Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns I don't care about 50 yd accuracy!

Despite the bravado expressed here often, I fully expect that anyone without close quarter "active" military battlefield experience can say what they will do in such circumstances.

I expect most would crap their pants.

One would have to have a huge tactical advantage in their position to negate the tactical advantage of rifle over pistol.

Don't assume that under the nature of that incident, you would do anything other that $hit yourself.

Shoot them in the face or the crotch. Both if you can.

So you can't answer the question. Apparently your answer is to DIE.

You thinking the broad with a nursing 6 month old had EXTREME MILITARY training? She was likely a Ninja in her home country, is that what I'm getting?

How about the husband, tell me about his EXTREME MILITARY training.


PS: Hopefully if you're out with the family and something happens their will be a man around to protect your wife.

They had the element of surprise and superior fire power. No EXTREME MILITARY traing needed for a mad-man mission.

Got it, you'll just wait to die.

In Minnesota we have the four pillars governing the use of Deadly Force.
Section 609.065 Justifiable Taking of a Life.

Reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm.

Reluctant Participant

No reasonable means of retreat.

No lesser force will do.

Other states have other laws but this is the way it is in Minnesota.

What are the four pillars that killers need to adhere to?

Sorry, no. Did you just make that stuff up?

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

MN Statute 609.065

You analyzed your way into losing without a valid reason. The San Bernadino killers were relying on victims to be unarmed and feeling intimidated by their tacticool rifles. They went to a center for developmentally disabled people, not a police station, gun store or inner city gas station.

Wrong again

No. You don't. Read farther up the thread. Maybe you will catch the context....but again, maybe not.

They could have went into a shopping mall--dispatched a dozen people with that weaponry in less than 30 seconds.

The end result would more than likely be the same.

Oops, damned facts hump up bullschit every time.

That statute SPECIFICALLY authorizes deadly force to prevent an offense in which the "shooter/actor" believes exposes another person to great bodily harm or death.

I.e., engaging a damned terrorist if possible.

You would not stand a chance, because you have a negative attitude. I on the other hand "expect" to come out on top and will do so by never giving up.

Sounds like GeorgiaGal lets her uterus handle all the critical thinking.




Travis

Amen.

The element of surprise gives them a good chance of “dispatching” people wherever they choose to hit, but they tend to pick places where people are more likely to go into panic mode than to fight back and they thereby up their odds from the start. These psychos and terrorists (whether Columbine, Planned Parenthood or San Bernadino) don’t take prisoners, so surrendering is the same as suicide. Playing Dodge Ball in a conference room with incoming rifle bullets is a more risky, less effective proposition than turning it into a two way street with pistol fire.

Critical thinking is foreign to you.