Originally Posted by Leisesturm

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