Gentlemen, I have read through this thread and found it quite informative and entertaining, and thought provoking.
What is disturbing me, is the premise that while we all carry for self defense, many of the respondents are advocating multiple hits and head shots. Only the respondent immediately before me made a case for head shots, due to the rise of terrorists with full auto and body armor.
Yes, shot placement is critical in stopping an armed threat. But (hopefully) we all acknowledge the likelihood that we face the prospect of prosecution for exercising our right to self defense where we must justify our use of lethal force. Would not a high round count weaken a contention of self defense! I would think that a (grand) jury could accept a few well placed rounds as self defense, and an excessive number of rounds eroding the plea of self defense and pushing the envelope towards murder.
I also understand the logic behind firing until the threat is neutralized. I would also believe that if an assailant "absorbed" 2-3 well placed center of mass shots that a head shot would be justified on the presumption that the assailant is wearing body armor. Is there not a concern amongst the forum members that emptying a high capacity magazine in order to stop AN assailant would weaken any contention of self defense?
I acknowledge that those of us that carry, carry what we are most comfortable with and the most proficient with. While one particular round and arm may possess the best threat neutralizing characteristics, that is not necessarily the best self defense choice for many of us. Sadly, I think that with the climate change, that we have to anticipate a higher degree of accountability when we fire defensively, and we need to anticipate an increase in the number of assailants that we may be engaging in an ever changing self defense scenario!
it still takes some maneuvering to win that fight.
