More evidence why you need as many rounds as you can get – Bowling Green edition

This is video from a home invasion in Bowling Green, Kentucky, that happened just a few nights ago.

That is four home invaders, at least one carrying a gun.

These invaders ran once the homeowner opened fire on them.  That is good for the homeowner, but consider that there was still four of them.

More and more these low cost home security cameras show that these home invasions are not carried out by lone individuals but by teams of three or four (or more) bad guys.

If your door is ever kicked in at the small hours of the morning, it’s as likely a not that that multiple criminals will be coming through it.

You should be prepared to have to defend yourself and your family from multiple attackers.

Having politicians dictate how many rounds your gun can hold in a situation like that only hobbles the law abiding homeowner and puts his or her life if further, and unnecessary, danger.

Also, for those in the Bowling Green area, these invaders have not been caught, so be wary and prepared.

8 Replies to “More evidence why you need as many rounds as you can get – Bowling Green edition”

    1. I’m a big fan of light and fast for AR-15s in close range. Especially with shorter barrels. Less chance of over penetration.

      There are many budget friendly 55 grain soft points on the market. Remington has some in the High Performance Rifle line. Winchester has the Super-X.

      I shoot the Remington out of an 11.5 inch pistol and a few 16 inch rifles. It groups about 2 inches at 100 yards using a 4x optic. I’m am sure that it would be better with a more powerful scope (i’m just using a variable power tactical scope with a huge reticle).

      Here is how the WInchester performs.

      It is more than adequate for close in distance.

      1. Thanks. I found some Winchester Ranger 55grn softpoint a while back and have been looking for time to give it a try. That’s now bumped up on the priority list.

  1. This is an excellent illustration for why “safe storage” laws that require separating ammunition from the firearm in the home are stupid and evil.

    1. Evil, yes. Stupid, only if you’re willing to assume that they are passed by people who didn’t realize what they are doing.
      Also, this point applies as well to laws requiring the use of “gun locks” even if they don’t force the ammo to be separate.

    2. I agree. That said, I have two kids so I still believe in safe storage.

      I have a Liberty biometric pistol box near my bed. I change the battery every time I pay my credit card bill.

      But I do keep my pistol in the box loaded with a round in the chamber.

  2. Color me unconvinced that there were only four. I saw four directly, but the screen door hadn’t yet closed as the fourth came in (and left rather quickly), so there could have been more.

    It took them seven seconds (according to the time stamps) to get to the bedroom, where the people were.

    How fast can you get your gun ready? Will seven seconds be enough?

    Will “safe storage” laws help or hinder that?

    KUDOS on that homeowner for thinking quickly and having his defensive tools ready to go.

    1. Doing things to increase that amount of time, and letting the homeowner know that bad things are happening is also good.
      Reinforcing the entries (stronger exterior doors, better mounts, good locks), security film on the glass, alarms, dogs, and so on.
      Actually using your locks and alarms is another.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.