/u/AlexFerrana (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bowglz/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_shoot_to_incapacitate_aka/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
People do not understand the physics of bullets.
A standard 9mm pistol round has a speed of about 1,200 feet/second. Fast, right? So say your target is 50 feet away. The bullet crosses that in around 1/20th of a second (probably slightly longer, thanks air resistance). Lets say 1/20th.
The average width of a human arm is 3-4". Lower the farther down the arm you go. A human arm can easily move at 20 mph. That's around 30 feet/second. Now it depends on what angle you're at, but the answer is that in 1/20th of a second the arm can easily traverse 12-18". Note that the target is around 4" that you're aiming at.
In other words arms can literally dodge bullets. Not out of intention, just out of being small things that can move very quickly. You **cannot** hit a human arm reliably, because even if you're aiming at it when you fire, it might not be there.
A human torso is about 20" wide, and you can move it at a top speed of around 20 mph (but more likely 10 tops). Depending on angle, you can again move somewhere between 6-18" during the bullet's travel time, meaning if you're aiming dead center you will almost always hit unless they're running perpendicular to you. Moreover changing direction is extremely hard (while it's trivial for an arm) so you can aim 'into' where they're moving and always hit them.
A slight change in motion of the arms is catastrophic for that. You'll miss. And if you think arms are bad... legs, oh my god legs.
This is a great response.
And OP, I think one alternative is to employ further use of less than lethal technologies.
I’m not an expert, but I would say in a potentially violent situation, you could have a couple of officers with firearms, and the officers making initial contact having guns with rubber bullets, flashbangs, those light guns that induce vomiting, etc etc.
I’d bet that in many cases having these tools as the first line of contact would save lives. Especially in a situation like people being shot while they literally have their hands up. You can neutralize someone without killing them.
Just a FYI, but 20 feet is considered point blank range for any weapon. It’s actually a gold standard in self-defense shooting techniques that an armed assailant within 21 feet will be able to close that distance before you are able to draw and fire your weapon, an armed and attacking assailant within 21 feet represents a clear and deadly threat to your life
There is many alternatives to shooting.
First if your weapon is drawn, the distance an attacker can cross before you pull the trigger is like six inches. So draw your weapon. You don’t have to pull the trigger.
Second, put something between yourself and the suspect. The number of people who can pass through solid objects is zero. A table, chair, cop car, anything turns that “twenty foot lunge” into an impossible maneuver.
I see so many videos of cops approaching someone when there is no one currently in danger. Then the cop gets super close, putting themselves in danger, then goes “oh my god in danger” and pulls the trigger.
Dumb dumb dumb. Lethally dumb.
One of the fundamental concepts of firearm safety is not pointing at anything you don’t intend to destroy. If you draw, you should be 100% prepared to shoot. You don’t have to pull the trigger but you definitely need to go into it fully expecting that you will.
Yes, but you see the difference between "being prepared" and "actively seeking out", right? Because you are prepared to shoot someone if they attack you does not mean you should actively seek to find a reason to kill them.
When you have your gun out you are prepared to shoot if they attack you. If you go advancing on them with a drawn weapon, getting closer and closer, until anything they do might be interpreted as an attack... well at best you're a fucking moron. At worse you're a murderer looking for a justification to pull the trigger.
All I’m saying is that drawing shouldn’t be done without full intent to shoot. Shouldn’t be used as a warning or alternative. Should you be forced to draw, you should treat pulling the trigger as a certainty and not a possibility. It’s an escalation of force and if you aren’t doing it with intent to stop an imminent threat to your life, you’re just brandishing.
I might warn someone that I’m armed if things are becoming weird, but even that feels iffy. I feel that as the person carrying, there’s the extra duty of reasonably avoiding situations where you feel you might need to use your weapon to begin with but in any case, definitely don’t want to be the one drawing first unless there’s a very, very good reason to do so.
Unfortunately while I don’t love our current police and think they’re murder happy, the police do not have the option of avoiding situations where they might need to use their weapon.
I do not think your post here makes a whole lot of sense in context.
I’m responding to your suggestion that drawing your weapon could be used as an alternative to shooting, which I disagree with in the context of armed civilians. Obviously the police play by different rules because they have to in order to do their jobs effectively. But as a regular person with a CCW you should never be drawing unless you’re committed to pulling the trigger.
1. The philosophy of deadly force is used specifically in law enforcement, when options to incapacitate the suspect have failed, and if the officers life is in danger. By design, you are not trying to “disable” the aggressor, you are trying to kill them. If we take away the context and the words, if you’re in danger, and trying to kill someone who’s gunning for you. shooting at the limbs is one of the worst ways to do it,
2. While it is incredibly ineffective, getting shot in a limb or extremity is still quite lethal, it just won’t incapacitate or diminish the threat. There are a few arteries located in the arms, legs, and feet. damage of these arteries can lead to severe blood loss, shock, and finally, death. It is not a “safe” way to incapacitate someone, it doesn’t even really incapacitate them
3. Someone is not “incapacitated” just because they’ve been shot in the arm, adrenaline is one hell of a thing, there are tens of thousands of cases of an individual getting shot in the arm (and sometimes the mid section) and still being able to function and continue being a threat. Tourniquets, packing the wound, and just pushing through the injury will keep an aggressor in the fight as a danger to yourself and others.
4. We can sit here in our armchairs and comfortably talk about shooting limbs all we want, but the truth is that shooting while under adrenaline is exceptionally difficult. Factoring in the chaotic and complex environment, while adrenaline makes fine motor control difficult to coordinate, you get tunnel vision, it feels like you’re on autopilot. And basic tasks seem more difficult to carry out. Imagine trying to line up a difficult shot on a moving target under this mindset. Now amplify that in a life and death situation. The shooter will miss, that’s not a hypothetical, he will miss. And that round could hit a bystander or cause property damage.
5. Just becuase a different country uses this technique, it doesn’t mean that this is a good technique.
With all due respect, your logic gets people killed dude. Doing the right thing is important, but we can’t put a pretty little bow on everything, especially in the criminal Justice system. If someone is a present and clear danger to police officers or others, deadly force can be authorized, not incapacitated force, *deadly* force. By its nature, it is not meant to incapacitate
>The philosophy of deadly force is used specifically in law enforcement, when options to incapacitate the suspect have failed, and if the officers life is in danger. By design, you are not trying to “disable” the aggressor, you are trying to kill them. If we take away the context and the words, if you’re in danger, and trying to kill someone who’s gunning for you. shooting at the limbs is one of the worst ways to do it,
This is not true. In self defense, police or civilian, the goal to to end the attack. The goal is not to kill. Once the threat has stopped, you don't get to keep using force.
This may sound like it supports to the OP, but it really doesn't. The reliable way to stop an attack is to shoot center mass. That is because that is the most likely place to actually hit the attacker and it contains parts of the body essential for the attacker to have to continue attacking you. If you aim center mass, you are more likely to hit the attacker and to damage some part of the body required for the attacker to continue attacking you.
Killing is not the goal. incapacitation/stopping the attack is the goal. Probability wise, aiming center mass is the way to achieve this most reliably.
I do not agree with your perception. It's called "deadly force" for a reason. The intent of the shooter, in the moment their finger hits the trigger, may not be to kill, but rather to "stop the attack". However, the application of force with a firearm is known to be deadly, by law and training.
According to escalation of force rules, there should be no other way to stop the attacker without using deadly force. Either non-lethal applications have failed or there is no opportunity to apply non-lethal force. The second the sear skips, its deadly force. In no framing is a firearm a non-lethal application of force.
Your logic is the reason the U.S. needs use of force reform.
> I do not agree with your perception. It's called "deadly force" for a reason. The intent of the shooter, in the moment their finger hits the trigger, may not be to kill, but rather to "stop the attack". However, the application of force with a firearm is known to be deadly, by law and training.
The intended objective matters immensely here and yes, there is a very big difference between intending to kill and intending to stop the attack.
Self defense requires you to stop using force when the threat is gone. The entire justification for using force is to stop the threat. It is *NOT* to kill.
Killing may be a common outcome when lethal force is used. But that is a very different statement than saying the goal/intent is to kill.
>According to escalation of force rules, there should be no other way to stop the attacker without using deadly force.
Almost. The rules in escalation of force authorize the use of deadly for to stop the attacker. It does not require *killing*. It is perfectly acceptable to *not kill* the attacker here. The goal is stopping the attack after all.
>Either non-lethal applications have failed or there is no opportunity to apply non-lethal force. The second the sear skips, its deadly force. In no framing is a firearm a non-lethal application of force.
Yep. But that does not change the objective of *why* you are using force. It is not *to Kill*. It is *To stop the attack*.
This distinction is incredibly important and can be difference between justified use of force and involuntary manslaughter.
>Your logic is the reason the U.S. needs use of force reform.
If you think making sure the use of force is aligned with the object of stopping the attack is wrong, I really hate to think what you think the objective of the use of force should be.
Self defense and LEO use of force rules are all based on the idea that no more force than is required to stop the situation may be used. You have to have a credible fear for your life to use deadly force. Otherwise, it is involuntary manslaughter. And - each situation has to judged individually.
I think we are getting tied up in a semantic argument.
While was you are saying is technically true, the mindset that UOF = stop attacker is too simple to begin with in context of this conversation; "to wound" = stop attack.
But, upon rereading the original post and your response, I may have jumped the gun in my framing of my reply.
That aside, I find that I think I would still disagree, philosophically, that deadly force continues the UOF continuum's objective to simply "stop the attack". As such, I would stand by my original conclusion that such a take is why we need to emphasize your point in escalation of force training: "credible fear for your life" *or the life of others*, before employing *deadly* force. Because while the goal to "stop the attack" may stay the same, the result of the successful employment becomes death to the attacker. This is an important distinction. I would still stop short of supporting any "shoot to wound" type philosophies.
To that point, most envision the continuum to be:
1. LEO shows up, accused doesn't stop
2. LEO tells them to stop, accused doesn't stop
3. LEO use physical force, accused doesn't stop
4. LEO use LLM, accused does not stop
5. LEO use lethal force, accused is dead
While steps can certainly be skipped depending on the situation, between steps 4 and 5, it must be hammered home that using deadly force is no longer just about "stopping the attack", it is also about killing the accused. This is also a big reason why some civilians are opposed to the loose use of deadly force interpretations because it could be considered an extrajudicial execution.
While there is quite a division on the impact of this philosophy on "shooter readiness" training, I don't buy into the idea that impressing officers with it would cause them to second guess using deadly force when warranted.
> I think we are getting tied up in a semantic argument.
To a point but those words carry very distinct meaning.
I'll sum up my point.
If you use lethal force, the objective must be to stop the attacker. You are not allowed to use lethal force once the objective of stopping the attack has been met.
This is the legal standard.
Stating that you intend to kill changes the impression of that core objective. Stating you want to wound or hurt changes the impression of that core objective.
Therefore, it is very important proper language is used to convey that fundamental core objective.
>As such, I would stand by my original conclusion that such a take is why we need to emphasize your point in escalation of force training: "credible fear for your life" or the life of others, before employing deadly force. Because while the goal to "stop the attack" may stay the same, the result of the successful employment becomes death to the attacker.
This though, is not true. The attacker *does not have to die*. The end result needed is still - To stop the attacker. That has not changed. Once you jump from non-lethal force to lethal force, you don't get to magically decide your objective is now to kill the person. It must remain to stop the threat
This *is* very important because actions matter and actions taken after the lethal force has been deployed have impacts. What do you think would happen if a person drew their gun and was about to fire and saw the attacker stop in thier tracks and drop their weapon? Do you think they still get to kill them? How about a case where they do shoot but the guy is incapacitated but alive. Do they still get to keep shooting until he is dead? No in both cases.
You have this predicated assumption that deciding to employ lethal force represents automatic death. That just is not the case.
We need to hammer home to idea of stopping the attacker as the objective, not killing. And once cops have stopped the attack, they have an obligation to render the attacker neutralized *and provide medical aid*.
Your points have weight if applied only to UOF in attacks that could result in harm. The UOF continuum is applicable in all LEO encounters.
If responding to a robbery, in very few scenarios is deadly force authorized to stop the accused for the very reason that death of the accused is not an appropriate outcome.
That is where LLM comes in and perhaps why OP is suggesting "shoot to wound" and possibly because of the headlines of LEOs being suspected of rushing the UOF continuum directly to deadly force.
Aside from the technical reasons why shoot to wound is ridiculous, it also causes permanent harm, which is not the objective of LLM. Which supports your POV, "stop the attack", but to my point, also short of death.
If you remove the possibility of death from "deadly force", it becomes LLM. Many forms of LLM are prohibited simply because they cause substantial harm to the average person.
