It is actually called a Rhodesian drill, not an "Assassination shot". It is the accepted way to neutralize a target if the first two rounds to the chest do not do the job. Not hard to sell at all...

I was using the colloquial name. If we're getting technical, it's called a "Mozambique drill", not a rhodesian drill. Mike Rosseau (who developed the drill) was killed in the Rhodesian war, but developed the drill while on duty in Mozambique. Thus the name. Not that it has anything to do with anything.
It's acceptable in a military situation, of course, but typically a civilian court sees a difference between self defense and execution.

I'm sorry Will, Google not withstanding it is called a Rhodesian.

Please explain to me why if I fail to kill someone in self defense with two shots to the chest, it suddenly becomes execution when I shoot the attacker in the head.

Not sure why you're being stubborn on the point, but if you want to call it that, expect no one to know what you're talking about. If they ask you what you mean, Give the "Mozambique drill" a shot and see if they know.
That shot pattern is associated with execution even outside of gun owner's circles. I'll bet if I were to ask my 80 year old grandmother, she'd say it was an execution and not self defense. While they teach you shoot to kill in school, that defense is tough in court and becomes more difficult when it becomes clear you have the expertise to stop the guy without putting a big hole in his head.

Ah, the "Hitler did it!" of weaponry discussions. I'm done.

Okay, then let's try this:
Who here has been shot wearing a bullet-proof/ballistic vest? Can you share particulars about the how and give us impressions about if it's feasible for someone trying to steal a purse or raid a home?

The reason for the third shot, simply put, is that if the BG hasn't been laid out by two shots to the chest, he is one tough mutha and stronger medicine is needed. It doesn't imply shooting an assailant who's down, disarmed, and no threat: that -would- be execution. But if someone's still standing even a split-second after I hammer his centre of mass, he needs to go down NOW because he might just have enough fight left in him to do serious damage. Even if the heart is destroyed, there's enough oxygenated blood in the brain for several seconds of conscious action, which is more than enough time for a truly nasty dude (the kind of nasty who's still standing after taking a pair of .40s to the chest, say) to ruin your whole life expectancy. If the BG is wearing a vest, the situation is even worse.

That was what I meant. Still, if you hit the heart or aorta, even the strongest or most meth'd up criminal won't be a threat. There is instant, gushing bleeding which means that the muscles—and more importantly the brain—lose oxygen and nutrients very quickly, not to mention the pain. It's difficult for me to imagine someone taking two slugs in the heart and still needing to have a bullet in the brain.

Still, while I've got a reasonable grasp of the medical situation, I've never actually shot someone or seen a shot to the heart so I don't know with 100% certainty.
Well that's different, I'll concede that right now. Does it even count as a Mozambique drill if they've got a ballistic vest? It'd be more like a MozambOUCH. *high five*

BTW, Dund, back me up on the Mozambique thing!

Low blow. How many times have you been shot Jinn? Just wondering?

I can just see you playing CS between tooth exams. Someday I'll have to play you on de_dust.
LOL, thanks for the backup, but don't worry about it. He's just trying to get a rise out of me.

RANDOMLY:

Being shot doesn't make one an expert on anything except perhaps being on Jeebus' bad side. Same goes with binge drinking and car accidents and premature ejaculation.

The "I've been shot" excuse holds about as much weight as the "I've been to the desert" excuse I toss out every once in a while in jest.

It isn't qualification or expertise.

How many times have you see a firearm lawfully carried? How many times have you see a firearm lawfully used? How many times have you see a firearm lawfully discharged?

One doesn't need experience being shot to understand how firearms are lawfully (and safely) used.

What you mean to say is "How many times have you SEEN a firearm lawfully carried?"
The answer is maybe a dozen.
None that I'm aware of. Fortunately, I live in a place where people don't like guns.
You know that shooting a gun and discharging a gun mean the same thing, right?
No, but it provides one with a rather unique perspective.

