Robbery Victims Shooting Attackers Called ‘Alarming Trend’

[philip964]

When you shoot a robber inside your house, you create a situation where either: the robber dies, so the state has the expense of burying the "victim", lots of paperwork for them, including investigations, grand juries; but mainly a human being is denied the opportunity to be rehabilitated and support the state. Or you wound the "victim" and the state through the new universal health insurance program will have to spend millions on lifesaving medical treatment and then physical therapy so that he can again regain his use of limbs etc, so that he can be rehabilitated and then support the state.

In either case by the use of a fire arm you have cost the state a tremendous amount of money. Obviously this is something they wish to limit, and so will attempt to make illegal, by banning firearms and making it illegal to injure a robber. This is the case now in England, welcome to your future under universal health care.

In other words, if a robber kicks in my door and my first round is put into his chest, since the robber could possibly survive this single GSW with proper care, I have saved the state millions by continuing to fire into the BG's chest until (1) my gun is empty or (2) the BG is completely incapacitated due to exsanguination, thereby rendering him most likely deceased before care can be given.

Works for me.

No, what he's saying is that you should let the BG kill you and your loved ones so he has the opportunity to be rehabilitated and to become a productive member of society.

Yes exactly. This is what the government will want once universal health care is fully implemented and all the guns are banned and confiscated. You have assets that can be sold to bury you and your family, plus with a large death tax, they should make out rather well.