I wonder how UK people would respond to this question. I was watching Cops earlier today and they were in London and the differences were striking. Despite the policemen being unarmed, the criminals seemed to respect them and follow orders just as much, and there was a lot of “say you’re sorry and run along now”, whereas almost every interaction on US Cops ends in an arrest. The two people they did arrest, they didn’t appear to handcuff - just stuffed them into the paddywagon, unbound, with an unarmed officer :eek:. And there was peaceful physical interaction, too. At one point a cop is talking to a suspect, and the other suspect, standing beside the cop, rests his hand on the cop’s shoulder! You’d get tased for that here! A lot of American cops won’t even shake hands - can’t say that I blame them, but it’s unfortunate. They also didn’t show them patting anyone down. EVERYONE gets patted down here, even if they’re not going to be arrested.
I noticed during the credits that this episode was filmed in 1991, so maybe things have changed since then.
Shoot to kill. Anything less is either totally unnecessary or foolish and cruel.
Center mass first shot. No drop means body armor, which means eye sockets/palette triangle to blow out the back of their skull.
…and then its just shoot out the star.
UK person here, and my basic answers are: yes, I would shoot; I would shoot in whatever manner was most likely to achieve my objective of neutralising the threat, and if that involved killing the assailant then so be it. The matter of where to aim, well, I’ve never fired (or even held) a gun before. If I were to be armed, I’d have taken instruction and advice from competent shooters, and would likely aim wherever they suggested was best.
UK police seem to be superior in terms of communication skills* - because they can’t draw a gun on someone (in general - of course there are armed police available if necessary) they very rarely have to.
*I don’t mean UK police are superior in general, nor do I mean to suggest that US police are trigger-happy loons or anything. Plus, of course, British criminals are a lot less likely to be armed, and the chances of someone who is stopped for speeding, drunk and disorderly and the like being armed are tiny.
I sure would, and would attempt to kill. The only problem is I’ve never handled a gun in my life and would be more likely to shoot myself in the foot than anything else.
Everyone so far has said yes, I don’t doubt that is what they think they would do or would like to do. But would they actually do it when the circumstances arise? A large portion of people in combat do not fire their weapons, even when in great personal danger.
Shooting to disable is for the movies. Saying “shoot to kill” is redundant. If the assailant survives, good for them, it’s their lucky day. If not, well, they shouldn’t have been attacking someone to begin with.
Yes. If my loved one were in danger and he could get seriously hurt or killed, whoever is attacking him is going down.
I’d shoot for the head, no risk of a bullet-proof vest there. I’m not going to take a chance of them wearing some sort of protection that could stop my bullet. They will die or live as a vegetable, either way works for me.
I think combat’s a different cat altogether. For one thing the burden isn’t completely on you to act- you have comrades who are just as well armed. Also, having never been in combat myself I can’t imagine that it’s anythink but absolutely terrifying for a thousand different reasons that wouldn’t be as applicable to an individual situation.
The OP says
and the implication (even though we can imagine our own situations [just out of curiosity did anybody else’s involve a special order of num-chuk wielding Portugese Assassin Nuns?]) is “you and you alone are in a position to protect yourself/your loved ones”.
Incidentally, I doubt that I would shoot for any reason other than being in danger. I don’t think I could do a Joe Horn and kill somebody running away after a property crime (even if, unlike Horn, it was my property). I have had to point a loaded gun before and can say it’s not an exhilirating feeling at all (to me anyway) but in fact a kind of sickening and surreal one, but I would have pulled the trigger if I had to so I know that I could.
If I had the firearm, yes, I’d shoot. ETA: In the situation the OP describes.
And I’d be shooting for center of mass. I am not a gun person, I’ve had some very basic training, and I know my adrenaline would be pumping me like crazy.
If that kills the person, so be it. I’m not going to pretend that using a firearm on a living person is anything but a potentially lethal act. If things work out that he lives, great - we both had a lucky day. But if I’m pulling the trigger it’s with the intent to knock the target down, knowing that will probably kill the target.
Yes, of course. The reason I own a gun is so I can protect my loved ones if need be (as well as shooting at the range is fun).
As has been already pointed out, there is no “shoot to disable”, so yes I would shoot to kill.
Center mass, because with that much adrenalin in my system I have a much better chance of hitting something.
The rule of thumb is to assume the worst case scenario. Never point a gun at somebody unless you’re willing to shoot them. And never shoot somebody unless you’re willing to kill them.