Have you ever had to make a statement to the police at a hospital as your leg is sown up? Have you ever had to identify the weapon you were shot with? Ever have to face the person you're accusing?

You haven't seen them lawfully carried or used to much extent because the laws of the People's Republic of California don't condone such activities and lawful citizens abide by said laws. Hell, you can't even buy Kangaroo skin boots in CA.

Good people following the rules. Just like the good people who are enabled to carry firearms by law in their states. People like me... who haven't had to take the piece out of the leather once but are glad they have it if, on the way-way off chance, they need it.

Whew, I guess I'm just lucky that when I go to the range everybody knows what I am talking about. Come to think of it, thats where I first heard the term. Where did you hear the term for the first time?

Good thing your grandmother won't be called as an expert in any shooting cases then, huh?

And to address the last few posts:

I live in a state were many people carry concealed. I have only ever seen two people carrying (ie thier coat slipped), and I have never seen a gun discharged in self defence (in the US). It seems to me that from your sample size of one, the problem is either with you, will, or the gun laws of San Francisco. Since personal experiance rules supreme and all...

I first heard it from my uncle (I think he was a Colonel at the time, maybe 1992?), but I've heard it from military friends for years.
No, but she could very well be a member of the jury.
I know people that have guns, so it's not like I've seen random people on the street with concealed weapons. I'm in Santa Clara County, not San Francisco (and even in SF, the gun ban really wasn't enforced).

That worries more than most of the things in this thread.

open carry is legal in california so long as there is no round or magazine in the pistol. The magazine has to be separate, like on the other side of your hip. The problem with that is, you'd be proned out with guns pointed at your head felony stop style by any cop or cops that saw you, even though you weren't breaking a law. :mad:

I've never been stopped by cops when I had a gun with me but I hear that Az cops usually flip out too. Just a safety thing for them, which I can understand.

Out of curiosity, do you wear a helmet everywhere you go? You may one day need that too.

I've worn a bullet proof vest many times, never shot. I got "tazed" once in training. I preferred wearing the vest.

There were a couple guys in LA that decided to arm themselves to teeth and cover themselves in body armor. They also decided to do a bank take over robbery. They're also both deceased.

Honestly I think you can have this debate about gun control till the end of days. Arm every body, take all guns away, doesn't matter- violence is going to remain. Until the educational and social economic issues are dealt with people are going to find ways to steal, rob and assault each other.

I hop this is something we all can agree on. I certainly agree 110%.

We all agree, sure, but what the solution is varies too much; thus the cycle begins once again.

If, after two shots to center of mass, someone is still a threat, the chance that another CoM shot will stop them is dangerously low and you're approaching the end of the very short time frame in which you can take another aimed shot without being attacked. If someone is drugged up or has such an adrenaline rush that two in the chest won't stop them, the only thing that will is sudden, catastrophic cessation of brain activity.

You're right that a shot to the head is going to land you in court (at least in front of a grand jury,) there was a case in Hawaii a few years ago in which a man shot three armed attackers who had made it clear that he and his wife were not walking away alive. They advanced at him one at a time, each one pointing a gun at him and giving him no chance to run, although he stalled the first one long enough that his wife was able to get to safety and call 911. By the time the cops got there, he was sitting on the sidewalk, in shock, with his gun at his feet and three dead gangsters between him and the van they had tried to jump him from. The DA argued that the three head shots he had taken when each attacker took two shots to the chest without stopping were unnecessary. $18,000 in legal fees later with several expert witnesses testifying on his behalf, the jury was convinced that he really had no choice but to take those three shots.

I like Washington State's self defense law: If you kill someone in self-defense, are put on trial, and found innocent, the state will reimburse you for legal fees and time wasted.

why is there always this black/white delineation made between "normal, sane, legally licensed gun owners" vs. "unstable, insane, criminals" when it comes to the gun debate?

i have a friend who is a husband and father of two and owns about 10 guns, all legally purchased and licensed. he would pass any criminal background check or mental health analysis.

he is also an ex-marine, and if you get him started about guns, you become more than a little worried about what he would do if he felt threatened. he keeps an .45 under the seat of his mini-van.

the point is, anyone can make a bad decision at any time with a firearm. bad day, middle of a divorce, just got fired, whatever...

