3 ms·
Sounds like a strawman. Who advocates shooting people just to wound them? Why not shoot to disable a threat?
by jsprogrammer 11y ago
Sounds like a strawman. Who advocates shooting people just to wound them? Why not shoot to disable a threat?
- msandford 11y agoPeople who don't like the idea of police shooting someone not just a few times but a few dozen or hundreds of times. When the police seem to abuse their power by shooting many, many more times than is necessary it's natural for people to ask what can be done to restore a bit of balance between the police and the public. http://ktla.com/2015/05/23/cleveland-officer-michael-brelo-found-not-guilty-in-killing-of-unarmed-man-woman/ http://ktla.com/2015/05/23/cleveland-officer-michael-brelo-f...
- jsprogrammer 11y agoSorry, I'm discussing the nomenclature: "shoot to wound". It sounds like something someone would do as torture. Why shoot to wound someone? To what end? Just to cause them pain? However, there would seem to be something worth considering in a "shoot to disable" policy, as opposed to a "shoot to kill" policy.
- msandford 11y agoYeah that makes a lot more sense! Thanks for clarifying.
- krapp 11y agoNo, call it what it is. I think "shoot to wound" is the correct way to describe it. "shoot to disable" sounds too abstract, as if guns were something other than machines designed to puncture human flesh with bits of metal, with the express purpose of causing pain, injury and possibly death. Wounding and killing are pretty much the only settings that guns have.
- andreasvc 11y agoWell this is obviously a biased piece; that may explain the unflattering phrasing.