... I have the right to detain a criminal suspect with my firearm but I don't have the right to shoot him if he is outside my home . Think it through please .

Really depends...If I walked up behind them and they didn't know I was there I wouldn't shoot to kill

If they had a weapon I'd shoot to kill unless they immediately threw it aside when I confronted them.

If they made any attempt at all to attack me, even if they didn't have a weapon, I'd shoot to kill

Your reasoning is insane one law doesn't make the other mandatory. If I hold a man at bay in my house with my shotgun pointed at him and he's holding a knife, the law doesn't compel me to kill him simply because I happened to swing the firearm in his direction..

If I felt my life and my love ones are in danger. I have no problem capping someones ass with my Glock 17L 9mm.

no it doesnt. If i kill someone while robbing a bank i get charged for 2 crimes not one stuck together...

THey are not mutually inclusive, therefore they cannot be tied together legally.

Stop talking like you know anything plz.

If someone broke into my house, I would as an untrained, armed citizen in a dark house, with adrenaline pumping through my veins, shoot the guy in the leg, without causing permanent damage. I expect the same from every law enforcement officer, as well as every soldier.

you would support police shooting armed citizens in the legs?

No. Stick with the training, shoot for center mass, and only use deadly force when necessary.



The US military uses the tiny 5.56 round to wound and not kill. It is a brilliant tactical decision. The 7.62x39 the AK spits out just knocks chunks off people. You can tell a major difference in the wounds after the fact.

One guy I know actually had an AK round under the skin on top of his hand. He was holding his rifle, was shot in the hand, and it bounded weirdly off the rifle in his hand and it was just there on top in his skin. The VA was afraid to take it out because it could cause serious nerve damage and it wasn't doing anything horrible at the time.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 25 2015 12:08pm

I think the decision for the war makers was more frugal than humanitarian it makes fiscal sense to shoot the same round as the enemy. We talked a bit the other day about the pros and cons of a 9mm vs a .40 or .45 the 9's do have a habit of slicing right through, where there is more stopping power in the bigger rounds.

it's funny because my son just bought a S&W M&P.45 and we fired it yesterday, it's a very smooth gun with no more kick than the .40 which I think is very comfortable. The M&P line is virtually a Glock in fack there is some wierd royalty thing between S&W and Glock where Glock gets a percentage of each gung sold.

linkhttp://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765739_-1_757782_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

He wasn't serious