The British have something to say to us Americans!

Shoot to maim? And give the thug or thugs as you have no idea how many are in your house at 3 AM the opportunity to kill you and harm your family.... Are you Naive or... wait... you live in the UK?

Right... you must be in the UK where every homeowner has ESP and can psychically know that the person or people who have broken into your house have a gun, a knife, or are unarmed.... and if they are not as "armed" as you, you must use "restricted" force or go to prison.... yeah, it's 3 AM, you just woke up, you have NO idea who just broke into your house or why... (wait, my psychic powers tell me there are only two of them and they are only here to burglar something and won't harm me or my family.... right.



Double tap, center mass

[edit on 25-1-2009 by infolurker]

reply to post by LeTan


Great, LeTan.

I have a .357 Magnum. Do you really have the cojones to fire, and do you have the skill to hit a non-vital area?

The 'torso' shot is easiest, since it's the biggest target....and it's the 'kill-zone'....of course, the head is the best 'kill-zone', but it is smaller in comparison. A leg or arm hit will stop the assailant, but those limbs are usually moving, and very narrow.

Of course, even a shot in the leg, if it hits the femoral artery, will be the same as a 'kill', since the victim will likely bleed to death rather quickly.

Aim for the shoulder, if you wish to maim, and stop an attack, without killing....since KILLING will likely get you a whole heap of legal trouble, down the road.

Of course, depending on which blood vessels are hit, even in the shoulder, the victim could still bleed to death....so, there we are, back to square one.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by LeTan

 

Great, LeTan.

I have a .357 Magnum. Do you really have the cojones to fire, and do you have the skill to hit a non-vital area?

The 'torso' shot is easiest, since it's the biggest target....and it's the 'kill-zone'....of course, the head is the best 'kill-zone', but it is smaller in comparison. A leg or arm hit will stop the assailant, but those limbs are usually moving, and very narrow.

Of course, even a shot in the leg, if it hits the femoral artery, will be the same as a 'kill', since the victim will likely bleed to death rather quickly.

Aim for the shoulder, if you wish to maim, and stop an attack, without killing....since KILLING will likely get you a whole heap of legal trouble, down the road.

Of course, depending on which blood vessels are hit, even in the shoulder, the victim could still bleed to death....so, there we are, back to square one.

Well, asking someone if they have the cajones to do something on the internet is a bit rhetorical, I can tell you anything and there would be almost no way to find out if i would or wouldn't (unless you got really obsessed with the matter and stalked me :lol

And to be honest, yes I would fire, but no, I do not yet have the skill to do so accurately enough to not kill. It is a bit difficult since the recoil is so heavy and it's a really big bullet. Either way, if someone is breaking into my home or attempting to harm myself or the people I love, thinking about the criminal's safety is about as high on my list as deciding what ice cream to get after the incident.

reply to post by infolurker


infolurk....just how many times have YOU been broken into, in your entire lifetime, at 0300???

OK....you can't answer immediately, that's the nature of this board.

BUT, assuming you've once been the victim of a home invasion, and successfully fended them off....let me ask this----

WERE they very well trained professional asassins, or just common thugs? Were there more than two? More than three? Or, as is most common, just one?

Here's another question....why not install a home security system? It isn't that expensive, and usually will cause a casual burglar to run away the minute it goes off.

IF a professional is intent on invading your home, then you either (A) have something of great value there, and you should have it protected properly or (B) you're incredibly paranoid and just like the idea of having a gun under your pillow (or wherever) to satisfy your fantasy of being Dirty Harry.

A quick answer is I personally have not been in this situation and I have ADT. My wife's boss on the other hand was not so lucky. He was the victim of a "home invasion" and was shot in the chest and left for dead. The bullet passed through an artery and ended up lodged in an artery in his leg. He luckily survived but the assailants were never caught.

This finally gave my wife the "wake up" call to get her CCW. And to my dislike, a German Shepard. I am not a big fan of dogs.



[edit on 25-1-2009 by infolurker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


first, it's not hard to shoot a shotgun. Not at all.

Second, Your argument is completely bogus to begin with, because you don't even need to shoot a shot. You simply need to show the intruder or assailant the weapon. And more often than not, that gets the job done.

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

first, it's not hard to shoot a shotgun. Not at all.

Second, Your argument is completely bogus to begin with, because you don't even need to shoot a shot. You simply need to show the intruder or assailant the weapon. And more often than not, that gets the job done.

Doesn't that depend on the round you are shooting? I've shot doveshot, buckshot, and slugs, and their kickbacks (to me) are heavier in that order.

reply to post by JPhish


JPhish....I like your point, especially when you mention that simply brandishing the weapon might do the job of intimidating the intruder...

