Guns or not Guns

[dazzerfong]

@ Ginny:

 

No, 'shooting to stop' is different from 'preparing to kill'. It's the basic maxim of Australian cops here. I don't know how you guys operate in London, but unless your cops are doing Mozambique drills (which I highly doubt), it's shooting to stop. If you were shooting to kill, you would guarantee a kill by firing another shot (most likely to the head) 'just to be sure'.

 

Shooting to stop definitely means shooting more than one shot (after all, you can't be too sure), however, 'shooting to kill' means that you guarantee that 'kill', rather than the incapacitation. You see where the problem is now? And, as you said, 'shoot to kill' is not used since it's politically incorrect, but it is a direct consequence of 'shoot to stop'. I know of your 'Special Operations' friend, but I was skeptical of your account, hence the joke comment (apologies for the lack of smileys and subsequently breaking Poe's law).

 

If they found someone with a suicide pack, they don't use normal rifles: they use marksman rifles instead (don't leave error to the rifle).

 

Oh, and one thing: military conventions != police conventions. I think it's obvious why, so don't pop up Navy SEAL's work (though that shot is remarkable, coming from a target shooting).

 

There's this one case a few weeks ago, of a 15 year old Texan teenager who was shot by police because he was waving and aiming about with what turned out to be an airgun. The police were harassed as using 'excessive force'. 3 shots, one upper torso, one shoulder, and one head. That's not exactly excessive, is it?

 

HeyYou, about shock and loss of consciousness? That's sufficient to stop, hence why more than one bullet is needed. Thank God you are not a cop.........

 

One thing: who here as actually fired a rifle before? Just wanted to know, sorry for the off-topic.

Edited January 25, 2012 by dazzerfong

[RZ1029]

I don't know how you guys operate in London,

 

One thing: who here as actually fired a rifle before? Just wanted to know, sorry for the off-topic.

Most London cops don't carry guns, from what I understand. Granted, I don't live there and could simply be falling victim to stupid American stereotypes, but from the (very) short time I was there, I didn't see any 'regular' cops that had guns on them.

 

I own several rifles, I shoot quite regularly and compete in marksman, 3-gun, and pistol matches with regularity in addition to doing MilSims with great regularity, I'm involved in three local groups and go to them more or less monthly. I am a military wanna-be that never will be due to medical issues that make me ineligible to enlist. I am also an avid hunter of most every game, from wild boar to deer to the odd ram or two when I visit a friend out west. I am proficient, to say the least, in firearm handling.

 

This all being said, I don't know a single cop in my area that, when they feel reasonably threatened, would not shoot to kill. If a serious threat is made, they respond appropriately which typically results in the infamous 'double-tap' to the chest, at least. If I put three .45 rounds from my carry pistol to your center of mass, you will die. I would hope that most cops are at least as good as I am, preferably better. Recently we had a man waving a pistol around out in front of a local church after his wife left him because he was cheating on her. Naturally cops show up, he levels his pistol at one of them after they try to negotiate with him, and was promptly shot seven times, with four officers on the scene. Needless to say, he died.

 

While there are situations like Dazzerfong mentioned, where the kid lost his life because he made a stupid, stupid, stupid decision to wave what looked like a real firearm at cops, he made that choice and payed the price for it. The cops are not at fault in the least, they acted by the book and eliminated the threat. It is regrettable that someone died, doubly so because he was so young and may have had a promising future, but I do not think that the cop should put his life in danger attempting to disarm a criminal without killing him.

 

Pic related:

 

Edit: Missed the whole thing about shock, feel like this needs to be addressed.

 

Shock is not some sort of mystical effect that happens the instant a round enters your body, shock occurs after a time, though the time may vary from seconds to whole minutes, or in some cases, hours. At that point their mind shuts down and they become a useless shell of a person until they come out of it. If anything, when a severe injury like that occurs, chances are adrenaline is pumping through the individual's body and makes it possible for them to continue through with their action, which would result in the death of an officer.

Edited January 25, 2012 by RZ1029

[dazzerfong]

Well, I do know that ordinary British police officers are not armed (explains why they have a unit called 'Armed Police') but I don't know their rules of engagement.

 

Problem about the infamous 'double-tap' is that, (at least for me), the recoil on a .45 ACP is too much for me to accurately double tap with a reasonable grouping. Though, you won't necessarily die with 3 rounds of a .45 on you (you're very likely to, though).

 

Whatever my views are on guns (I support the proper ownership of them), I think that the public needs to be informed on the amount of discipline required to actually hold one of them, let alone fire one. Right now, there's too much stigma attached to it for it to be a reasonable argument.

 

RZ, what country do you live in? In Australia, unless you're on airsoft (which I think is pathetic, no offense), there's no civilian mil-sim shooting that I know of.

[RZ1029]

I don't know their rules of engagement.

 

Problem about the infamous 'double-tap' is that, (at least for me), the recoil on a .45 ACP is too much for me to accurately double tap with a reasonable grouping. Though, you won't necessarily die with 3 rounds of a .45 on you (you're very likely to, though).

