Would You Shoot 2 Men to Protect Your Neighbor's Property?

[blueerica]

Originally Posted by Alex

Ok, but it is a lesson of proper gun handling that when you shoot a person it is to kill. There is no guaranteed "maim" (not to mention it requires shooting at a much smaller target) and if that is a risk you can take then you shouldn't be shooting them in the first place.

It was all in how I read your earlier statement. The mental imagery made me snicker a bit.

I agree with you quite a bit on this topic, even if I do have a gun on my property with which I could shoot someone.

[Alex]

Well, if they are running away you shouldn't be popping them in the first place.

You also shouldn't fire warning shots and if you do it should be into the ground at your feet. Particularly in an urban or suburban area. What goes up does come down and even a high angle shot can have a good amount of lateral velocity remaining when it eventually hits something.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

Well, see, I know nothing about the lessons of proper gunhandling, and I hope never to.

I still think if you are popping soeone who is running away, aim for the knee.

But he was using a shotgun - not exactly a gun you use for perfect aim.

And... if you aim for the knee, you can still inflict a deadly injury - femoral artery, etc.

[blueerica]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

I think everyone should know how to handle a gun and gun safety (beyond don't point it at people or at yourself) even if they never ever plan on touching or owning one.

One can hope all they want, but you truly never know what situation you may find yourself in.

Agree, agree, agree. And I have to say, using a gun isn't always as easy as it looks, so if you're shooting to kill or at least disable someone, you're better off knowing how to aim and handle the thing properly.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Alex

What goes up does come down and even a high angle shot can have a good amount of lateral velocity remaining when it eventually hits something.

Mythbusters covered that!

[Capt Jack]

Originally Posted by Alex

If you're going to shoot somebody it better be because you need them to be dead or consider that an acceptable outcome.

exactly right.

in this particular case, I have little sympathy for those killed in this incident. Im of the mind living a life of crime is living on borrowed time. it IS going to catch up to you in one form or another.

the shooter however, even as a gun owner myself, was unjustified in killing these two. youre on the phone to 911 and not directly threatened. youre done. not enough? fine...take pictures, video, get evidence. yell out the window or whatever. from all I could read on this incident, there was zero reason for a gun to be involved at all.

I see this as doing far more harm than good for the overall perception of resonsible gun ownership

[innerSpaceman]

Um, this is Texas, right?


What are we even talking about? The groundwork for widespread, legal vigilantism has long been laid.



If I'm reading this right, he was aquitted even after commiting stated, premeditated murder of illegal immigrant, suspected criminals. The End. Welcome to Texas.

[JWBear]

Considering it was Texas, I'm suprised they didn't give him a medal and a ticker-tape parade!

[scaeagles]

I would not hesitate to kill someone threatening a loved one or myself.

Property is not worth the life of the victim or the thief.

I would not go outside to confront someone if I and my family were inside.

That being said, any unwelcome intruder in my home without permission has completely unknown motives to me is therefore a mortal threat to me and my family. I would not hesitate to shoot someone in that circumstance.

Because of this, I think this man crossed the line. He was under no threat. I'd say under the circumstances even if he had been in the house and all he heard was a wiggling of the doorknob he might be justified (though that's a stretch) due to the situation.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Originally Posted by Capt Jack

exactly right.

in this particular case, I have little sympathy for those killed in this incident. Im of the mind living a life of crime is living on borrowed time. it IS going to catch up to you in one form or another.

the shooter however, even as a gun owner myself, was unjustified in killing these two. youre on the phone to 911 and not directly threatened. youre done. not enough? fine...take pictures, video, get evidence. yell out the window or whatever. from all I could read on this incident, there was zero reason for a gun to be involved at all.

I see this as doing far more harm than good for the overall perception of resonsible gun ownership

Yeah, I'm with you.

If the two men had entered his home instead, I'd say he had every right to shoot them. Even shoot to kill. If someone broke into my home, I'd assume the worst and would from that moment cease to care about that person's life. I'm not presently a gun owner, so my current defense plan is to tear out a throat with my bare hands because a D.A.R.E. office once taught my sixth grade class how to do that. Best D.A.R.E. office ever.

If people knew they were robbing the home of a gun owner, would they even bother? I do wonder.

If you break into someone's home, whatever your motive and reason, however needy or desperate, you should understand the risks: You can be caught or worse. Bad things may happen to you. Someone may KILL you for stealing a DVD player. Sure there are laws about the use of excessive force, etc., and rightly so. I don't think justice was served by the verdict in this instance. But I also don't feel much sympathy for the dead.