AND, another poster (sorry, can't remember the name) mentinoned that depending on the weapon, and the ammunition, the kick-back can be either light or strong.

Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face and neck, whilst hunting quail...yet the man survived.

Back to point....I do not have the statistics of, based on a country-wide data-base, how many home invasions have occured, versus how many were foiled by the Homeowner's having a weapon....whether a handgun or a rifle or a shotgun, or any combination. It would be an interesting thing to research!

Better yet, the statistics should be compiled by Country, and region, and year over year, going historically.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How many of you who champion gun ownership for all have ACTUALLY fired a gun? AND, how accurate is your targeting practice?

The last time I was attacked by 3 quail I was able to take them out in 2 shots.



Gun owners here in the U.S. still enjoy freedoms and rights that have been taken away from countless folks in other countries, ask them how they feel about it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
.... a properly informed burglar would NOT target a Peace Officer's home.

The problem is, robbers and burglers aren't always the brightest bunch and their victims often get targeted because their house (or establishment) looks like its got some booty in it, or they're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I've gone over the scenario in my head and wondered how much time I'd have to react if someone came crashing through my door meaning harm. I came to the conclusion that it probably wouldn't be enough without any warning. Neighbors aren't going to help you much either if they can't hear you.

In fact that did happen once, and the guy that held me hostage for 3 hours died wearing my clothes. He was wanted for murder though, and was just looking for a place to hide because he was being chased. He wasn't looking to rob me.

I don't worry about that so much anymore, I've got some great dogs that'll let me know if a rogue squirrel so much as eyes the bird feeder with ill intent.



Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns and it will stay that way until someone leaves me no other option.

Like I said before, criminals will end up with guns whether you're allowed to own them or not. The sad truth about the world we live in, is that some people don't get to go through life without having to kill somebody. That's just how it is.

On the surface, it may sound like a safer way to go, without guns, but the harsh reality is that it's not the law abiding citizen, who actually values human life, that's the threat.

Too many people realize this, otherwise they would have been taken away a long time ago.

I, for one, will speak out loudly against any legislation that tries to change it. Hopefully others will as well.

Peace

That 2nd Amendment is one of the greatest .....laws created IMHO.
And if she is ever in true trouble of being destructed..I will fight it with whatever means I can...That gun is your last draw against tyranny...against oppression...God bless our founding fathers for realizing this...Whether they meant it or not, the fashion in which we translate the law today, it is beyond useful.

reply to post by lernmore


"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns..."

Well, that is either the funniest, or the sickest thing I have read in a long while.

lernmore, let's get one thing straight: I AM NOT on the 'warpath' against private, responsible and legal ownership of guns.

In fact....I hate to raise this spectre, but imagine the old West...NOT the Hollywood version, but the reality of the untamed and largely unlawful reality of the expansion of the Colonials, across the Mississippi into the the 'Promised Land'(s) of the West.

Do you see yet? THIS is the reality....it is the REASON for the prevalent gun 'culture' in the USA. Not saying it's good, nor is it bad, it just IS!

Let's examine this more fully....we Humans are not far removed from the higher Apes of our Planet. Yes, we are more skilled at manipulating technology, but underlying our veneer of civilization we are mere animals. With all of the inherent emotional responses to stimuli, irrespective of what our higher brain functions try to tell us.

AND, this is just not Americans...nor British, nor any Australian nor European....in fact, it carries through most rational Human Being, that the basic concept is to live, and let live.

UNTIL we allow some radicalism, ANY radicalism, to interfere with the basic Human goodness and compassion for others.

BECAUSE, we have all been witness, I think, to how Humanity will come together in times of trial, to help one another. IT IS the ability to communicate, and then infect another's brain with words and ideas, that leads to an individual's 'decision' to act against the common good, and carry out the orders of some twisted concept that has been programmed in...whether by religion, or any other system.

'Word-of-Mouth'....it's an age-old concept, it pre-dated the printed word, of course, since the Printing Press wasn't even invented until circa 1400-something.

IF your Mother tells you something, then you BELIEVE it!!! Right?

BUT, what if what your Mother or your Father told you is NOT TRUE?!?

Hard to take, isn't it?

THIS is the dilemma, of lore. Again, prior to the printing press, stories were verbally handed down....few could read --- that was relegated to the 'priesthood'.

EVEN AFTER the printing press, there was much pressure to compel the illiteracy of the masses. Because, it's much easier to control the masses if they can't read, nor write, nor understand the grander concepts....

Hence, we see what is being attempted today.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by badgerprints

 

badger, you've just proved my point!!

Number 1....I WOULD NEVER break into somebody's house. Of course, IF (in a concocted scenario) I DID break into a Policeman's house, well OF COURSE he'd defend his FAMILY and property!!!! AND, I would get what I deserved, although I'd expect that a trained Peace Officer would know how to shoot to maim first, unless his life was in immediate danger.

