Sometimes 10 rounds isn't enough.

[GrieferKiller]

I have to agree with Sepia.

I don't personally believe that you should be shooting anything if you don't reasonably believe that you will hit the target. On the whole, a single shot or a "Hey, jerk, I have a gun!" would be enough to stop a robber. People typically do not want to die, and that lizard part of your brain takes over. In this instance, if there was another intruder, I think his buddy would have gotten the hell out of there after hearing his friend screaming in agony after being shot.

Spraying 15 or 30 bullets into a neighborhood is reckless and stupid. People die from ricochets, or get shot by them, frequently enough. The home defender would become a defendant in a murder trial. Last I checked, collateral damage is not an acceptable argument in court.

If you're going to keep a loaded gun with the intention of using it in self defense, you should become proficient in firing it, obviously. But, when confronted with a life or death situation, the adrenaline flows, and your fine motor control is reduced. A larger magazine increases your odds of placing enough shots in vital areas to stop an attacker, or multiple attackers. Nobody is advocating firing away blindly and recklessly. Yes, sometimes the mere sight of a gun is enough to end a confrontation, but you can't count on that, and you need to be prepared to pull the trigger if you must. And you should keep pulling that trigger until you know the threat is eliminated. You don't shoot once and assume the guy's done for the day.

[Sepia and Dust]

The woman did all she could to get away from the intruder first, retreating all the way into a crawl space. He followed one of her kids upstairs, with a crowbar in his hands. And then she did what she had to do. The primary concern of any mother in her place is to protect her children, and herself. She's not morally or legally obligated to spare the piece of trash that broke into her house.

I don't think any of that has been questioned.

I would have drilled him the second he crossed the threshold.Y
You don't know that one shot would have permanently demotivated him, and you'd be stupid to put the lives of your family at risk, hoping for a change of heart from some creep that broke into your house. There have been reported cases where guys have been riddled with 9mm rounds, and kept fighting. If I'm going to go to the trouble and expense of purchasing an expensive weapon, and training to use it, and cleaning it, and making sure it's 100% functional at all times, I want it to be packed with all the bullets it can hold. I don't want to fail to stop an intruder because I didn't have enough rounds.

She wasn't particularly well-trained with that gun. It was her husband's gun, and I doubt that she'd ever even picked it up before.

Especially if it's a smaller caliber like 9mm. I'm not knocking 9mm. It's the most popular pistol cartridge in the world, because it's relatively cheaper. Large enough to be effective, but small enough to pack a lot of rounds into a magazine without making the grip of the pistol too large for small and medium hands to grasp. It recoils softer than larger calibers like the .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 10mm, which makes it easier to place follow up shots accurately and quickly. But, it's been found to sometimes fail to penetrate deeply enough when using hollow points (according to FBI research on ballistic gelatin), because they expand too quickly, and the lower mass of the bullet doesn't have enough intertia to get in deep enough to drill through vital organs and major blood vessels.

Gun-nut porn. What, you couldn't find a way to include muzzle velocity?

The only way to instantly incapacitate an attacker with a handgun, is to hit the central nervous system. A head shot is a much smaller target than the torso, and the spinal cord is about the width of a pencil. These are challenging targets at 10 feet or farther, even when you're shooting at paper or steel targets that don't move or shoot back. Which is why most shooters train to aim for center mass. The most reliable mechanism by which a handgun bullet incapacitates an assailant shot in the torso (or extremeties), is rapid blood loss. The loss of roughly 20% of a person's total blood volume causes loss of consciousness. There are other effects that are somewhat controversial, like hydrostatic shock, and the psychological power of being shot, etc. But, if you drill enough holes in an attacker, you can rely on him bleeding out rapidly, even if you don't hit his heart or a lung and take the wind out of him.

Truly spoken like someone who's never been shot. Five shots was sufficient force to stop the attack and protect her family. Since the invader doesn't seem to have been either a dusthead or a psychotic, one shot would have taken the fight out of him.

[GrieferKiller]

But they have the money to buy firearms and the bullets. Priorities, priorities.

An unskilled marksman with a gun in hand is an irresponsible idiot, no matter how well-intentioned they are. This is why I'm in favor of mandatory gun marksmanship and safety training classes. No certificate of completion; no license for said gun. No license and you're considered a felon. Jail. Fines. Revocation of all other gun licenses for mandatory two years or more. End of discussion.

You should practice enough to be proficient at the very minimum. And most people that keep guns for self defense, also enjoy target shooting. But, even if you're a pistol shooting champion, having 16 rounds in your Glock 19, gives you better odds against an attacker (or attackers), than a six shot .38 revolver. Though the revolver might make a more concealable carry weapon.

[exzel]

GNTLGNT might know this better than me, but do they even sell many single action revolvers any more (where you have to cock the hammer in order for it to shoot)? Just about every revolver I see sold is a double action revolver… where you just pull the trigger and it goes bang, shot after shot, until the bullets are all gone. Therefore the idea of restricting or banning “semi-auto handguns” makes no sense, other than for some feel-good sense of accomplishment by the anti-gun crowd.

