Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

JohnnoM wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Or how long it will take either side to use it as a political stepping stone.

Well in this thread managed to get as far as the OP before that happened.

I didn't realise that a "responsable, prepared gun owner" was supposed to fire off the entire mag apparently in a panic.

I agree, she had no reason to empty the entire mag into the guy, stand over him and threaten to continue shooting. Family or no family, 5 shots is too much.

I agree, 5 shots was way to much. Let's say she needed 2 to down the burglar, then a third shot into the head to make sure the threat was neutralized.

3 Should have been sufficient.


However, fear and adrenaline are powerful forces pulling on that trigger; so let's not be too hasty to chastise the woman for firing until empty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:As "easy" as people say it is to kill someone with a gun, outside of a couple very small specific areas, it's surprisingly hard to instantly kill people with a gun.

Qualified that for you. Gunshot wounds are very easy to be fatal. Oftentimes it just takes a while.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:As "easy" as people say it is to kill someone with a gun, outside of a couple very small specific areas, it's surprisingly hard to instantly kill people with a gun.

Qualified that for you. Gunshot wounds are very easy to be fatal. Oftentimes it just takes a while.

It's hit or miss you could say... *badumtish*

I could go into detail about the percentage of fatal gunshots, training, terminal ballistics and what have you, but I'll save everyone else the pain. Shoot me a PM if you want to kick it around Azazel.

Relapse wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
One of many stories that won't get media coverage this year

Other than, of course, the story you just read.

He did clarify to say he meant major media coverage. It's a news blip compared to a criminal shooting someone because it goes against the agenda of the major news orginizations. There are a lot of things out there easily as dangerous or more dangerous than guns. A while back, a drunk driver in Kentucky ran into a bus and caused 27 kids to burn to death, but there was never the coverage for that as there is for gun crime.

I'd like to reiterate my belief that all DUI drivers should have their license suspended and be flogged publicly.

That guy however... whelp I'd say leave him in a room with the parents of the kids he killed and don't ask questions, just come back in with a mop when it's done.

On the efficiency of bullets, the results can be variable, at longer ranges the energy of a bullet is spent meaning it has little force, smaller handguns really don't have a huge range so the idea that a bullet would only cut a persons head as mentioned on the first page of this thread is quite possible. Other effects though like hydrostatic shock mean that being shot in the leg can do lethal brain damage. So it can sometimes be a lot harder, or a lot easier, to kill with a gun than expected. It says something that this guy was shot five times, likely at a distance only the width of a room, and didn't die.

Anyway, five times is fine. When an intruder breaks into the house of a women and children its only natural to assume a life or death situation. She could have shot him more, she didn't, just kept shooting until he stopped being threatening. She was frightened and adrenaline would have taken over. Life isn't a film where you bump the bad guy on the head so that he'll wake up in five minutes and murder you.

The other query is why this guy was able to do it. It sounds like he's a violent man with a string of offences, and I though we in the UK get criticised for being reluctant to lock people away.

There are so many shootings each year in the USA, regrettably, that they can't all be big news.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
On the efficiency of bullets, the results can be variable, at longer ranges the energy of a bullet is spent meaning it has little force, smaller handguns really don't have a huge range so the idea that a bullet would only cut a persons head as mentioned on the first page of this thread is quite possible. Other effects though like hydrostatic shock mean that being shot in the leg can do lethal brain damage. So it can sometimes be a lot harder, or a lot easier, to kill with a gun than expected. It says something that this guy was shot five times, likely at a distance only the width of a room, and didn't die.

Anyway, five times is fine. When an intruder breaks into the house of a women and children its only natural to assume a life or death situation. She could have shot him more, she didn't, just kept shooting until he stopped being threatening. She was frightened and adrenaline would have taken over. Life isn't a film where you bump the bad guy on the head so that he'll wake up in five minutes and murder you.

The other query is why this guy was able to do it. It sounds like he's a violent man with a string of offences, and I though we in the UK get criticised for being reluctant to lock people away.

Some stats that i've seen showed that 80%ish of crimes in the US are caused by career criminals. ie, repeat offenders. That's our system of revolving door justice.

 Vulcan wrote:


That's what you took away from this? That she paniced and fired off the entire magazine?

AFTER noticing someone breaking in.

AFTER gathering her kids and hiding, potentially ceeding all of her belongings to a burglar to avoid a confrontation?

AFTER being found by a determined attacker.

YOU pick on the poor woman for loosing track of the number of shots she had in an incredibly stressful situation?

I'd like to see how YOU perform in a similar situation. Odds are you'd not handle it that well.

RAGE!!

Actually I think its quite indicative of poor, or even non existent, firearms training.After all if you fire of the entire mag in a fit of panic your aim will be poor and you will be vulnerable while you reload, I have been trained to take deliberate shots and it is easy to see why.

In a similar situation I would give a verbal warning, then a warning shot and then I would go for an aimed body shot. I would not transform into Rambo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:

Some stats that i've seen showed that 80%ish of crimes in the US are caused by career criminals. ie, repeat offenders. That's our system of revolving door justice.

I think its much more likely to indicate that rehabilitation progammes in the US are ineffective, plus you do have the largest prison population per capita in the world.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
On the efficiency of bullets, the results can be variable, at longer ranges the energy of a bullet is spent meaning it has little force, smaller handguns really don't have a huge range so the idea that a bullet would only cut a persons head as mentioned on the first page of this thread is quite possible. Other effects though like hydrostatic shock mean that being shot in the leg can do lethal brain damage. So it can sometimes be a lot harder, or a lot easier, to kill with a gun than expected. It says something that this guy was shot five times, likely at a distance only the width of a room, and didn't die.

It mostly says that the overwhelming majority of handgun calibers are slow and weak, which is absolutely the case. Hydrostatic shock is an extant thing, but I doubt anyone in the world truly understands it. Regardless, the only even semi-common self-defense cartridges that approach the velocity necessary for hydrostatic shock to occur are particularly hot .357 SIG loads, and those are...rare.

Consequently, if you want a "one-shot stop" with a handgun - and you don't want it to be due to psychological factors, which the majority are - you need a central nervous system hit. Hold a shoelance between your eyes and run it down to your sternum. Hit the shoelace, you've probably hit the CNS. It's a mighty small target, which is why guys who go through more pistol ammunition in a year than most police departments will in a hundred recommend pulling the trigger until the threat stops.

Also, incidentally, the main and enduring argument against mag capacity bans.

Our system is ineffective. If it worked, the vast majority of our crime wouldn't be from repeat offenders.

Japan's prison system is horrible, flat out horrible. Their crime rate is so much lower then are's. I for one think they have something to do with each other.

If the intruder had broke into the house and just stole stuff and not went looking for the woman he wouldn't have gotten shot. Who knows his motives on breaking into the house. If he broke in purely for stuff then why did he seek out the family. He should have just stole stuff and got out. I don't feel bad for him though.

djones520 wrote:
Our system is ineffective. If it worked, the vast majority of our crime wouldn't be from repeat offenders.

Japan's prison system is horrible, flat out horrible. Their crime rate is so much lower then are's. I for one think they have something to do with each other.

I think it goes a lot deeper into the culture in other ways. Victorian prisons were notoriously awful places, overcrowed, underfed and where you worked hard labour and were surrounded by disease and violence, it didn't stop crime or repeat offending however ghastly they were. In fact crime back then was a lot worse than now, even with the added threats of physical punishments ranging from birching to hanging.

 chaos girl wrote:
If the intruder had broke into the house and just stole stuff and not went looking for the woman he wouldn't have gotten shot. Who knows his motives on breaking into the house. If he broke in purely for stuff then why did he seek out the family. He should have just stole stuff and got out. I don't feel bad for him though.

