# Shoot to kill or just injure?



## sealybobo

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.


----------



## WinterBorn

It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  As gunny says, you go for the center of body mass and you keep shooting until they go down.   I was once told by a lawyer "If you are shooting a revolver, pull the trigger several times after firing all 6 rounds.  The double imprints in the primers will be proof you were scared.".

If you do not want to risk carrying the guilt, buy a taser or pepper spray.


----------



## sealybobo

WinterBorn said:


> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  As gunny says, you go for the center of body mass and you keep shooting until they go down.   I was once told by a lawyer "If you are shooting a revolver, pull the trigger several times after firing all 6 rounds.  The double imprints in the primers will be proof you were scared.".
> 
> If you do not want to risk carrying the guilt, buy a taser or pepper spray.


This christian said she would shoot the perp in the leg. I know she's just not admitting the truth that she would and should go for the kill regardless of thou shall not kill.


----------



## sealybobo

RetiredGySgt said:


> My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.


How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.

You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.


----------



## HenryBHough

Shoot for the legs but aim just a little high......


----------



## BlackSand

Because if you don't kill them ... They can sue you and your homeowners' insurance for medical damages.
Plus ... Dead men don't tell lies ... And make terrible eye witnesses.

.


----------



## sealybobo

BlackSand said:


> Because if you don't kill them ... They can sue you and your homeowners' insurance for medical damages.
> Plus ... Dead men don't tell lies ... And make terrible eye witnesses.
> 
> .


Is that very christianly of you?


----------



## BlackSand

sealybobo said:


> Is that very christianly of you?



I don't mind if the poor bastard wants to work it out with God ... I can help him on his way to Glory.

.


----------



## Darkwind

sealybobo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.
Click to expand...

Why would you care?  If they are an immediate threat to your life, you have a Christian obligation to protect your family and your own life.  Chances are, it was a gun grabber anyway.


----------



## jon_berzerk

HenryBHough said:


> Shoot for the legs but aim just a little high......





HenryBHough said:


> Shoot for the legs but aim just a little high......



Q: Why is this kitty pissed? 
A: Obama replaced him as world's biggest pussy.

good one two thumbs up --LOL


----------



## BlackSand

sealybobo said:


> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.



"Three center mass" is training and not decision making time.
There are countless ways to attempt crisis management ... But when you skin the smoke-wagon it is time to kill someone.
There is no safe place to shoot someone because there are arteries throughout the body.

It is what makes the difference between life and death and who gets to choose.
Don't shoot someone if you don't have to ... But if you have to shoot someone ... Then kill them.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Darkwind said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you care?  If they are an immediate threat to your life, you have a Christian obligation to protect your family and your own life.  Chances are, it was a gun grabber anyway.
Click to expand...

This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.


----------



## sealybobo

BlackSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Three center mass" is training and not decision making time.
> There are countless ways to attempt to crisis management ... But when you skin the smoke-wagon it is time to kill someone.
> There is no safe place to shoot someone because there are arteries throughout the body.
> 
> It is what makes the difference between life and death and who gets to choose.
> Don't shoot someone if you don't have to ... But if you have to shoot someone ... Then kill them.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Thou shall not shoot to wound.


----------



## sealybobo

Hortisir says shoot to injure not kill.


----------



## Wildman

sealybobo said:


> thou shall not kill



excuse me, but the verse is; "thou shalt not MURDER".., there is a difference. 

in wars, just or unjust, you kill your enemy on the battlefield.

i am an eye for an eye sort of guy,  when it comes to murder.


----------



## Darkwind

sealybobo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you care?  If they are an immediate threat to your life, you have a Christian obligation to protect your family and your own life.  Chances are, it was a gun grabber anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
Click to expand...

Only a fool would think to wound in an adrenalin induced crisis.  Its a sure way to get yourself and your family killed.  

Shoot to eliminate the threat and continue shooting until you are positive the threat is neutralized.  If the person survives, they can do the jail time after they recover.


----------



## Missourian

I was a soldier,  that didn't violate my morals.  The actual commandment in Hebrew translates to "Thou shall not commit murder",  defending yourself and your family isn't murder,  defending your country,  or your fellow soldiers in war is not murder.


----------



## BlackSand

sealybobo said:


> Thou shall not shoot to wound.



Thou Shall Not Play with Guns if you don't know what the fuck you are doing.

.


----------



## sealybobo

Missourian said:


> I was a soldier,  that didn't violate my morals.  The actual commandment in Hebrew translates to "Thou shall not commit murder",  defending yourself and your family isn't murder,  defending your country,  or your fellow soldiers in war is not murder.


Further proof there are no moral facts. I'm sure even Isis believes the murder they commit is OK with their god. Completely justified. Just like it was justified that maybe we killed 1 million Iraqis just to get rid of Saddam. Now we wish he was still in charge.


----------



## BlackSand

sealybobo said:


> Further proof there are no moral facts. I'm sure even Isis believes the murder they commit is OK with their god. Completely justified. Just like it was justified that maybe *we* killed 1 million Iraqis just to get rid of Saddam. Now *we* wish he was still in charge.



Who the fuck is "we"?
I don't remember seeing you there ... And I am glad Saddam Hussein is no longer with us.

.


----------



## Darkwind

sealybobo said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a soldier,  that didn't violate my morals.  The actual commandment in Hebrew translates to "Thou shall not commit murder",  defending yourself and your family isn't murder,  defending your country,  or your fellow soldiers in war is not murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof there are no moral facts. I'm sure even Isis believes the murder they commit is OK with their god. Completely justified. Just like it was justified that maybe we killed 1 million Iraqis just to get rid of Saddam. Now we wish he was still in charge.
Click to expand...

Their actions show it to be murder, not combat or national protection.  They are aggressors in case you missed it and they have no country.  Shall we continue to move the goal posts around until you tire of being wrong?


----------



## Missourian

sealybobo said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a soldier,  that didn't violate my morals.  The actual commandment in Hebrew translates to "Thou shall not commit murder",  defending yourself and your family isn't murder,  defending your country,  or your fellow soldiers in war is not murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof there are no moral facts. I'm sure even Isis believes the murder they commit is OK with their god. Completely justified. Just like it was justified that maybe we killed 1 million Iraqis just to get rid of Saddam. Now we wish he was still in charge.
Click to expand...



Further proof that you don't comprehend the definition of murder.


----------



## sealybobo

BlackSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof there are no moral facts. I'm sure even Isis believes the murder they commit is OK with their god. Completely justified. Just like it was justified that maybe *we* killed 1 million Iraqis just to get rid of Saddam. Now *we* wish he was still in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuck is "we"?
> I don't remember seeing you there ... And I am glad Saddam Hussein is no longer with us.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You went over and served for us. That's where I get the " we" from. Its why "we$ thank you for serving for us. You fought so WE wouldn't have to. Remember? Did you forget at one point of the war that was the reason WE were there? 

Now you aren't one of us anymore? You alright?


----------



## sealybobo

Missourian said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a soldier,  that didn't violate my morals.  The actual commandment in Hebrew translates to "Thou shall not commit murder",  defending yourself and your family isn't murder,  defending your country,  or your fellow soldiers in war is not murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof there are no moral facts. I'm sure even Isis believes the murder they commit is OK with their god. Completely justified. Just like it was justified that maybe we killed 1 million Iraqis just to get rid of Saddam. Now we wish he was still in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Further proof that you don't comprehend the definition of murder.
Click to expand...

If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You want to die? Shoot to wound.


----------



## Missourian

sealybobo said:


> If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.




What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".


----------



## WinterBorn

sealybobo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you care?  If they are an immediate threat to your life, you have a Christian obligation to protect your family and your own life.  Chances are, it was a gun grabber anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
Click to expand...


The point of using deadly force is to save your own, or someone else's, life.  Trying to wound is ridiculous.  It is the result of watching westerns where the cowboy shoots the gun out of someone's hand rather than kill them.  You have a split second to fire, and you better make sure you will survive.

The shooting enough to kill also means you are the only one telling the story of what happened.

And don't assume the answers here are all from Christians.


----------



## WinterBorn

sealybobo said:


> Hortisir says shoot to injure not kill.



If Hortisir said this, then he is an idiot.

I'd rather not shoot anyone.  That is why I lock my doors at night and try to be as safe as I can, within reason.  But if they come into my home or threaten me and my loved ones, they die.  It is quite simple.


----------



## Skull Pilot

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.



You shoot center mass enough times to eliminate the threat.

Sometimes the criminal will die sometimes he won't


----------



## strollingbones

my father always said....'if a man is worth shooting, he is worth killing'  words i live by.....when you  pull a gun on one...you should be ready to kill the person you are now holding the gun on...direct body hits...no wounding shots...o and not one shot....dad said empty the gun into them...and reload....repeat....

there will never be a 'fatal attraction' type event at my house....i am a firm believe in firing till the threat is totally eliminated.....

i am not a christian....so my opinion my not count...but i will ask this....why in the hell would it be un anything to protects ones family....home invaders are the worst of the worst...an honest robber will want the house empty and feed the dogs for you ...insurance replaces the stuff...so what the hell...but to enter my home and be a threat to my family....whole nother level


----------



## strollingbones

Skull Pilot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shoot center mass enough times to eliminate the threat.
> 
> Sometimes the criminal will die sometimes he won't
Click to expand...


o bullshit...somehow i think if someone invaded your home with the good wife there...they would not be walking out..period...now you can try to convince me of something different.....i was born at night but not last night


----------



## Skull Pilot

strollingbones said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shoot center mass enough times to eliminate the threat.
> 
> Sometimes the criminal will die sometimes he won't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> o bullshit...somehow i think if someone invaded your home with the good wife there...they would not be walking out..period...now you can try to convince me of something different.....i was born at night but not last night
Click to expand...


