Shoot to wound mentality

[Korietsu]

Im sorry, but I could take out just as many people with a bolt action winchester as I could with a couple of pistols in almost any situation, and with less ammo too. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman . (Note: I know people that survived the campus shooting too, several of them were past teachers of mine)

Edit: Just a tad sleepy.

[Beckwin]

You chose a poor example for your side of things. Handguns won't do shit if you're trying to "defend yourself" from a trained killer in a tower with a rifle, and then rifles are difficult to conceal + impractical to carry around on your person anyway (not to mention probably not the best choice for home defense, but I'm no expert on that).

Sniper cases, or even just murder with rifles, are really rare.

And Correction, you know you're taking a really fucking oblique angle on gun control/ban "not working". We've been talking about actual gun control/ban being in effect, not legal hurdles to get that done. Stop trying to cop out here.

[Tyche]

You chose a poor example for your side of things. Handguns won't do shit if you're trying to "defend yourself" from a trained killer in a tower with a rifle, and then rifles are difficult to conceal + impractical to carry around on your person anyway (not to mention probably not the best choice for home defense, but I'm no expert on that).

Sniper cases, or even just murder with rifles, are really rare.

And Correction, you know you're taking a really fucking oblique angle on gun control/ban "not working". We've been talking about actual gun control/ban being in effect, not legal hurdles to get that done. Stop trying to cop out here.

I'd love to see the bolded part broken down by region. Here, most all murders w/ guns are by rifles or shotguns. Guns are used because they are efficient and easily accessible. Here, shotguns are the most accessible gun, therefore, a majority of gun related deaths are by shotguns. I'm sure in larger metro areas where hunting isn't largely prevalent, the opposite would be true. Point being, I honestly don't think that just eliminating hand guns would have a large impact, as there are plenty of other substitutions. Most murders aren't done in the open where concealment is important anyway.

[Beckwin]

That would be interesting to see Tyche, but remember that murder rates are higher in metropolitan areas to begin with.

I don't realistically see anything close to an across the board firearm ban in my lifetime, but I really don't see general handgun bans and better regulation being unable to happen either.

[Tyche]

That would be interesting to see Tyche, but remember that murder rates are higher in metropolitan areas to begin with.

I don't realistically see anything close to an across the board firearm ban in my lifetime, but I really don't see general handgun bans and better regulation being unable to happen either.

Oh, I'm sure there's probably 500% more murders per square mile in metro areas than in a small rural community like mine. I just think a lot of the murders that are premeditated will happen regardless with some type of gun. I think you may see a drop (not as sharp as some may think) in random, non-premeditated (is that a word?) gun attacks.

[Eaglestrike]

Ever since I was about 5 years old (when that fucking greedy kid tried to throw blocks at the other kids in the room, and the teacher made us put them all away), I've hated the "One bad apple spoils the bunch" philosophy. That's exactly what happens here, we are letting (incoming made up stat) less than 1% of the population dictate legislation. I'm sure 99%+ use guns in their intended manner (unless you count popping birds off power lines unintended). Legislating off fear is how shit like the Patriot Act gets passed. Oh yeah, I just made a far left and a far right comment in one fucking post. BOOYAHHHHH

We're no talking about blocks, we're talking about life and death.

God damnit

Way to miss the rest of the post? Ignore the obvious sarcastic back story and actually understand what I said.


god dammit.

Freedom to communicate privately seems more important than freedom to carry a deadly weapon

god damnit

(btw I'm not nearly as against shotguns and other larger weapons as I am against concealed weaponry)

And if both of those freedoms are lost, where would we be? Right...back before the revolutionary war. Both are "necessary" for us. Especially when one is a bit more open to being taken away, we shouldn't be working to take the other one.

[BIGSTIC]

[quote="Beckwin"]You chose a poor example for your side of things. Handguns won't do shit if you're trying to "defend yourself" from a trained killer in a tower with a rifle, and then rifles are difficult to conceal + impractical to carry around on your person anyway (not to mention probably not the best choice for home defense, but I'm no expert on that). [quote]

For home defense I would choose One and only one weapon. Sawed off 12 gauge shotgun(whitch is illegal to own or buy/sell). Yeah its illegal but it is short for ease of use in tight places(hallways) and it is a point and shoot weapon. This gun will down right rip your arm off at close range. But all the benefits for it being great for home defense also make it very benificial for criminals to commit crimes making it illeagal to have. I dont have figures but from going to the shooting range quite often I would say most hand gun owners would be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn if they were in a home invasion situation.

My guns are for hunting/entertainment. Nothing like sticking a 350 short block 500 yards out and loading up the .50 and having some fun blowing holes in it.

Also just looking at the murders in my town over the last year....close to 75% of them were with knifes. Kinda funny a hick town like mine and people kill with knifes rather than guns.

