2 ms·

> shoot to disable Proponents of this usually have no experience firing a weapon, let alone while in distress. It's nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a

• dragonwriter 12y ago
  > It's nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a person by shooting them. Its not really nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a person by shooting them (it happens all the time, actually), it is just hard to do that reliably compared to disable-without-regard-to-killing, which is why the general rule is don't shoot unless willing to kill, and then aim center of mass -- not because hitting center of mass is the most likely place to disable or kill (though its pretty close -- the head is better for either, though), but because missing center of mass makes you more likely to at least disable than missing pretty much any place else you might aim to disable. Given the fairly high cost of failing to disable in any situation where shooting is justified at all, adding a "but not kill" constraint is generally an unacceptable risk.
• A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  It is frequently claimed that in some European countries, it is standard practice to "shoot-to-disable" but I have been told by trainers in the USA that doing that makes you likely to miss and/or risk danger of hitting another person. if that is true, then it would seem to be a bad policy, but it's claimed it works better. Who is right? I wish some journalist would write an article on this.