HeyYou Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Something else they taught us was: "Continue firing until you are SURE your target is no longer a threat." This was mostly in circumstances of multiple targets though...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'd like to just point out that there is a significant difference between 'be prepared to kill' and 'shoot to kill.' The objective to stop the assailant. Killing them is only a byproduct. Shooting center mass increases the chances of that happening, but doesn't change the objective. Not really sure what the point of this argument is. But it is important to know the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'd like to just point out that there is a significant difference between 'be prepared to kill' and 'shoot to kill.' The objective to stop the assailant. Killing them is only a byproduct. Shooting center mass increases the chances of that happening, but doesn't change the objective. Not really sure what the point of this argument is. But it is important to know the difference. So far as I am concerned, if someone is in a position that they believe requires the use of a firearm, "stopping" your target is synonymous with "killing" the target. Aiming for center mass isn't just about making sure you hit what you are shooting at, its also where all the vital organs are..... much more likely to get a kill shot, than hitting them in the leg, or some such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) I'd like to just point out that there is a significant difference between 'be prepared to kill' and 'shoot to kill.' The objective to stop the assailant. Killing them is only a byproduct. Shooting center mass increases the chances of that happening, but doesn't change the objective. Not really sure what the point of this argument is. But it is important to know the difference. So far as I am concerned, if someone is in a position that they believe requires the use of a firearm, "stopping" your target is synonymous with "killing" the target. Aiming for center mass isn't just about making sure you hit what you are shooting at, its also where all the vital organs are..... much more likely to get a kill shot, than hitting them in the leg, or some such.I agree, guns are not toys their purpose in the main is to kill, only in the movies or in advanced sniper school does one shoot at the peripheral target zones. Most handguns with CONSTANT practice are not accurately effective at ranges over 45 meters. I have gone to the range twice a month for the past 30 yrs and still would not risk a disabling shot in a life or death situation, that's sheer idiocy to be so naive or benign. Too many damn movies..sigh. Edited January 25, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) I'm not really sure what the point is you're trying to argue. It seems like you're agreeing with me, but at the same time it doesn't. @HeyYou: Just because you choose to ignore the distinction, does not mean that it no longer exists. Edited January 25, 2012 by Syco21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'm not really sure what the point is you're trying to argue. It seems like you're agreeing with me, but at the same time it doesn't. @HeyYou: Just because you choose to ignore the distinction, does not mean that it no longer exists. "being prepared to kill" implies that you actually have the will to pull the trigger on another human being. If you are actually going to pull that trigger though, you had best be prepared for the consequences. That is why 'shoot to kill' comes about. If you start shooting AT someone, and do NOT kill them, you can bet your bottom dollar that if they are able, they are going to do their very best to kill YOU. A dead target CANNOT shoot back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 What most people that have never had to deal with a kill or be killed situation is that your adrenaline is pumping in overtime, your breathing has accelerated and you are keenly aware of the time constraints to respond before you opponent does something. All that is counter balancing that is, patterned body reflex (ie:training), this is not the moment to have a philosophical internal morality debate...that is if if you want and after action report versus a eulogy. In the main I believe in retreat as option one if safely feasible but if not ( such as protecting others), then deadly force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syco21 Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I'm not really sure what the point is you're trying to argue. It seems like you're agreeing with me, but at the same time it doesn't. @HeyYou: Just because you choose to ignore the distinction, does not mean that it no longer exists. "being prepared to kill" implies that you actually have the will to pull the trigger on another human being. If you are actually going to pull that trigger though, you had best be prepared for the consequences. That is why 'shoot to kill' comes about. If you start shooting AT someone, and do NOT kill them, you can bet your bottom dollar that if they are able, they are going to do their very best to kill YOU. A dead target CANNOT shoot back.The first part is precisely what I said. The second part is irrelevant to the first. Shooting someone to stop an attack is vastly different to shooting someone to kill them. If you are scooting someone to kill them and they go down but don't die, you shoot them again. But if you are shooting to stop, then at that point you stop shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 <snip>Shooting someone to stop an attack is vastly different to shooting someone to kill them. If you are scooting someone to kill them and they go down but don't die, you shoot them again. But if you are shooting to stop, then at that point you stop shooting.I'll be sure to make that distinction during your eulogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 <snip>Shooting someone to stop an attack is vastly different to shooting someone to kill them. If you are scooting someone to kill them and they go down but don't die, you shoot them again. But if you are shooting to stop, then at that point you stop shooting.I'll be sure to make that distinction during your eulogy. Quite so, Aurelius. As that Special Branch copper explained to me, shooting someone several times amidships, so to speak, is going to cause such massive internal damage whilst stopping the target, that the distinction is irrelevant. From what he said, it is customary to fire more than one shot even if the target is already down or going down. The term shoot to kill is not used (in public anyway) due to political sensitivity. As I said before, the only time that British firearms officers fire at other than centre mass is if they can see the target has a suicide bomb pack. Clearly these heroes were shooting to kill as well as rescue the hostages;- US Navy Seals rescue hostages from Somali pirates Took out nine pirates apparently. Go SEALS! *Wishes our Marines and SBS were allowed to do the same....* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts