bury the year Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Agreeing with others. There's no such thing as "shoot to subdue." If you're at the point where you're going to shoot someone, your only goal is to stop them from harming you and others: whether they die in the process is irrelevant.The real question, though, is why so many cops feel they have to pull a gun in the first place. More and more police shootings in America have shown that there's a real trigger happy, "us vs. them" mentality going around. This is bolstered by the very supportive and insular nature of police communities - a "good ol' boy's club," so to speak. I think our main issue isn't how you should use a gun, but why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Face McShooty Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 While I lean towards the "shoot to kill" side of this, there actually are ways you can shoot to subdue, shoot them in the foot, around the knee and in the arm to slow them down then you can subdue them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EHN. Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Wait, so shooting someone in the leg doesn't allow you to move on with your life but killing them does? I'm really failing to see the logic here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Gun training specifically tells you to shoot to kill. It's the entire purpose of the weapon. Guns are designed to kill and are supposed to be a last-ditch effort. And if you shoot someone, and they live.. you're mostly likely getting your ass sued. And a dead guy can't sue, soooo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Rinne hit the nail on the head here. Just don't fucking shoot. I don't want to rave on about gun laws or anything like that but almost no other developed country has questions like this thrown up because the police don't need to shoot because they're more often than not not being shot at themselves, and the majority of police aren't even armed with guns in the first place so even if the police is a way for thugs to let out their anger on people (not having a go at the entire police force, but it is a perfect outlet for angry young men) they'd have a very hard time doing any lasting damage and labelling it as self-defence, and as a result the numbers of people shot by police each year tends to be in single digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 While I lean towards the "shoot to kill" side of this, there actually are ways you can shoot to subdue, shoot them in the foot, around the knee and in the arm to slow them down then you can subdue them These are much harder targets than the center of one's mass, and even if you do hit them, there is no guarantee that they will be subdued. As I said right off the bat: If you aren't shooting to kill, don't fucking shoot. Attempting to shoot merely with the intention of wounding endangers everyone around you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Wait, so shooting someone in the leg doesn't allow you to move on with your life but killing them does? I'm really failing to see the logic here. Because this > And if you shoot someone, and they live.. you're mostly likely getting your ass sued. And a dead guy can't sue, soooo. They cant move on with their lives often because you disabled them, you cant move on with your life because they wont let you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Can we stop talking about aiming for the legs? That shit doesn't work. There was a case out in my city maybe a few months ago. Guy went nuts at Armstrong airport. He was shot 3 times to be stopped. Once in the face (which grazed his cheek and ear), once in the chest, and once in the leg. The one in the leg hit an artery (or was it a vessel?) and killed him. So just saying "aim for the legs!" is not a valid fucking argument. EDIT: For reference, here is the case in question. I'm sure you can find more about how he died if you look deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Rai Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 The question is completely alien to me as a Brit. Answers would probably totally different with the word 'knife' instead of 'gun' as well, which is really interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted June 4, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 The question is completely alien to me as a Brit. Answers would probably totally different with the word 'knife' instead of 'gun' as well, which is really interesting. Then go with that line of thought, I'm interested as to where it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slinky Posted June 4, 2015 Report Share Posted June 4, 2015 Then go with that line of thought, I'm interested as to where it goes. The manga "pumpkin scissors" describes something like this Guns don't really instill fear in a crowd, pointing a gun at someone normally doesn't do anything as most people haven't been shot. But using a knife, or a club, or anything that looks like it hurts, instills fear a lot easier than a gun would, but at the cost of actual efficiency. Basically, more primitive the better. http://www.mangatown.com/manga/pumpkin_scissors/v04/c012/28.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astolfo Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Guns are a tool solely for killing. Sure, you can use it for other stuff, but literally, guns are made to kill, and that's all they're made to do. If you're going to shoot a gun, you better be damned prepared for someone being crippled, if not dying altogether. Shooting to subdue is a lot harder than it seems, with gun recoil as well as the unpredictability of a person's motion. Shooting at anywhere besides central mass can lead to a miss, and in a very serious situation, that literally could be the difference between life or death. Sure, if you want to go the non-lethal weapons route, go with tasers or pepper spray. Not even going to bother with issues with stuff like police brutality with said stuff at the moment, since there's same kind of cases with guns anyways. But if you're going to take a gun, that means you're going to need to be prepared to take a life and face the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.