[quote]
You aren’t seriously saying that the average Joe could accurately target an intruder’s eye, with one shot, in the dark, from 6 feet away?
[quote]
(Quoted just in case my post wasn’t right after yours) Sure, samarm, that’s what he’s saying. Practice, practice, practice. Six feet away is about three and a half feet with arm extended. Much closer than throwing a dart into a half inch target from 12 feet away.
Sheesh, sorry for the lame coding.
(Quoted just in case my post wasn’t right after yours) Sure, samarm, that’s what he’s saying. Practice, practice, practice. Six feet away is about three and a half feet with arm extended. Much closer than throwing a dart into a half inch target from 12 feet away.
Well, not normally. Crimson Trace makes laser grips for a couple of .22 models.
I don’t personally recommend a .22. I think if you can’t handle a large bore gun your better to have a .32 or .380 than a 22. (9mm aren’t that hard to handle either). My overall point was that too many people laugh at the .22 as though it were a water gun. It can be deadly.
pkbites, question;
I know that in every state I have lived in, if there is a small child in the house and the perp is between you and the child, nothing else matters.
Age, sex, size. color, hair length, perfume, intent in written and notarized form, a light billboard of peaceful intentions, nada…
If anyone is in your home uninvited and gets between you and your small children, there are no questions asked. How so in your state?
Oh, forgot one thing. The .22 short subsonic round has been a favorite of the black bag gang and the mafioso for years because of it’s quietness with a good silencer.
Elaborate on that. What do you mean “between you and your child”?
Hummm
Child does not sleep in same room as you do. You come out and see intruder moving towards child’s room… Down the perp goes… No question…
Or, intruder in is your hall between you and the door to your child’s room, they can not move in a non threatening manner unless they can give up convincingly before they can be killed.
???
Basically what I was told that IF I even THOUGHT they were going towards the child, that was ALL I needed for it to be okay to put them down.
::::: not so in WI? ::::::
First of all, what happens to you is, believe it or not, more up to the local DA than the police. A lot of case involving shooting an intruder end up as a DA referal. The DA takes the info from the police investigation and decides whether or not file charges.
The same situation happening in two different counties might result in two different results. You certainly would not want to be involved in a home owner related shooting in Milwaukee County, I’ll tell you that much!
With all that said, you shoot someone (whether in your house or not) you better be able to articulate that the person was actually a threat. Mear presence is not a deadly threat.
“They were walking towards my childs room” is definately a toss up. I certainly think it’s justified, but some liberal DA might not.
My absolute best advice: After the shooting call 911 for both the cops and an ambulance. Except for giving you name and such, don’t say anything until your lawyer gets there. Trust me, even if you’re not charged you probably will end up getting sued!
Sorry, but perfecting an eye-shot in the dark while under stress is not something the average (Or even significantly-above-average) home defender is going to be able to do. Shooting small, moving targets is not something most people can put hours each day into perfecting. Maybe if it was our jobs… Oh yeah, moving. Another thing your nice comparison to a dart-board leaves out. Now, get that dartboard moving in an unpredictable way, and see how many people can still hit that bullseye. If they manage that, find out how many can hit that bullseye while they’re having darts thrown back at them.
Personally, I’d use a .22 only as a last resort. A 10/.22 can pump out a lot of rounds really quickly, and eventually it’ll be too much for them. But I’d drop that for just about any gun if I had the opportunity, from what I’ve seen, it just doesn’t have the stopping ability to make a good home-defence weapon. Any weapon where you HAVE to hit them in the brain to have a good chance of stopping them quickly is not the kind of weapon you want to be relying on under stress.
Oh, I believe you about Milwaukee County but seeing as I am as far North as I want to be due to weather, I’ll prolly not ever move there.
I understand that also. My daughters murderer walks a free man today due to the corrupt system of politically appointed DA’s and their political ambitions.
A .22 is not recommended for self defense. A .22 is designed to kill squirrels and rabbits, and for anything larger than a squirrel or rabbit a .22 is considered underpowered.
On the other hand, probably more americans have been killed by .22’s than any other caliber.
Robert Kennedy went down fast in 1968 and was totally incapaciated after being shot by a .22 and he died.
The .22 is a favorite of assassins everywhere, and of the Israli team that finds and kills anti-Israli terrorists.
