Here is a well known video of a sniper shooting the gun out of someone’s hand. But there are certain factors which make it possible.
[ol]
[li]Its not an active shooter[/li][li]Its a possible suicide/suicide by cop scenerio[/li][li]The guy is sitting in the open in a lawn chair and not moving[/li][li]The shot was taken using a scoped rifle not a handgun[/li][/ol]
If the guy was running at the police or shooting that shot would not be possible.
Everyone teaches “center of mass,” and it’s good advice.
It’s pretty simple, really: keep fighting and keep shooting until the threat is stopped. Your success will primarily be determined by how often – and how well – you have trained.
Just to add as I’ve not seen it mentioned yet. If your bullet does strike a limb, it’s guaranteed to penetrate and continue downrange, becoming a hazard to someone else.
The post you quoted talked about Scandinavia, under Swedish law officers are legally required to fire warning shots if the situation allow it, they are also supposed to ‘…strive to only temporarily disable…’. (1969:84 7§)
Yes I get that. It was mentioned in pretty much every sentence in that post. But it also mentions that in Finland there has been a total of 8 cases since 2000. Not nearly enough to come to any conclusion. In a country in which gun violence is much more prevalent warning shots are prohibited. For good reason. You own that bullet from the time it leaves the barrel until it stops. If you are randomly shooting in the air as a warning shot you have very little idea where that round is going to impact.
Why are all warning shots(if they happen) always in the air? Why not the ground?
How do you predict where the ricochet is going? If you have ever been on a range with tracers you would see good examples why you don’t want to shoot the ground.
Watch this video. LAPD gunfight. The shots continue until the suspect is down. Warning real life case not from Hollywood - YouTube
Are they? I know that Toxylon said it, but that particular claim isn’t cited. I don’t know how our police officers are trained and the law doesn’t specify.
When I did my military service we were taught to aim warning shots at the ground near the attacker. But it’s the sort of thing you need to adjust depending on the situation, eg if something had ever happened at the front gate of the base I was at you wouldn’t fire any warning shots at all, since they would’ve ended up in the colonel’s bedroom.
I was trained specifically to not fire a warning shot into the air. We were always supposed to shoot into the ground if we fired a warning shot.
The term we used was disable. You shoot to disable the target.
Dead is about as disabled as a fellow can get.
I have been in law enforcement of 30 years and have instructed in use-of force for the last 10. I have heard of ANY agency training to shot x number of times and then assess the effect. There was a “double tap” (always fire twice) way of thinking for a while but it I never knew it to be officially trained anywhere. It was more of a “this might be a good idea” thing. You always fire until the threat has stopped, regardless of the number of rounds that might be. Also, it may take a second or two to realize that the threat has been stopped. In the meantime it is likely that eight or more rounds might be fired. Shooting to wound is complete, absolute Hollywood bullshit.
NM
Everybody, I want to apologize for jtur88’s posts. It is a Rhymer Enterprises hypertime internet link that makes it possible for people to post from Faery, and thus I am ultimately responsible for the above bit of folly.
Are you absolutely sure about that? I’ve been hearing that factoid in one form or another almost my entire life. I’ve heard it from cops, soldiers, garden-variety gun nuts, EM personnel, NRA instructors, and even a couple of unusually intelligent Labrador Retrievers. The way I’ve always heard it is this: if you kill a soldier, you’re only taking one person out of action. If you wound a soldier, you’re taking several guys out of action, because the others are tending to the wounded man. If you can dig something up for me, I’d appreciate it. I’ll even start a spin-off thread if there isn’t already one in the archives. (I highly suspect that we’ve done this one before, considering the sheer number of firearm aficionados residing here. I’ll peek under the hamster poop first.)
No, it’s fake. Well done enough that it’s not immediately obvious but it’s fake.
The gunshots sound wrong, the muzzle flashes are far too prominent, we hear the suspects’ voices when we shouldn’t be able to unless they have a mic. The car chase is a little much to be believable too.
The military has its own myths and urban legends that get passed along from one generation of grunts to the next and mutate along the way. The amount of flatly untrue crap I heard about guns while I was in the military boggled my mind. The M-16 figured in a lot of it…designed to wound…tumbling bullets…manufactured by Mattel…just tonnes of stupid, untrue shit.
Most boys shoot to kill; he’d shoot to wound. Wait till his friends come to help, kill them too. Turned one target into four. Men, women, children. Killed them by the hundreds. The other side wanted him. Bad. Finally narrowed his hide down to an abandoned six-story building. They quit the subtle tactics. They called in an artillery strike. Leveled a square block. Brought the building down on his ass.
Some say he crawled out of there. Some say he died. Never heard from him no more.
Warning shots make little sense in most scenarios, in many instances they prompt the suspect to return fire.
Most US law enforcement agencies severely restrict their use, if not ban the use of warning shots outright.