Human rights?

SunshineKisses_2012

Now playing devil's advocate.

So, what's to stop you kidnapping someone you don't like, taking them home, killing them, setting it up to look like a burglary, and phone the cops and say he broke in so you killed him?

To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, how would you kidnap them? If you chose to drug them so they wouldn't fight back, those drugs would be in their system and would be found when an autopsy was conducted. If you chose to bind them, those bindings would leave bruises/impressions in their skin and those would be located in the autopsy.

If you had a history of not liking said person you planned on kidnapping, chances are your friends/family and their friends/family know about it and when the cops get called about the now-dead person, their friends/family would take issue (as they should) and further investigation would be made (thereby an autopsy being conducted with even more scrutiny).

Though it would take more investigation, things of that nature are already investigated to the hilt to ensure justice is served.

Just sayin'.

bry_all01

Ok, all Americans here. I'm asking for no other point that i am genuinely curious on this.

Over here in the UK you can't buy "guns", sports pistols etc aside. And, i feel much safer knowing that the chances of anyone having a gun is very, very low.

When you had those school shootings, did the "law" about your right to bear arms come under scrutiny? It just seems very...easy for that kind of thing to happen, given your gun laws.

See, here in America we have to have our names run through before we are even allowed to have a gun permit, before we can legally buy a gun. So, the kids that took it into their own hands (literally) either found one of mommy or daddy's guns or got a "clean" one off someone they knew (like in the streets).

Our gun laws are not so loose as one might think, its more of a "I'm doing this and I don't give a flying rat's *kitten*, because I'm a pissed off teenager with angst and he stole my girl..."

Exactly my point. So if you didn't allow guns, it'd make it much harder for that disgruntled teen to do it. Maybe so much harder they decide against it...=/

No, I said there is a screening everyone must go through in order ot get one. If they are not a convicted felon, they pass. Otherwise, there are plenty illegal ones on the streets that are easy enough to get your hands on. Have you met an angsty teen? when they make up their pea-brained mind, its pretty set. Its not so much that we should outlaw guns (because we still have the whole street situation, and would only be THAT much worse and THAT much more available), but more that people need to be taught right from wrong.

HMonsterX

Ok, all Americans here. I'm asking for no other point that i am genuinely curious on this.

Over here in the UK you can't buy "guns", sports pistols etc aside. And, i feel much safer knowing that the chances of anyone having a gun is very, very low.

When you had those school shootings, did the "law" about your right to bear arms come under scrutiny? It just seems very...easy for that kind of thing to happen, given your gun laws.

See, here in America we have to have our names run through before we are even allowed to have a gun permit, before we can legally buy a gun. So, the kids that took it into their own hands (literally) either found one of mommy or daddy's guns or got a "clean" one off someone they knew (like in the streets).

Our gun laws are not so loose as one might think, its more of a "I'm doing this and I don't give a flying rat's *kitten*, because I'm a pissed off teenager with angst and he stole my girl..."

Exactly my point. So if you didn't allow guns, it'd make it much harder for that disgruntled teen to do it. Maybe so much harder they decide against it...=/

So we don't allow good ol tax paying americans with clean records to have guns.. then we have nothing to protect ourselves with when the drug dealers and the like come in to rob us.. because you know they'll find a way to get a gun.. they do that now.... no i say our gun laws are ok. I'd rather have one and not use it.. than need one and not have one.

I just find it rather unsettling that kids can get their hands on a gun so easily...

Hellbent_Heidi

When you had those school shootings, did the "law" about your right to bear arms come under scrutiny? It just seems very...easy for that kind of thing to happen, given your gun laws.

Our right to bear arms comes under scrutiny every day. The thing people here don't seem to get is that criminals are going to get guns one way or another. So outlawing guns is not going to suddenly rid the country of gun-related crime. It's like saying if you outlaw murder, people will stop committing homicide. How's that working out?

Well said...I may be a little jaded due to my proximity to Detroit, but you never hear of a crime being committed with a gun someone owned legally. If someone comes in my home, you can bet I'm going to protect myself.

HMonsterX

Now playing devil's advocate.

So, what's to stop you kidnapping someone you don't like, taking them home, killing them, setting it up to look like a burglary, and phone the cops and say he broke in so you killed him?

To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, how would you kidnap them? If you chose to drug them so they wouldn't fight back, those drugs would be in their system and would be found when an autopsy was conducted. If you chose to bind them, those bindings would leave bruises/impressions in their skin and those would be located in the autopsy.

If you had a history of not liking said person you planned on kidnapping, chances are your friends/family and their friends/family know about it and when the cops get called about the now-dead person, their friends/family would take issue (as they should) and further investigation would be made (thereby an autopsy being conducted with even more scrutiny).

Though it would take more investigation, things of that nature are already investigated to the hilt to ensure justice is served.

Just sayin'.

Be more subtle. Befriend them, invite them round, bang! Smash a window! Put their prints on the brick you threw with your gloved hand!

brittanyjeanxo

Ok, all Americans here. I'm asking for no other point that i am genuinely curious on this.

Over here in the UK you can't buy "guns", sports pistols etc aside. And, i feel much safer knowing that the chances of anyone having a gun is very, very low.

When you had those school shootings, did the "law" about your right to bear arms come under scrutiny? It just seems very...easy for that kind of thing to happen, given your gun laws.

To answer your question, there are plenty of people here who are anti-gun and would LOVE to have our gun rights either outright taken away or penciled down so much they become null anyway. So yes, it has come under scrutiny many a time. It is very easy for it to happen given the misinformation and the extremely one-sided opinions.

Illinois is currently the only state over here where it is illegal to carry a gun on you. Yet Chicago (in Illinois) has one of the highest crime rates, including shootings, in the United States. I feel much safer knowing that my fiance carries a gun concealed on his hip, than if we had no way to protect ourselves should something ever happen. I can understand your curiosity and your lack of knowledge on the very specifics of the gun laws over here, so if this comes off as me being rude, it genuinely is not. But there are two crucial facts you need to consider: 1. Keeping and bearing arms is not just a law, it is our right as U.S. citizens. and 2. It isn't a matter of how many guns there are or are not. You have to consider the type of people with the guns. The chances are more likely than not that anyone involved in a shooting out of violence (i.e., where they were not defending themselves or others) does not have the proper permits or licenses to even have the gun with them, or probably can't own a gun in general. (If you're convicted of a felony over here, you lose the right to keep and bear arms.) There are still plenty of reports of gun violence in the U.K., but the thing is, and I'm just guessing, but it is probably HIGHLY likely that anyone who owns a gun anyway over there has some intent to do harm with it, because it is expressly illegal to have one at all (with regards to any exceptions you may have mentioned.) If you'd like to know more about our laws, I'd be very happy to help educate you without judgement. Like my fiance says though, it is better to not need the gun, but have it, then it is to need it, and not have it.

MeganLMeier

Broadly speaking, a person can sue for anything they want. Whether they will win is an entirely different question. People love to get outraged over the frivolous things for which someone can be "sued" because they confuse these two concepts.

Most of the frivolous cases that attract ire on blogs will be dismissed with prejudice at the motion to dismiss phase, before discovery has even begun. The alternative -- categorically forbidding people from suing for certain things -- incorrectly assumes that there is some impartial mechanism for determining the merits of a case before it has been filed. Instead, we have a system where frivolous cases can be dismissed shortly after they are filed. If frivolous cases somehow succeed at trial, they are often reversed or reduced on appeal. To use a famous example, the woman who spilled hot McDonald's coffee on her lap got a jury verdict for an enormous amount. On appeal, the award was reduced to very little.