 

RZ, what country do you live in? In Australia, unless you're on airsoft (which I think is pathetic, no offense), there's no civilian mil-sim shooting that I know of.

I'd guess like most other police rules of engagement, but I'm honestly not sure, I can really only speak on terms of US (and at that, local/county/state) officers.

 

As for the whole double-tap with the .45 ACP, it's all in practice. I couldn't do it when I started shooting, but I shoot so much now that it's next to nothing for me to reliably land successive shots (entire mags) in center of mass in seconds.

 

But yeah, I live in the US, where you can get most anything, so long as you have the licensing and money for it. The groups I am in are mostly ex-military or military contractors and the like, we use simunitions. (I order mine and my conversion kits from simunition.com, they aren't the cheapest, but they make good stuff, so I'm willing to pay for it, and they give bulk discounts.)

[Syco21]

<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.

Before I will continue, I want to be sure on your stance here. Let's say you are involved with a shooting, and you shoot your assailant, they go down but do not die. Are you saying you would shoot them again to ensure their death?

 

</snip>

Edited January 25, 2012 by Syco21

[HeyYou]

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.

 

Is it? If the target is dead, he isn't attacking any more is he? If the target has a firearm as well, and ISN"T dead, it don't take much to pull a trigger. If the bullets are flyin', I am going to make DAMN sure that MINE hit the mark.

 

If you ever find yourself in a situation where you have a weapon, your opponent has a weapon, and it is you, or him, there is no distinction any more. Unless/until you find yourself in such a situation, you can theorize all you want, but, until you actually experience it..... you don't have a clue what you will really do. Me? I didn't take the time to carefully aim to disable, I hit him where it counted, four times. (full auto is a wonderful thing.)

[Syco21]

Shoot to stop != shoot to wound.

 

<br><br>Shooting center mass is the most reliable way to stop an assailant. Never once have I stated that I would shoot to wound. I merely pointed out that there is a difference between shoot to stop and shoot to kill even if they appear very similarly.

 

I know exactly what I would do. I have a handgun and carry it everywhere, if ever I am forced the pull it, the person forcing me will promptly receive a hot lead injection center mass. If they die, so be it. I don't care either way, my only concern is stopping the attack as quickly as possible.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Syco21

[HeyYou]

Shoot to stop != shoot to wound.

 

<br><br>Shooting center mass is the most reliable way to stop an assailant. Never once have I stated that I would shoot to wound. I merely pointed out that there is a difference between shoot to stop and shoot to kill even if they appear very similarly.

 

I know exactly what I would do. I have a handgun and carry it everywhere, if ever I am forced the pull it, the person forcing me will promptly receive a hot lead injection center mass. If they die, so be it. I don't care either way, my only concern is stopping the attack as quickly as possible.

 

I think we are splitting hairs here. :D

[Aurielius]

<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.

Before I will continue, I want to be sure on your stance here. Let's say you are involved with a shooting, and you shoot your assailant, they go down but do not die. Are you saying you would shoot them again to ensure their death?

</snip>

I would cease fire ONLY if there was no longer a weapon in their hand or reach, meaning if they dropped it and kicked it away with their hands on their head, fingers interlocked palms up. But I sure as hell would not put my weapon away either and if they so much as twitched it would be the last move they ever made. But the odds are that my first two rounds would be lethal anyway so in that case, I'd rather be judged by twelve men than carried by six.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Aurielius

[MajKrAzAm]

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.

 

I understand the distinction that you are attempting to draw, between accepting the possibility that shooting an assailant to merely stop them could likely kill them, compared to actively shooting to kill. But this really is a distinction without a difference. In practice shooting to stop versus kill is meaningless. It’s simply a psychological difference in the shooter’s state of the mind. Any discharge of a firearm is an act of deadly force. Whether a shooter in a self-defense situation is prepared for the possibility that he may kill someone, or in fact actively intends to do so, will make no difference with the underlying fact that he is committing an act of deadly force. Any reasonable person would consider that discharging a firearm would give rise to the possibility of severe harm or death. The distinction that you try to make becomes worthless when you consider the judicious use of deadly force. If you wrongfully kill someone who you mistakenly consider to be a threat, then it will not matter if your state of mind towards discharging your firearm and subsequently killing that individual was one of ‘preparedness’ versus ‘shoot to kill’.

 

The inherent deadly force nature of discharging your gun will make the difference meaningless. Deciding to use deadly force removes the possibility of you being able to determine whether you will wound or kill that individual. ‘Objective’ becomes moot. HeyYou is right, stopping someone becomes synonymous with killing them. The average number of rounds until you incapacitate someone is 2. This is regardless of whether you kill them or stop them. Shot placement, front sight focus, how much you jerk the trigger, target weight etc. all become marginal. There are just too many factors to determine how a target will respond after being shot to make your distinction have any practical value.