3 ms·

Fantasy land != Reality There is no such thing as shooting to disable. You always aim for center of mass and if you do not feel threatened enough to shoot to k

by Nadya 11y ago

Fantasy land != Reality There is no such thing as shooting to disable. You always aim for center of mass and if you do not feel threatened enough to shoot to kill then you shouldn't be shooting at all. Now the caveat to this is if you shot an intruder and they're still alive, but now injured to the degree where you can safely disarm them and keep a gun drawn on them; current U.S law makes this a problem. You can get in legal trouble/sued by someone who broke into your home with a weapon intent on killing you, but only if they live. This means not only are you shooting to kill - you're now dumping an entire magazine into the person to make sure they are dead. E: To the people who downvoted, how would you disarm an intruder with a gun? Ask them politely to put the weapon down? Run at them with a baseball bat (and risk getting shot)? Or maybe shoot them in the arm or leg? Where major arteries are and the shot is still likely to be fatal and also has a higher chance of missing entirely. Life isn't Call of Duty and shots to the legs/arm don't just "injure", they kill. So I'll repeat myself: there is no such thing as shooting to disarm or disable in real life. Only in fantasy first-person-shooter land.

ryanlol 11y ago
A shot to the hand or the leg will kill you far slower than a shot to the chest though, and will be much easier to patch up.
- Nadya 11y ago
  If you hit the brachial or femoral artery they can bleed out within minutes. If you puncture a lung they can still survive. It all depends on where they get hit. Many people live from potentially fatal areas being hit and others bleed out from non-fatal regions being hit. In either case, their survival puts you in legal trouble under current law. You should be shooting to kill if you feel deadly force is justified. If your intent is not to kill, then deadly force was not justified. Good luck aiming for a hand. I advise you go to a firing range and see how often you can hit the arm of a moving target without taking time to aim (remember: taking time to aim = you are now the one being shot). You'll have fractions of a second to get someone in your sights and take the shot. It'll cost $30-40 to use a range, rent a gun, and buy ammunition for an hour. You'll leave with a more informed opinion of how operating a firearm works. [0] https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    I know you can't possibly accurately hit someones extremities, never made that claim either. My post was in response to you making it sound like wounds to the extremities would be equally likely to kill as wounds to the center of mass, which is definitely not true. And thanks, I've already got a range membership.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      My point is you're far less likely to even hit the hand. Aiming for it would be the worst decision you could make when your life is on the line and depends on you actually hitting and disabling the threat. My point was you should never shoot to harm, only to kill. That means no hand shots. Period. Regardless of the chances of a fatally wounding shot. My point - furthermore - was that it isn't a guaranteed "disabling" shot. It's still possible to kill. The thought of "shoot to disable" is a misinformed thought educated on nothing but Hollywood movies and video games.
- 15155 11y ago
  Anyone suggesting a "shot to the hand or leg" has never used a firearm. Sorry, I don't care about a violent criminal's life enough to try and take a well-placed shot at a small, moving extremity. No police officer would attempt this, either, if they're following their training. Center-mass shots are more reliable, and more importantly, more reliable under stress (larger target). "Patching up" my aggressor is the least of my concerns morally and legally.
  - ryanlol 11y ago
    You're either replying to the wrong post or didn't read mine, shooting at "hands or legs" is ridiculous but wounds to ones limbs are still far less likely to be lethal... Which is all I'm suggesting.

by Nadya 11y ago

ryanlol 11y ago

A shot to the hand or the leg will kill you far slower than a shot to the chest though, and will be much easier to patch up.

Nadya 11y ago
If you hit the brachial or femoral artery they can bleed out within minutes. If you puncture a lung they can still survive. It all depends on where they get hit. Many people live from potentially fatal areas being hit and others bleed out from non-fatal regions being hit. In either case, their survival puts you in legal trouble under current law. You should be shooting to kill if you feel deadly force is justified. If your intent is not to kill, then deadly force was not justified. Good luck aiming for a hand. I advise you go to a firing range and see how often you can hit the arm of a moving target without taking time to aim (remember: taking time to aim = you are now the one being shot). You'll have fractions of a second to get someone in your sights and take the shot. It'll cost $30-40 to use a range, rent a gun, and buy ammunition for an hour. You'll leave with a more informed opinion of how operating a firearm works. [0] https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
- ryanlol 11y ago
  I know you can't possibly accurately hit someones extremities, never made that claim either. My post was in response to you making it sound like wounds to the extremities would be equally likely to kill as wounds to the center of mass, which is definitely not true. And thanks, I've already got a range membership.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    My point is you're far less likely to even hit the hand. Aiming for it would be the worst decision you could make when your life is on the line and depends on you actually hitting and disabling the threat. My point was you should never shoot to harm, only to kill. That means no hand shots. Period. Regardless of the chances of a fatally wounding shot. My point - furthermore - was that it isn't a guaranteed "disabling" shot. It's still possible to kill. The thought of "shoot to disable" is a misinformed thought educated on nothing but Hollywood movies and video games.
15155 11y ago
Anyone suggesting a "shot to the hand or leg" has never used a firearm. Sorry, I don't care about a violent criminal's life enough to try and take a well-placed shot at a small, moving extremity. No police officer would attempt this, either, if they're following their training. Center-mass shots are more reliable, and more importantly, more reliable under stress (larger target). "Patching up" my aggressor is the least of my concerns morally and legally.
- ryanlol 11y ago
  You're either replying to the wrong post or didn't read mine, shooting at "hands or legs" is ridiculous but wounds to ones limbs are still far less likely to be lethal... Which is all I'm suggesting.