Reply With Quote
Well I don't know. Maybe he ed up her jigsaw puzzle or something.
Wait a second. Flare gun? WTF?
Well I don't know. Maybe he ed up her jigsaw puzzle or something.
Wait a second. Flare gun? WTF?I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt and say the flare gun can be used as a weapon still. might not kill the target but could distract him and give you time to get away or disarm him.
now if he meant shooting it overhead into the air.....
Maybe for Elite Navy Seals, but LE is trained to shoot to stop. Center mass. aka basically kill but "stop" sounds more PC.
If you are drawing a deadly weapon on someone, you better be justified because a gun is used to kill or cause serious bodily injury and you will still be legally screwed regardless if you shoot the bad guys shoulder and miss all his vitals like you are a Movie hero.
Last edited by BlairForceDejuan; 07-04-2012 at 03:27 PM.
LOL
You dont shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat.
Also, it's illegal to shoot to maim.
I shoot USPSA and im telling you, it's hard to shoot a 5" diameter steel target with minimal stress at 7 yards. What made you think you can hit the arm/leg of a person who's gonna knife you at 10 feet?
Yet another example of Amerika's bloodthirsty gun culture.
No, simple self preservation. Someone comes at me with a knife, and they will likely end up with several holes in them, center mass.
I'm not talking about shooting to maim. Shooting someone in the knees has to be less maiming that shooting someone in the face.
And it's all training. But you tell people that they now have to pass more stringent tests to carry a gun and you won't have as many buying guns. So, the easiest thing to do is teach them to shoot at big targets which just happens to be shooting to kill.
It's all in what people are led to believe. If a particular government would get serious about installing a Threat Neutralization training program, they would see the number of unnecessary gun deaths drop substantially.
If one wants to incapacitate somebody, why would they use a gun? Why not use a taser or pepper spray?
Because then you wouldn't be able to actually kill them if that was needed. I'm not saying that it's never appropriate to kill someone with the gun. But in many cases, a shot to the knee would give the would be victim time to assess the situation and then 1) kill the attacker OR 2) call the police.
If they have no intention to kill their attacker, WHY USE A GUN? Are you stupid or something? Does it really make sense to buy and train with a lethal weapon only to use it non-lethally? There are non-lethal weapons one can use instead.
I'm saying the gun gives them the option to kill or not to kill. In some cases, killing may be absolutely necessary and justified. But with the proper training, they could allow themselves that option after the threat was neutralized.
Or they could just get a taser and not waste time and money on pointless training.
You can shoot someone a lot farther than tasing them. If they were trained to shoot at non fatal target spots, they could stop an attacker at distance. Then have the time to either kill the attacker or call the police. I don't know why this is hard to understand. With the taser, you're only neutralizing the threat but then you don't have the option to then shoot them.
I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand the purpose of a gun.
And if the attacker is far away, that's even more of an incentive to aim for center mass.
so the moral of the story is... you can't claim self defense if you are the one who instigates the situation... why does this sound so familiar?
You've been brainwashed into thinking the only purpose of a gun is to kill. With proper training, a gun can provide a multi faceted approach to crime prevention. But this training is not being offered. It's no different that a knife or martial arts. Sure you can use either to kill someone but that's not the only purpose. Guns can be used for much more than just sending someone to their grave. It's at udes like yours that the left wing gun control freaks latch on to when trying to ban guns.
I don't have a problem with guns. I just think your idea of training to aim for the limbs is stupid. Either don't use live rounds or don't use a gun if you don't want to kill anybody. If the attacker is far away, that makes not aiming for central mass even more stupid.
it's definitely less effective to cry ”standing my ground” when he is standing in the driveway owned by the guy he just shot.
So you don't think it would have worked out better if Zimmerman shot Trayvon in the knee and then called the cops?
I'm not saying that being able to hit the limbs is a bad thing. It's impractical, though. If somebody can cap somebody from 50 feet, good for them. However, training every gun owner to do that is stupid.
I don't know that it's impractical if it ultimately saves lives. I would think it's something that most could accomplish with use of a pistol scope.
Using a taser would save lives, too. We are going around in circles. Let's just agree that you're an idiot and call it a day.
Yeah...but the taser doesn't give you the option to shoot them if it's justified. I'm worn out as well but I don't know why you don't get that one point.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions