COMMANDER1911
Regular Member
this may have been posted in the past but i just love this story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg
this may have been posted in the past but i just love this story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg
Good for her! She should have used a heavier load of 00 buckshot and he would not have even made it alive to the hospital! Bob.
Not the way I would have said it.
Point is to stop the threat, not to see anyone, no matter how despicable, lose their life. We are neither jury nor judge and should not be dancing on anyone's grave - it's not in accord with who and what we are.
Not the way I would have said it.
Point is to stop the threat, not to see anyone, no matter how despicable, lose their life. We are neither jury nor judge and should not be dancing on anyone's grave - it's not in accord with who and what we are.
Not the way I would have said it.
Point is to stop the threat, not to see anyone, no matter how despicable, lose their life. We are neither jury nor judge and should not be dancing on anyone's grave - it's not in accord with who and what we are.
I disagree.
I guess it depends on your definition of 'stopping the threat'. If the time comes and you pull the trigger, you will, I assume, aiming for the center of mass, correct? Alot of vital organs there. Why not a arm or leg if you are 'stopping a threat'? Plus, again I assume, you are using a good size caliber of gun? Why not a .22 instead of a .45? If I am using my gun against a threat I am going to make sure my threat is stopped and not decide if I should wound or kill.
I have been shot at before. If I would have been armed, he would have been dead.
What do you mean 'it's not in accord with who and what we are'? Whose 'we'?
snip........ Remember dead men tell no tales. lol, that is a joke.
Like I said, I have been shot at before. If I would have been armed he would have been dead. Even tho none of his 10 rounds hit me or my friends.
Not only do dead men tell tales - think autopsy reports, DNA and other crime scene evidence; but so do one's postings on a public forum - and that, sir, is no joke.
Here we go again, the old argument of how much force is enough to "stop" a threat. Of course in a perfect world it would be "oh I just shot him in the leg". A alleged serial rapist in the act of attempting to commit yet another, would of course a major consternation to the victim. As someone else stated, a good dose of doublenaught Buck would be just enough to "stop" the threat.
As General George S. Patton said " There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
Survival is a deadly business, to use any lesser force than required to neutralize the target is senseless. My ole Gramps said it best when he first taught me to shoot. "Never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to kill" If I point a weapon at a would be BG he's goin' down for the count.
Oh, you always shoot center mass. That is the shot most likely to stop an attacker. Unfortunately, it is also the shot most likely to kill him. But, killing is not the goal. Stopping is.
We need need to keep chanting this mantra. It must be ingrained in our psyche. It must rule our actions in a self-defense setting. It must be our undoubted motivation when our actions are examined after a self-defense shooting.
The goal is to stop the threat. I was trained to use three shots to do so, a double-tap to the center body mass, and a third to the head, if possible. After that, reevaluate the threat and repeat as necessary until the threat has been stopped. I use the same caliber and type of firearm on which I was trained in the military.
Let's not mince words, here. Some might call that excessive. I call it an effective means of stopping the threat.