Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For all the John Woo's fans who think shooting a suspect in the legs.
Firearm = lethal force to cause serious injury or death. No argument here, right?
Imminent threat = to cause serious injury or death at that moment and time, right?
In order to use lethal force you have to believe the subject is about to cause imminent threat to you or others and you fear for your life. But if you shoot someome in the leg or arm, then you aren't in imminent threat or fear for your life, are you? Unless you believe shooting someone in the leg or arm will stop that person from shooting at you or put a knife in your eye socket.
So why are you using a firearm(lethal force) if you are not at in imminent threat and fear for your life?
In order to use lethal force you have to believe the subject is about to cause imminent threat to you or others and you fear for your life. But if you shoot someome in the leg or arm, then you aren't in imminent threat or fear for your life, are you? Unless you believe shooting someone in the leg or arm will stop that person from shooting at you or put a knife in your eye socket.
In addition to the fact that you're 99% more likely to miss aiming for an extremity.
So if you can afford to miss, you're not really in fear of your life.
I predict that if asked, SOME first-time gun buyers would say, "I bought a gun for protection. But if I were ever to be attacked, I would just shoot them in the arm or the leg. I could NEVER shoot to kill. I don't know if I could ever live with myself after that."
Are THESE the citizens we're advocating to be armed?? They're out there, finding themselves encouraged to buy guns in record numbers. What could go wrong?
What's to be said about those who could NEVER shoot to kill?
Sorry, but I'm getting so tired of vague polls. Don't you think it should depend on whether the shooter is a law enforcer or a private person? Don't you think it should depend on the situation? Guns are frequently used as a threat, which generally isn't a good idea, but an even worse idea to use it. Certainly someone shouldn't shoot at all for a mere threat.
Sorry, but I'm getting so tired of vague polls. Don't you think it should depend on whether the shooter is a law enforcer or a private person? Don't you think it should depend on the situation? Guns are frequently used as a threat, which generally isn't a good idea, but an even worse idea to use it. Certainly someone shouldn't shoot at all for a mere threat.
Yeah, I guess I shoulda made it clear that Law Enforcement would have their own criteria.
And you're right. I shoulda had a choice for It Depends.
Some may say if they were ever threatened, they would not shoot to kill, but just to stop the attacker. They claim it's more humane, more in line with their conscience (not to take a life) and more likely to bring justice for any victims.
Others say, "Hell no! If that Bat Rastard chose to threaten, the next case he'll be pleading will be with his Maker!"
If you were threatened to the point where you needed to draw a firearm, would you shoot to stop, shoot to kill, or would it depend on the situation?
A ridiculous post, that shows you have zero weapons training.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