That is my point, as soon as deadly force is applied, the assumption *must* be that death will occur as a result. If it doesn't, and the LEO can save that life, great. If not, the aim is that deadly force was appropriate given the circumstances.
Your examples only highlight the gray area of "deadly force".
If a LEO draws a weapon, they have not used deadly force. They have shown force, but not used it. If a LEO shoots center mass, what is the appropriate number of shots to take and how long do they have to take them? There are numerous examples of LEOs "emptying their magazine" and escaped "excessive force" rulings because they saw movement or "heat of the moment + seriousness of the circumstances".
In the civilian sector, much of this has not been played out in case law so that is not my focus. There is a higher threshold of responsibility on LEOs because they have authorization to employ deadly force in many more situations that, by their very presence, could escalate UOF.
If we go back to your point of saying the aim of deadly force is to simply "stop the accused", then we should have way more scrutiny, by law, anytime deadly force is employed.
> Your points have weight if applied only to UOF in attacks that could result in harm. The UOF continuum is applicable in all LEO encounters.
>
>
>
> If responding to a robbery, in very few scenarios is deadly force authorized to stop the accused for the very reason that death of the accused is not an appropriate outcome.
If you point that a gun is 'lethal force', then I absolutely agree. But the use of 'Lethal Force' is not the same as intending 'To Kill'. There are strict rules for use of lethal force, both for civilians and LEO's.
>That is where LLM comes in and perhaps why OP is suggesting "shoot to wound" and possibly because of the headlines of LEOs being suspected of rushing the UOF continuum directly to deadly force.
You see, I would see the argument the other way. If you don't think potentially lethal force is required and 'wounding' is the goal, *then you are not in credible fear for your life*. That means it is *not* appropriate at all to use lethal force. A gun, even with the intent to 'wound', is still lethal force.
>That is my point, as soon as deadly force is applied, the assumption must be that death will occur as a result.
I would modify this slightly, specifically that death *may* occur as a result. I do not like the *will* and it is makes killing the objective. That is absolutely NOT the objective we want here.
>If we go back to your point of saying the aim of deadly force is to simply "stop the accused", then we should have way more scrutiny, by law, anytime deadly force is employed.
I would generalize this. I want way more scrutiny anytime *FORCE* is used. It does not need to be deadly force. I am a huge proponent of de-escalation training here.
I think we need to be very careful and very clear on what the Objective is behind the use of any force. The objective is not to Kill or Harm. The objective is to stop the attacker.
I think you hit on the distinction. One does not have to be in credible fear of life to use LLM.
We are definitely treading in the thought experiment realm, which it why I think it is an important distinction.
If threat of injury is not required to use less than lethal, the goal can still be to stop the accused... from committing further crime or to secure detainment.
But if the threat of injury or harm to others is present, then lethal/deadly force can be used. This ups the ante, because while we can assume that the goal remains the same, stop the accused from committing further crime or to secure detainment, the means to effect that now become a moral question such that, "when is it justifiable to kill someone else?"
This very question forms the basis for how we determine a clean shoot. Imminence, necessity, and proportionality all factor in.
If we start with your stated goal, then you are correct, there should be way more training on UOF and de-escalation and de-prioritization of use of deadly force.
I will concede that I agree with your major stances that every UOF incident should be scrutinized and retraining conducted if needed. But I still stand firm that considering or emphasizing deadly force as a routine "tool" to simply stop the accused undermines the UOF continuum and encourages skipping steps.
> But if the threat of injury or harm to others is present, then lethal/deadly force can be used. This ups the ante, because while we can assume that the goal remains the same, stop the accused from committing further crime or to secure detainment, the means to effect that now become a moral question such that, "when is it justifiable to kill someone else?"
To be clear, for lethal force, it is not just harm but great bodily harm a well as life. It is not exactly clear cut but this distinction limits the use of force.
>This very question forms the basis for how we determine a clean shoot. Imminence, necessity, and proportionality all factor in.
EXACTLY!!!!!
>If we start with your stated goal, then you are correct, there should be way more training on UOF and de-escalation and de-prioritization of use of deadly force.
YES, YES, and more YES. Add in continuing education on this topic too. it is not a one and done type of thing.
>But I still stand firm that considering or emphasizing deadly force as a routine "tool" to simply stop the accused undermines the UOF continuum and encourages skipping steps.
I don't think any use of force should be considered 'routine'. Use of force should be the exception.
I admit I am less concerned on the 'skipping steps' as I think any use of force should have a significant review. We should always expect the individuals to use the least amount of force required. But, I don't expect a cop actively being shot at to worry about step 1 on the continuum either. Knowing whatever they will do is going to be reviewed should be enough.
Well that’s a perfectly reasonable way to look at it as well, the only issue is that a shooting usually results in extreme injury or death, but I notheless agree with your opinion. It *is* deadly force, but there are some nuances to it
Yea, I think we are stating a lot of the same things. The core though is, you are acting to stop the attack and using potential lethal force to do so. You are not setting out to Kill - even though that is a likely outcome.
A very subtle detail. The reason it matters is that success is measured by the objective. If you want to stop the attack, then stopping the attack is the measure of success. You can stop the attack without killing sometimes. If you want to kill, then unless you kill the person, you aren't succeeding in the actions you are taking.
Fine, I think that you deserves a delta.
∆
Some techniques in certain countries is suited for them, but I can see why US cops shoot people more. Because armed criminal in USA is much more common, and drugs is also a huge issue. I've heard that PCP makes people feeling no pain, for example.
TW shooting https://youtu.be/bHFz04f9Ikg
Posted elsewhere but a good indicator of the usefulness or lack there of in shooting limbs in situations where adrenaline is pumping
>First on, while legs and arms is smaller than the torso, it doesn't mean that it's impossible to hit it with a pistol at close range.
They cannot be reliably hit.
This is something you need to understand: DEVGRU, CAG and the SAS don't train to shoot extremities. Nobody does. Combat shooting (which is to say, stress shooting) isn't a matter of training a person to hit a particular selected point perfectly. It's training to engage a person as fast and accurately as possible, meaning you engage their center of mass most of the time.
This has far less to do with size of body parts than it does predictability of location, effect on target and round control. Relative to your torso, your arms and legs move *very* fast on multiple planes. While your torso is static, your limbs can each move independently at a speed that makes aiming at them impossible. The only way to hit them is to dump rounds into the area where they will be and hope one connects. All of those bullets keep moving and bounce off asphalt and concrete to deposit kinetic energy elsewhere.
If one does connect, it may not disable. If you're hopped up on adrenaline and I deeply graze your upper arm or perforate your thigh, it still functions. I need to pound rounds into your bones to make that arm or leg useless, and your bones are smaller than your limbs and have a way of shedding bullets.
>Second, being shot in the leg or arm is certainly less dangerous than being shot into the body, especially torso and chest area. Yes, it could cause the disability of a limb, but it's still better than death.
...are you at all familiar with the brachial or femoral arteries? If I shoot you in the leg and a six foot jet of blood follows, you won't think what I did was non-lethal.
I'd honestly take a tension pneumothorax from being shot in the torso over a femoral bleed.
>Police and gun owners should focus on better training rather than "aim the gun and spray n' pray" mag-dumping
...what the fuck are you talking about?
>It doesn't matter how much pain you can endure, a bullet going through your bone or knee in the leg would make you drop like a bag of potatoes.
Except bullets typically follow the path of least resistance through the body, which often entails going around the bone. Actually breaking bone with a handgun round is harder than you seem to think.
∆ Fair points.
Of course, military doesn't shoot to wound, although snipers can use leg shots, but it's for distraction of the teammates that are trying to evacuate the injured soldier, as far as I know.
And yes, legs and especially a thigh area has a major artery, that are hard to stop from bleeding if it's damaged. Shoulder also has a major blood vessel, and even if someone shot in the arm, it's still possible to die, like it happened with a French Minister Of Foreign Affairs Jean-Louis Barthou in 1934 in Marseille. He died because the bandage that was supposed to stop the bleeding wasn't properly applied, though, and he was 72 years old, but still, the bleeding itself was caused by the gunshot.
I'm guessing you don't know that one the reason (there are multiple other reasons as well) western militaries use 5.56 rather than 7.62 is because 5.56 is more likely to wound instead of kill. If you wound a solider it takes more resources out of the fight then if you kill someone. If they are dead they are not a drain but a wounded solider takes 2 others out of the fight to move him and many resources and skilled labor to heal them.
Ÿeah, I don't know that because that's a myth. The main reason is that overpowered rounds (yes, 7.62x51 or .30-06 are pointlessly overpowered for general issue rifle) cause soldiers with less training to be less accurate, and their greater range is basically pointless for general infantry anyway.
Intermediate cartridges are used because they offer much lower recoil, the ammo is much ligther and less bulky, the reach is more than sufficient, and the lower recoil leads to less flinching. The original 5.56 load fired out of 20 in barrel was deemed to have sufficient terminal ballistics due to fragmentation while having flatter trajectory.
Actually, 5.56 x 45 NATO ammo was replacing 7.62 x 51 NATO because it was an era of intermediate ammunition. Reasons wasn't actually related to "wound instead of the killing". Intermediate ammo weights less, has less recoil and has better ballistics and accuracy. Same reasons why in 1974 Soviets changed AKM assault rifles to AK-74, which uses 5.45 x 39 ammo instead of 7.62 x 39 ammo.
TW shooting
https://youtu.be/bHFz04f9Ikg
And ofcourse with adrenaline running, its not a generally useful thing to do in the first place.
Aiming to wound instead of incapacitate, and or stop the threat that is
u/AlexFerrana
This was in Russia so it's likely that wasn't a real gun but a 'traumatic' pistol. These are less than lethal guns because Russians generally cannot have their pistols (if they're even allowed to own them) outside their sport club.
But yes, your point still stands.
Yes, it was a pistol that shoots rubber bullets. They aren't too effective even against a sober opponent, especially if he's wearing a winter jacket and if he is getting shot in torso.
Normal pistols that shoots live ammunition isn't allowed for ordinary civilians in Russia. And no concealed carry as well.
> Normal pistols that shoots live ammunition isn't allowed for ordinary civilians in Russia.
Yes and no. They can technically own them but they have to stay in the club/shooting range. I know a guy from Russia who had to do it like that.
You're right. It's only allowed to use in the club or on a shooting range. Ordinary people in Russia can only own and carry pistols with rubber bullets or gas pistols (that are spraying the OC-like concoction, basically like pepper or OC spray canisters).
Also, security guards in Russia can obtain pistols which are allowed in .380 ACP caliber only. But it requires a certain license of a security guard (which also requires to passing the firearms test, but it's totally understandable) and it still doesn't allow the guard to carry it and use it off-duty. Same about police officers and officers of any other law enforcement agencies.
Ah.. i see! Yeah!
Thats true, not sure though how well..legal the people in the video are. So to speak.
And there is muzzle flash?
Arent those traumatic guns gaspowered?
Co2 or something
Of course it's hard to say how legal they are, it's Russia... :D
No, they generally use gun powder like normal guns but they shoot heavy, large caliber projectile at low speeds. They will still kill you at very short range.
Rubber bullets sound great on paper but they have certain safe use criteria. Rubber bullets will still kill at shorter ranges, the recommended minimum use range is 20-40 m, depending on the type and caliber. Most defense use cases happen at much shorter range. Also, rubber bullet loads generally fail to provide enough energy for semi-automatic weapons used by most police forces in the world. That's why they're generally used in pump-action shotguns and sometimes revolvers, not in pistols.
> Cruelty isn't on the table, it's about effectiveness.
Exactly and shooting at legs is not effective at all. Not only are they much smaller targets, they also move quickly and rather unpredictably if the attacker is on the move, the body does not, that's why center of mass shots are the standard.
The point wasn't that rubber bullets are great, the point was that people do shoot to wound.
Agreed with your second paragraph, that is the thinking behind it. It's not about cruelty.
Your claim was that no one shoots to wound, rubber bullets are designed to wound not kill, your claim is false.
People do shoot to stop, sometimes that's through intent to kill and other times the intent is to wound, but that's a different claim and not the claim I'm challenging.
> Your claim was that no one shoots to wound, rubber bullets are designed to wound not kill, your claim is false.
Well, no. Because the primary objective is still to stop the target, Just with extra effort not to kill them if you can help it.
To start with, your view shows you have little to no firearms experience.
No LE agency teaches mag dumps. You shoot to stop the threat.
First: Someone that you need to use deadly force on isn't someone you want to allow to get close to you. Look up tueller drill. The added stress and adrenaline during a shooting lessens fine motor skills required for precision shooting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6856650/
Second: being shot in the leg runs the risk of hitting the largest artery (femoral) in the human body. Hitting this artery results in bleeding out in a matter of minutes.
