Home invasion gone bad...for the bad guys

Chris is correct on this issue. It's just not as simple as people make it out to be in the movies.



Notice how there are, in fact, major blood vessels in the leg? Yeah, bleeding to death is not as lethal as a shot to the chest.

Also, should I mention that alcohol reduces the blood clotting efficiency?
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html

So say someone is shot in the leg and drunk. I'm fairly certain they're screwed if they punctured a major blood vessel considering....

 

Except that a shotgun has a spread.

So there's a fair likelyhood it might not go through one of those arterys.

You point down, you shoot. It may or may not hit that artery.

But:

1) Hitting them in the head/chest is near guaranteed death. You'd struggle to not hot something of value. This is near certainty of death.

2) You hit them in the leg, at best you wound them without crossing an artery, at worse you cross it and attempt to stem the bleeding (although there is always a chance he's pretty pissed off that you shot him, so that might not be the best idea, but you can always give him something to apply pressure with).

You can kill with both methods, but one has a far higher likelyhood of survival for the person you shoot.

 

It could have been a slug, which would have ripped his leg up if she shot him, but it also gives her a higher change of missing. With a spread, aiming at his leg and firing would ALSO rip his leg apart, but maybe have a high chance of hitting.

When you want to live, and you did nothing to deserve an attack, you'll try to survive and not worry about the person attacking you. You just want them stop.

The chest is the easiest to hit. Its a large surface area, almost a guaranteed hit. It's also where you'll probably hit if firing if aiming around eye level. Just point straight and you'll hit something.

You just shot a drunkard and wounded him. I'm sure he'll sit still, and calmly wait while you apply medical aid.

The survival of the intruder is inconsequential. As much as I don't like the killing of the individual, he put himself in that position and I don't feel sorry him.

Trickster, you assume way to many variables. You assume the woman is a marksman, and can aim and shoot accurately under incredible pressure. This isn't a movie where the woman has plenty of time to react with the intruder busting in her house.

Personally, I don't shed tears when criminals get hurt while committing acts of violence, and I can't fathom how other people can. Sure they may have had a rough life, but that doesn't give you the right to do those sorts of things.

There was another story like this where a tour bus of elderly people was held hostage. What the hostage takers didn't know was, the bus was full of WW2 veterans and the 3 of them were wrestled to the ground, with one of them dying from a broken neck.

I'm sorry you don't live in a country that promotes self defense, I really am. I don't see how everyone tries to act like Mother Teresa "Oh she could have at least wounded him!" when they haven't been in that situation themselves.

 

This kind of statement makes me roll my eyes... you're the progenitor of reason, now? do we have to get permission from you any time we try to use it?

The cycle of violence? I live in one of the most peaceful regions in the world. It also happens to be located in the united states. It also happens to have some of the most liberal gun laws in the world. Who is being unreasonable now?

I know three people (two somewhat personally) that sustained leg gunshot wounds.

all were accidental.

two were fatal.

the non-fatal death wasn't fatal because even though he shot himself in the leg with a hollowpoint .38 spl (stupid adolescent gun shenanigans) the hollowpoint collapsed and barely did any damage. he saved the bullet and it was fun to tell stories about, but unfortunately, he died from a car accident later anyway.

One of the others was another case of stupid gun shenanigans. guy was tossing around a loaded .44 mag revolver and shot himself in the leg, poured out a whole bodies' worth of blood in about 30 seconds.

same case with the other fatality, but this was due to a hunting accident. wound was created with some sort of high powered rifle, i don't remember what it was but that death was pretty unavoidable as well.

the moral of the story is shooting to maim is fucking bad mojo. don't ever shoot to maim. if you're going to point a gun at a man, have the decency to end it quick.

 

This is true.

Whats funny is that the most amount of violent gun crimes Per capita in the United States are committed in areas with the strictest gun laws. Chicago, DC, California...


Also
http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
:cute:

I will admit that it's biased in its writing, but the facts and quotes it brings up are rather....intriguing...