Our system is not perfect, but it is among the best-functioning justice systems in the world. North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are much more efficient than the United States in handing out whatever brand of justice those in power deem appropriate, without the delay and inefficiency of worrying about human rights. Those countries also totally suck.

HMonsterX

So why is it so much harder for criminals to get guns over here in the UK?

The more freely you make them available, the easier it will be for anyone to get one...

I just don't think that giving everyone a gun makes it safer. So two people get shot instead of none...hmm...

Steven

Hi Posters,

Just a request to make sure to keep the tone civil in this debate. It actually seems to be progressing quite civilly, but political topics often get snarly.

So... I'm not going to lock or move the thread for now. Just a gentle request to keep up the respectful tone you've managed to maintain so far. If it turns into a US vs. UK mud-slinger, we'll probably have to lock it down.

Thanks!
Steven
MyFitnessPal Staff

amberrrogers

If they break into my house, there won't be any chance of them sueing me. However, there is a likely chance I will have to explain clean my gun.

They wont, but their family probably will. You committed murder. It'll be hard to deny that.

I disagree with you, defense of yourself, family, home, prperty is not murder. Period

I have to walk away from this discussion. i cant see how any person could defend the rights of a criminal. How is anyone supposed to know if they will be hurt or killed by the criminal in their home? Yeah Id kill them. In a minute. Nope it isnt defined as murder. It is self defense. Ypou may need to reeducate yourself. And before you jump on me, I consier myself a liberal, except for the right to protect myself and my family

If you see the burglar and intend on killing him, then it is:

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought"

ItsCasey

So why is it so much harder for criminals to get guns over here in the UK?

The more freely you make them available, the easier it will be for anyone to get one...

I just don't think that giving everyone a gun makes it safer. So two people get shot instead of none...hmm...

It helps that the UK does not share a border with, say, Mexico. Drugs are illegal in the U.S., but they're available on every street corner.

anotheryearolder

It won't work in Florida either. No one should be trying this in our area. Everyone has guns and knows how to use them.

I like the frequent sound of gunfire around here. It's the sound of self reliance. We are so far out in the boonies that the old saying, "when seconds count the police are minutes away", is the absolute truth.

anotheryearolder

I hadn't read all through the posts but on the subject of England vs U.S. gun laws that I now see showing up, I have this thought to add.

My personal opinion is the more people that own and use guns the better. The more decent citizens that carry and have weapons in their homes the better. It balances out the nut jobs that intend to do harm. When did a law ever stop a law breaker? Banning guns doesn't prevent violence and robbery. Knives, clubs and fists work too against weaker or outnumbered person(s).

My thought is that it gives the bad guys something to think about when they consider robbing a person or breaking into a house or business. I am a 61 year old woman and no match physically for a stronger person who wants to do me harm. The availability of a weapon and the knowledge to use it equalizes the situation. It's not perfect but it sure beats the alternative.

Different people have different views, that's just mine. I will always choose to live in a place that matches my views and hopefully everyone else can do the same.

brittanyjeanxo

So why is it so much harder for criminals to get guns over here in the UK?

The more freely you make them available, the easier it will be for anyone to get one...

I just don't think that giving everyone a gun makes it safer. So two people get shot instead of none...hmm...

I understand your initial unease because of the laws in the UK, but just because guns are outlawed does not mean people don't find other ways to harm, like knives, bats, crowbars, etc. basically whatever they can get their hands on.

iAMaPhoenix

Was afraid to get in on this one, but here goes. In my state of Florida, we have what we call the "John Wayne" law. Irregardless of where you are, you have the right to defend yourself, or another person, with deadly force if you or them are in imminent danger. When I took my concealed weapons class, I was informed that the truth is told by the survivor. He went on to tell us that we should never take out a weapon, unless you plan on using it, and if you plan on using it, you must always aim to kill, and not to maim. So it is not about human rights. It is survival.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

And Illinois is not the only state where it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm. There are a number of states like NJ and NY. Just ask Plaxico Burress...