Personally I'm of the opinion that even if that were the case, he still should have been shot. Nothing gives a man the right to take my stuff. Nothing. Texas and other state with Castle doctrines have it right on those regards.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
One of many stories that won't get media coverage this year

Other than, of course, the story you just read.

Cause that's ALL OVER the national news. I mean damn without a small local channel letting us know that firearms save hundreds of thousands of lives ever year you'd almost think the big channels that have millions of viewers are pushing an agenda or something.

Palindrome even cops tend to drain the mag in a life or death situation. Welcome to adrenaline, your first instinct is to shoot whatever the hell is trying to hurt you and it's friends till they stop twitching. It takes decades of training and usually learning the hard way to compensate for that.

So everytime someone gets shot in the US, it's on national news? yeah... no. As far as I know, only school shootings and such get reported, the other 30.000 who are shot every year don't get any media coverage.

djones520 wrote:
Our system is ineffective. If it worked, the vast majority of our crime wouldn't be from repeat offenders.

Japan's prison system is horrible, flat out horrible. Their crime rate is so much lower then are's. I for one think they have something to do with each other.

Norway's crime rate is low despite their almost luxurious prison system.

 Peregrine wrote:

 JohnnoM wrote:
Yes, because a man who is lying on the ground, and has been shot 5 times is quite the threat.

And you'll notice that she didn't shoot him again once he had been shot five times and was lying on the ground making no aggressive moves. She merely threatened to shoot again as she ended the incident and removed herself and her children from the house. That is the sensible thing to do when you've just dealt with an armed intruder who might have a gun of his own and be tempted to use it.

I can't believe it's finally happened...
I found something that I agree with Peregrine on. Woman acted in the best interests of her family, and I hope that if I were ever in the same situation, I'd do the same. If anything, the report suggest he could have still been a threat (as he was able to move after she ran out) if he had a gun, and she didn't act as severely as she could have. Woman is good in my eyes, and I hope the law doesn't find a way to disagree.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JohnnoM wrote:
Yes, because a man who is lying on the ground, and has been shot 5 times is quite the threat.

And you'll notice that she didn't shoot him again once he had been shot five times and was lying on the ground making no aggressive moves. She merely threatened to shoot again as she ended the incident and removed herself and her children from the house. That is the sensible thing to do when you've just dealt with an armed intruder who might have a gun of his own and be tempted to use it.

I can't believe it's finally happened...
I found something that I agree with Peregrine on.

It's a weird feeling isn't it?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 JohnnoM wrote:
Yes, because a man who is lying on the ground, and has been shot 5 times is quite the threat.

And you'll notice that she didn't shoot him again once he had been shot five times and was lying on the ground making no aggressive moves. She merely threatened to shoot again as she ended the incident and removed herself and her children from the house. That is the sensible thing to do when you've just dealt with an armed intruder who might have a gun of his own and be tempted to use it.

I can't believe it's finally happened...
I found something that I agree with Peregrine on.

It's a weird feeling isn't it?

I think I need a shower-I feel unclean...

stokecity_m wrote:She needs a gun that holds more bullets.

Or more guns.

Monster Rain wrote:Of course they're going to pick on her, Vulcan.

They're trolling.

I was going to troll Vulcan but Palindrone beat me to it. What an idiodic woman shooting 6 times and only hitting her attacker in the face and neck 5 times. And we all know how much larger a target the head and neck is than the body. It's a good thing we have such a smooth operator like Palindrone to remind us from the armed fortress of his UK home how easily he could have handled the situation.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
She caused him to operate a motor vehicle while suffering from hypovolemic shock. He could have run over somebody after passing out. She is a monster...

Indeed, if only her pattern had been tighter and she'd done a proper job of things...

I tend to think that 5 shots in the span of about a cabbage is fairly tight. Not commendably so but good enough. Had she simply moved her shot group to the torso she probably would have killed him. On the upside; she doesn't have to live with killing a man.

He must have a very thick skull or a very small brain.

