Icy Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I used to think shooting to subdue was the correct line of thinking, until a friend of mine who has quite a bit of experience with firearms, safety and law explained it to me as to why shooting to kill is the preferable option where use of a firearm is required or granted. And this topic seems to be brought up on the site a fair bit when use of one is involved in an altercation. So I feel compelled to ask and discuss; those of you who think shooting to kill or subdue, explain why. Explain why you think it is justified or unjustified within the confines of the law, morality or ethics in your area. As well as your personal input on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(GigaDrillBreaker) Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Only shoot if you mean to kill. Otherwise, don't shoot for fuck's sake. Guns are a tool for killing. There are other tools, such as tasers, which are designed specifically to subdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 You shoot a person to subdue them. Shooting to kill is the most effective way to subdue. So yes, shoot to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Don't take what you cannot return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 You shoot a person to subdue them. Shooting to kill is the most effective way to subdue. So yes, shoot to kill. My sarcasm meter is going haywire trying to tell if you're sarcastic or not. I did laugh though. Don't take what you cannot return Clarify as to this statements meaning and its relevance to this topic please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 My sarcasm meter is going haywire trying to tell if you're sarcastic or not. I did laugh though. Oh, yeah, sorry. No sarcasm. I do support shooting to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 My sarcasm meter is going haywire trying to tell if you're sarcastic or not. I did laugh though. Clarify as to this statements meaning and its relevance to this topic please. I disagree with using guns to kill, since once you take a life, you cannot return it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I disagree with using guns to kill, since once you take a life, you cannot return it. And what is the alternative? To have your life taken from you? What of the other implications of being attacked or subdued? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 And what is the alternative? To have your life taken from you? What of the other implications of being attacked or subdued? Police aggression in this country is too damn high at the moment. Shooting unarmed people is not acceptable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Police aggression in this country is too damn high at the moment. Shooting unarmed people is not acceptable Not part of the discussion. Talk about your notion of "police aggression" elsewhere. What is part of the discussion is "Shooting to Subdue or Kill?" Will reiterate question: And what is the alternative to shooting to kill for the sake of subduing? To have your life taken from you? What of the other implications of being attacked or subdued? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~NOiSE~ Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 If you're shooting at someone, be prepared to take their life. Shooting to subdue is very, very hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I don't think you understand me Icy. Taking a life really damages you. It's not something that will ever leave you (if you have any manner of remorse in your body) I would rather die than know I stole something for an innocent man that I cannot return to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I don't think you understand me Icy. Taking a life really damages you. It's not something that will ever leave you (if you have any manner of remorse in your body) I would rather die than know I stole something for an innocent man that I cannot return to him I think you're missing the point. If you don't wish to take a life, don't use a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I think you're missing the point. If you don't wish to take a life, don't use a gun. you can shoot someone in the leg mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 My close friend and neighbor is a veteran of the Army Reserves. In his training, he was never trained to "shoot to kill". He was trained to shoot for the center of mass. I.E. the chest. I've been told this is the same for police officers. So I can't really give an answer that I'm not sure about. As far as I know, there is no "shoot to subdue". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 you can shoot someone in the leg mate And then what? Their leg breaks, they cant walk for the rest of their life. Suddenly they have mountains of medical bills and either lose their job as a result or cant have one in the future. Possibly their relationships with loved ones, family and friends. Then you find yourself in court for ruining this persons life in nearly every conceivable way. Something that just amounts to passive-aggressive torture or whatever you'd like to call it, that's what I'd call it. And depending on if you're a civilian or officer, a lot more goes down as a result of this because not just you and your victim are involved. So because you chose to subdue with a shot to the leg you just ruined your life, their life, your friends lives and their lives due to the stress, created a nightmare of paperwork for whoever your employment or assets belong to. Whereas if you had the decency to shoot to kill, namely shooting to defend your life, you and their family would have to deal with a lot less. Yes its sad for their family and mentally taxing for you but at least everyone can move on with their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 You're telling my killing someone is better than wounding them and saving your own life? MFG.....I can't even right now icy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 