Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by philbloom, Mar 24, 2012.
Only vote if your state would allow lawful killing of threats.
I personally would not have shot to kill.
I would have shot to wound, as long as shooting was deemed legal.
So far, the majority of voters would have shot Treyvon.
People have been shot in every part of their body and not died, and people have been shot in every part of their body and died.
So exactly where would you have shot him?
In the thumb?
The thumb is a pretty safe place to get shot.
Aim for the left nut, that's a way to teach a person a lesson.
The leg would be a safe area. I think it was wrong to kill him, even though it was lawful to.
Not if the bullet hit the femoral artery.
A homicide investigator told me once of an case where a guy was shot in the leg with a .22..... bullet ricocheted upwards into his vital organs and killed him.
I've been a competitive shooter for over twenty years and have a CCW (permit to carry a concealed weapon).
The idea of shooting to wound or disable is, in most cases, pure nonsense.
If you are under attack you have a fraction of a second to get off a shot and hit a moving target. Your heart is racing, your adrenaline is pumping, it's probably dark (most attacks happen at night) and you're afraid for your life. Anyone who thinks they can make a sucessful non-lethal shot under those circumstances is delusional.
There are two basic rules that any civilian who carries a weapon should follow:
1) Do everything possible to avoid confrontation or putting yourself in a situation where you might have to use your gun.
2) If you have done everything possible to avoid using your gun and must shoot because there is no other choice, shoot "center mass" to guarantee the highest possiblity of hitting your target. If you miss, your attacker will probably kill you.
Shooting to wound or disable is a movie stunt, not reality.
Separate names with a comma.