Well a close quarters chest shot from a 12 gauge will most likely kill the guy


----------



## strollingbones

Skull Pilot said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well a close quarters chest shot from a 12 gauge will most likely kill the guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as long as you use 00 it will or at least that is what i was assured of....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## WinterBorn

strollingbones said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well a close quarters chest shot from a 12 gauge will most likely kill the guy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as long as you use 00 it will or at least that is what i was assured of....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Close quarters (say 10 to 15 feet) almost any size shot will be lethal.  It will still be about the size of the bore of the shotgun.


----------



## strollingbones

10 or 15 ft....that is gonna flip sealy out...i am sure he/she thinks we should wait till they are closer....i am like you...why wait...once the target is identified as hostile....i begin to fire


----------



## strollingbones

there really are two types of people...those who are raised around guns and those who arent...and i feel very sorry for the latter


----------



## WinterBorn

strollingbones said:


> 10 or 15 ft....that is gonna flip sealy out...i am sure he/she thinks we should wait till they are closer....i am like you...why wait...once the target is identified as hostile....i begin to fire



10 or 15 feet is seriously close.   The 21 foot rule shows this.  You are correct in firing as soon as the target is identified as hostile.


----------



## strollingbones

i had to look that up

he implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.

Edged Weapon Defense Is or was the 21-foot rule valid Part 1


----------



## sealybobo

WinterBorn said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you care?  If they are an immediate threat to your life, you have a Christian obligation to protect your family and your own life.  Chances are, it was a gun grabber anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point of using deadly force is to save your own, or someone else's, life.  Trying to wound is ridiculous.  It is the result of watching westerns where the cowboy shoots the gun out of someone's hand rather than kill them.  You have a split second to fire, and you better make sure you will survive.
> 
> The shooting enough to kill also means you are the only one telling the story of what happened.
> 
> And don't assume the answers here are all from Christians.
Click to expand...

Then we dont need christianity to know right from wrong. Good.


----------



## WinterBorn

sealybobo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you care?  If they are an immediate threat to your life, you have a Christian obligation to protect your family and your own life.  Chances are, it was a gun grabber anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point of using deadly force is to save your own, or someone else's, life.  Trying to wound is ridiculous.  It is the result of watching westerns where the cowboy shoots the gun out of someone's hand rather than kill them.  You have a split second to fire, and you better make sure you will survive.
> 
> The shooting enough to kill also means you are the only one telling the story of what happened.
> 
> And don't assume the answers here are all from Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we dont need christianity to know right from wrong. Good.
Click to expand...


I would agree with that.  Especially since there were cultures that thrives for hundreds of years without hearing anything about Christianity, it should be a given.


----------



## BlackSand

sealybobo said:


> Then we dont need christianity to know right from wrong. Good.



Well put ... Because there are far more religions than Christianity.
Even the absence of religion itself will not protect you from knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Imagine that ... The idea that you could actually make a point in an otherwise pointless exercise.

.


----------



## Alex.

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.




Religious belief  and secular law are mutually exclusive concepts in practical application in this instance. Use of the force necessary is what is required. Should you use more you may be facing criminal charges. After that you will be hounded by the PC police for the rest of your life and be made into a  meme.

In view of all that should an intruder come in to my house he could have my exclusive collection of 1st edition happy meals toys, I may shoot him in the butt to slow him down.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Like E-7 said, shoot till you feel safe again. I've been firing center of mass too long to change now.


----------



## sealybobo

The 


BlackSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then we dont need christianity to know right from wrong. Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well put ... Because there are far more religions than Christianity.
> Even the absence of religion itself will not protect you from knowing the difference between right and wrong.
> 
> Imagine that ... The idea that you could actually make a point in an otherwise pointless exercise.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Hole point of this topic is to point out that there are no moral absolutes even with god. Thou shall not murder.

If christians could wound instead of kill but choose to kill then isnt that going against god?

But then you guys pointed out there is a difference between murder and kill. Good point. You arent murdering a home invader. I'm not against killing instead of injuring I would just think a christian would opt for injure rather than kill. In fact one said so in another thread and that's why I started this. But that person hasn't chimed in yet.


----------



## strollingbones

i still do not understand why  you think ones religion should come into play


----------



## BlackSand

sealybobo said:


> The
> Hole point of this topic is to point out that there are no moral absolutes even with god. Thou shall not murder.
> 
> If christians could wound instead of kill but choose to kill then isnt that going against god?
> 
> But then you guys pointed out there is a difference between murder and kill. Good point. You arent murdering a home invader. I'm not against killing instead of injuring I would just think a christian would opt for injure rather than kill. In fact one said so in another thread and that's why I started this. But that person hasn't chimed in yet.



Meh ... I will let greater minds worry about the theology and moral aspects of shooting to defend yourself.
As far as killing an intruder ... One more won't send me to Hell any quicker.

As far as a Christian is concerned ... There would be the aspect of "turning the other cheek".
In that case ... They would rather go on to the other side than defend themselves to start with.

I am not done here ... And if God wants to punch my ticket ... Then I am sure He will.

.


----------



## BlackSand

strollingbones said:


> i still do not understand why  you think ones religion should come into play



In general it usually comes from people who try to suggest that murder is somehow a "serious" sin.
They generally fail to understand that "all" sin is equal in the eyes of God ... And that we are "all" sinners (at least in the Christian view).

That would mean that they are no different than a murderer in that aspect.

.


----------



## sealybobo

strollingbones said:


> i still do not understand why  you think ones religion should come into play


Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.


----------



## BlackSand

sealybobo said:


> Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.



Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.

I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.

.


----------



## sealybobo

BlackSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.


----------



## sealybobo

BlackSand said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I can't think of a more evil asshole thing than burning someone in hell for eternity. Your gods an asshole. Actually he doesnt even exist. Your religion I should say is an asshole and evil. Sorry.


----------



## BlackSand

sealybobo said:


> I can't think of a more evil asshole thing than burning someone in hell for eternity. Your gods an asshole. Actually he doesnt even exist. Your religion I should say is an asshole and evil. Sorry.



Whose God ... Not like He is mine.
And if He doesn't exist ... Why do you keep bringing Him and Christianity up?
I don't have a religion that would fit a definition you or anyone else could supply ... So again you are foolish and assuming, as well as judgmental.

Furthermore ... I highly suspect you are actually "Sorry" ... More inclined to believe you are full of shit from one end of your post to the very past word.

.


----------



## strollingbones

i opt to shoot to kill and i am not a christian......it does not go against my religious beliefs at all....as they say in texas...some men just deserve to die...simple as that...we are not discussing taking the life of an innocent but taking the life of someone trying to do you harm...


----------



## turtledude

shoot to stop the aggressive action that justified  you using deadly force in the first place


----------



## martybegan

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.



Shoot for center mass. If you are in a situation which requires deadly force, you use it. Center mass gives you the best chance of stopping your target, and is the easiest thing to aim at. Luck Extremity/head shots that end the threat are a possible outcome when panicked if you are aiming for center mass. Aiming for center mass also increases the chance the bullets hit the target, not fly off to hit someone else.


----------



## westwall

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.







The general rule is you shoot the bad guy till he catches on fire.  You have no idea how motivated they are, so you simply don't take unnecessary risk.


----------



## Silent Warrior

Shoot center mass and let fate decide if its a kill shot or merely wounding.


----------



## sealybobo

Silent Warrior said:


> Shoot center mass and let fate decide if its a kill shot or merely wounding.


I just notice christians play with the words kill and murder.

But at least we dont go to schools and kill 150 muslims and let all the christians go. Instead we fly 150 random people into a mountain.


----------



## pismoe

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.


proper terminology and thinking is that a person 'Shoots to STOP' sealy !!


----------



## pismoe

and shooting to Stop can't be done by merely winging the attacker or shooting him in the leg or balls 'hoping' that he stops the attack because he is in some pain or distress .  Shooting to Stop is the proper legal terminology I think .  Also , precise shooting is pretty hard to do while a couple to the chest and one to the head is a better plan .  Remember that the goal is to Positively STOP the attack Sealy !!


----------



## sealybobo

pismoe said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> proper terminology and thinking is that a person 'Shoots to STOP' sealy !!
Click to expand...

Strange how we got away from the old west ways and now are falling back into that kind of atmosphere.

We are still a very young immature uneducated primitive species. Not much separate us from animals in fact some ways were worse.

Would a squirrel kill another squirrel for stealing a nut? You would.


----------



## pismoe

Just the way it is Sealy , Shoot to Stop versus Shoot to Kill and really just a legal distinction I think [ask a lawyer or cop] .  Shooting to Stop will quite often kill but better to be shooting with the 'Intention' to Stop rather than shooting with the 'Intention' to KILL .   As far as the squirrels , yeah , they are just so much more smarter than people I guess !!


----------



## Delta4Embassy

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.



Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.


----------



## sealybobo

pismoe said:


> Just the way it is Sealy , Shoot to Stop versus Shoot to Kill and really just a legal distinction I think [ask a lawyer or cop] .  Shooting to Stop will quite often kill but better to be shooting with the 'Intention' to Stop rather than shooting with the 'Intention' to KILL .   As far as the squirrels , yeah , they are just so much more smarter than people I guess !!


I know in the real world you shoot to stop I just would like to believe a cop or i could shoot low mass and stop them with one shot to the stomach but we're taught to empty the barrel to prove you were scared. A lot of these conservative gun lovers seem to glow when they think about the opportunity to "stop" someone.


----------



## sealybobo

Delta4Embassy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.
Click to expand...

Stomach instead of chest? Dont bs me. You aren't on trial here. You can be honest here.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

sealybobo said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stomach instead of chest? Dont bs me. You aren't on trial here. You can be honest here.
Click to expand...


Snipers shoot to kill. Special Forces too. Everyone else is just sorta winging it.


----------



## sealybobo

sealybobo said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stomach instead of chest? Dont bs me. You aren't on trial here. You can be honest here.
Click to expand...