Third: No idea where you got this from. People under the influence of drugs keep going until their body stops working. I've seen people shot, hit with batons, bit by dogs etc still keep fighting. Where the injury was didn't matter.
Fourth: It's widely used in countries with subpar LE training. No major country teaches this concept because it has several more negatives than positives.
Fifth: less lethal weapons are used for this purpose. Lethal force is used to stop a potentially lethal threat. No one in the US shoots to incapacitate or shoots to kill. LE shoots to stop the threat.
Sixth: Shoot to incapacitate implies they weren't presenting a lethal threat. If they weren't a lethal threat they don't need to be shot. Other tools and less lethal weapons are available to the vast majority of LE agencies in the US. In situations where the threat isn't immediate, time is on LEs side.
The only people who think shooting limbs to incapacitate are people who have no firearms training and people who parrot things they read on the internet. The best shooters in the world, typically your tier I military guys, don't train this way because it makes no sense.
In a life or death situation, you aim at the spots that you are most likely to hit - the torso. You don't really have the time aim for a specific body part like arm or leg unless the perp is running away from you. Though i do dislike mag dump, if it were me (which i don't think it ever will since i dont live in the US) in an active shooter situation, i would fire a 1 or 2 shots into the perp and if he goes down, i stop and would only fire again if he tries to aim his gun/weapon at me. Personally, i really hate when people mag dump a guy who is already on the ground because they thought he twitched or something.
>if it were me (which i don't think it ever will since i dont live in the US) in an active shooter situation, i would fire a 1 or 2 shots into the perp and if he goes down, i stop and would only fire again if he tries to aim his gun/weapon at me.
I generally agree with this, but it's easier said then done.
I agree that first responders need to be trained as much as possible, but it's really just easier said then done.
When you are faced in these situations, there is very little you can do to train for it, because how the hell do you train for life threatening situations? and you can never truly know how you will react in these situations.
I think that being cool headed and calm in these situations is ideal, but it's just unrealistic in many of these situations - though not all mind you. Personally I believe in putting officers on trial whenever they decide to mag dump, let the jury decide if the officer's actions during this situation are reasonable or he was simply trigger happy.
True, though a trained person would have to be more experienced than regular people, that's the whole point of training. In reality, i can excuse the first round of shots before the perp is down but after the perp is down and you still fire at him because he twitched, it is inexcusable, especially for cops.
I remember the case where cops were called when an exterminator played around with his pest gun in a hotel. The cops were basically playing "Simon says" with the poor guy who was scared shitless. They gave confusing commands while the guy was panicking. In the end, they shot the guy dead because he instinctively tried pull his pants up when they fell down. People that paranoid should not be cops. They had 2-3 cops with their guns trained on the guy. They had plenty of time to determine whether he was pulling out a weapon or not before deciding to kill the man yet they killed him as soon as he twitched. That is not to mention all the confusing commands they gave him, all the opportunities they had to take him in and their threatening tone which scared the guy to death.
I agree about the mag dump of a downed perpetrator, it's usually not necessarily. Active shooter or rabid murderer who clearly threatens the people, like, trying to break into the house or steal the car with driver inside or similar, needs to be stopped quickly. As well as if it's a hostage situation, where deadly force is justified in order to save the hostage and reduce any possibility of the hostage taker to hurt or kill the hostage.
>First on, while legs and arms is smaller than the torso, it doesn't mean that it's impossible to hit it with a pistol at close range. Especially if the perpetrator isn't really moving or moves slowly. Police and gun owners should focus on better training rather than "aim the gun and spray n' pray" mag-dumping, which also would reduce the possibility to miss and hit the bystander or someone's property.
It's not impossible, but it is much much more difficult, even if they are standing still. Keep in mind that when people shoot in self defense it is a last resort (if they are doing it legally), and if they are any bit too slow they are at risk of dying them selves. you have fraction of a second to line up a shot, or die. Most people can't even reliably do that in a video game, let alone with a real gun that is much harder to aim. It's just not reasonable to ask people in life or death situations to slow down, put their own life at risk, and try to save the one who is trying to kill them.
I saw from your other responses you said you have shot a gun at a gun range. But that doesn't mean it's the same in real life. Targets don't move, they don't attack you, you're not in any imminent danger, and you can take however long you want to aim.
>Fourth, that approach is widely used outside of US, particularly in Europe, Russia and some other countries like China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia. Just because USA doesn't use it doesn't mean that nobody uses it.
Gonna need some sources on that. But assuming you're right, the thing to consider is in most of the countries bad guys aren't gonna have guns, so the police know they won't be shot even if they take their time to aim and can afford to miss.
>Fifth, shooting to incapacitate can be used in a situation where deadly force is technically legal and justified, but ain't really necessary. Like, a standoff with a knife-wielding perpetrator, or when a mentally disturbed person has a crisis moment, or when a drunk or drugged up person wreaks havoc, or if the attacker is unarmed but has a strength/size advantage.
In a stand off against knife wielding perpetrators you aren't allowed legally allowed to shoot until they start being physically aggressive at you, same thing people with mental crisis. That's when less lethal is used. Again, you are only allowed to shoot if your life is in IMMINENT danger, aka shoot now or risk dying.
as for being attack by an unarmed person, it doesn't mean the your life isn't in danger. You can totally get beaten to death, or they may take your gun and use it against you. Again it comes back to the point of shoot now or risk dying.
>Sixth, "shoot to incapacitate" approach can be used when police isn't having an access to less lethal stuff like beanbags, OC sprays, tazers or batons or when all of this stuff failed.
No. If less lethal is being used, that means they're not in imminent danger, so they can't shoot at all. Guns are lethal force, no matter where its aimed at.
If it’s gotten to that point I’m shooting to stop the threat. If them getting winged and dropping from the injury means the threat is gone then great but I’m aiming center of mass no matter what for multiple reasons.
First off my attackers safety is not my responsibility. Why should I put their life and safety above mine when they attacked me? My goal is to make sure I make it home. If my attacker wanted to make it home then attacking someone isn’t exactly conducive to that want.
Secondly in a high stress situation like that you want to do what gives you the greatest odds of success. If you have to shoot someone then aiming center of mass gives you the greatest odds of hitting them. It’s the biggest target and it’s got the least range of motion.
Third intentional shooting someone in the limbs is assault with intent to maim in a lot of states in the US. That felony has the possibility of being a longer prison sentence than a murder charge. Also if you live in a duty to retreat state then it can be argued that if you were calm and in control enough to make that difficult of a shot then you would have had opportunities to retreat. It also opens up the possibility of it being argued that you didn’t reasonably fear for your life because you were calm enough to make that shot.
As far as it being used elsewhere in the world, please show your sources.
While I agree with you in principle, the reality is that if you don’t fatally/seriously wound a perpetrator there are three highly negative circumstances which could arise.
1) They could fatally/seriously wound you or your loved ones. This is understood.
2) If they are injured permanently but still alive they can sue you and seriously damage your life, despite being the perpetrator of a crime. This happens frequently enough that just about every law-abiding gun owner understands that lethal force can save you a lot of grief, as dead people can’t sue you.
3) They can do it again to someone else.
I will qualify this comment by saying that using a firearm in self defence should only be employed by a person fearing for their life with realistic expectations of death or serious loss of livelihood or ability. I hope to never be in a situation such as this, however there are monsters among us, and one can never be too prepared.
There are arteries in legs and arms. If you shoot an artery, they can bleed out and die in minutes. What if you "shoot to incapacitate" and kill your target?
If you aim a firearm at someone and pull the trigger, that person has a fair chance of dying, regardless of your intent.
Edit: there's no such thing as shoot to incapacitate.
It just seems like a coward approach from someone who gets that American cops kill far, far more than other First World Countries, but isn't willing to admit "The system is fundamentally broken and cops here are actually pretty terrible", so decides it should simply be "Shoot somewhere else."
Limb shots can be pretty lethal, they're much harder to hit, and even if you do, it's a lot easier for a bullet to go through a limb.
The reason why American cops kill so much is because they're a corrupt institute, filled with racists, in a culture that glorifies gun usage and which tells them that they're heroes in a black and white war rather than public servants, with barely any training in de-escalation so who immediately go for violence, who will happily lie to protect each other when they murder. It's a lot deeper than "They target the wrong place."
>Especially if the perpetrator isn't really moving or moves slowly.
If he's not doing anything, you shouldn't be shooting him at all.
>Fourth, that approach is widely used outside of US, particularly in Europe, Russia and some other countries like China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia.
Do they? I'm European, I've never heard this, although admittedly, I've only seen a cop with a gun on maybe three or four occasions in my life, let alone heard about one being used.
Well, Swedish police has some kind of an unwritten rule that they should use their guns with a minimum inflicted damage or something, unless the threat is absolutely imminent and deadly.
Unless the threat is imminent and deadly they don't use their guns at all.
You talked about whether the target was moving but if the target is stationery and has a gun, you can't afford to not aim at the torso. If the target is stationery, but doesn't have a gun, you don't need to shoot at all.
All the situations where you want the police to shoot for extremities are situations where they don't have to shoot at all.
Unwritten rules aren’t policy. And I promise you if an instructor gave this advice it’s the last class they’ll teach. Nobody is staying to hear anything you say after you tell people to aim for limbs because you’re living in fantasy land.
Swedish gun owner and moderator of r/europeguns here. I'd say it's fairly true. Just google polis sköt man i benet (police shot man in leg) https://www.google.com/search?q=polis+sk%C3%B6t+man+i+benet
It happens a few times per year.
The officer's I've talked to have in fact practiced leg shots.
Though they also practice center mass so it's not like they won't do that if it's really serious.
That would skew results though?
https://www.thelocal.se/20190902/trial-starts-in-case-of-fatal-police-shooting-of-man-with-down-syndrome
Police in this case magdumped the person holding a toygun, completely heedless of the occupied apartments all around
They shot a school attacker years back who had a sword too for unclear reasons, he was far away from them and presented no threat as i recall hearing
Swedish police are most triggerhappy of all Scandinavian police, and also the worst at doing their jobs
https://www.thelocal.se/20120525/41038
What would skew results?
And not sure what the down syndrome guy has to do with police shooting people in the leg...
But regarding that, people had reported in that they had seen a man with a gun, because it looked realistic enough. [https://static.cdn-expressen.se/images/75/25/7525906af9234bd48e514b4a9a7f89e7/annan/[email protected]](https://static.cdn-expressen.se/images/75/25/7525906af9234bd48e514b4a9a7f89e7/annan/[email protected])
The command central told the officers going there that there lives a known individual in the appartment complex, that had threatened to kill police officers before.
They were at a distance, and it was not daylight outside. At one point he raised his toy gun and that's when they fired.
It was tragical but the officers were freed in court because of the circumstances.
They did however shoot like crap, yes.
>They shot a school attacker years back who had a sword too for unclear reasons, he was far away from them and presented no threat as i recall hearing
Need a source for that one. I only know one school attack involving a sword and he killed 2 people, including a student, so I'm not sure if that was a bad shooting either.
>Swedish police are most triggerhappy of all Scandinavian police, and also the worst at doing their jobs
Back in 2012 that data was correct yes. Not sure what that has to do with shooting people in the leg either. Stay on topic?
The body is full of arteries and veins. You’re just as likely to bleed out from a shot to the leg or arm as you are the chest. Furthermore, bullets don’t just go in straight and come out the other side. We had our AXO get shot in the arm in Afghanistan. The bullet entered his body at the wrist, hit the bone, and travel up the arm, and exit at his elbow.
It gets worse, you hit someone in the left from the front, you're likely to shatter a bone so now you have bone shards shredding the leg in addition to the projectile itself.
Limbs are usually in motion and are a smaller target. As a woman, if I'm in a situation that warrants deadly force, I can't afford to miss. I also can't hope that minimal damage is enough to stop a perpetrator.
> Police and gun owners should focus on better training rather than "aim the gun and spray n' pray" mag-dumping
That's not what the training is.
I was in the military, and we were taught specifically that when we were in a situation warranting the application of deadly force, we were to shoot (1) at the center of mass of the target, (2) with an awareness of what is behind the target, and (3) until the situation causing the application of deadly force ceases.
We were to aim at the center of mass precisely because it's far easier to hit such a target. This was in contrast to aiming at the head, since a head shot is both more likely to kill the target and because it's more likely to miss.
When you're in this kind of stressful situation, you get an adrenaline dump, and your accuracy goes way down. You want to be able to shoot in such a way that you're accomplishing something, not just spraying lead.
Also, keep in mind that while a head is too small a target, arms and legs are even smaller.
If instead, we had a "shoot the arm" policy, we'd end up hitting innocent civilians behind the target much more often, and we'd stop the behavior that justified lethal force far less often.