And then what? Their leg breaks, they cant walk for the rest of their life. Suddenly they have mountains of medical bills and either lose their job as a result or cant have one in the future. Possibly their relationships with loved ones, family and friends. Then you find yourself in court for ruining this persons life in nearly every conceivable way. Something that just amounts to passive-aggressive torture or whatever you'd like to call it, that's what I'd call it. And depending on if you're a civilian or officer, a lot more goes down as a result of this because not just you and your victim are involved. So because you chose to subdue with a shot to the leg you just ruined your life, their life, your friends lives and their lives due to the stress, created a nightmare of paperwork for whoever your employment or assets belong to. Whereas if you had the decency to shoot to kill, namely shooting to defend your life, you and their family would have to deal with a lot less. Yes its sad for their family and mentally taxing for you but at least everyone can move on with their lives. Or more likely, you miss/it grazes them, and then the guy shoots you/your partner etc. As Dad said, you shoot someone center mass, because your goal is not to end their life, but to stop them as quickly as possible by any means necessary. If you want to go nonlethal there are way better tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makο Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 If there were a way to reliably shoot-to-subdue without death, then of course it'd be the more desirable option. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Say what you will about police officers, or the way that law enforcement has been handling things lately. Patrolling the streets and answering calls can be a very dangerous situation. In moments where you have very little time to think, you could spend the few extra precious seconds to try to aim for the legs, or arms, or whatever. Or, in a fraction of the same time, you could put one center mass and be done with it. Unfortunately, this sort of mentality also leads to deaths in situations in which is really wasn't necessary. Being frightened, all the while having a gun, is a dangerous thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Tranq guns are better. You shoot someone with a horse tranquilizer they fall like a sack of bricks Have anyone of you actully killed anything? Let alone a human. You speak of it so casually "eh, I might miss, might as well put one between his eyes" It's fucking sickening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Or more likely, you miss/it grazes them, and then the guy shoots you/your partner etc. As Dad said, you shoot someone center mass, because your goal is not to end their life, but to stop them as quickly as possible by any means necessary. If you want to go nonlethal there are way better tools. To the red: Basically. When the use of excessive force is required the alternative is a lot worst. To the blue: That's still really difficult. And thats in an ideal situation. However Dorian did put it well I suppose. But your options in those situations due to the aftermath are either hope they arent your typical greedy person and dont sue you for a case they can win, while still living our their lives in torture with little solace or straight up shooting to kill. [hr] Forgive me if I double post here but this is just... "Tranq guns are better. You shoot someone with a horse tranquilizer they fall like a sack of bricks." Like are you kidding? Do you know how tranquilizers work? Too little and nothing, too much and you die. There is a reason why anesthesiologist is a very specific career option in hospitals and why that person is paid exclusively to put someone to sleep. And why that person goes in to inform the patient of complications and expectations. Tranquilizer Guns are for non-human animals where the dosages are not so lethal in variance. We are not elephants, horses, large apes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Better that than a speeding piece of metal. There are certainly chemical resents that can put a person out Icy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icy Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Better that than a speeding piece of metal. There are certainly chemical resents that can put a person out Icy. How? Both options result in death or you maimed/injured/dead no matter what. And yes, there are. But they take time. Certainly not fast enough to stop someone from attacking you or someone else. Even "less lethal" ammunition is just that. You may not leave a bullet hole, but the person may in fact still die from a variety of injuries, not the least of which is internal bleeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makο Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 I think the issue here is that Winter is coming at this from the view of the shootee, and not the shooter. Basically, in a situation in which a police officer/soldier/whatever needs to stop someone, stuff like "Oh, use horse tranqs!" or "Hey, aim for the legs!" become impractical at best, if not just ineffectual. Before the tranqs take effect, or in the time it takes to aim that extra bit, something awful could happen. Stopping means stopping, in that moment, no matter what. I totally understand what you're saying, Winter, but time is an extremely important factor to consider, and even all these non-lethal solutions can have lethal consequences, for the shooter and/or the shootee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Thing is. If someone is committing a crime that would require the gun to be drawn (such as rape, murder, assault if extreme enough) and the gun alone isn't enough to deter them. Then shooting to injure (which has a good chance of missing, especially under stress) or trying to disable by other means. Well that could mean death for the police officer and maybe some others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.