THE LAST RAT SHOT
I actually agree with replies to my first post. You are all correct. However you miss the point. 1. I naver suggested that shot would kill anything, not a rat not a man. 2. I only suggest that if you shoot some one in the face at about 6 feet it is almost certain to cause blindness. A blind person is not much of a threat. 3. At this point you could put the bad guy out of his misery with a follow up solid bullet. 4. Of course your range is short. If that is your concern use a rifle and scope. 5. Of course if a big bad man gets within 2 feet you have a major problem. However this is also true if you have a 44 mag.
Thanks anyway.
Thanks anyway.
0
-
It's best for me to say, " NO COMMENT ! " 0 -
I didnt read the first post yet, but I completely agree
"a man cant see he cant fight" Cobra Kai0 -
I think you miss the point. The very Idea that you would PUT a PERSON OUT OF HIS MISERY when he was NO LONGER A THREAT Would be looked at as MURDER on Your part by many P.C. people if you ever went to trial. IF you shoot someone it best be because you FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE . This is not like putting a Horse down because it has a broken leg. You better talk to a lawyer in advance of your PLAN.
EDIT I respect your right to your opinion . However Your opinion is not what matters in a court of law. IF you are charged and go to trial . I stand buy my opinion and wish you well with yours.0 -
There is an inexpensive paperback, "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob, a police instructor. It has some informative information on the use of lethal force to protect your life.
Neal0 -
perry, I really did not want to get into the legal issues. I am not a criminal attorney. However how would I know the bad guy was really blind. If in fear for my life I can protect myself. Anyway no matter what the gun, if you shoot some one you may need legal help.
My problem is with an attitude floating around that goes like this: I carry a big gun and hope I have a chance to shoot some one and make a clean one shot kill.
This is in contrast with the attitude that: I want to protect myself.
There is a difference.
I have stated this in crude terms to spur discussion and cause some to evaluate their position.
PS: FYI, you get about 130 pellet hits on an 8 1/2 x 11 page.0 -
I'd like to spur some discussion on debating issues with a stop sign. [:D][;)]
EDIT: BTW, I'm totally open to considering a fence post, instead. [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Bamavol
2. I only suggest that if you shoot some one in the face at about 6 feet it is almost certain to cause blindness. A blind person is not much of a threat. 3. At this point you could put the bad guy out of his misery with a follow up solid bullet.
The right to self defence ends when there is no further danger from your attacker. When a person is attacked under circumstances that justify self defence renders his/her attacker in capable of inflicting further injury the right to self defence ends. If you blind your attacker making him "not much of a threat" and then finish him off you are now looking at homicide in virtually every location in the Untied States.0 -
Just a thought. Blind somone and he will testify against you in court. Kill him with one shot and you still go to court but the guy does not testify against you. Shoot anyone under any circumstance and you will need a lawyer. That is a sure bet. 0 -
YOU miss the point.
The point is that .22 ratshot is of highly limited utility as a defensive round, and that if you ever were to actually blind an attacker by using it (even if justified) you'd likely get yourself into a heap of legal trouble, both civil AND possibly criminal.
quote:1. I naver suggested that shot would kill anything, not a rat not a man.
Again, so your ratshot gives you all the legal liability of using deadly force, without any of the benefit. If you want to blind someone instead of killing them, what's wrong with pepper spray? It has a longer effective range, its non-permanent, its well recognized as a legitimate defensive tool, and its use that way is not likely to be associated with civil or criminal liability.
quote: 2. I only suggest that if you shoot some one in the face at about 6 feet it is almost certain to cause blindness. A blind person is not much of a threat.
Says who? A angered blind person could quite easily stab you to death or cause other serious injury, particularly if he's close enough to have posed a threat to you BEFORE blinding him.
Also, while I agree that shooting someone in the eyes with ratshot probably would blind them, I wouldn't necessarily assume that this blindless would be instant and total. (IE even with superficial eye wounds, they still might be able to see you well enough for a few seconds for you to wish they hadn't, particularly if they are hopped up on drugs).
In the last post, I listed at least two plausible scenarios where your point blank rat-shot to the face probably WON'T cause blindness.
Let me give another. Lets say your attacker is standing with his head slightly turned away from you, so that only one eye is exposed. Or maybe one of his eyes is covered by the bill of his baseball cap, or partially obscured by a hood. Now what?
quote:
3. At this point you could put the bad guy out of his misery with a follow up solid bullet.
I suppose you could, if you didn't mind committing second degree murder in the process. After blinding a man then shooting him dead while lying on the floor, I wouldn't count on jury sympathy. In fact, quite the opposite is likely.
This of course assumes that you actually COULD kill an adult male with your probably now-jammed .22 auto. . .something that isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion. Most people shot by handguns survive the experience. . .and that goes for ones bigger than 22s.
quote:
4. Of course your range is short. If that is your concern use a rifle and scope.
Answering this non-sequitur, I think the gaps between .22 rat shot pellets at even only 15 feet would be large enough that you couldn't take for granted that you'd necessarily blind someone with a hit.
Seven yards is considered the standard engagement distance, within which you won't have time to draw your gun and respond to a charge by an armed attacker. In other words, at the distance where you most probably COULD stop an armed attacker with a handgun, you probably wouldn't be able to with ratshot.
quote:
5. Of course if a big bad man gets within 2 feet you have a major problem. However this is also true if you have a 44 mag.
So in that situation which would you rather have? A .44 magnum or a .22 ratshot?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Bamavol
perry, I really did not want to get into the legal issues. I am not a criminal attorney. However how would I know the bad guy was really blind. If in fear for my life I can protect myself. Anyway no matter what the gun, if you shoot some one you may need legal help.
My problem is with an attitude floating around that goes like this: I carry a big gun and hope I have a chance to shoot some one and make a clean one shot kill.
This is in contrast with the attitude that: I want to protect myself.
There is a difference.
I have stated this in crude terms to spur discussion and cause some to evaluate their position.
PS: FYI, you get about 130 pellet hits on an 8 1/2 x 11 page.
Bamavol,
One can only hope not to get into a situation to have to defend themselves with lethal force. However, if one is forced into it, one could only hope that his force totally dispatched the criminal he used it against. If the thug is still alive, no matter what, you can bet his attorney's will be trolling to make you look like the villain. This could lead to criminal and civil suits of which either, you have no control.
Speaking of troll, I would suggest, that if you are going to start a debatable discussion like this one, that you do so on the General Discussion boards, and don't troll up the Expert's forum, which is meant for educational purposes.
Best0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments