(NSFL) Man shot and killed by father-son duo in Abilene Texas - General

Uh...I want them to reduce their chances of causing death, not treat them like non lethal weapons, or even use them in any situation that isn't life or death already. I just want people who are gonna shoot anyway to shoot as best they can to reduce chances of death. Most any wound a human gets from a bullet will kill them, but the operative concept here is "time", and since we have hospitals within 30 minutes of most places, it is definitely possible to get shot in the leg and get a tourniquet to keep them stable enough to get brought to a hospital. Or you can just shoot them in the heart and they die in 1 minute. There is a big difference, and it isn't just lethal vs non-lethal, it is also time-based as well.

Dude, drop it. This argument is not logical, or functional. A gun is only to be used in order to kill someone. It is not meant to be used as a tool to inflict non lethal wounds on an individual. This is the BASIC PREMISE of firearm safety. Refusing to adhere to this in an effort to "save lives" will only lead to more death. You refuse to believe this, but have little understanding of why your argument about "Time" means quite literally nothing in the grand scheme of a gunshot wound.

It really boggles my mind that you can say that something should be used to kill as often as possible with no fucking regard whatsoever for their life or trying to minimize the chances of them losing it compared to the actual effectiveness of stopping them.

Either you're trolling, or you're fundamentally failing to read the words, take them in, and consider them in any way. You cannot be comprehending our arguments if this is how you keep responding.

You want people to use a tool to kill people as often as they can, and not even THINK of ways to reduce chances of killing them. How am I the one trolling? Is this a fundamental mental difference between gun owners and peaceful people who don't think up how they'll shoot others?

People very easily can die from being shot in the arm or leg, and believe it or not, humans actually kind of need their organs to be intact to live. If you get shot in your femur it could snap it in two or bounce, break an artery. If you get should in the throat you'll bleed out immediately. If you get shot on the torso you could be left permanently disabled from the waist down, or organ failure could occur. Even with rubber bullets someone could be killed, that's the only 'less than lethal' bullet out there but it's still quite dangerous to use.

Then why are you telling gun owners to shoot people to kill and not to just stop them? If there is an alternative as effective at stopping people with less lethal forces than guns then why the fuck do people use guns for self defense?

Where would you shoot someone to "inflict a non lethal wound"? What's your technique? Do you know how much more dangerous you sound than myself or Curls, or literally any gun owner in this thread including the two idiots who murdered someone? You sound more dangerous than them because you would use a gun as a toy to inflict "non lethal" wounds that would lead to death, strokes, cardiac arrest, blood blockages, clots, aneurisysm, vein and arterial collapse, and much worse? Your ignorance on this matter is killing me, and would be dangerous to anyone around you should you come to posses a gun.

It makes me think of the story of the naked, unarmed guy on the highway that was interfering in traffic. Cop showed up and ultimately the man was shot. He was black and a teacher as well. Clear cut case of abuse right? That was the immediate assumption. Turns out the cop had a body cam. Cop was also black. And the man was threatening to kill the cop. And the cop hit him with a taser and the man didn't even flinch, he just charged the cop and tried to take his weapon before being shot. And after he was shot, he actually didn't drop immediately, he stayed up a little longer before finally going down. We had a thread on it in SH actually. Its a fascinating little case study. It a terrifying video because it causes you to realize that even a gun isn't an immediate defense, and people who are unarmed are not always not a threat. You could still be fucked after you pull the trigger. Not gonna embed because naked man getting shot. Yeah, he gets tazed, shot, and is still actually able to get back to his feet for a moment. And as he is being shot he is still trying to attack the officer until the officer is able to get clear for a moment.

Shoot them in the leg and treat them with a tourniquet. I would never use a gun on anyone. If, however, I was forced to use a gun for some reason, I would aim for their legs or shoot them in the hip or some shit to reduce the chances of their major organs exploding. If you think that's fanciful or impossible, then maybe guns should never be used by people?

People do own tasers and mace, and other weapons for this exact reason. You don't understand that this is the exact opposite purpose of a gun. Here's what I want you to do. Go to a gun range near you, and take a gun safety course from a professional who cares about safety. Tell them your ideas about a gun. You will not get to shoot a gun that day, at that range because they will refuse to let you.

You shoot to kill, you don't shoot to execute. A good kill shot can still be non-lethal if they get medical attention in time. By 'trying to use your cosmic brain' to 'not kill them' you would end up causing a higher chance of death. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-most-gunshots-are-nonlethal This is a nation-wide analysis based on 132k individual patients with gunshot wounds (GSWs). • Of those who died from their wounds, only 30% made it to the ER for treatment, the other 70% were not alive long enough to be transported. • Of the total number of patients with GSWs who survived, 43% were treated in the ER and then released, 52% were treated and held at the hospital, and 6% were treated and transferred to an acute care facility. • Of those shot in an assault, the overall mortality rate was 20% • Of those shot in the head in an assault, the mortality rate was 40%. • Of those shot anywhere other than the head in an assault, the mortality rate was 16%. By shooting them to 'not kill them' you're gambling with their life and taking a bet that an ambulance will arrive on time, and even on top of this they could still die in hospital.

Event log Talk about ethics of guns Meme the Shooting (spicy boys spicy) FUCKING DECAPITATE Staggr Argue about the validity of self defense Kill Staggr again Argue about why some idiots didn't shoot for the legs Dogpile on said arguers Argue back and forth going in circles about seperate ideaologies Repeat Ban Staggr Close thread

They will refuse to let me shoot a gun because I want to shoot people away from their major organs and want to know if there are any ways to do that?? WHAT

Shoot someone in the leg and you're likely going to get the femoral artery, causing intense and sudden bleedout which a tourniquet cannot stop. Shoot someone in the hip and you are not only liable to do the same thing but also possibly bust their spine based on angle, or bust their guts which is not only extremely painful but absurdly difficult to fix as a wound.

This is more dangerous than you have any idea. You will not reliably be able to save that persons life, you will disfigure them and leave yourself open to a lawsuit for essentially ruining someones life because you're ignorant of how dangerous that is. That is not non lethal. You do not know how the human body works if you think that shooting at the leg is at all non lethal. You're absolutely off of it if you think you can just "Tourniquet" that with any reliability to get them to a hospital. If your methodology was taught instead of the current one, more people would be dying and more people would be injured. Guns are NOT to be used if you're not going to kill something, and killing something is not something we want people to do. So we don't want people whipping out guns to pull off leg shots that leave people injured and miserable for life, or dead after a painful last few hours of life. You refuse to learn, to read what we say, to comprehend anything foreign to your absolutely solidified views. I have come to acquire the view I have after having used guns and learned to respect them. You refuse to do anything that would even remotely challenge you mentally on this subject including learning.

So you're saying that my strategies actually are more lethal and so I should try another strategy that is less lethal?

You want to save lives? Then don't use a gun. Gun culture teaches people to NOT use the gun if they don't have to, life or death scenario. You're taking a life and death scenario and trivializing it by trying to imply a gun should be used for a less lethal option. If a gun comes out, it should only be because it's life or death, and you don't have that option. People have been shot in the stomach and still managed to kill the other person. You think this is "saving lives". I think it's dangerous ignorance life most gun owners would and do.

The strategy that is less lethal is to not shoot.

But if it happens that you shoot someone why shouldn't there be any consideration to reducing death? If it's impossible, then yeah, maybe guns should not be allowed to be owned by people who aren't professionals at deciding who gets to live or die.

So when do we hear about @advancedlamb in the news murdering someone and then saying "I was trying to non-lethally shoot them"

What..

Because the intention we are saying is that we should ONLY use a gun to kill, and anything less is wrong. You think you can use a gun for less than to kill. This is more dangerous. We all take killing and death very seriously, and think it should be avoided. The gun should only be used in a lethal scenario, and if a life can be saved after the threat is neutralized that's great but that wasn't the intention. You naively, and ignorantly believe that result can be achieved as an intention. It cannot. It's an accident.

you gotta at least be lore consistent, I already have said I wouldn't shoot someone, but if I did I would try to non-lethally shoot em. So me murdering someone is basically irrelevant to the gun discussion, you must just think I'm a psycho?

The problem is that there are a billion variables They could move, changing where they get shot You could be a bad shot, meaning you don't shoot where you intend and make it worse You shoot outside of center mass and hit an artery, killing them immediately You miss entirely because you didn't shoot centermass and they charge at you with a knife, and kill you

Well you seem to believe that a gun is a tool that can be applied to non lethal scenarios because you would use it in a non lethal manner, which, doesn't exist in reality?

Because all considerations to reduce death do not function and essentially just change the way in which you are being deadly, in ways that are more reckless than just aiming for center of mass.

I understand it is very hard, but to me that just means that the only people trusted with these tools should be highly trained.

No one is a professional at deciding that. No one should have to ever decide that. But crime, and real life happen. Sometimes a gun is required for self defense, those stats have actually been shown to you, but you glossed over them like you always do. In those situations, the gun is not to be used if it's not to save your own life, the only time someone is actually able to make that decision of "Who lives, and who dies" is when someone else has threatened and created lethal force against your own person. That's the only time. Because they make the decision that you're going to die, you can make that decision. You think a gun is for non lethal scenarios and situations by implying it's possible. We have told you it's not possible, but you don't care, and refuse to even acknowledge the medical reality of the situation. Your ignorance is the dangerous part.

We literally have an arsenal of shit to use that doesn't kill people Mace Tasers Rubber rounds Pepper rounds Flash rounds Even those need to be used with caution, they can still cause death, just less likely. But with actual bullets this 'less lethal strategic shot' meme is a delusion.