[Maxxthepenguin]

And if both of those freedoms are lost, where would we be? Right...back before the revolutionary war. Both are "necessary" for us. Especially when one is a bit more open to being taken away, we shouldn't be working to take the other one.

Thy aren't tied to each other lol, they aren't even on the same amendment.

Plus, the 2nd amendment means the right to have these:
http://www.myplasticheart.com/Mercha...bloody_325.jpg

[Remyo]

And if both of those freedoms are lost, where would we be? Right...back before the revolutionary war. Both are "necessary" for us. Especially when one is a bit more open to being taken away, we shouldn't be working to take the other one.

Thy aren't tied to each other lol, they aren't even on the same amendment.

Plus, the 2nd amendment means the right to have these:
http://www.myplasticheart.com/Mercha...bloody_325.jpg

I could kill 33 people if I had bear arms.

[Maxxthepenguin]

And if both of those freedoms are lost, where would we be? Right...back before the revolutionary war. Both are "necessary" for us. Especially when one is a bit more open to being taken away, we shouldn't be working to take the other one.

Thy aren't tied to each other lol, they aren't even on the same amendment.

Plus, the 2nd amendment means the right to have these:
http://www.myplasticheart.com/Mercha...bloody_325.jpg

I could kill 33 people if I had bear arms.

And that would be well within your rights

[Infiltrator]

You shoot to wound for the same reason we have a trial system.

Because you just can't know that easily.

That's funny because the police are part of the criminal justice system and the courts recognize that lethal force is well with in our powers to use when we feel the suspect is a danger to ourselves and the community. You, not having ever been a police officer have no god damn clue about the stress involved in law enforcement.

I remember many traffic stops at night where in the back of my mind that this could turn ugly real fast. We go into every situation like this. You think we respond to a call and have 100% factual information to make perfect judgments on everything?

This law is asking law enforcement to lay down and die or go to prison for 15 years for not predicting the unpredictable.

We can only observe what is observable and make decisions based on that. Most of those decisions are done in literally a split second. Civilians who support these types of ideas have never had experience in real law enforcement sit back in your chairs and think "if only they did so and so". But hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

We don't have all day, or hell even minutes to figure it out, it takes weeks to figure it all out--after the fact. We have seconds and that how long it takes for us to be lying dead on the floor if we guessed wrong. We're taught to react and to fall back on our training. We're not expendable and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a cop if I'm told to go into a situation with little to no information and then further have my hands tied because of political correctness.

I would think the lethal percentage of being shot below the waist would be alot less then being shot above the waist, obviously theres a chance of hitting a major blood vessel, blowing someones balls off etc. but compared to getting shot in the stomach, chest, or head the chances of dying are a lot less.

and if we hit a vital artery in the legs and the suspect dies anyway, then what point is there to shoot to wound? Then when the legal aspects comes into play, how do you judge the case when you shoot to wound and it ends up costing the suspect their life?

I'm not saying targeting the lower body would be easy in all situations but when the target is only a few yards away even with a shaky hand you could hit that general area. It would also depend on the situation since there is no way in hell you wouldn't try to shoot to kill when the guys holding a gun but when the guys just holding a swiss army knife, some flimsy weapon or none at all I don't see why you wouldn't try.

But you are saying it is, we're taught to shoot center mass because it's by far the largest and most static part of the body. Even then center mass shot is NOT A 100% guaranteed hit and people expect us to hit smaller, more mobile parts of the body in a split second time frame.

Here is a chart of shots fired and accuracy broken down by distance.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...r.1260.639.jpg

[BIGSTIC]

sure this isnt more fitting...................


http://i.walmart.com/i/p/00/09/36/24...02_500X500.jpg

[Beckwin]

sure this isnt more fitting...................


http://i.walmart.com/i/p/00/09/36/24...02_500X500.jpg

For the pro-gun crowd?


That's perfectly fitting tbh.

[Delta_9]

http://lh5.google.com/ajbDelta9/R9w2...800/rosieo.jpg

For the anti-gun crowd?


That's perfectly fitting tbh.

[Eaglestrike]

And if both of those freedoms are lost, where would we be? Right...back before the revolutionary war. Both are "necessary" for us. Especially when one is a bit more open to being taken away, we shouldn't be working to take the other one.

Thy aren't tied to each other lol, they aren't even on the same amendment.

Silencing the people and disarming the people are pretty much the two main goals of taking over a nation.

[Plow]

Clearly, the answer here is ray guns.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3-SIXCkh5E


ohoh advertising

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr3qJ0racd0

[Infiltrator]

We have a trial system because you just can't know that easily if someone did something after the fact, but you can be pretty damn sure somebody is firing at you and presents a clear danger to the cops or nearby civilians.

With the police having a shoot to kill policy, people consider firing at the police self defense, or at least argue so.

You're taking things completely out of context. Police don't arrive with guns drawn ready to shoot to kill as the first course of action. All departments have and force continuum, with lethal force being last on it. At what point of the force continuum you use is based on the situation.