Delta4Embassy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't so much you shoot to kill as what you're trained to shoot at represents the bigger part of the human body - the torso. Under combat stress hands shake, people make poor decisions, eyesigh can be impaired, etc. so trying to leg a guy isn't going to work as well as going for the bigger target. And considering how often even trained shooters miss the bigger target, asking people to go for a limb isn't realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stomach instead of chest? Dont bs me. You aren't on trial here. You can be honest here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Snipers shoot to kill. Special Forces too. Everyone else is just sorta winging it.
Click to expand...

I was going to agree with you guys after thinking about how the guy broke in with an Axe and was gonna kill the guy and he shot mid mass 3-6 times until the guy went down. No choice. But once the guy was down he didn't put a bullet in the guys head. 

How many NRA type would finish the guy off before calling 911? And how many of them call themselves christians?


----------



## pismoe

seems to me that in a self defense situation [fear of my life] that a person can just fire warning shots or just throw the gun at the attacker Sealy .  Think that the attacked person with the gun can do as he likes .   Might be best for a guy that isn't really serious about self defense to just carry a big heavily chromed and unloaded gun that he can flash while saying , Make my Day Punk !!


----------



## pismoe

I could never understand .   I'd see a gunfight between the good guy and the bad guy in gangster , cowboy or war movies and it looks like the good guy wins .    The bad guy is in a fetal position in the corner and supposedly dead or dying . The next scene shows the bad guy reviving , taking aim and finally killing the good guy .   Seems common sense that the good guy would just 'Always' walk or crawl over to the bad guy and PLUG the guy one or 2 more times to make sure that the bad guy was DEAD !!


----------



## pismoe

just an article , info on the 'Old days in the WEST'.   Interesting to me as I live in an area where everyone has guns and so called Weapons of War Sealy and the area is  low on any kinda crime let alone gun violence  .  ---  The Wild Wild West. Or Not - The Truth About Guns  --- not saying that this one little article is the last word on the subject , just saying that the subject could be interesting to checkout .   Seems to me that most gun violence happens in big 'gun free' areas and Eastern cities where citizens are disarmed by governments laws !!


----------



## 2aguy

sealybobo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is called "deadly force" for a reason.  As gunny says, you go for the center of body mass and you keep shooting until they go down.   I was once told by a lawyer "If you are shooting a revolver, pull the trigger several times after firing all 6 rounds.  The double imprints in the primers will be proof you were scared.".
> 
> If you do not want to risk carrying the guilt, buy a taser or pepper spray.
> 
> 
> 
> This christian said she would shoot the perp in the leg. I know she's just not admitting the truth that she would and should go for the kill regardless of thou shall not kill.
Click to expand...



the Commandment is not thou shalt not kill...it is Thou shalt do no murder...big difference....and you shoot to stop the attack, and you most successfully do that shooting center of mass...


----------



## 2aguy

sealybobo said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My training was to shoot till the target is down and no threat. Aim body mass not extremities or head. Look at Wilson he shot Brown 4 times and never stopped him. Arm shots do not stop someone nor do leg shots hell they may just make them more pissed off.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the first shot wasn't enough? I bet the one was all it would have taken but he snapped and over reacted. Just like you he kept shooting till the guy was down. He didn't even wait 1 second between his first and second shot so how do you know 1 wasn't enough? It would be if you shot me.
> 
> You aren't being honest when you say he had to unload on that guy. You admit your training says blow him away. If anything your boy was a bad shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you care?  If they are an immediate threat to your life, you have a Christian obligation to protect your family and your own life.  Chances are, it was a gun grabber anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
Click to expand...


as Dennis Prager points out the death penalty is the only penalty that is declared in all 5 books of the bible for murder......so the bible is fine with the death penalty for murder...


----------



## 2aguy

strollingbones said:


> i had to look that up
> 
> he implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.
> 
> Edged Weapon Defense Is or was the 21-foot rule valid Part 1



remember the core problem with the 21 ft rule....the guy has to have the determination to charge 21 ft toward a guy with a gun in the first place...the young thug in Ferguson thought he had an edge because he was unarmed and charging a law enforcement officer...he was wrong of course...

Now the criminal must decide that running toward the gun is the choice to make rather than running away from the gun..


----------



## sealybobo

pismoe said:


> I could never understand .   I'd see a gunfight between the good guy and the bad guy in gangster , cowboy or war movies and it looks like the good guy wins .    The bad guy is in a fetal position in the corner and supposedly dead or dying . The next scene shows the bad guy reviving , taking aim and finally killing the good guy .   Seems common sense that the good guy would just 'Always' walk or crawl over to the bad guy and PLUG the guy one or 2 more times to make sure that the bad guy was DEAD !!


Or at least go kick the gun away right?

I guess I'm talking about some crack head you catch in your home late at night and you have a gun and he doesnt.

Now I've heard a lot of great arguments why you should shoot him if he runs. There could be more of them. Or he could have a gun you dont see. Or he could be running for cover where there he will return firem or being chased he might grab a hostage. I say shoot to stop or kill I'm just curious how christians choose to kill when god said dont murder. I know kill and murder are different too but if a christian could wound over kill odd they pick kill. They prefer kill.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.


The Bible does not say thou shalt not kill. It says thou shalt not murder. If someone broke into my home, I would empty the entire clip with a clear conscience, if I considered them a threat. When your life is on the line, there is no such thing as excessive force.


----------



## pismoe

I don't want to kill anyone but every situation is different I guess . Had a friend in NYC , he woke up to a guy crawling through his window , he reached under his pillow and promptly shot the guy , killed him .  Seemed reasonable to me and my friend got away with it and that was NYC .  Anyway , just a story !!


----------



## Gracie

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.


They are in my home uninvited, with God knows what plan in mind. I would shoot to kill. And make DAMN sure they are dead, too.


----------



## Roadrunner

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.


Every CC instructor I have ever had(we have to retrain and renew so often I just said fuck it) teaches to shoot to kill.

I'd hate to have to do it, but, once that trigger is pulled, the fucker will die.


----------



## Mr.Right

Gracie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> They are in my home uninvited, with God knows what plan in mind. I would shoot to kill. And make DAMN sure they are dead, too.
Click to expand...

WOW! We agree on something. Miracles DO happen.


----------



## Gracie

Mr.Right said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> They are in my home uninvited, with God knows what plan in mind. I would shoot to kill. And make DAMN sure they are dead, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW! We agree on something. Miracles DO happen.
Click to expand...

The deal is....which should be for all to learn...that none of us should judge anyone else on the few disagreements we all may have with one another...because there are some topics and beliefs and stances and opinions where we DO agree with each other. Always keep the door just a tad ajar. Just in case.


----------



## Roadrunner

Missourian said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".
> 
> That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".
Click to expand...

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.


----------



## Roadrunner

strollingbones said:


> my father always said....'if a man is worth shooting, he is worth killing'  words i live by.....when you  pull a gun on one...you should be ready to kill the person you are now holding the gun on...direct body hits...no wounding shots...o and not one shot....dad said empty the gun into them...and reload....repeat....
> 
> there will never be a 'fatal attraction' type event at my house....i am a firm believe in firing till the threat is totally eliminated.....
> 
> i am not a christian....so my opinion my not count...but i will ask this....why in the hell would it be un anything to protects ones family....home invaders are the worst of the worst...an honest robber will want the house empty and feed the dogs for you ...insurance replaces the stuff...so what the hell...but to enter my home and be a threat to my family....whole nother level


"Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill."

First rule of gun handling I was taught.


----------



## Mr.Right

Roadrunner said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".
> 
> That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You eliminate the threat to your life.
> 
> If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.
> 
> No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.
Click to expand...

The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.


----------



## Roadrunner

strollingbones said:


> i still do not understand why  you think ones religion should come into play


Religious debate is usually not allowed in firefights.

Sorry.


----------



## Roadrunner

Mr.Right said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".
> 
> That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You eliminate the threat to your life.
> 
> If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.
> 
> No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.
Click to expand...


I will not debate that point.

If they survive, and the threat is eliminated, to finish them off is murder.


----------



## Mr.Right

Roadrunner said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".
> 
> That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You eliminate the threat to your life.
> 
> If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.
> 
> No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will not debate that point.
> 
> If they survive, and the threat is eliminated, to finish them off is murder.
Click to expand...


I won't debate that point. But if someone breaks into my home, they should expect to die.


----------



## Roadrunner

Mr.Right said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".
> 
> That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You eliminate the threat to your life.
> 
> If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.
> 
> No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will not debate that point.
> 
> If they survive, and the threat is eliminated, to finish them off is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't debate that point. But if someone breaks into my home, they should expect to die.
Click to expand...

I'm not using a .22LR on them, for sure.


----------



## Mr.Right

Roadrunner said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".
> 
> That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".
> 
> 
> 
> You eliminate the threat to your life.
> 
> If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.
> 
> No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will not debate that point.
> 
> If they survive, and the threat is eliminated, to finish them off is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't debate that point. But if someone breaks into my home, they should expect to die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not using a .22LR on them, for sure.
Click to expand...

LOL! You got that right!


----------



## strollingbones

now now i only use hollow points in the .22.....it will do the job


----------



## Conservative65

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.



I don't know if it's a rule.   I know that I wouldn't have gunS in my home for protection if I didn't plan on using them to the fullest extent.  

The text in most translations of the Bible says kill.   It means murder.  I'm not murdering someone that's invading my home.  Murder involves killing of an innocent person.  

By the way, a quick study of anatomy would show you that a shot in the leg can be just as fatal as a shot to the head.


----------



## Conservative65

sealybobo said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
Click to expand...


What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.


----------



## sealybobo

pismoe said:


> I don't want to kill anyone but every situation is different I guess . Had a friend in NYC , he woke up to a guy crawling through his window , he reached under his pillow and promptly shot the guy , killed him .  Seemed reasonable to me and my friend got away with it and that was NYC .  Anyway , just a story !!


God knows what he had or wanted. But I would like to think saying freeze and letting him run away would be the more christian thing to do.

