell me what you were drinking when you had the hallucination of the assertions. Imma try some of dat

[Ranb]

Wasn't the FBI alerted about the Orlando shooter by a gun shop because he wanted to buy armour? We'll sell you assault rifles and more ammo than a typical person could use in a lifetime, but wanting to buy body armour is suspicious. 

It wasn't just that he wanted body armor.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/06/16/gun-shop-omar-mateen-body-armor/

Abell said that Mateen asked for level 3 body armor, but the store doesn’t sell it. He also said Mateen made a phone call and spoke Arabic before asking for bulk ammunition.

The employees did not sell him any ammunition and Abell stated that “we contacted FBI direct” after Mateen left the store, but they were “not as attentive as we would have hoped.”

However, law enforcement officials told CBS News that they have not found any evidence that gun shop employees contacted police about Mateen’s suspicious behavior.

Asking for body armor, bulk ammo and making a phone call in Arabic was what it allegedly took for the gun store owner to make a call.

and more ammo than a typical person could use in a lifetime

I can't find anything on exactly how much ammo Mateen tried to purchase, but buying in bulk is not unusual at all. I buy in bulk when ever I can and try to have enough ammo on hand to last a year.  This is 5k to 10k rounds a year.  A typical person who shoots a lot is not buying enough ammo for a lifetime all at once.

Ranb

[revmic]

Regarding being judge, jury, and (possibly) executioner, you are in point of fact doing exactly that. Don't bob and weave, that is what you are doing by shooting with lethal force. No sugar coating, babe. Own it.

Wrong, and quite hyperbolic. The legal system carries out due process in criminal cases - there is no imminent threat from the accused; the focus is their prior alleged actions. Lethal force in self defense is solely focused on what the attacker is doing right now, and the right to use lethal force stops as soon as the assault does.

Forgot to respond to this one: You are correct in the mechanics of due process. But it is not what is being discussed. 'Judge, jury and executioner' is a well-known figure of speech in the US, usually meaning the exercising of extrajudicial power. In this context it means first that you are deciding someones guilt at extremely short notice with little time for sober deliberation ('stop a felonious assault' were your words, right? Who determines guilt of a felony crime or assault in our legal system?). And 'quite hyperbolic'? What are you talking about?

VQ: Do you agree that if you fire on someone in a conflict situation, even if your intent was only to stop a felonious assault, that you have judged him as guilty of a crime? I'll stop there.