Number 2.... a properly informed burglar would NOT target a Peace Officer's home. SO, your example is moot.

Number 3.... by definition, a 'burglary' is a crime that occurs in a residence or business when there are no victims present. A 'robbery', by definition, is a crime upon a person or persons.

Number 4... a Peace Officer, I must repeat, had received EXTENSIVE training. OF COURSE, in the event of a home incursion, that Peace Officer will respond with deadly force, or force as appropriate. BUT that is a result of years of training! How many casual gun owners can claim the same, hmmmm???

Obviously you know nothing about fire arms Rule number one do not point a fire arm unless you plan to kill your target. This isnt the movies you dont shoot to maim them. If you are in a cituation that you feel you need a firearm and are willing to point it at a person you kill them. If yo have no intention of killing anyone do not get a firearm you will only make it worse having it hoping you will scare the bad guy will only get you killed.

FREE Tony Martin - FREE Tony Martin - FREE Tony Martin

Goverments confiscating weapons from the civilians is a measure they have, to ensure that there is no force to overthrow, coerce, or threaten the goverment, should the goverment become too powerful or corrupt.

This has already happened long ago in Japan when the goverment banned the public carrying of swords. They did so to ensure samurais did not band together and over-throw the new goverment that took hold of the Japanese people.

[edit on Mon Jan 26th 2009 by DJMessiah]

talk about misguided/mis quoted.

this aint about guns its about the ban on fox hunting.

their just toffs who want to kill fox's, thats pretty much all that got baned. this has no relation to bannng your precious death tools. remember, guns are already banned here.

btw infolurker, how come you know it all , or dont as the case may be.

we dont need to use restrited, we have to be proportionate... that means we can use lethal force if justified. tony martain sorted that out for everyone.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by boaby_phet]

reply to post by dragonridr


dragon, THAT was my point!

From a Peace Officer's standpoint, a weapon is NOT DRAWN unless it is intended to be fired!

AND, a weapon is only drawn under dire circumstances....when another's, or your life, is threatened, by someone else.

Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly, so let me try again...

From what I know of Peace Officer Training, they draw their weapon ONLY when there is an immediate danger, either to themselves, or to another. AND, once drawn, that weapon may or may not be discharged, depending on the circumstances.

THAT is what training is all about!

Originally posted by RussianScientists
The British people are suffering a terrible tyrrany nowadays without having guns, crime has gone way up, and they have cameras on every street corner watching their every move.

Spot on. Since they took our guns away things have gone from bad to worse over here.

I remember the good ol days, when every man, woman, child, baby and pet owned at least a semi-automatic, and unless you were some kind of cheese eater you would own an RPG as well. The government would never mess with you....well, alright, they did use tactical nukes now and again, but nothing we couldn't handle.

Seriously, we have never had the right to own a gun over here so there was no point when they were "taken away". 99.9% of British people would vote against gun ownership - in fact politicians usually come out with tougher anti-gun laws if they want to win few votes. Even the police vote overwhelmingly against carrying guns, and 95% aren't licensed to carry one.

Apart from in a tiny criminal minority there is no "gun culture" and no call for a right to carry them. This goes right across the polictical spectrum, from left to right.

I have mixed reservations about this, gun control came in and banned pistol clubs before I was able to join one properly; I never understood this as they were kept in the club which was itself low key and well fortified and members needed a police issued licence. The restrictions prevented guns entering the community so no danger? Saying this I do feel that wider access to handguns will increase gun crime exponentially, saying this guns are around and I dare say one of my more disreputable neighbours has one or more stored or knows someone who does.

At the moment gun crime is reduced to criminals shooting other criminals, which is fine by me as long as the innocent are safe. People keeping guns in their home will lead to accidental discharges, heated arguments turning lethal and the increased potential for tragedy and ruined lives.

I don’t agree with the gun club ban, but for the moment I’d rather people did not keep guns in the home for there own safety; oh and I think the police are largely ineffectual in this area.

I'd like to see what our friends, the Canadians have to say on this subject?

AND, not limited to, but certainly welcomed as well, the Australians.

of course, we shan't not (is that redundant? never mind...) limit this discussion to just the usual players, because ALL are free to comment. Even those who were once DOMINATED by the British!!!

Just, please to remember to be civil in your responses, and do not resort to bad language, which is part of the decorum expected in this Forum!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Death by gun is much more humane than by 1 (one) T-50 staple.

or sewing ones eyelids open, drawing and quartering a home invader atop an ant hill with honey applied to the abdominal area as a lure.

Not to mention many old and mideval devices used for torturous deaths.