Has anyone done any research on the average shots fired in a home self-defense situation? That should help towards settling this.
The only thing close to this I’ve seen, are the articles in the beginning of each ‘American Rifleman’ magazine on citizens defending themselves. None of them involve more than a few shots being fired by the defenders.
“Has anyone done any research on the average shots fired in a home self-defense situation? That should help towards settling this.”
It’s basically keep firing until the subject is down. Also be prepared to kill your assailant, center mass. No trick shots to the leg or so called warning shots. Those will get you killed.
The highly-trained, super cops average about a dozen per take down, while our military uses about 500,000 per kill. But for you, 2 is more than enough, because after that you deserve to die for having the audacity to arm yourself.
If the gold standard of evaluation is to “save one life”, then we must allow for unlimited self-defense shots.
Research?
Most fools understand the majority of home invasions are conducted with multiple armed suspects. Homes are easy targets as they generally have no cameras, security guards, etc. Someone knocks on the door and the stupid homeowner opens the door and gets a gun jammed into his face. 3 more enter the home and while beating you about the head, they're raping your wife for for kicks...When done they take ya to your bank and ya empty it for them...later you and your spouse are found dead in your bedroom...
We need more research!
“Has anyone done any research...”
Why research the lib-tard Democrat argument for them? You, of course, may feel free to, but no thinking person would care what number you came up with.
The question, itself, is a falacy. Like asking “How many newspapers is a free press?” Go ahead and “research” it.
The question is valid but this argument is specious from the very git-go—the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with protection from criminals; it's about overthrowing tyranny and facing whatever firepower the government's troops possess!!!
We mustn't let the Left frame the debate!
The question is valid but this whole argument is specious from the very git-go—the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with protection from criminals; it's about overthrowing tyranny and facing whatever firepower the government's troops possess!!!
We mustn't let the Left frame the debate!