And finally, much love to Pickled_Heretic

 

well, i for one would be really interested in those numbers master

 

Erm, a shotgun does not have that much spread, they are designed to go where you point them. Guns that don't do that are kinda pointless.

It has probably just enough spread to ensure it does hit all of them.

Shotguns are basically lethal if you hit people with them, unless they're wearing armor, but a shotgun fires an immensely powerful round, just because it's separated into many little pellets does not make it any less lethal. Either way it's going to knock a big hole in you which is going to cause lots of blood loss and likely hit something major, at close range shot makes that even more likely to happen.

It's worth noting that it makes just as much sense to assume, rather than gun laws = high crime, that high crime = gun laws.

So while you could argue that gun laws don't help stop crime, it would be silly to suggest that they make it more prevalent because gun laws are tight in areas with high gun crime.

 

Of course not, I know where the thread of reason is, I just choose to ignore it

We're talking the USA as a whole, don't do that "i'm in some random place which is utterly peaceful, and we have loads of guns here, so obviously guns aren't bad" implication. My point is, if the much touted; "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true, the surely a person without a gun is less lethal. If it's not, then having less guns will surely be beneficial, right? Or is that wrong?

Most people who love their guns in the US that I have had personal contact with, mostly argue that everyone needs a gun in their house to defend themselves. But the problems begin because most people shouldn't be anywhere near a gun in the first place. Let me ask you this, do you really believe having a gun in your house living in America makes you safer than people living without guns in other countries where it is illegal to have them? If so, why?

I will say, we have pretty shitty home invasion laws here in the UK, but that's pretty much extraneous to the idea of having guns around.

Edit: Also yes, you can't expect someone who is frightened and wielding a shotgun to do non-lethal damage to another human with it via targeting. Just doesn't work.

 

As stated numerous times, Most people who commit crimes do not obtain their guns legally.
There is a background check that prevents people likely to commit crimes from obtaining guns.
Smugglers.

Also, shotguns are very accurate, granted I have only shot the lightest load, but I was able to hit flying targets very far away. The guys right in front of her. He's dead.

 

Considering gun laws are varied all across the United States (there are some places that practically ban them) and considering that the United States encompasses an area similar to that to the entire continent of Western Europe, I can see no logical reason to put the United States on the same comparative level as places like the UK or Sweden (Sweden, BTW, having very liberal gun laws like the US) It seems like looking at smaller regions (states or clusters of states) would be more beneficial to our discussion, and there is indeed several large clusters of states across the US that all have low crime rates despite having very liberal gun laws. My state, for instance, permits the private ownership of 38mm grenade launchers and .50 caliber automatic sniper rifles. Yet, I have never heard of a crime ever committed with either one here.

I can't speak for unarmed people, but surely if you want to find a demographic of safe, legal citizens, the group you should start with is going to be the legal gun carriers and concealed-weapon permit holders. the reason why the concealed weapons permits have persisted for SO LONG in the US is because the people who seek legal gun ownership are NEVER the ones who are trying to commit crimes.

Finally, I absolutely know that I am safer here because of guns. Not only statistically, but also logically, I know that any criminal here has the fear of the unknown. He doesn't know if the place he busts into has a guy in it with a shotgun under his bedstand or not, and believe it or not, that is actually quite comforting for me to know that criminals fear for their own life. Furthermore, as long as I stay out of everyone's house when they don't want me there, I also feel pretty safe from other gun owners, because I know that statistically, law-abiding gun owners are pretty unlikely to commit crimes with them.

 

A: You ever fire a gun before? The number of times I've shot a gun can be counted on both hands; I'm able to hit a target fine, just my ability to hit certain areas is more limited; many of my friends who shoot guns can hit specific areas at 30 feet with a pistol - like the should, arm...or between the eyes.

Speaking from the standpoint where I've fired an AR-15 as well, it's even easier there.

B: Don't forget the type of round being fired. Not all rounds kill. A full metal jacket will just go through someone without armor, and you're relying on the shock generate from the impact. A hollowpoint (what I load for defense) will do more damage, given they don't have armor (or multiple layers of very heavy clothing - say 3 leather jackets) on them.

