This is a breakaway from another topic about home defense.
It may stir some heated debate.
I'm going to speak in some generalities based on my thoughts.
All of law enforcement trains to stop the perps with what they call the double tap. Meaning two shots...one to the torso and one a head shot if possible. But two lethal shots. Meaning whomever is DEAD, not wounded.
The reason for this extensive training is because they are scared of being killed be some armed attacker. And rightly so. So the idea of two shots is to neutralize the threat. Not one shot, one kill.
Many people here are debating the best weapon for home/self defense.
Some say shotgun, some say revolver/handgun. Are the people opting for a shotgun less confident in their shooting abilities and therefore pick a more forgiving gun? Or are they confident that one shotgun blast will end the threat?
Do the people opting for the hand gun feel confident that their one shot shooting skills will bring down the bad guy?
Point being highly trained professionals train for two kill shots for each threat.
Me, Mr. Average Untrained Joe should have the same expectations for my persoanl protection needs. Is my life worth any less than a highly trained law enforcement person? Should I be anymore or less afraid of dying from the bad guys?
My untrained or signifigantly less trained hand should be expected to not eradicate any threat with one shot. Or even the double tap. I should be fully expected to unload the entire gun to neutralize the threat...
Am I wrong to want to kill every home invader with multiple rounds? It's good enough for law enforcement. It should not be questioned if I happen to need 2-3-4-5 shots to neutralize a threat.
Any person breaking into my home for any reason is going to die. I don't care if it's little Johnny from down the street or a 3 time loser ex con. They all know right from wrong. If I stand to lose all my hard earned possessions to pay legal bills then so be it. But wounding someone and having them spending all of my hard earned possessions by suing me for injuries incurred during a break-in isn't an option. If that makes me sound nuts then certify me.
There will be no need for anything but the coroner. They will be double, triple or quadruple tapped. Threat neutailzed.
It may stir some heated debate.
I'm going to speak in some generalities based on my thoughts.
All of law enforcement trains to stop the perps with what they call the double tap. Meaning two shots...one to the torso and one a head shot if possible. But two lethal shots. Meaning whomever is DEAD, not wounded.
The reason for this extensive training is because they are scared of being killed be some armed attacker. And rightly so. So the idea of two shots is to neutralize the threat. Not one shot, one kill.
Many people here are debating the best weapon for home/self defense.
Some say shotgun, some say revolver/handgun. Are the people opting for a shotgun less confident in their shooting abilities and therefore pick a more forgiving gun? Or are they confident that one shotgun blast will end the threat?
Do the people opting for the hand gun feel confident that their one shot shooting skills will bring down the bad guy?
Point being highly trained professionals train for two kill shots for each threat.
Me, Mr. Average Untrained Joe should have the same expectations for my persoanl protection needs. Is my life worth any less than a highly trained law enforcement person? Should I be anymore or less afraid of dying from the bad guys?
My untrained or signifigantly less trained hand should be expected to not eradicate any threat with one shot. Or even the double tap. I should be fully expected to unload the entire gun to neutralize the threat...
Am I wrong to want to kill every home invader with multiple rounds? It's good enough for law enforcement. It should not be questioned if I happen to need 2-3-4-5 shots to neutralize a threat.
Any person breaking into my home for any reason is going to die. I don't care if it's little Johnny from down the street or a 3 time loser ex con. They all know right from wrong. If I stand to lose all my hard earned possessions to pay legal bills then so be it. But wounding someone and having them spending all of my hard earned possessions by suing me for injuries incurred during a break-in isn't an option. If that makes me sound nuts then certify me.
There will be no need for anything but the coroner. They will be double, triple or quadruple tapped. Threat neutailzed.
Last edited: