Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
You are spending time considering the thoughts and intends of a criminal.
1. The man in the store had to make a quick decision as to what to do.
2. There is no way to know the intents of anyone, you can only make assumptions. If I see a man walk into a Blockbuster with a shotgun, what conclusion should be drawn?
All I'm saying that most store clerks and bank tellers are trained to let the criminal take what he wants and leave, instead of trying to interfer and risk getting people hurt. That risked turn a simple robbery into a murder scene. I say again what if he missed and hit a bystander, what if the criminals fired back and hit him or a bystander?
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
About assault weapons:
My response to you Warbler depends on how I read into what you wrote.
"do we need assault rifles?"
--The invention of the assault rifle was unneccessary. In that sense we did not ever need assault rifles.
"do we need assault rifles?"
--Since they do exist and criminals often do not stop to question the legal implications of having one, I can see where the public would want to feel protected and want to be allowed to use them as well.
My point here is this. Assault rifles are made for the military, not for ordinary civilians. Hand guns provide enough protection. Ordinary civilians do not need Assault rifles.
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
About aiming for the leg:
I will give you that someone shot in the leg can fire back, but aiming for the chest or stomach is not the answer either.
A shot to the chest can do serious damage to the heart or lungs. If the shot is "lucky", the ribcage can actually work against the body. A bullet can ricoche around inside doing lots more damage.
A shot to the stomach threatens the liver, intestines, plenty of other lymphatic organs as well (not to mention the stomach itself. I've also heard that the stomach is the most painful place to be shot.
Hitting them just about anywhere will leave them in enough pain to keep them from returning fire for at least a few seconds, the leg is non-vital and prevents them from standing.
All I'm saying is what any law enforcement/miltitary expert would tell you. Yes, hitting someone in the stomach or chest would hurt more and do more damage and that's the point. You have made the desion to shoot someone because if you don't they will shoot you. The main objective in shooting the criminal, is to render him incapable of shooting you or someone else. What is more likely to accomplish that goal? Aiming for the harder to hit target, the legs, where even if you manage to hit your target he might still be able to fire back, or aiming for the easier target stomach/chest area? As you said a shot to the chest can do more damage, and a shot to the stomach is more painful and therefor either will more likely render the criminal incapable of firing back than a shot to the leg. I know it sounds terrible, but its the truth.
Consider two situations:
- a man walks into your house with the intent to kill you and your family, you get your gun, shoot him in the leg then he fires backs and kills you and your family.
- a man walks into your house with the intent to kill you and your family, you get your gun, shoot him in the chest/stomach he collaspes and dies, but you and your family are unharmed.
which would you rather have happen?