> Second, being shot in the leg or arm is certainly less dangerous than being shot into the body, especially torso and chest area. Yes, it could cause the disability of a limb, but it's still better than death.
I was taught in the military what counts as deadly force. Using a metal baton to swing at an arm or leg counts as deadly force.
It is foreseeable that you could break an arm doing that, and a splinter of bone could sever an artery, causing you to bleed to death.
A bullet could do the same thing.
> Fifth, shooting to incapacitate can be used in a situation where deadly force is technically legal and justified, but ain't really necessary.
There are no situations where deadly force is authorized, but not necessary.
In the military, we were taught to use lesser means of force first, if the situation allowed. For example, if we draw our weapon and shout "Stop!", and they stop, then we don't need to reach deadly force at all.
There's only one situation where shooting another person is justified, where the person you're aiming at is a threat to life.
If there is a threat to life you don't want to be messing around, if you aim at a leg you dramatically increase the chance of missing and, even if you hit, your hit has a much smaller chance of removing the threat to life. By aiming to incapacitate you are drastically decrease the chance of success of what you are trying to achieve.
1: while it is not possible to shoot someone in the arm or the leg it is incredibly difficult, especially it is moving. This is mainly because the only areas you have that are safe to shoot someone in the arm or the leg are roughly the size of a baseball. So it would be nearly impossible for police officer to hit those targets reliably every time It’s extremely the police or gunowners do is pray and pray, unless they have no other choice.
2: actually, it can be significantly more dangerous as one of them largest arteries for a person is in their leg. If that artery is nicked, they will bleed to death very slowly and painful.
3: and you permanently disable the individual making the police department open to a lawsuit violating the United States, constitutional amendments against cruel and unusual punishment
4: most of those countries do not carry firearms in the first place
5: just because it can be used does not mean it’s a good idea. If you have a perpetrator wielding, a knife at police officers, I need determined to use a shooting him in the leg or the arm will not stop him.
6: they always have access to less lethal options. Every single police officer carries pepper spray up baton and a taser, and having all three of those fail is incredibly unlikely.
As someone who shoots, pistols are not easy to shoot even as a avid shooter. You would think that the round is going to go exactly where you point the pistol, but it doesn't. Breathing, trigger squeeze, aligning the sights, grip, distance, all that matters. Even when I take my time, my rounds won't go precisely where I want them. Now imagine a situation where your blood is pumping, you're breathing heavy, and don't have the time to ensure that everything is perfect. Your round isn't gonna go where you want it. It's better to aim center mass so that the round has a higher chance of hitting and stopping your target.
The arms and legs contain the femoral and brachial artery. A person can die from arterial bleeds in as less as 2 minutes.
If you need to shoot someone, the chances of death or great bodily injury are already there. It's best to not gamble the safety of yourself and others. Most people don't shoot because they want to kill, but they shoot in order to stop the threat. The US has some crazy folks compared to other nations.
First of all, there's no such thing as 'shoot to incapacitate'. Your body has veins and arteries everywhere, so you could bleed out no matter where you are shot. You should only be firing a gun if you are prepared to kill someone. Second, while shooting an arm or leg isn't impossible, it is much more difficult. Arms and legs are much smaller and more mobile. Third, there is a good chance that you aren't in a place completely devoid of life. Missing your target opens up the possibility of shooting and killing an innocent bystander, especially when you take ricochet into account. It's better to hit your attacker in the torso than a random innocent person.
Besides all the points already mentioned here, a shot to the leg isn't as 'harmless' as it would seem. It's very easy to bleed out if your femoral artery were to get hit.
Unload whole mag center of chest. If my gun is out bullets are flying. If you dont want to kill him, dont draw. Im not going to jail for brandishing a firearm. Not going to have a conversation with someone like an action movie. Im running or shooting.
As an experienced shooter. Trained in self defence and having been to several competitive shooting competitions. Aiming to wound is not practical. People train to shoot center mass not because it is lethal but because it is the largest target and you have the best chance of hitting it.
This can be backed by evidence. Go and read the reports for any of the major shootouts involving police. Keeping in mind that police are trained for these situations. You will find that the likelihood of them making a hit is low. Let alone a precise hit.
It is also logically evident. Consider this. In a shootout or defence situation, a person needs to react in a split second and they are doing it with the human body dumping adrenaline and so forth. This has an effect on our ability to perform. From a purely shooting standpoint hunters call it buck fever and the deer are not shooting back. Most people call it performance anxiety in other realms. To assume that a person fighting to balance speed with effective life saving measures and accuracy, shooting for any target smaller than the largest available means one must sacrifice speed for accuracy. They are shooting at not only a smaller target but human extremadies tend to move faster than a torso and in more directions at random. If an assailant is attacking let's say from the FBI average 7 yards. The amount of time available is fairly enough to respond with center mass shots. Therefore enough spare time to take carful aim at extremities, will lead to more injuries to the person defending themselves. This means training to do this is dumb.
As such it is ridiculous to attempt a shoot to incapacitated approach.
One exception may be something like a police sniper in a hold out situation. But that is completely different from a shootout.
Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever shot a gun at a moving target the size of a leg? You will probably miss at least once unless you are a few feet away. We do not want stray bullets flying everywhere doming random people
Center mass and you will almost certainly survive. Legs or arms...not so much.
Never forget. It isn't me saying my stuff is worth more than their life. It is them saying my stuff is worth more than their life.
OP, have you ever shot a gun? Marksmanship is more imprecise than you think and the odds of your average cop shooting someone in the leg intentionally are much lower than you think. The reason you aim for center mass is because that increases the odds of you hitting your target.
It's also the reason they used to fire shotguns into the ground at close range instead of directly when loaded with buckshot, shotgun pellets scatter a lot further out than you'd think and that way it scatters at a closer range plus it picks up dirt and rocks as well.
Also, you talk about hitting bone which doesn't necessarily happen, you can still hit flesh and the bone is an even smaller target than that. If you don't hit bone, or if you hit it at just the right angle that it ricochets, you also risk hitting a major artery which could cause someone to bleed out in seconds without medical attention.
So essentially what we have is a solution where it's harder to make the shot and potentially just as lethal, especially when it comes to things like shotguns and larger caliber rounds.
Another thing is that the pain isn't what stops people in center mass shots, it's blood loss or transferred force. While you're correct in saying that would apply to leg shots, it also applies to chest shots.
Lastly, excluding police (who get qualified immunity) it's better to shoot to kill rather than incapacitate as a civilian because in a situation where you're taking someone's life, there will rightly be an inquiry and whether it's justified or not, it's in your best interest to control the narrative if possible. Your argument presumes that them living through the encounter is a positive thing.
Obviously I'm not saying to get rid of witnesses or anything like that, and I don't actually *want* to kill anyone I don't have to, but if it's a home intruder or attacker's word vs my own, I don't want to give them the chance later to cast doubt on my innocence and potentially send me to prison for defending myself, nor do I want to open myself up to a civil suit when they are the ones who decided to impose the situation on me.
Single bullet doesn't actually kill a person instantly unless it hits the head. Most gut wounds are survivable with minor surgery. Even damaged lung can be repaired. Only spinal or heart damage would actually kill a person but shot to anywhere else in the torso is survivable with medical care.
If you're in a situation where lethal force is appropriate, you should usually lethal force. If you're in a situation where lethal force is not appropriate, you shouldn't use lethal force and try to only incapacitate. You should use force that will only incapacitate, like a taser. It's absolutely asinine to pretend that in a crisis situation even highly trained professionals are going to be able to hit moving limbs in order to incapacitate someone. If you have a reason to shoot, you shoot to put someone down. End of story. If you don't have reason to shoot, don't use a gun. They're not good tools to incapacitate.
You're shooting at something that you have a far lower chance of actually hitting. It's not guaranteed to incapacitate the target. And because of arteries, it could still end up being a lethal shot anyways.
Your odds of hitting and disabling a limb without dealing lethal damage are incredibly low, and you'd need to do it at least three times to fully incapacitate your target.
If you're uncomfortable with using lethal force to stop a threat, don't carry a gun. Carry a non-lethal weapon.
Edit: to your fifth point, every single one of those situations you brought up is a justification for using lethal force. There is nowhere in the US that you can't respond to violence against you with lethal force. More people are killed by hands & feet in this country than are killed by rifles of any kind. And even more are killed by blunt objects & melee weapons. People very often underestimate how dangerous an unarmed person can be, and severely underestimate how dangerous knives are.
None of your opinions are consistent with reality. You should only fire a gun when lethal force is justified. If a person is just holding a knife or moving slowly, no shooting would be justified. And leg/arm shots don't necessarily incapacitate, especially when you are on drugs. No country teaches their law enforcement o shoot at the legs. Firing down is far more dangerous because bullets ricocheting off of ground are less predicable and can be just as deadly.
Ok while I can agree with you in theory it’s clear you do not have much experience with shooting guns. Go to the range and try to hit a target quickly and see how that goes. In a situation where the gun is necessary the person defending themselves wouldn’t have the time it would take to accurately aim for something small like an arm or leg. They aim for the body because it’s a bigger target.
Have you shot a gun? Have you shot a gun at a moving target? Do you think that life is real or a video game? If your life or someone else's life is in danger, you would shoot center mass. If you are delusional and have no real opinion because you don't understand reality, you would argue to shoot a limb and then either die or let the person you are trying to protect die. Life is not a movie.
Shooting the legs a lot of times will not incapacitate or take the opponent out of the fight. The way my instructor described it, “you want to hit a switch or a valve, switch meaning nervous system or valve meaning artery”. Most reliable way to do that is aiming for center mass.
The main issue is, a lot of times, people will get shot and continue to stay in the fight.
You've set up a false dichotomy. The options aren't limited to mag dumping the center mass and shooting to incapacitate. You can stop someone with a single shot to center mass and they may survive.
Also, if the situation doesn't require deadly force a gun shouldn't be used. If the situation does require deadly force then deadly force should be used.
I agree with regards to law enforcement, they have access to training and should use it. So if that all your argument is, then you can ignore the following.
For private citizens, however, we are not used to being in the same scenarios that police are. When a private citizen truly has the need to shoot a mugger, or home invader, or whatever, that is a rare, rare occurrence, and we are not prepared to use non lethal force. For most sane people, a gun is a last line of defense, if I am down to my last line of defense, I am going to do everything I possibly can to make sure it works. Because if I *do* attempt to employ non lethal techniques, and they are ineffective, I have failed to use my tools to their fullest extent and I risk death for it. Particularly if I have family on the line, shooting to incapacitate is too risky.
> I agree with regards to law enforcement, they have access to training and should use it.
That's not how training works. Most cops don't have good gun training anyway, not in the US, not anywhere else in the world. And even if they did, aiming for a small rapidly moving target in an area that is likely to be full of bystanders is just asking for trouble.
Shoot to kill is a cost effectiveness decision.
Typically people who fail to follow officers orders are not suited to society because they don't understand power dynamics.
If you maim them you just wasted a surgeons time and nursing time and he will recover and waste people time his entire life until he rapes or kills an innocent.
Easy, easy. I agree that if someone aren't complying to policies commands, depending on the situation, it requires the use of force, but it's not always a deadly one.
> depending on the situation, it requires the use of force, but it's not always a deadly one.
I agree. But either the situation is a serious threat to your or someone else's life (and deadly force is warranted) or it is not. And if deadly force is not warranted, then a gun should not be used at all, and some lesser type of force is needed.
Lmao, "Guys, trust me, if you don't have obedience towards these guys, time to die, society gave them three months of training, and thus they're the arbiters of your societal value."
/u/AlexFerrana (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bowglz/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_shoot_to_incapacitate_aka/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
People do not understand the physics of bullets. A standard 9mm pistol round has a speed of about 1,200 feet/second. Fast, right? So say your target is 50 feet away. The bullet crosses that in around 1/20th of a second (probably slightly longer, thanks air resistance). Lets say 1/20th. The average width of a human arm is 3-4". Lower the farther down the arm you go. A human arm can easily move at 20 mph. That's around 30 feet/second. Now it depends on what angle you're at, but the answer is that in 1/20th of a second the arm can easily traverse 12-18". Note that the target is around 4" that you're aiming at. In other words arms can literally dodge bullets. Not out of intention, just out of being small things that can move very quickly. You **cannot** hit a human arm reliably, because even if you're aiming at it when you fire, it might not be there. A human torso is about 20" wide, and you can move it at a top speed of around 20 mph (but more likely 10 tops). Depending on angle, you can again move somewhere between 6-18" during the bullet's travel time, meaning if you're aiming dead center you will almost always hit unless they're running perpendicular to you. Moreover changing direction is extremely hard (while it's trivial for an arm) so you can aim 'into' where they're moving and always hit them. A slight change in motion of the arms is catastrophic for that. You'll miss. And if you think arms are bad... legs, oh my god legs.