Hellbent_Heidi

Was afraid to get in on this one, but here goes. In my state of Florida, we have what we call the "John Wayne" law. Irregardless of where you are, you have the right to defend yourself, or another person, with deadly force if you or them are in imminent danger. When I took my concealed weapons class, I was informed that the truth is told by the survivor. He went on to tell us that we should never take out a weapon, unless you plan on using it, and if you plan on using it, you must always aim to kill, and not to maim. So it is not about human rights. It is survival.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

I'm not from Florida, but In regard to the argument about kids getting guns....I really like the Florida law where the gun owner is prosecuted if they leave a gun unsecured and someone is harmed with it....I think that's a great message about gun owner responsibility.

ItsCasey

My personal opinion is the more people that own and use guns the better. The more decent citizens that carry and have weapons in their homes the better. It balances out the nut jobs that intend to do harm.

I agree with this completely. When Gabrielle Giffords was shot by that nutjob in Arizona earlier this year, I remember one of the anti-gun arguments being that most people in inner cities don't own guns, but people out in rural areas are more likely to own guns, even when they're less necessary. It boggles my mind that they don't see the correlation. If you're a criminal looking to burglarize someone's home, are you going to do it in a place where homeowners are more likely to own a gun or less likely?

There are no break-ins on the street where my parents live because it is common knowledge that everyone who lives on the street owns a gun and has a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude about strangers entering their homes unannounced in the middle of the night. It seems to do the trick.

manderson27

Ok, all Americans here. I'm asking for no other point that i am genuinely curious on this.

Over here in the UK you can't buy "guns", sports pistols etc aside. And, i feel much safer knowing that the chances of anyone having a gun is very, very low.

When you had those school shootings, did the "law" about your right to bear arms come under scrutiny? It just seems very...easy for that kind of thing to happen, given your gun laws.

See, here in America we have to have our names run through before we are even allowed to have a gun permit, before we can legally buy a gun. So, the kids that took it into their own hands (literally) either found one of mommy or daddy's guns or got a "clean" one off someone they knew (like in the streets).

Our gun laws are not so loose as one might think, its more of a "I'm doing this and I don't give a flying rat's *kitten*, because I'm a pissed off teenager with angst and he stole my girl..."

Exactly my point. So if you didn't allow guns, it'd make it much harder for that disgruntled teen to do it. Maybe so much harder they decide against it...=/

So we don't allow good ol tax paying americans with clean records to have guns.. then we have nothing to protect ourselves with when the drug dealers and the like come in to rob us.. because you know they'll find a way to get a gun.. they do that now.... no i say our gun laws are ok. I'd rather have one and not use it.. than need one and not have one.

I just find it rather unsettling that kids can get their hands on a gun so easily...

They can get guns easily over here in the UK as well. They just have to know where to go.

In the case of Mr Martin he was a farmer who had some mental health issues that had been exacerbated by youths breaking in and vandalising his home before he shot at an intruder in the middle of the night. Poor man was terrified, angry and owned a gun. The three most dangerous combinations I can think of. If the boy had known about the mans mental state and that he had a gun would he have broken in?

n003k

Pa2b32, I'm honestly surprised that an NRA certified instructor would inform you to aim to KILL. THAT is a good way to get arrested. I would agree that one should never draw their gun unless afraid for their life, however if such a situation does occur, you shoot to stop, that's it. You never shoot to kill, to do so is to for all intents commit murder. If I draw my gun and the attacker chooses to stop at that point, then I will not shoot, nor should anyone else, keep the firearm drawn, and call 911. If after being shot once the person stops, you stop there. Trust me, the police WILL notice if the person got hit in the chest and then had an additional hole in his head with the blood splatter from it under him on the floor.

In addition, such a situation will be highly stressful, and will reduce your abilities to a degree, as such, one should always shoot for the largest target available, which tends to be the chest of the target. While a shot there may lead to a fatality, it also may not, it does however give you the largest chance of hitting the target.

