Armed 87 year old man saves a 24 year old pregnant woman's life. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=fulgrim;39723914]Its this kind of thing that makes me wish we were allowed firearms for self defence in the UK. Rape and sexual assaults are stupidly common around where i live, makes you scared to go out at night.[/QUOTE] Good god no. Having all of those rapists and muggers be armed would be the worst thing ever.

I hope you all realize that 1-2 bullets won't necessarily kill someone It'll hurt, but depending on where and how they were shot, they can still do most anything. They can still run and fight just fine

If you have to shoot someone because it's a life or death situation, and they are still in good enough shape afterwards to walk around for an hour, as long as they don't bother you I think you can say you made your point. Not everyone out there wants to take another human's life, even if it could be legally done.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;39723730]I would of emptied the clip on his ass. rapist, why did you dumb this down?[/QUOTE] would of clip

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39723752]and that's why you specifically should never be permitted to own a firearm :)[/QUOTE] no. Every single defensive shooting instructor ever will tell you that if you draw a firearm to defend yourself, you need to continue firing until the attacker is clearly and obviously disabled. The police are trained to do the same thing. The fact that the man continued to circle around the property and [i]was even able to turn off the power before driving himself to the hospital[/i] shows that he was clearly still a danger to the lives of others. Any time you use a gun to defend yourself, you are making the decision to take a life - you shouldn't own a gun for defense if you are not capable of making that decision. In this case, the victims got very lucky that the situation didn't spiral out of hand.

[QUOTE=apurplerock;39725668]I hope you all realize that 1-2 bullets won't necessarily kill someone It'll hurt, but depending on where and how they were shot, they can still do most anything. They can still run and fight just fine[/QUOTE] That's why you keep the gun pointed at them until you know that they are staying down. Shooting once will buy you enough time to determine whether or not you need to shoot again.

[QUOTE=McCarthy;39723998]You've changed, Fp. for the last few years if i made ANY sort of pro-gun comment, I'd get hundreds of "dumbs" and 20 comments saying how stupid i was. Now everyone's jumping on the bandwagon. Interesting.[/QUOTE] You're still getting dumbs though. Maybe pro-gun politics isn't the way, especially when Republicans and Libertarians tend to have worse ideas than Democrats.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39725538] having "guns for self defense" isn't going to stop people from raping each other at all.[/QUOTE] I was thinking more along the lines of not wanting to be raped personally, i was not at all saying adding guns would solve the issue forever.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;39725817]no. Every single defensive shooting instructor ever will tell you that if you draw a firearm to defend yourself, you need to continue firing until the attacker is clearly and obviously disabled. The police are trained to do the same thing. The fact that the man continued to circle around the property and [i]was even able to turn off the power before driving himself to the hospital[/i] shows that he was clearly still a danger to the lives of others. Any time you use a gun to defend yourself, you are making the decision to take a life - you shouldn't own a gun for defense if you are not capable of making that decision. In this case, the victims got very lucky that the situation didn't spiral out of hand.[/QUOTE] The guy in the post was saying he would do it because he didn't like the guy, not just to take him down.