Palindrome wrote:

I think its much more likely to indicate that rehabilitation progammes in the US are ineffective, plus you do have the largest prison population per capita in the world.

In the US there is a cultural bias towards the idea of prison as punishment, as opposed to rehabilitation. Rehab programs do exist, but they are few in number and poorly funded due to the absence of political support for them.

One less scumbag to deal with in the world, all is good

Just hope the woman and the kids are ok with the experience.

Edit: I also never get why people moan about the amount of bullets used, I mean really, why is 5 worse than 1, the guy still got shot.
Edit 2: More bullets means more chance of getting rid of people like that anyway.

Palindrome wrote:


Actually I think its quite indicative of poor, or even non existent, firearms training.After all if you fire of the entire mag in a fit of panic your aim will be poor and you will be vulnerable while you reload, I have been trained to take deliberate shots and it is easy to see why.

In a similar situation I would give a verbal warning, then a warning shot and then I would go for an aimed body shot. I would not transform into Rambo.
.

If guy was right there in front of you like he was with this woman, your irresponsible actions would most likely result in your death along with that of the kids and a criminal having the gun. You seem to already think you're Rambo if you think you can get away with all of that followed with a one shot kill.
I'm just going to put your comments down to trolling because no one can be that ignorant of what can happen in the real world.

Relapse wrote:

If guy was right there in front of you like he was with this woman, your irresponsible actions would most likely result in your death along with that of the kids and a criminal having the gun. You seem to already think you're Rambo if you think you can get away with all of that followed with a one shot kill.
I'm just going to put your comments down to trolling because no one can be that ignorant of what can happen in the real world.

Do you honestly believe that? if you do you are either delusional or you live in a lawless state.

The threat of force in such situations is frequently all that is required and if more is required then you are ready to respond appropriately. Thats far better than just letting rip as soon as someone opens the door.

Anything can happen in the real world, it is what is likely to happen that you need to be concerned about.

Why do people talk of "warning shots"? Thats one of the biggest damn no-nos you could do. If there is one thing I have learned in both gun safety courses and the military, its that: in a defensive situation you only pull the trigger when you are intending to kill your attacker. Dont "wing" your target, dont fire a warning shot, dont shoot it in the leg and hope it stops, if you feel as though your life is in enough danger to warrant the use of a firearm, aim for center mass and pull the trigger.

This guy is still lucky, the ballistic difference between a .38 round at the muzzle and at 20 feet (ala across a largish bedroom) is certainly not huge, and a round bouncing off your dome at that range is pretty insane. All I can think is it was just high enough, or to the side enough it "grooved" and ricoched, probobly only a couple millimeters off from being a kill shot. *shrug*

 AustonT wrote:
.... remind us from the armed fortress of his UK home how easily he could have handled the situation.

I was asked how I would have responded and I answered. I have received quite extensive firearms training and I know how to handle, and more importantly use, a weapon. Of course I don't have, nor need, a gun in the house so its all hypothetical anyway.

IronWarLeg wrote:
Why do people talk of "warning shots"? Thats one of the biggest damn no-nos you could do.

Actually the British army is trained to use warning shots (or similar) as part of the escalation of force.

As this thread has turned into the usual pro gun ramblings I shall leave it at that. Doubtless another near duplicate thread will be a long shortly.

It's a sad day when I agree with Relapse...

 d-usa wrote:
It's a sad day when I agree with Relapse...

I think the continents just drifted, I felt the Earth move!

 unmercifulconker wrote:
One less scumbag to deal with in the world, all is good

Just hope the woman and the kids are ok with the experience.

Edit: I also never get why people moan about the amount of bullets used, I mean really, why is 5 worse than 1, the guy still got shot.
Edit 2: More bullets means more chance of getting rid of people like that anyway.

Because you're supposed to defend yourself, not 'get rid of people'. If you use force against someone and they are disabled, it's not reasonable to take the opportunity to finish them off when they are prone.