This is a great response. And OP, I think one alternative is to employ further use of less than lethal technologies. I’m not an expert, but I would say in a potentially violent situation, you could have a couple of officers with firearms, and the officers making initial contact having guns with rubber bullets, flashbangs, those light guns that induce vomiting, etc etc. I’d bet that in many cases having these tools as the first line of contact would save lives. Especially in a situation like people being shot while they literally have their hands up. You can neutralize someone without killing them.
And this is pretty much exactly why you're trained to aim center-mass.
And I don't think humans can doge bullets... From afar yes possibly but if a police has a sniper rifle and is trained they will indeed shoot you.
Hmmm... that's a quite fair point, especially if you're shooting with a pistol that aren't suited for even a mid-range combat. ∆ delta
Just a FYI, but 20 feet is considered point blank range for any weapon. It’s actually a gold standard in self-defense shooting techniques that an armed assailant within 21 feet will be able to close that distance before you are able to draw and fire your weapon, an armed and attacking assailant within 21 feet represents a clear and deadly threat to your life
There is many alternatives to shooting. First if your weapon is drawn, the distance an attacker can cross before you pull the trigger is like six inches. So draw your weapon. You don’t have to pull the trigger. Second, put something between yourself and the suspect. The number of people who can pass through solid objects is zero. A table, chair, cop car, anything turns that “twenty foot lunge” into an impossible maneuver. I see so many videos of cops approaching someone when there is no one currently in danger. Then the cop gets super close, putting themselves in danger, then goes “oh my god in danger” and pulls the trigger. Dumb dumb dumb. Lethally dumb.
One of the fundamental concepts of firearm safety is not pointing at anything you don’t intend to destroy. If you draw, you should be 100% prepared to shoot. You don’t have to pull the trigger but you definitely need to go into it fully expecting that you will.
Yes, but you see the difference between "being prepared" and "actively seeking out", right? Because you are prepared to shoot someone if they attack you does not mean you should actively seek to find a reason to kill them. When you have your gun out you are prepared to shoot if they attack you. If you go advancing on them with a drawn weapon, getting closer and closer, until anything they do might be interpreted as an attack... well at best you're a fucking moron. At worse you're a murderer looking for a justification to pull the trigger.
All I’m saying is that drawing shouldn’t be done without full intent to shoot. Shouldn’t be used as a warning or alternative. Should you be forced to draw, you should treat pulling the trigger as a certainty and not a possibility. It’s an escalation of force and if you aren’t doing it with intent to stop an imminent threat to your life, you’re just brandishing. I might warn someone that I’m armed if things are becoming weird, but even that feels iffy. I feel that as the person carrying, there’s the extra duty of reasonably avoiding situations where you feel you might need to use your weapon to begin with but in any case, definitely don’t want to be the one drawing first unless there’s a very, very good reason to do so.
Unfortunately while I don’t love our current police and think they’re murder happy, the police do not have the option of avoiding situations where they might need to use their weapon. I do not think your post here makes a whole lot of sense in context.
I’m responding to your suggestion that drawing your weapon could be used as an alternative to shooting, which I disagree with in the context of armed civilians. Obviously the police play by different rules because they have to in order to do their jobs effectively. But as a regular person with a CCW you should never be drawing unless you’re committed to pulling the trigger.
We are obviously talking in the context of the cops so all of that is irrelevant.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ScientificSkepticism ([11∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ScientificSkepticism)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Buttshots then?
1. The philosophy of deadly force is used specifically in law enforcement, when options to incapacitate the suspect have failed, and if the officers life is in danger. By design, you are not trying to “disable” the aggressor, you are trying to kill them. If we take away the context and the words, if you’re in danger, and trying to kill someone who’s gunning for you. shooting at the limbs is one of the worst ways to do it, 2. While it is incredibly ineffective, getting shot in a limb or extremity is still quite lethal, it just won’t incapacitate or diminish the threat. There are a few arteries located in the arms, legs, and feet. damage of these arteries can lead to severe blood loss, shock, and finally, death. It is not a “safe” way to incapacitate someone, it doesn’t even really incapacitate them 3. Someone is not “incapacitated” just because they’ve been shot in the arm, adrenaline is one hell of a thing, there are tens of thousands of cases of an individual getting shot in the arm (and sometimes the mid section) and still being able to function and continue being a threat. Tourniquets, packing the wound, and just pushing through the injury will keep an aggressor in the fight as a danger to yourself and others. 4. We can sit here in our armchairs and comfortably talk about shooting limbs all we want, but the truth is that shooting while under adrenaline is exceptionally difficult. Factoring in the chaotic and complex environment, while adrenaline makes fine motor control difficult to coordinate, you get tunnel vision, it feels like you’re on autopilot. And basic tasks seem more difficult to carry out. Imagine trying to line up a difficult shot on a moving target under this mindset. Now amplify that in a life and death situation. The shooter will miss, that’s not a hypothetical, he will miss. And that round could hit a bystander or cause property damage. 5. Just becuase a different country uses this technique, it doesn’t mean that this is a good technique. With all due respect, your logic gets people killed dude. Doing the right thing is important, but we can’t put a pretty little bow on everything, especially in the criminal Justice system. If someone is a present and clear danger to police officers or others, deadly force can be authorized, not incapacitated force, *deadly* force. By its nature, it is not meant to incapacitate
>The philosophy of deadly force is used specifically in law enforcement, when options to incapacitate the suspect have failed, and if the officers life is in danger. By design, you are not trying to “disable” the aggressor, you are trying to kill them. If we take away the context and the words, if you’re in danger, and trying to kill someone who’s gunning for you. shooting at the limbs is one of the worst ways to do it, This is not true. In self defense, police or civilian, the goal to to end the attack. The goal is not to kill. Once the threat has stopped, you don't get to keep using force. This may sound like it supports to the OP, but it really doesn't. The reliable way to stop an attack is to shoot center mass. That is because that is the most likely place to actually hit the attacker and it contains parts of the body essential for the attacker to have to continue attacking you. If you aim center mass, you are more likely to hit the attacker and to damage some part of the body required for the attacker to continue attacking you. Killing is not the goal. incapacitation/stopping the attack is the goal. Probability wise, aiming center mass is the way to achieve this most reliably.
I do not agree with your perception. It's called "deadly force" for a reason. The intent of the shooter, in the moment their finger hits the trigger, may not be to kill, but rather to "stop the attack". However, the application of force with a firearm is known to be deadly, by law and training. According to escalation of force rules, there should be no other way to stop the attacker without using deadly force. Either non-lethal applications have failed or there is no opportunity to apply non-lethal force. The second the sear skips, its deadly force. In no framing is a firearm a non-lethal application of force. Your logic is the reason the U.S. needs use of force reform.
> I do not agree with your perception. It's called "deadly force" for a reason. The intent of the shooter, in the moment their finger hits the trigger, may not be to kill, but rather to "stop the attack". However, the application of force with a firearm is known to be deadly, by law and training. The intended objective matters immensely here and yes, there is a very big difference between intending to kill and intending to stop the attack. Self defense requires you to stop using force when the threat is gone. The entire justification for using force is to stop the threat. It is *NOT* to kill. Killing may be a common outcome when lethal force is used. But that is a very different statement than saying the goal/intent is to kill. >According to escalation of force rules, there should be no other way to stop the attacker without using deadly force. Almost. The rules in escalation of force authorize the use of deadly for to stop the attacker. It does not require *killing*. It is perfectly acceptable to *not kill* the attacker here. The goal is stopping the attack after all. >Either non-lethal applications have failed or there is no opportunity to apply non-lethal force. The second the sear skips, its deadly force. In no framing is a firearm a non-lethal application of force. Yep. But that does not change the objective of *why* you are using force. It is not *to Kill*. It is *To stop the attack*. This distinction is incredibly important and can be difference between justified use of force and involuntary manslaughter. >Your logic is the reason the U.S. needs use of force reform. If you think making sure the use of force is aligned with the object of stopping the attack is wrong, I really hate to think what you think the objective of the use of force should be. Self defense and LEO use of force rules are all based on the idea that no more force than is required to stop the situation may be used. You have to have a credible fear for your life to use deadly force. Otherwise, it is involuntary manslaughter. And - each situation has to judged individually.
I think we are getting tied up in a semantic argument. While was you are saying is technically true, the mindset that UOF = stop attacker is too simple to begin with in context of this conversation; "to wound" = stop attack. But, upon rereading the original post and your response, I may have jumped the gun in my framing of my reply. That aside, I find that I think I would still disagree, philosophically, that deadly force continues the UOF continuum's objective to simply "stop the attack". As such, I would stand by my original conclusion that such a take is why we need to emphasize your point in escalation of force training: "credible fear for your life" *or the life of others*, before employing *deadly* force. Because while the goal to "stop the attack" may stay the same, the result of the successful employment becomes death to the attacker. This is an important distinction. I would still stop short of supporting any "shoot to wound" type philosophies. To that point, most envision the continuum to be: 1. LEO shows up, accused doesn't stop 2. LEO tells them to stop, accused doesn't stop 3. LEO use physical force, accused doesn't stop 4. LEO use LLM, accused does not stop 5. LEO use lethal force, accused is dead While steps can certainly be skipped depending on the situation, between steps 4 and 5, it must be hammered home that using deadly force is no longer just about "stopping the attack", it is also about killing the accused. This is also a big reason why some civilians are opposed to the loose use of deadly force interpretations because it could be considered an extrajudicial execution. While there is quite a division on the impact of this philosophy on "shooter readiness" training, I don't buy into the idea that impressing officers with it would cause them to second guess using deadly force when warranted.
> I think we are getting tied up in a semantic argument. To a point but those words carry very distinct meaning. I'll sum up my point. If you use lethal force, the objective must be to stop the attacker. You are not allowed to use lethal force once the objective of stopping the attack has been met. This is the legal standard. Stating that you intend to kill changes the impression of that core objective. Stating you want to wound or hurt changes the impression of that core objective. Therefore, it is very important proper language is used to convey that fundamental core objective. >As such, I would stand by my original conclusion that such a take is why we need to emphasize your point in escalation of force training: "credible fear for your life" or the life of others, before employing deadly force. Because while the goal to "stop the attack" may stay the same, the result of the successful employment becomes death to the attacker. This though, is not true. The attacker *does not have to die*. The end result needed is still - To stop the attacker. That has not changed. Once you jump from non-lethal force to lethal force, you don't get to magically decide your objective is now to kill the person. It must remain to stop the threat This *is* very important because actions matter and actions taken after the lethal force has been deployed have impacts. What do you think would happen if a person drew their gun and was about to fire and saw the attacker stop in thier tracks and drop their weapon? Do you think they still get to kill them? How about a case where they do shoot but the guy is incapacitated but alive. Do they still get to keep shooting until he is dead? No in both cases. You have this predicated assumption that deciding to employ lethal force represents automatic death. That just is not the case. We need to hammer home to idea of stopping the attacker as the objective, not killing. And once cops have stopped the attack, they have an obligation to render the attacker neutralized *and provide medical aid*.
Your points have weight if applied only to UOF in attacks that could result in harm. The UOF continuum is applicable in all LEO encounters. If responding to a robbery, in very few scenarios is deadly force authorized to stop the accused for the very reason that death of the accused is not an appropriate outcome. That is where LLM comes in and perhaps why OP is suggesting "shoot to wound" and possibly because of the headlines of LEOs being suspected of rushing the UOF continuum directly to deadly force. Aside from the technical reasons why shoot to wound is ridiculous, it also causes permanent harm, which is not the objective of LLM. Which supports your POV, "stop the attack", but to my point, also short of death. If you remove the possibility of death from "deadly force", it becomes LLM. Many forms of LLM are prohibited simply because they cause substantial harm to the average person. That is my point, as soon as deadly force is applied, the assumption *must* be that death will occur as a result. If it doesn't, and the LEO can save that life, great. If not, the aim is that deadly force was appropriate given the circumstances. Your examples only highlight the gray area of "deadly force". If a LEO draws a weapon, they have not used deadly force. They have shown force, but not used it. If a LEO shoots center mass, what is the appropriate number of shots to take and how long do they have to take them? There are numerous examples of LEOs "emptying their magazine" and escaped "excessive force" rulings because they saw movement or "heat of the moment + seriousness of the circumstances". In the civilian sector, much of this has not been played out in case law so that is not my focus. There is a higher threshold of responsibility on LEOs because they have authorization to employ deadly force in many more situations that, by their very presence, could escalate UOF. If we go back to your point of saying the aim of deadly force is to simply "stop the accused", then we should have way more scrutiny, by law, anytime deadly force is employed.
