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

Highly trained people do not shoot to wound, they do not shoot to be non lethal. Your imaginary highly trained rainbow six operator who can just intentionally lay out a bad guy with a shot that's non lethal does not exist. Your entire mindset is contrary to all educated, professionally trained gun owners and you refuse to believe this. It's absurd

Its not that your "strategy" is more or less lethal. Its equally lethal. Its just more reckless. What you're advocating is reckless use of a firearm.

if i were the guy with the bat i would have simply used the kaioken technique, and break the guns before they could react.

The problem is that nothing is as effective at stopping targets as guns, so it isn't like you can just say "go use something else". And if you think you could, then that actually opens a whole moral issue of "why are you using a lethal option on someone if non-lethal options exist"

Seriously, I'd rather take a center mass shot than a """""NON LETHAL SHOT"""" Nothing is more effective at killing a target than a gun.

When you shoot anyone, anywhere death is a possibility. There is no such thing as trying to non-lethally shoot someone. You shoot them to stop them. You don't have to shoot till they're dead but death is always a possible outcome. Aiming to be ~non-lethal~ is insanely dangerous because aiming for smaller targets is harder, especially in tense times that you'd expect in that scenario. You shoot them where you can hit them and hope maybe they'll be alive afterwords. None of this Hollywood crap. If you shoot someone in the hip or pelvis You're running a good chance of hitting their femoral artery or iliac veins. Not to mention possible major nervous system damage in the lower spine. You're aiming to maim.

It isn't just very hard, it's essentially impossible in a lot of cases.

I mean that whole shooting until they're dead thing is also a big part of gun use etiquette. By the logic of "guns are already lethal" you might as well empty the clip/mag, right?

This argument seems pointless. Why would I even want to care about the outcome of the guy attacking me?

Someone is running around and he's carrying a knife, what do you do If they get to close, shoot center mass, disable the target Spin your magnum in your fingers and shoot the knife out of their hand, blowing on the barrel and looking at the camera with a handsome smile Lets say you do 2, instead, what happens is you accidentally shoot them in the throat and they bleed out horribly. Now you look like an asshole.

Can you stop being a dishonest person for 5 fucking minutes? No it isn't. No one ever said this. You are literally lying TO YOURSELF to fuel this argument.

Yeah, exactly, this is the problem with gun owners, they don't even care about the person they're shooting in any regard.

Oh boy there's that part you also know nothing about You can't shoot single shots in a high stress situation and as stated before people under adrenaline can ignore immediate bullet wounds. Shooting your target multiple times (not necessarily magdump) is both a necessity and an unavoidable aspect of using a firearm.

Eh? I just made a statement, though slightly unclear perhaps, that the number of shots you put into someone is part of "gun use etiquette" which may be an odd phrase, but it is accurate to some degree.

Yeah, if you're running towards someone with a knife or committing an armed robbery, dying is a good side effect of that. Which reminds me of another reason you should always aim center mass... you could end up not disabling your target and they can retaliate against you.

No you used a retarded hyperbole which demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge on the matter and your attitude thus far has been so condescending that it's obvious you're spiteful of anyone who disagrees with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubU-dB8B-94

Do you even like...care about the reasons why they did that? Who they could have been to you? Who they still could be, what they could give back? Who depends on them, who loves them and wants them to change? I guess all that is gone because "they're scaring me" right?

In a physical confrontation, it's typical to match force with like force. A baseball bat can and will fuck you up. Just because it's a bludgeoning item doesn't make it any less lethal than a gunshot. Same goes for knives and other cutting objects. In boxing, you might get taught about timers and switches. They're places on the body you could strike that will either not immediately put them down or will immediately conk them out. A liver blow, for example, will take basically anyone down. This isn't a boxing match though, it's a fight with weapons that are well documented to be deadly. If someone escalates to using lethal force, your best bet of survival is to match that lethal force before they can enact theirs upon you. If you have a gun, the responsible action is to shoot them until they stop advancing on you or others and are no longer a threat. A single gunshot wound isn't guaranteed to put them down, it's not guaranteed to be lethal once they do go down. But your in-the-moment priority is that the threat is stopped. Your twisted idea of using a lethal tool as a non-lethal item of force is dangerous. Trying to disable someone non-lethally with a gun will fuck them up in ways that have already been explained, you could miss and cause collateral damage to some kid across the street due to your negligence, you could fail to incapacitate them and you get to fucking die because you thought real life is a videogame or hollywood film. Never touch a gun unless you understand what it's capable of doing and why it would be utilized. If you want to be non-lethal use tools that are non-lethal. But seriously, never touch a gun. Your recklessness would be far more messy than 1 person put onto the ground on the spot.

No but the amount of Americans defending the millers and praising them with memes is kind of an indicator of their culture.

If I cared I wouldn't use a fucking gun mate

If that's what you're getting out of this, it's proof you can't read, won't read, and haven't read a single thing said to you thus far in the thread. Even OvB made a thoughtful and tonally kind post that lent you a lot of credit, yet you read it, replied to it, and failed to comprehend a single point of it. Please, I'm done with this argument because for me and likely the other 4 posters who are not gun nuts, but appreciate gun safety have all been smashing our heads into concrete for a couple hours now. You just need to learn to read better becuase if that is your take away, you have failed to understand anything said to you and have continued this whole discussion in a bubble of your own reality. If you refuse to see that, fine, but that's on you dude.

Wait so...OVB brings up "you don't have to shoot them til they're dead", so I said "yeah that's also a part of gun etiquette" and somehow that's bad even though, totally not coincidentally, the gun owners also DO want to shoot til they're dead.

Life isn't a fucking anime episode where time slows down to a negative state where you have time to ponder life's mysteries every time a muscle twitches.

Yeah, because Canadians would never do anything about memes that are stupid, right? I don't have the energy to slag off my own country right now, but there's plenty of fuck-tarded canadian rednecks who think and do dumb shit just like the millers. Rather than respond to the people in this thread, you continue to just post general anger at the general concept of the USA, which is at the very least, useless?

And yet all those things still exist and don't stop existing just because your life is at risk, so when we have the ability to think of them now...perhaps we should think of ourselves in a good way, not as murderers with no remorse?

Any proper gun owner knows that when firearma are aimed and pointed you gave fully invoked the moral knowledge that your bullet can more than likely kill someone. A reasonable owner knows this and thus only uses it in dire situations. Never for mutilation to disarm.

If anyone ever attacks you, and you stop to think of these things, you're going to die, you know that right?

Nope, because I'm going to shoot them, but I'm going to make fucking sure I don't kill them if I can avoid them.

Rational and sane people like myself do not want to have to kill someone. But if someone attempts to kill me, and the only option is to kill them, I'm thinking about my life, and the people who need me, and who I support and who won't function without me. We don't have to put our lives aside for someone who has made the decision to put our lives aside.

This implies that Aaron attacked first, which he didn't.