Sure, someone breaks into a house to steal stuff, or maybe worse, you don't know. But their punishment should still fall to the authorities, and generally people don't get executed for burglary. You don't get to shoot them more times than necessary to kill them because the state won't.

Just over a month ago some kid tried to snatch my phone and I chased him down yelling at the top of my voice. I suppose though had security not been there, and him being a thieving scumbag, I should have take the opportunity to beat him almost senseless and put him in intensive care. Umm, no actually. I have the right to apprehend someone and prevent my stuff being stolen and defend myself, I still don't have the right to take the law into my own hands.

Palindrome wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
.... remind us from the armed fortress of his UK home how easily he could have handled the situation.

I was asked how I would have responded and I answered. I have received quite extensive firearms training and I know how to handle, and more importantly use, a weapon. Of course I don't have, nor need, a gun in the house so its all hypothetical anyway.

IronWarLeg wrote:
Why do people talk of "warning shots"? Thats one of the biggest damn no-nos you could do.

Actually the British army is trained to use warning shots (or similar) as part of the escalation of force.

As this thread has turned into the usual pro gun ramblings I shall leave it at that. Doubtless another near duplicate thread will be a long shortly.

I understand your point, in a military situation warning shots are used as an escalation of force, the Coast Guard/Navy do it all the time firing shots in front of drug runner boats etc, but this isnt a military situation. This is a woman defending her family from a closet in her home. A warning shot into the air leaves your house and lands somewhere, possibly another house. A warning shot into the ground could ricochet and hit an unintended target. Typically you give a verbal warning (its required here in Washington) and if the threat continues, you use the necessary force to stop the threat. It took this lady 5 shots and the intruder was on the ground and the threat was neutralized to the extent she could leave her home and get help. Had she then reloaded and continued to shoot the guy after he was down and begging for her to stop, then we would have a problem with the amount shots it took to neutralize the threat.

I am not intending for this to sound like a "pro gun or anti gun" post, far from it, I just know that in 99% of all situations such as this, firing a warning shot is not a good idea. If they are still brazen enough to come forward while staring down the barrel of a gun when I have given a verbal warning that I will shoot them if they continue, I think its been well established that I mean business and a warning shot does nothing but miss.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
One less scumbag to deal with in the world, all is good

Just hope the woman and the kids are ok with the experience.

Edit: I also never get why people moan about the amount of bullets used, I mean really, why is 5 worse than 1, the guy still got shot.
Edit 2: More bullets means more chance of getting rid of people like that anyway.

Because you're supposed to defend yourself, not 'get rid of people'. If you use force against someone and they are disabled, it's not reasonable to take the opportunity to finish them off when they are prone.

Sure, someone breaks into a house to steal stuff, or maybe worse, you don't know. But their punishment should still fall to the authorities, and generally people don't get executed for burglary. You don't get to shoot them more times than necessary to kill them because the state won't.

Just over a month ago some kid tried to snatch my phone and I chased him down yelling at the top of my voice. I suppose though had security not been there, and him being a thieving scumbag, I should have take the opportunity to beat him almost senseless and put him in intensive care. Umm, no actually. I have the right to apprehend someone and prevent my stuff being stolen and defend myself, I still don't have the right to take the law into my own hands.

Did he forcibly (like with a crowbar as the man in this article did) break into your house to take your phone? Which also leaves him with a weapon: a crowbar could kill you, and could do serious damage if thrown well. This lady had somebody break into her home, and she had her kids with her. I'm not a pro-gun nut (don't even own one), but I fully support what this woman did. She shot and disabled an armed intruder in her own home, threatened only further action if he tried to move, got her kids safely away and ran. How anyone has issue with this, I can't even comprehend. She saved her kids and her own life.

How does what I wrote make it seem that I have an issue with what the woman did? I don't, that's clear enough from my first post. I do take issue with the idea that it's okay to use more bullets to 'get rid of people' because they are scum the world could do without.