Zwetschgen
Member
Do you remember Batman and how the Joker would be hanging from a cliff, just inches from death, when from out of no where Batman pulls the Joker to safety, just to reak havok again?
I've been reading on these forums, and within myself debating, 'Whould I shoot and kill someone, if they broke into my house?' Topics like "Shoot to Wound/Shoot to Kill" and other interesting stories of break-ins throughout the forum, and in the Tactics area, have lead me to a few conclusions I'd like to share with you:
1st: Everyone should have read or downloaded the gun facts 5.0 version from gunfacts.info. I had mine spiral bound at Kinkos... It contains all kinds of progun (and a small section of antigun quotes in the back) information, but the most interesting to me was the fact that most criminals have already been criminals for years.
So, consider this, every criminal you hear about on the television, every robbery, or burglarly you live, the bad guys probably done it tens or hundreds of times already. I will remember that when someone is breaking into my home.
2nd: Various studies and medical professionals agree that there are two ways to effectively stop an intruder with a single shot: Spine or head. Both of which are fairly obvious as to why they will stop aomeone, but what are the alternatives to being Rambo? Enough damage to vital organs: liver, heart lungs, etc. etc. to render them stopped.
I am not a doctor, but I am of the firm belief that if you can stop someone within your home with the use of force, that use of force will probably be enough to kill them. It's a moral delima, yes, the human life is valuable, but some scum bag's life is not as valuable as mine, that's why I imagine I will shoot and as the say goes "let the Lord decide."
So, what kind of follow up threads would I expect, first, go download the gunfacts, then any kind of thinking that goes through your head as to why you would, or would not shoot, why you use what caliber/guage you use, that sort of thing... Too often do the innicent hold the guilty at gunpoint, just to let the badguy get some kind of parole...
I've been reading on these forums, and within myself debating, 'Whould I shoot and kill someone, if they broke into my house?' Topics like "Shoot to Wound/Shoot to Kill" and other interesting stories of break-ins throughout the forum, and in the Tactics area, have lead me to a few conclusions I'd like to share with you:
1st: Everyone should have read or downloaded the gun facts 5.0 version from gunfacts.info. I had mine spiral bound at Kinkos... It contains all kinds of progun (and a small section of antigun quotes in the back) information, but the most interesting to me was the fact that most criminals have already been criminals for years.
So, consider this, every criminal you hear about on the television, every robbery, or burglarly you live, the bad guys probably done it tens or hundreds of times already. I will remember that when someone is breaking into my home.
2nd: Various studies and medical professionals agree that there are two ways to effectively stop an intruder with a single shot: Spine or head. Both of which are fairly obvious as to why they will stop aomeone, but what are the alternatives to being Rambo? Enough damage to vital organs: liver, heart lungs, etc. etc. to render them stopped.
I am not a doctor, but I am of the firm belief that if you can stop someone within your home with the use of force, that use of force will probably be enough to kill them. It's a moral delima, yes, the human life is valuable, but some scum bag's life is not as valuable as mine, that's why I imagine I will shoot and as the say goes "let the Lord decide."
So, what kind of follow up threads would I expect, first, go download the gunfacts, then any kind of thinking that goes through your head as to why you would, or would not shoot, why you use what caliber/guage you use, that sort of thing... Too often do the innicent hold the guilty at gunpoint, just to let the badguy get some kind of parole...