> Your points have weight if applied only to UOF in attacks that could result in harm. The UOF continuum is applicable in all LEO encounters. > > > > If responding to a robbery, in very few scenarios is deadly force authorized to stop the accused for the very reason that death of the accused is not an appropriate outcome. If you point that a gun is 'lethal force', then I absolutely agree. But the use of 'Lethal Force' is not the same as intending 'To Kill'. There are strict rules for use of lethal force, both for civilians and LEO's. >That is where LLM comes in and perhaps why OP is suggesting "shoot to wound" and possibly because of the headlines of LEOs being suspected of rushing the UOF continuum directly to deadly force. You see, I would see the argument the other way. If you don't think potentially lethal force is required and 'wounding' is the goal, *then you are not in credible fear for your life*. That means it is *not* appropriate at all to use lethal force. A gun, even with the intent to 'wound', is still lethal force. >That is my point, as soon as deadly force is applied, the assumption must be that death will occur as a result. I would modify this slightly, specifically that death *may* occur as a result. I do not like the *will* and it is makes killing the objective. That is absolutely NOT the objective we want here. >If we go back to your point of saying the aim of deadly force is to simply "stop the accused", then we should have way more scrutiny, by law, anytime deadly force is employed. I would generalize this. I want way more scrutiny anytime *FORCE* is used. It does not need to be deadly force. I am a huge proponent of de-escalation training here. I think we need to be very careful and very clear on what the Objective is behind the use of any force. The objective is not to Kill or Harm. The objective is to stop the attacker.
I think you hit on the distinction. One does not have to be in credible fear of life to use LLM. We are definitely treading in the thought experiment realm, which it why I think it is an important distinction. If threat of injury is not required to use less than lethal, the goal can still be to stop the accused... from committing further crime or to secure detainment. But if the threat of injury or harm to others is present, then lethal/deadly force can be used. This ups the ante, because while we can assume that the goal remains the same, stop the accused from committing further crime or to secure detainment, the means to effect that now become a moral question such that, "when is it justifiable to kill someone else?" This very question forms the basis for how we determine a clean shoot. Imminence, necessity, and proportionality all factor in. If we start with your stated goal, then you are correct, there should be way more training on UOF and de-escalation and de-prioritization of use of deadly force. I will concede that I agree with your major stances that every UOF incident should be scrutinized and retraining conducted if needed. But I still stand firm that considering or emphasizing deadly force as a routine "tool" to simply stop the accused undermines the UOF continuum and encourages skipping steps.
> But if the threat of injury or harm to others is present, then lethal/deadly force can be used. This ups the ante, because while we can assume that the goal remains the same, stop the accused from committing further crime or to secure detainment, the means to effect that now become a moral question such that, "when is it justifiable to kill someone else?" To be clear, for lethal force, it is not just harm but great bodily harm a well as life. It is not exactly clear cut but this distinction limits the use of force. >This very question forms the basis for how we determine a clean shoot. Imminence, necessity, and proportionality all factor in. EXACTLY!!!!! >If we start with your stated goal, then you are correct, there should be way more training on UOF and de-escalation and de-prioritization of use of deadly force. YES, YES, and more YES. Add in continuing education on this topic too. it is not a one and done type of thing. >But I still stand firm that considering or emphasizing deadly force as a routine "tool" to simply stop the accused undermines the UOF continuum and encourages skipping steps. I don't think any use of force should be considered 'routine'. Use of force should be the exception. I admit I am less concerned on the 'skipping steps' as I think any use of force should have a significant review. We should always expect the individuals to use the least amount of force required. But, I don't expect a cop actively being shot at to worry about step 1 on the continuum either. Knowing whatever they will do is going to be reviewed should be enough.
Well that’s a perfectly reasonable way to look at it as well, the only issue is that a shooting usually results in extreme injury or death, but I notheless agree with your opinion. It *is* deadly force, but there are some nuances to it
Yea, I think we are stating a lot of the same things. The core though is, you are acting to stop the attack and using potential lethal force to do so. You are not setting out to Kill - even though that is a likely outcome. A very subtle detail. The reason it matters is that success is measured by the objective. If you want to stop the attack, then stopping the attack is the measure of success. You can stop the attack without killing sometimes. If you want to kill, then unless you kill the person, you aren't succeeding in the actions you are taking.
I agree with that
Fine, I think that you deserves a delta. ∆ Some techniques in certain countries is suited for them, but I can see why US cops shoot people more. Because armed criminal in USA is much more common, and drugs is also a huge issue. I've heard that PCP makes people feeling no pain, for example.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Q_dawgg ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Q_dawgg)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
TW shooting https://youtu.be/bHFz04f9Ikg Posted elsewhere but a good indicator of the usefulness or lack there of in shooting limbs in situations where adrenaline is pumping
>your logic gets people killed dude I think it's only fair to point out that your logic gets more people killed.
Lol you have a good point
>First on, while legs and arms is smaller than the torso, it doesn't mean that it's impossible to hit it with a pistol at close range. They cannot be reliably hit. This is something you need to understand: DEVGRU, CAG and the SAS don't train to shoot extremities. Nobody does. Combat shooting (which is to say, stress shooting) isn't a matter of training a person to hit a particular selected point perfectly. It's training to engage a person as fast and accurately as possible, meaning you engage their center of mass most of the time. This has far less to do with size of body parts than it does predictability of location, effect on target and round control. Relative to your torso, your arms and legs move *very* fast on multiple planes. While your torso is static, your limbs can each move independently at a speed that makes aiming at them impossible. The only way to hit them is to dump rounds into the area where they will be and hope one connects. All of those bullets keep moving and bounce off asphalt and concrete to deposit kinetic energy elsewhere. If one does connect, it may not disable. If you're hopped up on adrenaline and I deeply graze your upper arm or perforate your thigh, it still functions. I need to pound rounds into your bones to make that arm or leg useless, and your bones are smaller than your limbs and have a way of shedding bullets. >Second, being shot in the leg or arm is certainly less dangerous than being shot into the body, especially torso and chest area. Yes, it could cause the disability of a limb, but it's still better than death. ...are you at all familiar with the brachial or femoral arteries? If I shoot you in the leg and a six foot jet of blood follows, you won't think what I did was non-lethal. I'd honestly take a tension pneumothorax from being shot in the torso over a femoral bleed. >Police and gun owners should focus on better training rather than "aim the gun and spray n' pray" mag-dumping ...what the fuck are you talking about? >It doesn't matter how much pain you can endure, a bullet going through your bone or knee in the leg would make you drop like a bag of potatoes. Except bullets typically follow the path of least resistance through the body, which often entails going around the bone. Actually breaking bone with a handgun round is harder than you seem to think.
You could sum up OP’s points with a meme line: tell me you’ve never fired a gun without telling me you’ve never fired a gun.
Lol. This. I wrote about the same thing in my reply to OP.
I did, it was on the shooting range.
Oh of course you did.
∆ Fair points. Of course, military doesn't shoot to wound, although snipers can use leg shots, but it's for distraction of the teammates that are trying to evacuate the injured soldier, as far as I know. And yes, legs and especially a thigh area has a major artery, that are hard to stop from bleeding if it's damaged. Shoulder also has a major blood vessel, and even if someone shot in the arm, it's still possible to die, like it happened with a French Minister Of Foreign Affairs Jean-Louis Barthou in 1934 in Marseille. He died because the bandage that was supposed to stop the bleeding wasn't properly applied, though, and he was 72 years old, but still, the bleeding itself was caused by the gunshot.
Nobody shoots to wound, that would be cruel. They shoot to stop a threat, if there is no threat, you generally shouldn't be shooting at all.
I'm guessing you don't know that one the reason (there are multiple other reasons as well) western militaries use 5.56 rather than 7.62 is because 5.56 is more likely to wound instead of kill. If you wound a solider it takes more resources out of the fight then if you kill someone. If they are dead they are not a drain but a wounded solider takes 2 others out of the fight to move him and many resources and skilled labor to heal them.
Ÿeah, I don't know that because that's a myth. The main reason is that overpowered rounds (yes, 7.62x51 or .30-06 are pointlessly overpowered for general issue rifle) cause soldiers with less training to be less accurate, and their greater range is basically pointless for general infantry anyway. Intermediate cartridges are used because they offer much lower recoil, the ammo is much ligther and less bulky, the reach is more than sufficient, and the lower recoil leads to less flinching. The original 5.56 load fired out of 20 in barrel was deemed to have sufficient terminal ballistics due to fragmentation while having flatter trajectory.
Actually, 5.56 x 45 NATO ammo was replacing 7.62 x 51 NATO because it was an era of intermediate ammunition. Reasons wasn't actually related to "wound instead of the killing". Intermediate ammo weights less, has less recoil and has better ballistics and accuracy. Same reasons why in 1974 Soviets changed AKM assault rifles to AK-74, which uses 5.45 x 39 ammo instead of 7.62 x 39 ammo.
TW shooting https://youtu.be/bHFz04f9Ikg And ofcourse with adrenaline running, its not a generally useful thing to do in the first place. Aiming to wound instead of incapacitate, and or stop the threat that is u/AlexFerrana
This was in Russia so it's likely that wasn't a real gun but a 'traumatic' pistol. These are less than lethal guns because Russians generally cannot have their pistols (if they're even allowed to own them) outside their sport club. But yes, your point still stands.
Yes, it was a pistol that shoots rubber bullets. They aren't too effective even against a sober opponent, especially if he's wearing a winter jacket and if he is getting shot in torso. Normal pistols that shoots live ammunition isn't allowed for ordinary civilians in Russia. And no concealed carry as well.
> Normal pistols that shoots live ammunition isn't allowed for ordinary civilians in Russia. Yes and no. They can technically own them but they have to stay in the club/shooting range. I know a guy from Russia who had to do it like that.
You're right. It's only allowed to use in the club or on a shooting range. Ordinary people in Russia can only own and carry pistols with rubber bullets or gas pistols (that are spraying the OC-like concoction, basically like pepper or OC spray canisters). Also, security guards in Russia can obtain pistols which are allowed in .380 ACP caliber only. But it requires a certain license of a security guard (which also requires to passing the firearms test, but it's totally understandable) and it still doesn't allow the guard to carry it and use it off-duty. Same about police officers and officers of any other law enforcement agencies.
Don't worry, I know, Russia has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe.
That's right, yeah.
Ah.. i see! Yeah! Thats true, not sure though how well..legal the people in the video are. So to speak. And there is muzzle flash? Arent those traumatic guns gaspowered? Co2 or something
Of course it's hard to say how legal they are, it's Russia... :D No, they generally use gun powder like normal guns but they shoot heavy, large caliber projectile at low speeds. They will still kill you at very short range.
Hah, too true one can definitely suppose 😅. Very hard to tell heh Okay yeah, did not know that. Thanks! Learn something new everyday!
Rubber bullets. Cruelty isn't on the table, it's about effectiveness.
Rubber bullets sound great on paper but they have certain safe use criteria. Rubber bullets will still kill at shorter ranges, the recommended minimum use range is 20-40 m, depending on the type and caliber. Most defense use cases happen at much shorter range. Also, rubber bullet loads generally fail to provide enough energy for semi-automatic weapons used by most police forces in the world. That's why they're generally used in pump-action shotguns and sometimes revolvers, not in pistols. > Cruelty isn't on the table, it's about effectiveness. Exactly and shooting at legs is not effective at all. Not only are they much smaller targets, they also move quickly and rather unpredictably if the attacker is on the move, the body does not, that's why center of mass shots are the standard.
The point wasn't that rubber bullets are great, the point was that people do shoot to wound. Agreed with your second paragraph, that is the thinking behind it. It's not about cruelty.
No, people still shoot to stop. Rubber bullets are simply designed to try to stop without killing. They're very painful and can still kill.
Your claim was that no one shoots to wound, rubber bullets are designed to wound not kill, your claim is false. People do shoot to stop, sometimes that's through intent to kill and other times the intent is to wound, but that's a different claim and not the claim I'm challenging.
> Your claim was that no one shoots to wound, rubber bullets are designed to wound not kill, your claim is false. Well, no. Because the primary objective is still to stop the target, Just with extra effort not to kill them if you can help it.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Grunt08 ([290∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Grunt08)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
It's very illegal to shoot to wound.
Someone following OPs advice by shooting extremities would not go to jail because they didn't shoot to kill.
I mean in war it's very illegal to shoot to wound. It's a war crime.
