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

I like how completely silent you went after asking you to specify the other 15 cases where guns were used. Non-lethal shooting doesn't work, and nobody should ever encourage non-lethal shooting with lethal firearms.

I can't specify those 15 cases because that's not public information, as far as I know. Non-lethal shooting does work, and it should definetely be encouraged as to prevent needless deaths.

Okay, so based on 15 unspecified cases where we don't even know if the targets were physically hit, you encourage people/police to use lethal force and hope they targets don't die? Seriously, and I mean seriously: are you stupid?

Here's a video right out of the horses mouth, if that makes you happy. 2:00 Officer: "In a threatening situation should a police, as much as it's possible, try to communicate with this aggressive person so that they cease their criminal activity, if that is not enough then the police officer is allowed to use one of their weapons, being baton, pepperspray or pistol." Interviewer: "What does a situation look like when police have to use their pistol?" Officer: "Often times it's a person who is also armed, attacking me as an officer or someone in the vicinty. In these instances we are allowed to use our pistol. We have the option to fire a warning shot, if there is time for that, and in that way warn this person that this is serious and that they need to drop their weapon. If the person still doesn't abide, then we are allowed to fire. First-hand we fire in the leg, if it's far enough away from me and the threat, about 10-15 meters. If it's a short distance, when we are approaching 5 meters, then we are to shoot the upper body to really stop the person. A shot in the leg can often still let the attacker continue, and if I as a police officer do not shoot the torso then this knife-wielding person could run up and stab me."

He's got something of a point tho; a warning shot is still firing a bit of high-speed metal somewhere that could potentially hit someone else (unless they have a blank loaded specifically for that). It's the same reason why all those videos of people firing full-auto into the air are potential Darwin Award candidates.

Oh no, I am not happy until you accept that firing a LETHAL FIREARM always carries the potential to kill someone, even warning shots! This is why it's REALLY not recommended to shoot unless you REALLY mean business!! And it's not a far-fetched conclusion to make that "only fire your gun when necessary" and "never shoot to kill unless necessary" all mean the same thing. Which is, don't fire your weapon unless you are accepting the possibility of ending a life with every round you fire. (Even the warning shot!) It's not preventing anything, it's a gamble. It's a god damned Russian roulette, and you need an ambulance in readiness or else you end up with someone dead that you didn't intend to kill.

They fire it in the air, I'm pretty sure the bullet falling on it's way down is going to do nowhere near the same damage it would if it was fired into someone's head. ... where have I at all denied that shooting someone doesn't carry the potential that they die? When I say non-lethal shots I mean you shoot somewhere that won't kill the person immediately, that gives them a chance to receive medical care so that they don't die needlessly and instantly. Yes, EMS need to be fast on the scene to prevent such a death, but can we not agree that perhaps it's a little bit better that the person being shot receives a smidgeon of a chance to live rather than shooting them in the head or heart and calling it a day? I sure as fuck would prefer being shot in the chest and being hospitalized over instant death.

Every time someone mentions warning shots I'm reminded of that kid who died in a church because he got hit by a stray bullet from over a mile away.

Indeed firing a bullet straight up into the air will dissipate the energy to the point where it likely won't kill you, unless you are a newborn with a as-of-yet softer, undeveloped skull. However, I cannot bring myself to agree that shooting someone anywhere with the intention to give them a chance to receive medical care and not die instantly is wise. I do not believe that is a wise action to take ever, because you are still gambling with their life. I do see your point, definitely. I just think it's very, very dangerous even if you try your hardest not to kill them instantly, which by the way even a headshot doesn't even guarantee. People have survived gunshot wounds to head. So what you are proposing is very dangerous, because the idea is to shoot people to stop them. If they survive and receive fast medical care after being stopped, great. But stopping them can easily mean killing them, even if you don't intend to.

lmao are you fucking serious I know America has literal bloodthirsty killers for cops, but your cops are just idiots They should stop using their fucking guns period, New Year's Eve gunfire may bring jail time Boy, 13, dies after being hit by falling bullet in Hammond Can falling bullets kill you? /// Spent bullets and their injuries The Physics Behind Why Firing A Gun Into The Air Can Kill Someon..

Hey man. Let me tell you, you're right. In every way you are right but one. You're not factoring in the flawed human element. While we can say you should aim for the leg or whatever, in reality that doesn't mean a thing. Whether a dude with a knife is 15 feet or 50 feet from me I'm going to mag dump on their torso if they rush me. You would too. Hindsight is 20/20. Street rules, kid.