But I'm not a christian so I agree with you.


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.


The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence. 

No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".
> 
> That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You eliminate the threat to your life.
> 
> If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.
> 
> No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.
Click to expand...

What if they are unarmed and 20 feet away? I've heard NRA guys say shoot. In fact shoot before they turn and run because you could get in trouble shooting them in the back.

I heard this guy make a great argument for why you should be able to shoot them in the back. They could be running for cover not running away. Once they reach cover they may start returning fire.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
Click to expand...

I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part.  If you aren't in fear for your life,  you shouldn't be shooting.  If you are in fear for your life,  you're not thinking "shoot to wound"  you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".
> 
> That's why you practice shooting center mass.  Highest likelihood of ending the threat.  You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology,  or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk.  But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife,  or daughters,  or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You eliminate the threat to your life.
> 
> If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.
> 
> No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if they are unarmed and 20 feet away? I've heard NRA guys say shoot. In fact shoot before they turn and run because you could get in trouble shooting them in the back.
> 
> I heard this guy make a great argument for why you should be able to shoot them in the back. They could be running for cover not running away. Once they reach cover they may start returning fire.
Click to expand...


I look at it this way. If someone breaks into your home, they are up to no good. It's best to ere on the side of caution, not to mention self preservation.


----------



## Roadrunner

Conservative65 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
Click to expand...

Maybe he is a home-invader?


----------



## Conservative65

Roadrunner said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
Click to expand...


Maybe a little self preservation.


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
Click to expand...

Liar.

"Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."


----------



## sealybobo

Roadrunner said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
Click to expand...

Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.


----------



## Mr.Right

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> "Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."
Click to expand...

It is not that we choose to kill. We choose to protect. The best way to do that is to use deadly force. Simple logic.


----------



## Roadrunner

sealybobo said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
Click to expand...


One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> "Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."
Click to expand...

Am I wrong? Is that statement incorrect? Sounds accurate to me. How is it not? You do choose to kill rather than wound. You dont want retaliation or to be sued.

I dont disagree. I'm just not a hypocrite christian.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> "Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that we choose to kill. We choose to protect. The best way to do that is to use deadly force. Simple logic.
Click to expand...

You prefer they die.


----------



## sealybobo

Roadrunner said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
Click to expand...

I shot a deer in the ass with a crossbow. Poor thing. That shot was too far I shouldn't have taken it.

But you are right she bled out.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> "Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that we choose to kill. We choose to protect. The best way to do that is to use deadly force. Simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You prefer they die.
Click to expand...

I don't care if they live or die. I'm only interested in stopping them. The best way to stop them is to use deadly force. When deadly force is used, people tend to die. Get over it.


----------



## Roadrunner

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> "Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that we choose to kill. We choose to protect. The best way to do that is to use deadly force. Simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You prefer they die.
Click to expand...

I prefer they do not enter my property and put my life in danger.

You seem to think that is their right, and to defend oneself is criminal.


----------



## Iceweasel

sealybobo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> "Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I wrong? Is that statement incorrect? Sounds accurate to me. How is it not? You do choose to kill rather than wound. You dont want retaliation or to be sued.
> 
> I dont disagree. I'm just not a hypocrite christian.
Click to expand...

I'm neither a hypocrite nor a Christian. But only those that watch too many movies think shooting to wound makes any sense. A wounded man can kill you. I worked with a guy that took four .45 slugs to the noggin. And a .22 in the right spot can kill you. There are no guarantees!


----------



## Conservative65

sealybobo said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot a deer in the ass with a crossbow. Poor thing. That shot was too far I shouldn't have taken it.
> 
> But you are right she bled out.
Click to expand...


A shot to the leg can be as deadly as a shot to the head.


----------



## sealybobo

Roadrunner said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> "Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not that we choose to kill. We choose to protect. The best way to do that is to use deadly force. Simple logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You prefer they die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer they do not enter my property and put my life in danger.
> 
> You seem to think that is their right, and to defend oneself is criminal.
Click to expand...

Not talking about that. Talking about your hoping someone dies rather than pull through.

They could sue you or retaliate so you prefer they die.


----------



## Roadrunner

sealybobo said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot a deer in the ass with a crossbow. Poor thing. That shot was too far I shouldn't have taken it.
> 
> But you are right she bled out.
Click to expand...


That is why I don't bowhunt.

I shot one, in the spine, dropped it like a rifle.

Later that week, one big buck wheeled at the twang of the bow, my son hit it in the ass at an angle, and when he hit the brush, what that arrow did was horrific.

Buck made it 75 yards into a briar patch.

I like to drop them where they stand, if they run ten yards I am not happy.


----------



## Roadrunner

Conservative65 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot a deer in the ass with a crossbow. Poor thing. That shot was too far I shouldn't have taken it.
> 
> But you are right she bled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A shot to the leg can be as deadly as a shot to the head.
Click to expand...

But as a Christian, you get the joy of watching them scream in pain and horror, and bleed out.


----------



## Conservative65

Roadrunner said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
> You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.
> 
> I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
Click to expand...


Those who advocate shooting someone in the leg to stop them apparently don't know about a little thing called the femoral artery.


----------



## sealybobo

Iceweasel said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.
> 
> No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> "Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I wrong? Is that statement incorrect? Sounds accurate to me. How is it not? You do choose to kill rather than wound. You dont want retaliation or to be sued.
> 
> I dont disagree. I'm just not a hypocrite christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm neither a hypocrite nor a Christian. But only those that watch too many movies think shooting to wound makes any sense. A wounded man can kill you. I worked with a guy that took four .45 slugs to the noggin. And a .22 in the right spot can kill you. There are no guarantees!
Click to expand...

Remember I dont disagree with you. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around how christians prefer to kill.

It may not be " murder" but its close IMO when you prefer death. 

Again I too would blow the guy away.


----------



## sealybobo

Conservative65 said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who advocate shooting someone in the leg to stop them apparently don't know about a little thing called the femoral artery.
Click to expand...

No ones saying that. 

Here is the fact. You hope the guy dies so he doesnt sue and if they/you could get away with it most christians would put a bullet in his head and kill him and still consider themselves saved.

The whole point is/was there are no moral absolutes. Even murder.


----------



## Mr.Right

I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.


----------



## sealybobo

Roadrunner said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot a deer in the ass with a crossbow. Poor thing. That shot was too far I shouldn't have taken it.
> 
> But you are right she bled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why I don't bowhunt.
> 
> I shot one, in the spine, dropped it like a rifle.
> 
> Later that week, one big buck wheeled at the twang of the bow, my son hit it in the ass at an angle, and when he hit the brush, what that arrow did was horrific.
> 
> Buck made it 75 yards into a briar patch.
> 
> I like to drop them where they stand, if they run ten yards I am not happy.
Click to expand...

Me too! But it was cool I shot this buck and watched him run 100 yards jump or hurdle 4 fallen trees then fall. I'm OK if they run just not out of my sight. I suck at tracking.


----------



## Conservative65

sealybobo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who advocate shooting someone in the leg to stop them apparently don't know about a little thing called the femoral artery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ones saying that.
> 
> Here is the fact. You hope the guy dies so he doesnt sue and if they/you could get away with it most christians would put a bullet in his head and kill him and still consider themselves saved.
> 
> The whole point is/was there are no moral absolutes. Even murder.
Click to expand...


Funny how you say "here is the fact" while expressing an OPINION.  

It's not a matter of hoping someone trying to steal from me or invading my home will die.  It's knowing that they will.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.


Most people including myself prefer they die. They will sue you. Or come get you back maybe someday. I prefer they die. Not that I want to kill someone but I didn't start the encounter. I dont want to have to worry about you the rest of my life. If you are the kind of person that would cause me to have to shoot you I prefer you dead. Honestly.


----------



## Roadrunner

sealybobo said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he is a home-invader?
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot a deer in the ass with a crossbow. Poor thing. That shot was too far I shouldn't have taken it.
> 
> But you are right she bled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why I don't bowhunt.
> 
> I shot one, in the spine, dropped it like a rifle.
> 
> Later that week, one big buck wheeled at the twang of the bow, my son hit it in the ass at an angle, and when he hit the brush, what that arrow did was horrific.
> 
> Buck made it 75 yards into a briar patch.
> 
> I like to drop them where they stand, if they run ten yards I am not happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too! But it was cool I shot this buck and watched him run 100 yards jump or hurdle 4 fallen trees then fall. I'm OK if they run just not out of my sight. I suck at tracking.
Click to expand...

I shot one during a blizzard, the year Houston was beating the Hell out of Notre Dame in some bowl came.

I said fuck it, went hunting in the snow, shot one that ran over 600 years and jumped four fences.

I was sure I had missed it, then saw it fall over.

I got it to the truck, the battery would not start the damned truck, and the deer froze so hard over night that I had to wait three days to clean it.

You won't hear me bitch about global warming.

I got the deer, but missed on of the all-time classic come backs in NCAA football history as ND won.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.


Where did you say you wanted them to live. Say it now sister christian. Lol


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say you wanted them to live. Say it now sister christian. Lol
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. You're just an idiot. You're implying that since I didn't say that I prefer that they live then it means that I prefer that they die. What I actually said is that I prefer that they die instead of me and my family. If you think that is unchristian behavior, then you're an idiot.


