I mean... in reality... A warning shot is only practical if you already have control of the situation. If you're at 10+ yards with a gun trained on the guy and he only has a knife - I don't think he's going to initially think it's a toy. If he has a gun, too, there's no reason to fire a warning shot - the recoil will take you off point momentarily and give the guy an opportunity to return fire.
After all, most thugs' response to being fired on is to return fire. A warning shot just seems like an unnecessary escalation in this situation, but I do understand where you're coming from.
"Shoot to Injure"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlzPcUM-MQ0
"Shooting to kill"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rongdoing.html
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
If the intruder is breaking into my house and I can get to a firearm before he is inside, I will attempt a verbal warning or rack the Mossberg. If an intruder is already inside my home, I will shoot to kill whether I see a weapon of any kind or not. If, however, I have all members of my family with me, and I am in a safe area of my home at least one full floor above/below the intruder with my firearm in hand, I may try a verbal warning before ending the miserable cretin.
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suf-fer-ing. Yoda
Point to threaten, shoot to make the person incapable of being a theat (which is hopefully not a death). But in that situation I would just hide and call the police. Nothing in my house would ever be worth more than someones life unless it's the life of whoever is staying over at my house (including pets)
Shoot to kill and make sure hes dead. No question if he comes into my house with a knife or gun, I know he intends to cause bodily harm or to kill me if they are brandishing a weapon.
I mean, even myself, something folks might call a 'gun-nut' would consider this. If my family was safe, I'd arm myself and take an advantageous position and just stay put and call the cops. Moving about and actively engaging a trespasser when I have my life and my family's lives already best secured yields some of that advantage. If they walked down the hall towads us, it's a split-second decision - hopefully I'd hear them coming and announce that I'm armed and will shoot if they come any close before they get line of sight on my position, and that'd be it.
Well, yeah but don't make sure hes dead..., cause if you shoot someone that is incapacitated on the floor and is no longer a threat you can go to jail... because in that was not self defense... that was murder..., for example:
There was a case where a 2 kids (16 years or so) got into a house to steal, but the owner found them and shoot them, he killed one and injured the second, but when the other kid was in the floor he shooted again in the head..., that was not self defense anymore, he could have just called the police... and wait checking him from a certain distance to make sure he won't do anything strange.
---------- Post added 2013-02-28 at 04:17 PM ----------
I agree but it is a Laize said, he can do anything to defend himself but there's no right reason to shoot someone who's incapacitated, that just out of anger or just to be cruel
If there is an intruder, and I have a gun, I will be shooting to disable.
Having trained a lot with firearms while I was in the Norwegian Navy, if this is an amateur break-in, then disabling him/her shouldn't be to difficult.
Originally Posted by Crabby
If someone is invading my home at night, I can only assume they know I am home. As a result the invader is not in my home to nice or kind. He is not there to show me or my family mercy or respect. He is there to do great and terrible harm. If its a choice between him and me or my family, there is no question or hesitation.
In that situation, I have a .45 with seven shots. All seven are going out the angry end of the gun. Each will be shot with the intent to kill. Each will be aimed center mass. Its between him and his almighty what happens next.
I feel like that ignores the subjective, biologically imperative truth that when another thing poses a deliberate threat to the life of a person, that thing's life is no longer viewed as anything (not even equal) but a threat.
This is not an American concept. It's a hard-wired fact that's ensured the survival of the species and underpins natural selection.
Past that, I'm not sure you'd find many that would equate the importance of the lives of Ghandi, Ann Frank, and Martin Luther King Jr. with somebody like Stalin. Further on that, there's plenty of the rest fo the world that goes much further than Americans on this. Sudan, Syria, and many other countries have far more extreme and widespread discrimination based on factors far less deliberate than "he poses an immediate threat to my life".
It's not even just that.
You can say there are 2 humans suspended by rope over a vat of acid. One is your mother and the other is a random hobo on the side of the street. Given 30 seconds to choose (or they both fall in the vat of acid) you have to pick one who survives.
The only way to accurately demonstrate that "all human lives are equal" is to randomize which person you pick... but everyone fucking knows you'll save your mom. Thus no one truly views all human lives equal.
Shoot to injure... the feeling of having killed someone, even if he intruded on my home, would be unbearable.
Well if hes threatening me with knife, ofcourse ill kill him. He could have a weapon hed use if i just shot to injure.