4 ms·

Assuming it's necessary to shoot at all, aiming to kill is even more rarely the right thing to do.

by bonzini 10y ago

Kalium 10y ago
In real life, there is only "do not shoot the firearm" and "shoot the firearm with the intent to kill". There is no practical aiming to disable or similar with a lethal firearm. There's no difference between the two, and no distinction to be drawn.
- grzm 10y ago
  Thank you for mentioning this. One minor adjustment I'd make to the above statement is "shoot the firearm with the intent to stop". This is a small, but important distinction. It doesn't change anything with respect to how the firearm is used (e.g., point of aim). At least from the perspective of police use of deadly force, the goal isn't to kill, it's to stop the person from continuing to be a threat. The outcome may be that the person does die, but if the person is stopped and doesn't die, that's an acceptable outcome once the decision has been made to use deadly force.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    It's not minor at all, and it's exactly what I was hinting at. If the person is stopped, doesn't die, and can be subject to trial in a court of law, that is a _better_ outcome.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Would you clarify what you understand as alternatives to "aiming to kill" and how they would be effectively different from "aiming to kill"? Edit: clarified question.
      - bonzini 10y ago
        They aren't different at all from "aiming to stop", but the difference from "aiming to kill" is enormous. For example, aiming at the leg can be just as effective as aiming at the heart.
        grzm 10y ago
        Sorry, I can see how my question was unclear. I mean how "aiming to kill" is effectively different from "aiming to stop". I've edited it for clarity. There are a couple of issues with the idea of, say, aiming at the leg. * A leg wound may not stop the person. * A leg wound can be lethal: you can bleed out very quickly if the femoral artery is hit. * The trajectory of a bullet (and its fragments) once it impacts the body can be very unpredictable: a bullet entering the leg may strike bone and enter the chest cavity. And all of these assume precise aim under stress. You mention aiming for the heart: police won't generally be aiming for something as small as the heart. Police (and all people using firearms) should receive the best training they can (and likely more and better firearms training than is often available today), but precise aim under stress is no easy task. They may be aiming for the torso (which of course includes the heart), because shots to the torso are generally more effective at stopping a person and it's a relatively large target: shots are more likely to hit and therefore less likely to miss (and hit something else: all bullets land somewhere). Firearms are deadly force. Police have less-lethal alternatives available as well, and should be trained to use them effectively when it's appropriate to do so. If a police officer resorts to deadly force, the goal should be to stop the person as effectively and quickly as possible.
- bonzini 10y ago
  Not at all. In civilized countries, police are specifically trained to stop, not to kill. Sometimes one may imply the other, but not necessarily.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    I'm 100% certain that you're absolutely right. Yet, I'm not aware of any way to use a lethal firearm in a capacity to stop in a way that is in some important and practical manner distinct from stopping a person lethally. I'm sure this is just a failure on my part to comprehend your point. Can you clarify, to help me with my personal failures? Perhaps you could detail what you mean about how police are trained in civilized countries? Perhaps what you meant to communicate is that weapons other than inherently lethal firearms should be deployed?
praneshp 10y ago
I'm by no means an expert gun-handler, but the only constant instruction every time I go to a range is "Don't point the gun at anything you are not ok with completely destroying". I understand police should be better trained, and ideally they must shoot to stop vs shoot to kill.
- grzm 10y ago
  > ideally they must shoot to stop vs shoot to kill Would you clarify what you understand as the practical, effective difference between the two?
- user5994461 10y ago
  Safety on, unless you're actively practising. Keep guns pointed toward the ground or the air when handling, don't point at things and never point at people. Only have your hands on the trigger if you are planning to shoot. (Corollary: if someone has hands on trigger, consider that he's gonna shoot.) P.S. That's what I've seen at European ranges, let's assume they are taking security more seriously than American ones :D
- nylonstrung 10y ago
  They already have non-lethal options available if they intend to stop someone. I feel like this would increase the lethality of situations where non-lethal approaches are warranted rather than decreasing the lethality of other ones. Firearms should not be treated as implements of lethality and nothing but that. Imagine how many police shooting cases we'd see where cop claims he was shooting to wound but 'missed'

Assuming it's necessary to shoot at all, aiming to kill is even more rarely the right thing to do.

by bonzini 10y ago

Assuming it's necessary to shoot at all, aiming to kill is even more rarely the right thing to do.