One of the "all talk" people. "If they come for my guns, they'll have a fight on their hands" actually means "I really hope they don't come for my toys". Proof? During Katrina, law enforcement confiscated guns throughout the damaged areas. There wasn't one case of the righteous gun owner defending the 2nd Amendment to the death. I didn't see one report of a shot fired. And none of the many many people who talk a big game drove to New Orleans to help out their brothers in arms.

It's all talk.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/debaser/4a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/debaser/waco.jpg

Is it?

The bottom pic is Waco. Of course if you have even a passing knowledge of Waco, the ATF fired first. The Branch Davidians only returned fire. BTW, the ATF should have been dismantled and reorganized after that. Even as someone who can't stand guns, what happened still makes me sick to my stomach.

You'll have to refresh my memory about the first pic.

Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame.

Just pointing out that there are people willing to fight for their guns. So far they have been nut-cases, but who is to say...

Also, where do get that the ATF fired first? The jury is still out on that one.

coincidentally, the part of the door that could conclusively show who fired what in waco has gone 'missing'. :orly:

katrina has been the example for some of us to make the decision to fight against confiscation. I know it was mine. 'cold dead hands' is something I now take seriously, whereas I did not before.

If it came time for confiscation, I would be quite willing to inform the authorities that I had sold all of my long guns in private sales and not kept receipts, in compliance with state and federal laws.

I'm kind of late to the gun argument. I will say this: I don't have a problem with responsible people carrying guns around. But, I feel like, these days, it's too easy to qualify for a permit.

I agree. I just look at the joys of problems Toronto is having with illegal firearms coming up from the States. Really it's not fair. Our gangs trade our drugs for their guns. They get good pot, we get our people shot at.

Bold is my edit.

Damn our crazy socialist ideas that want to keep things that are designed to kill other people out of the hands of the public.
It's like the old argument that if you make owning a gun a crime then only criminals will have the guns... umm well yeah and I'm okay with that. It just means one more crime to charge them with.
To me there should only be three groups of people that have guns. 1) Criminals, 2) the Police, 3) the Military. The second two being necessary evils at best and hopefully last resorts.

Agreed.

since socialism is in direct conflict with the ideas of american freedom and liberty, yes, they are considered crazy.

so your idea of socialism is defined as 'the people are, at best, subjects to be ordered about to produce products for the benefit of society as a whole, neither free to preserve their life or of their families, and that they should believe they are strictly a commodity to be protected at the whim of their government while victimized by an elite group of criminals who can kill as many people as desired since they will eventually be caught. only then can we have utopia.

do I have that right?

By American you mean US, right?

I've always enjoyed Article 1, Section 8, which elaborates on how the US government can tax it's people in order to provide socialist mail services, a socialist military, and socialist roads for said evil socialist mail. Looks like those sneaky, evil socialist framers snuck something in there right in front of our freedom loving eyes! :eek:

Will, its only socialist if we don't like it. We call the government services that we do like "inefficient" and the ones we don't like "socialist".

You like the postal service?

Yeah, I do too. It must be those adorable little trucks.

not everything is exactly as you label it will, like there is no socialist military if i'm providing a service. I'm getting paid for what i'm providing.

Your continued ignorance to what socialism is astounds me.

US military:
- Organized completely by the government
- Paid through tax dollars
- All equipment is owned by the government

Just to show you what a capitalist military would look like:
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

Come on! Socialism is pure evil. I know it is- I saw a special on it on Fox. Weird special though, it ran for like four or five years straight. They ran another special opposite of it on fascism, only they kept calling it "Patriotism," so I know that's good.