Ailleen Worunous, the famous female serial killer, killed 7 out of 7 attackers(or 9 out of 9 depending on how many you believe that
she killed) with a .22. She shot, stopped, and killed 7 out of 7 men who were attacking her(she claims) with her little .22 revolver.
Anybody shot 3 times in the face and 3 times in the heart by a .22, will either give up, go down, be easier to fight off after being blinded, or he will go elsewhere and attack someone else who is not armed at all.
Shoot me with a higher caliber round any old day of the week! A .22 round is worse than any of them. They swim once inside you many times doing more damage than most higher caliber rounds.
I would rather be shot with a 9mm round.
Aileen Wuornous killed attackers?
She was a serial killer, that makes her the attacker. And Aileen doesn’t claim anything now, because she was executed for the murders she was convicted of committing.
Sorry, but that’s pretty much a myth.
Since a .22 is less powerfull than, say, a 9mm, it’s less likely to penetrate bone and keep going. Instead, it either lodges in place, or deflects. The deflection is what you’re refering to. While it makes it so the .22 won’t immediatly exit the body, the deflection also absorbs a lot of the bullet’s energy (A bullet is made of lead, not rubber). While it increases the damage a single bullet could do, by keeping it from exiting the body quickly, it relys on hitting a bone and not penetrating, and will rarely increase damage beyond what a single more powerfull round would do. It simply doesn’t have the energy to bounce around the ribcage like a ping-pong ball. Unless it’s exceptional circumstances, you’ll get one deflection at most, and that’s only if it hits bone and doesn’t penetrate or lodge in place.
My friend was shot through the lung. The bullet did deflect off a rib, and continued on to exit his back without any more significant damage. If it had been a 9mm going through there, he probably would be dead, if not immediatly, then very rapidly due to the damage to his lung. He definatly would not have gotten up and taken down the shooter.
A .22 is still lethal, but just about any other round is more likely to kill you.
Well, .25 ACP is considerably less powerful than .22 LR, but, yeah, for the most part, centerfires are much more dangerous then rimfires.
.22 LR bullets are light and fast, and tend to follow the path of least resistance in tissue. This makes them very unpredictable. It also makes it a very poor choice of defense.
Anybody here favor a non-penetrating round? Of course, any round can pass through a person, but I use a .380 with hollow point rounds because it can do some considerable damage up close but is less likely to pass out the other side.
Not that I shoot a lot of people, but that’s my take from the ballistics reviews I’ve read on it. 'Course they drop like a rock after 25 feet, but it’s a home defense weapon so I consider that an advantage. They fly pretty straight for the first 25-30 feet. I’ve been thinking of picking up a 9MM though, I don’t know, bullet envy I guess.
So, we’re all ok with shooting the kid, now? 
i really should learn to shut up about things i don’t really know, but can i try anyway? 
ok, dump the WMD. still the only reason to own a lethal weapon is to kill, why should that be allowed when (if) non-lethal ‘just as good’ alternatives are available? i simply can’t see why weapons designed to kill with ease are allowed in this case. it’s not too big a stretch to assume that if you possess a gun you’re bound to use it eventually…
my bad. i simply wanted to say if you believed the penalty for home intrusion should be death when it can be avoided (if there were such a thing as a good non-lethal handgun. since there aren’t, this post is pretty pointless. so i won’t. oops…)
and i don’t get the Bricker reference 
Does that include a 19th century Siamese army officers sword? Because, in the right hands, it is a lethal weapon.
No I use it for target shooting- a hobby of mine, not unlike(IMHO) another hobby which involves a person utilizing crude tools to send a spherical orb aloft in hopes of placing it in a hole not much bigger than the orb its-self.
I cant think of a better home defense (that I would trust to stop a crazed intruder) for myself…
See above
Just because I own a 19th century sword doesn’t mean I’m gonna run around lopping heads off *eventually *
He’s the resident SD lawyer Unca Cecil has on retainer…kiddin, He’s a SD’er who happens to be a lawyer(or vice-versa)
shijinn wrote:
To reiterate a previous post, right now the most inexpensive, cost effective method of home defense is a firearm. Until technology and market forces offer less lethal alternatives with the same or better results in stopping an attack (and at an acceptable price), then unfortunately, some bad guys are going to get wounded/killed.
Not to mention, there are legitimate reasons for owning those weapons other than killing. Collecting and target shooting, to just name a couple.