----------



## sealybobo

Roadrunner said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea I'm trying to get the future christian who catches me to just shoot me in the ass. I promise 1 bullets enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One 240 Grain JHP in your buttocks, and you are going bleed out, in misery, asking for a coup d' grace to put you out of your misery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot a deer in the ass with a crossbow. Poor thing. That shot was too far I shouldn't have taken it.
> 
> But you are right she bled out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why I don't bowhunt.
> 
> I shot one, in the spine, dropped it like a rifle.
> 
> Later that week, one big buck wheeled at the twang of the bow, my son hit it in the ass at an angle, and when he hit the brush, what that arrow did was horrific.
> 
> Buck made it 75 yards into a briar patch.
> 
> I like to drop them where they stand, if they run ten yards I am not happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too! But it was cool I shot this buck and watched him run 100 yards jump or hurdle 4 fallen trees then fall. I'm OK if they run just not out of my sight. I suck at tracking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I shot one during a blizzard, the year Houston was beating the Hell out of Notre Dame in some bowl came.
> 
> I said fuck it, went hunting in the snow, shot one that ran over 600 years and jumped four fences.
> 
> I was sure I had missed it, then saw it fall over.
> 
> I got it to the truck, the battery would not start the damned truck, and the deer froze so hard over night that I had to wait three days to clean it.
> 
> You won't hear me bitch about global warming.
> 
> I got the deer, but missed on of the all-time classic come backs in NCAA football history as ND won.
Click to expand...

Of course they did they were playing Houston. 

I go hunt put a pumpkin out 20 yards from me kick a hole in it put deer crack in it and fall asleep in a ground blind i made out of fallen logs.  I woke up and looked to the pumpkin because it was still dark out and I couldn't see it. I cleared my eyes and realized I couldn't see it because a buck was between me and the pumpkin. I reached for my crossbow but couldn't find it in my scope then it heard me and ran. Can't believe it didn't see or smell or hear me snoring.

Maybe there are deaf deer.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say you wanted them to live. Say it now sister christian. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry. You're just an idiot. You're implying that since I didn't say that I prefer that they live then it means that I prefer that they die. What I actually said is that I prefer that they die instead of me and my family. If you think that is unchristian behavior, then you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

No ones talking about you. When I say you christians I mean all of you. 50 shades of hypocrite. Maybe you are a 1 not a 50 on the ahole meter. Lol


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say you wanted them to live. Say it now sister christian. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry. You're just an idiot. You're implying that since I didn't say that I prefer that they live then it means that I prefer that they die. What I actually said is that I prefer that they die instead of me and my family. If you think that is unchristian behavior, then you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

When they are in the ambulance do you hope they live dont sue you and find Jesus or that they die?

What do you pray for?


----------



## Roadrunner

strollingbones said:


> now now i only use hollow points in the .22.....it will do the job


It will kill a person, true.

And that adrenaline charged person may kill you back before he dies.

My two main self-defence handguns are a 1911 with ball ammo, and a .45 Long Colt with 225 grain JHP.

Manstoppers!


----------



## strollingbones

i dont think so....they will just bleed out faster .....i trust the hollow points and again...they arent getting that close.....use to be 10 ft till winter posted that it needed to be more like 21 ft....10...21....once the charge begins i open fire


----------



## Roadrunner

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say you wanted them to live. Say it now sister christian. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry. You're just an idiot. You're implying that since I didn't say that I prefer that they live then it means that I prefer that they die. What I actually said is that I prefer that they die instead of me and my family. If you think that is unchristian behavior, then you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they are in the ambulance do you hope they live dont sue you and find Jesus or that they die?
> 
> What do you pray for?
Click to expand...

Never been in that situation, but if I was, I'd pray for their family.


----------



## Roadrunner

strollingbones said:


> i dont think so....they will just bleed out faster .....i trust the hollow points and again...they arent getting that close.....use to be 10 ft till winter posted that it needed to be more like 21 ft....10...21....once the charge begins i open fire


I have a friend that has killed over 100 deer with a .22.

He heart shoots them, half the time they do not know they are hit, and just fade out.

I doubt you can count on a thug not realizing he has been hit, and just fading out.

Hope you never have to use that on a human that is jeopardizing your life.


----------



## strollingbones

that is my hope also....i dont look for trouble....someone would have to bring it to my home....


----------



## Roadrunner

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say you wanted them to live. Say it now sister christian. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry. You're just an idiot. You're implying that since I didn't say that I prefer that they live then it means that I prefer that they die. What I actually said is that I prefer that they die instead of me and my family. If you think that is unchristian behavior, then you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ones talking about you. When I say you christians I mean all of you. 50 shades of hypocrite. Maybe you are a 1 not a 50 on the ahole meter. Lol
Click to expand...

So, you speak for all Christians?

You know all their hearts?

Shit, you must be God.


----------



## Missourian

I went back to find some of my old posts to contradict this half baked theory,  and I found them.







 Mass shooting in Chicago - 13 shot US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



 A real Civil War US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Sounds pretty Christian to me.

Not "I can't wait to kill a home invader" or "I catch someone in my house I'm going to kill them"...simply,  I don't want trouble. 

Kind of takes the wind of this threads sails,  doesn't it.


----------



## sealybobo

Roadrunner said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say you wanted them to live. Say it now sister christian. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry. You're just an idiot. You're implying that since I didn't say that I prefer that they live then it means that I prefer that they die. What I actually said is that I prefer that they die instead of me and my family. If you think that is unchristian behavior, then you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ones talking about you. When I say you christians I mean all of you. 50 shades of hypocrite. Maybe you are a 1 not a 50 on the ahole meter. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you speak for all Christians?
> 
> You know all their hearts?
> 
> Shit, you must be God.
Click to expand...

They worry more about being sued than god. They pray but not for survival of the wounded. They pray they dont get sued.

Hey I get it but I'm not religious.


----------



## sealybobo

Missourian said:


> I went back to find some of my old posts to contradict this half baked theory,  and I found them.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39009
> Mass shooting in Chicago - 13 shot US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> View attachment 39010 A real Civil War US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty Christian to me.
> 
> Not "I can't wait to kill a home invader" or "I catch someone in my house I'm going to kill them"...simply,  I don't want trouble.
> 
> Kind of takes the wind of this threads sails,  doesn't it.


If it were true for many NRA types who claim to be christians but talk fondly about killing someone.


----------



## sealybobo

Roadrunner said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I ever said that I wanted them to die. The simple fact is that there is someone with a weapon in my house. You do not shoot to wound. You shoot to kill. Simple logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say you wanted them to live. Say it now sister christian. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry. You're just an idiot. You're implying that since I didn't say that I prefer that they live then it means that I prefer that they die. What I actually said is that I prefer that they die instead of me and my family. If you think that is unchristian behavior, then you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No ones talking about you. When I say you christians I mean all of you. 50 shades of hypocrite. Maybe you are a 1 not a 50 on the ahole meter. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you speak for all Christians?
> 
> You know all their hearts?
> 
> Shit, you must be God.
Click to expand...


Hey you stereotype us we stereotype you.


----------



## Mr.Right

Roadrunner said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> now now i only use hollow points in the .22.....it will do the job
> 
> 
> 
> It will kill a person, true.
> 
> And that adrenaline charged person may kill you back before he dies.
> 
> My two main self-defence handguns are a 1911 with ball ammo, and a .45 Long Colt with 225 grain JHP.
> 
> Manstoppers!
Click to expand...

I prefer the .40 cal with Glazier rounds. It has very good stopping power.


----------



## strollingbones

i have never talked fondly of killing anyone....but when push came to shove many years ago...i was more than willing ready and able to defend myself and my toddler son...simple as that...after the threat was gone...i nailed all the windows in the basement shut....and kept a loaded gun till my husband came home....i did not want to kill anyone but would not allow harm to myself and son ...simple as that


----------



## strollingbones

o that is the religion of mother hood in case ya want to know


----------



## sealybobo

strollingbones said:


> i have never talked fondly of killing anyone....but when push came to shove many years ago...i was more than willing ready and able to defend myself and my toddler son...simple as that...after the threat was gone...i nailed all the windows in the basement shut....and kept a loaded gun till my husband came home....i did not want to kill anyone but would not allow harm to myself and son ...simple as that



Again this isnt what we are talking about. No one disagrees with defending yourself its just odd as christians we prefer the person threatening us dies rather than live to testify against us.


----------



## strollingbones

i am not christian


----------



## WinterBorn

sealybobo said:


> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> proper terminology and thinking is that a person 'Shoots to STOP' sealy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strange how we got away from the old west ways and now are falling back into that kind of atmosphere.
> 
> We are still a very young immature uneducated primitive species. Not much separate us from animals in fact some ways were worse.
> 
> Would a squirrel kill another squirrel for stealing a nut? You would.
Click to expand...


"Old west ways"?    The old west was not nearly as violent as you think.  Perhaps "old western movie ways" is the term you are looking for.

Would a squirrel kill another squirrel for invading their nest?   You betcha!


----------



## sealybobo

WinterBorn said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pismoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> proper terminology and thinking is that a person 'Shoots to STOP' sealy !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strange how we got away from the old west ways and now are falling back into that kind of atmosphere.
> 
> We are still a very young immature uneducated primitive species. Not much separate us from animals in fact some ways were worse.
> 
> Would a squirrel kill another squirrel for stealing a nut? You would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Old west ways"?    The old west was not nearly as violent as you think.  Perhaps "old western movie ways" is the term you are looking for.
> 
> Would a squirrel kill another squirrel for invading their nest?   You betcha!
Click to expand...

They usually chase away. I've never seen a squirrel kill another squirrel. 

Now I have heard the littler red squirrels kill the brown squirrels. Reminds me of black and white humans. Lol but they typically dont kill their own.

Wolves will kill. 

I won't argue that we are just another animal species. I'm not religious.


----------



## sealybobo

strollingbones said:


> i am not christian


I love to see so many non christians step up and proclaim they are not believers.

On a Sunday talk show they broke it down christians only 30% of world population. I bet they are counting many americans who aren't even real christians. What makes someone a real christian? Do they have to take all the stories literally?


----------



## WinterBorn

The problem I see with your supposition, Sealyboo, is that you seem to have issues with the people shooting the intruder, and whether or not they should try to only wound them.

The actual situation is simple.    You, the homeowner, did not instigate this event.  You took some steps to prevent it (like locks on doors, ect).  But a criminal has violently invaded your home.   If you have a family, you have a split second, under extreme stress, in order to keep them safe.   Do you try for a much more difficult shot in that split second?  If so, you risk your family's safety on the success.   Or do you aim for the largest part of the target and let fly?


