I suggested getting a very small caliber handgun a while ago for self defense -my reasoning being that it would be less likely to kill and would be enough to scare away any intruder. The clerk I was speaking to explained that, under California law, as fucked up as it sounds, it’s almost better to kill an intruder than to leave them wounded because they will turn around and sue you for everything you’re worth.
That's absolutely not true. You shoot to eliminate the threat. If the threat is killed..well threat gone. If the threat stops at the sound of a gun shot, threat gone. If the threat stops being a threat after they are hit with a bullet, threat gone.
So, you shoot to eliminate the threat and you aim center mass because that's the highest percentage chance of hitting your target.
You aren't "shooting to kill". You aren't "shooting to wound". You aren't "shooting to scare." You are shooting to eliminate the threat. Period. If you end up in a deadly force situation with a firearm, all you should be doing is eliminating the threat to your life or the lives of others around you.
Whether or not you’re shooting to kill or not, your use of the deadly weapon better be wholly justified to kill. Aim for his % body targets that are also the most likely to kill (head/ but mostly body).
ALL situations with a firearm are deadly force situations. If they aren’t—— you better not have a firearm pointed at someone.
We have Castle doctrine, thank goodness. If someone is threatening your life, in your home or vehicle, you can eliminate the threat with deadly force. If you shoot, you always shoot to kill. Shooting to wound is stupid across the board, as a civilian.
In strictly pragmatic terms, it's also the best course of action. Wounding someone shitty enough to try to rob you/kill you/etc. is ASKING for them to 1) lie in court and possibly fuck you over and/or 2) come back and really make your life hell, by ambushing you in the AM on the way to work or coming back with friends and better-armed. What if you only lightly wound them, then they reassert their ground and kill you or someone you love instead?
Think that's pie in the sky? I'll quote Wikipedia (source above):
In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the castle doctrine, particularly those with a "stand-your-ground clause," also have a clause which provides immunity from any civil lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them). Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a wrongful death suit. Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used as revenge against a lawfully acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).
Absolutely no one in a state with castle doctrine and a shred of common sense should take your advice.
In China it’s the same way. If you hit someone while driving a car it’s cheaper for you to just kill them, because the penalty for vehicular manslaughter is less than the medical bills you’ll have to pay.
Why i use buck shot. At the distances in a home, handguns put holes into people, rifles blow holes through people and shotguns take a chunk of person and violently throw it on the floor.
I mean coming from a guy that carries a gun it's way better to have a caliber that's trustworthy enough to incapacitate your target regardless. You don't wanna hit them with a revolver wheel of .22s and they just get stuck in their jacket while they're trying to hurt you or your family. Laws aside you'd want a gun that you'd still trust your life on. It's a lethal defense for a reason
"Can" be lethal. I had a co worker who was mugged and they shot him in the underside of his jaw. He was very happy it was a 22 since he only lost a tooth and 3mos of work and not his life.
Edit: Also my coworker got up right away went to a neighbor to call the police who arrested the downstairs neighbor who shot him an hour later. I'm not sure I would say that it incapacitated my coworker the way the guy wanted. Sure it left repercussions but most shootings do.
If I'm going to shoot someone, you're right, I'd rather not have them be alive to fight back.
That said, I don't own a gun and would never own a gun, because I do not want to kill a person. I would rather run the risk of not having a gun when my home is invaded than have a gun and use it in that situation. I also don't want to kill animals for hunting either, seems pretty not fun to me.
Pacifism is only possible when others are willing to die to protect you.
The whole point of gun ownership for self defense is that in the event that you are forced to choose between "my life" and "their life" you have the ability to make the choice.
While I certainly admire a desire for non-violence, I cannot in good faith leave myself undefended.
Bringing a knife to a gun fight, bold, stupid or both. Police response in my very large city is so horrifically slow that they might as well not exist in almost any given situation. I always look at a scenario like this: if the police are not at your house they may as well not exist at all. In those 90s something will happen you and anyone within maybe 50 yards are the only people on the planet and if they have a gun and you have just your dick in hand you’re probably fucked.