Along the same vein, you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, if you aim for the head, and in all likelihood then MISS the head, you can't be sure where that bullet WILL stop, which is yet another reason to fire at center of mass, and go for a STOP shot, not a KILL shot.

If you head over to thehighroad.org, which is a forum specifically for the advancement of gun rights, and inform them you would shoot to kill, I guarantee you'll get a lot of people advising you against it.

-The son of an NRA certified Instructor who was a Marine. A concealed carrier, and a gun right advocate. An NRA member, and a gun collector.

brittanyjeanxo

Was afraid to get in on this one, but here goes. In my state of Florida, we have what we call the "John Wayne" law. Irregardless of where you are, you have the right to defend yourself, or another person, with deadly force if you or them are in imminent danger. When I took my concealed weapons class, I was informed that the truth is told by the survivor. He went on to tell us that we should never take out a weapon, unless you plan on using it, and if you plan on using it, you must always aim to kill, and not to maim. So it is not about human rights. It is survival.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

I'm not from Florida, but In regard to the argument about kids getting guns....I really like the Florida law where the gun owner is prosecuted if they leave a gun unsecured and someone is harmed with it....I think that's a great message about gun owner responsibility.

Very much agree! I am from Florida, but my mother boarders on anti-gun (mostly due to lack of education) so I was never around them growing up. And now that I love them, of course, I live in one of the most strict states -.- anyway, I'm a big advocate for gun owners being responsible, educated, and well-mannered in public forums because there are a lot of people that give us a bad name. So I very much like laws that make the irresponsible owner on up to their mistake.

ItsCasey

Pa2b32, I'm honestly surprised that an NRA certified instructor would inform you to aim to KILL. THAT is a good way to get arrested. I would agree that one should never draw their gun unless afraid for their life, however if such a situation does occur, you shoot to stop, that's it. You never shoot to kill, to do so is to for all intents commit murder. If I draw my gun and the attacker chooses to stop at that point, then I will not shoot, nor should anyone else, keep the firearm drawn, and call 911. If after being shot once the person stops, you stop there. Trust me, the police WILL notice if the person got hit in the chest and then had an additional hole in his head with the blood splatter from it under him on the floor.

In addition, such a situation will be highly stressful, and will reduce your abilities to a degree, as such, one should always shoot for the largest target available, which tends to be the chest of the target. While a shot there may lead to a fatality, it also may not, it does however give you the largest chance of hitting the target.

Along the same vein, you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, if you aim for the head, and in all likelihood then MISS the head, you can't be sure where that bullet WILL stop, which is yet another reason to fire at center of mass, and go for a STOP shot, not a KILL shot.

If you head over to thehighroad.org, which is a forum specifically for the advancement of gun rights, and inform them you would shoot to kill, I guarantee you'll get a lot of people advising you against it.

-The son of an NRA certified Instructor who was a Marine. A concealed carrier, and a gun right advocate. An NRA member, and a gun collector.

That is the exact opposite of what I was taught. The gun safety portion of the CHL course I took taught that you should never aim at anything you aren't willing to destroy and that if you pull the trigger, you better be going for the kill. Aiming to wound is a good way to end up shooting an innocent bystander. And if you are being attacked, shooting to kill is not murder. It is self-defense.

Also, you don't aim for someone's head if you're trying to kill them unless you are point-blank range and that's just the way you decide to go. If I'm shooting to kill, which I would be, I'm aiming for their chest.

anotheryearolder

I glanced through the comments and someone mentioned the school shootings we get occasionally here. My opinion is that if you made it mandatory that a few selected people in every school have a weapon and was well trained in how to use it, there would be even fewer incidents that there are now. The major problem is that everyone KNOWS that schools are gun free zones, so they are the perfect target for a nut job.

