Shoot to wound mentality

[Fhqwghads]

Like was mentioned, leaves police officers open to all sorts of legalities with this proposal. If they're supposed to shoot to wound and the person winds up dying, you bet your ass lawyers will be all over that. What I'm hoping for, and where lots of independent companies are making significant advances, is in non-lethal alternatives. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age we have telescopes in space and satellites beaming information across the planet, yet a lead bullet is still the de facto standard in law enforcement.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Also, isn't New York City understaffed cop wise? I can't imagine this increasing recruiting numbers...

Here's the article where I read this:

*Warning* NSFL- Not Safe For Liberals (the site, not the article)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... bling.html

[Venture]

"Shoot to stop" is what i'd want for police, as well, but only when there's threat of serious bodily injury or death. If the shooter kills a suspect while trying to stop him from said two: Well, tough luck, really, but cops need the protection that suspects know that they risk getting killed if they go after a cop with a weapon, and cops need the legal protection to be able to do so so they hold the legal high ground for deterrence. Threat of death is a greater motivating force then God, family and the legal system itself.

[Selamis]

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.

[Shuemue]

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?

[Saphirea]

Either increases in non-lethal type weapons.

Or go off of what the USMC teaches... One shot one kill.

[Charla]

Let's use a comparison. If it's illegal for a cop to shoot to kill, the cop would be better off with rubber bullets, right? They deliver more force on impact than penetrating rounds (hi, thermodynamics) which increases knockdown capability while reducing the probability of lethal damage from impact to a non-critical organ (although not removing it, of course). The disadvantages of this approach are just as easy to see (less of a deterrant, easier to justify shooting -> more injuries -> more lawsuits) and have been mentioned in this thread already. By drawing the similarity between prohibiting the use of deadly force and simply removing metal bullets in order to make it difficult/impossible, all these arguments can be used for either one.

The European solution, which involves restricting firearms in the first place, has numerous advantages, but is impractical for several other reasons.

[Maxxthepenguin]

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?

It's too late for that, there is no feasible way to remove the massive amounts of guns in circulation.

I also think there is no issue with a gray area. Life is something we shouldn't take for granted, even a suspected criminal's life. The idea that certain people are valued so highly over others that the possibility of a threat means lethal force really is not.

Believe it or not, suspected criminals are citizens too and people under tons of stress are generally poor at making distinctions between what is really dangerous.

[Mizango]

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?

I started a semester long shit storm in high school by posing this very question in my American politics class. Infuriating gun toting rednecks has always been a passion of mine. I guess blowing up quails and rabbits with an Assault rifles and fucking hand grenades covers up those pesky inadequacies we are too chickenshit to deal with?

But to answer your question, I guess that takes effort and makes too much sense?

[Turambar]

Yeah, sure, let's just shoot everyone in the head.

So where do you shoot them?

In the head?

Two quick shots center mass to slow/stun the target, then a more carefully aimed shot to the head for the kill. Standard procedure.

[Khamsin]

I find it hard to believe that in this day and age we have telescopes in space and satellites beaming information across the planet, yet a lead bullet is still the de facto standard in law enforcement.

You're right, we definitely should have laser rifles by now.

The kind that shoots visible red beams from a small handheld gun and creates sparks and mini-explosions wherever it lands, not the invisible kind that just feels like someone's holding a cigarette to your skin and is the size of a tank.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Also, isn't New York City understaffed cop wise? I can't imagine this increasing recruiting numbers...

Here's the article where I read this:

*Warning* NSFL- Not Safe For Liberals (the site, not the article)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... bling.html

That site is full of bullshit, assumptions, and complete lack of impartial use of the english language. Let's take this paragraph example:

Besides, suppose a cop only wings a bad guy, and the attacker -- surely shooting to annihilate -- then manages to kill him, his partner or an innocent bystander. Does Paterson actually believe that the life of a criminal with deadly intent is somehow more precious than any of these three thoroughly guiltless individuals?

Firstly they didn't say criminal, they said bad guy, which sets up the cop as the ever good guy. Good guys do good things and bad guys do bad things, so this use of the language is extremely manipulative

Then you have the "surely shooting to annihilate" and I can only respond to it by pointing out the argument that many people have for gun rights saying they're there to defend against other people who have guns. If a policeman is drawing his gun on you and you suspect your life is in danger, that gun is precisely what people's minds will jump to to defend themselves.