[QUOTE=apurplerock;39725668]I hope you all realize that 1-2 bullets won't necessarily kill someone It'll hurt, but depending on where and how they were shot, they can still do most anything. They can still run and fight just fine[/QUOTE] Shoot until they're incapacitated (unable to move/fight) unless they're armed and you're in immediate danger, anything more is just lowering the chances paramedics can keep them alive. Killing is not the goal in this case, even though it's a probable outcome and you shouldn't shoot without realizing that.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;39723752]and that's why you specifically should never be permitted to own a firearm :)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;39723778]Still not a reason to unload an entire magazine (btw, magazine, not clip) on someone. One bullet is usually enough to stop someone from doing whatever they were trying to do.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dizzeh;39723876]I don' think using a lot of bullets would made a difference from the 1 or 2 this guy shot him with. He's dead, he's dead. You don't need to waste that many bullet's, make's you seem like the bad guy in the incident.[/QUOTE] Did you all just miss the part where the guy got shot [B]twice[/B] and it didn't even slow him down? How he ran around the property for [B]an hour[/B] before driving himself to the hospital? If you're going to shoot, you shoot to [I]end the threat[/I]. Not to show you mean business, or to scare your target into complying, you shoot until they are physically incapacitated (unconscious, immobile, or dead) and thereby unable to hurt you or an innocent. That may, and often does, take more than one round. Police are trained to fire multiple shots, even empty the entire magazine into their target, because one bullet is often insufficient to physically incapacitate someone. If the round hits a vital organ it will kill, if the target goes into shock it will incapacitate, but someone amped up on adrenaline or drugs can shrug off a non-lethal wound and keep going. Executing someone while they're on the ground and helpless is one thing, but putting a half dozen rounds into them in the space of two seconds to make sure they go down [I]immediately[/I] and don't ignore the wound and beat you to death is not the same. To put it bluntly, if you're not in a situation where you need to stop someone as quickly and as assuredly as possible, you're not in a situation that calls for the use of a firearm. If someone is being a little threatening, you don't shoot 'to wound' or to put them in their place. If someone is about to seriously harm you or someone else, you end the threat, and that threat usually isn't ended until they're on the ground. The landlord got lucky in this case, in that the man backed off before more rounds were needed. If the man was still active enough to pace for an hour before driving to the hospital, he could have still seriously hurt someone.

I wonder what he was using. 9mm probably, given he was a retired sheriff. [QUOTE=SexualShark;39723730]rapist, why did you dumb this down?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=McCarthy;39723998]You've changed, Fp. for the last few years if i made ANY sort of pro-gun comment, I'd get hundreds of "dumbs" and 20 comments saying how stupid i was. Now everyone's jumping on the bandwagon. Interesting.[/QUOTE] Because a 16x16 icon totally matters, right? Protip: It doesn't, and the only people that do care about them are too shallow to be worth talking to.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;39724658]Two shots in the torso and he didn't die? wow... don't get me wrong, i'm glad he didn't die because having to kill someone, even in self defense must be an horrific burden to bare even for a former sheriff's deputy and not just for the person pulling the trigger this was a great outcome to what could have been a double murder[/QUOTE] People can be stupidly resistant to physical damage. There has been multiple reports of people getting shot several dozen times and still being able to stand up and respond, just thanks to adrenaline. Sometimes the pressure is so high you can even physically ignore the pain (as in, you don't even notice you were hit) for quite a while. It doesn't really last long though as the internal damage caused by the bullets and the loss of adrenaline with time will eventually get you killed. I can't remember what's the exact percentage, but a majority of bullet wounds are not actually lethal, as long as you get to a hospital within the following hours. [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;39724728]isn't it proper police technique to empty a full magazine on a suspect specifically [I]because[/I] one shot might not work to stop the person? or is it just stress that generally causes police to empty their magazine on suspects? fuck i always write clip instead of magazine. clip is a lot funner to type and say. "empty the magazine" doesn't have the same ring to it.[/QUOTE] It's extremely hard to shoot one bullet at someone. Most of the time, stress will be enough to make you shoot multiple times, the recoil of the weapon adds to that. The police has a policy of shooting more than once in the center mass of their target because I'm fairly certain they have a shoot to kill policy as well. Hence why you never see a policeman shooting at one's kneecap to stop him, even though some people argue they should (despite shooting one's kneecap in the middle of a fight is not an easy thing at all). [editline]27th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;39727742]I wonder what he was using. 9mm probably, given he was a retired sheriff.[/QUOTE] Probably, considering the target didn't really have much of an issue walking around for a bit after getting shot. A bigger caliber would have probably caused much more damage. Not that it's really important anyway.

[QUOTE=buro;39724103]He has autism. Be nice.[/QUOTE] More like being a twisted vigilante on the rise

[QUOTE=Sir Drone;39732619]More like being a twisted vigilante on the rise[/QUOTE] [B][I]RORSCHACH'S JOURNAL, JUNE 11th, 1984 I WOULD OF EMPTIED THE CLIP ON HIS ASS[/I][/B]