One of the really bad shootings, it may have been Columbine, I just don't recall, was finally stopped by a teacher who slipped out of the school, got his hand gun from his car and got control of the situation. There was a situation of a gunman on a rampage in a church and a woman with a weapon put a halt to the rampage.

I like the quote "An armed society is a polite society."

That's all from me.

brittanyjeanxo

Pa2b32, I'm honestly surprised that an NRA certified instructor would inform you to aim to KILL. THAT is a good way to get arrested. I would agree that one should never draw their gun unless afraid for their life, however if such a situation does occur, you shoot to stop, that's it. You never shoot to kill, to do so is to for all intents commit murder. If I draw my gun and the attacker chooses to stop at that point, then I will not shoot, nor should anyone else, keep the firearm drawn, and call 911. If after being shot once the person stops, you stop there. Trust me, the police WILL notice if the person got hit in the chest and then had an additional hole in his head with the blood splatter from it under him on the floor.

In addition, such a situation will be highly stressful, and will reduce your abilities to a degree, as such, one should always shoot for the largest target available, which tends to be the chest of the target. While a shot there may lead to a fatality, it also may not, it does however give you the largest chance of hitting the target.

Along the same vein, you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, if you aim for the head, and in all likelihood then MISS the head, you can't be sure where that bullet WILL stop, which is yet another reason to fire at center of mass, and go for a STOP shot, not a KILL shot.

If you head over to thehighroad.org, which is a forum specifically for the advancement of gun rights, and inform them you would shoot to kill, I guarantee you'll get a lot of people advising you against it.

-The son of an NRA certified Instructor who was a Marine. A concealed carrier, and a gun right advocate. An NRA member, and a gun collector.

Ladies and gents, meet my fiance. This is why I love him.

Either way, I very much agree here. I think it is an unwise decision to shoot to kill. Perhaps you misworded it and meant shoot to stop, because chances are high that if you're aiming for the largest part of the target, you will end up with a fatality, so I understand where you are coming from.

ItsCasey

The major problem is that everyone KNOWS that schools are gun free zones, so they are the perfect target for a nut job.

Yep. Schools are victim-rich zones. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

brittanyjeanxo

That is the exact opposite of what I was taught. The gun safety portion of the CHL course I took taught that you should never aim at anything you aren't willing to destroy and that if you pull the trigger, you better be going for the kill. Aiming to wound is a good way to end up shooting an innocent bystander. And if you are being attacked, shooting to kill is not murder. It is self-defense.

Also, you don't aim for someone's head if you're trying to kill them unless you are point-blank range and that's just the way you decide to go. If I'm shooting to kill, which I would be, I'm aiming for their chest.

I was taught the same thing, that you never aim at anything you are not WILLING to destroy. So if you pull a gun out of defense and aim at your target, you better be at terms with the fact that chances are you are going to kill the person. However, I would never shoot to kill. I'm not trying to say what you were taught or how you would do it is wrong, if that's how you would handle the situation, that's fine. But I think, in my case, I would never shoot to kill. I'd shoot to stop, but at the same time knowing that I could and probably will kill this person.

n003k

jq2122, yes you should be prepared for the eventuality of killing the person, but that doesn't mean you shoot to kill them. You shoot to stop the threat. IF that ends in their death, so be it. However the reason you don't shoot to wound is because most people consider that to be shooting the person in the arm, hand or leg. Like the head, these are all smaller targets that move faster than the torso. When in a self defense shooting, your main goal should be to survive, that goal is completed once the attack stops. If you continue firing AFTER the target ceases to be a threat, it ceases to be a self defense shooting, as you no longer will be at fear for your life/extreme bodily injury.

In a self defense shooting you should aim for the target you're most likely to hit, (The Torso, being it's the largest part of the body), and should stop firing as soon as the threat is stopped. If it takes killing the person to stop the threat, you stop there. If it takes drawing the gun, you stop there. I am not advocating drawing a gun if you're not at fear for your life, I'm advocating not shooting a non-threat. EVEN if the non-threat was a threat prior to your firearm being introduced.