[GrieferKiller]

I don't think any of that has been questioned..

The person I replied to was questioning exactly that.

She wasn't particularly well-trained with that gun. It was her husband's gun, and I doubt that she'd ever even picked it up before.

In the recorded call during the incident, he said "like I showed you" to his wife. So, apparently he gave her at least one shooting lesson.

Gun-nut porn. What, you couldn't find a way to include muzzle velocity?

Choosing a gun for self defense and preparing to use it effectively involves a lot of research, and some ghoulish contemplations. Sadly, as long as human beings are capable and willing to do harm unto others, we will need to prepare to defend ourselves. This starts with some non sugar coated sober contemplations.

Truly spoken like someone who's never been shot. Five shots was sufficient force to stop the attack and protect her family. Since the invader doesn't seem to have been either a dusthead or a psychotic, one shot would have taken the fight out of him.

Five .38 caliber rounds to the neck and face did not put the intruder down. He was able to flee the home and drive off! He could have retaliated in a fit of rage and beat her to death with the crowbar instead. There's a video called "Deadly Effects" that is part of the curriculum for Administration of Justice majors at my local community college. I borrowed it when I was deciding on my first handgun. Part of the video describes a criminal that was shot over thirty times with 9mm rounds by police officers, and we was still shooting back! Two 12 gauge slugs to his spine finally stopped him.

The 10mm cartridge was developed for the FBI, because of an infamous shooting that took the lives of two FBI agents. They were armed with 9mm handguns, and placed their shots accurately into the center mass of a criminal, but they didn't penetrate enough to fatally wound him. He was able to continue shooting back, and killed the two FBI agents. This prompted the FBI to develop a more powerful handgun round, which the 10mm certainly is. But, it recoils even worse than the .45 ACP, and the longer cartridge requires a larger grip. The FBI wanted to issue the same gun to both it's male and female agents, so they developed the .40 S&W, which is the same caliber as the 10mm, but has a shorter casing with a lighter charge, and doesn't require a larger frame or grip to accomodate it. The recoil is more manageable.

[hossenpepper]

some feel-good sense of accomplishment by the anti-gun crowd.

Oh yes, more wise statements.

Because after all, your opinion that you like guns is much more important than someone's who doesn't. After all they are so silly, aren't they? It's obviated by having an opinion contrary to yours, isn't it? Like a bunch of schoolgirls jumping up and down shouting "squeeeeeeee".

[Sepia and Dust]

The woman did all she could to get away from the intruder first, retreating all the way into a crawl space. He followed one of her kids upstairs, with a crowbar in his hands.

That statement is at odds with what the article you linked to says. He rang the bell, the woman and her kids hid. The guy broke in with a crowbar and started rummaging. When he opened the door to the crawlspace, she shot him.

In the recorded call during the incident, he said "like I showed you" to his wife. So, apparently he gave her at least one shooting lesson.

Ah, that's true. Glad she had some training, at least.

Five .38 caliber rounds to the neck and face did not put the intruder down.

Yeah, they did put him down. He begged her to stop shooting, and she ordered him to lie on the floor. He obeyed until the woman and her kids were gone.

He was able to flee the home and drive off! He could have retaliated in a fit of rage and beat her to death with the crowbar instead.

No, he couldn't have. He wanted to escape, not fight.

[GrieferKiller]

No, he couldn't have. He wanted to escape, not fight.

He broke into her house. You can't know what he might have done other than flee. The point is that he was still capable of fleeing the house and driving off, not what his intent was at that point. She emptied her revolver at him, hitting him with five out of six shots, and he was not neutralized. Ten rounds in some cases might not be enough. Fifteen might not even be enough. But, the more rounds you have, the better your chances are that you can eliminate the threat, whether that means rendering the assailant unconscious, or dead. Personally, I prefer dead. There's no way they're coming back for payback if they get off on a technicality, or try to sue me in civil court for defending myself or something. Though most Castle Doctrine laws in most states prevent such civil law suits.

[GNTLGNT]

but do they even sell many single action revolvers any more

...not as many since "the West was won"...but single actions are stil popular with collectors and shooters, athough a niche market...and one sport in particular I can think of...that being Cowboy Action Shooting...

[Sepia and Dust]

He broke into her house. You can't know what he might have done other than flee. The point is that he was still capable of fleeing the house and driving off, not what his intent was at that point. She emptied her revolver at him, hitting him with five out of six shots, and he was not neutralized. Ten rounds in some cases might not be enough. Fifteen might not even be enough. But, the more rounds you have, the better your chances are that you can eliminate the threat, whether that means rendering the assailant unconscious, or dead. Personally, I prefer dead. There's no way they're coming back for payback if they get off on a technicality, or try to sue me in civil court for defending myself or something. Though most Castle Doctrine laws in most states prevent such civil law suits.

I think that lying on the floor, unarmed and bleeding and begging her to stop shooting, counts as incapacitated.