Looters prepare to loot during/after the storm.

http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_looting_home_defense_tactics.html

You loot, we shoot!
Something is terribly wrong with the fabric of society when people think a deadly storm is the perfect opportunity to go on a looting spree. These city-dwelling gang bangers are, of course, counting on the citizens along the eastern seaboard being disarmed due to gun control laws. With 911 out of commission and peace officers completely occupied with other emergency tasks, citizens will be left on their own to protect their homes and families. The storm has taken away police protection, and the State has taken away their Second Amendment rights, so what do they have left to protect themselves from these armed looting gangs?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_looting_home_defense_tactics.html#ixzz2AnPxRU7f


The article is okay up until they give this bit of "advise"


7) If and when you decide to pull the trigger, do not aim for the head or try to "shoot to kill." You are trying to shoot to STOP your target so that he cannot physically threaten you anymore. Killing should never be your goal, only stopping the attacker.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_looting_home_defense_tactics.html#ixzz2AnQCkWm5

------------------------------------------


What a bad idea. If you're going to shoot someone DO shoot to kill.

Freedom1Man said:

The article is okay up until they give this bit of "advise"

7) If and when you decide to pull the trigger, do not aim for the head or try to "shoot to kill." You are trying to shoot to STOP your target so that he cannot physically threaten you anymore. Killing should never be your goal, only stopping the attacker.
------------------------------------------
What a bad idea. If you're going to shoot someone DO shoot to kill.

Click to expand...

Their advice is absolutely correct.
If you intend to kill someone you are (also) committing a crime.
Shooting to stop in many cases will also kill the attacker, but that's an unfortunate side effect and should never be wished for.
(Plus, the head is a small target. Much easier to hit center mass, unless they're pretty much on top of you.)

Having now posted your views on the subject in a public forum, I hope you are never involved in a defensive shooting where your attacker dies. The cops/DA will dig up things like this & use them against you.

a rather unsettling conversation i had with a Fed. very recently; apparently he is being deployed to an undisclosed location for the next 30 days. makes me wonder; why and where? hurricane help? appears rather timed to coincide with the elections, and perhaps the aftermath? time will tell.

Freedom1Man said:

http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_looting_home_defense_tactics.html

You loot, we shoot!
Something is terribly wrong with the fabric of society when people think a deadly storm is the perfect opportunity to go on a looting spree. These city-dwelling gang bangers are, of course, counting on the citizens along the eastern seaboard being disarmed due to gun control laws. With 911 out of commission and peace officers completely occupied with other emergency tasks, citizens will be left on their own to protect their homes and families. The storm has taken away police protection, and the State has taken away their Second Amendment rights, so what do they have left to protect themselves from these armed looting gangs?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_looting_home_defense_tactics.html#ixzz2AnPxRU7f


The article is okay up until they give this bit of "advise"


7) If and when you decide to pull the trigger, do not aim for the head or try to "shoot to kill." You are trying to shoot to STOP your target so that he cannot physically threaten you anymore. Killing should never be your goal, only stopping the attacker.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037743_looting_home_defense_tactics.html#ixzz2AnQCkWm5

------------------------------------------


What a bad idea. If you're going to shoot someone DO shoot to kill.

Click to expand...

This is one of several reasons why every household needs a shotgun in addition to a simple handgun (pistol or revolver -- you hold it in your hand that's why it's called a handgun according to F. Lee Ermy GSgt USMC-Ret). To drive off rioters who are looting a simple handgun is not enough. You need the shotgun.

Looters will very likely have cheap small handguns themselves. A shotgun speaks volumes against someone lightly armed like that.

And when you shoot a shotgun, anywhere you hit is good enough in most cases. It will rip off an arm or a leg, if not blow a hole through the chest, and that works like a charm to scare away other rioters and looters as well.

Make sure you have taken out the sport plug dowel from your shotgun too, whenever you are not actually in the field duck hunting with it.