Plus if you shoot them in the leg or arm, and they're loaded up with drugs, they could easily ignore your shots. Sometimes even torso shots get ignored if they're baked enough

Here's one incident where American officers employed non lethal shooting to take down a suspect. https://youtu.be/SYuNwlS7rEM But there are several glaring issues that come with this. The officers were not in immediate danger when they shot the woman in the knee considering she was literally just standing around. The officer only used his taser to "justify" shooting her knee without going to more effective non-lethal options (mace or continuing deescalation methods). The officer who performed the shot has done this before in 2012. Even when she was shot in the knee she stood for a few seconds before dropping to the ground. If she was truly charging someone with the screwdriver then she would have the potential to have gotten a stab or two in with the momentum that she would from charging. Not to mention that if she was charging someone then the accuracy required to make the shot and for it to remain truly non lethal would increase exponentially. Of course she didn't suffer any life-threatening injuries but that's because she was for the most part a stationary target and officer's skill, a disgusting way to describe it but still. The district attorney deemed that use of lethal force on her was legally unjustifiable. (2nd source) I personally do not see the need to introduce a loophole for corrupt police officers to use to maim people just because "we have to go for the nonlethal shots guys" Sure it works (at times). But it also introduces abuse and the potential for greater mortality / damage to suspects for no real reason other than fixing what already works. Now that I've lured you in with a video on a situation of "non lethal shots" working now I will show you WHY police departments across the US don't employ the "wonderful" strategy that police corporal Jeremy Dunn employed in the video above. https://youtu.be/5S7tFrQI2Bw

That moment when you’re so rabidly against guns, that you forget how bullets work Please no more, it hurts to laugh.

Yeah, but you got a chance of either killing the person, making them lose a leg, or being fine after a short treatment. It's a silly gamble to play if you're an officer and have alternatives like a taser, mace, baton, and other such shit.

Like I stated earlier when you brought this otherworldly nonsense up, you have no qualifications to be discussing this topic. You know literally nothing about firearm use, safety, ballistics, or procedures. You are literally talking out of your ass and toting the doctrine of a country that fires 3 bullets a year combined.

I’m not against guns though. I’ve already stated that I think guns are fascinating, and I am considering a firearms license once I move to a place where I can fit a gun cabinet.

Please don't, if you think firing blind in the air isn't a bad idea then you probably shouldn't own a gun

24 pages of shit flinging and I'm just over surprised the video's still up.

Were there any updates regarding the status of the Millers?

Well, in all likelihood, firing a gun straight up 90 degrees into the air will not kill anyone. I'm not saying it's a good idea to do that, because there might just be a street lamp above you and the bullet ricochets into someone's eye. But if fired literally 90 degrees, then the terminal velocity of your average bullet falling down will be around 90-100 m/s (300ft), which shouldn't be enough to kill you. It would hurt, though.

People have been killed by falling bullets in the past. It is never a good idea to fire a warning shot. If youre going to discharge a firearm it means you've exhausted all other attempts to solve the situation without lethal measures. Firing a warning shot should never be considered.

I like how people think using a gun with only the intent to kill is somehow better than using a gun to try and stop a problem, not necessarily kill. You guys have a different way of thinking, it seems.

Natural Selection sure is taking its time with you huh Darwin Nominee

Can you actually explain what is wrong with my way of thinking? I think gun owners should be more responsible when they use guns by not trying to outright kill people. No one even disagrees with that. What. is. the. Problem???

You know dude, give it up. You've completely lost the plot of the novel, you ignored whatever was said to you, and you just implied whatever you wanted to read into everyone's posts. You are a dishonest individual, I don't really care if you find that to be troubling. You are. You are dishonest to us, you are dishonest to yourself, you regularly lied to us, and you regularly ignored facts or details that go against your predisposed notions. You can refuse to learn. That's fine. But no one will ever have an ounce of respect for you, in the real world, if you behave like this. Sticking to your guns is fine, but being steadfast to a beaten horse is just demonstrably stupid.

btw I don't get how cyke can say someone would be a danger to "everyone around them" with a firearm because they would not try to outright murder someone who tries to kill them. If you want to say they'll miss, or whatever, then maybe that's an argument for training gun owners?

We have. 30, or 40 times in this thread. You ignored us. Why would a single person EVER repeat themselves so many times when they've given you so many chances to listen? All you did, when given the info you've asked for here is go "Nuh uh I know better". When confronted with the reality that no trained professional agrees with your view on guns, you got childish and have stayed that way. No one has to talk to you, or argue with you when you refuse to engage in a single intellectual exercise to maintain your current dishonesty.

We've explained this to you in the simplest terms possible for the past, what, two days and you've literally displayed zero understanding of what anyone has said, just circling back to "LOL MURDERTOOLS" again and again like a idiot dog chasing his tail. Like i realy don't know how i can rephrase this for you in a manner you'll understand at this point.

Like this is resolutely failing to grasp the insipid point in the argument. And the problem is, people have literally spellled this out as simply as it is possible to be spelled out. You ignored them. You continue your diatraibe but you ignore them when you're the one asking for answers. It's clear you don't actually want anyone to answer you, you believe you have all the answers and knowledge needed to speak factually on the topic. YOU DON'T.