Urbane Guerrilla |
12-21-2008 01:42 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
(Post 514264)
Personally I was shocked to learn that police have no mandate to shoot to disable, only to shoot for the body/torso. I assume this is because they're not given enough training on how to aim their weapons well.
|
The idea that anybody can reliably hit a limb with small arms is false. In point of fact, one is rather lucky to land a hit anywhere at all under combat stress and its frantic, hasty conditions. Add to this the marginal killing power of any handgun cartridge (especially the controllable midpower ones, e.g. .455 Webley, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, 9mm PB inter alia), and the only way to "shoot to disable" or shoot to stop, is with center-of-mass hits -- the torso is the one place worth firing at when the other chappie has deadly weaponry, which is why the guns come out in the first place. To stop somebody right now, when stopping him is even more important than keeping him alive, means you have to smack him hard enough in something important. Those policemen shot exactly as they must.
Quote:
btw, the boy in Australia did not have a gun, only a couple of knives.
|
Criminal assault with lethal weaponry justifies lethal force in defense of self and other. Add in factors of insanity or drugs as may be eventuated, and this is when guns talk in a civil environment. None of this is happy or nice, but isn't it worse to submit to murder? Isn't it worse to allow others to be wrongfully slain? I think, Ali, you've always preferred to submit to murder. As you know, I don't think that's good, and bitterly oppose those who say I must, or even hint at it. If you did not prefer to submit to being murdered, you'd sound rather more like me.
|