Shoot to kill or just injure?

[Gracie]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

They are in my home uninvited, with God knows what plan in mind. I would shoot to kill. And make DAMN sure they are dead, too.

WOW! We agree on something. Miracles DO happen.

The deal is....which should be for all to learn...that none of us should judge anyone else on the few disagreements we all may have with one another...because there are some topics and beliefs and stances and opinions where we DO agree with each other. Always keep the door just a tad ajar. Just in case.

 

[Roadrunner]

If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.

What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part. If you aren't in fear for your life, you shouldn't be shooting. If you are in fear for your life, you're not thinking "shoot to wound" you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass. Highest likelihood of ending the threat. You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology, or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk. But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife, or daughters, or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.

 

[Roadrunner]

my father always said....'if a man is worth shooting, he is worth killing' words i live by.....when you pull a gun on one...you should be ready to kill the person you are now holding the gun on...direct body hits...no wounding shots...o and not one shot....dad said empty the gun into them...and reload....repeat....

there will never be a 'fatal attraction' type event at my house....i am a firm believe in firing till the threat is totally eliminated.....

i am not a christian....so my opinion my not count...but i will ask this....why in the hell would it be un anything to protects ones family....home invaders are the worst of the worst...an honest robber will want the house empty and feed the dogs for you ...insurance replaces the stuff...so what the hell...but to enter my home and be a threat to my family....whole nother level

"Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill."

First rule of gun handling I was taught.

 

[Mr.Right]

If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.

What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part. If you aren't in fear for your life, you shouldn't be shooting. If you are in fear for your life, you're not thinking "shoot to wound" you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass. Highest likelihood of ending the threat. You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology, or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk. But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife, or daughters, or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.

The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.

 

[Roadrunner]

i still do not understand why you think ones religion should come into play

Religious debate is usually not allowed in firefights.

Sorry.

 

[Roadrunner]

If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.

What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part. If you aren't in fear for your life, you shouldn't be shooting. If you are in fear for your life, you're not thinking "shoot to wound" you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass. Highest likelihood of ending the threat. You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology, or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk. But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife, or daughters, or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.

The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.

I will not debate that point.

If they survive, and the threat is eliminated, to finish them off is murder.

 

[Mr.Right]

If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.

What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part. If you aren't in fear for your life, you shouldn't be shooting. If you are in fear for your life, you're not thinking "shoot to wound" you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass. Highest likelihood of ending the threat. You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology, or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk. But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife, or daughters, or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.

The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.

I will not debate that point.

If they survive, and the threat is eliminated, to finish them off is murder.

I won't debate that point. But if someone breaks into my home, they should expect to die.

 

[Roadrunner]

If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.

What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part. If you aren't in fear for your life, you shouldn't be shooting. If you are in fear for your life, you're not thinking "shoot to wound" you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass. Highest likelihood of ending the threat. You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology, or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk. But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife, or daughters, or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.

The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.

I will not debate that point.

If they survive, and the threat is eliminated, to finish them off is murder.

I won't debate that point. But if someone breaks into my home, they should expect to die.

I'm not using a .22LR on them, for sure.

 

[Mr.Right]

What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part. If you aren't in fear for your life, you shouldn't be shooting. If you are in fear for your life, you're not thinking "shoot to wound" you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass. Highest likelihood of ending the threat. You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology, or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk. But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife, or daughters, or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.

The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.

I will not debate that point.

If they survive, and the threat is eliminated, to finish them off is murder.

I won't debate that point. But if someone breaks into my home, they should expect to die.

I'm not using a .22LR on them, for sure.

LOL! You got that right!

 

[strollingbones]

now now i only use hollow points in the .22.....it will do the job

 

[Conservative65]

Isnt the rule if you shoot a home invader you should shoot to kill not maim? Why is that? I know a couple reasons. What other reasons are there besides they might kill or sue you later? I'm thinking if I could kill or just wound an intruder I'd prefer not to have to kill them. And how do christians feel about this? How do you put aside thou shall not kill when you could have just shot them in the leg or balls.

I don't know if it's a rule. I know that I wouldn't have gunS in my home for protection if I didn't plan on using them to the fullest extent.

