Shooting In Self-Defense Is Illegal Because It Denies Violent Criminals A Fair Trial

a reply to: xuenchen

So what? It's still an opinion which carries no weight, and what was accomplished posting someone ELSE'S opinion on it then commenting on that? Why not just post the original opinion on HuffPo?

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
a reply to: xuenchen

why do you need to kill someone to defend yourself anyway. If you have a gun i assume you practice shooting tin cans etc.

i would assume neutralising the criminal is a much easier and better option- 1 shot to each leg, or shoulder or

when defending yourself you should use " sufficient amount of force to defend yourself" killing is probably not under the sufficient amount of force.

The human body is a complex system of tissues; a bullet will behave in unpredictable ways as it plows through muscle and ricochets off of bone. The bullet is deformed by this action, further randomizing it's trajectory through the body.

We use paper targets to get a CLEAR image of the bullet's path.

The correct verbiage on the witness stand is as follows: "I didn't MEAN to kill him, your honor! I was aiming at his leg! But I was scared; I just wanted to make him ... go away. I was just trying to make him stop."


Any gun smaller than a .357 will almost always take more than one shot to drop an adult male attacker. Perhaps if you only fire once, it can serve as evidence that you were only trying to 'stop' your assailant, so that he could collect disability checks for years to come. And so he could sue you for shattering his hopes and dreams---of home invasion.

It is almost impossible to prove intent. Did he intend to rape you, once he was finished robbing you? Or just kill you so there'd be no witnesses?

How do you know I meant to kill him? I was shooting for his hand; he must've ducked.