And keep 50 to 100 shells handy at all times at home.

Of course, a shotgun is not going to protect you from flooding. Bugging out is the only thing that would protect you from a flood.

So the best thing is to (1) have a kit, (2) make a plan, (3) stay informed, and then (4) bug out before it is too late, taking your valuables with you. The plasma tv won't fit in your car, but your guns, jewelry, cash, computers, documents and things will fit.

When you go back home, after the floods, if your house was looted by some ghetto rat, oh well, there is not much you can do. A quality gunsafe will protect some of your possessions that you have left behind, but only by bugging out can you ensure the rest will be safely with you.

Mother Nature and the storm is the bigger issue, not the looters.

Another thing about NYC and its laws -- I have had several opportunities to work in NYC and I have turned them all down. No thanks.

The USSC case Heller has settled the issue in the DC and NYC and Chicago that everyone is entitled to keep a handgun in their homes, loaded and ready. You may need to get a court order from a local federal judge to get the "permit" you need in NYC and Chicago to enforce the ruling on them however. A big headache and procedural issue, still. And the pump shotgun as long as not sawed off should be covered by Heller too, since it was mentioned more than a few times as well.

I would not suggest pushing it with an assault weapon though (magazine fed gas operated semi auto rifle or uzi-like gun). Those have not yet met the test of any USSC review.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

and dont forget to stock up on plenty of this!

MKEgal said:

Their advice is absolutely correct.
If you intend to kill someone you are (also) committing a crime.
Shooting to stop in many cases will also kill the attacker, but that's an unfortunate side effect and should never be wished for.
(Plus, the head is a small target. Much easier to hit center mass, unless they're pretty much on top of you.)

Having now posted your views on the subject in a public forum, I hope you are never involved in a defensive shooting where your attacker dies. The cops/DA will dig up things like this & use them against you.

Click to expand...

+1.

#7 and #10 are spot on.

I've shared this story on facebook, and implored my friends and family to please get self defense weapons and learn how to use them. Hopefully this may motivate those who've been saying "Oh I need to, eventually..." to get off their asses and do it.

The advice is good, just poorly worded.

It is a matter of intent. The aim is the same. Shooting to stop, though, is clearly self-defense. Shooting to kill may be interpreted otherwise and result charges.

Remember though, the aim is the same. Shoot to stop, realizing that where you are aiming will likely result in the death of the target, which of course, still stops him.

A head is too small. So are legs. Shooting to kill is as silly as shooting to injure. I'll shoot to stop. If it's a zombie, I'll aim for the head. But until this storm spawns a zombie apocalypse, I'll aim for the biggest target- center mass.

kubel said:

A head is too small. So are legs. Shooting to kill is as silly as shooting to injure. I'll shoot to stop. If it's a zombie, I'll aim for the head. But until this storm spawns a zombie apocalypse, I'll aim for the biggest target- center mass.

Click to expand...

Be careful when you shoot for the head. The LEOs who taught my defensive handgun class said you need to hit them in the triangle formed by the eyes and the nose, or else like in the case of Gabbie Giffords, the shots will deflect-off due to the skull being a spherical object.

Shoobee said:

Be careful when you shoot for the head. The LEOs who taught my defensive handgun class said you need to hit them in the triangle formed by the eyes and the nose, or else like in the case of Gabbie Giffords, the shots will deflect-off due to the skull being a spherical object.

Click to expand...

Read. He said he would shoot for the head if it is a zombie. Otherwise, IOW, ALWAYS, he will shoot for center mass.

eye95 said:

Read. He said he would shoot for the head if it is a zombie. Otherwise, IOW, ALWAYS, he will shoot for center mass.

Click to expand...

Wuz jus advisin him that shooting for the head requires carefuller aiming than anywhere else since your target is now the size of half a banana and even smaller than the heart-lung complex. Gabbie Giffords is recent evidence of that. Miraculous how she even survived. But the laws of physics explain it too. Read.

Why does he need to be advised about shooting for the head if he essentially said that he would NOT?

I can only assume that you failed to understand the irony he was painfully clearly using or that you simply were being contrary. Judging from the bulk of your posts, I am going with the second assumption.

Moving on to yet something else. I have tired of dealing with the hateful inanity of your posts. I will instead enjoy the blank lines where your posts once resided. Would that John choose to make that state of affairs permanent in a way that all could enjoy. Bye.

Shooting looters is illegal, even during a period of declared emergency. There is no way you will convince a jury that the loss of a 72-inch flat-screen TV and three cases of beer constituted an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

On the other hand, if you were looking for purely hypothetically theoretical ways to reduce the incidents of looting - which I'm sure we all understand is a purely academic exercise with no pratical application - pelvic, leg and gut shots would be what you would want. Leaving the wounded as cautionary signs to any who might follow, and all that. Unless yoyr looter can haul away the booty by themself, they are going to look for assistance - and when someone goes down they are going to look for the others to get that one to safety/treatment. Should the wounded looter be abandoned, all the others will look at the remaining members of the group and wonder if any of them can be counted on, or will the next one to be wounded also be abandoned. (Or at least that's what the insurgency/asymetric warfare manuals suggest.)

When the popular press undertakes to spout off a perfectly sound and correct maxim in a way and setting it was never intended to cover, you get this sort of "advice" and the deflection of the conversation away from the important aspect of LACs remaining law-abiding even during periods of social disruption. Folks, civilization as you know it rests on your shoulders!

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Shooting looters is illegal, even during a period of declared emergency. There is no way you will convince a jury that the loss of a 72-inch flat-screen TV and three cases of beer constituted an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

On the other hand, if you were looking for purely hypothetically theoretical ways to reduce the incidents of looting - which I'm sure we all understand is a purely academic exercise with no pratical application - pelvic, leg and gut shots would be what you would want. Leaving the wounded as cautionary signs to any who might follow, and all that. Unless yoyr looter can haul away the booty by themself, they are going to look for assistance - and when someone goes down they are going to look for the others to get that one to safety/treatment. Should the wounded looter be abandoned, all the others will look at the remaining members of the group and wonder if any of them can be counted on, or will the next one to be wounded also be abandoned. (Or at least that's what the insurgency/asymetric warfare manuals suggest.)

When the popular press undertakes to spout off a perfectly sound and correct maxim in a way and setting it was never intended to cover, you get this sort of "advice" and the deflection of the conversation away from the important aspect of LACs remaining law-abiding even during periods of social disruption. Folks, civilization as you know it rests on your shoulders!

stay safe.

Click to expand...

It would make more sense then to aim for the gonads of the looters so that they could not continue to contaminate the Earth.

And a shotgun is very good for that too.

eye95 said:

Why does he need to be advised about shooting for the head if he essentially said that he would NOT?

I can only assume that you failed to understand the irony he was painfully clearly using or that you simply were being contrary. Judging from the bulk of your posts, I am going with the second assumption.

Moving on to yet something else. I have tired of dealing with the hateful inanity of your posts. I will instead enjoy the blank lines where your posts once resided. Would that John choose to make that state of affairs permanent in a way that all could enjoy. Bye.

Click to expand...

Never ass-u-me big boy.

Had you served in the military at sometime they would have taught you that.

So you missed reading the part about zombies.

Zombies is the code word (you know what code words are, right?) for any mob of anything coming at you.

In bug-out speak, zombies are all the other city folk that will be trying to get your foodstuffs from you.

This would be during the zombie apocalypse which is coming.