Hellbent_Heidi

I am not advocating drawing a gun if you're not at fear for your life, I'm advocating shooting a non-threat. EVEN if the non-threat was a threat prior to your firearm being introduced.

I'd be very curious how one determines in a moment of fear, that the threat prior to bringing out the firearm has now become a "non-threat". How can you decide in that split-second whether they're just going to leave your house and not pull out their own gun, knife, etc, and do harm to you? I really think that anyone who hasn't ever been a victim of a violent crime can not be objective in the argument.

ArroganceInStep

Pa2b32, I'm honestly surprised that an NRA certified instructor would inform you to aim to KILL. THAT is a good way to get arrested. I would agree that one should never draw their gun unless afraid for their life, however if such a situation does occur, you shoot to stop, that's it. You never shoot to kill, to do so is to for all intents commit murder. If I draw my gun and the attacker chooses to stop at that point, then I will not shoot, nor should anyone else, keep the firearm drawn, and call 911. If after being shot once the person stops, you stop there. Trust me, the police WILL notice if the person got hit in the chest and then had an additional hole in his head with the blood splatter from it under him on the floor.

In addition, such a situation will be highly stressful, and will reduce your abilities to a degree, as such, one should always shoot for the largest target available, which tends to be the chest of the target. While a shot there may lead to a fatality, it also may not, it does however give you the largest chance of hitting the target.

Along the same vein, you are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, if you aim for the head, and in all likelihood then MISS the head, you can't be sure where that bullet WILL stop, which is yet another reason to fire at center of mass, and go for a STOP shot, not a KILL shot.

If you head over to thehighroad.org, which is a forum specifically for the advancement of gun rights, and inform them you would shoot to kill, I guarantee you'll get a lot of people advising you against it.

-The son of an NRA certified Instructor who was a Marine. A concealed carrier, and a gun right advocate. An NRA member, and a gun collector.

Basically agreed on all points, though I do think some clarification is necessary.

Shooting center of mass isn't because you're trying to shoot to wound and not kill. It's because that shot has the highest percentage success rate of stopping your attacker. Whether the person lives or dies is completely irrelavent. If the highest percentage shot was the person's head, you'd target the head. I do know some instructors who teach the 'if you draw, be ready to kill' and 'shoot to kill, not to wound' paradigm but I think that has more to do with conditioning than anything else. It's HARD to kill someone. If someone draws a gun and isn't prepared for that possibility, they just threw a gun into an already dangerous situation. All that being said, execution shots when your attacker is no longer an emminent threat to you are, and I think this is obvious, murder and should not be advocated by anyone.

tigersword

If they break into my house, there won't be any chance of them sueing me. However, there is a likely chance I will have to explain clean my gun.

They wont, but their family probably will. You committed murder. It'll be hard to deny that.

I disagree with you, defense of yourself, family, home, prperty is not murder. Period

Legally it certainly is murder. Justifiable homicide is still homicide.

brittanyjeanxo

I am not advocating drawing a gun if you're not at fear for your life, I'm advocating shooting a non-threat. EVEN if the non-threat was a threat prior to your firearm being introduced.

I'd be very curious how one determines in a moment of fear, that the threat prior to bringing out the firearm has now become a "non-threat". How can you decide in that split-second whether they're just going to leave your house and not pull out their own gun, knife, etc, and do harm to you? I really think that anyone who hasn't ever been a victim of a violent crime can not be objective in the argument.

Because any responsible gun owner does not shoot out of fear. They shoot out of determination to stop the threat. You don't pull your gun and just sit there with it, because you shouldn't ever pull a gun without intent to shoot. To do otherwise is irresponsible. Your gun should never be used as a threat, it should be used as a sure way of defense. So if you pull your gun, you shoot to stop. The other person simply would not have time to do anything, unless you are doing something you shouldn't be doing.