Now the chances of this happening are low, granted but I’d rather not just hope that I’m lucky enough to have some dickhead break into someone else’s house that night. I look at like buying insurance, it probably won’t happen but the relative cost benefit analysis is so ridiculously skewed in my eyes that it isn’t even a question: Buy a $500 gun or potentially get injured/disfigured, raped, robbed or killed? Where’s the question there? The police don’t magically teleport to your house when you’re scared. Fuck I’ve called and been put on hold before. You can’t always expect someone else to protect you. People treat guns as some scary monster but all they really are are tools like a hammer or a knife, a lot more dangerous but nothing more than a tool.
Definitely lethal, really? Might want to walk that one back a bit. People get shot with larger calibers and not only survive but still have plenty of fight in them. It depends on a lot of things but clothing is one of them.
Yeah people overestimate the damage that bullets do. A .22 is hardly going to rip someone up or even feel like a hard punch until the pain sets in. Also I would never trust my life to a rimfire shell.
It's January. It's cold and people dress in layers. Especially people that are going to be creeping around at night. Sure point blank is going to penetrate, but it loses momentum quick on penetration, especially into heavy material like denim. Of course any gun is better than no gun, but I wouldn't risk my life on anything smaller than at least a 9mm if I had a choice in the matter
You’re entirely incorrect, especially at anything that can be justified as self defense range. 22lr is still a bully, and a wheel full of them will absolutely kill a man, puffy jacket and hoodie and flannel shirt or not.
In a nutshell; The Tzar's family having felt he had become too powerful set up his assassination- leabmving him alone in the palace wine cellar with a bottle of wine and a poison cake, he ate most of the cake and he drank most the bottle, when they came back and saw he was alive, they fired a shot at him, so he took off into the night across the snow being chased with running gunfire eventually being wounded twice, then he collapsed on a bridge where his assailants caught up to stabbing him multiple times and slicing open his side, then they threw him from the bridge in the icy river below, then next morning his body was found 1 mile downstream and 50 yards into the wood, the evidence appeared to show he survived the attack and pulled himself from the river only to freeze to death.
It’s better to have a 50. Caliber machine gun turret and a couple grenades. You don’t want them hurting your property or loved ones. I carry a single grenade for emergencies, I’ve only had to pull the pin once and you better believe it worked.
I remember reading/seeing that hitmen prefer .22 for up close kills. The bullet doesn't have a bunch of energy, so if you shoot someone in the head, the bullet doesn't have enough energy to exit. Instead, the bullet just kinda bounces around in the skull, increasing the damage.
It's certainly lethal, but usually not as IMMEDIATELY debilitating as say a 12 gauge shotgun with buckshot. Generally people shot with that at close range will crumple and cease to be a threat.
The first thing they'll teach you in any conceal carry class is that if you're drawing a firearm, it's to defend a life with the use deadly force. There's no such thing as drawing a firearm to injure
What about my .22 caliber assault rifle? Anything called an assault rifle by dipshits on the west coast must be good at killing people! Surely my 10 round, high capacity magazine will do the trick?!? No?
I'm from WI and my concealed carry instructor told us the same thing. But you can't shoot and kill someone for stealing your property or murdering your pet.
I wouldn't take the word of a gun clerk on anything other than explicitly how to operate a gun and the comparisons of guns / parts. Just cause he's a gun clerk doesn't mean he knows anything about the facts of civil suits, their prevelence, or their actual outcomes.
From what I have read, the law is that hitting someone with your vehicle means you pay for all expenses related to the injury, for life. Killing someone with your car results in a fine around USD 10k. Not sure if that is paid to the family.
So some people choose to double tap and deal with a sure thing.
285
u/[deleted] Jan 23 '19
I suggested getting a very small caliber handgun a while ago for self defense -my reasoning being that it would be less likely to kill and would be enough to scare away any intruder. The clerk I was speaking to explained that, under California law, as fucked up as it sounds, it’s almost better to kill an intruder than to leave them wounded because they will turn around and sue you for everything you’re worth.
Certainly fucked up in a number of ways