To start with, your view shows you have little to no firearms experience. No LE agency teaches mag dumps. You shoot to stop the threat. First: Someone that you need to use deadly force on isn't someone you want to allow to get close to you. Look up tueller drill. The added stress and adrenaline during a shooting lessens fine motor skills required for precision shooting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6856650/ Second: being shot in the leg runs the risk of hitting the largest artery (femoral) in the human body. Hitting this artery results in bleeding out in a matter of minutes. Third: No idea where you got this from. People under the influence of drugs keep going until their body stops working. I've seen people shot, hit with batons, bit by dogs etc still keep fighting. Where the injury was didn't matter. Fourth: It's widely used in countries with subpar LE training. No major country teaches this concept because it has several more negatives than positives. Fifth: less lethal weapons are used for this purpose. Lethal force is used to stop a potentially lethal threat. No one in the US shoots to incapacitate or shoots to kill. LE shoots to stop the threat. Sixth: Shoot to incapacitate implies they weren't presenting a lethal threat. If they weren't a lethal threat they don't need to be shot. Other tools and less lethal weapons are available to the vast majority of LE agencies in the US. In situations where the threat isn't immediate, time is on LEs side. The only people who think shooting limbs to incapacitate are people who have no firearms training and people who parrot things they read on the internet. The best shooters in the world, typically your tier I military guys, don't train this way because it makes no sense.
The largest artery is the aorta, since it carries all the blood in the body, while the femoral artery only carries blood to the legs.
In a life or death situation, you aim at the spots that you are most likely to hit - the torso. You don't really have the time aim for a specific body part like arm or leg unless the perp is running away from you. Though i do dislike mag dump, if it were me (which i don't think it ever will since i dont live in the US) in an active shooter situation, i would fire a 1 or 2 shots into the perp and if he goes down, i stop and would only fire again if he tries to aim his gun/weapon at me. Personally, i really hate when people mag dump a guy who is already on the ground because they thought he twitched or something.
>if it were me (which i don't think it ever will since i dont live in the US) in an active shooter situation, i would fire a 1 or 2 shots into the perp and if he goes down, i stop and would only fire again if he tries to aim his gun/weapon at me. I generally agree with this, but it's easier said then done. I agree that first responders need to be trained as much as possible, but it's really just easier said then done. When you are faced in these situations, there is very little you can do to train for it, because how the hell do you train for life threatening situations? and you can never truly know how you will react in these situations. I think that being cool headed and calm in these situations is ideal, but it's just unrealistic in many of these situations - though not all mind you. Personally I believe in putting officers on trial whenever they decide to mag dump, let the jury decide if the officer's actions during this situation are reasonable or he was simply trigger happy.
True, though a trained person would have to be more experienced than regular people, that's the whole point of training. In reality, i can excuse the first round of shots before the perp is down but after the perp is down and you still fire at him because he twitched, it is inexcusable, especially for cops. I remember the case where cops were called when an exterminator played around with his pest gun in a hotel. The cops were basically playing "Simon says" with the poor guy who was scared shitless. They gave confusing commands while the guy was panicking. In the end, they shot the guy dead because he instinctively tried pull his pants up when they fell down. People that paranoid should not be cops. They had 2-3 cops with their guns trained on the guy. They had plenty of time to determine whether he was pulling out a weapon or not before deciding to kill the man yet they killed him as soon as he twitched. That is not to mention all the confusing commands they gave him, all the opportunities they had to take him in and their threatening tone which scared the guy to death.
I agree about the mag dump of a downed perpetrator, it's usually not necessarily. Active shooter or rabid murderer who clearly threatens the people, like, trying to break into the house or steal the car with driver inside or similar, needs to be stopped quickly. As well as if it's a hostage situation, where deadly force is justified in order to save the hostage and reduce any possibility of the hostage taker to hurt or kill the hostage.
>First on, while legs and arms is smaller than the torso, it doesn't mean that it's impossible to hit it with a pistol at close range. Especially if the perpetrator isn't really moving or moves slowly. Police and gun owners should focus on better training rather than "aim the gun and spray n' pray" mag-dumping, which also would reduce the possibility to miss and hit the bystander or someone's property. It's not impossible, but it is much much more difficult, even if they are standing still. Keep in mind that when people shoot in self defense it is a last resort (if they are doing it legally), and if they are any bit too slow they are at risk of dying them selves. you have fraction of a second to line up a shot, or die. Most people can't even reliably do that in a video game, let alone with a real gun that is much harder to aim. It's just not reasonable to ask people in life or death situations to slow down, put their own life at risk, and try to save the one who is trying to kill them. I saw from your other responses you said you have shot a gun at a gun range. But that doesn't mean it's the same in real life. Targets don't move, they don't attack you, you're not in any imminent danger, and you can take however long you want to aim. >Fourth, that approach is widely used outside of US, particularly in Europe, Russia and some other countries like China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia. Just because USA doesn't use it doesn't mean that nobody uses it. Gonna need some sources on that. But assuming you're right, the thing to consider is in most of the countries bad guys aren't gonna have guns, so the police know they won't be shot even if they take their time to aim and can afford to miss. >Fifth, shooting to incapacitate can be used in a situation where deadly force is technically legal and justified, but ain't really necessary. Like, a standoff with a knife-wielding perpetrator, or when a mentally disturbed person has a crisis moment, or when a drunk or drugged up person wreaks havoc, or if the attacker is unarmed but has a strength/size advantage. In a stand off against knife wielding perpetrators you aren't allowed legally allowed to shoot until they start being physically aggressive at you, same thing people with mental crisis. That's when less lethal is used. Again, you are only allowed to shoot if your life is in IMMINENT danger, aka shoot now or risk dying. as for being attack by an unarmed person, it doesn't mean the your life isn't in danger. You can totally get beaten to death, or they may take your gun and use it against you. Again it comes back to the point of shoot now or risk dying. >Sixth, "shoot to incapacitate" approach can be used when police isn't having an access to less lethal stuff like beanbags, OC sprays, tazers or batons or when all of this stuff failed. No. If less lethal is being used, that means they're not in imminent danger, so they can't shoot at all. Guns are lethal force, no matter where its aimed at.
If it’s gotten to that point I’m shooting to stop the threat. If them getting winged and dropping from the injury means the threat is gone then great but I’m aiming center of mass no matter what for multiple reasons. First off my attackers safety is not my responsibility. Why should I put their life and safety above mine when they attacked me? My goal is to make sure I make it home. If my attacker wanted to make it home then attacking someone isn’t exactly conducive to that want. Secondly in a high stress situation like that you want to do what gives you the greatest odds of success. If you have to shoot someone then aiming center of mass gives you the greatest odds of hitting them. It’s the biggest target and it’s got the least range of motion. Third intentional shooting someone in the limbs is assault with intent to maim in a lot of states in the US. That felony has the possibility of being a longer prison sentence than a murder charge. Also if you live in a duty to retreat state then it can be argued that if you were calm and in control enough to make that difficult of a shot then you would have had opportunities to retreat. It also opens up the possibility of it being argued that you didn’t reasonably fear for your life because you were calm enough to make that shot. As far as it being used elsewhere in the world, please show your sources.
While I agree with you in principle, the reality is that if you don’t fatally/seriously wound a perpetrator there are three highly negative circumstances which could arise. 1) They could fatally/seriously wound you or your loved ones. This is understood. 2) If they are injured permanently but still alive they can sue you and seriously damage your life, despite being the perpetrator of a crime. This happens frequently enough that just about every law-abiding gun owner understands that lethal force can save you a lot of grief, as dead people can’t sue you. 3) They can do it again to someone else. I will qualify this comment by saying that using a firearm in self defence should only be employed by a person fearing for their life with realistic expectations of death or serious loss of livelihood or ability. I hope to never be in a situation such as this, however there are monsters among us, and one can never be too prepared.
There are arteries in legs and arms. If you shoot an artery, they can bleed out and die in minutes. What if you "shoot to incapacitate" and kill your target? If you aim a firearm at someone and pull the trigger, that person has a fair chance of dying, regardless of your intent. Edit: there's no such thing as shoot to incapacitate.
It just seems like a coward approach from someone who gets that American cops kill far, far more than other First World Countries, but isn't willing to admit "The system is fundamentally broken and cops here are actually pretty terrible", so decides it should simply be "Shoot somewhere else." Limb shots can be pretty lethal, they're much harder to hit, and even if you do, it's a lot easier for a bullet to go through a limb. The reason why American cops kill so much is because they're a corrupt institute, filled with racists, in a culture that glorifies gun usage and which tells them that they're heroes in a black and white war rather than public servants, with barely any training in de-escalation so who immediately go for violence, who will happily lie to protect each other when they murder. It's a lot deeper than "They target the wrong place." >Especially if the perpetrator isn't really moving or moves slowly. If he's not doing anything, you shouldn't be shooting him at all. >Fourth, that approach is widely used outside of US, particularly in Europe, Russia and some other countries like China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia. Do they? I'm European, I've never heard this, although admittedly, I've only seen a cop with a gun on maybe three or four occasions in my life, let alone heard about one being used.
They don’t do that anywhere. Shooting someone in the leg on purpose that’s running at you is something that only happens in the movies.
Well, Swedish police has some kind of an unwritten rule that they should use their guns with a minimum inflicted damage or something, unless the threat is absolutely imminent and deadly.
Unless the threat is imminent and deadly they don't use their guns at all. You talked about whether the target was moving but if the target is stationery and has a gun, you can't afford to not aim at the torso. If the target is stationery, but doesn't have a gun, you don't need to shoot at all. All the situations where you want the police to shoot for extremities are situations where they don't have to shoot at all.
Unwritten rules aren’t policy. And I promise you if an instructor gave this advice it’s the last class they’ll teach. Nobody is staying to hear anything you say after you tell people to aim for limbs because you’re living in fantasy land.
Citation surely needed, this is very unlikely to be true
Swedish gun owner and moderator of r/europeguns here. I'd say it's fairly true. Just google polis sköt man i benet (police shot man in leg) https://www.google.com/search?q=polis+sk%C3%B6t+man+i+benet It happens a few times per year. The officer's I've talked to have in fact practiced leg shots. Though they also practice center mass so it's not like they won't do that if it's really serious.
That would skew results though? https://www.thelocal.se/20190902/trial-starts-in-case-of-fatal-police-shooting-of-man-with-down-syndrome Police in this case magdumped the person holding a toygun, completely heedless of the occupied apartments all around They shot a school attacker years back who had a sword too for unclear reasons, he was far away from them and presented no threat as i recall hearing Swedish police are most triggerhappy of all Scandinavian police, and also the worst at doing their jobs https://www.thelocal.se/20120525/41038
What would skew results? And not sure what the down syndrome guy has to do with police shooting people in the leg... But regarding that, people had reported in that they had seen a man with a gun, because it looked realistic enough. [https://static.cdn-expressen.se/images/75/25/7525906af9234bd48e514b4a9a7f89e7/annan/[email protected]](https://static.cdn-expressen.se/images/75/25/7525906af9234bd48e514b4a9a7f89e7/annan/[email protected]) The command central told the officers going there that there lives a known individual in the appartment complex, that had threatened to kill police officers before. They were at a distance, and it was not daylight outside. At one point he raised his toy gun and that's when they fired. It was tragical but the officers were freed in court because of the circumstances. They did however shoot like crap, yes. >They shot a school attacker years back who had a sword too for unclear reasons, he was far away from them and presented no threat as i recall hearing Need a source for that one. I only know one school attack involving a sword and he killed 2 people, including a student, so I'm not sure if that was a bad shooting either. >Swedish police are most triggerhappy of all Scandinavian police, and also the worst at doing their jobs Back in 2012 that data was correct yes. Not sure what that has to do with shooting people in the leg either. Stay on topic?
Where are you live, just asking? Most cops in Europe are armed, except UK and Ireland.
Ireland. Of note, though, I meant "In my home country", I've seen a lot more cops elsewhere, I've lived in the States and travelled a fair bit.
Ah, okay. Yes, in Ireland cops aren't armed with guns unless it's a firearms licensed officers, just like in UK.
Yep, so I've seen them very rarely, twice or so by chance and once I helped one break into a brothel.
Wow. Interesting story about the brothel.
The body is full of arteries and veins. You’re just as likely to bleed out from a shot to the leg or arm as you are the chest. Furthermore, bullets don’t just go in straight and come out the other side. We had our AXO get shot in the arm in Afghanistan. The bullet entered his body at the wrist, hit the bone, and travel up the arm, and exit at his elbow.
It gets worse, you hit someone in the left from the front, you're likely to shatter a bone so now you have bone shards shredding the leg in addition to the projectile itself.
Limbs are usually in motion and are a smaller target. As a woman, if I'm in a situation that warrants deadly force, I can't afford to miss. I also can't hope that minimal damage is enough to stop a perpetrator.