----------



## The Professor

I would not shoot to wound.

Now would I shoot to kill.

I would shoot to stop the threat of serious injury or death.  Period

I am not attempting to play with words here. The law in every jurisdiction allows deadly force to be used when a person has a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury or death. When the threat is over, the use of deadly force becomes criminal.

I mention this because on other threads some of you said things which are not only wrong but which could land you in serious trouble. One poster said that if a robber was running away with his TV he would shoot him in the back. It sounded macho but if it happened that way the poster would have been convicted of a felony.  Some of you have stated that if someone broke into your house it is better to kill him than to wound him and have him turn into a witness against you. So far, nothing wrong; however, if you shoot an intruder and he is on the ground wounded (and no longer a threat) and you give him the _coup de grâce, _you have committed a serious felony. It doesn't matter if he would have died anyway from the initial wounds. Your only hope is jury nullification.

Now as far as aiming is concerned, always aim for center mass. Anything else is foolish even for an expert marksman.


----------



## sealybobo

Just saw american sniper. Why didn't he shoot the gun out of the kids hand? Or shoot near before the kid picked it up?


----------



## sealybobo

He could clearly have shot some of them in the legs. Not the adults running around shooting at them but the ones he was conflicted over?


----------



## prison/con.net

When you are under lethal threat, (the only justification for firing at ALL) you will miss the chest most of the time, so there's no way that you're going to hit just the leg or the arm. And limb hits are often fatal, anyway.  YOu are responsible for every bullet that emerges from your gun, so don't risk one of them richocheting and hitting an innocent.  Put them all in the center of his chest, or his head. If he didn't want to get shot, all he had to do was not do what made you pull a gun.

The Bible says that "thou shalt not commit MURDER", actually. there's no prohibition vs killing in war or self defense.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.



You don't pull a deadly weapon on someone without intent to kill. If you want to wound a home intruder use your fist or throw a chair at them - if you don't feel safe doing that and have a gun - shoot to kill. 

As for me - Ive got a 110 lb Weimshepherd.


----------



## prison/con.net

have you ever seen what happens when you hit an arm or leg bone with a high-velocity rifle bullet? the limb is torn off and the "hittee" dies in agony, that's what happens.


----------



## strollingbones

son took cc glass today....saying not to go with 21 ft.....that is too close...he did well 100% on written test and 40 mass shots out of 40 shots...


----------



## prison/con.net

you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.


----------



## strollingbones

not being the average guy...i will go with as soon as they are a threat


----------



## prison/con.net

and how do you determine that? I've been a black belt for over 40 years now, and I started working on CC fast draw when I was 12.  But nearly everyone is kidding themselves about what they'll be able to do if a fight starts. They'll be doing a Zimmerman on the ground with the guy, even if the attacker IS unarmed and alone.


----------



## strollingbones

simple...you enter my home without my invite...you refuse to learn my property and continue coming....anything that i perceive as a threat to myself or my family....i prefer a shotgun....


----------



## strollingbones

or a .22 rifle with hollow points ....my dogs pretty much alert me to anyone coming near the house


----------



## prison/con.net

and you NEVER leave your home, right? I've been attacked, or nearly attacked, several times, and only once was it in my home. Statistically, you are 4x more likelly to be attacked when not at home, guys. Even at home, you don't carry a shotgun from room to room, nor answer the door with it  If you did, the neighbors, mail man, etc, would notice and you'd get locked- up as being the nut that you WOULD be.  Most of the time, you never even have to fire, and misses have changed a lot of minds, too. I've been attacked, or nearly attacked, by dogs even more often than by men.   It's many times more likely, even in your home, that you won't get to a longarm (in time) than the case of the pocket pistol not being "enough gun".


----------



## strollingbones

i live in relatively safe area....i do not cc .....hell why should i...i am willing to bet i am one of the few people not armed at all times....the only time i have had trouble was someone trying to enter my home with myself and my young son (he is grown now)  many people tell me how lucky i was...i assure you the lucky sob was the dude trying to break in...this was long before cell phones etc...i did everything i was taught to do...decided when i would kill..armed myself and waited...there is no fear like knowing  if someone gets into your home...they will harm your child...and that you and your shotgun are the only thing to stop him....no, he was one lucky fucker that he stopped and left...


----------



## strollingbones

o and i grew up in a home where my father was never outta reach of a firearm....hell i thought that was normal....i was well into my 20s when i realized that not everyone lived in an armed fortress....grandfather on his side was the same way....i remember when we were young...pistols all over the house


----------



## Ringel05

sealybobo said:


> Just saw american sniper. Why didn't he shoot the gun out of the kids hand? Or shoot near before the kid picked it up?


You're dealing with split second decisions that occur in a combat zone.  Do you know that even shooting a weapon out of someones hand is difficult even for the best?  You seem to think Hollywood is reality when in fact it's far from it.  
I'm considered very good with a handgun, I shoot an average of 260 out of 300 which means there are days I'm shooting really good and days I'm shooting terrible, there are even days where I'm shoot both very good and very bad in the same day.  Everyone is like that.  
The idea in war is to neutralize any threat as fast as possible, In almost every case it means killing the opponent, that's true in any life and death struggle.


----------



## WinterBorn

sealybobo said:


> Just saw american sniper. Why didn't he shoot the gun out of the kids hand? Or shoot near before the kid picked it up?



Neither of those options would have removed the threat.  It might have temporarily lowered it, but in the long run it would have increased it.


----------



## strollingbones

one sniper i saw on tv made a good point ...no one counts the lives you save


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

prison/con.net said:


> and you NEVER leave your home, right? I've been attacked, or nearly attacked, several times, and only once was it in my home. Statistically, you are 4x more likelly to be attacked when not at home, guys. Even at home, you don't carry a shotgun from room to room, nor answer the door with it  If you did, the neighbors, mail man, etc, would notice and you'd get locked- up as being the nut that you WOULD be.  Most of the time, you never even have to fire, and misses have changed a lot of minds, too. I've been attacked, or nearly attacked, by dogs even more often than by men.   It's many times more likely, even in your home, that you won't get to a longarm (in time) than the case of the pocket pistol not being "enough gun".



  I used always keep an 870 shorty by the door during the day and I stopped a home invasion with it.
  Since I moved to a gated community I no longer do that but I will go to the door with the .45 in a kidney carry if someone knocks and I'm not expecting visitors.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

strollingbones said:


> or a .22 rifle with hollow points ....my dogs pretty much alert me to anyone coming near the house



 You should really consider getting something with a little more stopping power. Even if it's just a .22 mag.


----------



## pismoe

.22 is better than nothing but certainly not a man STOPPER .


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

pismoe said:


> .22 is better than nothing but certainly not a man STOPPER .



  Biggest problem is shot placement. Can't miss by much with a .22
   Hell I consider a 9mm to be under powered.


----------



## sealybobo

HereWeGoAgain said:


> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you NEVER leave your home, right? I've been attacked, or nearly attacked, several times, and only once was it in my home. Statistically, you are 4x more likelly to be attacked when not at home, guys. Even at home, you don't carry a shotgun from room to room, nor answer the door with it  If you did, the neighbors, mail man, etc, would notice and you'd get locked- up as being the nut that you WOULD be.  Most of the time, you never even have to fire, and misses have changed a lot of minds, too. I've been attacked, or nearly attacked, by dogs even more often than by men.   It's many times more likely, even in your home, that you won't get to a longarm (in time) than the case of the pocket pistol not being "enough gun".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used always keep an 870 shorty by the door during the day and I stopped a home invasion with it.
> Since I moved to a gated community I no longer do that but I will go to the door with the .45 in a kidney carry if someone knocks and I'm not expecting visitors.
Click to expand...

I need to do that. Why wait till you know its a threat. Be prepared.


----------



## Correll

A .22 long is nothing to sneeze at, especially with some of the special rounds that are out there.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Correll said:


> A .22 long is nothing to sneeze at, especially with some of the special rounds that are out there.



 Sure you can kill with it but shot placement becomes much more critical,and in a high stress situation you need every advantage you can get.


----------



## Correll

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A .22 long is nothing to sneeze at, especially with some of the special rounds that are out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can kill with it but shot placement becomes much more critical,and in a high stress situation you need every advantage you can get.
Click to expand...



Like a ton of extra rounds because the bullets are smaller?

Had a buddy who carried this

Grendel P30 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## prison/con.net

better take a set of earmuffs with you to fire that shotgun indoors. TRY it sometime, man, especialy at night, so you get the fkull effect of the flash, too. You'd better not miss the vitals and you'd better not have more than one enemy, or you'd better have ear protection. some outfit makes a sort of springy headband, letting you hang your earplugs around your neck, installing the plugs quickly whenever you wish.


----------



## WinterBorn

prison/con.net said:


> better take a set of earmuffs with you to fire that shotgun indoors. TRY it sometime, man, especialy at night, so you get the fkull effect of the flash, too. You'd better not miss the vitals and you'd better not have more than one enemy, or you'd better have ear protection. some outfit makes a sort of springy headband, letting you hang your earplugs around your neck, installing the plugs quickly whenever you wish.



I'd be willing to bet that any buddies the intruder had with him would be running away after hearing the 12 gauge go off.  

Yeah, it is LOUD in an enclosed space.  But it stops whatever you hit and doesn't over-penetrate walls.


----------



## prison/con.net

thing is, guys, you cant/wont carry 2 longarms, especially not with a pack and when you have the 06, all you see is small stuff, and when you see the deer, it's at  100+ yds and all you have is he shotgun. the silenced .22 handgun is fine for foraging, but it aint much for people and it aint really handy for concealment around the house.  The 223 shorty, auto, with good softpoints, will reliably take deer to 150 yds and the .22lr conversion unit handles small game just fine. because of the suppressor, both the 223 and the 22 are greatly enhanced. This method leaves you free to carry the pocket 9mm ,around the house or in the street, and you've got a powerful handy carbine for the house, for deer, for riots, etc.  No, it won't take elk at  200 + yds but neither do you NEED to do that. You can brain them at  100 yds. and how often do you shoot an elk at longer range than 100 yds? once per yeaar. big deal. I aint doing without my figthing rifle, suppressor, concealment, luminous sights, threaded barrel, rust resistant finish, GI rd, mags, parts, etc, just to be able to (legally) take an elk or moose per year.


