(NSFL) Man shot and killed by father-son duo in Abilene Texas
773 replies, posted
I feel like I have a vague idea of where you are on a different spectrum
Holy fuck I seriously hope you never get in a situation where you have to defend your own life, you'll end up getting yourself killed.
Why should I, though?
This is the thing that boggles me the most. "Have some compassion for your assailants humanity," why? If they're assailing me, especially with a weapon, they've made the decision to throw away compassion to try to bring my humanity to an end. Should i just open my arms and try to hug them as they run me through? Why is it that me defending myself means i WANT to kill this person but them attacking me with intent means i should try and help change them?
At this point, oh well lol
...Play stupid games...
When you put it that way, holy fuck @advancedlamb has some whacky philosophy regarding guns
Modern society and civility is built off of being moral and not resorting to base instinct, treating all life as precious, and putting others before yourself.
That's all really nice and I like it but none of that applies when it's a situation where it's life and death, you or someone else is dying and you have the power to decide which one.
Hint: you're going to pick yourself every time.
If you even begin to ponder what good this person has inside of them and what they can do to society you're fucking dead. And do you do that before or after you make your calculations as to where you will non-lethally shoot them to disable them? Just fucking lol at those people.
Good luck. The human body is filled with vital organs and arteries.
If you legitimatly believe there is a proper technique for non-lethal takedowns with a gun then please do the world a favor and never touch a firearm.
https://youtu.be/2FmfEKoR9Qw
So i was a corpsman and surgical tech for 5 years in the military, and deployed overseas on a role 2 trauma team&surgical team, so I kinda cant lurk on this.
While true that colon,intestinal injuries, and liver injuries have the potential to be hemodynamically stable, and are survivable in the realm of blunt trauma. But even most pistol calibers being used within their effective range is a different story. Penetrating abdominal trauma is still devastating and shouldn't be touted as being "less lethal" or more "survivable". Specifically liver injuries. Penetrating liver injuries are a nightmare trauma scenario, and were always something we drilled consistently on in diagnosing, and converting to an ex-lap to pack aggressively . The amount of vasculature that is involved with the intestines isn't something to be underestimated at all either, and you can quickly get a belly full of blood. Ive seen someone almost bleed to death from a sigmoid hematoma that was caused by a "rough" C-section.
Look up the mesenteric arteries to get an idea of how vascular the intestines are.
Just dont get shot, penetrating wounds aren't "maiming" or "disabling", their meant to cause bleeding. If you're disabled from bleeding, you're in a bad spot physiologically. So to think you can use a gun to non-lethally disable someone is a bad bad bad bad bad idea.
Also ive never heard of, or been trained on any type of "leg wounding" or "disabling" at any of the firing ranges or training ive gotten on the M9 or M4 when i was in the military. Its not a thing. Center mass to stop them, and most likely kill them.
But as a gun owner, I do have to push that if you plan to use your gun for defense, make sure its loaded with defense rounds such as hollow points. You want to cause as much bleeding as possible to stop the aggressor, and you want your bullets to dissipate energy fast when it comes to hitting your walls and doors so you dont end up shooting someone in another room you don't intend to.
he should've tased him or shot him in the foot
Militaries do not train on merely incapacitating a target, which is why youre trained on center mass. Also because center mass is easier to hit than a limb.
Most police forces are trained on center mass with a few exceptions to some SWAT teams or other similar groups, but theyre outliers. Trying to shoot someone in the leg is not at all a viable method of defense or offense. Its not a practical target to hit, its not going to stop someone 100% of the time, and it still might kill them from bleeding or other trauma. If youre in a situation where you want to defend yourself properly with a firearm, you need to be prepared to kill your target, otherwise dont own a firearm.
To AdvanceLambs mentally inept argument, owning a firearm for self defense does not mean youre looking to kill someone or you want to kill someone at all. It means you value the lives of your loved ones and yourself above the life of a person who wants to kill you. Thats not an unreasonable or irrational concept, its actually one of the most base human instincts.
I'm not gun trained, but every single time I hear a professional talk about shooting, 100% of the time they talk about 'center mass'.
It's good that this is confirmed by you, because I seriously have no idea what the hell Advanced thinks a 'non-lethal' shot looks like.
There are so many variables that make guns a life threatening device that missing center mass could easily leave someone that wasn't your target injured or worse
No I'm pretty convinced you're a moron
Bottom line is if you want less lethal, use a less lethal weapon. The firearm is a last resort and you are far beyond any non lethal solution at that point.
Charging someone with a lethal weapon is beyond "scaring" someone. I'm sorry for those that would weep for him or her if they died, but if I allowed them to kill me my family would weep for me as well.
I am a responsible gun owner. I will take up arms to defend my home and/or my family to whatever extent I have to. I don't want to kill anyone but I understand in a situation like that I just might have to. You know what else? I'd absolutely hate it, I would likely think of that man or woman for the rest of my life. A lot of people do when they find themselves in kill or be killed situations.
Stop trying to paint us as some league of psychopaths just because we are not cowards and will not allow ourselves to be victims to those that intend on doing us harm.
What do you mean gun owners aren't all bloodthirsty psychopaths, constantly edging for the chance to get a 'legal' kill?
