Shoot to disable instead of shoot to kill. Let's have an open talk about this.

[Use_Imagination_here]

There really is no such thing as shooting to disable, this is more or less a complete myth. Every single area of the body can be a lethal hit, the legs, the arm, the shoulder it doesn't matter where you aim.

Whether or not a gunshot will kill is dependent on many factors, and there isn't any place on the body that's in any way safe. The hands, shoulder, and legs all have arteries that will kill you just as surely as a shot to the heart. The closest you could get is hitting the buttocks from a sideways angle, and even then that wouldn't actually stop anyone.

Furthermore guns aren't instakill, they don't even stop you instantly, this is a hollywood myth. Think about it, it's just a very small piece of metal hitting you very fast. Why WOULD it instantly stop you? Police officers HAVE TO shoot at the center of mass several times if they actually want to stop you, which is the absolute only reason they would shoot you in the first place.

You speak as if Gunfire was some sort of instant problem solver, the human body is massively more resilient then you seem to assume, when adrenaline is pumping people have been known to take more then a dozen gunshots and keep fighting.

You ABSOLUTELY have to do your very best to eliminate the threat of the target, that means shooting at the center of the target, that means shooting until the target isn't a threat.

 

[freedash22]

Where are you from, because in the US, that is legal, because of castle laws.

I'm from the Philippines.

 

[M920CAIN]

Shooting someone in the mouth to disable him from talking? Sure, I don't care that his brain is in the same vicinity. Since this is a gaming site I would like to see more games in which we can disable opponents rather than directly kill them. More games like that please

 

[Thaluikhain]

Shooting someone in the mouth to disable him from talking? Sure, I don't care that his brain is in the same vicinity. Since this is a gaming site I would like to see more games in which we can disable opponents rather than directly kill them. More games like that please

Currently, I'm replaying SWAT4. You lose points if you incapacitate or kill criminals, especially if they aren't pointing guns at anyone. Taser very useful.

 

[gargantual]

Shooting someone in the mouth to disable him from talking? Sure, I don't care that his brain is in the same vicinity. Since this is a gaming site I would like to see more games in which we can disable opponents rather than directly kill them. More games like that please

Currently, I'm replaying SWAT4. You lose points if you incapacitate or kill criminals, especially if they aren't pointing guns at anyone. Taser very useful.

If only modern warfare games went in this sort tactical direction (SWAT AA and Rainbow Six etc), and left unrealistic gameplay up to DOOM and Halo themed games. Maybe it'd help spread a more realistic understanding of guns. Since Hollywood hasn't helped much.

...say wasn't fixing common misunderstanding, illusions and misuse of firearms like these one of the original principles NRA was started under? Seems like there's still quite a bit of work in THAT department to take care of..

 

[thedarkfreak]

...say wasn't fixing common misunderstanding, illusions and misuse of firearms like these one of the original principles NRA was started under? Seems like there's still quite a bit of work in THAT department to take care of..

It was, but there's still a lot of people out there who've never touched a gun, and base all their ideas on regulations on how they're portrayed in the media.

 

[Starke]

more so if it hits your shoulder since the closer you get to your torso the thicker and more powerful your veins get.
you will bleed to death in seconds if it hits an artery .

Supposedly, depending on the Artery, you'll lose consciousness in about 30 - 90 seconds. Actually dying can take a few minutes.

still, after you have lost a certain ammount of blood and lost conciousness, the doctors will consider you dead since even if they can administer you blood, your body still needs time to register and "use" it and your brain most likely already entered a irreversible cell "death" process.

and brain dead = dead dead. in medical terms.

That's actually a separate issue. And as far as I know, kind of rare, usually someone will bleed to death before brain death is an issue. They will lose consciousness long before that, though.

 

[mortalsatsuma]

I'm a serving UK police officer and whilst I do not carry a firearm I Have been in dangerous situations as is common for my profession. Basically what I want to say is that it's not a simple matter for an armed officer to choose whether to shoot to disable or shoot to kill. As far as I am aware, police marksmen are not trained to 'shoot to kill' they are instead meant to 'shoot to stop' though ultimately it is their decision as it is potentially their lives on the line. In high stress situations you often have very little time to think, adrenaline is pumping, your muscles tense up, you act and react faster. Basically, you do whatever you have to do to survive.

Now I don't mean to sound condescending but if you are not a police officer or not in a similar high stress profession, i.e. the army, I'd say it's nearly impossible for you to fully understand just quite how stressful and potentially dangerous this job can be. It goes without saying but often you are not dealing with nice people as a police officer, and though it is thankfully quite rare, there are people out there who would like nothing more than to see police officers dead.

