|
Termyn8or -> RE: This is what happens... (5/10/2009 8:57:17 PM)
|
[Dammit, just typed this and for some reason it refreshed or something]
Years ago in Kansas, five college students were taken hostage by two thugs, one of them armed. After a nice round of rapes they went for a ride, to the ATM machines of course. After that they drove at gunpoint to a remote location out in nowhere and executed after they obeyed like good little sheep and kneeled down in a nice row at the behest of their assailants.
However depending on the bullet and the load, as well as the trajectory, sometimes the bullet will travel under the scalp and come out the other end giving the appearance that one has been shot in the head successfully. I do not know if that trauma put her unconcious for a time or if she had the brains to play possum, but after the assailants left in the stolen car she went running to find the nearest vestige of civilisation, found a phone somewhere and called the law, stark naked.
The perps were caught, but if she had actually been dead the bodies would not have been found soon, and the perps would probably be out of state and in another car by that time. Additionally there would be no living witnesses.
What is my point mentioning this ? My point is that each person is ultimately responsible for their own safety. Even the supreme court has ruled the the government has no obligation in law to protect anyone. I also find it hard to believe that five could not get the drop on two. Even armed intruders, what if only one were dead instead of four ? Good or bad people ? you tell me.
There are other rules to this. First of all if you are armed, but are being robbed by a martial arts master he might just take your gun away. This is why it is important to shoot first. If you are old and feeble, a gun might not be the best choice, perhaps it would be better to live with someone who is able and proficient.
And I agree that hitting your target is very important. In a crowded room it can be hard to prevent collateral damage (that's why I got rid of the AK47). But not everyone can be a marksman, so I say shoot to kill and take the error, you are alot more likely to stop the perp and not have to kill him. If he lives or dies, oh well.
Rule number two, never under any circumstance travel at gunpoint. Get it throiugh your head and say "No MF, shoot me right here where it is not so convenient". I admit that could take some serious balls, but you HAVE TO. Otherwise they might never find your body. The perps just get away with it, possibly for years. Possibly forever. If you are killed at home, the trail won't be so cold, and know this, any ride that starts out at gunpoint, ends in your death.
It is our right to persue the ownership of firearms, for whatever reason, but using them is a different story. I am not only a natural but I grew up around them just about all the time. I also know my limitations, like my eyesight is not what it used to be, but in close quarters that is not a big issue, and if I go to shoot someone across the street I am not in imminent danger am I ?
So with the right comes a commensurate responsibilty. That's where I have to hand it to Merc. We differ on some points but he I believe is going to be armed, but he wants do know how to use the thing, and of course not accidentally shoot beth. I consider that being responsible, no less. People who just fire guns off willy nilly should not be free to do so. However I am still not in favor of taking their rights away peemptively.
Personally I think that the schools should have gun training, at least know the types, how they are loaded and sometimes more importantly how they are unloaded. Actual marksmanship is not as important, most encounters between say a homeowner and intruder are less than ten feet apart. It's just you need to know what to do.
Like when I gave up the AK47. I would be too reluctant to use it because after going through an assailant's body it could wind up in a baby's crib across the street. Thus I would have to think about how to maneuver the situation to try and prevent such a mishap. This would give the intruder precious time to figure out his next move. That could cost me my life.
But is my life worth more that that of an infant in a crib in another house ? I would have to say almost unequivocably NO. But I still have the right to self defense, I just have to be responsible about it. I have no need to shoot someone 500 yards away in self defense. So now I got the snubnose .38 and some flattops for it. Plenty of stopping power, just less going power.
It's what I need for a safe killing :-)
T
|
|
|
|