In real life, there is only "do not shoot the firearm" and "shoot the firearm with the intent to kill". There is no practical aiming to disable or similar with a lethal firearm. There's no difference between the two, and no distinction to be drawn.

grzm 10y ago
Thank you for mentioning this. One minor adjustment I'd make to the above statement is "shoot the firearm with the intent to stop". This is a small, but important distinction. It doesn't change anything with respect to how the firearm is used (e.g., point of aim). At least from the perspective of police use of deadly force, the goal isn't to kill, it's to stop the person from continuing to be a threat. The outcome may be that the person does die, but if the person is stopped and doesn't die, that's an acceptable outcome once the decision has been made to use deadly force.
- bonzini 10y ago
  It's not minor at all, and it's exactly what I was hinting at. If the person is stopped, doesn't die, and can be subject to trial in a court of law, that is a _better_ outcome.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Would you clarify what you understand as alternatives to "aiming to kill" and how they would be effectively different from "aiming to kill"? Edit: clarified question.
    - bonzini 10y ago
      They aren't different at all from "aiming to stop", but the difference from "aiming to kill" is enormous. For example, aiming at the leg can be just as effective as aiming at the heart.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Sorry, I can see how my question was unclear. I mean how "aiming to kill" is effectively different from "aiming to stop". I've edited it for clarity. There are a couple of issues with the idea of, say, aiming at the leg. * A leg wound may not stop the person. * A leg wound can be lethal: you can bleed out very quickly if the femoral artery is hit. * The trajectory of a bullet (and its fragments) once it impacts the body can be very unpredictable: a bullet entering the leg may strike bone and enter the chest cavity. And all of these assume precise aim under stress. You mention aiming for the heart: police won't generally be aiming for something as small as the heart. Police (and all people using firearms) should receive the best training they can (and likely more and better firearms training than is often available today), but precise aim under stress is no easy task. They may be aiming for the torso (which of course includes the heart), because shots to the torso are generally more effective at stopping a person and it's a relatively large target: shots are more likely to hit and therefore less likely to miss (and hit something else: all bullets land somewhere). Firearms are deadly force. Police have less-lethal alternatives available as well, and should be trained to use them effectively when it's appropriate to do so. If a police officer resorts to deadly force, the goal should be to stop the person as effectively and quickly as possible.
bonzini 10y ago
Not at all. In civilized countries, police are specifically trained to stop, not to kill. Sometimes one may imply the other, but not necessarily.
- Kalium 10y ago
  I'm 100% certain that you're absolutely right. Yet, I'm not aware of any way to use a lethal firearm in a capacity to stop in a way that is in some important and practical manner distinct from stopping a person lethally. I'm sure this is just a failure on my part to comprehend your point. Can you clarify, to help me with my personal failures? Perhaps you could detail what you mean about how police are trained in civilized countries? Perhaps what you meant to communicate is that weapons other than inherently lethal firearms should be deployed?

praneshp 10y ago

I'm by no means an expert gun-handler, but the only constant instruction every time I go to a range is "Don't point the gun at anything you are not ok with completely destroying". I understand police should be better trained, and ideally they must shoot to stop vs shoot to kill.

grzm 10y ago
> ideally they must shoot to stop vs shoot to kill Would you clarify what you understand as the practical, effective difference between the two?
user5994461 10y ago
Safety on, unless you're actively practising. Keep guns pointed toward the ground or the air when handling, don't point at things and never point at people. Only have your hands on the trigger if you are planning to shoot. (Corollary: if someone has hands on trigger, consider that he's gonna shoot.) P.S. That's what I've seen at European ranges, let's assume they are taking security more seriously than American ones :D
nylonstrung 10y ago
They already have non-lethal options available if they intend to stop someone. I feel like this would increase the lethality of situations where non-lethal approaches are warranted rather than decreasing the lethality of other ones. Firearms should not be treated as implements of lethality and nothing but that. Imagine how many police shooting cases we'd see where cop claims he was shooting to wound but 'missed'