The text in most translations of the Bible says kill. It means murder. I'm not murdering someone that's invading my home. Murder involves killing of an innocent person.

By the way, a quick study of anatomy would show you that a shot in the leg can be just as fatal as a shot to the head.

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.

Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.

I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.

.

I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.

What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't want to kill anyone but every situation is different I guess . Had a friend in NYC , he woke up to a guy crawling through his window , he reached under his pillow and promptly shot the guy , killed him . Seemed reasonable to me and my friend got away with it and that was NYC . Anyway , just a story !!

God knows what he had or wanted. But I would like to think saying freeze and letting him run away would be the more christian thing to do.

But I'm not a christian so I agree with you.

 

[Iceweasel]

This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.

The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.

No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.

 

[sealybobo]

If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.

What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part. If you aren't in fear for your life, you shouldn't be shooting. If you are in fear for your life, you're not thinking "shoot to wound" you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass. Highest likelihood of ending the threat. You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology, or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk. But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife, or daughters, or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.

The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.

What if they are unarmed and 20 feet away? I've heard NRA guys say shoot. In fact shoot before they turn and run because you could get in trouble shooting them in the back.

I heard this guy make a great argument for why you should be able to shoot them in the back. They could be running for cover not running away. Once they reach cover they may start returning fire.

 

[sealybobo]

This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.

The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.

No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.

I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.

 

[Mr.Right]

If I could I'd rather put a bullet in a perps ass but you christians say gotta go for the kill. Thou shall not wound.

What I don't think you are getting is the "fear for your life" part. If you aren't in fear for your life, you shouldn't be shooting. If you are in fear for your life, you're not thinking "shoot to wound" you're thinking "I'VE GOT TO STOP THIS GUY RIGHT FREAKING NOW".

That's why you practice shooting center mass. Highest likelihood of ending the threat. You feel free to do whatever you feel comfortable with...try some psychology, or hot tea with lemon...when it's your family at risk. But after you shoot him in the ass and he pulls out his gun and shoots though the ceiling into your sleeping wife, or daughters, or sons bed...you come back and tell us how much better you feel that you "shot to wound".

You eliminate the threat to your life.

If they are still alive, but, incapacitated, and you go over and administer a "coup d' grace", most likely you will be charged with, and convicted of manslaughter or even murder.

No sane person wants to shoot anyone, but, no sane person breaks into homes, or assaults people on the streets.

The threat is not over until they drop their weapon and fall down.

What if they are unarmed and 20 feet away? I've heard NRA guys say shoot. In fact shoot before they turn and run because you could get in trouble shooting them in the back.

I heard this guy make a great argument for why you should be able to shoot them in the back. They could be running for cover not running away. Once they reach cover they may start returning fire.

I look at it this way. If someone breaks into your home, they are up to no good. It's best to ere on the side of caution, not to mention self preservation.

 

[Roadrunner]

Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.

Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.

I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.

.

I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.

What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.

Maybe he is a home-invader?

 

[Conservative65]

Sounds like christians would gladly kill a perp. Not regretfully.

Sounds like you are making broad assumptions as to who may be Christian ... And what it means to be Christian in the first place.
You have made more reference to the Christian aspect than anyone else ... Looking around, I don't see anyone bible thumping.

I see you are ready to sit in judgment of others though ... And at least a Christian would understand that is what makes God divine and most humans assholes.

.

I dont disagree with shoot to kill. I'm definately more interested in the religion aspect.

What you're interested in is chastising a Christian that would defend his family with deadly force.

Maybe he is a home-invader?

Maybe a little self preservation.

 

[Iceweasel]

This all started when a christian said without god there are no moral absolutes. This conversation is proving that even with god there aren't moral absolutes. Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it.

The problem is two fold. You aren't particularly bright and you are clueless about self defence.

No small arms gunshot is a guarantee someone will be stopped. Even a heart shot might not stop them instantly and you only have an instant. If he makes it outside without leaving evidence inside, you're fucked. In self defence cases it's you or them. That's the hand they gave you, it's on them.

I'm just asking questions. Its what you do here on usmb cumlips. Have I argued one point anyone has made? I get it. You're a pussy with a gun.

Liar.

"Fact is most christians choose to kill rather than wound. They prefer it. You guys even sound proud about it."