Indeed, I don't even know what it is. As for anger being hard to harness, maybe what I need is to be afraid. A wound should do the trick.

After I discharged my weapon, there were four people left at the scene: two would-be, now bleeding assailants (who weren't talking much), and my wife and me.

I was questioned at the scene. I was then "detained" and questioned at police headquarters. The District Attorney's office deemed it a justifiable shooting, and no charges were filed...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

With his lance, on top of his heavy charger, no doubt. Between Steve's freaky impervious-to-fear junkies and your fanatical knights, this conversation is becoming more fantastical by the minute.

No.

Oh, dear...*sigh*

I'm sure. However, criminals are hardly more likely than you or me to be unaware that a gun can be hazardous to their health.

Your opinion is noted. However, I'll wait for actual corroboration from the others, I'm not aware they have elected you their spokesman.

You've just wasted a perfectly good opportunity to use some really choice insults. What's the matter, you've used them all up?

You said so already. You don't have to address every sentence of mine, I promise I won't feel hurt. Oh, and it's ad nauseam, not nauseum.

I fucking lost patience. Your posts are notably thin on facts and thick on childish insults. FYI, I care nothing for the number of times you had to debunk my "fallacies" in your life. You're free to put me back on ignore if you can't bring yourself to address my posts in a civilized manner.

There were four of them. If all they wanted was my money, they could've gotten it from me without the use of weapons. I can handle myself in a tough situation, but four people are gonna' kick anybody's ass.

Seeing as they were displaying weapons, the only conclusion I could reach (because I'm not a fucking idiot) is that they intended to use them...

Criminals aren't always the most colorful crayons in the box.

That doesn't make them any less dangerous...

No one here has said it's impossible.

It's stupid, but it's not impossible...

The concept of a "warning shot" has been addressed, ad nauseum. So far, I see only one person here defending the use of it, and that person, admittedly, is the one with the least experience with firearms...

"Emotionally process"?

Believe me when I say that comes about two or three days after you fire your weapon...

I don't think that's unusual. Most people are fortunate enough to live their entire lives without ever being in a life-threatening situation.

But it does happen and, when it does, someone who wants to protect themself should be in a position to do so...

I don't believe I've insulted you, yet you continue to be resistant to the opinions of those who have far more experience with guns than you do. If you wish to remain blissfully ignorant to the topic, that's fine.

Just say so...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Um, Adrien, I hate to ruin your Hollywood perception, but shooting someone in the leg is using deadly force.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

HawHAWHaw hohohaahaha...Moron.

I'm not familiar with your judiciary terminology. I think we can agree on the fact that you're less likely to die from a wound in the leg than from a wound in the chest.

Maybe, or maybe not.

Look at Sean Taylor - shot once in the leg and killed.

My point is that if you shoot someone, regardless of where you shoot them, you are using force which can easily result in death.

Accordingly, you are never going to be in a position where shooting someone in the leg was justified but shooting them in the chest would not have been.

And again, the idea that you can shoot someone in the leg and they will immediately cease to be a thread is foolhardy at best.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Did you not see this link I posted earlier?

Man Dies From Gunshot Wound To Leg

Being in France, you may not have heard this story, either, about Sean Taylor, a player for the Washington Redskins:

Sean Taylor Shot And Killed

The bullet damaged the femoral artery in Taylor's leg, causing significant blood loss. Taylor never regained consciousness and died a little more than 24 hours later.

When I decided to discharge my weapon, I was not interested in wounding my assailants. You might even be surprised to learn that I was not even interested in killing them. I was interested in, simply enough, stopping them. The most effective way to stop an assailant is to fire two rounds into the largest portion of the body that can serve as a target: the chest. I stopped two of them before the other two took off (thereby removing any further imminent threat)...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

The rules of deadly force do not dictate that you shoot with the intent of killing someone. They dictate that you are taking an action which will cause the assailant to stop the action he's taking.

Period.

If they end up dead in the process, that may be unfortunate, but it's not the goal of using deadly force...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Well to a point I agree. I had given up on this thread as the main response I was getting from the likes of you was insults and abuse. And I am woefully ill equipped to debate on that moronic level. However seeing you and the other pro gunners jumped into scotlandforever and so quickly descended into your regular practice of marginalisation and abuse I thought I should show her that not everyone on this website is of the same disposition. And point out the massive holes in your arguments and logic (although that is like pointing out the proverbial elephant in the room!)

And you still cant and I except will never get it. One off anecdotes do not form a basis for a logical argument. You and your wife could have ran a called for help. Would that have worked? Maybe , maybe not. It is irrelevant. The fact is the issue in question is not about you and your wife or the incident that happened to you. It is a broader philosophical debate on the benefits vs hazards of gun proliferation. And that is one you have proved you are woefully ill-prepared to debate.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

We are responsible for our actions. Unfortunately some people act less responsibly or are mentally not well enough equipped to make lethal decisions that involve others. Having this type of person armed and giving them the job of judge jury and executioner is naturally going to be of concern to any rational person.

No. So.

He certainly needs to be dealt with and may have to be killed. But let’s be sensible and say this will almost certainly never happen to you unless you go looking for trouble.
You need to ask why would this ever happen and how likely. Then is killing this person the only answer. You comment that “some people just need killing” is simplistic. Who exactly are you to make such a decision? In the civilised world we have police to make and arrest, a jury to decide on the guilt and a judge to decide an appropriate punishment. And in many places including many in the U.S. death is not an option. Wrapping all of this responsibility into one person of varying rationale, intelligence and temperament is insane and a throwback to the Wild West.

__________________
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The issue isn't one of gun proliferation. Trust me, I started the thread, I know.

It's not about whether or not "society" should be armed. It's about whether or not someone is willing to take the responsibility to do whatever's necessary to protect him or herself.

If guns were illegal at the time my wife and I were attacked, we would be dead right now; of that, I'm confident. Instead, I decided to be armed. I decided that I was willing to willingly accept any and all responsibility that comes with carrying and, if need be, using a weapon. Not everyone is comfortable taking that responsibility, and I understand and appreciate that.

What raises the hair on my neck, though, is when someone comes along saying that guns are bad, and that private citizens shouldn't own them. Yeah, my experience is only one example. But it's the example that absolutely convinces me that private handgun ownership is a good thing...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Not in Denmark it aint. Danish police stops a large number of criminals, or mentallty ill people each year by shoting them in the legs, and sometimes just by firing a warning shot.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?