You cant call it back!

Bird · Jun 1, 2005

( even if there aren't legal issues, there could be psychological ones for everyone involved )

You're sure right, and I think most people have no idea of the psychological impact. The commander of the police academy, at the time I joined the department, had shot and killed a burglar several years earlier. It was a legitimate, legal, correct, etc. shooting, but he said he woke up lots of nights with that burglar sitting on the foot of his bed, even years later. Nightmares are common. Statistically, many police officers leave law enforcement not long after they have to shoot someone. That's the reason counselling by a psychiatrist or psychologist is mandatory for most officers after a shooting now. Only one officer under my command ever killed anyone and there were plenty of witnesses, including the dead man's wife, who said the officer simply had no choice. That officer did remain on the department, and several years later was promoted to the rank of sergeant. But the change in his personality was apparent to all who knew him. He had always been a very polite, soft spoken gentleman; outstanding officer, but friendly and smiling most of the time. After the shooting, he remained an outstanding officer, but even quieter, appeared to be sad instead of smiling most of the time, etc. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing him smile again.

thegreatrandini · Jun 1, 2005

This is partly why I think one should use the Glasser safty rounds made for home defense. They are less leathal but they are just as effective at stopping someone. This way the burglar may not die.. I do advise backing those up with some real rounds.
If I was in the bedroom and I heard someone in the house I think I would fire a round out of an open window.. Odds are whoever is there would be in the mood to leave..... Hopefully they would run away. I don't think property is worth killing for. (maybe some exceptions) Some property could be a persons whole livly hood etc....but as a rule I would rather catch up with ya later to get my property back..... as long as my family and pets are safe.....That does not mean I am going to let you steal my tractor but I would rather run you off then kill you......If you don't leave then I have to assume you are there to hurt me or my family and will do what I have to do to stop you.....I also will not assume that you are alone.

JimR · Jun 1, 2005

(

if it's in your control in your house it can be loaded and does not have to be locked up.

if it in your house and your not home it's supposed to be locked up, which can be done without the use of key's.

as to engaging a threat, you always shoot to stop the threat.
no more no less. )

I can't see walking around the house and back and forth to the garage carrying my gun. So according to the law. They are locked up. If the gun is in one room and you are in the other. You are considered to be not in control of your weapon. It must be in your control to beat the law. I only carry when there is a reason too or if I have a big wad of cash on me. As for shooting someone. I can't say how I would feel about it as I have never had to shot anyone. But I do know that I wouldn't hesitate if the situation arose. I'd worry about everything else after the fact.

Varmintmist · Jun 1, 2005

Randini,

Glaser Saftey slugs are NOT less lethal. The only thing about Glasers is they are not supposed to penetrate. That means that they are at least as lethal simply because they drop ALL of their energy on whatever they hit. Wall board, wood, people. They will not pass through like most "regular" rounds.

The more energy you lose in the target, the more damage you will do. That is why the military has to use FMJ (full metal jacket) so that the rounds just pass through instead of mushrooming and making a gastley wound. Expanding bullets were outlawed for war by international law so that there is a chance that the wounded can be saved.

There is no such thing as a center fire round that will back someone up across a room. "For every action there is a EQUAL and opposite reaction" That means the force that you feel in recoil is pretty close to what will happen at the other end. There are differences in that the force is spread over a larger area in your hand or shoulder, and the force is not all transfered in the small face area of the bullet, so for disscussion purposes, its close enough.
There are no magic bullets or calibers that will stop a man in his tracks every time on every occasion, period.

isucrazy · Jun 1, 2005

Good points, agreed. Lots of others too. I am saying that folks should know your weapon well, know your surrondings well at all times. Dont produce a weapon unless you are willing ta use it. there is alot more to it than just pulling the trigger.Its where that bullet goes after you fire it that needs lots of thought. If I chatch someone in my house with no good on his mind he better get me first or he will never bother anyone else again. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif "SUPPORT THE TROOPS"

LarryRB · Jun 1, 2005

"The more energy you lose in the target, the more damage you will do. That is why the military has to use FMJ (full metal jacket) so that the rounds just pass through instead of mushrooming and making a gastley wound. Expanding bullets were outlawed for war by international law so that there is a chance that the wounded can be saved."

when was this rule of expanding rounds and the military made? I can prive much different that what you just posted

sneaky_pete · Jun 2, 2005

( when was this rule of expanding rounds and the military made?)

