Best Self-Defense Firearm

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
FN P90

"Counter-Terrorists win."

[Maverick]

If you are shooting it is to protect your life or the life of another in the imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm at the hands of an assailant. In this case you shoot to remove the threat. You shoot to hit center of mass. You never say you were shooting to kill and you never say you were trying for a head shot unless you can explain hitting center mass with no effect. Something like the bad guy has a vest on. Saying you were shooting to kill or trying a head shot places you in a very bad light and hints of premeditation. This may open you up for prosecution on one of the levels of homicide or manslaughter.

If you think I'm kidding think about a Police involved shooting and all the allegations from the "community" about "street justice" or excessive force even with a suspect that is clearly armed and committing a violent felony. Those Officers will likely have resources to defend themselves with (like the FOP or union legal fund) that you as a private citizen will not have.

In short, you NEVER shoot to kill. You are shooting to stop a threat. If the threat happens to die that is regretable but was the result of a situation that the suspect forced on you and you had no other resort other than deadly force to STOP him.

If it takes the entire magazine to stop the threat so be it but be able to explain why you kept shooting.

Example; the suspect continued to reach for a weapon after being shot. He continued to advance after being shot. He continued to swing a weapon (knife, bludgeon) at you while you were shooting. Once he dropped the weapon and hit the ground you STOPPED shooting. Remember you will be required to explain why you did something more than once so be clear on why you did what you did and why it was your only recourse. Everything you did will be second guessed from the comfort of an airconditioned office by folks who are under no threat and may never have been so they do not understand what it is to be in fear of your life.

[GtoRA2]

The best home defense weapon is a good dog that barks. Back that up with a good 45 and your ready to go.


Odds are you will never need the gun, hell the dog lowers the chance of a house brake in by tons.


Now for CCW, that is a whole other issue and it should be a combo of A: what your confortable shooting and b: What you will carry, all the time.



Pooface, you are what is wrong with the world, you have to much compassion for those who pray on others and not enough for the victems of these criminals.


I would rather see 50 dead scumbag criminals then one good normal person die. I dont give a crap what drives them to crime. Being poor does not give you a right to take from others.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Pooface
never shoot to kill, but to incapitate. if you shoot to kill the guy, you are lower than the thief, and just a plain savage salamander

Well then, I guess I am a plain savage salamander, lower than the thief who broke into my home and my ex-wifes on May the 3rd 1998.

Because, after he smashed my ex-wifes head against the ground repeatedly, while trying to get her to subdue to a rape, I shot the thief / rapist.  I shot him four times.  I killed him.

Yep, guess I am worse than he was.  

Guess what, I am willing to take that chance before my maker...

[Yeager]

I was always told to "never point a gun at something you do not intend to shoot" and seveal of the wise men told me through the years if you do shoot, shoot to kill, not to maim or injure.

If there is no need to kill a man, there is no need to maim him.

post edit:  I am now reminded of my Uncle Vern who was riding his kawasaki motorcycle through Idaho back in the early 70s when he was surrounded by a bunch of biker gangers on HarDavs.  One of those guys tried kicking my uncles Bike out from under him when my uncle managed to pull out a .45 and shot the guy trying to kick his bike in the kneecap.  Apparently it removed the guys leg below the knee and saved my uncle from falling off his bike at freeway speed.  the gangers stopped pursuing my uncle and Vern was never charged with a crime for shooting the guy.  I understand the bad dude survived so I guess there are times when one might not shoot to kill but rather shoot to stop a attack directly.  Vern could have just shot the guy in the center of mass but for whatever reason just blew his lower leg clean off.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by FBBone
AND.................Owning a car greatly increases the risk that you'll die in an auto accident.  Go figure.

Owning a car is relatively safe. Driving it is something else.

[GtoRA2]

The sucks Bodhi, but atleast you were able to do something about it.


Pooface is wrong, and you did the right thing, you are not lower then the criminal, anyone who would say such a foolish thing is living in a sad dream world.

[Sandman]

You did the right thing, Bodhi.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Pooface
lol, its the american way when i went to vegas i went to a shooting range, and some crackpot told me that he would constantly carry at least two guns on him at all times since 9/11.

- and that's the paranoid part. That, and the belief that a gun is the solution to any and all perceived threats. Does AQ have a record of breaking and entering? I wonder how much good a gun would have been to anyone in New York against the 911 outrages. I wonder how much good a gun would have done me in London last Thursday. Bugger all, is my best guess to both...

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by beet1e
- and that's the paranoid part. That, and the belief that a gun is the solution to any and all perceived threats. Does AQ have a record of breaking and entering? I wonder how much good a gun would have been to anyone in New York against the 911 outrages. I wonder how much good a gun would have done me in London last Thursday. Bugger all, is my best guess to both...

I wonder what the outcome would have been had I NOT had a gun May 3rd 1998.

You can justify the federalisation of firearms all you like, but keep in mind this simple thing.  

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

But then again, you've got bobbies with billyclubs to protect you, right?!?

[storch]

Originally posted by Martlet
It probably wasn't the deadly force.  There was probably more to the story, like the third shot to the back of the skull.  Only an insane jury would convict a man for wrestling the gun from an armed robber and shooting him.

according to the guy the third shot put him in jail. it's basically how you said I suppose.  in any event once you have the weapon you are no longer in imminent danger or fearing for your life unless the other guy still struggles.

[Pooface]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Well then, I guess I am a plain savage salamander, lower than the thief who broke into my home and my ex-wifes on May the 3rd 1998.

Because, after he smashed my ex-wifes head against the ground repeatedly, while trying to get her to subdue to a rape, I shot the thief / rapist.  I shot him four times.  I killed him.

Yep, guess I am worse than he was.  

Guess what, I am willing to take that chance before my maker...

ok, well i didnt know that. personally i still woulda given him a shot in the leg, then kicked him in the balls repeatedly, then poured salt in his eyes if he did that shiz in my house, but huh, dead in that situation is faster. in extreme circumstances, it will be necessary, but it most it wont. and theres no need to pour the lead into him. as TK said, state laws differ, dont over do it because it could land you in trouble. think before you act and ure good

[Pooface]

Originally posted by Bodhi
But then again, you've got bobbies with billyclubs to protect you, right?!?

actually its a well known fact that british police are one of the best forces in the world, because they dont carry guns. they are trained specially, and are taught to think with their heads. of course we have so19, which are the guys with m4's and bullet proof stuff all over them, for extreme circumstances.

anyone see bowling for columbine?
im not saying its bad to have guns, i love them, but its the attitude of some, that think it is their divine right to own a gun and shoot what and who they like, thats the problem.

you said that once people cant get guns, only the outlaws have them. this may be true, but once theyre illegal, noone owns them, and the outlaws are jailed if caught with them.

apparently 4000% more gun deaths in the us per thousand people each year than in the uk, or even canada. why? because sale is restricted. the range i went to in vegas, all the guy asked for before he handed me a loaded m9 was $15 and my passport. now that is just stupid. nothing wrong with guns, after all, theyre just machines. they do as theyre told. its the peole who use them. THAT is the problem. im not talking about people in your situation, for home defense. in the us, it is almost a requirement. it is the easy sale of guns to people who could easily be criminals that is costing many innocent lives each day.

maybe your government should just tell people to do a quick scan of the guys records first. it may take you 20 minutes longer to buy a gun, so what?? it means there are fewer guys out there who have the same as you, a deadly killing weapon.

[AdmRose]

Originally posted by Pooface
maybe your government should just tell people to do a quick scan of the guys records first. it may take you 20 minutes longer to buy a gun, so what?? it means there are fewer guys out there who have the same as you, a deadly killing weapon.

Last I checked, background checks were mandatory for gun sales anywhere in the U.S.

Gun Control Information

[Martlet]

The gun ban caused gun crime to rise  in the UK.  Why?  Because now all the victims are unarmed.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.