Other folks use zombies to means other things though.

skidmark said:

Shooting looters is illegal, even during a period of declared emergency. There is no way you will convince a jury that the loss of a 72-inch flat-screen TV and three cases of beer constituted an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

On the other hand, if you were looking for purely hypothetically theoretical ways to reduce the incidents of looting - which I'm sure we all understand is a purely academic exercise with no pratical application - pelvic, leg and gut shots would be what you would want. Leaving the wounded as cautionary signs to any who might follow, and all that. Unless yoyr looter can haul away the booty by themself, they are going to look for assistance - and when someone goes down they are going to look for the others to get that one to safety/treatment. Should the wounded looter be abandoned, all the others will look at the remaining members of the group and wonder if any of them can be counted on, or will the next one to be wounded also be abandoned. (Or at least that's what the insurgency/asymetric warfare manuals suggest.)

When the popular press undertakes to spout off a perfectly sound and correct maxim in a way and setting it was never intended to cover, you get this sort of "advice" and the deflection of the conversation away from the important aspect of LACs remaining law-abiding even during periods of social disruption. Folks, civilization as you know it rests on your shoulders!

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I didn't fully read the article and I don't think you did either, since the article seems to be discussing how to protect your home from invaders looking to rob you.

Pretty sure that shooting a(n illegal) home invader, regardless of their intent, is legal in most states.


But let's also ignore that for the sake of this argument. You didn't specify those states, you made a general statement that shooting looters is illegal. Did you mean a specific state or group of states? If so, please elaborate.

This certainly isn't entirely true in all states.

Jack House said:

I didn't fully read the article and I don't think you did either, .....

Click to expand...

You are correct. I read the word "looter" and the comments that followed the OP. Never read anything that suggested we would be dealing with home invaders.

And just so you know, there are still a handful of states (can't remember off the top of my head and too lazy to look it up) that still have a duty to retreat even in the home. Also, how do you square your assertion with the home invader who kicks in your door but has nothing more harmful than a fluffy bunny rabbit in their hands as they begin ransacking your dry cereal stash?

Yes, in the heat of the moment you personally might have thought that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, but remember that tyou are going to have to convince a jury sitting in a nice, safe courtroom in the middle of the day. My money is on them telling you they do not think your assessment was reasonable.

stay safe.

MKEgal said:

Their advice is absolutely correct.
If you intend to kill someone you are (also) committing a crime.
Shooting to stop in many cases will also kill the attacker, but that's an unfortunate side effect and should never be wished for.
(Plus, the head is a small target. Much easier to hit center mass, unless they're pretty much on top of you.)

Having now posted your views on the subject in a public forum, I hope you are never involved in a defensive shooting where your attacker dies. The cops/DA will dig up things like this & use them against you.

Click to expand...

Center mass is a kill shot.

I don't have time to aim for limbs.
Warning shots can get you arrested for illegal discharge of a firearm.

And you never point your weapon at anyone you don't intend to kill that is basic safety.

Freedom1Man said:

...What a bad idea. If you're going to shoot someone DO shoot to kill.

Click to expand...

Nevermind that you are completely wrong on this one, but HOW do you do that?

Freedom1Man said:

Center mass is a kill shot.

I don't have time to aim for limbs.
Warning shots can get you arrested for illegal discharge of a firearm.

And you never point your weapon at anyone you don't intend to kill that is basic safety.

Click to expand...

Lots of people survive hits to center of mass. Besides, we more specifically shoot at center of exposed mass, which may not be center of actual mass, because we want the greatest chance of a hit in the least amount of time.

It is the HIT that makes the threat reevaluate continuing the attack. We don't care if we kill or not. It just so happens that center of mass is where lots of necessary bits needed to survive are located, but that is their problem, not ours. I don't care if he dies from his wounds; I only care that he stopped his attack.

Would you stop shooting if you knew your first shot was lethal, but it did not YET stop the attack? Of course not. You shoot to STOP, no more, and no less either!

No one insinuated warning shots or aiming for limbs. These are not actually the best ways to STOP an attack.

The safety rule is more correctly worded: "Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to see destroyed."