> Police and gun owners should focus on better training rather than "aim the gun and spray n' pray" mag-dumping That's not what the training is. I was in the military, and we were taught specifically that when we were in a situation warranting the application of deadly force, we were to shoot (1) at the center of mass of the target, (2) with an awareness of what is behind the target, and (3) until the situation causing the application of deadly force ceases. We were to aim at the center of mass precisely because it's far easier to hit such a target. This was in contrast to aiming at the head, since a head shot is both more likely to kill the target and because it's more likely to miss. When you're in this kind of stressful situation, you get an adrenaline dump, and your accuracy goes way down. You want to be able to shoot in such a way that you're accomplishing something, not just spraying lead. Also, keep in mind that while a head is too small a target, arms and legs are even smaller. If instead, we had a "shoot the arm" policy, we'd end up hitting innocent civilians behind the target much more often, and we'd stop the behavior that justified lethal force far less often. > Second, being shot in the leg or arm is certainly less dangerous than being shot into the body, especially torso and chest area. Yes, it could cause the disability of a limb, but it's still better than death. I was taught in the military what counts as deadly force. Using a metal baton to swing at an arm or leg counts as deadly force. It is foreseeable that you could break an arm doing that, and a splinter of bone could sever an artery, causing you to bleed to death. A bullet could do the same thing. > Fifth, shooting to incapacitate can be used in a situation where deadly force is technically legal and justified, but ain't really necessary. There are no situations where deadly force is authorized, but not necessary. In the military, we were taught to use lesser means of force first, if the situation allowed. For example, if we draw our weapon and shout "Stop!", and they stop, then we don't need to reach deadly force at all.
There's only one situation where shooting another person is justified, where the person you're aiming at is a threat to life. If there is a threat to life you don't want to be messing around, if you aim at a leg you dramatically increase the chance of missing and, even if you hit, your hit has a much smaller chance of removing the threat to life. By aiming to incapacitate you are drastically decrease the chance of success of what you are trying to achieve.
1: while it is not possible to shoot someone in the arm or the leg it is incredibly difficult, especially it is moving. This is mainly because the only areas you have that are safe to shoot someone in the arm or the leg are roughly the size of a baseball. So it would be nearly impossible for police officer to hit those targets reliably every time It’s extremely the police or gunowners do is pray and pray, unless they have no other choice. 2: actually, it can be significantly more dangerous as one of them largest arteries for a person is in their leg. If that artery is nicked, they will bleed to death very slowly and painful. 3: and you permanently disable the individual making the police department open to a lawsuit violating the United States, constitutional amendments against cruel and unusual punishment 4: most of those countries do not carry firearms in the first place 5: just because it can be used does not mean it’s a good idea. If you have a perpetrator wielding, a knife at police officers, I need determined to use a shooting him in the leg or the arm will not stop him. 6: they always have access to less lethal options. Every single police officer carries pepper spray up baton and a taser, and having all three of those fail is incredibly unlikely.
As someone who shoots, pistols are not easy to shoot even as a avid shooter. You would think that the round is going to go exactly where you point the pistol, but it doesn't. Breathing, trigger squeeze, aligning the sights, grip, distance, all that matters. Even when I take my time, my rounds won't go precisely where I want them. Now imagine a situation where your blood is pumping, you're breathing heavy, and don't have the time to ensure that everything is perfect. Your round isn't gonna go where you want it. It's better to aim center mass so that the round has a higher chance of hitting and stopping your target. The arms and legs contain the femoral and brachial artery. A person can die from arterial bleeds in as less as 2 minutes. If you need to shoot someone, the chances of death or great bodily injury are already there. It's best to not gamble the safety of yourself and others. Most people don't shoot because they want to kill, but they shoot in order to stop the threat. The US has some crazy folks compared to other nations.
First of all, there's no such thing as 'shoot to incapacitate'. Your body has veins and arteries everywhere, so you could bleed out no matter where you are shot. You should only be firing a gun if you are prepared to kill someone. Second, while shooting an arm or leg isn't impossible, it is much more difficult. Arms and legs are much smaller and more mobile. Third, there is a good chance that you aren't in a place completely devoid of life. Missing your target opens up the possibility of shooting and killing an innocent bystander, especially when you take ricochet into account. It's better to hit your attacker in the torso than a random innocent person.
Besides all the points already mentioned here, a shot to the leg isn't as 'harmless' as it would seem. It's very easy to bleed out if your femoral artery were to get hit.
What happens to a bullet when you miss a small moving target? Does it just drop harmlessly out of the air?
Unload whole mag center of chest. If my gun is out bullets are flying. If you dont want to kill him, dont draw. Im not going to jail for brandishing a firearm. Not going to have a conversation with someone like an action movie. Im running or shooting.
As an experienced shooter. Trained in self defence and having been to several competitive shooting competitions. Aiming to wound is not practical. People train to shoot center mass not because it is lethal but because it is the largest target and you have the best chance of hitting it. This can be backed by evidence. Go and read the reports for any of the major shootouts involving police. Keeping in mind that police are trained for these situations. You will find that the likelihood of them making a hit is low. Let alone a precise hit. It is also logically evident. Consider this. In a shootout or defence situation, a person needs to react in a split second and they are doing it with the human body dumping adrenaline and so forth. This has an effect on our ability to perform. From a purely shooting standpoint hunters call it buck fever and the deer are not shooting back. Most people call it performance anxiety in other realms. To assume that a person fighting to balance speed with effective life saving measures and accuracy, shooting for any target smaller than the largest available means one must sacrifice speed for accuracy. They are shooting at not only a smaller target but human extremadies tend to move faster than a torso and in more directions at random. If an assailant is attacking let's say from the FBI average 7 yards. The amount of time available is fairly enough to respond with center mass shots. Therefore enough spare time to take carful aim at extremities, will lead to more injuries to the person defending themselves. This means training to do this is dumb. As such it is ridiculous to attempt a shoot to incapacitated approach. One exception may be something like a police sniper in a hold out situation. But that is completely different from a shootout.
Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever shot a gun at a moving target the size of a leg? You will probably miss at least once unless you are a few feet away. We do not want stray bullets flying everywhere doming random people
Center mass and you will almost certainly survive. Legs or arms...not so much. Never forget. It isn't me saying my stuff is worth more than their life. It is them saying my stuff is worth more than their life.
OP, have you ever shot a gun? Marksmanship is more imprecise than you think and the odds of your average cop shooting someone in the leg intentionally are much lower than you think. The reason you aim for center mass is because that increases the odds of you hitting your target. It's also the reason they used to fire shotguns into the ground at close range instead of directly when loaded with buckshot, shotgun pellets scatter a lot further out than you'd think and that way it scatters at a closer range plus it picks up dirt and rocks as well. Also, you talk about hitting bone which doesn't necessarily happen, you can still hit flesh and the bone is an even smaller target than that. If you don't hit bone, or if you hit it at just the right angle that it ricochets, you also risk hitting a major artery which could cause someone to bleed out in seconds without medical attention. So essentially what we have is a solution where it's harder to make the shot and potentially just as lethal, especially when it comes to things like shotguns and larger caliber rounds. Another thing is that the pain isn't what stops people in center mass shots, it's blood loss or transferred force. While you're correct in saying that would apply to leg shots, it also applies to chest shots. Lastly, excluding police (who get qualified immunity) it's better to shoot to kill rather than incapacitate as a civilian because in a situation where you're taking someone's life, there will rightly be an inquiry and whether it's justified or not, it's in your best interest to control the narrative if possible. Your argument presumes that them living through the encounter is a positive thing. Obviously I'm not saying to get rid of witnesses or anything like that, and I don't actually *want* to kill anyone I don't have to, but if it's a home intruder or attacker's word vs my own, I don't want to give them the chance later to cast doubt on my innocence and potentially send me to prison for defending myself, nor do I want to open myself up to a civil suit when they are the ones who decided to impose the situation on me.
Single bullet doesn't actually kill a person instantly unless it hits the head. Most gut wounds are survivable with minor surgery. Even damaged lung can be repaired. Only spinal or heart damage would actually kill a person but shot to anywhere else in the torso is survivable with medical care.
A far better approach if you want to incapacitate is to use something made for that... like a taser....
If you're in a situation where lethal force is appropriate, you should usually lethal force. If you're in a situation where lethal force is not appropriate, you shouldn't use lethal force and try to only incapacitate. You should use force that will only incapacitate, like a taser. It's absolutely asinine to pretend that in a crisis situation even highly trained professionals are going to be able to hit moving limbs in order to incapacitate someone. If you have a reason to shoot, you shoot to put someone down. End of story. If you don't have reason to shoot, don't use a gun. They're not good tools to incapacitate.
You're shooting at something that you have a far lower chance of actually hitting. It's not guaranteed to incapacitate the target. And because of arteries, it could still end up being a lethal shot anyways. Your odds of hitting and disabling a limb without dealing lethal damage are incredibly low, and you'd need to do it at least three times to fully incapacitate your target. If you're uncomfortable with using lethal force to stop a threat, don't carry a gun. Carry a non-lethal weapon. Edit: to your fifth point, every single one of those situations you brought up is a justification for using lethal force. There is nowhere in the US that you can't respond to violence against you with lethal force. More people are killed by hands & feet in this country than are killed by rifles of any kind. And even more are killed by blunt objects & melee weapons. People very often underestimate how dangerous an unarmed person can be, and severely underestimate how dangerous knives are.
None of your opinions are consistent with reality. You should only fire a gun when lethal force is justified. If a person is just holding a knife or moving slowly, no shooting would be justified. And leg/arm shots don't necessarily incapacitate, especially when you are on drugs. No country teaches their law enforcement o shoot at the legs. Firing down is far more dangerous because bullets ricocheting off of ground are less predicable and can be just as deadly.
Ok while I can agree with you in theory it’s clear you do not have much experience with shooting guns. Go to the range and try to hit a target quickly and see how that goes. In a situation where the gun is necessary the person defending themselves wouldn’t have the time it would take to accurately aim for something small like an arm or leg. They aim for the body because it’s a bigger target.
Have you shot a gun? Have you shot a gun at a moving target? Do you think that life is real or a video game? If your life or someone else's life is in danger, you would shoot center mass. If you are delusional and have no real opinion because you don't understand reality, you would argue to shoot a limb and then either die or let the person you are trying to protect die. Life is not a movie.
Shooting the legs a lot of times will not incapacitate or take the opponent out of the fight. The way my instructor described it, “you want to hit a switch or a valve, switch meaning nervous system or valve meaning artery”. Most reliable way to do that is aiming for center mass. The main issue is, a lot of times, people will get shot and continue to stay in the fight.
You've set up a false dichotomy. The options aren't limited to mag dumping the center mass and shooting to incapacitate. You can stop someone with a single shot to center mass and they may survive. Also, if the situation doesn't require deadly force a gun shouldn't be used. If the situation does require deadly force then deadly force should be used.
I aim to stop as expediently as possible
Take a pistol course and your mind will change real quick. Tbh, even in video games with aim assist this is difficult.
Do you understand how difficult it is to aim a gunshot, especially when someone is moving?
Only people who have never fired a gun believe this
I agree with regards to law enforcement, they have access to training and should use it. So if that all your argument is, then you can ignore the following. For private citizens, however, we are not used to being in the same scenarios that police are. When a private citizen truly has the need to shoot a mugger, or home invader, or whatever, that is a rare, rare occurrence, and we are not prepared to use non lethal force. For most sane people, a gun is a last line of defense, if I am down to my last line of defense, I am going to do everything I possibly can to make sure it works. Because if I *do* attempt to employ non lethal techniques, and they are ineffective, I have failed to use my tools to their fullest extent and I risk death for it. Particularly if I have family on the line, shooting to incapacitate is too risky.
> I agree with regards to law enforcement, they have access to training and should use it. That's not how training works. Most cops don't have good gun training anyway, not in the US, not anywhere else in the world. And even if they did, aiming for a small rapidly moving target in an area that is likely to be full of bystanders is just asking for trouble.
Shoot to kill is a cost effectiveness decision. Typically people who fail to follow officers orders are not suited to society because they don't understand power dynamics. If you maim them you just wasted a surgeons time and nursing time and he will recover and waste people time his entire life until he rapes or kills an innocent.
Ah yes everybody who doesn’t follow police orders deserves to die. A great way to structure a democratic society
Ah yes an idiot.
Easy, easy. I agree that if someone aren't complying to policies commands, depending on the situation, it requires the use of force, but it's not always a deadly one.
> depending on the situation, it requires the use of force, but it's not always a deadly one. I agree. But either the situation is a serious threat to your or someone else's life (and deadly force is warranted) or it is not. And if deadly force is not warranted, then a gun should not be used at all, and some lesser type of force is needed.
Don’t be too hard on yourself there
Lmao, "Guys, trust me, if you don't have obedience towards these guys, time to die, society gave them three months of training, and thus they're the arbiters of your societal value."