So where does the self-defense play into it when you're approached by a officer who is wearing a uniform that identifies him as such?

Here's a question for you: If a policeman perceives an angry criminal reach into his pants angrily and start to whip something out (oh god that doesn't sound right at all), should he shoot to kill? What if the policeman is wrong about the entire situation, as human beings often are?

Keep your hands interlocked and placed above your head. That's the first thing any cop would do if they respond to a situation like that. There is no excuse for you to go digging into your pockets at that point after a verbal command to keep your hands visible.

There's plenty of times where police have shot to kill people who were not holding any weapon. You could say shoot to wound unless you are positive the suspect has a weapon, but then everybody's sure. Both ways are kinda ehhh....

On the other hand, if you as an individual are defending yourself from an attacker, shoot to kill. Too many times have low-life lawyers gotten claims for the attackers because they became disabled. It's probably the same for the police department, disabling somebody is much more costly than killing them.

a big statistical percentage of cop killed in the line of duty are killed by their own weapons after it was taken by previously unarmed or suspects armed with other types of weapons.

I figure I start a topic on this to keep the other thread from going off-topic. The bill died, but the sentiment of this kind of thinking still persist, usually argued by people who don't know any better. The bill also would expect cops abide by a arbitrary amount of times they can fire and to aim for non-vital areas (arms and legs).

The concept of shooting to wound is just not practical in any sense. Firing a high speed projectile at a human while expecting serious injury but not death is akin to throwing a brick at a window to wake the occupant up.

There's NO "non-lethal" way to SHOOT somebody with a conventional firearm. There's NO place on the human body that you can shoot, which is BOTH guaranteed NOT to cause death, AND to incapacitate the person being shot.

Lies. Manswers on Spike Tv teaches us that if you have to get shot, try to get shot in the shoulder! Also, see getting shot in the knee....you won't be walking away from that very well and it shouldn't cause death.

Yeah, because accuracy of center-mass shots aren't high enough, lets aim for smaller and harder to hit parts.

[Maxxthepenguin]

And if both of those freedoms are lost, where would we be? Right...back before the revolutionary war. Both are "necessary" for us. Especially when one is a bit more open to being taken away, we shouldn't be working to take the other one.

Thy aren't tied to each other lol, they aren't even on the same amendment.

Silencing the people and disarming the people are pretty much the two main goals of taking over a nation.

MAJOR facepalm right there.

You can keep your guns to murder politicians, I'll just stay out of that whole mess.

[Korietsu]

You chose a poor example for your side of things. Handguns won't do shit if you're trying to "defend yourself" from a trained killer in a tower with a rifle, and then rifles are difficult to conceal + impractical to carry around on your person anyway (not to mention probably not the best choice for home defense, but I'm no expert on that).

Sniper cases, or even just murder with rifles, are really rare.

Well, as Tyche said, here in the Texas area, is much much more efficient to get a hunting rifle / shotgun to kill someone than a pistol. I personally have a hunting rifle I could kill people with up to 300-500 yards no problem, as well as a 12 gauge shotgun that would be quite messy. And most of the murders in my area are committed by rifle/shotgun if they occur at all. Personally, if I were to choose on how to kill someone in a school situation (not saying I would, nor do I approve of such actions) I'd be much happier with a semi auto rifle/shotgun because pistols are pieces of shit, not only because I can keep range with a rifle, but I can kill 2 people with a shotgun shot as well.

[Melchiah]

Or you could, oh I dunno, ban guns.

But why would you want to give up your freedom just to reduce shootings by a vast amount?

Because:

All we have left is to figure out how to ensure criminals no longer have and cannot obtain guns. Once we've got that, we're home free.

I don't want to rehash this whole gun control debate again, but for fuck's sake, it really is this simple. In America, there are so many firearms in circulation that were purchased legitimately over the years that it is impossible to track them all down. Maybe banning guns works in Europe. It won't work here. By making legislation that bans guns, we only prevent people who are inclined to obey the law from owning them. Is that so hard to understand? I know it was brought up in the last huge debate on this issue, but man... it seems pretty simple to me. A person not inclined to obey the law, ie a person intent on using a firearm to commit a crime, is not going to give two and a half shits about a law that says on paper he can't own that gun in the first place.

The idea that law abiding citizens might have guns in their home or on their person is a perceived deterrent/threat. I'm a lot less likely to fuck with someone if I think I might get shot for doing it than I am if I know law abiding citizens do not have weapons to defend themselves with.

It is also completely unrealistic to think that you can round up a significant amount of the unregistered weapons in this country. There are just too many of them.

Gun legislation will never work in America. Sorry Hillary and the ultra liberals, it just won't. Now GTFO unrealistic shit.

In other news, I'm considering my first pistol purchase, and I'm really leaning towards a Springfield Armory 1911 model, but I'm open to suggestions.