Political Crossfire Forums

Otacon · Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: Shoot to kill or to wound?

I got into an arguement with my father about whether or not you should try to wound where possible or to always kill. He told me that I am a pu**y for saying that I would always try to only inflict injury whenever possible and only kill if there was no other solution. I was wondering how you guys felt about the issue. Thanks.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2233 Location: Washington

Wound. Of course, if I'm shooting at all, I have to be prepared to accept that I might miss and actually kill them instead, but I would TRY to wound.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

If I ever had to shoot someone, and I hope I never do, it would be to kill them.

Slythe · Joined: 09 Jan 2005 Posts: 1574 Location: US of A

If it were someone with a knife or a bat or what not it'd be to wound. If the guy has a gun he is dead, even though I may wound him he might still be holding his gun and shoot me back.

Winchester · Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 6510 Location: Montana

The only reason to use deadly force on another individual is if your or another's life is in jeopardy and there is no other option to save innocent life and if that is the case shoot to kill.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

Winchester wrote: The only reason to use deadly force on another individual is if your or another's life is in jeopardy and there is no other option to save innocent life and if that is the case shoot to kill. :tu: Exactly!

Rilzic · Joined: 22 May 2005 Posts: 385 Location: Alb, NM, USA

Considering my aim, I would go for the larges part of the body, if he dies that's his problem. Unless i am sent off to jail afterwords....

Are you talking about war or self defence or defence of another? or just anything that would make you need to pull a gun out?

ATrow · Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 114 Location: Colorado

I said wound, but as other said it depends on the situation.

bigstick61 · Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:32 am Post subject:

Shoot to kill, for sure. If it gets to the point where I may need to shoot him, then I want to make sure the threat is properly neutralized. A wounded man can still fight and is still dangerous. If I happen to disable him without killing, fine by me, but shooting to kill is always the most effective means at stopping a criminal.

Reverend_HellH0und · Joined: 08 Mar 2004 Posts: 12822 Location: Moving on......

Never shoot to wound.

You only have the rest of your life to win a gunfight.... no biggie.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3340 Location: London

Your dad's argument is naff. It's introducing macho'ism into the whole gun argument.

There should be no macho'ism in owning a gun. It should be a real last ditch emergency thing to use (for home defense). I believe if you add 'be cool' into the equation it will lead to incorrect decisions being made.

I voted for 'Don't shoot at all'. I feel if I was alone in my house with a burgler my best chance of survival would be to hide or escape through a window and run away. I believe that if I started a shoot-out this would reduce my chance of survival as I would be likely to be worse at using a firearm than the intruder.

And frankly I don't give a crap if that makes me a coward/p**sy or not!!

thundertaker · Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:53 am Post subject:

Armed police all over the world generally have a 'shoot to stop' policy, which includes shooting people in the centre mass to knock them down. If they die, it's an unfortunate side-effect, but not the primary intention.

'Shoot to kill' would be aiming for their head, or pumping more bullets into them as they lay on the ground wounded and helpless....

Now, if it was me, and my life was in danger, I would do whatever it took to stop the attack and ensure my own safety. If my actions resulted in the death of the attacker, so be it (better judged by 12 than carried by 6 and all that). But I wouldn't set out with the express purpose of ending someone's life.....

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

IF I even have to use a gun for self-defense then I am going to shoot for center mass (center body) because it is the easiest to hit. If I kill or wound, I don't care so long as the "bad guy" is stopped. Once the 'bad guy" is unable to continue being "bad" there is no reason to keep shooting that person.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15408 Location: Florida

Otacon wrote: I got into an arguement with my father about whether or not you should try to wound where possible or to always kill. He told me that I am a pu**y for saying that I would always try to only inflict injury whenever possible and only kill if there was no other solution. I was wondering how you guys felt about the issue. Thanks.

Neither, you should shoot to stop. The best recommendation is to shoot center of mass (i.e. middle of the chest). This has the best chance to stop the attacker from doing anything further.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10839 Location: Podunk, Colorado

thundertaker wrote: Armed police all over the world generally have a 'shoot to stop' policy, which includes shooting people in the centre mass to knock them down. If they die, it's an unfortunate side-effect, but not the primary intention.

'Shoot to kill' would be aiming for their head, or pumping more bullets into them as they lay on the ground wounded and helpless....

Now, if it was me, and my life was in danger, I would do whatever it took to stop the attack and ensure my own safety. If my actions resulted in the death of the attacker, so be it (better judged by 12 than carried by 6 and all that). But I wouldn't set out with the express purpose of ending someone's life.....

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 9491

If anyone's ever had training on self-defense with a firearm, you're taught to always shoot for center of mass. The reason you never shoot to wound is:

When using a firearm in a highly stressful situation, you're very apt to be pumped with adrenaline and most likely shakey, making your aim very suspect.

If you try to wound in this situation, you'll most likely miss making yourself a very big target for either reprisal or getting shot yourself.

Even people and officers who are trained to shoot in stressfull situations and are experienced NEVER shoot to wound. This is a Hollywood stereotype and a myth and should never be followed in real life.

Save your life and aim for center of mass...

Winchester · Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 6510 Location: Montana

thundertaker wrote: 'Shoot to kill' would be aiming for their head, or pumping more bullets into them as they lay on the ground wounded and helpless....

I disagree with this statement vehimately. "Shoot to kill" generally means aiming at the center of body mass where the vital organs are. It has nothing to do with taking head shots or "finishing" someone off when they are incapacitated. You hit someone in the heart/lung area with a .45acp they're not going to walk away from it.

When someone says "shoot to wound" I take that as aiming for a non-vital area of the body such as extremities.

Winchester · Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 6510 Location: Montana

perdidochas wrote: Otacon wrote: I got into an arguement with my father about whether or not you should try to wound where possible or to always kill. He told me that I am a pu**y for saying that I would always try to only inflict injury whenever possible and only kill if there was no other solution. I was wondering how you guys felt about the issue. Thanks.

Neither, you should shoot to stop. The best recommendation is to shoot center of mass (i.e. middle of the chest). This has the best chance to stop the attacker from doing anything further.

It also has the best chance of killing the attacker. IMO "Shoot to stop" is just a politically corrrect way of saying "shoot to kill".

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15408 Location: Florida

Winchester wrote: perdidochas wrote: Otacon wrote: I got into an arguement with my father about whether or not you should try to wound where possible or to always kill. He told me that I am a pu**y for saying that I would always try to only inflict injury whenever possible and only kill if there was no other solution. I was wondering how you guys felt about the issue. Thanks.

Neither, you should shoot to stop. The best recommendation is to shoot center of mass (i.e. middle of the chest). This has the best chance to stop the attacker from doing anything further.

It also has the best chance of killing the attacker. IMO "Shoot to stop" is just a politically corrrect way of saying "shoot to kill".

Nope. I don't care if the guy dies or not. I just want him to stop attacking.

RooK · Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Posts: 1994 Location: SE Kentucky

Face it, if you are trying to shoot someone with a gun, you are shooting to kill. Also, if you purposely try to wound and not kill, you have just left yourself open for retribution from the courts. Use of a gun is considered deadly force, if you admit at any time that you weren't trying to kill the opponent, yet used the gun, you could find yourself with charges of attempted murder and the like. It's been done before. Guns are for life threatening situations, in that case I could care less if the person I'm shooting dies or not. Besides, I'm probably doing the community a favor since he won't be getting out on parole and doing the same thing within a matter of months.