Originally Posted by
WonderMonkey
I feel this is lawsuit generated. If a person intends to do you harm and you stop him with no deadly force then quite often the person who did the stopping gets into far more trouble than the assailant. Your live is torn apart all because you stopped someone from beating your wife, yourself, your kid, whatever. So they feel the best thing to do is to shoot to kill. Messed up, isn't it? The above is all when someone is using deadly force AGAINST the people I mentioned, not just smacking them with a fly-swatter, etc.
So.... in a sue happy country where many times the criminals have more rights and sympathy than the victim, you are instructed to sway the numbers in your direction.
Who is to blame for all of that is a conversation which goes in many circles and in the end people are going to believe what they want instead of what they see. You do that, I do that, others do it as well and each is sure they are believing what they are seeing and are seeing what is reality.
I completely failed to include a key point in my earlier post. Of the 90 shots fired by Geman police in 2011, 45 were warning shots. Professionally trained law enforcement personnel firing warning shots. That is my point. The American 'experts' insist that their way is the correct way. Maybe, but it isn't the only way. I have to observe that there were no credible witnesses to the George Zimmerman shooting. He killed his assailant. He is out of jail but he is behind a mountain of debt. Like a couple of million dollars worth of defense attorney expenses. Handguns make a person bold enough to stay and confront trouble. Often handguns cannot be used because their power to kill innocents along with evildoers make them the wrong weapon for the circumstance. Isn't it clear that if for the 200 years that we have been developing firearms in this country, if like R&D had been put into a parallel non-lethal technology that one could use to stop hostiles with minimal harm to innocents in the line of fire that this would be a good thing? A third of the population either has guns in their home or has them concealed on their person in public. Nevertheless when **** happens, it happens. Usually with little or no response from the gun carrying public. Tell the truth, 90% of the time when someone shoots someone, 99% of the time when the shooter is a LEO, the shootee is either unarmed or armed with far less lethal potential than the shooter. That's where guns excel. When the shooter has the control of the situation already. Under those circumstances I wonder why said shooter shouldn't face the full force of the law and be made to give a full account of their actions in a legal proceeding.
H