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.
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?
Most LEO will tell you there is no such thing as "shoot to stop" if you are firing your gun at a criminal, there is only one intent. Shooting a guy in the leg to stop him is for movies.
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?
The question is flawed. There is not one or the other, you either shoot or you don't. In a shooting situation you shoot to neutralize the danger. Three shots center mass, if not neutralized you go again.
In general since most people have the gun to shoot an intruder, but havent actually had to shoot someone, I doubt anyone would feel good shooting someone and watching them die.
In all the usual cases Ive seen, anyone that had to shoot someone didnt intend to kill, and when it happened anyway, they regretted it.
That said, I am declaring, because I have a soul, that anyone that shoots someone, and kills them intentionally, then rejoices that kill, is a soul-less lunatic.
As much as adults are responsible for their own decisions, it would suck to have to take a life that was misguided much of their life and deemed by society to be incorrigible.
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?
You shoot to stop the threat.
Application of deadly force can be fatal.
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.
