Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is, the poster I quoted wanted the kid to KILL the intruder.
He was sorry that the kid did not kill him.
So many idiot gun owners on CD want to Kill, KILL, KILL!!!
Are they really such big idiots that they don't know that if they kill, there will be a negative effect on their lives? And I'm not talking legal system.
I do see your point.
Many gun owners and I will take the risk of saying that most legal owners don't want to kill anyone. They know the responsibilities of owning and using.
When faced with this exact situation though, one is not think "bare minimum" shot. They are just thinking shoot and that's when your instincts and training kick in.
I am a gun owner and know my responsibilities as such. Killing someone is never on my mind. I also know that my training has taught me to aim for the chest. If, God forbid, I was ever in this situation I would aim with a kill shot automatically as instinct would take over.
Again, I do see your point. Please don't think all gun owners want to kill anyone.
Why are the police witholding the intruder's name until he's booked into jail ? Couldn't releasing his name help locate the woman who knocked on the door ?
Are you purposely being obtuse?
Did you even try to read what I was saying, and it wasn't about the kid, it was about the poster who thought that the kid should have tried to KILL the intruder.
Are gun owners really this challenged?
Yes. It is a shame that the intruder wasn't killed.
1) You really think this is the first time the intruder tried something like this?
2) You think the intruder won't try it again on someone else?
The intruder was armed and ready to inflict serious harm on his victims. He deserves to die.
Yeah, the comment of too bad he didn't kill the intruder is a real positive one.
Why is it that with gun nuts (not all are, but most on CD are) the murder is the real draw.
Ooooh, let's kill.
Let's harm.
Not let's do the minimum to protect... it's usually kill, kill, kill.
You live with that.
What is the minimum to protect? Should it be something that is just sufficient enough to kill someone, maybe, like a .22 or something? Is it a certain level of damage caused to the other person? Causing excess blood loss is okay but don't mess up their face? Don't use a firearm when a knife is available?
Going into this further, it is going to vary from person to person. Some people defend themselves with purposely-placed items inside their homes or cars, such as a bat, or a golf club, or a hockey stick, or a gun; others defend themselves with items that just happen to be handy- a broom, a shoe, a rock laying on the ground, a tree branch, etc. What is the acceptable way to defend oneself? With a gun? A knife? Hand-to-hand only? If so, what type and caliber? What blade length? Is Judo more efficient in a brawl than Krav Maga or Tae Kwon Do or Capoeira?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
The point is, the poster I quoted wanted the kid to KILL the intruder.
He was sorry that the kid did not kill him.
So many idiot gun owners on CD want to Kill, KILL, KILL!!!
Are they really such big idiots that they don't know that if they kill, there will be a negative effect on their lives? And I'm not talking legal system.
The people I've met who have for whatever reason killed someone in self defense (with whatever tool was handy) have never been any sort of happy about having to do that to another person. Many of them have horrible PTSD-like experiences (or PTSD itself) from doing so. Many of these people DO reconcile the fact that they had to kill someone with the actions of the deceased-you break into a home, or try robbing someone, or hold up a store, or try to carjack, beat, rape, or kill another person, you are risking your own health and life in the process. The intruder in this story gambled and lost- simple as that. The kid will probably never be the same again, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
Are you purposely being obtuse?
Did you even try to read what I was saying, and it wasn't about the kid, it was about the poster who thought that the kid should have tried to KILL the intruder.
Are gun owners really this challenged?
Gun owners really are not this challenged.We dislike other gun owners who set a bad example just as much (actually, more so) than people who do not own, carry, or even like or handle firearms. What was said was that it is unfortunate that people who commit these crimes (and get shot and live, or die and it's the family of the criminal) cost others so much money while either recovering/awaiting trial/doing time or getting a case together for a lawsuit that as far as self-defense goes, it is actually (usually) cheaper to just kill the person rather than attempt some crazy John Wayne stuff.
It is not practical in these situations to do what some people seemingly advocate- shooting out tires, shooting someone in the knee, shooting the gun out of someone's hand, etc. Those things do not remove the threat from a situation, it just slows the threat down. In addition, in an adrenaline-charged situation, reflexes are faster (for both people), accuracy goes to hell (for both people) and this is usually done at a distance where it's not only self-defense, it's danger close: these criminals aren't just in your home, but they are IN YOUR FACE.
Anyways... just my two cents. 21-year-old CCW holder here.
Chil - Stopping the assault is what is important. Weather the assailant is killed or not is not important at the time. The defendant has to react and use his training first, last and always. The defendant rarely has time to think about what the consequences will be. He only has time to stop the assault.
Shooting any living thing has emotional effects. I hope this kid gets some help if he is having difficulties with what he did. he should be relieved that he prevented harm to his siblings and himself. If you think he would feel guilty about shooting this assailant how guilty would he feel if one of his siblings was raped or killed because he didn't shoot the thug?
If a criminal breaks into somebody's house and the homeowner shoots him/her center mass to defend themselves, family & property, then it's just too bad if death is the byproduct for the perp.
As mentioned above, the objective of armed self-defense is not to kill, but rather to stop the threat. If the stoppage is permanent, then society is better off with one less dirtbag.
No sympathy from me if the criminal assumes room temperature.
I'm pretty peace loving myself, but I was raised with guns. I have absolutely no sympathy with anyone who breaks into someone else's home with the intent to steal or harm. I get furious when someone says that a burglary is a "victimless" crime. BS! The trauma and psychological damage of coming home to find your house cleaned out is overwhelming.
I think that kid deserves a medal. If the intruder wasn't killed, perhaps his/her legs were damaged enough that sneaking into another home is out of the question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
