As I said in the other thread to this line of stupid reasoning
You didn’t answer me there, perhaps you would care to answer me here. In the way less than the half a second you have before the bad guy reaches you how do you know that the second shot terminated the threat?
Presumably.
There’s your problem. You assume shooting to be “one hit, one kill” when in many instances one bullet is insufficient to resolve the situation.
Two good rules of thumb about guns are you should never point a gun at anyone you’re not prepared to shoot and you should never shoot at anybody you’re not prepared to kill.
I think the standard should remain that if you’re not justified in killing somebody, you’re not justified in shooting them. If you lower the standard to “shoot to wound” then you’re going to end up with more people getting shot. And a lot of those people who get shot are going to die even if the shooter’s intent was to wound them.
If the second shot killed the suspect then who cares what the third, fourth, and fifth shots did after that? You can’t murder somebody that’s already dead. More bullets weren’t going to make him any deader.
Nonsense. A single shot may stop a threat, it may not. People have shrugged of many bullets (including fatal shots) and kept moving for a while. Keep shooting until you know the threat is removed. To a woman in her house with a small child and an intruder with access to a knife 5 shots in short succession is a completely reasonable response. She’s not about to stop an evaluate the damage done by each shot before deciding if another is needed.
2 shots followed by a pause, followed by 3 shots to the head of an unconscious intruder would be a different scenario, but that’s not what was presented here.
Yeah, if you presume a single hit it going to stop a guy only a short distance away, you’re going to end up injured/dead. If the person you are firing at falls down and is not pointing a gun at you, you can probably safely presume they are disabled; if they are still standing, and you had reason enough to shoot them once, you had best keep shooting.
If you Google around, you’ll note that even the FBI and other high level agencies do not train for or expect one shot stops, and in fact for civilians and less well trained law enforcement involved in gunfights, shooting until the gun is empty is the most common reaction. It has been argued in some of the criminal-sues-defender lawsuits that shooting to wound constitutes evidence that the shooter wasn’t really in fear for their life, and thus shouldn’t have fired at all.
Lawyers have attempted to argue this same concept with police shootings that a suspect hit by multiple rounds was the officer attempting to kill the suspect not just end the threat. Police departments pretty much universally now have use of lethal force doctrines that teach officers to fire “X” number of times regardless of the perception of the target being hit. then to pause and fire again if the threat still exists.
French riot cops use that one a lot - little toy they call “flashball”, a charming euphemism for a solid rubber nugget the size of a ping pong ball, soft or hard depending on the situation, fired by the bastard offspring of a paintball marker and a Viet-Nam era grenade launcher.
I’ve never been hit by one of them, thank my stars, but I knew someone who has from across a wide street. Fractured ribs. Some people have been permanently blinded, and at least one guy died of a heart attack after a direct, short range hit to the solar plexus.
Which is why the manufacturers of these weapons have branded them “less lethal”, rather than “non lethal”. That’s to be understood as suspiciously specific.
Not possible, for a man-portable gun. If you’re knocking the target over, you’re knocking yourself over, too. Real-world bullets do not send people flying, or stop them mid-charge.
It is of course possible to make a gun which fires a really big projectile, which will hurt a lot and maybe break bones without (probably) killing. But it won’t knock the target over.
I was a cop in the Air Force for a few years; although we had a sentence in our instructions on the use of force that said, “… when feasible, aim to disable rather than kill.” all of our firearms training was to aim for center mass.
I have never heard of a civilian law enforcement agency that trains to shoot people in the arms or legs; we sure as hell didn’t in the military.
In concept, the use of force should be the minimum amount necessary to accomplish the mission, but once the weapon is fired, you damned well better be prepared to justify use of deadly force, whether you hit your target or not.
I never understood why we had that stupid line in our instructions on the use of force, and everyone used to think it made no sense. It was worded in such a manner that it wasn’t restrictive, and it sure as hell wasn’t emphasized in our training.
Not necessarily. There are recoil-less, should fired guns, for example (they are open in the back). Also a lot of it has to do with your stance. If you are dug in well with a good stance, hunched down even, or something, the same momentum imparted to you may not be enough to knock you down, but to a guy running or standing without bracing, may be enough to knock him over. There are too many variables involved to say with any authority that you couldn’t make some sort of gun that fired non-lethal projectiles that could knock someone over without knocking the shooter over.
Too bad the average kitchen is too small to allow a TOW missile to arm.
I also suspect that rather than be listed as less than lethal, it would be considered more than lethal.
This is a no shitter:
Back in the early 80s, in the USCG correspondence course for “Military Requirements for 2nd Class Petty Officer” was a section on Shore Patrol. And there was a paragraph or two about using a shotgun for riot control. And it told you if you have to shoot a shotgun at rioters, shoot at the ground some number of feet in front of them. It explained that the pellets would lose energy ricocheting off the ground and strike the rioters in the legs.