----------



## prison/con.net

the .22 handgun practice won't make you faster at hitting with the 308 or the shotgun. practice with the AR15 and .22lr unit WILL make you faster at hitting with the suppressed  223 AR15, and saving  30c per shot, in that manner, swiftly pays for the set up.


----------



## WinterBorn

prison/con.net said:


> thing is, guys, you cant/wont carry 2 longarms, especially not with a pack and when you have the 06, all you see is small stuff, and when you see the deer, it's at  100+ yds and all you have is he shotgun. the silenced .22 handgun is fine for foraging, but it aint much for people and it aint really handy for concealment around the house.  The 223 shorty, auto, with good softpoints, will reliably take deer to 150 yds and the .22lr conversion unit handles small game just fine. because of the suppressor, both the 223 and the 22 are greatly enhanced. This method leaves you free to carry the pocket 9mm ,around the house or in the street, and you've got a powerful handy carbine for the house, for deer, for riots, etc.  No, it won't take elk at  200 + yds but



I haven't carried 2 long guns in almost 50 years of shooting and hunting.   But it doesn't mean I don't have very good uses for more than one long gun.

Hunting deer with a .223 isn't legal in many places.  And I prefer a quicker, more humane kill than that 55 grain round will do (all too often).  

A powerful, and handy carbine could also be a big game rifle if you pick a good lever action.


----------



## strollingbones

most people leave when they hear you rack the shotgun...no mistaking that sound


----------



## WinterBorn

prison/con.net said:


> the .22 handgun practice won't make you faster at hitting with the 308 or the shotgun. practice with the AR15 and .22lr unit WILL make you faster at hitting with the suppressed  223 AR15, and saving  30c per shot, in that manner, swiftly pays for the set up.



Practicing with a .22 rifle will make you better with any rifle (with the possible exception of some very long range setups).

And suppressors mainly work well with subsonic ammo.  I am looking for faster, not slower, ammunition.  The faster the bullet is moving the more accurate it tends to be, all things being equal.

I am a huge fan of the .308.  It is accurate and hard hitting, even at decently long ranges.


----------



## prison/con.net

yes, i have $1500 in my longarms and as much more in my  3 handguns, but I got 12k of school loans, used it to get an Asian nurse here, and now I get 20k per year (untaxed) from  her.  10k per year of that is loans that she need never repay, so she's getting a GREAT deal. shes clearing  35k per year.  in her home country, she mad 2k per year. and no, you can't live there on 2k per year  (as "well" as a BUM in the street lives in the US)   BS, lots of "non gun" people have no IDEA what racking a shotgun sounds like. and quite a few know that it means that you are dumb enough to have one rd less in your magazine.


----------



## strollingbones

say what?


----------



## WinterBorn

prison/con.net said:


> yes, i have $1500 in my longarms and as much more in my  3 handguns, but I got 12k of school loans, used it to get an Asian nurse here, and now I get 20k per year (untaxed) from  her.  10k per year of that is loans that she need never repay, so she's getting a GREAT deal. shes clearing  35k per year.  in her home country, she mad 2k per year. and no, you can't live there on 2k per year  (as "well" as a BUM in the street lives in the US)   BS, lots of "non gun" people have no IDEA what racking a shotgun sounds like. and quite a few know that it means that you are dumb enough to have one rd less in your magazine.



Whether you have a round in the chamber depends on several things, like kids in the home.   A small child won't be able to rack the action, but they can fumble with a safety and pull a trigger.

I have quite a bit of money tied up in firearms too.  Not sure what the Asian nurse part has to do with anything.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Correll said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A .22 long is nothing to sneeze at, especially with some of the special rounds that are out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can kill with it but shot placement becomes much more critical,and in a high stress situation you need every advantage you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like a ton of extra rounds because the bullets are smaller?
> 
> Had a buddy who carried this
> 
> Grendel P30 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


  My .45 holds 16 rounds with one in the pipe.....I'm good.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

prison/con.net said:


> yes, i have $1500 in my longarms and as much more in my  3 handguns, but I got 12k of school loans, used it to get an Asian nurse here, and now I get 20k per year (untaxed) from  her.  10k per year of that is loans that she need never repay, so she's getting a GREAT deal. shes clearing  35k per year.  in her home country, she mad 2k per year. and no, you can't live there on 2k per year  (as "well" as a BUM in the street lives in the US)   BS, lots of "non gun" people have no IDEA what racking a shotgun sounds like. and quite a few know that it means that you are dumb enough to have one rd less in your magazine.



My favorite AR is around 4grand with optics and my go to .45 is about 2grand with optics. I'd get the Osprey for it but I dont want to jump through the hoops.
   They're both set up for the shit


----------



## prison/con.net

the nurse thing is to show the guys (with no money) a way to get that money. If you sign kup for the easiest classes in your jr college, in may  or January, not in August you get an extra 3.5k per year in loans and 1.5k  of grants.  If you go at it right, you can get 23k of loans and 7k of grants in just 12 months.  getting the nurse here costs 10k, leaving another 10k for your gear and training, and assuring an income for 5 years while you teach yourself enough to be a gunsmith/bullet caster, reloader, and trainer. If you know what to do, you put maybe 600 hours into the classes, not bothering with the second January classes at all, and half timing the rest. They'll still give you full time loans for your first year. the APR is 7%, but you can easily pay it off with the money that she gives  you.

if you get a dentist, she can hire on right away as an oral hygenist, $35 an hour, 70 k per year.


----------



## WinterBorn

prison/con.net said:


> the nurse thing is to show the guys (with no money) a way to get that money. If you sign kup for the easiest classes in your jr college, in may  or January, not in August you get an extra 3.5k per year in loans and 1.5k  of grants.  If you go at it right, you can get 23k of loans and 7k of grants in just 12 months.  getting the nurse here costs 10k, leaving another 10k for your gear and training, and assuring an income for 5 years while you teach yourself enough to be a gunsmith/bullet caster, reloader, and trainer. If you know what to do, you put maybe 600 hours into the classes, not bothering with the second January classes at all, and half timing the rest. They'll still give you full time loans for your first year. the APR is 7%, but you can easily pay it off with the money that she gives  you.
> 
> if you get a dentist, she can hire on right away as an oral hygenist, $35 an hour, 70 k per year.



I have my own money.  I have about $9k tied up in firearms (not counting the ones I inherited).   I'll support my own habits.

I am not bringing a woman over to this country so I can soak her for her paychecks.


----------



## Spare_change

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.



Anybody who would ask this question doesn't understand shooting ....  you shoot to kill, because you aren't good enough to shoot to injure. Damn few are ...

How do Christians feel about it? Damn good ... especially when the attacker is dead, and the family is safe.

The question not only shows a lack of understanding of shooting - but also, a lack of understanding of Christianity. I'll bet you didn't even know that the Catholic Church condones the death penalty, did you? I'll bet you didn't even know that the original commandment said 'thou shalt not murder" ... kinda changes your perspective, don't you think?


----------



## Ringel05

WinterBorn said:


> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> better take a set of earmuffs with you to fire that shotgun indoors. TRY it sometime, man, especialy at night, so you get the fkull effect of the flash, too. You'd better not miss the vitals and you'd better not have more than one enemy, or you'd better have ear protection. some outfit makes a sort of springy headband, letting you hang your earplugs around your neck, installing the plugs quickly whenever you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that any buddies the intruder had with him would be running away after hearing the 12 gauge go off.
> 
> Yeah, it is LOUD in an enclosed space.  But it stops whatever you hit and doesn't over-penetrate walls.
Click to expand...

Depends on the load, #4 buck will easily penetrate in a nice tight pattern up to about 7 feet away before it really starts spreading.  Bird shot's the best, rock salt has a lasting effect........


----------



## sealybobo

Spare_change said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who would ask this question doesn't understand shooting ....  you shoot to kill, because you aren't good enough to shoot to injure. Damn few are ...
> 
> How do Christians feel about it? Damn good ... especially when the attacker is dead, and the family is safe.
> 
> The question not only shows a lack of understanding of shooting - but also, a lack of understanding of Christianity. I'll bet you didn't even know that the Catholic Church condones the death penalty, did you? I'll bet you didn't even know that the original commandment said 'thou shalt not murder" ... kinda changes your perspective, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Weirdos


----------



## WinterBorn

sealybobo said:


> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who would ask this question doesn't understand shooting ....  you shoot to kill, because you aren't good enough to shoot to injure. Damn few are ...
> 
> How do Christians feel about it? Damn good ... especially when the attacker is dead, and the family is safe.
> 
> The question not only shows a lack of understanding of shooting - but also, a lack of understanding of Christianity. I'll bet you didn't even know that the Catholic Church condones the death penalty, did you? I'll bet you didn't even know that the original commandment said 'thou shalt not murder" ... kinda changes your perspective, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weirdos
Click to expand...


What is weird about him?


----------



## sealybobo

WinterBorn said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who would ask this question doesn't understand shooting ....  you shoot to kill, because you aren't good enough to shoot to injure. Damn few are ...
> 
> How do Christians feel about it? Damn good ... especially when the attacker is dead, and the family is safe.
> 
> The question not only shows a lack of understanding of shooting - but also, a lack of understanding of Christianity. I'll bet you didn't even know that the Catholic Church condones the death penalty, did you? I'll bet you didn't even know that the original commandment said 'thou shalt not murder" ... kinda changes your perspective, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weirdos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is weird about him?
Click to expand...

