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.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,115,125 times
Reputation: 8104
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson513
Thanks for the post, but I don't really think it supports your position:
...
Ooops, sorry, I didn't even look since I'm so used to S&W being about revolvers. Yes, some semiautos are crappy, that's why I recommended Glocks which have been through such extensive testing for reliability. OK, I don't want to spend forever on this, and someone above already did show revolver malfunctions:
I'd take Rambo in heartbeat with a silenced 22 semi auto rifle, from ambush, no problem. It's not like anyone is actually attacking you with a belt fed mg, either, you know. Only a small fraction of attackers make you shoot at all, much less hit them. So the 22 can "bluff" as well as anything else. I'll recommend a good quality 22 autopistol over a revolver, any day, cause DA is hard to hit with and thumbcocking (and uncocking) the hammer is slow and dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittic
whomever is holding the smith 686 doesn't know much about rapidfire control, cause their weak side hand is MUCH too low on the other hand. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittic
TWENTYTWO revolvers aren't all that reliable, when fired DA exclusively. they have many more times as many misfires, than centerfire loads do. Da is notorious for not firing rds that fire just fine when the cap is popped in SA mode.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittic
people who won't train enough to use an auto well enough need to stick with batons/knives, so they don't create fuel for the fire of the antig-gunners. You just cant help the weak/stupid, man and they really SHOULD perish, anyway, before they pollute the gene-pool or influence other people.
Ok, thanks for the suggestions. I am not into revolvers at all, though. I guess I can still look at some and check them out.
Well, as somebody already said, I think your goal should be to take him down and disable him. I realize you risk killing somebody when you shoot at them, but that would certainly not be my goal. My goal is to stop the attack.
Legally, that is your best thinking. If a shooting comes to a court case & you in any way suggest that you shot a person with intent to kill, it will be used 100% against you. If you maintain that you were trying to stop the attack, even a prosecutor could not fault you with that. He may still prosecute, especially if he hates guns, but you will not be giving him "ammunition" to use back against you.
Legally, that is your best thinking. If a shooting comes to a court case & you in any way suggest that you shot a person with intent to kill, it will be used 100% against you. If you maintain that you were trying to stop the attack, even a prosecutor could not fault you with that. He may still prosecute, especially if he hates guns, but you will not be giving him "ammunition" to use back against you.
This might sound a little heartless, but legally, your best strategy is to kill the intruder. First, you have the entire body of police training and practices that support you. Once you start shooting, police training is to shoot until the person does not move. That is why every time there is a police shooting there are 56 bullets fired by a couple of cops.
Second, if he just needed to be disabled, it calls into question the severity of the threat.
Third and most importantly, when the perp comes to court in a wheel chair looking like a choir boy, and swears he had his hands in the air and begged you not to shoot you are gonna get convicted. When he is DOA, he won't be contradicting your lawyer's statement that he said he would kill you and your family and the cops when they showed up, blah, blah, blah.
Legally, that is your best thinking. If a shooting comes to a court case & you in any way suggest that you shot a person with intent to kill, it will be used 100% against you. If you maintain that you were trying to stop the attack, even a prosecutor could not fault you with that. He may still prosecute, especially if he hates guns, but you will not be giving him "ammunition" to use back against you.
It all depends on what state you live in. In MOST states it's self defense and in So Carolina, Texas and quite a few others if you fear for your life and safety MOST DA's won't charge you with anything.
Know your laws in your state. and remember this phrase, "I feared for my life and I stopped the threat."
Oh BTW IF you have to shoot someone Shoot to KILL, not injure or wound. Even a wounded animal is still dangerous!!
This might sound a little heartless, but legally, your best strategy is to kill the intruder. First, you have the entire body of police training and practices that support you. Once you start shooting, police training is to shoot until the person does not move. That is why every time there is a police shooting there are 56 bullets fired by a couple of cops.
Second, if he just needed to be disabled, it calls into question the severity of the threat.
Third and most importantly, when the perp comes to court in a wheel chair looking like a choir boy, and swears he had his hands in the air and begged you not to shoot you are gonna get convicted. When he is DOA, he won't be contradicting your lawyer's statement that he said he would kill you and your family and the cops when they showed up, blah, blah, blah.
The entire body of police training states that your articulate your intent in a shooting as shooting to stop. Doing so involves shooting at the center of mass and continuing until your opponent no longer presents a credible threat.
If you are foolish enough to articulate your intent in a shooting as shooting to kill you will shortly (and rightfully) find yourself hung out to dry.
The entire body of police training states that your articulate your intent in a shooting as shooting to stop. Doing so involves shooting at the center of mass and continuing until your opponent no longer presents a credible threat.
If you are foolish enough to articulate your intent in a shooting as shooting to kill you will shortly (and rightfully) find yourself hung out to dry.
That raises another im;ortant point for those involved in a self defense shooting. As innocent as one may be, and pure as the driven snow, there is no need to make any statement to the police at the scene of the shooting. Wait until your lawyer has advised you no matter how perfect and justified the shooting may have been. The police do not need your statement to do their job at this time and nothing good can come from a person articulating anything about the shooting other than your name and your desire to speak with your lawyer before being interviewed. No matter what, don't back off this position even if they threaten to arrest and charge you. Trust me on this, if they do charge you they were going to do so anyway and your statements about the event will be your lawyer's biggest headache in getting you off.
Just say "leave me alone, I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer."
That raises another im;ortant point for those involved in a self defense shooting. As innocent as one may be, and pure as the driven snow, there is no need to make any statement to the police at the scene of the shooting. Wait until your lawyer has advised you no matter how perfect and justified the shooting may have been. The police do not need your statement to do their job at this time and nothing good can come from a person articulating anything about the shooting other than your name and your desire to speak with your lawyer before being interviewed. No matter what, don't back off this position even if they threaten to arrest and charge you. Trust me on this, if they do charge you they were going to do so anyway and your statements about the event will be your lawyer's biggest headache in getting you off.
Just say "leave me alone, I'm not saying anything until I talk to my lawyer."
Agreed, though I would add the better course of action is to state you were in fear for your life, were forced to defend yourself, and wish to speak with your attorney before making further comments. Further elaboration without the benefit of council will likely do more harm than good but the initial statement will at least get the beginnings of your side of the story on record.
You're giving no details that can hurt your case but are making a statement that can point the initial aspects of the investigation in a direction favorable to yourself while demonstrating a willingness to cooperate. The tone of the initial contact can make a world of difference in how the case is handled.
Last edited by outbacknv; 12-18-2011 at 05:22 PM..
Ooops, sorry, I didn't even look since I'm so used to S&W being about revolvers. Yes, some semiautos are crappy, that's why I recommended Glocks which have been through such extensive testing for reliability. OK, I don't want to spend forever on this, and someone above already did show revolver malfunctions:
Revolvers do malfunction but not as often as autos. If you hit a dud shell, for example, simply pull trigger again. With auto, this means yanking the slide again to eject the dud. I don't dislike autos, I want to get one. I have a cheapie auto that I don't like but will get a 9mm or .45 when I have some $ again.
I tend to think a revolver would be a better choice if one can only afford 1 handgun and better choice as a 1st handgun. For a police officer or soldier, an auto is the only good choice, as they are more likely to need high ammo capacity. A revolver as backup is still a good idea for anyone though.
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.