The 1899 amendments to the Geneva Conventions, for anyone (including the U.S.) who agreed to be bound by them. See here for more details.

gsganzer · Jun 2, 2005

Oh boy! The dreaded "Home defense with Gun" quagmire!

As you've probably guessed by the signature line at the bottom of my posts, I hunt, own guns and believe in the second ammendment rights. I'm not going to get into the whole home defense or right to shoot an intruder etc. etc. I will weigh in on one of the most important responsibilities of gun ownership, safely storing firearms.

EDIT: As a courtesy to Bird's response following this post, I agree that my original statement was a bit too direct.
I've toned down my statement so it's a little less offensive or opinionated. However, in one of the next posts I made on this thread, I hope I adequately explain why I hold this opinion about securing your firearms and request that everyone seriously evaluate how you store your weapons.

EDITED: I'll make this statement, as offensive as some may find it: "If you own a gun and don't own a gun safe, in my opinion you're being negligent by leaving an unsecured firearm around."

EDITED: Below is what I've decided is the proper way to control firearms in my household, keeping the safety of my family and my community in careful consideration.

I have 3 gun safes. I have a large 30 gun safe that holds all of my rifles, shotguns and handguns when they're not needed or in use Was the safe expensive, yep. Was it expensive in relation to my families safety, nope. Heck, the safe cost 1K. A fraction of the value of the contents. In reality, I could have bought a smaller safe if I only owned 1 or 2 guns. The safe's also fire rated and holds all of our household documents, mortgage papers, marriage papers, insurance papers and family heirlooms. Regarless of whether I store guns in it, it's been great for securing other things.

The second safe is a handgun safe. This is secured to the wall near the nightstand (easy reach from bed) and opens easily and quietly with a few pressed buttons arranged in a "handprint" pattern. There's actually a model out that uses biometrics and can store 15 different fingerprints that I'm considering replacing it with. It's my preference to have a gun "close at hand", but I also have to consider the fact that I have a small child in the house who grows more curious every day. I'm also not home 24 hours a day. If someone broke into your house, rummaged through your nightstand and stole your unsecured handgun, you just allowed another gun into the hands of a criminal. Will a child be taken from his or her parents or a parent taken from a child because they were murdered by a criminal using YOUR weapon?

The third safe, I recently purchased and will install during our bathroom remodel. Do I actually expect my wife to have the where-with-all during a home invasion to calmly get the handgun from the nightstand safe, work the safety off, clearly identify a target as posing a deadly threat, account for any innocent bystanders and defend herself by shooting accurately in the few fractions of a second that you have to react? What I expect her to do is run!! Run to the bedroom bathroom, close the door, lock it, pick up the phone and dial 911! Now that she's barricaded in the bathroom, she has time to think clearly and she has access to a shotgun in a wallsafe mounted behind a mirror if she feels the necessity. What have I given her? I've given her a safe haven where she has time to think and evaluate the situation before she makes a mistake that makes the situation worse.

Bird · Jun 2, 2005

( I'll make this statement, as offensive as some may find it: "If you own a gun and don't own a gun safe, you're negligent." )

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but in spite of all my years, it does still sometimes amaze me when a person thinks his/her opinion is the only one that's right.

gsganzer · Jun 2, 2005

Sorry Bird, that did come across a little more blunt then I intended it to.

Like many others that are members on this site, I kept a handgun in a dresser or nightstand drawer. I lived alone with no children, therefore I felt I had minimal risk of a gun falling into the wrong hands. Ten years ago my apartment (at the time) was broken into when I was at work and a handgun was stolen. Looking back at it, I was negligent.

If the weapon isn't in your possession or secured somewhere where you control the access, then you don't have control of your weapon. In my opinion that amounts to negligence in ownership.