The whole religion thing. Its exhausting.

I recently was pointed out the difference between murder and kill. Now all I ever notice is how many other people dont. They say kill when they mean murder and visa versa. Pretty big important detail most people dont think that much about. Sometimes I wonder if that's on purpose.


----------



## WinterBorn

sealybobo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare_change said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who would ask this question doesn't understand shooting ....  you shoot to kill, because you aren't good enough to shoot to injure. Damn few are ...
> 
> How do Christians feel about it? Damn good ... especially when the attacker is dead, and the family is safe.
> 
> The question not only shows a lack of understanding of shooting - but also, a lack of understanding of Christianity. I'll bet you didn't even know that the Catholic Church condones the death penalty, did you? I'll bet you didn't even know that the original commandment said 'thou shalt not murder" ... kinda changes your perspective, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Weirdos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is weird about him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole religion thing. Its exhausting.
> 
> I recently was pointed out the difference between murder and kill. Now all I ever notice is how many other people dont. They say kill when they mean murder and visa versa. Pretty big important detail most people dont think that much about. Sometimes I wonder if that's on purpose.
Click to expand...


Taking a human life is never a good thing.  Whether it is "kill" or "murder" doesn't change anything for the dead guy, or his family.

I think a large part of the difference is what we tell ourselves to feel ok about it.   There are times when it is necessary for various reasons, like self defense.


----------



## WinterBorn

prison/con.net said:


> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.



You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???

Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.


----------



## strollingbones

hello yall......okay the cops kill the dude with the knife.....and they never say how far away or how close the guy was to the cops when they opened fire.....

i continue to discuss this issue with hubby and son....both have the same answer....the minute i feel threatened is when i fire....so far i would have only killed the poor ups driver....


----------



## prison/con.net

why would you WANT some pos walking around with scars to remind him of you? why would you want the pos to survive attacking you?


----------



## prison/con.net

why


----------



## shadow355

sealybobo said:


> Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.


 
 Shoot to stop. I was taught in the Military, and also in my CCW training....shoot center mass.

   Shadow 355


----------



## Spare_change

Anybody who claims, or professes, to 'shoot to injure' has never fired a pistol.


----------



## Ringel05

WinterBorn said:


> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
Click to expand...

17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.


----------



## prison/con.net

you can't live by that rule, as I have stated. You must let people get within touching distance of you every day and all day, basically.  You are highly likely to need black belt levels of ability, just to "buy" enough time and space to bring your gun into play.


----------



## WinterBorn

Ringel05 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.
Click to expand...


And 17 feet is for a holstered weapon that is ready to fire.  Prison/con claims he drew, cycled the action on a 1911, assumed a shooting stance and yelled "freeze" before the guy was within arms reach.   Arm's reach is around 3 feet.  So the guy only had to move 9 feet.   I find the whole scenario hard to believe.


----------



## Spinster

Ringel05 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.
Click to expand...


My practice has been when I feel threatened for my life/safety, I don't wait for it to escalate. I casually put my hand on the trigger and keep it there until the threat passes without ever bringing it to the person's attention that I'm carrying. The surprise factor increases your safety factor greatly, IMO. I don't ever want to get into a struggle over the weapon and run the risk of maybe having it get away from me into the hands of the perp.


----------



## Ringel05

Spinster said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My practice has been when I feel threatened for my life/safety, I don't wait for it to escalate. I casually put my hand on the trigger and keep it there until the threat passes without ever bringing it to the person's attention that I'm carrying. The surprise factor increases your safety factor greatly, IMO. I don't ever want to get into a struggle over the weapon and run the risk of maybe having it get away from me into the hands of the perp.
Click to expand...

Just don't shoot yourself in the leg by accident, or an innocent person.......  There's a reason law enforcement is trained not to touch the trigger until we're ready to actually fire.  

This is the Federal Use of Force Chart:







Notice the arrows go both ways, the subject escalates, you escalate, the subject deescalates, you deescalate.  It's a good thing to know and if followed will keep you out of legal trouble and jail for making a rash or stupid decision.


----------



## Spinster

Ringel05 said:


> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My practice has been when I feel threatened for my life/safety, I don't wait for it to escalate. I casually put my hand on the trigger and keep it there until the threat passes without ever bringing it to the person's attention that I'm carrying. The surprise factor increases your safety factor greatly, IMO. I don't ever want to get into a struggle over the weapon and run the risk of maybe having it get away from me into the hands of the perp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just don't shoot yourself in the leg by accident, or an innocent person.......  There's a reason law enforcement is trained not to touch the trigger until we're ready to actually fire.
> 
> This is the Federal Use of Force Chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the arrows go both ways, the subject escalates, you escalate, the subject deescalates, you deescalate.  It's a good thing to know and if followed will keep you out of legal trouble and jail for making a rash or stupid decision.
Click to expand...


My post stated I put my finger on the trigger WHEN I feel threatened for my life. I don't go around at the ready without a good reason. Also, the weapon I CC doesn't have a hair trigger--not running the risk of an accidental firing.


----------



## Ringel05

Spinster said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My practice has been when I feel threatened for my life/safety, I don't wait for it to escalate. I casually put my hand on the trigger and keep it there until the threat passes without ever bringing it to the person's attention that I'm carrying. The surprise factor increases your safety factor greatly, IMO. I don't ever want to get into a struggle over the weapon and run the risk of maybe having it get away from me into the hands of the perp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just don't shoot yourself in the leg by accident, or an innocent person.......  There's a reason law enforcement is trained not to touch the trigger until we're ready to actually fire.
> 
> This is the Federal Use of Force Chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the arrows go both ways, the subject escalates, you escalate, the subject deescalates, you deescalate.  It's a good thing to know and if followed will keep you out of legal trouble and jail for making a rash or stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post stated I put my finger on the trigger WHEN I feel threatened for my life. I don't go around at the ready without a good reason. Also, the weapon I CC doesn't have a hair trigger--not running the risk of an accidental firing.
Click to expand...

My finger doesn't go on the trigger until I'm actually going to pull the trigger, no mistakes.


----------



## Spare_change

WinterBorn said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And 17 feet is for a holstered weapon that is ready to fire.  Prison/con claims he drew, cycled the action on a 1911, assumed a shooting stance and yelled "freeze" before the guy was within arms reach.   Arm's reach is around 3 feet.  So the guy only had to move 9 feet.   I find the whole scenario hard to believe.
Click to expand...


It's not hard to believe ..... it's fiction.


----------



## Maxx

Spinster said:


> My practice has been when I feel threatened for my life/safety, I don't wait for it to escalate. I casually put my hand on the *trigger and keep it there until the threat passes without ever bringing it to the person's attention that I'm carrying*. The surprise factor increases your safety factor greatly, IMO. I don't ever want to get into a struggle over the weapon and run the risk of maybe having it get away from me into the hands of the perp.



If I'm reading this right: You are putting your finger on the trigger while your weapon is still concealed?

Holy shit, that is a recipe for disaster. I would strongly suggest you re-think that.


----------



## shadow355

WinterBorn said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And 17 feet is for a holstered weapon that is ready to fire.  Prison/con claims he drew, cycled the action on a 1911, assumed a shooting stance and yelled "freeze" before the guy was within arms reach.   Arm's reach is around 3 feet.  So the guy only had to move 9 feet.   I find the whole scenario hard to believe.
Click to expand...

 
  I just practiced this a month or so ago.

I can do the "Mossad Draw" - "Condition Three Draw" and in relatively short ( Very quick ) time. I just practiced this a month or so ago.

Draw from concealed ( handgun is under a shirt or jacket ), have the handgun turned sideways ( I am right handed - top of slide faces left ) , "rack the slide" with my left hand, turn the handgun 90 degrees to the right ( upright ), Place weak hand on top of strong hand, Shoot two rounds center mass of target at a distance of 40 feet.

I can do that maneuver in the blink of an eye, and have the two rounds center mass...about two to three inches apart.

   Shadow 355


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Spinster said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prison/con.net said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have no choice but to let lots of risky people pass within  7 yds of you, on the sidewalk, in cars as you walk or drive, in public buildings, all over the place. "stuff" starts at less than 5 yds, almost always and it gets lots closer, really fast, if you don't do something about it. I once had a guy with an upraised crescent wrench charge me from less than 4 yds. I did not back up, yet I was able to draw an (openly worn, in my waistband) 1911, cycle the slide, assume a weaver stance and yell "freeze" (and he did). He was still not within arm's reach, but if he'd taken one more step, I've have emptied the mag into his chest and he could see that. He knew me. Those who claim that 7 yds is it, are correct, tho, for the average guy with a holstered gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were able to draw the weapon, cycle the action, and assume a weaver stance before the guy could cover 12 feet???
> 
> Must have been a slow guy with the wrench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 17 feet minimum distance is what they taught us and that's not a guarantee you'll be able to react in time to not get stabbed at least once before getting off a round with a holstered sidearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My practice has been when I feel threatened for my life/safety, I don't wait for it to escalate. I casually put my hand on the trigger and keep it there until the threat passes without ever bringing it to the person's attention that I'm carrying. The surprise factor increases your safety factor greatly, IMO. I don't ever want to get into a struggle over the weapon and run the risk of maybe having it get away from me into the hands of the perp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just don't shoot yourself in the leg by accident, or an innocent person.......  There's a reason law enforcement is trained not to touch the trigger until we're ready to actually fire.
> 
> This is the Federal Use of Force Chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the arrows go both ways, the subject escalates, you escalate, the subject deescalates, you deescalate.  It's a good thing to know and if followed will keep you out of legal trouble and jail for making a rash or stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My post stated I put my finger on the trigger WHEN I feel threatened for my life. I don't go around at the ready without a good reason. Also, the weapon I CC doesn't have a hair trigger--not running the risk of an accidental firing.
Click to expand...


  Never put your finger in the trigger guard until your ready to pull the trigger.
Especially before you draw!!!.


----------

