Posted on 05/21/2010 3:39:37 PM PDT by bjorn14
I was having breakfast on the terrace with my wife the other day and out of the blue she says to me "I think I want a handgun but I don't want it to be able to kill someone"
My first thought was "What's the point?"
Well alot of back and forth discussion, so any suggestions/comments/advice?
“but will scare and demand attention...”
I think that’s what she was looking for but as I told her some people may not be scared and if you do shoot them then they’ll be just get mad. I also said you have to able to back up your threats.
*********************
That's not my understanding.
Reading material on the right of self defense, ethics, and morals contributing to a philosophical position on self defense.
When she is confident of her decision on how she can act, then she can decide on more serious equipment and traning, or not.
What did the “back and forth discussion” reveal with the wife?
Was she hinting at things being rocky in your marriage? (Get a self defense gun quietly yourself, and try to get her to marriage counseling with someone you both respect such as your rabbi, priest or minister.)
Did she want to be able to stop an assailant without killing him? (Taser is closest thing but won’t work unless its darts can get to the subject’s skin. Also works poorly on dogs.)
Did she want to do target practice while getting used to the idea of something more powerful? (An air rifle, though she could still put someone’s eye out LOL.)
Was she afraid of killing bystanders in a confrontation in close quarters? (There is safety ammo which will not pass through walls.)
Any specific dangerous situations developing at her work place? (She may be SOL unless she doesn’t care about being legal.)
IMHO, it's better than nothing. If you go this route, as with any weapon, training is essential. Training cartridges are avaiable from Kimber. FYI, I carry the standard Pepper Blaster as a non-leathal option even when I CCW.
A firearm is preferred, but you must have the will to use it. Perhaps you could take her to a range and let het try out a few handguns and get comfortable with shooting them. A .22 LR revolver would be a great starting point, if the range had one available.
you need to educate the missus about crime.
>>I know nothing about firearms. But what is the empirical basis for your claim? I thought law enforcement officers, in particular, were trained to shoot to disable, rather than kill, their targets. Presumably the risk of killing is always present, and this risk should not inhibit expeditious use of the firearm when warranted. But all other things being equal, is a dead assailant truly better than an effectively disabled one? Not trying to be combative: I seriously want to understand how one would arrive at this conclusion.<<
Knowledge of firearms and POST training guides. I don’t know where you get YOUR info, but Law Enforcement are taught to acquire and destroy their target. The head and chest are the largest areas of the human body and that is where to aim with the highest chance of destruction.
>>All of which is to say, IF one can be effectively trained to reliably disable a threat, I can understand the woman’s preferring a weapon that accomplishes that task over a weapon that dispenses with this possibility entirely in favor of tipping the odds of an encounter becoming lethal.<<
Only on TV. When you decide to use a weapon, it is for keeps. Attempting to “wing” someone just narrows the target options and probably results in a death all right — YOURS.
>>As a possibly less emotionally charged example, some people may well prefer a “catch and release” approach to dealing with a beaver that is creating havoc in a residential neighborhood over the alternative of killing the critter etc. So long as the trapped beaver can be released into an area sufficiently wild and remote to preclude its return to the neighborhood in question, it’s not obvious why killing it is the preferred approach.<<
Repeating your argument doesn’t give it credence. A weapon is designed to kill what it is pointed at. If you want non-lethal interdiction, get a taser.
When you pull a gun, it’s for one reason. You pull it to kill the threat. You then aim to kill and pull the trigger.
Any other reason allows the threat to get a round off at you, or weather the shot to disarm you, beat the snot out of you, or use your own gun on you, resulting in serious injury or death. They may also harm any of your loved ones nearby
Get a gun that will do what’s called for, or go with a tazer.
Was just looking at the Judge on YouTube. Didn’t seem accurate at all, what kind of range are you getting?
|
P.S. Don’t get a gun unless she will train and use it.
Otherwise you/she will wind uparming the threat.
LOLOLOL!
cops shoot to stop. theyre not ingrained with the intent to kill...just to stop the threat.
RE: “Don’t bother. IMO, if she’s not willing to save her own life by killing the predator, she shouldn’t have a gun. He’ll only wrest it out of her hands and use it to kill her.”
**************
Exactly! We got a handgun after the ‘08 election and because the neighborhood is, ahem, changing. Lots more crime around here than in the past.
Instructor at local gun range said don’t shoot to injure, shoot to kill!!! Anything else is foolhardy. I totally agree with him.
Let's just all chip in and buy the gal a LeMat. Hey, how about let's all chip in and buy me a LeMat? 
BANG :)
Yikes! Your husband?
This gun was used by police as standard issue until the 70’s...It will kill, but not like the 357/38...Yet, it will be very easy to carry and use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.