It's worth noting you're ignoring possible facts that have not been stated. When did the crime rise - as gun laws got more strict? The answer from what I've seen is yes. In a land where anyone possibly has a gun, you're less likely to pull one out and open fire, because the chances that someone next to you is also armed are much higher. In shitty liberal areas like Cali and DC where you need to ask permission to defend yourself...well, it's less likely.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.


Or...

In the land of unarmed people, the man with a pea shooter is king.

I'm willing to bet - no, I know - that had people at the VTech campus been allowed to arm themselves, that gunman (I forget his name - he was total scum either way) would have been taken care of rather quickly. If people were more willing to defend themselves, 9/11/2001 would be a day to laugh at how some towel heads tried to crash some planes...instead we pussy foot around and hope they don't hurt us...

All my friends that own handguns and have CCWs...and of all the people I know that have CCWs, none of them is going to pull a gun and shoot someone simply because they want to. The people who commit gun crimes (for lack of a better term...it is 130AM...) usually get the guns illegally...not through legal channels. You cannot buy a handgun in the US without clearing an FBI background check.

I'm not celebrating anyone's death; I'd celebrate she walked away from it - though scarred emotionally, I imagine. Like I said before; if I killed someone while defending myself or someone else, I would feel no remorse - I would have been acting in defense of myself or another, and thus been in the right. If I somehow stepped into a situation I misunderstood and killed someone...well, that would make me feel remorse...but like HSM has stated, the guy was violent, did not back down...and so was asking for it. Don't get fucking drunk if you have no self control.

 

i would rather die then kill someone else, even if that someone else is someone i would not like as friend or w/e

these are personal choices you make i guess, they are different for everyone

 

@Pickled; That sounds reasonable, however, what about the kills and deaths that are due to random (child shoots themselves) and psychological deaths (school shootings etc) that result from having easy access to guns?

On the other hand though, we know most burglars who break in over here aren't armed with guns. Of course, I think it's probably a more level playing field if both parties have guns rather than relying on melee weapons...but that's no guarantee that the defender will be able to use or get to them.

RA picked up on an interesting point in his rant too - if the people in the school had been allowed to arm themselves with guns then they probably would not have been gunned down. Nice argument. Of course, it means that everyone should carry guns and be able to use them on each other, a la wild west style, which i'm sure was a pinnacle of safety for citizens where being king was not heavily influenced on how well you could shoot and who you could influence

Different if you were protecting someone else?

 

Being accurate shooting is easy. If you aren't even moderately accurate at 3 metres, then you shouldn't be using one. I've used shotguns, .22 rifles, and full automatic SA80s. If you can even pull the trigger of any of those, you're perfectly capable of pointing it at the legs.

The thing is, it's the overall mentality of the americans that distinguishes this. Even if we were armed, our initial mentality isn't "IT'S MY GIVEN RIGHT BY THE LAW TO KILL THIS MAN, AND SO I SHALL". It's to disarm him, as opposed to kill him.

 

id stand behind trickster, i fired a few guns in my life, and i know its not that hard to hit someone where you want to if he isnt further then a dozen or so meters

 

Actually my mentality is that if I want to incapacitate someone I use a tazer, if I want to kill someone I use a gun, considering guns are designed to kill people and can't really be used non-lethally. The best you can get out a gun in the non-lethal department is 'possibly salvageable', but any bullet wound is likely to be fatal if you don't get it treated quite quickly, certainly a shotgun wound.

The reason people use guns for home defence rather than tazers is because killing people is a very reliable method of stopping them from doing things you don't want them to, it works nearly 99% of the time. Most people, on either side of the pond, would prefer to ensure their own safety before the safety of someone breaking into their house. And don't say we don't do it because we demonise criminals just as much as america does. Read any paper you like and you'll find plenty of articles about how these YOB bastard criminal SCUM need to be LOCKED UP forever and never let out of our REVOLVING DOOR prison system and they're probably ASIAN GAY PEDOPHILES to boot.

So, when faced with someone they think is going to attack them even when they clearly have a gun, most people would probably shoot the attacker until they stop being threatening, out of fear or semi-rational deduction. While shooting people is never a good thing it is, on occasion, understandable and by most standards, justifiable.

