Well said yourself. I'll pray that God protects you from ever finding out!Sangiovese wrote:I do not have any desire to take a life. However, in a similar circumstance, I will not gamble my life that the attacker will voluntarily stop his attack after being wounded in the leg. I will shoot as I have been trained... the highest probability of one or more hits that will cause sufficient damage to stop the attacker's assault.
As for the psychological aftermath. I don't know how I will react. Intellectually, I believe that I will be fine knowing that I did what was necessary to defend innocent life and that any consequences for the attacker are the result of his own decisions. But it's not always all about intellect. If I am ever forced to defend myself with deadly force, I may very well lose sleep over it, need counseling, and have permanent psychological effects. I have given this serious thought and am willing to risk that in order to defend myself. I spent a lot of time making that decision before I started carrying a weapon. I won't delude myself into thinking that I will sleep like a baby after taking a life in self defense. But if that moment comes, I will do what I must and deal with the aftermath, whatever it is.
Point taken.texas1234 wrote:"Most victims of a handgun live", is not entirely correct, dont underestimate your handgun. Virginia Tech and Luby's are examples of living through a handgun round not happening. Yes if you were to compare a perfectly placed rifle shot at 3000fps vs. to an imperfectly placed handgun shot at 950fps your correct, but both are extremely deadly. I think sometimes handgunners compare their ability to a rifle to the point of mentally losing the effectiveness and deadly attributes of their sidearm. Handguns are deadly and dont forget that, not that you did, but often times I read people making light of the effectiveness of a handgun. For example I shoot a 45+p its muzzle velocity is 1140fps with a 185 grain bullet. That is going to have an affect on someone in an adverse way.
I should have further explained my "stat". I read it a few years back (sorry, no source). . . but it's a little misleading. It stated that "the majority (over 50% - not necessarily great odds) of victims of handgun wounds recover from their injuries". The stat definitely counted extremity wounds and probably even people who were grazed, nicked, or hit by shrapnel. Each successive handgun wound would significantly drop the victim's survival rate. Also, many of these victims receive nearly immediate medical care for their wounds.
Guns - even .22's - are extremely deadly. May I never imply otherwise.