God I wish people stopped trying to act like owning a gun is an instantly horrible thing
how did this thread go on for 20 damn pages
i'm just seeing a case of 'play stupid games win stupid prizes' and the orange shirt guy was definitely being fuckin stupid
The idea of a non-lethal shot comes from misinformation about extremity wounds. Yes extremity wounds are HIGHLY survivable if treated correctly and timely. key words there. Timely, and correctly. To treat someone you open yourself up to a lot of things, think "scene safety" pretty much. You dont give aid to someone who is actively trying to fight you, so those leg wounds sort of fall to the way side due to a "not timely" in level of care. Most civilians also aren't rocking the correct tourniquets, or are trained to apply them correctly, making them not as effective.
To shoot someone in the leg is hard. To shoot them in the leg, and have enough power to overpower them, and to effectively render aid to ensure that the wound is "survivable" opens you up to a lot of issues. You dont shoot someone than run up and get in their personal space to render aid.
they should have peppersprayed him in the foot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkiZ0KJYQpg&feature=youtu.be&t=1m40s
1:40
this guy managed to tank god knows how many shots, and they were all aimed at center mass. Sometimes even "lethal" force isn't enough, and at a certain moment in this timestamp you can see that hesitation is very dangerous. Given this, think about how dangerous it would have been if the two ladies started taking the time to calculate and aim at "nonlethal" body parts.
Sweden (and the Scandinavian countries in general) does. https://polisen.se/siteassets/dokument/ovriga_rapporter/polisens-anv-skjutvapen-behov-atgarder.pdf
SWE: "Innan skott avlossas ska polismannen ge en tydlig varning genom tillrop, om en sådan varning inte är uppenbart otjänlig. Helst ska polismannen först också avlossa varningsskott. Vid skottlossning mot person ska eftersträvas att endast för tillfället oskadliggöra honom."
ENG: "Before firing, the police officer shall give a clear verbal warning, unless such a warning is clearly effectless. Preferably the police offcer shall first fire a warning shot. When firing towards a person the desired effect is to temporarily neutralize them."
Potential death > Certain death. Is it not better that you aim to not kill a person immediately so perhaps everyone can walk away alive at the end of the day?
Who said I don't like guns? I like guns, I think they're a fantastic piece of engineering, I have an assload of replicas I keep around as decorations just for the fun of it. I'd aim for a firearms license if I had somewhere to put a gun cabinet. Guns are great.
But what even is that really? If you aim ANYWHERE at any part of the body on a human, you are talking potential death and not certain death.
I don't feel that this means they take "non lethal shots". They neutralize threats. I believe much of my language through out my earlier posts was to this exact effect.
Neutralize threat is usually a euphimism for kill. It doesn't mean shoot a downed target. It means stop the thing you're shooting at from being a threat, the usual, and intended effect is death, but you stop firing when the threat is gone.
the keyword he might have been hinging on is "temporarily" neutralize. Either way, aiming anywhere at any part of the body has a high chance of killing them and a also a chance of them surviving, even if it's the head.
... not really? People get shot all the time and don't die immediately. If you get shot in the head or heart you're gonna die pretty damn instantly, yeah, but shoot literally anywhere else and there's a chance the person could survive, as slim as it may be. Aim for that.
Not only is it stupid but I think it's extremely dangerous to shoot someone with the intention to "only" wound them, let alone instruct police to do so.
Even if the target doesn't die almost immediately after you shoot them, they will die in a few minutes unless you run to them to stop the bleeding right after you shoot them. It can also leave the target with injuries/disabilities for the rest of their lives.
They literally say "temporarily neutralize". Shooting someone dead is pretty damn permanent, if you ask me. Cops here are taught specifically never to shoot to kill. They are under huge scrutiny to never fire lethal shots unless absolutely necessary. Last year there were 16 instances of gunfire from police officers, 1 which lead to a death. The year before there were 15, 3 lead to a death. The year before 19, 2 lead to a death. The numbers speak for themselves.
Says fucking who?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords
Disregarding the fact that this person is a bit of a cunt for one or two points of feelgood gun law proposals, she just happens to be the most high profile case of someone surviving a head shot wound. There are others if you look for them.
Hell, your player character survives a head shot in Fallout NV and a lot of people in this thread seem to think that Fallout mechanics is real life.
I'm sure that they are not aiming for the legs, the arms, or anything else. They are aiming centre mass, and using light penetration rounds. That's fine.
They're not breaking with what I'm stating here, you're in a country with enough medical care and few enough people to make that work.
I live in Canada, and the scale of our problems is larger, and the geography is way different. You can be hours away from civilized lands here quite easily, and the United States is even larger in population but just as geographically diverse.
People die in that in-term period before getting to a hospital. I don't think people here have said "Aim for the head", or "Do a mozambique". So, ultimately those deaths are due to "time", and that's the shitty thing about getting gut shot in a country where you can be 50 km away from an ambulance or any decent medical care.
Here, i'll catch you up since you clearly didn't read it yourself: regardless of where you shoot on the body the chances of death are extremely high, even if that person does survive the chances of you ruining their life and/or permanently disfiguring them is, again, extremely high and they can and WILL sue you out of house and home, ruining your life in the process. If you want me to put it bluntly, center mass is the more "humane" shot. Also, don't pretend like your country is an idyllic utopia either.
Id wager your superior EMS and better training in first aid might be why you see a higher surviving rate for GSW in sweden.
Not trying to shit on american healthcare, but Europeans currently have way better funding and protocols for pre-hospital management of trauma. London H-EMS does in-field thoracotomies, and other aggressive surgical procedures
This is ridiculous reasoning, absolutely insane, you only get in trouble if you were using your weapon wrongfully, not if they live or not
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
(NSFL) Man shot and killed by father-son duo in Abilene Texas
