Originally Posted By: Rodion
I would be more concerned with whether shooting the pedophiles in question is the correct course of action. You are either putting the child in mortal danger - if , as mentioned above, the kidnapper is close - or dispensing vigilante justice if the kidnapper is a safe distance away from the victim.

I'm having difficulty imagining a realistic scenario in which bringing guns into the equation actually helps the child. It seems more likely to me that the OP's endgame here is to murder a pedophile and get away with it.


First off, in the hands of an abductor the child is already in mortal danger.

I must be the only one here with a little imagination. lol

Let's say the bad guy grabs your daughter in an attack similar to the Dugard case. You are able to close on the car as the bad guy is climbing in and or starting to drive off. There are a number of angles from which shooting the driver without putting a passenger in more danger would be very possible. You might also be able to disable the car as they are attempting to flee.

Everyone is getting caught up with being too close to use a weapon or too far away to use a weapon. A LOT of CQB training courses include shooting at contact distance.

I would comment on the last sentence in your post but I'm having trouble keeping my response civil.
_________________________
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother." -Theodore Roosevelt