Need reference material

[Cameramonkey]

As I am sure you are all having the same issue. (well those of you on FaceBook anyway)

There are lots of liberals with their panties in knots claiming officer Wilson overreacted, used excessive force by firing too many shots, not shooting him in the leg, etc.

Anyone have any good links that cover the whys? Things like adrenaline dump and effects of accuracy, limitations of non lethal devices like a tazer, etc. ?

Not that they will listen to a professional, but I find that the typical liberal bedwetter is apt to ignore my comments because I am supposedly not an authority on the topic and therefore I am automatically wrong. (I could say the sky is blue but since I am not a meteorologist, my "opinion" isnt to be trusted) Some unbiased study references would be grand as they tend to latch onto things like the CDC, FBI, etc and ignore pundits as being biased and therefore automatically wrong.

 

[phylodog]

Articles

 

[GunSlinger]

Outstanding resource phylodog. Lots to read there.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Outstanding resource phylodog. Lots to read there.

I agree.

hoping some more N00B friendly "readers digest" versions also come along. While I find them fascinating, those are so fact heavy and dry I'll have a hard time getting these morons to read.

 

[Cameramonkey]

which reminds me, Is there a sticky somewhere here with links to handy articles, 2A court cases, etc? If not it might make sense to start one.

Kinda like a virtual library of sorts with links to things like this:
http://bearingarms.com/hands-dont-s...ence-suggests-textbook-self-defense-shooting/

As well as links to landmark decisions like Heller, Warren v DC, Castle Rock v Gonzales, maybe a direct link to applicable IC, etc.

 

[HoughMade]

As I am sure you are all having the same issue. (well those of you on FaceBook anyway)

There are lots of liberals with their panties in knots claiming officer Wilson overreacted, used excessive force by firing too many shots, not shooting him in the leg, etc.

Anyone have any good links that cover the whys? Things like adrenaline dump and effects of accuracy, limitations of non lethal devices like a tazer, etc. ?

Not that they will listen to a professional, but I find that the typical liberal bedwetter is apt to ignore my comments because I am supposedly not an authority on the topic and therefore I am automatically wrong. (I could say the sky is blue but since I am not a meteorologist, my "opinion" isnt to be trusted) Some unbiased study references would be grand as they tend to latch onto things like the CDC, FBI, etc and ignore pundits as being biased and therefore automatically wrong.

Let me get this straight- you are going to try to argue with logic and facts? Do you really have that kind of time to waste?

 

[cook5oh]

Let me get this straight- you are going to try to argue with logic and facts? Do you really have that kind of time to waste?

Yeah, facts and logic won't get you very far. But then again that's true with most internet arguments considering most aren't about truth, but more for inflaming the situation. It sure is becoming a troll or be trolled world out there.

 

[MCgrease08]

I had this same conversation with my wife today. Her FB friends keep saying the same type of stuff like, "why did it take six shots? The officer should have been able to incapacitate him with one or two."

I explained concepts like shooting until you stop the threat, shooting under stress, the 21 foot rule, the poor ballistic capabilities inherent in handgun rounds, etc.

It was a good robust discussion. We even touched on the Miami FBI shootout and the development of the 10mm rd and how it transformed into .40 S&W.

Sadly most people believe what they see on TV or the movies and actually believe a single pistol round will stop a 6'2'' 300 pound man bent on caving in another man's head.

They come to the discussion from a place of ignorance when it comes to concepts of self defense and ballistics and likely won't listen to you no matter how many facts you present.

 

[Suprtek]

Facts or lies...it doesn't matter. They have to have a bit of common sense before rational conversation can take place. Good luck.

 

[cheese]

Yeah, facts and logic won't get you very far. But then again that's true with most internet arguments considering most aren't about truth, but more for inflaming the situation. It sure is becoming a troll or be trolled world out there.

You mean not everything I read on the inter web is true? Trolls choice is their voice

 

[wtburnette]

You can't argue with a liberal with the intention of converting them, or having them understand your viewpoint. Liberals don't work that way. The only time a liberal converts is when they go through a life altering experience that proves to them that their way of thinking is a fantasy.

 

[KittySlayer]

There are lots of liberals with their panties in knots claiming officer Wilson overreacted, used excessive force by firing too many shots, not shooting him in the leg, etc.

Take them to the range and hang a big 2'x3' torso target 7 yards down range and let them shoot 6 shots. Evaluate the shots that hit paper and let them determine if it would have stopped the threat. Then put a smaller target down range and give them a full magazine and see if they can get two shots into the "leg".