Luckily, we never got called for riot control. The toughest SP task was explaining to a dependent that we didn’t care if their husband was a LtCdr or the Admiral*, the posted speed limit is 20 mph and we clocked you at 35 mph.
*Governor’s Island was, among other things, Atlantic Area Headquarters at the time and we had a Vice Admiral. There were only about 6 of them in the entire CG. I met one (they changed) and he was a nice guy who was really kind to the enlisted personnel. We figured he understood that we (the enlisteds) knew he was The Admiral and our place and that if he needed to tear someone a new one, he’d take on a LtCdr.
Used to work with a guy who was retired Carpenteria, California PD. We were talking one time about how only idiots think an AR-15 is a suitable home defense weapon. As he put it, AR-15s are for fun— nothing else. The round it fires was specifically designed to wound without killing, and you never shoot to wound, because “dead men don’t get lawyers.”
My BIL (we don’t get along) is USMC (Col., ret) who did 2 tours in Vietnam.
He once told me the idea was to shoot to “mortally wound”, as it is likely the guy’s buddies will stop shooting to tend to him.
Never hard it from anyone else, and am skeptical - his pride and joy was a shot to center of forehead from some distance.
Real fun guy…
Used to keep a garotte on the mantle.
As per the above quote and the overwhelming American consensus here regarding the folly of “shooting to wound”, one must marvel at how differently things go down in Fennoscandia. The Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish police officers use firearms exceedingly rarely. Most of the time when firearms are drawn, they are only used to make a warning shot in the air. It actually works! When that fails and direct, potentially-lethal force must be used, officers usually aim at the legs of the aggressor. Typical newspiece on these rare occasions: “the perpetrator, failing to drop his weapon, was shot in the leg and arrested.”
In the Swedish case, only a quarter of all the shots fired by police on duty result in injury or death (see warning shots). The vast majority of those are injuries, with only 2 - 8 % resulting in death - shooting to wound, indeed. Norway is similar, but warning shots prevail even more.
On the Finnish side, no statistical analysis has been made, but a major newspaper compiled all the recent cases of police shooting at people, a whopping 8 cases total in the 21st century (article available only in Finnish). Of these 8 cases, 6 involved the police shooting at the extremities of the assailant. Out of those, one resulted in missed shots and a peaceful solution after a holdup. One featured a potential rapist holding a woman hostage with a knife at her throat, the police shooting the perp in the hand and releasing the police dog, end of story, everyone lived. Typically, though, the shots are made at the legs (a much bigger target). Shooting someone in the leg can certainly be lethal - one billhook-wielding mental patient was shot twice in the thighs and died as a result. Most of the time, shooting to wound equals effective non-lethal force, however, as in the case of a stabber who killed a tourist in broad daylight in a busy location, and was subdued by the famous shot in the leg. No-one bats an eye when Nordic police officers manage to hit the bad guy in the leg and take them out alive, like in some corny PG-rated detective show.
How often are your criminals shooting back?
An expert sniper who can choose his target generally aims at the head.
You are not shooting to kill; you are not shooting to wound. You are shooting to eliminate the threat. The shot most likely to eliminate the threat is one aimed at center mass. Whether it kills him or wounds him, as long as it eliminates the threat, it’s a good shot.
Regards,
Shodan
Cite? I have been a police officer for 16 years and I have never heard this. Our use of force training strictly goes by the state attorney general guidelines. So you can removed one state of almost 9 million from your universal training.
That is a myth with no basis in fact. The 5.56 round was adopted as the standard NATO round for 2 basic reasons. It is lighter than a 7.62 round and allows a soldier to carry more ammo and have a lighter weapon. They wanted a standard size for all NATO troops. There is nothing inherently less lethal in a 5.56 round other than it being smaller. It was not designed specifically to wound.
Warning shots are stupid and not legal. Just because you are not aiming at someone does not mean the shots will not wind up in someone. Just not where you want them too. If you fire warning shots in an urban environment you are a complete idiot.
Shooting someone who is not carrying a firearm and not charging you is a lot different than being in a gun fight or having someone charge you with a bladed weapon. You only have a split second to react. You have no time to figure out what limb to shoot. You have too much adrenaline to have as much fine motor control. Those who think differently have obviously never been in a shoot/don’t shoot scenario.
I think it is telling that the politician who proposed the legislation quoted in the OP is blind and obviously has no experience with firearms.
Just wanted to add this:
If you encounter a threat, and you believe your life (or the life of a family member or friend) is in imminent danger, your goal is to immediately stop the threat, using whatever tools you have at your disposal. Never use the word “kill.” Any death is incidental.
