Today we had a very interesting conversation in class on
Herman’s article. I found many of the points made during the conversation
valid. I found it interesting that most of the class had shot guns before. I
felt left out as I was one of the only people who didn’t raise my hand. My mom
and I have been talking about going to a gun range, and it’s something I’ve
been interested in learning for a while now. The whole conversation gave me
some great things to think about with my paper. The part that I found most intriguing,
was when the class was discussing burglary. I don’t think you should just shoot
someone to kill them. I think you should have a reason. However, I feel if someone
broke into my home I would want to shoot them or at least scare them with the
sight of a gun. With that being said, I don’t think I would shoot to kill
unless I felt my life was threatened, even though to some degree I would feel
threatened anyways by the fact that the burglar felt they had the right to
break into my home. In other words, I might shoot the burglar in the arm or leg
if things got bad, but unless they were coming after me and I felt like there
was no other way for me to survive, I wouldn’t shoot to kill. No material possession
is worth your life or another, but the emotional distress and or physical assault
that could occur are worth having a gun and feeling like you can protect yourself
if the need should arise.
This reminds me of a situation that happened a few years
ago. I remember hearing about someone who broke into another person’s home and
ended up getting shot in the process after shooting the homeowner. In the end,
the burglar was trying to sue the homeowner who he shot at first.
The law says you have the right to defend yourself, but that
you can’t use excessive force (just my own summary). The man was shot in the
face by the burglar before he fired. What do you think about this situation?
Was the homeowner wrong for defending himself and his home?
Here's a link for the article about the case:
I feel that in situations like a home invasion, sometimes the easiest shot is simply the one in the chest (biggest target area). While it is nice to think you could hit the leg, you may only have one shot to ensure your safety and that of the family, do you want to take the chance that you may miss?
ReplyDeleteI feel that in situations like a home invasion, sometimes the easiest shot is simply the one in the chest (biggest target area). While it is nice to think you could hit the leg, you may only have one shot to ensure your safety and that of the family, do you want to take the chance that you may miss?
ReplyDeleteWhen the blood is pumping, and your adrenaline kicks in, you will not be very accurate with the weapon. Unless you train at that level of stresss often, the chances of hitting the intruder in a non-lethal manner on purpose is slim to none. That is why training dictates to fire at the largest area which is the chest cavity.
ReplyDeleteAustin has a point.