Shooting to wound just works.
Inb4
>"You can't hecking do that!"
>Why?
>"Because they'll bleed to death!"
Pic related and first aid confuses the anglo-mexican
Shooting to wound just works. Inb4. >"You can't hecking do that!". >Why?
Shooting to wound just works.
Inb4
>"You can't hecking do that!"
>Why?
>"Because they'll bleed to death!"
Pic related and first aid confuses the anglo-mexican
yeah
Yeah ill just put a TQ on your lacerated liver and punctured intestine
tis but a scratch m8 o7
Remember this? Guy has a scratch barely any bleeding and some fat white b***h cinches a belt half way up his thigh
>when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
I remember this one girl swallowed like 4 aspirin, I had surgical gloves, so I gave her a cavity search.
>shoot to wound instead of killing
One of two things will happen
>you didn't wound him bad enough to take him out of the fight and he brutally murders you because he thinks you're going to kill him if he doesn't
Or
>he goes to the hospital, a lawyer smells money and offers his services, and you get raped in court for intentionally maiming this poor victim
If you need to shoot, shoot to kill. It'll save your life and there will be one narrative, not two.
What about cases when a knife is involved?
If he has a weapon, kill him
If he doesn't, don't get your gun out, start beating him with a bat or stick until he either stops moving, fricks off, or pulls out a weapon, and if he pulls out a weapon you can shoot him.
Those are the rules for a home invasion, if you're in an alley and the guy doesn't have a weapon, you have to run, you can't bash him
This is totally state/country dependent. In my state it's legal to use lethal force against any robbery, burglary or sexual assault too. Whether they have a weapon or not is irrelevant, a human's fists can be lethal too. There is no duty to retreat anywhere and even more so in your own home.
Actually the latter is true as far as I know essentially nationwide in the US. If someone uses force to break into your house you don't need to take any risk assessing whether they're armed or not (which may be impossible) nor leave, you can just shoot them.
>Actually the latter is true as far as I know essentially nationwide in the US.
Nah in NJ you always have duty to retreat, even inside you're own home. Kinda makes me want to move to NJ and just burglarize the frick out of the place.
>even inside you're own home.
Stop repeating this fricking myth, you redditor. Every single state recognizes castle doctrine either by statute or by court precedent. I'm going to throttle you.
>If he has a weapon, kill him
Why? You should just shoot his leg. Moreover many times people with knifes aren't running at you but get shot anyhow, disabling them with a shot to the leg would be more humane.
>If he doesn't, don't get your gun out, start beating him with a bat or stick until he either stops moving
Why? You don't need to beat a person to gain control over them.
>pulls out a weapon, and if he pulls out a weapon you can shoot him.
How??? You're on top of him right?
That's just pro-cruelty to me
Killing criminals is the most humane thing you can do.
Either you're trolling or you're the biggest pussy in the world. You'd probably hand over your gun along with your wallet and then grab your ankles.
>would be more humane.
If someone pulls a weapon on or attacks me I don't give a frick about being "humane"
What's to be gained by crippling some gutter Black person just so he be a drain of tax dollars for the rest of his life or better yet, whine to the ACLU that "da po-lice ruined mah life, I dindu nuffin!"
Or is OP talking about civilian self defense?
If so, lol, lmao.
but im not interested in wounding
>what is a killing wound
You can't kill something without wounding it moron.
>Shooting to wound
I know you're probably just funposting, but for any actual noguns/newguns this isn't a thing. Basically there is legal and there is practical:
1) Legally, you can only use lethal force (which includes all guns but also bladed weapons etc) to deal with threats that justify killing the criminal. If you didn't feel there was a threat worth killing them over you shouldn't have been using lethal force at all. They might survive anyway but the point is you felt it was that big a deal.
2) Practically shooting to wound a dynamic moving target that is a threat to you is effectively impossible and significantly raises the chances of getting you killed. If they're running/shooting at you there just isn't time and their limbs will be moving around etc. You aim at center of mass and do as accurate groups as you can.
3) "Wound" doesn't mean "disable" and in fact almost never will. Someone shot in the arm or leg can still shoot you just fine. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug. Even if they would die a day or hour or minutes later, as long as they aren't dead they'll be an active threat.
Maybe some day there will be personal defense drones with electric nets or anesthetic rubberizing foam or something that could actually be deployed with the goal of disabling while you run away but that's not the case with guns.
Just change legal and then laugh when old murderous habits would explode back into the pigs face.
If I'm shooting someone it's because I want them fricking dead. If you shoot to wound and they live, they might pick a softer target next time and then an innocent dies instead of a criminal. You have a moral OBLIGATION to shoot to kill for the betterment of society.
Bleeding out is not the reason shoot to wound is stupid.
i do wonder how many people have actually be 'punished' for shooting to wound or using LTL ammo. i know the gun community always likes to push the idea of 'shoot to kill then pretend to be scared when calling the cops' but i really do wonder how much of this teaching is grounded in reality. or if were all just freaking out over a handful of oddball SD cases that went bad while hundreds/thousands of other SD cases go over smoothly.
Shooting to wound is a gamble in all scenarios except for one. In self defense, it improves odds of a miss, failure to stop and makes legal defense more difficult as it suggests a rational decision to measure out harm (that will be taken to mean you were not, in fact, in fear for your life and applying the maximum force necessary to ensure the end of a threat). For LEOs, it improves the odds of a miss, failure to stop and practically photocopies litigation from injuries, not to mention increasing the mental load on officers and promoting bad force application habits.
The only place shooting to wound has practicality is in warfighting, where wounding a soldier and leaving them alive multiplies the manpower loss as other soldiers need to rescue and treat their compatriot. However it assumes also absolute control over the circumstances and outcomes of an engagement, meaning virtually the only time this becomes practical is in scenarios of long-term standoffs with overwatch by snipers; a kind of warfare that has mostly died out with the exception of insurgency, which is another can of worms entirely and too complicated in scope for a short answer.
In short. OP is a gay. The argument against shooting to wound is practical, not moral.
>shoot to wound
>go get within inches to apply aid
>get stabbed
>if you dont get stabbed, they will now lie in court and its your word vs them
>they can easily argue you only offered aid because you knew you shot unjustly and you didnt feel in danger if you felt comfortable enough to get up close to them and apply aid
The problem with shoot to wound is what if the person shoots you back then you'd die and he can pleaf self defense.
SHOOT TO THRILL
PLAY TO KILL
TOO MANY WOMEN AND TOO MANY PILLS!
SHOOT TO KILL
PLAY TO THRILL.