With regard to the subject of Mr Duggans death, I fully support the Police officer. Whilst Mr Duggan was not armed at the time of his death, though he had been carrying a firearm just prior, the police officer was not to know this. As far as he knew, Duggan was a dangerous, potentially armed criminal.

We are often criticised heavily by the media simply for doing our jobs, and yet I can guarantee that if any critic of the Police spent even a week doing what I do, they would never dare criticise us again.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Shooting someone in the arm or leg still has a very high chance of crippling or killing them, and in many cases lacks the stopping power to stop them immediately. Shoot to disable, while it sounds nice, is not actually a viable thing. That is why you're told that if you're ever going to shoot someone, be prepared to kill them.

TL;DR: "shoot to disable" isn't really a thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

Where are you from, because in the US, that is legal, because of castle laws.

Castle Laws aren't universal within the states.

...say wasn't fixing common misunderstanding, illusions and misuse of firearms like these one of the original principles NRA was started under? Seems like there's still quite a bit of work in THAT department to take care of..

It was, but there's still a lot of people out there who've never touched a gun, and base all their ideas on regulations on how they're portrayed in the media.

So that's why the NRA is against video games. It's not passing the buck or censorship, it's educational!

 

[Kennetic]

Ironically to spite most of these "killing stops someone instantly!" posts, nothing short of shooting someone in the BRAIN will kill them instantly.

The heart? Brain is still active, even though oxygen is no longer being pumped - think holding your breath.

People have this concept from action movies... that if you're shot, you fall over like a cartoon character. That would only happen if your nervous system was crippled, you wanted to play dead... you were in too much pain to stand (but would probably be moaning or screaming uncontrollably from pain/shock/fear of death, indicating life) or were shot in the head.

I agree with what you're saying but a heart shot can absolutely drop a person instantly. I've been hunting for years and a heart shot on a deer will almost always drop that ***** on the spot.

 

[Unsilenced]

The 'shoot to kill vs shoot to disable' isn't actually any sort of choice. It's just not. Aside from the occasional miracle shot like that suicidal guy who was disarmed by a sniper, shooting at someone means you've at least accepted the possibility that you will kill them. When shooting, your goals are

1: To hit the target
2: To make it so they can't hit you back

Generally this means firing center of mass until they hit the ground. Once they're no longer a threat, then maybe you worry about their safety. If they weren't a threat to begin with, then you shouldn't have been shooting in the first place. You don't necessarily "shoot to kill," whether or not they actually die is irrelevant. You shoot to make sure they can't shoot/stab/etc.

Frankly "shoot to wound" is a dangerous line of thinking. Either you hit someone who is a threat in such a way that you just piss them off, or you end up killing them anyways. Possibly both, as a lethal shot isn't necessarily lethal right away.

 

[Kennetic]

The 1986 FBI shootout is a good point and was my consideration for getting a .45ACP FNP-45 rather than a .38 or 9mm or .40S&W pistol.

FYI the .40S&W was invented because of that shootout. FBI got the 10mm first then cut it down into .40S&W. The FBI were not underpowered in that shootout in the slightest. They panicked and blamed it on their guns which were .38 Special, 9mm and 357 Magnum against 2 guys with no armor. .38 Special isn't a caliber that I would use, but 9mm and 357 Mag are more than enough to kill a man especially with today's bullet designs like soft and hollow point. Check this chart: http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm As you can see, 9mm, 40, and 45 all have 90+% one shot stop potential. Basically, it comes down to which caliber you prefer to use as they are all lethal as fuck. Me, for example, I carry a 9mm. I also have a 45 1911 which I love. However, I will never own a .40 because the recoil is so snappy and hurts my wrist after a while.

 

[Kennetic]

more so if it hits your shoulder since the closer you get to your torso the thicker and more powerful your veins get.
you will bleed to death in seconds if it hits an artery .

Supposedly, depending on the Artery, you'll lose consciousness in about 30 - 90 seconds. Actually dying can take a few minutes.

still, after you have lost a certain ammount of blood and lost conciousness, the doctors will consider you dead since even if they can administer you blood, your body still needs time to register and "use" it and your brain most likely already entered a irreversible cell "death" process.

and brain dead = dead dead. in medical terms.

Afternoon Escapist from the UK,


there was an incident where a ranger tried to disable an unarmed man. see the video in the spoiler box
<spoiler=graphic>
<youtube=N_92xgnobzQ>


as you probably saw, it didnt end well for the man.

