Self defense and pregnant burglar killed- two victims?

[EVT1]

Richard might like to know he was armed with a .22 mouse gun    Stopped a big mouse this time.

[Deleted]

He got lucky. I recall saying that one could get lucky with a "mouse gun".

[Sum Dum Gai]

Care to explain how he got lucky?  He shot somebody in their torso and they died.  Sounds like the gun did exactly what it was supposed to do.  Was her skin and muscle tissue extra soft or something, and the bullet would have bounced off a normal person?

[EVT1]

Luck has nothing to do with it- a mouse gun trumps a fist every time.

There is evidence that a .22 is a pretty good self defense choice:

www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/foghorn/ask-foghorn-22l-for-self-defense/

Just saying.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 18:39:26 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Care to explain how he got lucky?  He shot somebody in their torso and they died.  Sounds like the gun did exactly what it was supposed to do.  Was her skin and muscle tissue extra soft or something, and the bullet would have bounced off a normal person?

It's actually a reference to another discussion... about the amount damage a small caliber weapon can inflict.

It wasn't that he got lucky FOR HIM. It was that he got lucky in reference to the other discussion, and the fact that a .22 is USUALLY non-lethal.

[Sum Dum Gai]

It wasn't that he got lucky FOR HIM. It was that he got lucky in reference to the other discussion, and the fact that a .22 is USUALLY non-lethal.

Did you read the link that was posted earlier.  The only weapon that was more lethal over 1800 gun fights that resulted in a fatality was a shotgun.  The lowly .22 was deadlier than any round that starts with a .4.

[Deleted]

Jul 25, 2014 19:40:19 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

It wasn't that he got lucky FOR HIM. It was that he got lucky in reference to the other discussion, and the fact that a .22 is USUALLY non-lethal.

Did you read the link that was posted earlier.  The only weapon that was more lethal over 1800 gun fights that resulted in a fatality was a shotgun.  The lowly .22 was deadlier than any round that starts with a .4.

Nope. didn't read it. Not that it would have mattered. If significantly more of them are used, there will be more fatalities from them.

I never said higher calibers were ALWAYS fatal... just that they have more likelihood of being fatal.

[Shooby]

Well they did beat him and break his collarbone. But shooting in the back 2x is disturbing too. But I believe under their law that you can pursue a burglar , etc.
So it is unfortunate but they CHOOSE to put themselves in that situation.

[chiver78]

I'm not totally sure that's the case in CA, shooby. someone posted earlier today about it being FL and "stand your ground" and all, but since it's not FL, they deleted the post. I'm not really sure what the law is in CA for stuff like this.

any CA folks care to chime in?

[Sum Dum Gai]

Nope. didn't read it. Not that it would have mattered. If significantly more of them are used, there will be more fatalities from them.

I never said higher calibers were ALWAYS fatal... just that they have more likelihood of being fatal.

Again, read the link.  It wasn't just total number of fatalities.  It broke the stats out, so there was one for just shootings where one person or the other was hit by a round, and broke down the percentage of cases where somebody hit by a round actually died.  The .22 and the shotgun were the most likely to put somebody in the ground in cases where they were hit, while the .4x rounds were more likely to have the person hit survive.

It's counter intuitive, but the data looked legit.

[EVT1]

The .22 does a lot of damage because it bounces around. The caveat is death versus instant death.  Read many times that if you are going to get shot, some people would rather take a hit from a 9mm than a .22

My fault- I carry a 'mouse gun' and I take issue when people call it that.