If you have a gun of course. What I mean is would you just try to get them on the ground or would you try to automatically kill them.
2006-06-26 15:14:56 · 20 answers · asked by Samantha 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
sorry hunni, if it was a dude, i would probably go for the privates....lol
2006-06-26 16:30:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
Legally you are required to use the minimum reasonable force. In other words if he is leaving on his own you have to let him go. If a shot in the leg will do it, that's what your supposed to do.
But given that the chest is a lot easier to hit I would suggest aiming dead center just below the shoulders. Just don't shoot them in the back. It is virtually unheard of for anyone to by tried for shooting an intruder in their home. What jury would convict?
Personly, I would never use a gun so it is a mute question.
2006-06-27 13:11:28 · answer #2 · answered by noitall 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on circumstances. Example: If it were SOMEWHAT dark, where I could see the intruder's form, but COULD NOT see if he had a weapon, then I'd probably assume he had one with intent to kill me. I'd bring him down and have NO moral questions about it.
If I COULD SEE the intruder and he had a gun or knife, I would definitely shoot. If I brought him down, oh well: one less thug to take up jail/prison tax dollars housing him. If I shot and stopped him, then he needs to be grateful to God, for God will forgive him....but I'll never ever.
2006-06-26 15:23:25 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Wizard 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't kill anyone for simply trying to steal from me. Obviously they need it more than I do, but I'm surely not going to just sit around. If the actions of wounding someone happens to be necessary, then I'll immediately gather my family and call the ambulance for such person. When people steal, they need it more than you do, and by me studying adolscent psychology, there's not telling what these people have been through.
2006-06-26 15:20:35 · answer #4 · answered by beautifuldimples 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Head shots are always best. If they are in your house and you didn't invite them, their intentions are definitely not good for you. The problem with leg shots now days is, when they live they can sue you, for shooting them when they were robbing, killing or raping you. There is something terribly wrong with this.
2006-06-27 03:17:31 · answer #5 · answered by jaded 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I did not have a gun I'd get a baseball bat and try to knock the cowboy sh#t out of whoever it is.
2006-06-26 15:20:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Save the taxpayers $1000's of dollars and give them the eternal celestial dirtnap:)
2006-06-26 15:19:35 · answer #7 · answered by jen N 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two in the brain. Bap, bap. End of story. They don't shoot back that way.
Hypothetically speaking, if I had a gun, of course...
2006-06-26 17:30:09 · answer #8 · answered by go away 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Heart... If you wound them they'll turn around and sue you for protecting yourself...
Besides you aim for the largest body mass as its easiest to hit.. That would be the chest...
Make sure you identify your target first.
2006-06-26 15:18:17 · answer #9 · answered by DT89ACE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Got to kill them you may never feel safe again. Killing isn't always the anwser but if you have a family you would never feel safe again.
2006-06-26 15:19:26 · answer #10 · answered by **N/A** 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the sad thing about having a gun is that in more than 90% of the cases it is used against the resident of the house.
but if you have to shoot shoot his balls.
2006-06-26 15:21:03 · answer #11 · answered by jb1220jb 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