I watched that video several times. The screams, while delicious, were sullied by how unnecessary the entire situation was in the first place.

yes, but the man grabbed the barrel of the rangers rifle.
and thats a no no.

yes, in hindsight, it was unnessessary to shoot and kill him, but the man also acted like an complete moron out of fear.

he shouldnt had grabbed the rifle and just listen to the rangers telling him to calm down and drop to the ground.

so i have mixed feelings about this.

Yea in the US military, if someone grabs your rifle, you can shoot them. Now, an Iraqi grabbed my rifle once but I just shoved him away because they don't have any concept of personal space and are very animated when they speak so he just put his hand there by accident.

 

[NSGrendel]

a) Trained professionals are vastly more effective than enthusiastic amateurs.

b) Stupid speculative thread is full of stupid speculation by people who have never used a variety of firearms, least of all in a situation where your decision window is contracted.

c) Shooting someone is random, unless you are using a high velocity round, in which case hydrostatic shock is your friend and any hit near important meat is likely to kill due to shock (from liquefaction of nearby vessels and attendant blood loss).

d) The more people with guns, the more likely someone will get shot. The UK has very restrictive laws on gun usage and ownership and always has, which results in very few people owning guns, even when it was still legal. Regardless of whining about gun control and right to defence (because a handgun helps you deflect/dodge a bullet/is known to discourage criminality, just look at the US), the fact remains that gun crime and by association murder, is much rarer per capita in every other Western country.

e) If you look into the historical background, the US port arms not because of "freedom" but because they didn't want to have to submit to levies for European wars. Up until the late 1700s, the reason why English people weren't allowed to bear firearms was because the longbow was still a superior weapon. In fact, be it the civil war, Vietnam, the Gulf War I/II or Afghanistan, the entire history of American warfare has been dictated by utilising excessive technological superiority.

f) Please don't take my word for it. Find a few sources on the internet or print, then look it up. If I'm wrong, then you can gleefully post a rebuttal.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Anyone who has actually used normal pistols and are aware of their power will know why that is unfeasible
Do you think criminals that are acting threatening are going to do it while standing still?

A gun is a killing weapon. It is designed for the explicit purpose of ending lives.

O rly? I did not know that

 

[Thaluikhain]

People have this concept from action movies... that if you're shot, you fall over like a cartoon character. That would only happen if your nervous system was crippled, you wanted to play dead... you were in too much pain to stand (but would probably be moaning or screaming uncontrollably from pain/shock/fear of death, indicating life) or were shot in the head.

I agree with what you're saying but a heart shot can absolutely drop a person instantly. I've been hunting for years and a heart shot on a deer will almost always drop that ***** on the spot.

A heart shot "can" drop a person, but there's no guarantee, a person can have full voluntary movement for up to 10 second with the heart destroyed.

It's true that going own straight away if mostly a movie thing...however, the person being shot has likely seen those films as well, and might well panic and go down, at least in part because they assume going down automatically happens. Or, in the excitement, they might not register being hit right away.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

I've been hunting for years

With what?
A PPK?

 

[asinann]

tbth having see average US police on the news i always figured the reason they shot most people was so they didn't have to run after them...

Ok if I come off as a jerk I just take all of this to heart and have to deal with it a lot.

Ok first of most city police department have a mandatory fitness standard that must be passed. Can't pass it your fired now some boon docks and such might be different but I hope the idea of a fat cop changes soon heck we pay extra for cops who take a yearly par core class.

Officer do not shoot to kill they shoot to remove a threat. (that one will get you chewed out in heart beat by a training officer)

The reason for the body shot it because it's the mostly to one hit strait from the holster. If you knew how many time thing go nuts in a millisecond you be amazed. So I train officer to shoot like every shot is strait from the hip.

Two less likely to miss the target and hit someone are something else. Body is a large target and less mobile then arms or legs at the range I train to shot torso shots. Last thing is the torso is pretty thick with bones and organs so a bullet is less likely to go through this is also the reason most officer use hollow point. "every bullit has a lawyer name on it."

Sadly it just happened that we need those organs to live so officers are not trying to kill the target they are trying to keep it from killing them or someone else.

If they don't shoot to kill why are there so many stories of them shooting people in the back and shooting people who are restrained, getting a few weeks paid vacation then coming back to work because they didn't violate department policy? I'm more afraid of the police than I am of walking through the ghetto with $1000 in cash on me.