Exactly... still waiting to hear what he considers "Good cover".
Burglar Shot Dead
- Thread starter Surely
- Start date
Exactly... still waiting to hear what he considers "Good cover".
prodigal punk
Member
Sure, a wall is soft cover. You're hidden, you're crouched to be lower than the intruder's natural level to fire at, and you already have him in sight. A wall with kitchen cupboards on the other side would be sufficient cover to stop a 9mm. That's why I said, unless he brought an assault rifle, you'd be safe. I guess if you guys want to keep up your Rambo fantasies, that's your right. I have a feeling its a whole different story when you're standing there with a gun pointed at someone trying to convince yourself to shoot.
chemdude1232
Active Member
A few points:
1.) Isn't it a fact (statistically) that most home intruders are high on drugs when they break-and-enter? That being the case, it's likely their pain receptors wouldn't be firing as well, so ambushing them with rubber bullets might not be effective.
2.) We're also assuming here that when real bullets are used, people will always die. That's far from true. To kill someone with a .22 (the gun most homeowners own, if I remember correctly) is not easy. Most likely you'd end up hitting them in the shoulder, and they'd live.
3.) My preference would be to grab the gauge, announce myself, demand they leave, and if/when they still continue to advance toward me, then empty the barrel and let the lord decide what happens.
1.) Isn't it a fact (statistically) that most home intruders are high on drugs when they break-and-enter? That being the case, it's likely their pain receptors wouldn't be firing as well, so ambushing them with rubber bullets might not be effective.
2.) We're also assuming here that when real bullets are used, people will always die. That's far from true. To kill someone with a .22 (the gun most homeowners own, if I remember correctly) is not easy. Most likely you'd end up hitting them in the shoulder, and they'd live.
3.) My preference would be to grab the gauge, announce myself, demand they leave, and if/when they still continue to advance toward me, then empty the barrel and let the lord decide what happens.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with Rambo fantasies. It has to do with normal reactions to ****s who break into your house with who knows what intentions.
prodigal punk
Member
Yeah, and it has to do with you two sitting their acting like your tough **** and would have no problem pulling the trigger on another human being. If you think that you would do this without thinking you are just as cold blooded as presume the person you are firing on to be and have come pretty ****ing far from your christian values.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
The problem with that is that you REALLY don't want to give the advantage away that you are there and armed. Guy could quickly move out of sight and returns guns-a-blazin'.
Carrying two guns is definitely a bad idea. Something you should NEVER, EVER do. Accuracy reduces. Control reduces. Personal safety reduces. Never carry two guns in a ready to fire position with the safety off.
Reactionary decisions are also pretty sketchy to rely on. Again, you lose the little bit of control and advantage you have if a gun is raised and pointed toward you after announcing your intentions. To shoot a gun properly, you'll be exposed in some fashion, so using cover is only a small help. Hearing something and shooting at it is definitely the improper way to act in any scenario anyway, so the college kid coming home argument really shouldn't hold any weight, especially if the kid KNOWS the parent has a weapon the parent will have obviously told the kid he will use it. Kid's got to be some sort of dumb to break into his own house when he knows his parent will shoot someone breaking in.
Another thing you're taught in gun classes is that if you point your weapon at someone, be prepared to use. "Flashing" it is one of the worst things you can do.
Having a gun with rubber bullets seems like a waste of time. Why not just have a baseball bat, instead? Pain is oftentimes not a deterrent to someone hyped up on just adrenaline, much less narcotics.
As to the question on what happens if you miss and do unintended harm to someone else, the answer is simply, don't miss. If you have a gun, you're supposed to be trained on how to use it properly, in other words, how to shoot straight. If you miss, you either are negligent with your execution (plain miss), or you were negligent with your decision making (shooting at a side target, moving target, etc.). Now in a struggle or some other circumstance where you're forced to shoot while in distress, than that's a different circumstance, and not really relevant to the scenario being discussed.
prodigal punk
Member
Actually, a .22 that hits in the center mass will bounce around in the chest cavity and shred all your major organs up. You're more likely to live if a higher caliber bullet goes in and right out the other side.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
You've obviously haven't read the thread. I've already explained how that would effect me, and I've said I understand why people shoot home intruders. It has nothing to do with me acting like I'm a tough ***.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Link? A lot of it has to do with what type of bullets you use. A lot of bullets are designed to open up like a helicopter and follow bones.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Holding two guns at point is a very bad decision.
prodigal punk
Member
In my training we called it "pieing out" you stand back about 2 feet from the cover and make an angle so that all that is exposed is your arms. You can hold the gun perfectly steady and unless you're 20 feet away there is no way he is going to just move out of the way and pull his weapons. That would make no sense. Why would the intruder try and turn it into a gunfight? Even if that's the case, you still have the upper hand. He's outside, your inside. You know the layout of your home, he doesn't.