Then there is the assumption that police always know if there is deadly intent with the quote "criminal with deadly intent."

Criminals don't commit crimes and suddenly become sociopaths. They are not guiltless, though they do often have a fucked up sense of morals. What this doesn't mean though is that they're stupid enough to kill a cop. The cops are far better connected than any of those criminals and the criminals know it (and if not then what the fuck, let's increase government spending on police instead of cut it.) Police should always take lethal force once a criminal has proven himself stupid enough to take it himself.

[guartz]

I started a semester long shit storm in high school by posing this very question in my American politics class. Infuriating gun toting rednecks has always been a passion of mine. I guess blowing up quails and rabbits with an Assault rifles and fucking hand grenades covers up those pesky inadequacies we are too chickenshit to deal with?

But to answer your question, I guess that takes effort and makes too much sense?

I'm curious, what do you think gives you the right to take away people's guns if they haven't commited a crime yet? Because in the future they might?

[Maxxthepenguin]

I started a semester long shit storm in high school by posing this very question in my American politics class. Infuriating gun toting rednecks has always been a passion of mine. I guess blowing up quails and rabbits with an Assault rifles and fucking hand grenades covers up those pesky inadequacies we are too chickenshit to deal with?

But to answer your question, I guess that takes effort and makes too much sense?

I'm curious, what do you think gives you the right to take away people's guns if they haven't commited a crime yet? Because in the future they might?

Because they're not just fun toys. They actually exist to kill things.

[Beckwin]

I don't particularly think the bill in question is a well thought out one, but I do believe there should be some kind of penalty in place for excessive force when it comes to guns for police. What needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt is intent- and you don't base that on where one bullet lands or even what damage specifically results from that bullet.

I'm talking about the freak occurrences where a "bad" cop puts 5 bullets in a guy with a 3" knife or a fleeing thief, or if a cop decides to finish off an already disabled (by previous gunshot) really bad guy. Think of it like being able to prosecute police brutality when they use guns. It's really pretty sensible to do, although I'm not sure it needs it's own bill? idk.

[Khamsin]

I started a semester long shit storm in high school by posing this very question in my American politics class. Infuriating gun toting rednecks has always been a passion of mine. I guess blowing up quails and rabbits with an Assault rifles and fucking hand grenades covers up those pesky inadequacies we are too chickenshit to deal with?

But to answer your question, I guess that takes effort and makes too much sense?

I'm curious, what do you think gives you the right to take away people's guns if they haven't commited a crime yet? Because in the future they might?

Because they won't need them if the criminals are gun-free, too. We're very close to making such a thing work, too. 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.

The way I look at it is the same way I look at that "If you gathered everyone with AIDS and locked them in a room" question they asked in school for AIDS awareness in sex ed. Technically the answer is yes, if you really gathered everyone with AIDS and locked them in a room, we'd be free of the disease and of risks. But the answer they're looking for is no, because there's no practical way to actually gather everyone with AIDS and be sure you've got all of them. Plus, they seem to think it insensitive.

[archibaldcrane]

People who say "why don't you just ban guns" without recognizing the different positive aspects of a gun-owning population both currently and historically and countering those points make me /facepalm.

Your revolutionary original idea is neither.

[Turambar]

Because they won't need them if the criminals are gun-free, too. We're very close to making such a thing work, too. 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.

There's more chance of an injection of pure cash curing AIDS than there is of preventing criminals from getting guns.

[Charla]

The premise is that it's preferable for citizens to be capable of killing things, and presumably to be comfortable with the concept of doing so. This is the generous interpretation of the second amendment's mentioning of the militia.

As for the AIDS analogy, similar viruses are endemic in animal populations, so eradicating HIV would only work until one of them eventually mutates into a new HIV (as I recall, that's how HIV originally started). Also, diseases can be solved by cures or vaccinations, social problems less so.

[Khamsin]

If a policeman is drawing his gun on you and you suspect your life is in danger, that gun is precisely what people's minds will jump to to defend themselves.

By the way, you do realize that if a policeman is drawing his gun on you, are are NOT supposed to be drawing yours. It's kind of illegal. And not healthy. The police have the authority to tell you to drop your weapon while still holding theirs. You don't.

I can't imagine that flying in court, either. "I only shot the cop because he drew his gun on me!" No shit, what were you doing for the cop to be chasing you in the first place? A crime, perhaps, that required intervention by law enforcement personnel?