Shooting people who come into your house without your consent is one of the few instances where the judgement of the person behind the gun is the main decider, if they honestly believe that the person is a real danger to them and that belief can be justified before a jury, I wouldn't suggest having a go at them for that, because it's entirely expected. It should not be celebrated because someone died, but expected.

 

... Let me bring up my information again as you clearly didn't read it.


Major blood vessels, In legs...

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html
Alcohol decreases thrombosis (blood clotting)
* It reduces platelet aggregation
* It reduces fibrinogen (a blood clotter)
* It increases fibrinolysis (the process by which clots dissolve)

Shotgun + Leg + lots of alcohol = Slow Death

I find it funny that your lack of self preservation means all Americans want to kill. See, I would hate taking someone elses life, but I would if I had to protect me or someone else. You fail to understand that just because we're ready to do something, that doesn't mean we have to like it. It's like going to work. We can hate our job, but still work to feed our family.

I don't see how you can't make this connection unless you're either trolling, or retarded.

I used to think that way, then I grew up. There will be things in your life that will make you change how you view this. I've seen really dispicable people and dispicable actions.

I would too if someone was pointing a gun at me :cute:

 

If someone picks a lock to get into your house, or uses an unlocked window, it is a crime of opportunity, and a loud noise or a base ball bat or a gun cocking should be enough to be rid of them. Most Thieves are pussy's any how.

If someone breaks a window or something to that nature to get into your house, it is a crime of desperation. You don't fuck with desperate people. At this point it's killed or be killed.

Plain and simple. Try to kill me and I'll be forced to defend myself. I will defend myself with the safest means possible. Safest means possible would usually mean a projectile weapon, that can hurt them from a distance so they can't hurt me.

In the end, I'd definitely shoot a person sooner than letting them hurt me or anyone in my family.

I would definitely aim for Either a major joint or the head or chest.

So, Knees, shoulders, heart, head. Those are your options. The chest is the largest and easiest to hit, so if you dont' know how to aim a gun, that's your best bet for survival.

 

To any of you who think you could consistently make a maiming shot at 5 meters or less - you're full of shit. Shooting at a piece of paper and shooting a moving target are two completely different things, especially when that human target is a human being, it's dark and you can't see anything, and you feel that your life is threatened. There's an effect in defensive shooting which causes people to become less accurate at extremely close distances due to emotional-adrenal overload.

I don't know if you've ever seen close-range shotgun wounds, but they pretty much leave whatever you shoot in a mass of bloody gore. Any square hit on the upper leg, and most in the lower leg with a shotgun would pretty much guarantee a fatal wound, and that's not even going to guarantee that you're going to incapacitate someone before they eventually bleed out and die. Someone who is extremely inebriated who was assaulting you before you shot him more than likely wouldn't stop if he was shot in the leg.

If you shot him in the leg, he's going to die. you shot him fatally, he just doesn't know it yet. there's a chance that he STILL could injure or kill you because a leg wound doesn't guarantee an incapacitation. Nonetheless, he's still going to die.

I said before - shooting to maim is fucking stupid. if some guy is fucking with your shit and you are willing to defend yourself, have the decency to put one between his eyes or in his chest, since no matter where you shoot him he's probably going to die anyway.

Really, all of the people who are advocating leg shots in this thread are just sounding silly. I mean it's hard to have a logical debate when you see people who say "it's easy to shoot people in the legs at close distances" when it is obvious that those people have NEVER DONE SO IN THEIR LIVES. They don't have a leg to stand on (pun intended)

First of all, children are more likely to die from pool accidents than to die from accidental gun deaths, and children are twice as likely to die from lightning strikes than from school shootings. I guess I don't see you outraged about pools and thunderstorms so can we attribute this to hypocrisy?

Also, I am a big advocate of arming teachers in schools and universities. I also believe that students at college campuses should be able to carry. Females are particularly vulnerable to rape on university campuses and it seems silly that they are forcibly disarmed because people are afraid of guns.